MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD
AUGUST 9, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Vincent Vignaly, Patricia Halpin, Karen Paré
Patrick McKeon, Lawrence Salate
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Cliff Rober
All documents referenced in these Minutes are stored and available for public inspection in the Planning Board office, 127 Hartwell Street.
ANR: 137 Shrewsbury Street: Cliff Rober
Ref. Documents: ANR 8-9-2010 81P-2 and Form A, dated 8-1-2010
Mr. Vignaly asked to be recused from the discussion and vote because his employer owns land abutting this site. Mr. Rober prepared the ANR Plan, creating two lots, on behalf of Shell Oil for the property at 137 Shrewsbury Street. This land is registered with Land Court. The lots have adequate frontage, access and size. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Salate, it was voted, four ayes, to approve and sign the ANR Plan prepared by Rober Survey for 137 Shrewsbury Street.
DISCUSSION OF ACTION ITEMS FOR PROPOSED HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN
Ref. Document: 2010 West Boylston Housing Production Plan
Following the July 14th meeting with Trish Settles from CMRPC and the Housing Partnership, the Planning Board had certain “action items” left to discuss in the proposed Housing Production Plan. In Table 29 – “Publicly-owned properties with potential for affordable housing development”, the site of the Mixter Building, 87 Maple Street, 2.97 acres on Sterling Street and possibly the County Jail land were the only properties that could realistically be considered for development. Mr. Vignaly stated that his interest is in seeing the development of 26 additional acres at 87 Maple Street. Ms. Halpin stated that most people seem interested in senior housing and that the Mixter site would be a good location for that, with room for a senior center. She envisions 87 Maple for family
housing. Ms. Paré stated that the population at 87 Maple is now primarily seniors and disabled people. The housing itself is in disrepair and needs to be evaluated by the Housing
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 2.
August 9, 2010
Authority and the Housing Partnership. The comments on Page 46 concerning “issues” with developing 87 Maple need to be rewritten with a more positive spin, Ms. Paré noted,
instead of emphasizing impediments to developing the parcel. Mr. Vignaly agreed that it would not be difficult to construct a bridge over the intermittent stream on the property.
On Page 50, “Promote accessory apartments” (under the heading “Characteristics of proposed residential or mixed-use developments that would be preferred by the municipality”) should not be included as something that is favored by the Planning Board, Ms. Paré stated. She queried whether the Board should give consideration to expanding the General Residence District. The information she needs at this time is how many acres in each district are available for development. Mr. Salate queried whether the Board wishes to support the creation of more elderly housing. Ms. Halpin stated that there is a need in town for seniors who have out-grown their large(r) homes and wish to continue to live in town. Mr. McKeon did not see the Mixter property as being a good site for senior housing
because of its distance from the center of town. It would be better if their housing is located in an area where they can walk to stores and the library. There are not too many sites available from which people can walk, Ms. Paré stated and Mr. Vignaly added that there is no public land available in the center of town. Ms. Halpin noted that many seniors take the WRTA bus.
It is Ms. Settles’ job to do the research, Ms. Halpin stated, so she should get the data on how many properties are available in each zoning district for development and those with problems, such as wetlands. On Page 48, Tables 30 and 31 need more clarity, Ms. Paré stated. The table on “Housing Goals” did not break out the SHI. We need to ask where the numbers in those charts came from, Ms. Halpin noted.
On Pages 57 and 58, concerning zoning reforms, Ms. Paré stated that “allowing two-family homes or duplexes as-of-right” could change the nature of Single Residence Districts. Ms. Halpin expressed a concern that this Housing Plan needs to be one for the town, not for the state. The Planning Board is seen as pushing housing, Ms. Paré stated. There are certainly housing needs for the elderly and for low-income rental, but most current residents do not want to have these types of development in their neighborhoods. Camp Woodhaven on Campground Road is one area in town that could be considered under the “Private Properties” section on Page 46, Mr. Vignaly stated. Real housing could be constructed there as opposed to transient housing. Another option is to allow back-lot
development with a 50’ right-of-way access, Ms. Paré stated.
