Planning Board, April 14, 2015
PLANNING BOARD
April 14, 2015
TOWN HALL MEMORIAL HALL
Members Present: William Ritter, Tina Stratis, John Michalak, David Lindberg, Scott Carlson
Members Absent: Otto Lies, Jeff Head
7:00PM Meeting called to order by W. Ritter
PUBLIC HEARING// ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT Chapter 7.1 Section VII SIGNS AND BILLBOARD
W. Ritter read the public hearing notice into record and opened the public hearing.
P. Harding gave an overview. She stated that she had sent a redline version of the changes that were being proposed to the Board. She stated that there were no design standard changes with the exception of allowing digital gas prices and allowing sandwich boards. She stated the way in which the individual letters on signs were calculated was also a change. P. Harding stated that there was an updated reference to staff; to be consistent with other terms the building commissioner was changed to building inspector which is the designated enforcement officer in the Zoning Bylaw.
W. Ritter asked if there was any public comment.
James Deignan, 165 Flagler Drive stated that he is a sitting member of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). He stated that one thing that was difficult was what they approve for signage and what was ultimately approved by the administration was two different things. He asked if a more specific rule could be made to outline the difference between the letter size and the actual size of the sign.
W. Ritter replied that the issue that J. Deignan bought up was one of the reasons that the Board was making the changes. He stated that the Board disagreed with the interpretation of what was currently written. He stated that the building inspector took the position that it was the actual letter square footage where the Board believed it to be the outline of the word. W. Ritter stated that the building inspector wasn’t including the space in between and the Planning Board did not agree with his interpretation.
J. Deignan asked about temporary signage and if there was a date on how long the signs are able to be up. He stated that he hadn’t been down Salisbury Street but there was a sign in question that he felt was awfully big and had been up for a very long time.
W. Ritter replied that the Board had spoken about that particular sign on a number of occasions and they agreed with Mr. Deignan’s interpretation however because it went through the ZBA, the Planning Board was unable to administer actions on it. W. Ritter stated that once the other sign was up, there was no need for the temporary sign.
P. Harding replied that regarding temporary signs and banners, in the C District, the time frame should be two weeks or less.
W. Ritter stated that was in a commercial zone, not a residential one so it was not permitted.
P. Harding stated that the temporary signs should also be inside after business hours.
W. Ritter replied that the sign in question was an eye sore and should be down.
P. Harding replied that the sign was down as of today (April 14, 2015).
J. Deignan replied that they were coming before the ZBA this week (Week of April 12th).
W. Ritter replied that he believed the removal of the sign was a timely one.
D. Lindberg asked if anyone could interpret the temporary sign as similar to real estate signs.
P. Harding replied that real estate signs are restricted. She stated that she didn’t think anyone believed that particular sign was permitted and that it was a violation that just was not enforced.
S. Carlson asked who the enforcer would be. P. Harding replied that it was the building inspector.
S. Carlson asked if that was Dennis Lipka.
D. Lindberg stated that he thinks that the language needs to be changed to building commissioner.
P. Harding replied that in the bylaws the building inspector is defined as the code enforcement officer.
J. Michalak asked if both could be used. W. Ritter asked P. Harding for clarification.
P. Harding replied that he was the building inspector by appointment of the Town’s Rules and Regulations.
J. Michalak asked if he was granted the authority of the commissioner.
W. Ritter stated that he didn’t know there was a difference.
D. Lindberg replied that there was a statutory difference.
J. Michalak asked if it could be written as “Building Commissioner/ Building Inspector”
P. Harding replied that they would need to add a definition. She stated that there was a different section in the bylaw that tells what an inspector is.
D. Lindberg asked if that could pre date the state having two levels. He stated that you can’t be a department head as a building inspector; you would need to be at the Commissioner level.
P. Harding replied that Town Counsel had told her to change it from commissioner to inspector. She stated it was taken out because it was outdated.
J. Michalak asked if that what was done at the beginning. P. Harding replied that it was defined under special permits and continued though the bylaws as building inspector.
W. Ritter asked if there were any other comments from the Board with the exception of the definition of commissioner / inspector.
J. Michalak stated that the title of the bylaw stated “billboard” he asked if there was anything additional on that.
P. Harding replied that billboards were found under non accessory signs, Section H.
S. Carlson asked if the changes will make it to Town Meeting if the Board makes the changes.
P. Harding replied that the Board met again on April 28, 2015 and they could make changes up to ten days before Town Meeting.
W. Ritter stated that the Board would have the 28th for final amendments. He suggested keeping the public hearing open to April 28, 2015.
Motion by T. Stratis, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT CHAPTER 7.1 SECTION VII SIGNS AND BILLBOARD TO APRIL 28, 2015.
W. Ritter thanked J. Deignan for coming to the meeting.
REVIEW OF CHAPTER 61A GUIDELINES
P. Harding told the Board that Ag Com had submitted a draft of the guidelines to the Board of Selectmen and the BOS would be voting to accept them. She stated that if the Planning Board had any comments they should be forwarded to the Town Manager’s office.
W. Ritter stated that it was hard to discourage someone from stepping up to coordinate communication within the Town. He stated that the Planning Board still received statutory notice for any removal of land from 61A.
S. Carlson asked what 61A needed to renew permits every year. P. Harding responded that she did not know what S. Carlson was speaking about.
