TOWN OF
PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of a
Meeting of the Planning Board held on
PRESENT:
ELI HAUSER, VICE CHAIR
WAYNE BRADLEY, CLERK
PAUL LAUENSTEIN
PETER O’CAIN, ASST. TOWN ENGINEER
Business
Transacted:
I. Meeting called to order. The Minutes of the October 5, 2005, meeting were reviewed and accepted with corrections.
FORM A PLANS
None.
SIGN REVIEW
None.
II.
DISCUSSION
AND VOTE ON BOARD OF HEALTH PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGES
Ms. Susan Peck, on behalf of the Board of Health, came in to discuss these changes with the Planning Board. She started with Sect. 4815, which calls for changes in the MUOD by-law. Mr. Cohen said that his main concern was with the amount of density allowed. A developer will build to the maximum density that he is allowed unless there are constraints. It may be in the Board’s best interests to limit density but retain the flexibility to do something with it.
____________________________
Administrative Assistant
Planning Board Minutes Page 2 October 26, 2005
Mr. Cohen was concerned that the Town could lose some of the points it was awarded under the HPP if it lowered the density requirement. Mr. O’Cain answered that in theory that could happen, as the State ties the grant money into the Commonwealth Capital Fund. Mr. Cohen said that it was his sense that unless something radical happens with septic, no one is going to build anything in the center of Town. The only plus is that we will get the points for having the 20 in the by-law.
Mr. Bradley suggested leaving the 20 unit minimum density with the caveat that the property has to access a community sewer. The Board members thought this was a good idea and should be added to the by-law.
Mr. Cohen said that he didn’t think the Board should amend the by-law unless there was a real purpose for doing so. Mr. Lauenstein agreed with this. Mr. Hauser stated that he understood the purpose of this change was to give more explicit powers to the Board of Health (“B/H”) and Conservation Commission (ConCom). Ms. Peck agreed, adding that it gives those Boards the power to ask more questions regarding environmental impacts and air quality.
Ms. Maniscalco said
that the purpose of the MUOD was to promote economic development in the downtown
area, to provide more affordable housing and promote a walking environment to
Mr. Cohen suggested
that perhaps the Board should put these by-law changes aside until a Planner
was hired, because this might be the type of thing that a planner would be
responsible for. Ms. Maniscalco answered
that a Planner would not be involved in zoning changes, but would offer his
expertise in dealing with subdivisions, help in analyzing what a developer
presents.
Planning Board Minutes Page Three October 26, 2005
Sect. 4855: Mr. Cohen said that the language in this section was not clear – it did not state what permits or orders would be required. Ms. Peck said that she had a regulatory lawyer draft this language, and that is what the DEP also uses. Mr. Cohen suggested the language specifically state that the BH and ConCom have certain authority but that that authority does not supercede the authority of the Planning Board. There was some question as to who should be the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA), the Planning Board or the ZBA. When the article was first written, the SPGA authority was given to the Planning Board. Selectman Grasfield indicated that at the last Finance committee meeting there was discussion about the CSD and the SPGA issue. The Finance Committee made a motion to oppose these changes specifically because it did not specify the ZBA as a check system for a Special Permit. Mr. Lauenstein added that it was his opinion that the ZBA should be the SPGA but realized it was beyond the scope of these discussions.
Sect. 4630. The changes to this section give the BH authority to look at other water issues other than just wastewater. Mr. Cohen explained that if a developer is looking at building a CSD instead of a conventional subdivision, he will have to be more involved with the BH, making it a more involved process. If he goes the conventional subdivision route, the BH does not get involved. The CSD places the houses closer together giving the Town more open space. So, first of all, this seems to be discouraging developers from building a CSD. And secondly, if the BH did have more authority, they could say that they do not approve the subdivision because of the air quality. Ms. Peck answered that the CSD affords considerably more houses than a conventional subdivision would. In a conventional subdivision, there could be lots that are unbuildable but in a CSD, those lots might count towards the increase in density. So you have to push the envelope for a CSD for things you may not need in a conventional where the houses are more spaced out.
