MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 11, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Patrick McKeon, Marc Frieden, Karen Paré, Vincent Vignaly, Lawrence Salate
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: John Hadley, Patrick Hayes, Linda Isgro, Elise Wellington
All documents referenced in these Minutes are stored and available for public inspection in the Planning Board office, 127 Hartwell Street
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SIGN BYLAW
Mr. John Hadley, Chair of the Economic Development Task Force (“EDTF”) attended the meeting in order to discuss proposed changes to the Sign Bylaw. He stated that he and other members of town government took several walking tours through various businesses in town (such as Emuge, Checkerboard, Wachusett Plaza) in order to get feedback on their concerns about doing business in West Boylston. Everyone was very positive, he stated, but he did hear some complaints about the size of signs permitted in the Sign Bylaw. Some communities determine the size of the sign in comparison to the size of the building in which the business resides, he stated. Ms. Paré stated that the distance from the road should also be a factor. Mr. Hadley reported that LED signs work very successfully on his property in
Worcester. LED signs are OK, Mr. Vignaly stated, if they are not flashing or moving. Mr. McKeon noted that businesses listed at the bottom of the sign at the entrance to Wachusett Plaza are difficult to see while driving by. Mr. Hadley brought up the issue of the street “number”. This is important to have in a visible location, but the question is whether it should be included in the computation of the size of the allowed sign or can it be a separate sign? The Fire Department requires that it be on a building. Some towns compute the allowed size of a sign depending upon the amount of frontage of the property, Mr. McKeon stated. Other towns give “credit” if a landlord improves a property or the façade, Mr. Hadley added.
Many signs are located in the right-of-way, Ms. Paré noted, and this presents a problem in itself. Everyone is against sandwich boards, Mr. Hadley stated, and there is also a problem
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 2.
January 11, 2012
with contractors leaving their signs on property long after their job is done. Ms. Isgro suggested that a letter be sent to the Building Inspector requesting that he enforce the Sign
Bylaw, especially when signs are erected in the setback. Mr. Hadley reminded everyone that there will be a “roundtable” on February 13, 2012 (at which the Building Inspector will be in attendance) to discuss issues with the Sign Bylaw. Ms. Paré stated that it is important that the members of the EDTF state their concerns at that roundtable. The LED sign issue will come up, Mr. Hadley stated. Mr. Vignaly noted that, if a sign is not included in the Sign Bylaw, then it is not allowed. Ms. Isgro reported that Mr. Surabian (owner of Wachusett Plaza) has stated that the “Outback Steak House” decided not to build at the entrance to his property on Route 12 because of sign restrictions, but members of the Planning Board question that. She added that, when businesses are deciding
whether to come to town, they also look at the aesthetics of the area, and it is important to keep that in mind when deciding what signage to allow.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO ACCESSORY APARTMENT BYLAWS
Mr. Vignaly presented a draft of proposed changes to the Accessory Apartment Bylaw that incorporates suggestions made at the last meeting. He added “Definitions” and the distinction that if no changes are made to the outside of an existing building or within a detached building, the approval process shall be a Building Permit issued by the Building Inspector. The purpose of the Bylaw, he stated is to “keep the Single Residence District single”. Ms. Paré added that the Bylaw seeks to make it possible to have reasonable apartment facilities but to protect against two-family residences or duplexes. Mr. Hadley inquired about the process with change of ownership. The draft requires that the new owner re-apply to the Building Inspector to continue the Special Permit, if the apartment is to be
maintained, by submitting a notarized letter stating that that the owner will occupy the dwelling. Mr. Hadley stated that he believes the new owner should be required to apply to the ZBA for a Special Permit. Ms. Wellington stated that the bylaw, as originally intended, was to allow homeowners with grown children or elderly parents, to provide a dwelling within their home for those family members. It was never meant to become a permanent apartment. If there is no requirement for new owners to go back to the ZBA, Ms. Wellington stated, the Single Residence District will become a General Residence District.
Mr. Vignaly asked Ms. Isgro to gather data from the files of the ZBA in order to ascertain how many applications for accessory apartments were received within the last several years and where the permits were granted…and if any were denied. Ms. Paré stated that there is a problem when it becomes easy to be granted permission for an accessory apartment, because people then start renting them out. A two-family house is the result. Mr. Vignaly stated that he will add a paragraph stating the “Intent” of the Bylaw. He added that the Commonwealth recommends that they not be SHI units. There needs to be a separate bylaw written for that. Mr. Hadley suggested that it be clarified what constitutes “10%” and “700 sf”. Ms. Isgro stated that “people say 700 sf is
too small”, but most others present felt that this size was not too small. Mr. Frieden stated that there is an expense involved with petitioning the ZBA; a public hearing is required. Mr. Vignaly queried whether
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 3.
January 11, 2012
a Special Permit should be required from the ZBA if the exterior of the house is to remain the same. Ms. Wellington stated that a Permit from the ZBA should always be required, for the reason that the neighbors have the right to know what is transpiring in their neighborhood and have the opportunity to give feedback to the ZBA. Ms. Isgro stated that relief can be given to the handicapped. Ms. Paré stated that the Bylaw needs to match reality. The ZBA has over-stretched its permit authority and granted Permits to applicants for apartments never intended to be allowed through the Bylaw. Mr. Vignaly stated that, just because an applicant requests an apartment, he should not automatically be granted a Special Permit. Ms. Isgro stated that the ZBA has the right to “weigh relief”.
Ms. Isgro suggested that Section C. 8) be made clearer and it was agreed that the Board of Health “or the Sewer District” shall certify the septic system. Under Section F. 1), Ms. Wellington questioned the language and it was agreed to add the word “continually…existed since July 1, 1991” and also the words that it “conforms to the State Building Code Regulations and this Bylaw”. In Section C. 5), Ms. Wellington inquired whether a homeowner couldn’t put on an addition and then come back and put on a bigger addition? The Planning Board members agreed that this is possible. Item 5) will be divided so that a new 6) shall read “Additions to the existing structure shall not increase the square footage of the original structure by more than 10 percent”. Ms. Wellington also noted that in Section 4.1.D., there is a typo. The word “from” should be changed to the word “form”. Ms. Paré stated that she will make sure the change is made on the website.
Ms. Isgro stated that she will prepare a list of Accessory Apartment applications processed by the ZBA, noting which, if any, were denied. A list of those apartments now in existence should be obtained from the Building Inspector, if possible. After these changes are made, Mr. Vignaly stated, the proposed amended Bylaw will be sent for review to the Board of Selectmen, the ZBA, the EDTF and the Board of Health.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion of New Parking Area on Church Street: Mr. Vignaly received an inquiry from a townsperson about recent paving next to Fay’s Funeral Home on Church Street. The question was whether the town owns the land where the paving took place. At Town Meeting, within the last few years, land was transferred to Fay’s and they paved to within 10’ of the property line. Hence, the parking is within 10’ of the property line, which is in violation of the Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Vignaly stated that the concern of the caller was that Fay’s stated, when it acquired the land, that it was not going to be paved. Mr. Vignaly will check past Minutes of the Board of Selectmen to see if he can find an answer to the question.
OLD BUSINESS:
Update on 242 Woodland Street: Mr. Patrick Hayes, an abutter to the development site at 242 Woodland Street, attended the meeting in order to clarify some questions he had
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 4.
January 11, 2012
about the plans for the project. He questioned whether changes had been made to the plan because the retaining wall will come to within seven feet of his house. He stated that trees have been removed and footings dug for the retaining wall. The Planning Board reviewed the plans and found that there were no dimensions detailing the setback of the wall from the property line, but scaling off the line, it appeared to be about seven feet. Mr. Vignaly suggested that he speak with the contractor and ask if a fence can be erected on top of the retaining wall to provide more privacy.
Mr. Frieden stated that the Board of Selectmen seeks clarification on what they approved for changes to the road signs surrounding this project. Mr. McKeon stated that he had sent an email to Mr. Gaumond recently confirming these changes.
REPORTS FROM OTHER BOARDS
Affordable Housing Trust: Mr. Frieden attended a recent meeting of the Housing Trust and reported that plans are going forward for the hiring of a Regional Housing Specialist. The Trust would like to focus on housing for the elderly. Members of the Housing Authority attended the meeting as well.
PAYMENT OF INVOICES/REVIEW OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2011
An invoice was approved for payment to VHB for engineering review services. Upon motion of Mr. Salate and second of Ms. Paré, it was unanimously voted to approve as amended the Minutes of the December 14, 2011 Planning Board Meeting.
At 9:20 p.m., upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Mr. Salate, it was unanimously voted to adjourn.
Date Accepted:___________ By:_________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:______________________
Susan Abramson
| 
