MINUTES OF THE WEST BOYLSTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JULY 14, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Vincent Vignaly, Patricia Halpin, Patrick McKeon, Karen Paré
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lawrence Salate
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Kane, Elise Wellington, Mark Brodeur, Barbara Wyatt, John Hadley, Ms. Buffoli
The regular meeting of the Planning Board was opened at 7:15 p.m.
0 BLUE RIDGE ROAD: REQUEST FOR INPUT: QUESTION OF BUILDABLE LOT
(Document used was Assessor’s map)
Ms. Buffoli attended the meeting in order to gain an opinion from the Planning Board on whether they consider 0 Blue Ridge Road (Lot 41 on the Assessor’s Map) to be a buildable lot. There is a town-owned right-of-way to the property from Woodland Street. The Building Inspector had previously stated that this is a pre-existing lot but questioned whether it has frontage. Ms. Paré agreed that it is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot, with frontage on Woodland Street. Mr. Vignaly stated that he would consider it to be buildable, but that the Building Inspector has the final say in the matter. He advised Ms. Buffoli to consult her attorney prior to purchasing the lot.
DISCUSSION WITH MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE (“EDTF”)
(Documents: May 26, 2010 Draft Proposed Amendment to 3.10. Incentive Zoning
May 26, 2010 Draft Proposed Amendment to 3.4 Accessory Apartments
May 26, 2010 Draft October 10, 2010 Town Meeting Proposal
3.11 Residential Cluster Development
Members of the EDTF attended the meeting in order to discuss, among other topics, proposed changes/additions to the Zoning Bylaws. Ms. Paré explained the first change to the Incentive Zoning Bylaw. The current law allows only one habitable building per lot, so any condo unit would have to be housed in one building. The proposed amendment to the law allows more than one habitable building per lot, so condos won’t have to be “strung together”. This provision applies only when talking about multi-family structures in the
Minutes of the Planning Board 2.
July 14, 2010
General Residence District. So far, no one has applied the Incentive Bylaw when building, although it was considered by a developer for property on Crescent Street. This change will allow greater density on the lot. Ms. Wellington stated that the language is confusing and suggested that it state instead that “Multi-Family residences MAY be allowed to construct up to a MAXIMUM of 200% of the dwelling unit density…”
Mr. Hadley agreed that this change will make the bylaw more appealing to developers. It will be easier to build and sell condo units in stages, and make it more feasible financially. Ms. Paré agreed to rewrite the proposed amendment, including the density calculation, which is important especially if there are wetlands. Mr. Brodeur suggested that the same calculation be used for Incentive Zoning as is proposed for Cluster Zoning, i.e. “50% wetlands or slopes greater than 25%”. Ms. Halpin questioned whether language should be added about payment in lieu of affordable units, which suggestion may be included in the Housing Production Plan. Mr. Brodeur stated that Afra Terrace is paying the town $1,200 per affordable unit and has sold several.
Mr. Brodeur discussed the proposed changes to the Accessory Apartments bylaw. He is not in favor of detached garages becoming accessory apartments. Absent any type of living space connecting the two units on one lot, he does not support the proposed change. When the tenant (most likely a family member dies), then the unit will be rented to a stranger. Ms. Wellington added that these apartments were traditionally built in larger, older homes where aging couples allowed their grown children to live. This proposed change, she stated, will allow Single Residence Districts to become “Two-House Zoning Districts”. She doubts whether abutters to these properties would be in favor of this proposal, which changes zoning on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Vignaly stated that the Planning Board, in
consideration of these comments, will not, then, propose this amendment. Mr. Brodeur suggested also that the square-footage number is not necessary because the ZBA will look at the existing house and make a judgment as to what is a reasonable addition. Mr. McKeon stated that the bigger the apartment, the more the homeowner is apt to try and rent it when the family member dies.
Cluster Developments are being encouraged by the state because they will allow developers to re-arrange the layout of residences on the same amount of acreage as in a regular subdivision so that the infrastructure can be minimized and more open space created, Ms. Paré explained. Mr. Hadley stated that this type of development is frequently built in Rutland. Ms. Halpin queried what the negatives are to this plan. Mr. Vignaly stated that the neighbors may feel threatened by it, however, there is a 30’ required buffer and only one point of access, so the development will not be an eye-sore from the road. There is a question of ownership of the open space. Mr. Vignaly stated that the town may want it, or a conservation commission. There should be public access. Ms. Wyatt questioned
the town’s liability in that case. Ms. Wellington did not support town ownership, but she said that this point needs to be clarified on page 2. She suggested that there be common ownership of the open space by the homeowner’s association with a restriction held by the town. Ms. Wellington also asked how the maximum number of units will be determined and whether the developer submits a plan. Ms. Paré stated that many towns require the
Minutes of the Planning Board 3.
July 14, 2010
submission of two plans: one for a standard subdivision and one for a cluster subdivision. The terminology “determined…on a case by case basis” in item 7) should not be language in any bylaw, Ms. Halpin stated and Ms. Wellington agreed. She questioned how the Planning Board could make these determinations of the number of dwelling units permitted. Ms. Paré also agreed that this section should be deleted. A conventional plan should be submitted in order to determine density and wetlands, Ms. Wellington stated. The Conservation Commission should be able to provide the data on the wetlands delineation, Mr. Vignaly stated. Ms. Wellington asked where it states that it must be single-family housing and added that she is in favor of Single Residence housing. In a
General Residence District, Mr. Vignaly stated, the homes could be attached. Ms. Paré stated that the Board needs to think about densities in the General Residence Districts.
Mr. Hadley described recent concerns of the EDTF. There is a lot of support for sidewalks on Route 12 to make businesses on that road more accessible. Mr. Vignaly noted that, when the ZBA was reviewing the Chapter 40B project on Franklin Street, the Planning Board requested that the ZBA require sidewalks to be built, but it was not required. Mr. Hadley queried whether a bylaw could be written, requiring the construction of sidewalks during site plan review. Ms. Wyatt added that they should be built in the setbacks. If this request is not a part of the zoning bylaws, then the Planning Board cannot require sidewalks to be built anywhere. Mr. McKeon stated that it has been suggested that there are problems with the state and building on Route 12. The DPW does not wish to maintain them, Mr. Vignaly
added. In Worcester, the property owner is required to maintain their sidewalk, Mr. Hadley stated. Ms. Halpin encouraged the members of the EDTF to generate the idea of sidewalks in talks with Mr. Gaumond and the DPW. Ms. Paré stated that the state will allow the construction of sidewalks on their land, but they won’t maintain them. There is no requirement in the General Bylaws for property owners to maintain the sidewalks in front of their houses, Mr. Vignaly stated, but we do have sidewalk standards. We should also push for more crosswalks, he added. The owner of Jungle Jim’s has also requested that reduced speed limits along Route 12 be explored. Developers argue that sidewalks along Route 12 are expensive to construct and lead to nowhere, Ms. Wellington stated.
On the topic of signs, Mr. Hadley stated that he is opposed to more temporary signs being allowed and he doesn’t want to see neon signs along Route 12 either. He would, however, like to see the allowable size of standing signs increased from 40 to 60 sf and signs on buildings from 80 to 100 sf. Mr. Vignaly suggested that the EDTF send a letter to the Planning Board requesting this increase, and including photos of larger signs. He added that the size of the signs does not bother him as much as their location; they should be set back from the road. Ms. Halpin queried how Holden businesses are still able to attract customers when their maximum allowable sign is 30 sf. Mr. Hadley replied that you can actually walk down sidewalks in their business district and it took the town 12 years to reconstruct that
area. Although West Boylston will never be Holden, the EDTF does want to keep the “small town” feeling. Ms. Halpin suggested that the EDTF request that the Beaman Garden Club again give out an award to the business in town whose appearance
Minutes of the Planning Board 4.
July 14, 2010
has been the most improved. The EDTF is also working on installing new, more attractive signs at the gateways to town.
NEW BUSINESS
Representative to Source Water Protection Plan: The Planning Board has been asked to send a representative to meetings where a “source water protection plan” will be developed. It was decided that Mr. Coveney will do a fine job of representing the town at these meetings and the Planning Board need not attend.
Updated Open Meeting Law: There will be a meeting on August 4, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the additions to the Open Meeting Law. Ms. Abramson will attend on behalf of the Planning Board.
OLD BUSINESS
Star Tower Bond: Mr. Vignaly has been reviewing a proposed bond from Star Tower with the insurance agent handling its preparation. The last proposal had a 12-month termination date, to which Mr. Vignaly objected. The bond needs to be permanent, he stated. Mr. Vignaly will request that the bond be submitted to Town Counsel for review.
REPORTS FROM OTHER BOARDS
Open Space: A request was submitted to the Community Preservation Committee (and approved) for $140,000 for the purchase of 5.4 acres of land on Lee Street, next to the town wells. The Water District will put in $15,000 to cover upfront costs and the difference between the assessed and the asking price for the property. Application has also been made by the Land Trust for a grant for $70,000 for the purchase of the property. The CPC also approved $25,000 for maintenance at Orchard Knolls and $13,000 for the Mt. Vernon Cemetery.
Town Wide Planning Committee: The Open Space portion of the updated Master Plan will be done by Ms. Englehart, Ms. Paré reported. Ms. Paré has asked the Assessor for information needed to complete the “Land Use” portion
MINUTES/BILLS
Invoices were approved for payment to VHB for engineering services and to Dell Marketing LLP for a portion of a new computer. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. McKeon, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the June 21, 2010 Planning Board Meeting. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Ms. Halpin, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the June 21, 2010 Executive Session on the Proposed Appeal of the ZBA Decision of June 4, 2010, Hanioti Properties – Over-Sized Sign. On motion of Ms. Halpin and second of Mr. McKeon, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the June 23, 2010 Planning Board Meeting.
Minutes of the Planning Board 5.
July 14, 2010
At 9:35 p.m., upon motion of Ms. Halpin and second of Mr. McKeon, it was unanimously voted to adjourn.
Date Accepted:_______________ By:_______________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:________________________
Susan Abramson
| 
