Planning Board, December 16, 2014
PLANNING BOARD
December 16, 2014
TOWN HALL MEMORIAL HALL
Members Present: William Ritter, Tina Stratis, Jeff Head John Michalak (7:08 PM), David Lindberg, Scott Carlson, Otto Lies
Others Present: Pam Harding, Town Planner, Elizabeth Fotos, Recording Secretary
7:00PM Meeting called to order by W. Ritter
DLTA CMRPC Nominations for Projects
P. Harding told the Board that the CMRPC released the applications for grant money. She told the Board that the Town of West Boylston is creating a village bylaw and they asked if any of the abutting towns wanted to take place. P. Harding told the Board that the Town currently had one specific to the Jefferson Mill area but that she would bring it up to the Board.
S. Carlson asked what the grant application entailed. P. Harding stated that the application was a few pages long.
O. Lies asked who else in the Town had received the application. P. Harding stated that she did not know who else was on the distribution list.
O. Lies stated that the CMRPC was expanding beyond planning into economic and agricultural development as well. He stated that there were a number of projects last year; the Holden Fire Department had EMS supplies, A Pre K-12 regionalization study, a youth center, things that had nothing to do traditionally with planning. O. Lies suggested reaching out and sending the application to other groups in Town such as the EDC and the Agricultural Commission as they may have other projects that could potentially benefit from this funding.
J. Michalak entered the meeting at 7:08PM.
W. Ritter asked if the border between Holden and West Boylston was watershed or residential. P. Harding stated in Holden it is residential.
W. Ritter suggested taking O. Lies recommendation and sending the application to the groups in Town.
S. Carlson confirmed the deadline of January 30, 2015.
O. Lies stated that there was a group, ‘Lettuce Buy Local’ that could potentially benefit from this as well.
W. Ritter asked if there was additional information on this matter. No additional information was presented.
Sidewalk Master Plan
P. Harding distributed the Sidewalk Planning Document to the Board.
W. Ritter asked if there was a sidewalk fund and how much money was in it. He also asked if it gets appropriated for projects in Town.
P. Harding replied that she would check on that information and get back to the Board.
O. Lies stated that the Plan should be updated and TCC should be involved.
S. Carlson asked if within the plan there was a plan to rebuild existing sidewalks as they aged.
P. Harding replied that she had not looked at DPW’s capital plan.
S. Carlson asked if there was a Master Plan to update sidewalks. P. Harding replied that there was no written plan to do so; however she was unaware of whether it was laid out in DPW’s capital budget. She stated that it falls under Chapter 9.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding if this could stay on as an agenda item to learn about the details of the sidewalk fund; how much, how is it distributed, etc. He also asked P. Harding to look at the capital budget to see if more work should be done pertaining the sidewalks in Town.
J. Michalak stated that he believed all towns were required to have a plan in place to make sidewalks accessible and to bring them up to standards.
Item remained on agenda for future meeting.
Bond Reduction- Bullard Estates Casa Builders
P. Harding stated that DPW is still working on this matter. There are currently two homes still under construction with no vacant lots.
Review of Open Space and Residential Design Bylaw.
W. Ritter stated that this has been an ongoing conversation with the Board but that he wanted to open the discussion up for seeing the goals of the Board to see if any changes should be made. He stated that it benefited the developer to do a project with less impervious surfaces, but that perhaps the bonus amount should be reviewed.
S. Carlson asked if it was in the sprit of the bylaw to have the developer make money. W. Ritter replied that the bylaw was to encourage more clusters because they are more environmentally sound.
W. Ritter stated that prior to Trish Settles coming into the meeting; the Board should compose a list of questions/ concerns surrounding this matter. (See List Below).
S. Carlson asked what the minimum lot size was; P. Harding replied 10K SQ FT in r1 and r2 zoning but it allows for multi-families on lots (no one has done this yet)
W. Ritter asked what the zoning in the center of town was. P. Haring replied that 1-4 units are zoned r-40. R-1 and r-2 can be up to 6 units.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding where she thought a proposal for a multiunit may go.
P. Harding replied she did not know how it would be accomplished without sewer but that possibly Fisher Road with 40B.
O. Lies stated that as he reviewed the bylaws he did not feel the intent and purpose was a problem. He stated that the real life application of it as seen on Salisbury Street was where he had issue. He stated that he felt it was bad execution of what the Town was requesting. O. Lies stated that within the bylaw, character of the home, location of the houses, contours of the land and other New England Character was supposed to be applied when discussing the intent of the bylaw. O. Lies stated he did not believe this was happening on this particular project.
W. Ritter stated that he had not yet seen a home in the development. S. Carlson replied that the developer is changing the contours. He stated that he didn’t believe the project on Salisbury Street encompassed the idea of a Village look either.
P. Harding asked if the Salisbury location was the place to do that. S. Carlson replied that the developer was using cluster zoning to keep the village look. P. Harding replied that the use of cluster zoning was to preserve open space and decrease impervious areas.
