Minutes of August 22, 2006
Present
were: Louis Calabrese, Chair; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chair; Donald Anderson,
Clerk, Thomas Morrissette and Michael Przybylowicz.
Present for this meeting were the
members of the Board of Public Works; John Maybury, Dan Burack, Michael Perkins
together with David Gromaski, Superintendent and Attorney James Donahue. Mr. Calabrese, Chair said that he was not
sure what the issue was because he was away, he asked if it had something to do
with the bond? Mr. Anderson said that
Attorney Donahue has made an attempt to secure the bond and he and the bonding
company are in disagreement about timely filing. In addition, Mr. Anderson continued, the
situation on the street is getting worse and the DPW cannot enter the property because
it is private.
Mr. Burack, a member of the Board
of Public Works explained that the Board members had met with and explained to
Mr. Sweeney that the DPW was willing to work with him and the neighborhood,
however, the homeowners would have to contribute money to a fund to bring the
roadway up to town standards. At that
time, Mr. Burack continued, the DPW will do the repairs and ask that the town take
it. Mr. Burack said that they would
assist in whatever way they could but the homeowners would have to fund the entire
project.
Mr. Anderson asked if the Planning
Board did do something, would there be some type of way to get some type of subrogation
against the insurance company or try to get something done? He said the developer came to the town and at
that time insurance bonds where excepted and the whole purpose is a safety net
and because of this situation cash bonds are only being excepted.
Mr. Calabrese said that maybe
Attorney Donahue could advise the Board as to what to expect. Attorney Donahue said if the Board wanted to
discuss where we stand with the bond he would ask if they move to go into
executive session and return to regular session. Upon motion duly made and seconded the Board
voted to go into executive session and return to regular session – voting: Marilyn Richards, yes; Thomas Morrissette,
yes; Michael Przybylowicz, yes; Donald Anderson, yes; Louis Calabrese, yes.
Executive Session
Return Back to Regular Session:
Mr. & Mrs. Sweeney of
Mr. Sweeney asked what was the
worst case scenario? Mr. Anderson said
to try and get all of the neighbors and friends together and make sure that
they are registered voters. Mr. Anderson
said there will be two articles and they need a 50% vote of all in attendance
at town meeting and they have to call a Special Town Meeting and if it does not
pass they would have to go back to discussions.
Attorney Donahue said the worst
case scenario would be that nothing gets done and the street just deteriorates
until some source is found to repair it.
He said middle ground scenario would be to petition the town to improve
a private way, which would mean that the town would appropriate the money, and pave
the street, but they would assess betterments against the abutting property
owners for a portion of or all the cost of repairing the street. Mr. Sweeney said that is not acceptable.
Ms. Richards told Mr. Sweeney that
she also thinks that it is important that he realize that the circumstances are
unique surrounding this particular development.
Mr. Sweeney said that he could understand the town’s position and if
there was not a bond in place he would not be wasting his time. Ms. Richards said as she was trying to say
that it is a unique situation and that they are focusing on the road because
that clearly is the issue at hand, especially the public safety issue. Further, she said that the issue of the
sidewalks and a waiver thereof, it is important that Mr. Sweeney understand
that the Board has not changed it’s position on requiring the developer to provide
sidewalks, the developer is no longer involved, the town is involved and we are
looking at it from a different prospective, but our philosophy is still the
same with respect to sidewalks. She said
just so that we would know that they are not going to leave it up for other
people to come to the Board and tell us that they do not want their sidewalks. Mr. Sweeney said he could understand and he is
happy and wants to be contacted when the meeting will take place. Ms. Macdonald said it that it would take
awhile because there is a lot of documentation that she needs to put together
and then everyone has to approve it; and,
as Mr. Calabrese said, we have to get the Selectmen involved and we have to
make sure that we can arrange a Special Town Meeting.
Jessica Allen regarding the
inclusionary Zoning & Valley Vision
The Board welcomed Ms. Allen who
explained that the last time she met with the Board they requested more
information which she sent to them. She
asked the members if they had any questions or comments regarding the by-law - whether
it is something that the Board really wants to push for or whether they think
that it is too complex?
Mr.
Przybylowicz asked Ms. Allen if most of the communities in
Ms.
Richards said
Ms.
