TOWN OF
PLANNING BOARD
Minutes
of a Meeting of the Planning Board held on
PRESENT: SAMUEL SOLOMON, CHAIR
ELI HAUSER
PETER
O’CAIN, ASST. TOWN ENGINEER
Business Transacted:
I.
Meeting
called to order.
II.
PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
Mr. Cohen read the legal notice to open the public
hearing. Since there were four proposed
changes, he read the first one only so that discussion could be limited to that
one change, and the other notices were read before each proposed change.
A. The first
change proposed to delete most sections of the flexible by-law. Mr. Solomon explained that the reason behind
this change is that as part of the Board’s Community Development Plan under the
State’s EO418, one of the recommendations by the consultant was to eliminate
these provisions as it was duplicative of the CSD. The Board’s focus is on the CSD rather than
traditional flexible development. In the
ten years that he has been on the Board, there has not been a single
subdivision proposed under the flexible by-law.
What was intended in the language of the flexible by-law is now covered
under the CSD by-law.
____________________________
Administrative Assistant
Minutes
of Meeting
Page Two
Mr. Solomon explained that there had been some
discussion about creating a new by-law to address affordable housing. However, it would involve more complicated
language and there was not enough time to get this ready for the Spring Town
Meeting. It will be looked at for the
Fall Town Meeting. Mr. Solomon said that
he had heard that there were some petition zoning articles filed with the Town,
but were never submitted to the Planning Board and the Board has not seen them
to date. If they have been submitted to
the Selectmen, the Planning Board will need to hold a hearing on them as
well. Mr. Solomon was not sure why the
Selectmen have not had the courtesy to share these articles with the Planning
Board.
Wayne Godlin suggested that
the Board was making these changes to accommodate Hunter’s Ridge, and that the
changes specifically applied to that subdivision. He and the others that brought the petition
articles were clearly upset that the Board was suggesting these changes and
that it was ignoring the petition article changes. Ms. Maniscalco was concerned that the Board
had not been notified of these proposed petition articles and it seemed that
Mr. Godlin had more information on it than the Board. She asked Mr. Godlin
how long ago these petition articles had been presented to the Selectmen. Mr. Godlin answered
that he had spoken with Mr. Puritz back in November and December, and had
discussed what procedure they needed to follow to get the petition articles to
the Selectmen in a timely fashion. Town
Counsel had also reviewed them and responded back to the petitioners. They were assuming tonight’s hearing would
include their petition articles.
Mr. Bradley asked if it was true that the reason these
proposed zoning amendments were being proposed by the Board was to increase the
density in the Town?
Mr. Solomon answered that that was not the case, that the idea was to
allow for relatively the same density on less land with a different housing
stock and to have more open space. The
purpose of the proposed change was to clarify and clean up the zoning, to
create diversity in the Town’s housing stock, for which there is a great need.
Minutes
of Meeting
Page Three
Mr. Meister of the Conservation Commission said that
he had a major problem with this because it does not turn over the land to the
Town as does the flexible by-law. He
also thought there should be a requirement that there be public access to the
open space. He was also against any
density bonuses, as the land is going to remain open space anyway. It is usually land that the developer doesn’t
need and doesn’t want to pay taxes on.
Mr. Solomon agreed that Mr. Meister had some
legitimate ideas, which the Board would look into. Ms. Maniscalco added that the CSD was much
more in line with the Board’s policy of smart growth and the elimination of the
Flexible by-law was recommended by the consultant who worked with the Board on
the Community Development Plan.
Mr. Godlin added that the
problem he had with eliminating the flexible by-law was that the intent of that
by-law was to allow flexible development on large parcels of land. Mr. Cohen said that since no developers have
been interested in building anything under the flexible by-law, it didn’t seem
like a life or death issue. The Board
can re-examine that by-law and see if there are any valid reasons to keep
it. And, the Board does not have the
final word on whether or not these changes go through. The Board can only vote to bring or not to
bring the changes to Town Meeting, and Town Meeting votes on whether or not to
accept the changes.
B.
The second
proposed amendment was in Section 4367 in the CSD. This change was to the language of the by-law
which currently did not state that the units in the CSD need to be multi family
units for age qualified housing. This
issue came to light in the Hunter’s Ridge subdivision, where the applicant is
proposing all single family, unattached houses. This changes the language to require multi
family units to get the density incentive.
Mr. Yaar said that the
Planning Board attitude towards this may not be the attitude of the Town. He moved to
Minutes
of Meeting
Page Four
C.