J. Michalak asked if the village look could be accomplished within the existing laws.
P. Harding asked the Board to clarify what they mean when they say they want to preserve the village look.
O. Lies stated that Section D of the current bylaws gives the Board some power to maintain this look. He stated that within the section, orientation, style of building, etc is discussed. O. Lies stated he believes that within the current bylaws, the Board has a lot of power to determine desired design of the development. He stated that it says, orientation should maintain existing topography and contour and that gives the Board enforcement power if it was wanted.
T. Stratis stated that she would like to see a percentage of the trees maintained in order to help the character of the roads and help maintain the New England feel.
P. Harding stated that it was difficult to do that based on the road grading requirements.
T. Stratis stated that she believed the 10K SQ FT lots are too small.
W. Ritter stated that some of the maintenance of the village feel is just not practical. He stated that in theory it is one of the goals of the bylaws and that the Board could give additional lots if the developer designed something more creative.
T. Stratis asked why the developers had to be given additional lots; W. Ritter replied that the Board did not have to grant them.
T. Stratis asked why the Board had been so lenient on granting additional lots to developers.
S. Carlson asked about the rules for the length of driveways.
W. Ritter asked if the road grade restrictions make it too difficult to build along the contours of the land. P. Harding replied that the developers have to do the necessary cuts and it is a balancing act.
W. Ritter asked if DPW had an opinion on slope. P. Harding stated that she did not believe he did but that it is hard to waiver on because of safety issues.
J. Michalak asked how much power the Board had in determining design. He stated that he believed that trails should connect to something and should have public access, bike trails should interconnect, and signage should be posted so people know where public property is and developers know they can’t build on.
J. Michalak also asked about detention ponds and landscaping.
O. Lies stated that Section D states that the applicant should submit a landscape plan to the Board prior to approval. The Board then has the power to accept or deny it.
J. Michalak also asked if future infrastructure should be looked at as new construction is being addressed.
S. Carlson stated that he agreed with J. Michalak on looking forward on future infrastructure and that currently Salisbury Street had issues with electric. He stated if it had been looked at initially it could have been broken up in the grid.
P. Harding stated on the Salisbury Street project, the light department director was involved.
O. Lies asked if there was enough capacity electrically with additional projects being built and if Jim Robinson, HMLD Director was included in the planning side of applications.
P. Harding replied that J. Robinson is involved in staff meetings.
O. Lies asked if the Board could deny an applicant because there was not enough power. S. Carlson replied that they could not, however they could have then incur the cost. S. Carlson stated that he believed that today’s builders are able to do everything in pieces which benefits them by potentially not having to participate in larger capital improvements.
P. Harding replied that there are more environmental factors in place today that factor into builders moving forward in pieces.
W. Ritter asked if there were any additional items that should be added to the list of items to discuss with Trish.
O. Lies stated that he believed Section D held a lot of good comments and would give the Planning Board more latitude when approving / denying. He stated that the Board would have to tighten up what they wanted and have higher design standards, building locations, and things of that nature.
W. Ritter stated that the Board could encourage more creativity.
J. Michalak asked if that could be done within the structure of the existing law.
W. Ritter stated that if the developer came in with the preliminary plans, the Board could tell them what they liked and didn’t like.
W. Ritter asked if there were any additional comments on the Open Space and Residential design bylaw.
List of items to discuss with Trish Settles when she is present at the Planning Board Meeting:
- Is the density bonus too generous
- Given the challenging parcels; are we inviting subdivisions where no great land is being credited for open space defeating the spirit of the cluster
- Are 10K SQ FT lots too small
- Do the road grade restrictions make it too difficult to build along the contours of the land?
Approval of Minutes
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by J. Michalak, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 14, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES BY A VOTE OF 6-0-1. (O. Lies: abstain).
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by S. Carlson, it was VOTED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 28, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES BY A VOTE OF 4-0-3. (J. Head: abstain; O. Lies: abstain; T. Stratis: abstain).
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by O. Lies, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 25, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES.
Other Business
S. Carlson asked if the stormwater management was all in. P. Harding replied that it was.
O. Lies stated that he had heard from the Agricultural Commission that they were working on a procedure for the town as to how to handle 61A land. He asked P. Harding if she had been involved in that conversation. P. Harding stated she had not been involved. W. Ritter stated that the Planning Board usually got notice when that occurred.
P. Harding stated that she would reach out to Ms. Kelly, the Town Manager regarding the 61A land.
D. Lindberg asked for a follow up on vacant properties and if there was any interest in the Fallon Clinic. P. Harding replied there was nothing concrete.
D. Lindberg asked for an update on the mill. P. Harding replied that they had submitted building permits and that the Town was waiting on updated plans.
T. Stratis asked about year end reports. P. Harding replied that they would be distributed in January.
D. Lindberg asked if there was any new information on West Minster. P. Harding replied that building permits had been pulled but not too much was going on.
T. Stratis asked what the proper way to address some of the issues discussed earlier would be (i.e. bigger lot size, etc). P. Harding replied that she would itemize the issues and invite Trish Settles in for a meeting. If after that meeting, the Planning Board wished to change anything, it would have to go to Town Meeting in May.
Next Meeting: January 13, 2015
Motion by O. Lies, seconded by J. Michalak, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE DECEMBER 16, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 8:00PM.
The December 16, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes were approved on January 13, 2015
APPROVED: _____________________ __
Pamela Harding, Town Planner