Print
Share page with AddThis

Meeting Minutes

Meeting date: 
Wednesday, April 26, 2017

 

LYNNFIELD PLANNING BOARD MEETING April 26, 2017

 

A meeting of the Planning Board (PB) was held on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 7:00 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Present were: Chairman John Faria, Vice-chairman Heather Sievers, Clerk Charlie Wills, Mr. Brian Charville, and Mr. Michael Sheehan.

 

  1. Atty. John H. Kimball III representing himself and his wife, Katherine Kimball

 

Atty. Kimball said they are seeking a permit under Section 11.5, Temporary Uses in order to remain in the existing home on their property while a new home is being constructed. Once the new home is complete, the currently existing house will be demolished. There will not be 2 structures with 2 occupancy permits at any point. The lot size is approximately 60,000 square feet. Atty. Kimball is requesting a recommendation from the Zoning Board (ZBA) at their next meeting and needs a recommendation from the Planning Board (PB) to proceed with this. Mr. Wills asked when the construction would begin, Atty. Kimball said August or September. Ms. Sievers asked whether the sheds on the plan are existing; the answer was yes, one will be moved but it will be conforming. Ms. Sievers asked where it will be moved and was told it would be within the setbacks. Mr. Charville asked Atty. Kimball if he had any safety concerns about living on the property during construction; he answered yes, but the contractor has assured Atty. Kimball that the distance of 20 feet between the homes is safe enough to dig out the foundation. Ms. Sievers asked if the existing septic would be retained. Atty. Kimball answered yes, and the Board of Health has deemed the system is acceptable for the new home. He also stated the existing septic system is fairly new. Ms. Sievers stated that she has no objections to this request.  Mr. Wills moved that there be no objection to the plan; Mr. Charville seconded. Atty. Kimball requested this motion be forwarded to the ZBA. The motion carried 5 - 0.

 

  1. 9 Tapley Road

 

It was announced by Ms. Randele that this group would not attend the meeting as their  plan was not ready.

 

Chairman Faria called the public hearing to order. He stated that Mr. Dresios had been reviewing the design standards for Market Street and had some proposals for the PB.

 

  1. Review of Market Street Design Standards by Alan Dresios

 

Present from National Development: Mr. Ted Tye and Mr. Doug Straus.

 

Mr. Charville asked for clarification stating that Mr. Dresios was not employed by the PB; Chairman Faria confirmed this. Mr. Dresios stated that his presentation would be streamlined from the information he had mailed the board members. He said the first page was the proposed motion, and the second page was a list of changes. Chairman Faria noted the proposal was self-explanatory; changes include substituting the word “shall” for “should”, and asked if the board still had the ability to waiver from the use of “shall” if it were adopted. Mr. Dresios answered yes. Mr. Dresios said that a waiver clause was included. Chairman Faria stated he would allow time for Mr. Tye and Mr. Straus to review the proposal and asked if there was discussion among PB members. Mr. Charville asked if every “should” in the design standards would be changed to “shall”; the answer was no, only those in section 5E. were changed. Chairman Faria said that the design standard for video pedestals had been “a bone of contention” for some time. Discussion ensued about prior objections to video pedestals; Mr. Dresios is creating an exception so that they are allowed. Mr. Sheehan asked if this would mean no new changes because the video pedestals are already in place; the answer was yes; the new design standards would codify the existence of the pedestals. Mr. Charville asked how many video pedestals currently exist; the answer was seven. Mr. Tye asked if the prior PB had voted on this matter; Ms. Randele stated the information had been sent to the PB, but that no prior vote on this had taken place. Chairman Faria said that Mr. Tye and Mr. Straus have been very cooperative on matters to date, but he is concerned about future issues when they are no longer involved. Standard 5E - 4b. was questioned by Mr. Tye; he read “signage shall have geometric shapes with 2-3 colors to complement the colors of the retail buildings”. He requested that “shall” be changed to “may” to allow some flexibility. “Shall have no more than” was suggested instead of “may”; this was agreeable to Mr. Tye. Mr. Charville noted he thought the section in question was actually 5E - 4c., and was told by chairman Faria that that was another issue that would be addressed.

