Planning Board, October 28, 2014
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 28, 2014
Memorial Hall
Members Present: William Ritter, John Michalak, David Lindberg, Scott Carlson,
Members Not Present: Tina Stratis, Jeffrey Head, Otto Lies
Others Present: Pam Harding, Town Planner, Elizabeth Fotos, Recording Secretary
7:00PM Meeting Called to order by W. Ritter
Release of Covenant- Bond Reduction Stoney Brook Estates- Phase IV
Stoney Brook Estates has submitted a request for the release of all lots located within Phase IV of the Stoney Brook Estates Subdivision. The bond was voted on in September with a further reduction included in the packet to reflect the current level of work completed and the amount in the subdivision control agreement.
S. Carlson asked if all the lots were sold .
P. Harding told the Board that Stoney Brook Estates Phase IV and Phase V are still under covenant. W. Ritter told the Board that the lots may be under contract.
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by S. Carlson, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE BOND REDUCTION FOR THE STONEY BROOK ESTATES PHASE IV TO $62,921.89 AS OF AUGUST 25, 2014.
Motion by D. Lindberg, seconded by J. Michalak, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO RELEASE THE COVENANT TO PHASE IV.
Review of Open Space and Residential Design Bylaw
P. Harding provided the Board with a copy of the Open Space Residential Design Bylaw (cluster subdivision). She also supplied the Board with the Yield Plan and Cluster plan for Oak Hill.
W. Ritter stated that some members of the Board that were absent at the meeting (October 28, 2014) were interested in this subject. S. Carlson stated that he would like to move this topic because of the members not present.
W. Ritter asked the members present their concerns on Open Space. S. Carlson replied that his issues with Open Space were the calculations; in particular the provision of a bonus for trails that were provided within open space with slopes greater than 15%.
P. Harding responded that issue did not bother her. S. Carlson stated that it can build up to extra lots. P. Harding replied that it would be subject to the Boards review and approval. S. Carlson asked how the Board could say no if the developer did everything that was asked of them.
P. Harding replied that bonus lots are subject to the Boards discretion.
S. Harding stated that if he was a contractor he would do that. He stated that he didn’t feel as though it was within the spirit of the law to have contractors build more homes on less space.
W. Ritter replied that was in fact the spirit of the law. He stated that it was what everyone wanted, they wanted to make the Town’s cluster subdivisions more developer friendly rather than a traditional subdivision. W. Ritter said they wanted less impervious services, less roadways, less sidewalks, and more open space. W. Ritter stated this was what was determined in Town Meeting.
W. Ritter stated that the issue may be that the density bonus is too great.
S. Carlson asked about the ANR for Wachusett Valley Estates.
P. Harding responded that the yield plan and the cluster was the same number.
W. Ritter replied that they were not getting the density bonus. W. Ritter said the other thing that he wanted everyone to understand was the level of review for special permits. He explained it was done in three levels. Level 1 was the subdivision control bylaw. W. Ritter said that if a plan is designed to meet the rules, the Board is almost required to approve the project unless there is a public safety issue. Level 2 was the special permit process. In this level the Board has the right to approve or deny the applicant. He stated if the Board had good reason and it was stated on the record, the court would likely uphold the decision of the Board. Level 3 was the ZBA variance standing. He stated this was very difficult to meet and the applicant had to prove a hardship
S. Carlson asked if this meant the ZBA could refuse an applicant.
W. Ritter replied that if someone goes to the ZBA for a variance, it is very hard to meet it. He stated often times the ZBA will still grant it because it usually is small issues, but that the legal standards are hard to meet.
W. Ritter continued to state that the level of special permit is significant. The special permit for site plan review requires a super majority to pass. He stated that within the special permit level the Board has a lot of latitude to approve and deny. W. Ritter said that his concern is that the density bonus is too attractive and they are not getting values back for Open Space, community space, community benefit, or neighborhood benefit.
W. Ritter stated that he believed the Board was going to start to see more challenging parcels.
S. Carlson stated that he thought the density bonus was too high.
D. Lindberg asked S. Carlson why he cared what the density bonus was.
S. Carlson replied that he moved to Holden because of the strict rules for building. He said the buildings in question (Wachusett Valley Estates) were all $400,000 homes on 7,500 sq.ft.lots.
P. Harding replied that none of the lots were that small. She said that is why they (Greenstone) did not apply for the density bonus.
D. Lindberg stated that in any subdivision, if people are willing to buy the homes or live in close proximity to one another it really wouldn’t affect the Board.
S. Carlson replied that in Town, the neighborhoods are expanding and still more are being built. He said that you are creating density in the area with more traffic where you are trying to control the growth.
W. Ritter stated that he was the one that was initially pushing the zone change because at the time the Town was booming. He said that there were proposals and that he was the one that was saying to double the lot size because he (W. Ritter) did not think the infrastructure of the town could handle that growth. He said that the economy partially took care of the matter. He said that at the time, they were building over 55 so the property was still expensive, and that they had been holding the property for some time.
S. Carlson stated that all that land together was large.
W. Ritter replied that it would be a different issue with that particular property; there was not public sewage.
D. Lindberg asked what property S. Carlson was speaking about.
S. Carlson replied it was the largest parcel that could be developed. He stated what he was looking at was the growth and how much more the Town could take. He asked how the Town was going to absorb some of the cost of development.
W. Ritter replied the only real cost was kids in schools. He stated that what they are finding is that people are buying bigger houses and not having as many children. He stated the forecasting number was cyclical.
D. Lindberg asked about the build out analysis that was completed five years ago; he asked if that report stated that the town could double in size.
P. Harding stated it was done in 2000 and reported the population in Holden would double.
W. Ritter stated they had completed an analysis and it did state it would double in size. P. Harding confirmed it was done from gis maps not surveys.
S. Carlson replied that he was looking at the matter in terms of infrastructure. He said the water system needed repairs and the lighting system would have to be redeveloped if the population kept increasing.
W. Ritter replied that he agreed however he did not think that the density bonus for a few houses was going to challenge the infrastructure. S. Carlson replied that there was a cost to expand that needed to be considered.
W. Ritter stated that the Board had made some good points; the density bonus being too generous, should the Board look to cluster the houses looking at the same lots (because then you get the benefit of the environment however the downside is that lots are smaller).
S. Carlson asked if as the new Storm Water Management went into effect, they believed the organization could maintain them. P. Harding replied that Storm Water Management was not in effect yet, there was only a draft available and the comment period ended in Dec. .
S. Carlson asked if a private entity could take care of the retention ponds and standing water. He asked what authority the Board or Town wanted to take when these issues arise.
W. Ritter asked if there was a maintenance report provided. P. Harding replied it was supposed to happen every year. She stated that they received the reports from some; Autumn Circle and Summer Lane, but not from others. She stated that it was a problem as you never know who is in charge and often the associations don’t meet or form.
S. Carlson asked if it was common to have such a large amount of waivers and requests for change (36). P. Harding replied that those were not waivers, they were DPW comments.
S. Carlson asked if the 36 items mentioned were things Greenstone did not meet. W. Ritter replied that some of it was just small technical issues.
J. Michalak asked if the Town wanted narrower roads and less sidewalks. P. Harding replied that she believed DPW opinion was that the Town’s subdivision controls were outdated and needed to be revisited.
W. Ritter stated that historically, they used to want very wide roads, that opinion has changed and there is an expense associated with the maintenance of wider roads.
J. Michalak replied that the requirements seemed very vague. He asked if it was intentionally left vague so the Board could approve and deny where necessary. W. Ritter replied; it was very hard to change bylaws as it needed a 2/3 vote at Town Meeting.
J. Michalak asked if there was anyway to quantify what the Board wanted. P. Harding replied that there are standard engineering designs but they are subjective.
J. Michalak asked how as a Board they could get on the same page to help ensure cohesion. W. Ritter replied that it was a case by case basis and the Board needed to analyze each case as it came in front of them.
J. Michalak asked what happened if something happened to White Oak. W. Ritter replied that there was a land trust in the state. P. Harding responded that it required legislative approval to have the land come out of Open Space.
J. Michalak asked about the requirements for bike trails in the Open Space and if it was a requirement or a suggestion.
W. Ritter responded that while they all want sidewalks and more pedestrian trails, bike paths may not be a modern day practical matter. He stated things are culturally different and that bike paths may not be needed in every case.
W. Ritter asked if there was anything else on Open Space. He asked to move the matter to the next meeting (November 25, 2014) for the benefit of the Board members not present.
Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendation; Lot 1 Homestead Road-David Cook-R-2 Zoning District
The applicant is applying for a variance from the 100’ of lot frontage requirements to construct a single family home on a vacant lot which has sufficient area but only 40’ of frontage.
W. Ritter stated that Homestead was 50FT at this spot and it would have been forever grandfathered however it was 40FT instead of 50FT.
P. Harding replied that it was just a road that stopped and they don’t have the 50 ft. of frontage to be considered a grandfathered lot so they needed the variance.
W. Ritter stated that this matter is a ZBA decision.
Motion by J. Michalak, seconded by D. Lindberg, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO MAKE NO RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER.
Approval of Minutes
Motion by S. Carlson, seconded by J. Michalak, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES.
Next Meeting: November 25, 2014
Motion by J. Michalak, seconded by S. Carlson, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE OCTOBER 28, 2014 MEETING AT 7:42PM.
The October 28, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes were approved on December 16, 2014
APPROVED: _____________________ __
Pamela Harding, Town Planner