Planning Board, March 10, 2015
PLANNING BOARD
March 10, 2015
TOWN HALL MEMORIAL HALL
Members Present: William Ritter, Tina Stratis, John Michalak, David Lindberg, Otto Lies, Scott Carlson
Members Absent: Jeff Head
Others Present: Pam Harding, Town Planner, Elizabeth Fotos, Recording Secretary
7:00PM Meeting called to order W. Ritter
GOALS FOR 2015
Sign Bylaw
W. Ritter told the Board that P. Harding had provided them with the Sign Bylaw; including some changes that had been made. He suggested the Board go through the document and highlight the changes that are being made in order to see how they would like to proceed.
W. Ritter told the Board that the changes were originally started to help determine if the square footage of a sign was determined by the actual lettering of the sign or the box around it.
P. Harding told the Board that the initial changes were made in order to make the bylaw read more clearly. She stated that the lettering must be encased by a rectangular shape to determine size rather than using each letter.
D. Lindberg asked why the bylaw was not redlined. P. Harding replied that the copy the Board had was the latest version that had been amended as changes were made.
The Board agreed with this change (#7)
W. Ritter stated they had also provided a provision for painting on the sides of buildings to count as signs.
P. Harding stated the Board had also defined the definition of “opaque” a little better as well. She stated that they also added a table at the end to define what size and types of signs were allowed in each zoning district.
W. Ritter asked if the table was consistent with the current requirements. P. Harding confirmed that it was just a formatting change but the requirements were the same with the exception of how the letters on a wall were calculated.
W. Ritter asked the Board if these were the changes that they wished to make.
J. Michalak asked if anyone else needed to sign off on these changes.
W. Ritter replied that the Board would post the changes for a public hearing and vote to recommend the changes at Town Meeting. In addition he stated that they would send the document to the Board of Selectmen so they were informed prior to presenting the changes at Town Meeting.
P. Harding stated that she would provide the Board with a redlined document at the public meeting so they were able to easily see the proposed changes.
W. Ritter asked if the new document added a gas provision. P. Harding replied that it did but she put it for just the pricing; no logos or business names would be allowed.
O. Lies asked about the standing signs and how the Board governed them. He stated that when the Board began speaking about the Sign Bylaws, there were complaints from restaurant owners about these standing signs.
P. Harding replied that she believed the Board had decided that these signs were not a problem. She stated the bylaw for them was found on page 6; and it stated that they were allowed but there were restrictions indicating they needed to be out of the public right of way.
D. Lindberg asked about the size and amount of time that the real estate signs could we displayed for. He asked if the massive signs were left out until the development reached 100% occupancy.
P. Harding replied that was not permitted and was an enforcement issue. O. Lies asked if anything could be done about the enforcement.
W. Ritter asked the Board to finish the Sign Bylaws first before discussing enforcement issues.
J. Michalak stated real estate signs were on page 3 of the document. W. Ritter confirmed that page 3 had information for residential real estate signs.
J. Michalak asked if 10FT from street lot line was far for the real estate signs. W. Ritter suggested not making any change on this matter as people put those signs where they would be visible. He stated that real estate signs and political signs were not a huge issue and he didn’t believe they needed to be altered.
P. Harding replied that political signs had their own subsection in the bylaw. W. Ritter reiterated that he did not believe political signs needed to be addressed as they were not an issue and they may run into some issues constitutionally if the Town initiated any changes.
T. Stratis asked about signs for home based businesses. P. Harding replied that they were allowed 2 square feet.
T. Stratis asked the distance off the road they needed to be. P. Harding replied that they were permitted by the home occupation bylaw.
P. Harding confirmed she would have a redlined packet for the next meeting.
W. Ritter asked when the Board could schedule a public hearing. P. Harding replied the first meeting in April (April 14, 2015).
W. Ritter suggested communicating with the Board of Selectmen to let them know that the changes being presented were technical changes or corrective improvements.
Update of Subdivision Control Regulations
P. Harding passed out the new subdivision control regulations that were updated in 2004.
J. Woodsmall, DPW Director and Isabel McCauley, DPW Engineer were present in order to discuss some of the subdivision control regulations.
- Required Roadway Widths
W. Ritter told the Board that over time Town Administration, including past DPW Directors have taken different views on roadway widths. He stated that previous directors wanted the largest street widths as possible. W. Ritter stated this was often wider than was necessary increasing plowing costs and paving costs, in addition to environmental issues that arise with the increase in impervious areas.
W. Ritter stated in addition to the wide pavement, previous administrations had required sidewalks on both sides of the road. He stated that in the more recent past the Board had been experiencing developers requesting waivers for one side of sidewalks most of which don’t connect to any other sidewalks. He stated that the Board had been granting them.
W. Ritter stated that in addition to the sidewalk waivers that the Board had been seeing many waivers for street width with special permits particularly pertaining to the cluster subdivisions.
W. Ritter stated that the developers wanted the narrowest roads from a cost standpoint and the Board needed to clear up the verbiage and send a better message to the developers via the bylaw addressing the required roadway widths.
W. Ritter asked J. Woodsmall how many feet he was in favor with regarding to the roadways.
J. Woodsmall, DPW Director replied that they had been going with 24FT in subdivisions. He stated that his preference for a narrower street comes from a few perspectives. First, he stated that a narrower street is better for traffic safety. He stated that he has had to deal with a number of concerns within subdivisions of people speeding. J. Woodsmall stated that it is a known fact that the wider the road, the faster people will drive.
J. Woodsmall stated that the road width issue has evolved through stormwater as well and the more impervious surfaces the greater the stormwater impacts. He stated the Town as a whole has been pushing for a lower impact development and one of the ways to do this is with a narrower street.
J. Woodsmall also sited the cost factor of maintaining a wide street versus a narrower one. He stated road maintenance and stormwater systems were both more expensive with wider streets.
W. Ritter asked J. Woodsmall if he believed the minor streets should be 24FT versus 28FT. J. Woodsmall replied that he would encourage it.
W. Ritter asked if they still needed 50FT for a right of way. J. Woodsmall indicated that they did.
W. Ritter asked about collector streets. J. Woodsmall stated that he wouldn’t want to give a number off his head. P. Harding replied that they were currently 30FT.
S. Carlson asked if it was a volume requirement. P. Harding replied that it was defined as an area that connected two major points of destination; so no volume.
J. Woodsmall stated that since the last revision of these regulations, the Department of Transportation (DOT) is in the process of reviewing new design guidelines. He stated that it is a guide that goes from residential streets all the way up to freeways and it goes into many different characteristics. He suggested looking at the new guidelines in order to meld the Towns rules and regulations with the DOT’s.
P. Harding left the meeting at 7:24PM.
J. Michalak stated that he was reviewing the 30FT collector lane and it stated bike paths were there. He stated if this was the case then the Town probably wanted the 4FT shoulder and striped lines. J. Michalak stated he was thinking about Cranbrook and that it was not striped however he felt the yellow lines on Chapel Street did cause people to drive slower.
P. Harding returned to the meeting at 7:26PM.
J. Woodsmall replied that they did try to do that to create space on edges of roadways for different uses.
P. Harding asked if painted lines were something that they wanted in subdivisions. J. Woodsmall replied not on residential streets.
W. Ritter asked the rest of the Board for their thoughts.
O. Lies stated that he agreed minor roadways could be smaller. He asked what the fire chief thought about street widths.
W. Ritter replied that the new fire chief seemed okay with a narrower road. P. Harding confirmed this.
O. Lies replied that while the wider road looked nice, it wasn’t really needed on a minor road. He asked about Cranbrook Road, which he stated was a collector street.
J. Woodsmall replied that Cranbrook Road did not really connect anything. O. Lies replied that the road definitions should be revisited. He stated that what he felt was more important was the sidewalks.
W. Ritter requested that the Board finish the discussion on the road width before moving onto the sidewalk discussion.
S. Carlson stated that he agreed with the 24FT road width but he did ask if large box trucks making deliveries would have issues with road widths of that size.
J. Woodsmall replied that they would need to look at the turn radius of that type of truck.
W. Ritter stated that they would review that issue and look at the definitions provided by the DOT. He stated that he believed the Board would see more waivers and that they may need to look at street definitions hand in hand with sidewalks. He stated that the Board had been waiving sidewalks.