 

Chairman Faria said that the PB shall first vote on these proposed changes, and then vote to ratify and confirm the standards that have been approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Mr. Wills asked if that meant voting on everything included in the handout; Chairman Faria answered the first vote would be for the proposed changes, and the next vote would be to ratify and confirm the DHCD standards. Chairman Faria’s goal is that everyone is working from the same, basic document. Mr. Sheehan questioned the volume of the proposed “60 decibels at 3 feet” provision; Chairman Faria said that Mr. Dresios had researched this and found it to be “conversational (level) speech at 1 meter away”. Ms. Sievers concurred that it was conversational speech or “dishwasher level” sound. It was agreed to review this in an attempt to clarify it. Mr. Wally McKenzie, resident, asked for the definition of the “main body” of a video pedestal; answer was that the height is fixed at 9 feet, 6 inches. It was agreed to change the language to reflect measuring the total height from the base instead of the main body. Mr. Dresios said the original language had said “not to exceed 9 feet, 6 inches in height”. Chairman Faria questioned whether the sound clause should say “not to be heard at 10 or 15 feet away” instead of the decibel measure. Mr. Charville stated that a prior case had settled on the use of “plainly audible” as neither too objective nor subjective a term. Ms. Sievers noted that the kiosk in front of Legal C’s appeared to be a meeting spot, and therefore not bothersome. Mr. Charville asked where the sound actually comes from; the answer was a small speaker in the kiosk, and the content changes from ads to public service announcements. Mr. Sheehan asked if tenants could use the speakers for their own interests; the answer was yes. Mr. Sheehan proposed that “plainly audible” and twenty feet be adopted. The exact wording was discussed, and will be revised as “sound shall not be heard at a plainly audible level more than twenty feet from the pedestal”. Chairman Faria said that under the 511 – D.i. exemption, the sentence would be terminated after the word “base” and eliminate “to the main body of the video pedestal”. Chairman Faria said he wanted to revisit 5E - 4b. He said that the wording “signage shall have geometric shapes” is too all encompassing, as all shapes are geometric. Mr. Sheehan said that stating “signage shall have no more than 3 colors” is less redundant than the current “signage shall have no more than 2 – 3 colors”. Mr. Dresios noted that free-standing letters as signage did not constitute a “geometric shape.”  Chairman Faria said that if changes were to be adopted, the meanings and intent should be clear. He said that none of the proposed changes were explicitly clear in their meaning. Ms. Sievers proposed leaving the language as it was, including the term “should”, not “shall”. It was decided the original language of 5E - 4b. would remain as it is.

Chairman Faria stated that the PB was now considering adopting the document, as presented by Mr. Dresios, with the following changes:

  • Deleting under 5.11 – D.i. everything after the word “base”.
  • Changing the associated audio language to say, “Associated audio shall be at a reasonable volume, however, not plainly audible more than 20 feet from the center of a video pedestal”.

Ms. Sievers questioned 5.E. – 4.a, “A” Primary Storefront Signs, delete the “A”. Ms. Sievers asked if section 7.C.2 had been deleted intentionally. Mr. Charville stated that 7.C.2 referenced the CMR section and stated that department approval was required. This section has now been taken out. Chairman Faria outlined how all the proposed changes would be adopted and voted on. He requested a motion to amend Section 5.E. – 4.a by striking the word “A”. Ms. Sievers moved the motion; Mr. Wills seconded it. The motion carried 5 – 0. Chairman Faria requested that 5.E. – 4.b. be corrected to be 5.E. – 4.c., and read “signage should have geometric shapes, and have 2-3 colors to complement the colors of the retail building”, and noted that reflects no change in the wording. Chairman Faria then requested a motion to strike 5.E. – 4.b.in its entirety, which will allow the corrected numeration (5.E. – 4.c) to be adopted during the final vote. Mr. Sheehan made the motion, and Ms. Sievers seconded it. The motion carried 4 – 0, with Mr. Charville abstaining. Chairman Faria questioned why Mr. Charville abstained; the answer was that Mr. Charville thought it would be better to “not speak to” 5.E. – 4.b rather than address it.

Chairman Faria stated that he was following Roberts Rules of Order by voting on changes to specific parts of a lengthy motion before a final vote on the entire Design Standards “as amended” is taken at the end. Mr. Charville suggested the PB instead say “we are making changes to a working document, and we will take a final vote on it at the end of our discussion.” Chairman Faria said that could be done, but then suggested moving on to page 2 and making a motion to strike the language on 5.E. – 11.B.1. to the “main body of the video pedestal”. Ms. Sievers made the motion; Mr. Wills seconded it.  The motion carried 4 – 0, with Mr. Charville abstaining. (Brian – is this correct?) Chairman Faria then requested a motion on “the associated audio shall be at a reasonable volume” passage to include “however not plainly audible more than 20 feet from the center of the video pedestal”.  Ms. Sievers made the motion; Mr. Wills seconded it. Chairman Faria stated “we have amended the document” and he requested a motion to “adopt the Design Standards as we have just amended them.” Ms. Randele requested the date of the document for recording purposes; Chairman Faria said the date of the document and the motion would be May 31, 2017. Mr. Sheehan made the motion, and Ms. Sievers seconded it. The motion carried. (Brian – no count is given) Chairman Faria restated that the motion included “to adopt the language as amended.” Chairman Faria requested a final motion stating that “all the language of said Design Standards as on file with the DHCD is hereby ratified and confirmed.” Mr. Wills made the motion, and Ms. Sievers seconded it. The motion carried 4 – 0 with Mr. Charville abstaining for the same reasons he had stated in prior discussion. Chairman Faria then asked for the best language that could be used to fix the issue. Mr. Sheehan suggested obtaining what the DHCD has on file and confirming that it is the most current version and includes all amendments. Ms. Randele said she estimated it would take a week to obtain this from the DHCD. Mr. Sheehan said they could review this at the next PB meeting. Chairman Faria asked if the current version was displayed on the website; Ms. Randele said yes. Chairman Faria asked Mr. Dresios if he agreed the website version was correct; much discussion ensued. Chairman Faria said that he would follow up on Mr. Charville’s approach, and asked PB members to confirm that the website is correct. Chairman Faria requested a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Charville moved the question, and Mr. Sheehan seconded it. The motion carried 5 – 0 at 8:15 PM.