Richards feels that it is a good deal, but is not sure how they could propose
it to be fair to the property owners and asked how do they meet a happy medium where
the developer does not feel like he is being put in a awkward spot because town
needs to meet this requirement? Ms.
Allen explained the way that the by-law addresses it is to provide the
developer with the ability to have a density bonus or have the FAR bonus which
is the four area requirements allowing some units to be bigger in size then
other units. She said they would be able
to make more money on those other units to compensate for the affordable units
they need to construct. Ms. Allen said
that
She also explained that instead of the units actually being
constructed, the developer can deposit money in the amount that those units
would cost with the town for use on other projects. Mr. Calabrese asked who would administer the
funds? Ms. Allen said that is where it
gets complicated. She said that a
housing trust needs to be established in town and that trust would be
responsible for the accounting. She
believes an affordable housing committee needs to be established that would
make recommendations on where the CPA funds could be spent.
Mr.
Calabrese asked if the housing partnership would be viable group to administer
the account? Ms. Allen said she would
think that would be a good place to start.
He asked if it was 80% of the income that determines what they can pay
for the house? Ms. Allen said yes and
it’s 30% of their 80% because it cannot be more than 30% of what their income
is. Mr. Calabrese asked if the money in
such a fund could be used to purchase existing homes and then converted to
affordable units? Ms. Allen said she did
not see why not. She said if they did not
want to establish a housing fund in town an account could be established and
then that money could be appropriated through your Town Meetings process.
Mr.
Anderson said that since the housing could be rental, if the town started
buying up houses, kept the houses as assets and rented them as affordable
housing - would that still keep them in the 10%? Ms. Allen said that is where it gets
complicated and she thinks it has to be a new house or rehabbed house that
qualifies under that 7%. Mr. Anderson asked
what the definition is of a re-hab? Ms. Allen said you go in and rehabilitate it
in its’ entirety.
Mr. Calabrese asked the Board what
their feelings were about having the
developer contribute to a fund as opposed to including a certain number of
homes in a development? Mr. Morrissette
said he does not like forcing a developer to do this type of a development. He said if they had to make it mandatory and
there was no contribution then he would vote against it. Mr. Przybylowicz said the same thing but it sounds like they
have to give him the opportunity to build the houses if they choose.
Mr.
Calabrese asked Ms. Allen if that was the way it worked? Ms. Allen said it is an either or, and it is
set up by a certain threshold and any development over 10 units.
Ms.
Richards said she has been in agreement all along, it’s a little complicated
with respect to maybe restructuring some of the leadership. She would much rather have the town be
involved in making the decision then being forced to except something because
we do not meet a certain percentage. Mr.
Anderson said he agreed with the thoughts.
Ms.
Allen said this would the chance to keep housing in town for people who want to
stay here who might not be able to afford the $210,000 home, do not just look
at it as a regulatory thing but think about the people in your town that want
to stay here but they are being forced out because they cannot afford a home
here anymore.
Mr. Anderson said he had a
question about 1.73 and the affordable housing trust definition on page 2. He said they talk about cash or land, he
thinks they need to flush out the land requirements. Ms. Allen said that is something they could
put in if that is something they are concerned with. Ms. Macdonald said also people who want to
donate conservation land have to go through a whole gamut and have it approved
by the Conservation Commission, wetland areas just cannot be given to the town without
meeting the prerequisites.
Mr. Morrissette asked, with the
exception of the 10% what is the benefit to the community? Mr. Calabrese said he would want to say that
affordable housing is being created for people who may have grown up here and
want to come back here and buy a home.
Mr. Morrissette asked if someone
is going to build 25 houses and 5 of them are going to be set aside as
affordable, and instead they give us cash for those 5 house would the developer
then go ahead and build them at regular market rate? Ms. Allen said no they either build the
houses or give you the money, they would not be allowed to do both. She said they either buy 5 houses, you get
affordable units, they get more money because there are more units on the land
then what is allowed by zoning. Mr. Morrissette said they get more money but
they lost money on the 5 lots. Ms. Allen
said that was the idea that it is a wash and whatever makes sense for your
community for any development over 10 units that it kicks in.
Mr. Calabrese asked Ms. Allen if the
homes that will be the affordable homes could they be designated for families
of 4 or more. Ms. Allen said she did not
think that could be done. Mr. Calabrese
said he was asking because if they have families of 4 they can make more money
and it would allow more people to qualify.
Ms. Allen said that they have a chart where it depends on the number of
people in the household. Mr. Calabrese
said that was what he was saying and they can afford to spend more for a home
by having 2 kids. Ms. Allen said then
they would qualify on their own because the house would be marketed at a
specific rate and you can either qualify or you cannot. Ms. Allen said one of the regulations she saw
had three different categories, very
low, low and moderate and moderate was considered from 80 to 120% of the
household income.
Mr. Calabrese said that he would
like Ms. Allen to come back and discuss it further. Ms. Allen said that she was close to running
out of hours on grant project at this point, so there needed to be some serious
work happening in the next couple of weeks.
She said that she cannot keep coming back for discussions.
Ms. Allen said she just wanted to
make that the Board wanted to continue moving forward on the by-law because she
senses different opinions. Ms. Macdoanld
asked what the time line was on the grant because they are so close. Ms. Macdonald also said with all respect to
Ms. Allen rather than overextend herself to meet the time line for the grant, perhaps
it would be better if the Board members continued to work on it but take the
opportunity for another grant if and when one is offered again in the near
future? Ms. Allen agreed.
Mr. Calabese said that he just had
one more question which was could it be something that they could do where it
is not mandatory for a developer to have to do something like this? He asked is it something they could offer the
developer an opportunity to create some affordable housing by giving them a
density bonus. Ms. Allen said sure.
Mr. Morrissette said that the
Board tried this before and Leslie Fradette got trashed at Town Meeting and we
also tried the cluster zoning and the town did not approve. Mr. Calabrese said that it would be similar
to Benton Estates but we would set the parameters for what they have to do. Ms. Allen said theoretically they are talking
about a friendly 40B project which is already happening.
Mr. Anderson said he would like to
follow up with it, whether it is under this grant or a future one. Ms. Allen said the best thing for them to do
is to table it for now since she has very limited time left. She said she could answer questions from the
office so if you have specific questions give them Ms. Macdonald and she could
forward them to her and she will get them back to Ms. Macdonald. Ms. Allen said what the state envisions that you take the by-law and pass it at Town
Meeting, so if that is not going to
happen there is no point on killing ourselves to do that. She recommends trying, at some point, to do
an affordability plan for your community if you do not already have one.
The Board members thanked Ms.
Allen for her time and efforts.
Attorney Larry Levine informal discussion
re: DeNardo’s Restaurant
The chair welcomed Attorney Levine
who explained that he was present on behalf of the DeNardo family who have been
long time residents of the town as well as long time proprietors of their
restaurant on
Attorney Levine continued by
stating that what they have is a conceptual plan with an architectural
rendering to show them and asked if the members would have any issues with
regard to the construction of a building at this location. Attorney Levine said they do not need to know
the answers that evening but maybe in the next couple of weeks the members
could think about the plan. He said he
brought a plan showing the conditions as they exist and a first conceptual plan
knowing they have some work to do both in engineering and wetlands
determinations. He said most of the
building (3,600 sq. ft.) would be used for the restaurant with a very small
portion of it to use for retail space – that it is zoned industrial with one
access point for entering and one for exiting the property.
Ms. Richards asked if the parcel
was level? Attorney Levine said that it
was same slope as the bike shop. Mr.
Morrissette asked if it was going to be a new building? Attorney Levine said that their intention is
to demolish the existing building and construct a new building. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the business would be any
different then what it was currently?
Attorney Levine said no difference, except possibly for some retail.
Ms.
Richards said that there is no restriction for the zone to have the combined
uses and the issue would be the safety of getting on and off the property and
having the amount of parking to satisfy the uses if they existed separately. Ms.
Macdonald said she had mentioned to Attorney Levine that she thought that the
biggest concern with the Police and Fire with regard to the one way in and one
way out. She said that is was strictly
conceptual and there are places that are one way in and one way out and as long
as there is a good turn around area the Fire Department does not have a problem
with 3-story building as long as they
can get to back of the building.
Mr. Morrissette wanted to make
sure that the number of parking spaces is based on the square footage and use
of restaurant. Attorney Levine said that
the number of spaces shown on the plan meet the current requirements.
