Minutes of Planning Board March 7, 2006
Present at the meeting were Donald
Anderson, Chair, Michael Przybylowicz, Clerk, Thomas Morrissette and
Public Hearing – Special Permit
for Anthony Fazio – Section 6 – 67 Alpine Street
The Chair, Donald Anderson
welcomed the petitioners and introduced the members of the Board. Mr. Anderson then explained the procedure and
rules for the public hearing. Clerk,
Michael Przybylowicz, read the legal notice into the record. There were no reports from any other
departments for this project. Mr.
Anderson then welcomed Anthony Fazio and asked that he present his proposal to
the Board.
Mr. Fazio explained to the members
that he was proposing to construct and alter a pre-existing, non-conforming
structure in a residential C zone, located at 67 Alpine Avenue. Specifically, Mr. Fazio explained that he
would like to add a family room (16’ x 16’) and garage (30’ x 26’) to the
existing structure at this site. He
explained that the pre-existing, non-conformity was not only the size of the
lot, but the rear yard setback. He also
explained that he would not be creating any new Zoning infractions.
At this time, the chair opened the
hearing up to the public for comment. Ms.
Lynn Vinelobal of
Public Hearing: Premier Source – Site Plan Review – 232 North
Main Street
Mr. Anderson welcomed the
petitioners and, not needing to repeat the procedure or the introductions,
asked the Clerk to read the legal notice into the record. At that time, Michael Przybylowicz did so as
well as reading the recommendations from the police, fire and department of
public works. The recommendations from
the police department were as follows:
a. Lighting be installed in the parking lot areas to improve
the safety at the site for pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic and to reduce
the potential for criminal activity.
b. Lighting be installed at each of the entrance/exit doorways
for the building to assist officers checking the building during nighttime
hours and to reduce the potential for criminal activity at the site.
c. Any signage installed at the site be positioned so as not
to impede vehicle operator’s visibility when entering or exiting the site, and
approved by the Planning Board.
d. All plantings shall be so located that they do not
interfere with visibility of vehicular traffic entering or exiting the site.
e. A center line be installed on the access/egress driveway.
f.
“Do Not Enter” signs
shall be placed to notify vehicle operators not to enter the drive-through area
in the wrong direction.
g. “Stop” signs shall be installed at the end of the
drive-through area where vehicles are exiting into the parking lot.
h. A sidewalk shall be installed to connect the second rear
entrance of the building with the parking lot sidewalk.
The fire department had no
recommendations as the plan met with all of the department’s requirements, the
building inspector had no recommendations as he was satisfied with the plan,
and the department of public works was satisfied with the plan.
Gary Weiner, Civil Engineer for
Ectoec, and engineer of record, explained that most of the recommendations from
all the departments had been met and were reflected on the plan. Mr.
Weiner further stated that the only issue was the size of the parking spaces
and those were measured the required 180 square feet, however, they were
measuring 10’ x 18 ‘ instead. He asked
the Board if they would approve this design.
Ms. Richards stated as did Mr.
Morrissette that the size of the spaces on the plan did not meet the parking
standards of the by law and that Mr. Weiner would have to re-design the plan to
provide for spaces measuring 9’ x 20’.
Mr. Weiner reminded the Board that at a previous hearing they had
granted the petitioner’s request for waiver of traffic study and the Board
agreed that the use as proposed would not impose any hardship on this travel
corridor.
Mr. Weiner then continued with his
presentation explaining the traffic flow on the property, the setbacks of the
building, and the drainage plans for the site.
At this time, Mr. Weiner suggested that the hearing be continued to
allow the applicants the opportunity to attempt a re-design of the site to
accomplish the task of creating the proper number of space in the proper
size. The Board agreed unanimously and
continued the hearing to March 21, 2006 at 6:15 p.m.
Public Hearing – Currey Barndaw
– Special Permit & Subdivision Approval –
Again the Chair waived the
procedure requirements and introduction of the Board members. Michael Przybylowicz, Clerk, read the legal
notice into the record as well as reports and recommendations from the police
department which were as follows:
a.
lighting to be
installed in the parking areas to improve the safety for pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and reduce the potential for criminal activity.
b.
Lighting be installed
at all exterior entrances/exits to assist officers patrolling the site during
nighttime hours and to improve emergency response.
c.
Signage be installed
at the site set back from the roadway so as not to interfere with the
visibility of vehicle operators entering or exiting the site.
d.
The access road to
terminate in a cul-de-sac.
e.
Sidewalks to be
installed and marked crosswalks to be provided to improve pedestrian safety at
the site.
f.
Any plantings be
positioned so as not to interfere with visibility of motor vehicle operators.
The fire department and the
department of public works have not reported their recommendations at this
time.
Ms. LeClerc explained the intent
of the project and asked that the engineer Jeff LeBeau explain some of the
drainage issues. Ms. Richards asked the
petitioner when the plan turned into a three lot subdivision and Mr.
Morrissette stated that he would like that answer also. Ms. LeClerc explained that the property was
being divided so as to make the financing easier on the corporation and that
she thought by creating a subdivision, they would be required to make the
roadway a public way. Mr. Anderson
explained that did not have to be the case and the Planning Board was not
interested in having the town maintain such a type of roadway. Ms. Richards also stated that she was not in
favor of a subdivision and that at the informal meeting, Ms. LeClerc had not
proposed such. Ms. LeClerc reiterated
the fact that the plan had been changed prior to submittal, however, the division
of the property is a necessary thing.
Attorney Mirkin explained that the
new proposal was for the construction of approximately 130 units. At this time, Ms. Richards felt it necessary
to disclose that she had a son who currently works with the engineering
company. She further explained that he
works out of the Worcester Office and is not involved in this project. The petitioner thanked her for the disclosure
and stated that the applicant would have no problem with Ms. Richards
participating in the decision.
Mr.
Morrissette also made a disclosure that he had a prior business relationship
with Jeff Lebeau, but that relationship had ended.
At this time, Attorney Mirkin requested
the hearing be continued to allow the applicants to think over and better
present their project. He continued by
stating that they would review the roadway and see if they could come up with a
better design for it and a way to keep it private. All parties agreed.
Mr. Anderson asked the Board
members who, upon motion duly made and seconded, voted to continue the public
hearing until April 4th at 6:30 p.m. at which time they would
address the issues once again.
FYE Signage –
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, unanimously (4-0) voted to GRANT the applicant FYE Music & Movies’ signage that was so presented with regard to the directory
signage. The Board allowed the directory sign, showing that the area and size
thereof is equal in size to the existing
tenants on the directory, conditioned upon approval by the Building Inspector
and that the sign contains no LED lighting.
At this time, the Board discussed
the evaluation of
There being no further business,
the Board voted 4-0 to close the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Very
truly yours,
Michael
S. Przybylowicz, Clerk