 

  1. Case #17-04 - 9 Tapley Road

Chairman Faria stated that Atty. Doyle has asked to continue this case until the next meeting.

 

  1. Case #17-08 - Town of Lynnfield – 1 King Rail Drive

Ms. Randele stated that no one was in attendance for this item. Discussion ensued as to whether the ZBA should be notified of their absence vs. notified that the PB does not recommend (since they have no info). Mr. Charville made a motion and Mr. Wills seconded it that the PB does not recommend due to the failure to appear and make a presentation. The motion carried 5 – 0. Mr. Charville suggested an additional motion to express the PB’s displeasure at the failure to appear; Chairman Faria agreed this was a good idea. The language of the motion was then amended to “due to failure to appear before the PB and make a presentation to substantiate the request, the PB does not recommend this case”.

 

  1. Reorganization – Election of Officers

Chairman Faria announced the positions of Chair, Vice-Chair, and Clerk would be voted upon. Mr. Wills made a motion to retain the same slate of officers: Chairman – John Faria, Vice-Chairman – Heather Sievers, Clerk – Charlie Wills. Chairman Faria said he did not wish to undertake the position of Chairman alone, and recommended Heather Sievers as Co-Chairman. Chairman Faria requested a motion to have himself and Heather as the 2 Co-Chairmen. Mr. Wills made the motion; Mr. Sheehan seconded it, and the motion carried 5 – 0. Mr. Charville nominated Mr. Sheehan as Vice-Chairman; Ms. Sievers seconded it. The motion carried 5 – 0. Mr. Charville nominated Mr. Wills as Clerk. Mr. Sheehan seconded the motion, and it carried 5 – 0.

  1. Zoning Bylaws

Chairman Faria said this would be part of the October town meeting, and that in September the revised bylaws should be reviewed at a meeting by the attorneys who regularly appear before the PB. The purpose of this is to have the zoning bylaws reviewed as a legal document. Chairman Faria wants it to be clear that the zoning map is not changing at this time. Chairman Faria said that Atty. Mark Bobrowski has been engaged for this project and he will be present at the meeting. Mr. Charville asked if Atty. Bobrowski represents the PB on this matter; Chairman Faria answered yes.

 

  1. Rules and Regulations

Chairman Faria said there was no discussion on this matter at this time.

 

  1. Zoning Map

Chairman Faria said that Ms. Randele has been working on this; and she said she hoped to have it ready next week. Chairman Faria clarified that the new map would not be adopted until after the revised Zoning Bylaws were approved.

 

  1. Parsons Avenue

Ms. Randele read a letter from LCWD asking to release all but $1000 of the $8000 that had been deposited, and requested signatures to partially release the bond.

 

  1. Master Plan Update

Ms. Sievers received a notice from the MAPC saying that the new budget did not include funding for DLTA (District Local Technical Assistance Program), which is why Lynnfield has not received any notice of requested funding for the Master Plan (MP). Ms. Sievers said the committee has completed the on-line community survey and made their presentation. Unfortunately, the video recording of the presentation was accidentally erased. Ms. Sievers said that a volunteer fair for the project is planned for June 7th; this is in response to feedback from the on-line survey. In the fall, another public forum will be hosted. Following that, subcommittees will use feedback gleaned to make recommendations. Ms. Sievers hoped the plan could be completed by fall of 2018. Chairman Faria recommended using a proven format from a comparable town. Mr. Charville suggested using the appropriate sections from the 2002 MP as a starting point.

 

Ms. Randele detailed the lease and budget for the new copier that the PB and Conservation Commission will share.

 

Ms. Sievers asked if the Zoning Map was part of the MP currently. She wants to be sure that the MP budget is only used for true MP expenses.  Ms. Sievers also mentioned that Lynnfield is spending a large amount on GIS services. Chairman Faria asked how much budget money would be returned to the town this fiscal year; Ms. Randele though $100 -$200.

 

Chairman Faria requested a motion to close the meeting. Mr. Charville made the motion; it was seconded by Mr. Wills. The motion carried 5 – 0.

 

 

  

            Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Susan Lambe, Planning Office