 |
WEST BOYLSTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
JULY 14, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Vincent Vignaly, Patricia Halpin, Patrick McKeon, Karen Paré
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lawrence Salate
OTHERS PRESENT: Trish Settles, Mike Kane, Elise Wellington, Michelle Harris, Mark Brodeur
Mr. Vignaly called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Ms. Settles, from CMRPC, previously submitted a draft “West Boylston Housing Production Plan” (“HPP”) for review by the members of the Housing Partnership and the Planning Board. Ms. Paré made note that, while members of the Planning Board are willing to give input and provide data for the HPP, recommendations must come from the Housing Partnership and the Housing Authority and they must be the entities that create this document. It was further noted by Ms. Halpin that the document makes frequent reference to zoning “reforms” (with which she doesn’t necessarily agree) and frequently uses the term “should”. Ms..Settles stated that the intention is to create a “menu” of recommendations and options, from
which choices can be made. It is not reasonable to include things that are not feasible, Ms. Halpin contended. Ms. Harris stated that the Partnership needs all the help it can get from the Planning Board.
Ms. Settles requested that the Boards sent her all their ideas. The format will change as the document evolves.
The introduction was discussed at length. Ms. Halpin stated that the “certification” process needs to be defined and its purpose stated. It should be kept short, Mr. Vignaly urged while Ms. Harris stated that she would delete the entire first paragraph in Section “A” and begin with the second bullet, which states in part that the purpose is “To provide guidance to the Town…etc. Mr. Vignaly stated that the document is really being prepared because of the Chapter 40B law, otherwise it would be section found in the Master Plan. We need to explain “compliance”, he added. Section A (first paragraph) should be under “Overview”, Ms. Harris stated, and certification explained therein.
On page 7, Ms. Paré noted, the Warren Group data and the US Census data don’t match. It is good, however, Ms. Halpin stated, to make a point about the senior population. In
Minutes of the Joint Meeting 2.
July 14, 2010 – Housing Partnership
reference to the data on pages 15 and 22, Ms. Paré inquired what the median rent is in West Boylston. Mr. Vignaly stated that West Boylston has many “affordable” but not subsidized rentals. On page 16, Ms. Wellington debated the veracity of the statement that Zoning Bylaws gave rise to “large single-family homes, making the amount of land consumed per dwelling very high, expensive and visible.” Fifty-two percent (52%) of the homes in West Boylston are built on half-acre (or less) lots, she stated. Not until 1984 were laws put into place giving rise to larger homes. She contended that a large portion of housing in West Boylston is more affordable than surrounding towns and we should be given credit for that. New housing is looking to create high density and not
“trophy” lots. Ms. Paré inquired what the numbers are for “high density” and she also asked about the amount of undeveloped land. Ms. Settles stated that she is working with Mr. Gaumond to get those answers. Assessors’ figures show 4.3% of the land is undeveloped, Ms. Paré stated, but the question is “where”? We need to know the difference between “actual” and “assessed” land use. What land is available for building in residential zones.
In reviewing the chart on page 19, Ms. Paré stated that in Lancaster Commons, of the 17 units that were built, eight were deemed affordable with the original comprehensive permit, but only five can be found. Deed riders state that they are to be kept affordable for 50 years only, not in perpetuity. Ms. Paré suggested asking the ZBA which units are affordable, and for how long. Is Freedom Worship Center still involved with the Franklin Street Chapter 40B project, Ms. Paré queried. Ms. Harris stated that SMOC is the developer.
On page 27, Ms. Paré wanted to know if there is a figure for the number of accessory apartments in town. There are not many, Mr. Brodeur, stated, and there is no department that keeps accurate, accessible figures on that data. Ms. Wellington stated that the ZBA should be able to access that data through their records and she wondered whether there are more existing than have been permitted. This information is useful, Ms. Settles stated, because some of these units could be credited as being affordable. That needs to be explained, Mr. Vignaly stated. It needs to be determined whether population figures that are cited, were computed with or without the jail population, Ms. Paré stated.
The words “oddly enough” should be removed on page 29 from the large, middle paragraph and the lead sentence on page 30 is out of date. The CPC has funded more than a “hand full” of initiatives. Ms. Halpin took exception to the statement on page 44 that stated, “Reduction of the minimum lot area in sewered areas should be considered” because it could lead to greater density which can overtax the water resources. Mr. Vignaly wants that phrase omitted because this issue has already be dealt with during a session with the Board of Selectmen. On page 43, Ms. Paré stated that when discussing housing needs, it should be stated that there is a need to provide smaller housing options for both down-sizing families and young families. Data on page 43 concerning the
capacity of the town wells conflicts with data cited on page 39, Ms. Wellington stated. Mr. Vignaly questioned where this data came from. Tata and Howard conducted a recent study for the Water District, he said, where more up-to-date information can be obtained. He noted that the
Minutes of the Joint Meeting 3.
July 14, 2010 – Housing Partnership
District is exploring options for new town wells. On page 44, Ms. Halpin noted that in the “Community Perceptions” of affordable housing, feelings are more those of “uncertainty” and “anxiety”. The Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit process brings change without community control. Ms. Wellington stated that the costs to the towns of all the Chapter 40B developments need to be delineated. Expenses are added to the schools as well as the town’s infrastructure. On page 52, a), Ms. Halpin questioned whether house prices are truly “escalating” and stated that residents perceptions or “negative stereotypes” of affording housing will depend on how the Franklin Street project turns out. Peoples attitudes could change. The success of a project
depends in large part, Ms. Harris stated, on who is managing the project after it is built. SMOC is a good manager, she added.
On page 45, Ms. Paré questioned what publicly-owned property is on Crescent Street that could be developed. She cautioned that there is a need to make sure that these properties make sense for building purposes before they are included as having a “potential” for development. The entire document is created with those parcels in mind, so serious consideration needs to be given to what parcels are truly available. On Maple Street, in the back across the stream, Mr. Vignaly noted that there is enough buildable space to create a development of the same size as exists now at 87 Maple. Shrewsbury Street is zoned Industrial, Ms. Pare stated, and should not be included for housing development. The town has little enough industrial development as it stands now. “Offering density bonuses” has already been done through the creation of incentive zoning, Ms. Paré stated, so the information on page 58 needs to be changed. Ms. Wellington stated that she could not support the concept of
allowing two-family or duplexes as-of-right in all districts.
The HPP needs “buy-in” from other town boards, Mr. Vignaly stated, particularly the Housing Authority. They should receive a copy of the next draft of the HPP. Ms. Halpin stated that the cover of the HPP needs to state, “Paid for by the Citizens of West Boylston Through the Community Preservation Act”. Ms. Harris will forward a copy of the HPP to the Water District. The next joint meeting will be held on September 8, 2010.
Date Accepted:____________ By:__________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:____________________
Susan Abramson
| |
