Salisbury Planning Board Minutes

Public Hearings & Regular Meeting

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

 

 

7:00 p.m.

 

 

Members Present:  Larry Cuddire, Chairman (LC), Robert Straubel, Vice Chairman (RS), Don Egan (DE), Lisa Lane (LL), and Dave Holscher (DH)  

 

Also Present:  Assistant Planner, Leah Hill (LH) Director of Planning, Lisa Pearson and Secretary, Pat Banfield

 

Meeting Opened at 7:05 p.m.

 

LC welcome new alternate Isa Cann to the Salisbury Planning Board   

 

1.      New Business - Building Permits /Plans

 

a.      Building Permits signed - Bret Longo present for 233 Beach Road.  He received a copy of the covenant or housing agreement which was to be signed prior to getting the building permit signed.

 

LC questions if K & P (town counsel) have reviewed and returned it?  Lisa Pearson stated that the inclusionary housing agreement has been reviewed and approved but the planning department was still waiting for the infrastructure agreement to be reviewed.  She recommends adding the agreement and the payment security agreement as a minor change to existing site plan.  This would include the recording of a lien by the town against the property to insure that the payments were made.  The original SPR wording did not specify a payment security.  

 

DE original owner was going to do 110%, but the new owner would like to donate $3K/unit. a one time payment.  DE questions if it is possible and more prudent to require a bond be posted to cover the cost of inclusionary housing and infrastructure payments.  RS feels that the board should be satisfied with a lien as it is highly unlikely that it would be missed in a title search and a bond would be unduly burdensome on the petitioner.  Lisa Pearson states there will be a road opening bond required by DPW.  Joe Serwatka, town engineer will inspect the project.

 

Jerry Klima clarified bylaw, stating that agreement is to protect Towns interest, one time payment to town fund and/or conveyance to end user.

LC feels that as a board, we need to get all our information in place in order to move forward.  Applicant states tonight he would choose to pay $3K per unit prior to occupancy permit.  RS is uncomfortable having neither a lien nor a bond as security.  This would leave it up to the Building Inspector to insure that payments were made to the town before the properties were transferred, and the Building Inspector has a dismal track record when it comes to enforcing planning board requirements prior to issuing occupancy permits.  DE suggest that the lien is released per unit when occupancy permit is issued.

 

DE Motions to send letter to the Building Inspector advising him of his responsibility to collect $3K/unit prior to occupancy permit being issued.  Also to continue this discussion at the next planning board meeting on October 11, 2006.

 

LL Seconds

 

Vote on motion 4 – 1 (RS) opposed

 

 

2.      7:30 PM Public Hearings:

 

  1. Village Center District and Village Residential Overlay District – presented  by Jerry Klima, Chairman of the Zoning Review Committee proposed to rezone Salisbury Square.  In view of the issues, we wanted to spend more time and make the rezoning better for Salisbury Square.  

 

The Zoning Review Committee made only a few changes in the Village Center District proposal.  Retained basic concept of allowing mixed-use developments subject to design guidelines.  New developments in the district will feature pedestrian-friendly commercial uses. 

 

More participation from property owners with more input from same therefore we have come back with a revised proposal.  The changes make the overlay proposal more beneficial for existing property owners and future development more consistent with the existing neighborhood. 

 

DH comments on gas station could someone open a station with more pumps with significant expansion?

 

RS questions allowing only 30 families benefit from overlay.  Concerned that other property owners in the town will want to have a similar ability to benefit in the future from this type of overlay.  Mr. Klima points out that other residents are already allowed to have  accessory apartments on 15,000 sq ft. lots without a special permit.

 

DE do you envision the change in Salisbury Sq over the next 5 – 10 years.  Jerry believes the change will be very slow or gradual over the next several years.

DH motions to send the Village Center District and Village Residential Overlay District to the October 23rd Town Meeting with a positive recommendation from the Planning Board.

 

LL Seconds

 

Vote on motion 5 – 0 motion passes

 

  1. Special Permit – SPR for 163 Elm Street, Mark Cardillo

DH motions to open public hearing for a special permit.

LL Seconds

Vote on motion 5 – 0 motion passes

 

Atty. Deshaies is representing his client, the applicant Mark Cardillo.  He wanted some clarification on what is optional and/or mandatory according to what the bylaw states they could do under Planned Office Development (P.O.D.).  Client wants to provide office and retail space in a narrow lot. 

 

LC comments, it’s clearly a question that has to be answered and the planning board wants the town counsel to review the project and the board chooses to wait on the waivers until after counsel reviews.   The atty. for the applicant agrees.

 

DE comments that their primary question is can they proceed under regular zoning (SPR) vs. POD zoning, correct?  Applicant answered yes, they would prefer not to apply for waivers.


LL motions to continue special permit hearing to the next meeting on October 11th, until after we receive feedback from town counsel. 

 

DH Seconds

 

Vote on motion 4 – 1 (RS opposed) motion passes

 

  1. ANR - 98 Elm St. DPW Realty LLC – The applicant was represented by Tom Cook.  ANR is to eliminate lot lines, making 98 Elm St. a larger lot to accommodate their proposed office addition.  MVPC has approved the digital submission.