Modifications to
the Multiple Use Overlay District. The proposed
change puts the Business A, B and C Districts in the MUOD. It would include the Heights area, the
Mr. Godlin asked the Board
when it had submitted the language for these changes? Mr. Solomon responded that the Board was
working on these changes back in December.
Mr. Godlin asked Mr. Solomon if the Selectmen
provided the Planning Board with the petition zoning articles. Mr. Solomon said the Selectmen have not
provided the Board with any language for any petition articles. The first time Mr. Solomon heard about these
proposed zoning articles was in a discussion about a different matter with a
member of another Town Board. No member
of this Board has seen any language. Mr.
Cohen added that the first he has heard about these proposed articles is at
tonight’s meeting. Mr. Godlin claimed that the presentation of the Board’s
proposed changes is too coincidental with the filing of the petitioners.
D.
Business District
Modifications. These changes were
suggested by the Wilber Reutilization Committee. It increases the allowable
uses in the Business C District that would not otherwise have been permitted. The Committee wanted to have more options for
that building.
Mr. Cohen then moved to close the public hearing on
the proposed zoning changes, seconded by Ms. Maniscalco and unanimously voted.
III.
PUBLIC HEARING – KING PHILLIPS ESTATES
Mr. Cohen read the legal notice to open the public
hearing. Mr. Solomon explained that the
purpose of this hearing was to allow the residents to give their input and
comments on the proposed subdivision.
Minutes
of Meeting
Page Five
Dana Clow, engineer for the
applicant, gave a short presentation about the subdivision:
·
The property was
located on
·
It was in a Rural
1 Residential District.
·
It was not in any
overlay districts.
·
There was a
tremendous amount of topographical relief – the property rises up eighty feet
from
·
There are some
wetlands slightly on the site.
·
There will be
three large lots with a 50’ right of way with a cul-de-sac. The road is 785’ long to the end of the
cul-de-sac.
·
Construction will
take place on the upper elevation of the site.
·
All lots conform
to zoning.
·
An extensive
number of soil tests have been done and the soils are sufficient to support
on-site disposal systems.
·
There will be a
number of waiver requests.
·
They are
proposing a private 18’ paved drive which will meander in the right of way to
take advantage of grade changes to reduce depth of cuts.
·
There will have
to be a significant amount of grading to construct the driveway. However, they will no longer need to have a
retaining wall as was shown on previous plans.
They have obtained slope easements from the abutters, but with the
current plan, they will not need those either.
·
The profile of
the road is also significantly changed.
The biggest change is the reverse curve, which creates a sag about half way down the street. This will minimize the amount of cut and will
help to control runoff from the street.
The runoff will be captured in the sag and trapped in the upper part,
then run overland on their property. So
the water will not run down the street.
Minutes
of Meeting Page Six
Mr. Clow explained that
these were the significant points on this plan that are different from the
previous plan. The conventional roadway
does not meet the Board’s regulations having a 10% slope, when 8% is the
maximum allowable. The cut and fill
deviation also does not meet Board Regulations as it also exceeds the Board’s
allowable amounts, and the length of the roadway exceeds that allowable under
the regulations.
Mr. Cohen said that when the applicant last came
before the Board, the Board had requested the applicant to obtain a letter from
the Fire Chief with his comments on this roadway. He asked if the applicant had obtained this letter. The applicant’s attorney answered that he had
spoken with our Town Counsel about this matter, who supposedly had spoken with
the Fire Chief and he stated that the Fire Chief did not have a problem with
what is being proposed. Mr. Solomon
informed the applicant that the Board needed written comments from the Fire
Chief, and that this was a standard request for all subdivisions. The attorney responded that the Fire Chief
said a written response was not needed and didn’t give them one. The Board will send a letter to the Fire
Chief soliciting his written comments on this subdivision.
Mr. O’Cain said that he had some concerns regarding
this subdivision, the major one being drainage, especially at Sta. 400. He has not received any drainage calculations
from the applicant. He said that he
couldn’t see where the applicant could create a basin or a swayle. Mr. Clow said that
the applicant was not planning on consolidating the water but dispersing
it. When you diffuse it, you mitigate
the effects of the flow. Mr. Solomon
said that given that a key component of the regulations states that no
additional water can flow from the property, and given the very steep slope here,
the Board does need to see how this runoff will be contained on the premises.
Mr. Cohen said that in the worst case, the Board could
make this a condition of approval, so that if the drainage does not work, the
subdivision could not be built.