Mr. Calabrese said he did not see
a problem and if they had to condense it down a little that would be the worst
case scenario and as long as traffic flow works. Attorney Levine said if the
Board could think about it and if they see anything they would like to mention
to them please do so. Mr. Morrissette
said he did not feel that there was anything that would stop the concept at
this time. Mr. Przybylowicz said that he
agreed that it looks like a fairly straight forward proposal.
Mr. Calabrese
asked what the timeline was for the project to happen? Attorney Levine said it could be as much as 2
years. Mr. Calabrese asked if that was
because of the people occupying it now?
Attorney Levine said that it was vacant now. Mr. DeNardo said he still has a lease at his
current location and he had to deal with that first. The Board thanked Attorney Levine and Mr.
DeNardo and wished them well.
Public Hearing Ron Bretta –
Site Plan Review,
Mr. Morrissette recused himself
due to a potential conflict of interest.
Clerk, Donald Anderson read the
legal notice into the record and said that the hearing was continued on request
of the petitioner to the present date. He
read a letter from
1.
Calculations must be
provided showing that any proposed discharge of stormwater into to the municipal system on
2. A full operations and maintenance manual for the stormwater
system must be submitted for review to the DPW.
This is particularly important regarding the proposed Cultec Stromwater
Chamber as this is new technology for the town of
3. Water and sanitary sewer connection points need to be
clarified
The Board of Selectmen wrote that they
reviewed the subject plan and together with reports from the Police and Fire
Department voted to recommend its approval.
The Fire Department is requiring
that the alley between the new building and the existing building at
1. The surface shall be cleared of any vegetation and either
paved or cover with trap rock to prevent future growth of vegetation.
2. Install a gated see through fence at both ends of the
alley.
The Police recommended:
1. Exterior lighting be installed to illuminate the parking
lot to improve the safety at the site for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
2. Exterior lighting be installed to any of the entrances to
the building to assist officers during their patrol of the site and to reduce
the potential for criminal activity.
3. Exterior lighting be installed to illuminate the are
between the proposed building and the existing building at
4. Applicant submit traffic information once a determination
has been made on the proposed use of the site.
5. Parking Spaces numbered 11,12 and 13 be limited to employee
parking due to lack of visibility exiting the spaces
At that time, Chair Louis
Calabrese introduced the Board members and welcomed the petitioner. Steve D’Ambrosio, Civil Engineer and Ron
Bretta were present. Mr. D’Ambrosio
explained that the lot is zoned business, the proposed use is retail and the
size of the proposed building is 2,160 square feet with 13 parking spaces as
required. He showed that a double catch
basin would be located in the northern part of the parking lot and the sewer is
proposed to connect to an existing manhole on
Mr. D’Ambrosio said there is some
concern about the alley-way between the two buildings and they are proposing to
pave or use gravel so that there will not be any growth in-between the buildings
and they are proposing a gated, chain link fence, one at each end of the alley-way. He said the eastern wall of the building will
be fire rated and parking spaces 11, 12 and 13 are now designated as employee
parking.
Mr. D’Ambrosio said that 4 lights
have been added , 2 in the front, 2 in the back and in the alley-way itself
they are proposing pack lights. He then asked
the Board for any questions.
Ms. Richards asked where the 3
parking spaces concerning the police department were? Mr. D’Ambrosio pointed them out on the plan
and said that spaces 11 & 12 are actually on the north side of the street
and they are proposing a parking easement deeded with that property so that the
proposed building will be able to use those spaces. Ms. Macdonald said that Mr. Bretta owns both
parcels.
Ms. Richards asked the use of the
existing building on
Mr.
Przybylowicz asked how many employees are in his existing business and how many
cars do you work on at a time? Mr.
Bretta said just himself and on average it is about 5 or 6 cars daily. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if he turned them over everyday? Mr.
Bretta said yes, with nothing stored overnight in front of the building. Mr. Przybylowicz asked Mr. Bretta if he lived
near enough by to walk to work? Mr.
Bretta said no that he lives on the end of town and drives to work. Mr. Przybylowicz said he would need to park
his car there, so knowing that you could have as many as 5 cars being repaired
and you have 1 car that is occupying a space that only leaves you 2 spaces
available for customers and asked if that would be enough. Mr. Bretta said he has room and that there
really is no parking problem at all.
Ms. Richards said the report from
the Police Department regarding those 3 parking spaces, stated that they would
have to be designed employee parking because of the visibility. Mr. D’Ambrosio said yes there is a visibility
problem.
At that time Mr. Calabrese
addressed the audience for any questions.
Ron Cutler, 35 Dorset Street which is across the street from Bretta Automotive said just
so that the Board is clear on what Ron wants to do is to use his current part
of his auto business to add parking. He
said if he did not use the auto company lot would that be sufficient for the
parking spaces 11, 12 & 13? He added
that is kind of having the luxury of owning the property next to it to say ok I
have 13 spaces because he is going to ask for a parking easement.
Kathy Cutler, 35 Dorset Street said that her only concern is access to
Mr. Bretta said that the 3 spaces
will be only designated employee parking spaces and actually 2 spaces is all that
is needed. He said in the event he rents
as an office space he would only need 11 parking spaces however, he wants to
keep the retail option open and if that were to be the use, he would need those
extra spaces. He cannot see why the 2
parking spaces would cause any problem on
Mr.
Przybylowicz asked if he intends to fence off the 2 parking spaces or leave
them open? Mr. Bretta said that they
would remain open.
Mr. Cutler
said that made him a little nervous because of the Meadows across the way -you
can cut through the back of the Meadows and get onto the adjacent street. He said if it is not blocked off people are
going to cut across and now there will be late night people parking behind the
building. Mr. D’Ambrosio said that it would blocked off so no one could cut
through.
Ms. Macdonald said she would like
to show the plan to Rick Bates and
Jim Walsh, Baystate Environmental
asked the Board if they were saying they cannot approve the site plan until
they have the building rented? Mr.
Anderson explained that they are setting up as retail and building it to a
retail standard - the more aggressive approach which is the smarter approach,
you can always back it away as opposed to going forward. He said now that has been put on paper we
need the safety officers to say that they are happy and we would be voting on
something that says it is incomplete.
Mr. Walsh said then they do not need a specific retail use, Ms.
Macdonald said no just the difference between retail and office. Ms. Macdonald said by them reviewing it again
with retail in mind they will give the strictest recommendations, so that you
are safe either way because if you go to
the office use it is less.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to continue the hearing until
September 5th at 6:30 p.m.
Spoleto’s signage request
Bill Collins from Spoleto’s said
that the color renderings have been submitted for 2 window signs and 2 building
signs. He said that the signs would
have posts that would stick them off the wall so there will be somewhat of a
shadow. Mr. Anderson asked how deep the
post would be? Mr. Collins said his
guess would be 2” but he is not sure and the sign facing Crane Avenue is
different because they did not want to remove the dental work molding that the
Falcone’s had installed.
Ms. Richards asked if the
configuration changed the measurements.
Ms. Macdonald said that it is measured in a square from the very top. Mr. Collins said that sign colors are red and
eggplant and a little color would be a little nice. Mr. Collins asked if this project is approved
with the Board what is the next step? Ms.
Macdonald explained that she writes a decision and gives it to the Building
Inspector and he would have to pay the fee.
Upon motion duly made and seconded,
the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve a total of 4 signs subject to obtaining
a sign permit from the Building Inspector.
Great Woods X
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted to release the subdivision covenant in lieu of bond
for Great Woods X in the amount of $129,081.60.
Miscellaneous
Ms. Macdonald spoke with the
members regarding
Ms. Macdonald informed the Board
that the “Ground Breaking Ceremony” for Benton
Professional Partners will be on Thursday at 3:00 pm.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – Longevity Bodywraps & Massages,
Clerk, Donald Anderson read a Request for Waiver of Ste Plan Review
from Donald R. Socha to operate a massage therapy business to be named
“Longevity Bodywraps & Massages”.
Office hours will be Monday – Saturday, 8:00 am – 9:00 pm and Sunday 10:00 am – 6:00 pm will
employ 2 to 6 employees. Upon motion
duly made and seconded voted unanimously (5-0) approve the waiver, conditioned
upon proper licensing from the Board of Health.
Subdivision
Contract – Bluebird Acres
Chair, Mr. Calabrese signed the
building contract for Bluebird Acres, which contract was previously approved.
Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted to close the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Very
truly yours,
Donald
J. Anderson, Clerk