 

DE motions to endorse the ANR as presented for 98 Elm Street and sign Mylar.

 

DH Seconds

 

Vote on motion 5 – 0 motion passes

 

  1. SPR - 98 Elm St. DPW Realty LLC – The applicant was represented by Tom Cook.  SPS is proposing an addition based off of the current structure.  The two-story addition will be (100’ X 40’).  They propose infrastructure such as electrical, water and sewer to come in off of Bartlett Street.  Current filings with Concom, also comments from Assessors, Police and Health dept.

 

According to Tom Cook, 3 Bartlett is going to be torn down, the whole site will be under commercial zone.

 

Mr. Cook stated that some of the parking actually does lie on Bartlett St (residential) but as soon as the transfer of title takes place, it will all be under the same owner and in commercial zone.

 

Abutter John Haggerty lives at 7 Bartlett St. and stated culvert runs under driveway at 5 Bartlett St.  and then runs behind 3 & 5 Bartlett (currently owned by Mr. Cappelupo) and when it rains he gets flooded, his front yard is a mess.

 

Town has easement for 10” corrugated pipe that discharges into wetlands drainage will be reduced when the new structure is complete.  Mr. Cook has a meeting with DPW, on 9/28, Thursday at 10 a.m. to discuss this problem.  Negative slope of pipe might be part of the problem which needs to be resolved.

 

RS would like curb on Elm & Bartlett corner, they would also like sidewalks on Elm St. He would like to see a little more work in this area.  People cutting through on corner produces a dangerous corner, applicant needs to consider angle parking spaces in the lot abutting Bartlett Street and think about curbing on both Elm and Bartlett Sts., making site more neighborhood friendly.

 

DE states that under SPR applicant is not permitted wide open curb cuts for both Elm and Bartlett Sts.  Mr. Cook stated that existing parking already exists along with long curb cuts, and in fact, there are no curb cuts along the entire length of Bartlett Street.   Also, once the project comes under SPR, the entire property becomes part of the Site Plan Review.  DE parking needs to be reconciled.

 

LC presently it appears site has a 170 foot curb cut on Bartlett St.   Much discussion by the board on different Parking scenarios for site that would allow the installation of some curbing.

 

Abutter Keith Lewis of 4 Bartlett St. is concerned about trucks in parking lot.  Also are lights on a timer?  Mr. Cook stated that lights do not spill over at night, and parking lot lights with have dark sky covers.

 

LC to speak to DPW about curbing.  If on Elm St, it would require State Highway approval.

 

RS motions to continue SPR to October 11th meeting.  Also Mr. Cook to address all of Mr. Serwatka’s comments including the drainage issues and show easement at that next meeting.

 

LL Seconds

 

Vote on motion 5 – 0  motion passes

 

3.      Other Business:

 

a.      Request for Certificate of Completion – Harold Nabhan, 5 O’clock Club project –  no one representing applicant was present at meeting.  Letter from Mr. Magnifico of D.C.R., in response to boards letter regarding removal of pilings.  Mr. Magnifico states, pilings should not be cut off.  He feels they should be removed well below the sand line for safety purposes.

 

LC recommends we send a letter to Atty. O’Leary, representing H. Nabhan, regarding removal of the pilings, and copy Mr. Magnifico, and continue this business until the next meeting on October 11, 2006.

 

b.     Request for Certificate of Completion – Fraser Pontiac, 114 Bridge Rd. Lee Tibbideau of Cammett Engineering represented applicant and to address Town Engineers Site Review.  Applicant is aware of all items that Mr. Serwatka reported as incomplete and would like to discuss minor changes.  Owner is OK with $25K bond and expects completion of project by Thanksgiving.  Mr. Tibbideau explained how some proposed landscaped areas got paved over.   For example, one landscaping area was to surround an unsightly utility pole,  however, the utility company required an underground connection at the pole site.   As a result, all utilities were put under ground which freed up the area for movement of vehicles and plowing in winter time, and negated the need for landscaping (+/-).

 

RS suggested that applicants Engineer come back in front of the board with an “as built plan” and what is proposed to be done to complete this project in accordance with Mr. Serwatka’s comments. 

 

DE questions if applicant wants a modification to SPR such as consideration to include the plantings elsewhere on site?

 

Engineer stated that the work will be completed this fall and will return to the board with Certificate of Completion at that time.

 

c.      Change of Use Zoning Discussion – included in the discussion with board was Brenda Chiounard, property owner.  Purpose of discussion is how to make “change of use” easier for all applicants.  Ms. Chiounard believes that the current regulations requiring a minor site plan review for change of use are too time consuming and result in potential loss of rental income when only a minor building changes are needed to accommodate a new tenant.  Various ideas to streamline the process were presented and discussed, but ultimately it was thought that the current system does not provide an unnecessary burden to business owners.

 

LC feels that the board should see if we can create a form that will work to make change of use process better.

 

 

4.      Correspondence

 

Planning Board minutes for the September 13, 2006 meeting were not signed.

 

 

5.      Adjournment:

 

 

LL motions to adjourn meeting at 10 p.m.

 

RS Seconds

 

Vote on motion 5 – 0 motion passes

 

Meeting is adjourned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes Approved by:                                                      Date: