MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 9, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Frieden, Patrick McKeon, Karen Paré, Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Olson
OTHERS PRESENT: None
All documents referenced in these Minutes are stored and available for public inspection in the Planning Board office, 127 Hartwell Street
CONSIDERATION OF ZONING FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA TREATMENT CENTER
The Town Administrator has requested that the Planning Board consider amending the Zoning Bylaws to allow for a “medical marijuana treatment center”. He provided copies of an update on the law from Kopelman and Paige , P.C., which included a suggested Warrant Article, if the Board decides to seek a Moratorium on deciding how to regulate the center. Ms. Paré stated that a moratorium is necessary until the Department of Health Regulations are finalized and the Board has an opportunity to gather information from the public, and the town’s Board of Health and Police Departments. Mr. McKeon suggested that a clinic could be included under the Zoning Bylaws “Schedule of Use Regulations”, Section 3.2.F.6., “Medical Clinic”. Many other towns are requesting a moratorium, Mr. Vignaly
stated, so perhaps it is in the best interests of the town to seek a moratorium as well. Upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Ms. Paré, it was unanimously voted to send a proposed Warrant Article, seeking a moratorium on zoning for a medical marijuana treatment center, to the Board of Selectmen for their consideration for the May Town Meeting. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the matter when the Article is returned from the BOS.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PLANNING BOARD FEE SCHEDULE: INSPECTION COSTS
Mr. Vignaly stated that he believes the fees and procedure for inspections are adequate at this time. The problem lies with those applicants who choose to ignore the inspection
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 2.
January 9, 2013
requirements. There will always be compliant applicants and those others who are more difficult, or whose engineers are not as skilled or experienced. The fees usually do arrive, but compliance with the inspection schedule is more of a problem, Mr. Vignaly stated. It was decided not to change the fee schedule at this time.
FURTHER DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO SIGN BYLAW
Changes to the Zoning Bylaws, Section 5.6 “Signs and Billboards” were further discussed, including the requirement to renew a license after five years. Mr. Vignaly stated that he perceived this requirement as a way of not only collecting an additional fee, but making sign owners compliant with the sign law regulations. Ms. Paré stated that there is no requirement to comply with the sign bylaw unless a sign is going to be changed. Repairs can be made, Mr. Vignaly stated, but when it comes time to renew the license, the applicant needs to comply with the regulations. Ms. Paré stated that the administrative part of this is unclear and that the Building Inspector needs to be a part of the discussion. There needs to be more clarity between the terms “permit” and
“license”. Ms. Paré suggested that it be left as more restrictive now and changed, if necessary, after the public hearing.
Numbering on page one will be changed when the sentence after the “Conflicts” paragraph is added as number four. Mr. Vignaly will email Ms. Paré additional wording to complete the paragraph. On page two, iii., the word “Sign Licenses” will be changed to “Sign Permits” and this paragraph will be moved to section five, “Permits”, a. “Required”. Paragraph d. under “Permits” shall be amended to read that “No sign permit shall be issued “or renewed” and further wording added to clarify the procedure if a Variance has been received from the ZBA or if the Planning Board has issued a waiver.
Under “General Standards”, item n. will be reworded to state…”unless explicitly authorized by this “section”.
On page 5, under 9) Nuisances Prohibited”, the last sentence of the last paragraph shall add the words “of the Zoning Bylaws” after the words, “Section 6.3”. In the next section, “Signs Allowed Without a Permit”, line “a.” will be deleted. Mr. Vignaly suggested that the wording in 1) “Public Signs” be made clearer concerning “deviation from that standard”.
Under 6) “Window Signs”, item c. “Special Considerations” will be reworded to state…”Temporary window signs promoting activities that are public, civic, non-profit and non-political are allowed…” In the section for “Miscellaneous Signs”, Mr. McKeon questioned whether the word “Temporary” needs to be further defined and Mr. Vignaly questioned whether there is a need to limit the size of decorations erected by businesses. After discussion, it was decided that there will probably not be any problems with this definition and it should remain as written.
In the “Sign Schedule”, Mr. Vignaly questioned why wall signs were allowed to be 30 square feet and projecting signs were limited to 24 square feet. Mr. Frieden pointed out
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 3.
January 9, 2013
that this difference probably reflects the fact that projecting signs are often of a different configuration and have more than one side. The heading “Monument (Standing Sign) will be changed by deleting the word “Monument” and the three paragraphs under that heading starting with the words “1 per lot” will be deleted. Under the heading “Temporary/Moveable Signs” in the “Business Center” column, the wording will be changed to state that “Each business can have one sign”.
In the section on “Standards Related to Sign Types”, the first item, 1) will be changed to read “Standing” Signs”. The word “standing” will replace the word “monument” in the first two paragraphs of that section. Under c. “Supporting Structures”, the wording will be changed to…”Supporting structures of monument signs…”. Under item d. in the section 3) “Changeable Signs”, the total area of the sign will be 32 square feet and the area of the changeable copy will be eight square feet. Under iv. “Sequential Messaging Prohibited”, the word “drives” will be changed to “drivers”.