Minutes
of Meeting
Page Seven
Mr. O’Cain added that another concern was that if this
water was going to run down, it could pond on the street (
Mr. Meister of the Conservation Commission added that
with all the work done on the conventional plan under 40B, it seemed that all
mitigation measures for the drainage were acceptable. He asked Mr. Clow
if there was something different proposed now.
Mr. Clow answered that it was a conventional
driveway design with no structured drainage mitigating measures.
Mr. O’Cain reminded the Board about the problems in
Christina Estates, where the erosion control situation was not good, caused
major flooding in the area not only on the street but on the abutters’ land as
well. This is a similar situation and he
was concerned about the drainage and wanted to know if the Board had a
contingency plan to deal with this if the applicant’s drainage design,
presented after approval, did not work.
Mr. O’Cain said he didn’t understand, if most of the work had already
been done for the conventional and 40B plans, why the applicant couldn’t have a
drainage plan to him in the next two weeks.
Ms. Maniscalco asked the applicant if two weeks wasn’t
enough time to get a drainage plan to the Board? Mr. Wluka, the
agent for the applicant, answered that part of this has to do with
economics. The applicant has spent a lot
of money to date on legal fees and including tonight, having all their people
here to meet with the Board, which money could have been spent on the court
case.
Mr. Cohen said that if the drainage is made a
condition of approval, it is a risk the applicant is taking. It does not mean the Board will accept a
drainage plan that would be harmful to the abutters. The applicant would have to present a plan
that is acceptable to Mr. O’Cain and the Board.
Minutes
of Meeting Page
Eight
Mr. Clow responded that he
could come up with a mitigated plan that would be acceptable to all.
Mr. Solomon then opened the meeting to comments from
the public. Most of the comments were in
favor of this plan, as a three lot subdivision would be more preferable to a 12
lot subdivision. Mr. Meister also
indicated the Conservation Commission was in favor of this subdivision,
provided that something could be worked out with the drainage, which he was
confident could be, then he had no problem with going
along with this.
Mr. Martin, who provided the Board with historical
background on the site, asked that the houses be placed closer to the street
and away from the back end of the property which abuts the historic area.
Mr. Cohen said that it seems that the Board will be
voting on this and the drainage will be conditioned in the approval. However, the Board just received a lot of new
information tonight, and it seems more complicated than originally
thought. Therefore, he proposes taking
some extra time to review all the information provided and make a decision at
the next meeting.
Mr. Solomon said that there seemed to be concrete
reasons as to why this roadway may not be in the best interests of the
Town. There are still questions to be
answered and Mr. O’Cain needs to review the plans. Mr. Solomon also told Mr. Clow
that the Board needed a complete list of waiver requests to be able to act on
them when a decision is being made. He
further added that drainage is an issue and the Board is concerned that the
applicant does not create a river going across the street to the abutters. The slope issue also needs to be addressed to
make sure the road is accessible not just to the residents of the street but
also to emergency vehicles. It is the
Board’s responsibility to protect potential buyers.
Ms. Maniscalco said that this has been an interesting
process, but feels the Board is somewhat trapped because of the litigation in
this matter. She was impressed by the applicant’s response to
expedite and get something to the Board that it could consider. She agrees that three houses here is much better than twelve.
However, she is concerned that the Board not allow
so
Minutes
of Meeting
Page Nine
many waivers that it makes someone’s property or safety at
risk. She does want to see what the Fire
Chief has to say and get all the waivers in writing so she can see what is
being requested.
Ms. Maniscalco then moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Mr. Cohen and unanimously voted.
IV.
OTHER BUSINESS
·
Ms. Maniscalco
was interested in attending a seminar run by the Citizen’s Training
Collaborative on planning. She asked if
there were funds in the budget to cover this, and Mr. Solomon said there was.
·
The Minutes of
the February 23, 2005, meeting were reviewed and accepted with corrections.
·
The following
votes were taken on the Board’s proposed zoning changes:
---Changes to the CSD, Sect. 4367. Mr. Cohen moved to recommend that this
article be presented to Town Meeting for action. Seconded by Ms. Maniscalco and unanimously
voted.
---Modifications to the MUOD by-law. Mr. Cohen moved to recommend that this
article be presented to Town Meeting for action. Seconded by Ms. Maniscalco and unanimously
voted.
---Modifications to Section 2323. Mr. Cohen moved to recommend that this
article be presented to Town Meeting for action. Seconded by Ms. Maniscalco and unanimously
voted.
---The Board was going to further review the proposed
deletion of the flexible by-law prior to action.
IV. There
being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at