There will be another meeting with Ms. Settles on September 8th if she is ready with new data.
REVIEW OF DRAFT: PROPOSED CLUSTER ZONING AND INCENTIVE ZONING BYLAWS
Ref. Documents: October 2010 Town Meeting Proposal
July 28, 2010 Draft 3.11. Residential Cluster Development
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 3.
August 9, 2010
“Thoughts on RCD”, submitted by K. Paré
Subdivision Regulations Town of Spencer, 4/3/07
There is a need to nail down details in the proposed Cluster Zoning Bylaw, Ms. Paré stated, so she drafted some “Thoughts” posing questions and pointing out possible loopholes. How basic density is calculated is something that needs to be clarified. Right now, four units per acre (multi-family) are allowed in the General Residence zone. If the Board wants to promote diversity in housing, then multi-family structures must be allowed. Ms. Halpin suggested that the Planning Board could forward the proposal to a real estate/development lawyer who could look for potential loopholes. Many towns have a basic “rule of thumb” for determining density, Ms. Paré stated. Mr. McKeon submitted for comparison the Subdivision Regulations from the Town of Spencer.
Under the “Applicability” section, debate centered on whether the bylaw should apply in all zoning districts. Mr. Vignaly stated that, if it is allowed only in the Single Residence District, then there will be no questions about multi-family dwellings. Ms. Halpin queried whether it would be practical to have one bylaw for Single Residence Districts and one for General Residence Districts. Basically the same thing would be proposed for both districts, Mr. Vignaly stated. Ms. Halpin also queried whether the Bylaw should be limited to the Single Residence District. It was decided to allow Cluster Development in all districts which allow residential uses.
Mr. Vignaly stated his support for the submission of a Preliminary Subdivision Plan, in order to get a sense of the drainage and to determine density. Would each plan require a full engineering review? Ms. Paré asked. That could create a financial burden on the applicant. It should be limited in scope, Mr. Vignaly stated. Preparation costs of a detailed Preliminary Subdivision Plan would be mitigated by the infrastructure savings to a potential developer, Mr. McKeon stated. Ms. Paré noted that the Town of Spencer puts “Procedures” in their Subdivision Regulations. There is no information on minimum lot size. Mr. Vignaly stated that it could be limited to 5,000 sf, which is the state minimum, with a 50’ frontage. Ms. Paré also offered a modified definition of “Protected Open Space” and of the “Purpose”.
Mr. Vignaly encouraged everyone to read the proposed document and look for loopholes. Mr. Salate suggested that it be looked at from the opposite (developer’s) point of view and Ms. Paré stated that it is necessary to make clear how the basic calculations are done for determining density. Density is the biggest concern for townspeople. The Board will meet again on Thursday, Aug. 26th to finalize the review of this document. The public hearing will be held on September 8th at 7:30 p.m.
Concerning the proposal to amend the Incentive Zoning Bylaw, Ms. Halpin suggested that the discussion be tabled for this time.
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 4.
August 9, 2010
DISCUSSION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
Ms. Paré asked for a discussion of engineering review fees in light of feedback she has received from various townspeople concerning amounts billed by VHB. Ms. Halpin queried whether there is any data on whether/how much VHB’s fees have increased over the years. The fees themselves seem not to have increased unreasonably, Ms. Paré stated, but every Site Plan Review seems to have mitigating circumstances which drive up the total review cost. It was agreed that the service from VHB was excellent and that a lot of extra services are provided. VHB has good “in-house” people on staff who know the regulations and are very responsive. However, no one wants to go through the process of Site Plan Review and people try to avoid it because of the cost. Mr. Vignaly suggested that VHB be
told that the initial amount collected for Site Plan Review is the “ceiling” and no more will be collected. All the basic calculations should be completed first. Perhaps a smaller firm would have less overhead, Ms. Paré suggested. There is nothing in the contract with VHB that says we can’t hire another firm, Mr. Vignaly stated. The Planning Board should put out an RFP for another firm, Ms. Paré stated. She will get a copy of the paperwork completed by the DPW when they recently completed an RFP.