O. Lies replied that they had been waiving them but that he believed they should keep them even if they go nowhere in hopes of having a sidewalk system one day.
W. Ritter replied that he believed they would see a lot of waivers for sidewalks on one side. P. Harding replied that the one side waiver has been typical for the past few subdivisions.
W. Ritter replied that he thinks the Board had been granting waivers for sidewalks on one size based on the size of the subdivision.
W. Ritter asked the Board if they wished to leave the sidewalks as is and treat them on a case by case basis. D. Lindberg confirmed that he would like to do this. O. Lies agreed.
- Low Impact Development Techniques and Stormwater Standards
P. Harding stated that there had always been concerns on the steepness of detention ponds and the use of buried detention ponds and infiltrations systems. She stated that she wanted to make things a little more clear regarding these items.
W. Ritter stated that they do not want big deep detention basins. P. Harding agreed and stated that I. McCauley had informed her that MA DOT was creating a model for subdivisions that incorporated low impact development techniques. She stated that this would be a good point for the Town to start with.
W. Ritter asked the Board for their consensus. The Board agreed to pursue this item.
- Distance Between Two Roadways; Both Opposing and Abutting
P. Harding stated that in the past the Board had questions about the definition of distance between roadways; was it measured centerline to centerline or curb to curb. She stated that she wanted to clear up these questions for the future. P. Harding stated that there had also been an issue with abutting and exit/ entry ways so she asked the Board how they wished to proceed on that as well.
W. Ritter replied he agreed that those issues should be cleared up. He stated it seemed logical to do centerline to centerline.
W. Ritter asked the recommended distance between two entrances.
P. Harding replied that she would have to look into it but that she wanted to clarify the distance between the two points. I. McCauley stated that there was a design guide based on average speed of the road, however the number that was in the control regulations did not match the table.
W. Ritter replied that they should look into it.
- Size of Retaining Wall/ Bridges which Support Public Ways
P. Harding stated that retaining walls are being moved outside the public ways and the Town has been running into the issues as to who is responsible for supporting something that maintains the Towns infrastructure.
W. Ritter replied that this was likely to be a bigger problem going forward. P. Harding agreed and stated that there were more regulations on them as well due to increased stream crossing requirements.
P. Harding also stated that depending on the size of a culvert it could be considered a bridge so it is important to make sure that the Town was not creating bridges that would make more work for them.
J. Woodsmall stated that anything over a 20FT span is classified as a bridge and had to be inspected every two years by the State DOT. He stated that he did not want to be in the position of the Town accepting bridges as they were so much more work.
S. Carlson asked if White Oak bridges were considered town responsibility. J. Woodsmall replied that he wasn’t sure which ones S. Carlson was speaking about however he did not believe any of those were considered town land.
- Bond Procedures
W. Ritter suggested adding something that stated they would not do a bond release until the frontage of a lot is entirely paved with basecoat. The Board agreed to this change.
- Homeownership Association Requirements
P. Harding stated that even though this gets conditioned, it is a big issue. W. Ritter asked if they could speak to S. Madaus, Town Counsel to see how other towns handled this matter.
S. Carlson replied that he believed the real issue was with the retention ponds. W. Ritter agreed.
T. Stratis stated that with Winter Hill, there was a committee of three from the neighborhood and they would hire out the maintenance of the retention pond. She stated last year it was sent to a management company to be taken over.
W. Ritter asked how much the cost to maintain it was. T. Stratis replied about $5,000 but that would depend on the amount of work needed.
W. Ritter asked if the HOA’s were required to report to the Town. P. Harding replied that they were supposed to but that contact information was hard to get and maintain.
W. Ritter asked if there was supposed to be a maintenance plan. P. Harding replied that it is easier when it is a parcel owned by a known identity. She said that when it is lot to lot it eventually becomes defunked.
O. Lies asked if these HOA’s had an annual meeting and contact information.
P. Harding replied that usually in the beginning there is contact information however overtime the association seems to die out. O. Lies replied that was the problem. The association actually existed and that communication and reports needed to be sent and maintained.
P. Harding replied that it was a problem everywhere and she didn’t know the best way to do that.
J. Woodsmall replied that it depended on how active the Town wanted to be. He stated that he thought the EPA was going to take a harder line on the associations in the future.
W. Ritter stated that the Board was making this issue harder as subdivisions were approved with HOA’s. P. Harding replied that there were requirements surrounding them.
W. Ritter stated that he would be curious to see what other towns were doing to improve enforcement. He stated that he thought they would probably start to have DPW keep a list and do inspections going forward.
J. Woodsmall replied that one thing that they needed to think about going forward was the drainage system as it is an integral part of the roadway. He stated that the Town accepted roadways but turns a blind eye to drainage. He said that ideally the Town shouldn’t approve HOA’s because the issues eventually become the cost of the Town and DPW to maintain.
J. Michalak replied that it would be a town issue anyway as issues can impact other parts of the town. He asked if a lien or tax could be placed.
P. Harding replied that she believed Connecticut had done something similar to that. J. Woodsmall replied that is how stormwater utilities are created. He stated that some cities and towns have stormwater fees assessed. He said that it will come down to a political issue.
J. Michalak asked if the retaining walls have anything to do with the stormwater system.
P. Harding replied that the town had two issues, Oaks of Holden and Vista Circle and both were an installation issue.
W. Ritter replied that an engineer had reviewed and stamped the work and indicated that the job was done correctly.
T. Stratis left the meeting at 7:56PM.
P. Harding replied that the other issue was the size of the retaining walls in subdivisions.
S. Carlson asked if there was an engineering standard. W. Ritter replied that Vista Circle was a good example; 50FT.
- Detention Basin Design Specifications, Depth, Slopes
W. Ritter suggested putting this item together with #2: Low Impact Development Techniques. He asked the Board how they wanted to tackle them.
T. Stratis returned to the meeting at 7:57PM.
J. Woodsmall stated that the islands in cul-de-sacs were troublesome. He said that while he understood aesthetics, maintenance is difficult and DPW typically supports waivers for them.
W. Ritter suggested taking them out.
W. Ritter asked how the Board should go about making these changes. P. Harding suggested taking one or two during free meetings to allow the Board the time to discuss them.
W. Ritter agreed and asked to make it a continuing agenda item. He asked if the Board had any additional changes to subdivision control regulations.
J. Woodsmall stated that there were a number of small technical items that they would recommend to the Board for changes as well.
O. Lies stated that with some of the issues mentioned he thought that the Traffic and Circulation Committee should come in.
J. Woodsmall replied that Committee was not officially defunked yet, however it was close. He stated that the committee had been meeting without a quorum for a few years and several members no longer wanted to serve on the committee. He suggested that perhaps the professional staff that the Town has could better assist the Board with any questions that they may have.
W. Ritter asked who appointed members of the Committee. J. Woodsmall replied that the Town Manager did. He stated that it is supposed to be a seven person commission and there have only been three active members for some time.
W. Ritter asked if they could invite existing members as they may have input. J. Woodsmall replied that they could.
W. Ritter asked if the Board had any additional concerns; no one on the Board did. He asked P. Harding to keep this item ongoing as an agenda item to allow the Board to work through each item.
Sidewalks
J. Michalak asked if the DPW was updating sidewalk inventory.
J. Woodsmall replied that they were but it has not yet been completed. He stated that one thing they had requested from the capital budget was a sidewalk paving machine and added money for sidewalk paving material. He stated this would help to allow the DPW to maintain sidewalks in Town.
J. Michalak stated that they had spoken about maintenance and compliance with sidewalks but he raised the point because there is currently no plan in place for the Town. He stated that this may be a requirement in the future for funding and other things and if there is a plan in place to do X amount of sidewalks the Town would have something to fall back on.
W. Ritter asked J. Woodsmall if they would have more information in the spring. J. Woodsmall confirmed they would.
LED Lighting
P. Harding stated that she had not yet spoken to J. Robinson, HMLD Director. W. Ritter suggested leaving the item on the agenda.
S. Carlson stated that there were many terms now because of the many rules that govern LED Lighting. He reminded the Board what they went through when Wachusett Regional High School needed to be lit to ensure the abutters were not adversely impacted. He suggested waiting to speak with J. Robinson as well for his expertise on the matter.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED- R-40- 735 Mason Road- Jim Haynes 3 Lots
P. Harding handed out plans to the Board.
D. Lindberg corrected the locus plans; he showed P. Harding where the issues were. P. Harding replied that she would have that corrected.
P. Harding told the Board that it was one lot and they were creating lot 2, 3, and 4.
O. Lies asked if there should be an additional note on the plan indicating this. P. Harding replied that a note could be added.
P. Harding told the Board that DPW had a concern with the labeled right of way and they wanted it to be labeled as a driveway easement.
W. Ritter told the Board that for an ANR, the only questions that needed to be answered was if there was sufficient frontage and does it meet the Towns requirements for acreage. He stated if both were met, the Board is required to grant the ANR.
Motion by T. Stratis, seconded by O. Lies, it was UNANIMOSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE ANR FOR R-40, 735 MASON ROAD, JIM HAYNES WITH A CORRECTED LOCUS PLAN AND A NOTE ADDED TO THE PLAN.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by T. Stratis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 10, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
O. Lies asked if the Board could hold off on approving the February 24, 2015 meeting minutes until the next meeting as he had not had a chance to review them. The Board agreed.
OTHER BUSINESS
S. Carlson asked if there was any way to ensure the packets were sent out a little earlier so as to give the Board time to review its contents. O. Lies agreed. P. Harding replied that she would mail the packages to the Board earlier in the week.
O. Lies stated that D. Lindberg had brought up a point about an illegal real estate sign. He stated that all they heard was that there was an illegal sign and that it was an enforcement issue. He asked why it was not being enforced and what could be done about it and suggested sending something in writing from the Board to help facilitate the enforcement.
W. Ritter stated that he did not want the Planning Board sending a letter. He told the Board that typically what would happen if you want the Zoning Board or Building Inspector to take up enforcement of something, you would send a letter to the Building Inspector. After he receives the letter, he has 14 days to enforce or not enforce the matter. If a party is unsatisfied with the results, they can appeal the Building Inspectors decision and they would typically appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. W. Ritter stated that he is not sure that this is the fight that the Planning Board wants to have but that they could ask the Building Inspector why the sign is up and see what he says.
P. Harding replied that the development in question has requested a certificate of completion from the ZBA and the ZBA will not issue it until the sign has been taken down.
W. Ritter replied that they can send a note to the Building Inspector to ask the status of the matter.
T. Stratis provided the Board with an advertisement found in social media. She asked how a developer could advertise when the Planning Board had yet to approve the subdivision.
W. Ritter replied that he believed it to be presumptuous but people do it often.
W. Ritter gave the Board an update on his meeting with Ms. Kelly, the Town Manager. He told the Board that he had spoken to her regarding the 61A policy and that it was as P. Harding had presented it. Ag Com felt as though they wanted to be kept informed on these notices. The plan was not designed to exclude the Planning Board but rather to keep Ag Com in the loop and see if they could have more say on the matter.
O. Lies replied that he understood that but that the policy draft implied that they are the final decision makers. He asked if that was correct.
W. Ritter replied that it had not been adopted by the Board of Selectmen.
W. Ritter also asked Ms. Kelly about the updating of meeting minutes to the online site. The Town Manager agreed and stated that she would follow up with W. Ritter on the matter.
W. Ritter also spoke to the Town Manager regarding communication issues with other divisions in Town. He stated that he wanted the Selectmen to communicate with the Planning Board and vice versa. W. Ritter told the Board that Ms. Kelly apologized about the marijuana issue. W. Ritter asked Ms. Kelly to keep the Planning Board informed and send information to P. Harding on matters that may be in the Planning Boards area of expertise. Ms. Kelly agreed.
P. Harding told the Board of an upcoming matter that they would see on the agenda for March 24, 2015; Maplewood Drive
P. Harding also told the Board that the CMRPC DLTA is having its kick off meeting on March 30, 2015. She told the Board that she was unable to attend and stated that the Board could send a representative or they could ask someone to attend a future Planning Board meeting. She told the Board that they would be discussing the Village Overlay District that had a variety of communities involved.
W. Ritter asked P. Harding to send a reminder to him and that he would try to attend.
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by T. Stratis, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE MARCH 10, 2015 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 8:42 PM.
The March 10, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes were approved on April 14, 2015
APPROVED: _____________________ __
Pamela Harding, Town Planner