MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Vincent Vignaly, Patricia Halpin, Karen Paré, Lawrence Salate
MEMBERS ABSENT: Patrick McKeon
OTHERS PRESENT: John Wyka, Gerardo Sarli, Mark Frieden
All documents referenced in these Minutes are stored and available for public inspection in the Planning Board office, 127 Hartwell Street.
INCENTIVE ZONING: DISCUSSION OF DRAFT AMENDMENT
Mr. Vignaly asked whether the Board wished to amend other parts of the Incentive Zoning Bylaw in addition to the one previously discussed, which will allow more than one habitable building per lot in the General Residence District. Ms. Halpin suggested that the Incentive Zoning Bylaws from other towns should be looked at before finalizing any changes. Mr. Vignaly stated that he will edit the Bylaw and email changes so that they can be reviewed and discussed at the next meeting.
WEST BOYLSTON SEAFOOD/GERARDO’S: DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PARKING BETWEEN BUILDINGS
Ref. Documents: Conceptual Parking Layout #0, 4/22/10 and #1, 5/9/10, for 321 West Boylston Street, GRAZ Engineering
Mr. Wyka, owner of West Boylston Seafood and Mr. Sarli, owner of Gerardo’s, attended the meeting in order to discuss possible plans for constructing a joint parking lot on land located between the two business establishments. Currently, the land is a parcel that is not on the tax rolls and whose ownership is undetermined. Mr. Gerardo stated that it is a 50’ strip of gravel, which both owners hope to use for staff parking, and on which they will be paying property taxes. Two plans were presented for the area. The plan dated 4/23/10 created 14 spaces, none of which were in the setback. The second plan dated 5/9/10,
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 2.
November 10, 2010
created 25 spaces. Ms. Paré stated that the second plan would need to be reviewed by the Building Inspector and possibly seek relief from the ZBA for parking in the setback.
Mr. Sarli noted that they plan to landscape and maintain the area surrounding the parking lot The drain at the northwest corner of his property has already been fixed. Ms. Paré stated that pavers could be used to help control the drainage. Mr. Wyka stated that they believe they have improved West Boylston Street. The catch basin was covered with debris and draining onto his property as well as the wetlands and they finally got Mass Highway to clean it out.
The issue with the plan of 5/9/10, Mr. Vignaly stated, is that parking is shown in the 10’ front setback. Ms. Halpin suggested that both owners speak with Mr. Brodeur when they are ready to proceed with the improvements to the site. Mr. Wyka stated that he believes the abutters to his property are fine with the changes. The neighbors recently added a second-story addition to their house, so they are not troubled by the activities at the seafood business. Mr. Vignaly stated that there is a “porous” asphalt that is now being sold, which is cheaper than constructing catch basins but does cost more than standard asphalt. That would be a “green project” Ms. Halpin stated, and as such, may qualify for some government assistance. Mr. Vignaly suggested that Mr. Wyka discuss with
his engineer the proposed two-way entry-exit onto Route 12 before he comes in for Site Plan Review for his next addition to the seafood restaurant.
Mr. Wyka and Mr. Sarli both expressed their concern about the speed of drivers on West Boylston Street. The speed limit of 40 mph is too fast, they contend, and most drivers go even faster than that. The speed is determined by Mass Hiway. Ms. Halpin suggested that they bring their concerns to a meeting of the Economic Development Task Force (whose members are trying to start a “Business Association” in town). The Planning Board would back you, Mr. Vignaly stated, but you need to have some group in town assume responsibility for preparing the paperwork. Mr. Vignaly added that they should also push for a crosswalk to be put in across Route 12 from their buildings. He asked Mr. Sarli whether he intended to have a café rent space in his building and if so, are there still enough parking spaces.
Mr. Sarli said that there will probably be a café, but more parking spaces were created because the house on the property was torn down.
CHAPTER 40B: FINANCIAL REPORTS: CONTINUING DISCUSSION
Ms. Halpin read through and organized those documents in the possession of the Planning Board pertaining to Chapter 40B projects in town. She found nothing pertaining to the change to SMOC as the managing agent for the Franklin Street project. Ms. Paré stated that she believes that this change was enacted at a ZBA meeting without a public hearing being held by the ZBA. The former “Rock Church” sold the project to SMOC. If the ZBA determines that a change is “insubstantial”, then they do not need to hold a public hearing. Ms. Halpin queried whether the change to SMOC was “insubstantial”. She stated that many people in town are asking how SMOC came to be the agent. There is a consistent need for public hearings and/or informational meetings. There is also the
question of whether a “Tenant Selection Plan” is on file and what is/was
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 3.
November 10, 2010
the date of the lottery. If it has taken place already, where did it happen and when? Is there a monitoring agreement (which question could apply to any comprehensive permit project). Where can the applicant’s marketing information be found? Were final plans submitted? There is no information in any file concerning who is examining the final numbers for the Franklin Street project. The town should have the right to choose the entity which studies/reviews the final figures, Mr. Vignaly stated. Does the “Low Income Rental Period” ever run out, and if so, when? There are lots of questions remaining concerning this project. Mr. Vignaly told Mr. Gaumond that the Board would get back to him with their questions. Mr. Vignaly will draft a letter to Mr. Gaumond, which Ms. Halpin will
review. Ms. Paré will pull the property card for the site. Based on a public notice from the DHCD, this project received $322,000 per apartment in government funding, for a total of 8.2 million dollars for the entire project.
FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION: JOINT MEETING WITH BOARD OF SELECTMEN
A joint meeting was held with the Board of Selectmen, ZBA, Building Inspector, Economic Development Task Force and members of the Planning Board on November 3, 2010. Issues with the Zoning Bylaws were discussed, the most glaring of which is the need for an enlarged “Definitions” section. The sign bylaws should also be considered for amendment, although there were differing opinions on how this should be accomplished. Size and permitting of accessory apartments are also an area needing attention. Mr. Vignaly noted that the results of a recent town-wide survey showed that the majority of residents in town want “managed growth”. The Planning Board then needs to address these concerns and start examining the Bylaws in order to find those areas that need to be more clearly defined, Ms.
Paré stated. Ms. Halpin suggested asking the Building Inspector to read over the Zoning Bylaws with an eye to seeing what is missing. Ms. Paré suggested that she draft a letter to those boards in attendance at the meeting, asking them to put their questions and concerns in writing. Mr. Salate queried how our town compares with others conducting Site Plan Review. The Site Plan Review section of the Zoning Bylaws was originally adopted in 1990. Business people in town should be the ones whose input is sought for any changes to the sign bylaw.
Mr. Vignaly suggested that the process should be that the various boards discuss the bylaws and then send their questions/input back to us. Mr. Salate stated that the Planning Board should designate particular meetings at which specific topics, such as “signs” will be discussed. Ms. Paré agreed that it should be taken “in pieces” with “Definitions” being the first topic of discussion. Ms. Halpin agreed that there is a need for more definitions. People should be able to read our Zoning Bylaws and understand them. Ms. Paré will draft a letter stating that the Planning Board has begun looking at definitions and would appreciate other boards’ input.
REPORTS FROM OTHER BOARDS
Town-wide Planning Committee: Ms. Paré continues to review the “Land Use” section, in particular whether land is owned by the state, town, county or is otherwise exempt from
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 4.
November 10, 2010
paying property taxes (i.e. non-profits). At this point, she estimates that 55-60% of the land in town falls into this category. There are about 16 acres of commercial vacant land left. Lots of proposals from the last Master Plan have already been acted upon by the Planning Board. The town needs different types of revenue and should consider such ideas as expanding the business zone.
ZBA: The ZBA will be holding three public hearings on Nov. 18, 2010. The first will be a request for a Special Permit for 22 Lost Oak Road, for the creation of a lot with less than 120’ of frontage. Presumably, if it is granted, then an ANR plan will be submitted for a new lot, created out of what was originally one large lot that has already been subdivided. Ms. Halpin objected to the petition, stating that this neighborhood was created (and lots purchased) with the intention that all the houses would have large lots. Dividing this lot would change the character of the neighborhood. The second public hearing is a request for a Variance for 5 Alpine Drive for the erection of a garden shed off the property line. The third public hearing is a request for a Special Permit for the construction of an
in-law apartment over the garage at 8 Olde Century Farm Drive. It was decided that the Planning Board will not submit any letters of concern or support for these three requests.
Mr. Vignaly stated that he received a telephone call from Ms. Isgro, who still has questions about the permitting of the property at 47 Prospect Street. A change in use to an existing non-conforming lot needs a public hearing for the granting of a Special Permit. Section 1.4.b. of the Zoning Bylaws and state law (Chapter 40A) require a filing with the ZBA. A recourse for the abutters would be to file a “Request for Compliance” with the Zoning Bylaws, to which the Building Inspector must respond in 30 days, Ms. Paré stated. Mr. Salate stated that the appropriate boards and administrators should deal with these issues.
OLD BUSINESS
ComCapp Application: The Town of West Boylston has received the highest score ever on the Commonwealth Capital Application, Mr. Gaumond announced on November 3rd. Out of 81 points requested, 76 points were received.
Housing Production Plan: Mr. Vignaly contacted Mr. Gaumond and reiterated the feelings of the Planning Board that more boards in town need to be involved in the review and acceptance of the Housing Production Plan. Mr. Gaumond agreed and stated that he will work on a plan to make that happen. Ms. Halpin stated that she very much wants the Water Department to be included in any discussions because further development in town may be a detriment to the water supply.
Star Tower: The Bond for the construction of the telecommunications tower was finally received and executed by Mr. Vignaly. An accompanying check was also received to cover the services of Town Council in reviewing the bond.
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 5.
November 10, 2010
REVIEW OF MINUTES OF 10/27/ 2010 MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD
Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Ms. Halpin, it was unanimously voted to accept as amended the Minutes of the October 27, 2010 Meeting of the Planning Board. At 9:40 p.m., upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Ms. Halpin, it was unanimously voted to adjourn.
Date Accepted:__________________ By____________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:______________________
Susan Abramson
| 