Sect. 4631. The Board informed Ms. Peck that it was not comfortable with the words “unacceptable threat” as it was too broad. After discussion, it was decided to change those words to “unreasonably detrimental impact” in this section. Also, the last paragraph was deleted and replaced with “The Board of Health and Conservation Commission shall base their written determination
Planning Board Minutes Page Four October 26, 2005
upon consultation with the Water Management Advisory Committee, the Lake Management Committee and other relevant boards and committees, receipt of
materials submitted by the applicant, Town employees and consultants, as the Board of Health and Conservation Commission deem appropriate.”
Ms. Maniscalco then asked for comments from the Board prior to voting on the changes. She spoke first, saying that she remained in favor of the MUOD as it will contribute to the ongoing desire to reclaim the downtown area and keep economic development there a high priority. At the same time, it would be working within the bounds of the smart growth policy for the Town, providing affordable housing, access to downtown stores, and the ability to walk to the train station. She encouraged the Board to find ways to strengthen the MUOD and support these changes.
Mr. Cohen said that in Sect. 4855 he was not comfortable with the proposed change in density. There didn’t seem to be any immediate reason to make this change. He wasn’t sure if the Town wouldn’t be giving up more benefits than what it would gain from the State. He didn’t think this is something the Town needs to do at this point. Mr. Hauser said that since the BH has indicated that 20 units per acre won’t happen without some septic improvements, so there was no reason to change the requirement. Mr. Bradley commented that the Board should not write by-laws to accommodate State policy programs. The Board needs to write its bylaws to fit and protect the Town we live in and build the Town in the fashion we want to see it built.
Mr. Hauser moved to endorse the modifications to the MUOD as drafted by the BH and as amended at tonight’s meeting. Seconded by Mr. Bradley. Voted: 3 in favor (Messrs. Bradley, Hauser, Ms. Maniscalco); 2 opposed (Messrs. Cohen, Lauenstein).
Comments on the CSD:
Mr. Hauser asked if the Board could address and vote on each section separately. He was not comfortable with the proposed language in #5(a) constraining the flexibility of the Planning Board. Ms. Maniscalco thought it would be easier to just vote on the entire package.
Planning Board Minutes Page Five October 26, 2005
Mr. Cohen wanted to thank Ms. Peck for the great amount of work she had done regarding these changes. However, he thought there was a misconception about the CSD. It has become associated solely with Hunter’s Ridge and everyone is looking to change the by-law because of what happened there. The Board has already made changes to the by-law so that Hunter’s Ridge does not happen again. One other change he thought the Board could make was to restrict the amount of bonus units in areas with half acre zoning to eliminate density concerns. However, a lot of the changes proposed by the BH make the CSD so complicated that there is no reason why a developer would consider building under the CSD when they would have to go through all these extra hoops that the BH is proposing. The CSD is a good thing for the Town and you don’t want to discourage it. Mr. Cohen agrees that there could be improvements still made to the CSD, but they shouldn’t be made piecemeal. Another thing to consider is what effect this could have on Rattlesnake Hill if the by-law changes are enacted. Mr. Cohen felt these changes would weaken and defeat the whole purpose of the CSD by-law.
Mr. Hauser said that one of the assertions you put on the table is that the requirements for a CSD should be the same as a conventional subdivision. If the Board follows the logic of this proposal, then why is the BH not putting the same language in the by-laws for a conventional subdivision. The CSD should not be more burdensome than a conventional. A lot of things that Mr. Cohen said has merit.
Mr. Bradley felt that age qualified housing will wind up being a burden for the Town – you need to design a product that will be suitable to age qualified folks and meet the requirements that they would have. When you start prescribing who will use the premises you are creating short term fixes. At this time you are dealing with the baby boom bubble. These age qualified projects are being built across the State at an enormous pace. What happens when they are in nursing homes? The Town will have to make decisions what to do with the age qualified homes or the Town will be sitting on empty houses. What the BH is
Planning Board Minutes Page Six October 26, 2005
proposing should be explicit as to their powers. What they are proposing may grant them a little more authority or leeway, but they are not asking for anything that is bad or the Board should be afraid of. If they find huge issues at Rattlesnake Hill, then the Planning Board should consider those impacts as well. He does not have a problem with there being authority spread out. The CSD is a viable tool and could be effective but there are no safeguards in place to assure that it is not being misused. He agrees with Mr. Cohen that are still things that need fixing beyond what the BH has proposed, such as high density areas, larger buffers and bonuses. The way it is written now it does not do what a CSD is supposed to – conserve open space. Looking towards the future, he would like to see the CSD require that homes be clustered toward the center of a site. He does like some of the things the BH has proposed and would be in favor of supporting those changes.