NEW BUSINESS
MASTER PLAN: Review Pages 13 and 14 of Amended Plan re Improving Route 12 Corridor
At the request of Mr. Gaumond, the Planning Board members were asked to review pages 13 and 14 of the proposed Amended Master Plan re Improvements to the Route 12 Corridor. Ms. Paré commented that the town needs to have a plan for the “facelift of the public infrastructure”. West Boylston was the only community not “shovel ready” when the stimulus money was distributed and therefore received no funding. Reduction in the speed limit needs to be included, Ms. Halpin stated. Mr. Vignaly noted that crosswalks need to be added as well as sidewalks. Ms. Paré will forward these comments to Mr. Gaumond.
CommCap Application 2011: Discussion of Responsibility for Preparation
Mr. Gaumond has suggested that the year 2011 Commonwealth Capital Application could be prepared in-house instead of tapping the CMRPC funds. Mr. Vignaly stated that, if Mr. Gaumond and Ms. Lucier can come up with a draft, he and Ms. Paré can review it. Ms. Paré stated that she has no experience with the new, online form. We will add comments and input, but will not be responsible for the document’s preparation, Mr. Vignaly stated.
Open Meeting Law: Discussion of Changes Presented at August 4th Meeting
Reference Documents: Open Meeting Law Guide
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 5.
August 9, 2010
Town of West Boylston Handbook for Elected and Appointed Officials” Open Meeting Law Complaint Form
Certificate of Receipt of Open Meeting Law Materials
On behalf of the Planning Board, Ms. Abramson attended the workshop held August 4th by Mr. Gaumond, to familiarize staff and board members with the changes to the Open Meeting Law. She described these changes to the Board, especially those involving Executive Sessions and use of emails. All members received copies of the “Open Meeting
Law Guide”, the “ Town of West Boylston Handbook for Elected and Appointed Officials”, the “Open Meeting Law Complaint Form” and the “Certificate of Receipt of Open Meeting Law Materials”, the last of which they signed and submitted to the Town Clerk.
DCR Survey: Discussion
Mr. Vignaly encouraged everyone to complete the online survey that was sent out by the DCR in order to have input on designating certain areas for forestry, etc. Ms. Halpin inquired whether more forests will be wiped out, in addition to those lost to the Asian Longhorned Beetle. Mr. Vignaly stated that it would not because the DCR will be replanting on their land.
Ms. Paré noted that there have only been 200 responses to the town-wide survey. A majority of residents favor greater regionalization.
OLD BUSINESS
Star Tower: Update on Receipt of Bond
A bond has been received from Star Tower for the communications tower they intend to construct on Century Drive. The bond still contains a termination date, which is not acceptable to the Board. Mr. McKeon stated that there needs to be an “Evergreen Clause” added to the language of the bond. Mr. Vignaly will return the bond and will again contact Mr. Miller at Star Tower and request that he take care of this issue.
REPORTS ON OTHER BOARDS
Transportation Committee: Mr. Salate reported that a decision has been made to make Franklin Street one-way, going from Rte. 12 to Rte. 140. The Board of Selectmen will have to approve this decision. Chief Minnich will check the timing of the signal lights. Vehicles will need to take a left at Honey Farms to access Route 12 south. This could pose a real difficulty for large trucks.
Town-wide Planning Committee: Ms. Paré is gathering information to be put in the amended “Land Use” section of the Master Plan.
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 6.
August 9, 2010
REVIEW OF JULY 14, 2010 MINUTES/REVIEW OF PAYMENTS : VHB
Reference Documents: Draft Minutes July 14, 2010
Draft Minutes July 14th Joint Meeting With Housing Partnership
Payment Voucher for VHB
Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Ms. Halpin, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the July 14, 2010 Minutes of the Planning Board. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. McKeon, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the July 14, 2010 Joint Meeting with the Housing Partnership. An Invoice was approved for payment to VHB for engineering review services.
At 10:35 P.M., upon motion of Mr. McKeon and second of Mr. Salate, it was unanimously voted to adjourn.
Date Accepted:________________ By:__________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:______________________
Susan Abramson
| 