In the section on “Other Temporary Signs”, “Residential Builder Signs” will be allowed in all districts. “Development Signs” are usually 30 square feet (with a maximum height of eight feet) and not illuminated, Mr. Vignaly stated. The only “Banner” is the town banner, which may be erected with a temporary permit for public use. Information from the section on “Subdivisions” needs to be added to the “Sign Schedule”.
Under section F. “Miscellaneous Provisions”, the first sentence under “Special Signs” needs to be deleted (concerning super wall graphics).
Ms. Paré will make the changes discussed at the meeting and this draft will again be discussed at the next meeting of the Board.
OLD BUSINESS
242 Woodland Street: Follow-up on Meeting With Developer and Town Administrator: Mr. Frieden met with Paul Conger, developer of the site at 242 Woodland Street, to discuss the list of unresolved issues with the property, specifically those addressed in a letter dated December 6, 2012, from Conger’s engineer, Hossein Haghanizadeh, to Mr. Frieden. The engineer stamped this letter with the assumption that it would meet the requirements of condition 11 of the Certificate of Approval, which is that “written certification stamped by the engineer” is received with the wording “ that construction was completed in accordance with the approved plans”. This letter does not meet this requirement. Conger also submitted another “As-Built Plan”, revised 12/12/2012. Ms. Paré stated that the chain link/vinyl fence surrounding the dumpster pad is specifically not allowed by the Zoning Bylaws. The Approved Plan called for the erection of a cedar wood fence. Granite curb inlet stones were
required for all catch basins. All of the catch basins located on the site had only bituminous berms at the back and there were only two granite curb gutter inlets installed. Mr. Vignaly stated that Conger’s engineer needs to prove that the bituminous grates work without the inlets. He needs to submit drainage
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 4.
January 9, 2013
calculations. The Board agreed that the parking issues were minor but agreed with Mr. Frieden that there is a safety issue at the southeast corner of Prospect and Woodland Streets where there is no guardrail/fence at the back of the two parking stalls where a steep slope extends down onto a busy street. The slope is another matter of concern because it is unsightly and possibly unstable. Different (inferior) materials were used to construct the slope than those stated in the Approved Plan. Conger needs to submit calculations to demonstrate that the slope is stable.
A letter was submitted from the EJIW Iron Works affirming that their construction castings are rated as Heavy Duty and are suitable for H-20 loading criteria. Other concerns with deviations from the Approved Plan were discussed and it was decided that a letter would be written to Conger, listing in detail what remains to be done by him in order to comply with the requirements of the Plan. Ms. Paré stated that copies of this letter should go to the Building Inspector, the Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator so that townspeople are aware that the Planning Board did not sanction or approve of the many design changes Conger undertook.
Town Meeting Schedule: The Annual Town Meeting will be held May 20, 2013. The work sessions will close and the draft Warrant approved on April24, 2013.
Worcester Corporate Center: Extension of Permit: A letter dated December 28, 2013, was received from Nanette St.Pierre-Locke concerning the Definitive Subdivision Approval for Worcester Corporate Center. She stated that the Permit Extension Acts of 2010 and 2012 automatically extend the expiration date for the Subdivision until February 1, 2016. Mr. Vignaly will follow-up to determine that this date is correct.
Budget for FY 2014: The Planning Board’s budget for FY 14 was prepared and submitted by Mr. Vignaly and Ms. Abramson.
REPORTS FROM OTHER BOARDS
Townwide Planning Committee: Ms. Paré attended the recent Townwide Planning Committee Meeting at which the ongoing update of the Master Plan was discussed. It is the intention of the Committee to have the revisions completed in time for presentation at the Town Meeting in October. She will be overseeing the changes to the Land Use section of the document. It was determined that the “Conservation Zone” really serves no purpose and should be removed from the zoning map. The lack of “mixed use” development was noted along with the lack of developable land except in the Single and General Residence Districts. Ms. Paré will distribute copies of the Land Use section to members of the Planning Board for their input. She noted that Mr. Gaumond feels that the
Master Plan lacks meaning except for those who help to create it. Work by the townspeople needs to be done on a “Vision” for the town and he proposed a “Vision Plan” be sent out to the public. A survey was done several years ago during the creation of the Master Plan,
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting 5.
January 9, 2013
however, the results are now outdated and townspeople did not get involved in its implementation.
OTHER TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED BY THE CHAIR 48 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING
Housing Production Plan: Mr. Vignaly made changes to the proposed “Housing Production Plan” that had been suggested at previous meetings. He advised the Board that he would like to send this draft to CMRPC for their review as to whether it meets the requirements of Massachusetts law. The Board agreed that would be the next step in the approval process.
Mr. Vignaly shared two recent newspaper articles submitted by a former board member. One describes problems at the Blackstone Valley Mall, where the design of the entry and exit road has caused severe traffic problems and demonstrated why it is so important to have more than one usable access road. The other article concerns problems caused in Uxbridge by a clerical failure to record a 1995 zoning bylaw amendment prohibiting asphalt plants.
PAYMENT OF INVOICES/REVIEW OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 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 amended the Minutes of the December 12, 2012 Meeting of the Planning Board.
At 10:30 p.m., upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Mr. McKeon, it was unanimously voted to adjourn.
Date Accepted:______________ By:_________________________________
Patrick McKeon, Clerk
Submitted By:_______________________
Susan Abramson
| 
