MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 8, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Frieden, Patrick McKeon, Chris Olson, Karen Paré, Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Amico, David Femia
All documents referenced in these Minutes are stored and available for public inspection in the Planning Board office, 127 Hartwell Street
242 WOODLAND STREET: DISCUSSION OF INSPECTION ISSUES
The developer of 242 Woodland Street, Paul Conger, submitted letters from the WBMLP and from the Water District. The General Manager of the Lighting Plant, Mr. Fitch, stated that the installation of the electric utilities was completed according to specifications. Mr. Coveney, the Superintendent of the Water District, stated that the installation of the underground water main service and testing conformed with Water District specifications. By email, dated July 27, 2012, Mr. Conger stated that “two minor changes were made to the original plan: (1) one parking space was eliminated at the front of the building”; and (2) at the request of Mr. Hines, “two Arborvitae trees were planted on his property”. These changes will be shown on the as-built plan. Mr. Conger also submitted photos (unlabelled)
of various drainage installations at the site, as well as an as-built plan.
Mr. Amico reviewed the inspection requirements set forth to Mr. Conger in a June 19th letter sent to him from Mr. McKeon. These requirements were not met because Mr. Conger did not contact VHB to come and inspect the installations. Mr. Vignaly stated that DPW only would have inspected the connections to the sewer. The Planning Board needs to know that the sewer and storm drainage installation was done correctly on site. The Board needs confirmation from the engineer that the site was built “in conformance with the approved design”. The trees were not replaced where they were supposed to be.
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 2.
August 8, 2012
Mr. Amico stated that he could send an engineering inspector out to the site for about five hours and prepare a memo of surface conditions. VHB could also compare the as-built to the approved plan.
A letter with the Board’s concerns needs to be written to Mr. Conger, with a copy to the Building Inspector, the Board of Selectmen, the abutters and, Mr. Vignaly suggested, to the bank that is financing the project. In the future, Mr. McKeon suggested that the Board needs to get more money upfront from the applicant, to be kept in escrow, to help cover the cost of situations such as these. The balance in the account can be returned after the conditions are met. Mr. Amico stated that he will send a letter to the Board, estimating the cost for a formal final inspection and review of the as-built plans. No Certificate of Completion can be issued until this inspection is conducted. A letter can then be sent to Mr. Conger telling him that he is not in compliance with the terms of the Site Plan Approval and
informing him of the cost for the final inspections. Ms. Paré stated that no occupancy permit should be issued without the Board’s Certificate of Compliance.
WEST BOYLSTON MUNICIPAL LIGHTING PLANT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: GARAGE REPLACEMENT
The Lighting Plant is replacing an existing three-bay garage with a slightly higher two-bay garage on the same footprint and existing foundation. The Building Inspector has determined that the building is a pre-existing, non-conforming use, and the plans do not require a decision from the ZBA because the non-conforming setback is not being increased. Even though it is not required, the WBMLP has requested that a Site Plan Review be conducted by the Planning Board “in order to formally receive abutter input” on the project during a public hearing.
Mr. Amico stated that the Board may want to consider requesting a lighting plan for the project. Mr. Vignaly reviewed the submitted plans and noted that no topography is shown on the plans and no parking layout is indicated. Mr. McKeon suggested that, since Site Plan Review is not required, the public hearing would be more appropriately (and less expensively) held during a meeting of the Lighting Plant Board of Directors. Mr. Frieden will contact Mr. Fitch and inform him that he does not need Site Plan Review.
REVIEW OF DRAFT SIGN BYLAW
Mr. Olson noted that there are many ambiguities with the terms and definitions used in this draft, such as “road sign” and “standing sign”. They need to be more clearly defined. In Section 4) “Permits”, some “signs” need building permits as well as sign permits. Mr. Olson volunteered to propose a list of words needing definition and attempt to define them. Ms. Paré noted that subsection b. “Applications”, needs further review as well. Section 6) “General Standards”, contains the statement under subsection a., that “Signs not specifically permitted by this bylaw shall not be allowed”. Mr. Vignaly stated that this statement should be moved to Section 4)a. Subsection j. “Billboards” states that billboards
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 3.
August 8, 2012
are prohibited unless allowed under the provisions of the “Outdoor Advertising Board of the Commonwealth”. This statement can be deleted, Ms. Paré stated, because it falls under
the “Conflicts” section. Per Mr. Fitch, Section 6) subsection “o” can be deleted. Mr. Vignaly stated that Mr. McKeon had provided a better definition of “Three-dimensional sign” than the current definition.
Section B. Signs Allowed Without a Permit 1) should be changed. The statement should begin with the words…”the signs contained in this Section 5.6 B…may be erected without a sign or building permit…” Ms. Paré stated that the town banner, the MLP flags and the town sign on the common should be included under “public signs” not needing a permit. The issue of flags needs to be rethought, she added. The US flag is of course permitted, and the “Open” flags on buildings as well. The flags on the light poles, however, should be limited to the Business District and the main routes in town such as Routes 140, 12 and 110.
Section C. Signs Allowed With a Permit, 1) “Sign Schedule”, “Wall Sings” are referenced and Mr. Vignaly noted that these signs need to be defined. Is a “Projecting Sign” a species of wall sign? And why is it six square feet less than a wall sign? Mr. Olson again noted the potential for ambiguity in how they are defined. Mr. McKeon noted that members of the Economic Development Task Force asked about public signs for non-profits (such as fund raisers). Mr. Vignaly noted that they should be included on page 5. Signs on islands also need to be clarified.
The review of this draft, with changes, will be continued next meeting.
REVIEW OF DRAFT HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN
Mr. Vignaly stated that he continues to make changes suggested by Ms. Paré. He stated that he has made some changes to the “definitions” and will send out the edited copy via email.
NEW BUSINESS
Open Meeting Law: There will be a discussion of the further changes made to the Open Meeting Law at town offices on September 18th. Ms. Abramson will attend.
A Joint Meeting August 15th at 7:00 p.m. re Sewer Capacity Assessment Issues will be held with members of the Planning Board and the Board of Sewer Commissioners.
REPORTS FROM OTHER BOARDS
ZBA: A public hearing will be held on August 23rd to act on the petition of an Administrative Appeal regarding 68 Newton Street. Mr. Olson is an abutter to said property and asked to be recused from the discussion. A discussion was held about the issues surrounding this
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 4.
August 8, 2012
Appeal of a decision by the Building Inspector , calling the use of the second dwelling on the property “pre-existing and non-conforming”. This is a single-residence district wherein zoning does not allow more than one residence per lot. Mr. Frieden will send a letter to the ZBA stating the Planning Board’s opinion that the owner is not compliant with the Zoning Bylaws, Section 4.3.G., allowing only one habitable building per lot.
OTHER TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED BY THE CHAIR 48 HOURS PRIOER TO THE MEETING.
A request from CMRPC was received for the name of the delegate from the Planning Board for the coming year. Mr. Frieden is the delegate and will respond to the email.
PAYMENT OF INVOICES/REVIEW OF MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012
An invoice was approved for payment to VHB for engineering review services. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. McKeon, it was unanimously voted to approve as written the Minutes of the July 11, 2012 Planning Board Meeting.
Date Accepted:____________ By:______________________________
Patrick McKeon, Clerk
Submitted By:__________________________
Susan Abramson
| 