J. Michalak asked if there were any deadlines for the 61A land. P. Harding replied that the only statutory requirement is the 120 days to respond. She stated that what was suggested by Ag Com was a 21 day deadline that she did not agree with because of the timing of Board meetings (Con Com in particular that only met once a month).
W. Ritter asked if they were expecting anything from the Board. P. Harding replied that if there were any comments she would forward them to the Town Managers office.
W. Ritter replied that he didn’t have any comments and he appreciated someone stepping up to do the work.
J. Michalak asked what would happen if Ag Com was dissolved. P. Harding replied then they would go back to receiving statutory notice.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED// R-40 Bond Road// JM Soucy Contracting
P. Harding handed out the plans for the Board to review. She stated that the property was predominately located in Rutland; however there was a small portion of the land in Holden. She showed the Board the town line and the Holden portion of the parcel. She stated that they are creating three parcels. P. Harding stated that it has frontage on two lots, Bond Road and Main Street and that Rutland Planning has signed off on it.
D. Lindberg asked if the property across the street was the farm. P. Harding replied that it was.
W. Ritter stated that the frontage was not in Holden. He asked what the legal interpretation would be.
P. Harding showed him the frontage and the location of the house and septic. She stated that the house was in Holden and the septic was in Rutland. She stated that they have enough area and frontage in both.
W. Ritter asked if engineering had reviewed. P. Harding replied that they had.
D. Lindberg asked where the driveway would be located. P. Harding replied that she did not have those plans yet, only for the lot with the home in Holden.
Motion by J. Michalak, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ENDORSE THE ANR FOR R-40 BOND ROAD JM SOUCY CONTRACTING.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECOMMENDATIONS// VARIANCE R-1 128 Wachusett Street, Sean and Lauri Walsh// Relief from Side Yard Setback Requirement
P. Harding told the Board that the applicant is applying for relief for a side yard setback after construction of a two car garage. She stated the setback requirement is 15FT.
W. Ritter asked if there was any planning significance that the Board saw.
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by T. Stratis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO TAKE NO ACTION ON R-1 128 WACHUSETT STREET SEAN AND LAURI WALSH.
VARIANCE –COMMERCIAL 5 Shrewsbury Street// Urgent Care of Holden// Relief from Sign Requirements
P. Harding told the Board that the new Urgent Care has a temporary sign on the building and they are applying for a variance to allow a 28 SQ FT sign where the restriction is 20FT. She stated that if you calculate the box around the letters, it would be 32 SQ FT.
S. Carlson confirmed that they would not fall under the new guidelines as they had not been approved at Town Meeting. P. Harding agreed they would not.
W. Ritter asked the Board for their thoughts. He stated that historically they have voted favorably to signs in such places as the Big Y Plaza because it was commercial and there was no visibility to residents.
P. Harding told the Board that the sign material was white plastic non illuminated with the letters to be illuminated and attached to a white panel.
W. Ritter asked if that part needed a variance. P. Harding replied that it did not.
D. Lindberg asked if it would be lighted. P. Harding replied that the letters would be.
S. Carlson asked where it would be facing. P. Harding replied that it would be facing the Alden Research Labs.
W. Ritter asked if the sign now was temporary. P. Harding replied that the sign over the door is permanent and it conforms to Zoning. The sign they want to add is on the other side and it will be exactly like the temporary sign.
D. Lindberg stated that he would suggest that it was too large for a residential area. He stated that it wouldn’t fall under the new changes that the Board is trying to propose and it is too large for the current bylaws. He stated that he doesn’t see it to be a hardship to their business as they are claiming and that he feels it is too big for the building and to be facing a neighborhood.
J. Michalak stated that one thing that was mentioned was the size of their sign comparable to Rite Aid’s sign. He asked the size of the Rite Aid sign.
P. Harding replied that sign was calculated using individual letters and she would have to look into it to see its exact calculations.
J. Michalak replied that he would be concerned with the comparison.
W. Ritter replied that the Planning Board was not the final arbitrary on this matter and that ZBA was asking for the Boards opinions, concerns, and/ or support.
D. Lindberg stated that no other business in that space needed that large or illumination in their signs and they all thrived at that location. He stated he thought it was too much for the area.
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by S. Carlson, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED THAT THE SIGN WAS TOO LARGE FACING A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND DOES NOT CONFORM TO CURRENT BYLAWS OR THE PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by J. Michalak, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 10, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
W. Ritter suggested deferring the March 24, 2015 meeting minutes until the next meeting where more members were present and could review the minutes prior to approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
J. Michalak asked about Cranbrook Road and the classification of it as a collector street.
W. Ritter replied that DPW had classified it in this manner because it connected Salisbury Street with Newell Road and under the definition it linked two areas of town. He stated that the Road was very wide.
D. Lindberg asked if there was any news on the new sushi restaurant. P. Harding replied that it was approved by ZBA and appealed by an abutter. She stated at this time the applicant had backed out of the sale.
D. Lindberg asked about Oak Hill. P. Harding replied that construction was beginning again and that were waiting on parts but they were starting back after a stagnant winter.
NEXT MEETING: April 28, 2015
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by T. Stratis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE APRIL 14, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 7:39PM.
The April 14, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes were approved on April 28, 2015.
APPROVED: ______________