Mr. Lauenstein said that he was concerned as to what impact these changes would have on Rattlesnake Hill. He said the language in the CSD was adequate, but perhaps lacked some enforcement and he thought that was the main problem with the CSD. He felt the powers afforded to the BH and ConCom already exist and would not be changed by this language. He was inclined to vote against the proposed changes.
Ms. Maniscalco said that she didn’t see anything in the proposed changes that would have a huge effect on Rattlesnake Hill. The CSD still remains economically viable for a developer. She agrees with Messrs. Cohen and Bradley that there is still a lot of work that needs to be done on the CSD. However, she was not uncomfortable doing this in a piecemeal fashion. You need to keep tweaking as new truths are revealed. It is not a bad thing to make it clearer as situations arise. The more the BH and ConCom are involved in this Town, the better. She did not think there has been a horrible breach in the enforcement of the by-laws, nor was it germane to this discussion. She believed the Planning Board gives the Town confidence that it is trying to pull everything together to make this CSD work. She would be in favor of supporting the BH’s proposed changes.
Planning Board Minutes Page Seven October 26, 2005
Mr. Bradley then moved to recommend that Town Meeting favorably vote on the changes proposed for the CSD by-law as drafted by the BH and amended by the Planning Board. There was no second on the motion.
Mr. Cohen then moved to recommend to Town Meeting to indefinitely postpone action on the proposed changes to the CSD by-law as drafted by the BH. Seconded by Mr. Lauenstein. Voted: Two in favor (Messrs. Cohen, Lauenstein),
Two opposed (Ms. Maniscalco, Mr. Bradley), One abstained (Mr. Hauser).
Since that motion did not pass, Ms Maniscalco asked if there was a second on Mr. Bradley’s motion. There was not.
Ms. Peck asked to further comment. She said she disagreed with the contention that these changes would give the BH and ConCom authority it already has. These changes would give those boards the authority to seek additional information and make a decision on the new information, as well as giving them and the Planning Board the mechanism to share information.
Mr. Hauser then moved to recommend that Town Meeting vote favorably on the proposed changes to the CSD by-law by the BH, subject to individual votes on the four sections. Seconded by Mr. Bradley. Voted: 3 in favor, 2 opposed (Messrs. Cohen and Lauenstein).
Mr. Hauser moved to endorse the changes proposed to Sect. 4631 as amended, seconded by Mr. Bradley. Voted: 3 in favor; 2 opposed (Messrs. Cohen and Lauenstein).
Mr. Hauser moved to endorse the changes proposed to Sect. 4364 as amended.
Seconded by Mr. Bradley. Voted: 3 in favor; 2 opposed (Messrs. Cohen and Lauenstein).
Mr. Bradley moved to endorse the changes proposed to Sect. 4369 as amended. Seconded by Mr. Lauenstein. Voted: 3 in favor; 2 opposed (Mr. Cohen, Mr. Hauser).
Planning Board Minutes Page Eight October 26, 2005
Mr. Bradley moved to endorse the changes proposed to Sect. 4370 as amended. Seconded by Mr. Lauenstein. Voted: 3 in favor; one opposed (Mr. Cohen); one abstained (Mr. Hauser).
III. OTHER BUSINESS
§
Ms. Maniscalco asked the Board to think about
changing the meeting schedule, due to the huge amount of outstanding issues. She suggested the Board meet every week
instead of every other. This issue would
be discussed at the next meeting.
§
Mr. Cohen said that the Board should review and
discuss the question of whether there had been violations of the special permit
approval regarding Hunter’s Ridge. He
had spoken with Town Counsel about this subdivision, to find out if the Board
needed to discuss issues relating to the subdivision in Executive Session or
not. It was Town Counsel’s opinion that
the Board should discuss all issues relating to Hunter’s Ridge in Executive
Session because it might have an impact on present or future litigation. The Board asked Mr. Bradley to speak with
Town Counsel and find out if he would be able to participate in any sessions
regarding that subdivision.
IV.
There being no further business before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned at