City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:30 P.M.

City Council Chambers, City Hall

City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA

Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For further detail, audio recordings are available at the Division of Planning & Development, 50 Arcand Drive, Lowell, MA

Members Present

Thomas Linnehan, Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Second Vice Chairman

Mary Burns

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Public Hearings

Site Plan: 790, 816, 824, 836, & 826.1 Chelmsford Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Connector Park Holding, LLC, National Development, and Lowe's Companies, Inc. for site plan review of the development of the property located at 790, 816, 824, 836, & 826.1 Chelmsford Street. The proposal includes the demolition of existing buildings on site and the construction of a 153,200 sqft retail home improvement store with a garden center and an indoor lumber yard. The entire site, including existing office buildings that will stay on site, is 26.33 acres of land area, located in the HRC (High Rise Commercial) zoning district. Access to the site is provided off Composite Way and Wellman Street, closing all direct access points along Chelmsford Street to the site. The proposal includes a landscaped buffer along Chelmsford Street and 554 parking spaces with associated landscaping. Site plan review is required for this project under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

In Favor:

George Eliades (Applicant's Attorney): This project is on the opposite side of 99 Restaurant Mall is the Cross Point Towers and other businesses. On the side of the street that is the site for this location it is a commercial and office location. Lowe's intends to build a prototypical store. It is 154,000sqft of selling space. It is going to be the largest retailer in the city. Our engineers from VHB will give more details but I want to give you a few more points. They will provide 150 full time and 50 part time jobs. These are jobs that will be available to the people in the City. It will also provide new tax value to the city, with a new building. It will provide a new area destination for people to keep the retail dollar in Lowell. We understand that there is gong to be an affect on the neighborhood, and for that reason for a number of months, the applicant it trying to work with the neighborhood to address these concerns. We know there are traffic problems in the area, which is why we plan to deal with not only current problems, but also for the project. Lowe's is willing to make some significant traffic changes and traffic signalizations in the area. We spoke with the City about taking some extra land in two spots that will allow for three lanes of traffic to be at the lights of Stevens and Chelmsford Streets. You will be able to take a right turn onto Chelmsford Street. The principal access and egress to the store we believe will be off the Lowell connector, up Industrial Avenue to Chelmsford Street. That particular street will be what we believe the most major access to the property. We are proposing a traffic light there. We are in discussions with the City to assist us in taking those lands at our expense. The expense for traffic lighting for all the improvements will be at our expense. I should point out also, one of the first things after the first couple of times that we did, Lowe's agreed to not allow any of their deliveries to come from Chelmsford Street. In addition to that the folks at Lowe's are very demanding of their suppliers that they meet specific times for trucking and delivery, for a couple of reasons, traffic efficiency, and all of this gets loaded from the back of the store by the 99. We've also worked with the city in doing an awful lot of additional landscaping. We are proposing a significant amount of landscaping. At the request of the city administration, we have been working with the City water and wastewater people. There is a very sever problem in that area regarding sewer and water runoff. Though there are plans in the works to complete these projects from the city, and since the city is required to separate the sewer and water from this section of the neighborhood. Working with the city, the developer has agreed to complete a great deal of this work on site. If you see the comments that come from the waste was department, Mark Young, “the work that we will contribute will commit significant benefits to the surrounding neighborhood.” The Lowe's very much wants to become a citizen of Lowe's. I would now like to turn this over to Ken Staffier of VHB to discuss the project further.

Ken Staffier (Applicant's Engineer, VHB): I think everyone is familiar with the existing site. The existing site includes an existing office building. All told the office is 26 acres. El-tech is about 160,000sqft. The existing office buildings total 210,000sqft. This is the developer that we are looking to propose here. There are two access points to this site. Composite way and Wellman Street. The store is located perpendicular to Chelmsford Street. The existing El-tech is running parallel along Chelmsford Street. All told it's about 155,000sqft. We met a number of times with the Planning staff. Though the process of meeting with the neighborhood and the Planning staff we worked to eliminate the loading areas along Chelmsford Street. We also modified the loading facilities so that the loading area will face away from Chelmsford Street. This keeps these loading areas away from the residences. One of the other things is the screen and buffering along Chelmsford Street. We provided a plan that matches zoning to the letter of the law. What we are working to do is to use landscaping to create more of a streetscape feel along Chelmsford Street. We have worked to use large shade streets, complemented by evergreen trees to block some undesirable elements of the site. We tried to screen the garden center off as best we could. We have a retaining wall because the elevation of the store is roughly 5-9 feel below Chelmsford Street. We are creating a landscaping buffer along Chelmsford Street. We will deepen/widen the buffer. Toward the back we will back drop that with an evergreen hedge to further screen the site. As you move further down the street, we looked to keep the streetscape presence at the ends of the streets, with some colorful plantings, ornamental trees. At the same time we will provide some lower shrubs along the retaining wall. Stepping back to the site, one of the changes that we have made was to find a way to incorporate more landscaping to the parking lot area. We are providing additional landscaping within the parking lot, so we provided more landscaping to enhance the parking lot.

One of the items we have been working closely with the City on is the sewer separation project. The Engineer approached us, and we have had several meeting with the sewer and water project. Basically the city is trying to take the existing sewer along Chelmsford Street, and separate the lines. The City has a mandate from the EPA and the DEP to separate these lines. The City was significantly looking at doing a significant amount of work along Chelmsford coming down industrial for the drain line. The large drain line is a very significant project. They approached us and through our discussions, we have come to a resolution to provide a line that cuts through the Lowe's site. We will come from Chelmsford Street, through the center of our site, and discharge into River Meadow Brook. National Development will construct the line within their site. This will be a start to a large sewer project, which will take the runoff from the neighborhood and dump it into River Meadow Brook. One of the requests the wastewater was to connect out sewer line into the existing system. What we are looking to do is to construct a cross country sewer across their site. It benefits this development and offers thee residents to connect to a dedicated sewer line. We are working on that, we still have some coordination and permitting from the City's end, and this is what we agreed to and we will work out the final details with them on this.

Regarding the traffic mitigation, when we looked at this site, we realized that we needed to work on the intersection between Chelmsford and Industrial Avenue. We looked at this to not only mitigate the impact of our store, but mitigate the traffic concerns that are out there today. What we are looking to do is to add lanes and capacity at the intersection. The biggest change will be adding a dedicated lane on Industrial Ave for a right turn onto Chelmsford Street. Chelmsford Street heading south, we will provide two lanes. All the work proposed will be on the east side of Chelmsford Street. We do not intend to impact the land on this side of the street. The other intersection is the access point along Composite Way. We are looking to provide ease of movement into this site. This intersection today has a sharp bend. We are looking to smoothen out this, and provide a dedicated lane at this site. The other and final piece is the intersection of Wellman and Chelmsford. We want to intercept the traffic and bring it into the site. In this situation we will provide a dedicated left lane into the site. Not roadway work will be completed in the right of way. I think at this point we will turn this back to you for discussion.

Lue Antinellis: Business rep from electricians local union, and Merrimack valley construction. I believe that this project will have some positive impact in the store, I believe the location is an ideal spot it is using an underutilized property. It will provide a number of retail jobs. This will provide the area with additional growth opportunities. They are very good neighbors. Every city and town desires a multi billion company to expand in their city. I am concerned about this project, in recent articles in the metro west news, The Lowe's store in Framingham which was denied a occupancy permits because the store construction was completed shotty, the local builders trade has asked. I would respectfully ask the Lowell planning aboard to answer these questions. Will Lowe's hire local builders, pay competitive wages?

George Zaharoolis (15 Dabby way): I think the proposal before you is very unique, provide an economic base, one thing that struck me is that there will be 150 full timers and 50 part timers, and what a unique opportunity for locals to work with the Lowe's team and work with materials in their trades. The only thing I see is that I would like to see some retention area to take some of the overflows. The landscaping is nice, it seems to be a point of height, maybe that would be a nice spot to have steps in place to walk down the steps to get to the site. I've found Lowe's to be a very reputable company. I think the staffing that we have in the city will make them do what they promise. As far as the layout itself, I think it's excellent. I think they are very positive in what they are trying to do. I've had to explain this, the high rise is a HRC site, this is an industrial site, and I think the use of it is great. They should be commended for their work. I think the building fits, the zoning fits, and it's a good project. They will also help the residential site across the street. The presentation indicated that any overflow would be picked up by this site. I think that they are also cutting down the actual building site, one was 170,000 sqft, and they are 153,000 sqft, and I think that's great. It's not going to interfere with anything. It's going to be good for Lowell.

In Opposition:

Bill Siopes (745 Chelmsford Street): Prepared a statement. As a long time resident of Chelmsford Street, I do oppose this project. The parking area is 57 feet from my front porch. My reasons for this opposition, is because I believe this will have a detrimental affect on our neighborhood and our properties. Noise pollution is going to be awful; it's going to be a 7 month demolition followed by 7 days a week of noise. Even outdoor intercom paging systems when they are use will be loud. Not to mention snowplows will add to the noise for Lowe's to conduct their business. If Lowe's become my next-door neighbor, it will eliminate the quiet in the neighborhood. I don't see how the landscaping prevents the noise. Traffic, Chelmsford Street will become the main entrance to the site. As I see it now this will impact the safety of our neighborhood. The traffic also includes a proposed traffic light; well this will create a new addition if idling traffic in front of our homes 24 hours a day. Additionally a red light at that intersection will make it impossible to take a right out of Upham Street. Lowe's will impact traffic more than the study says, particularly because the study does not take into account additional developments in the city. So I anticipate that this project will impact the neighborhood. So again, this will degrade the quality of life in the neighborhood. The comprehensive master plan should provide a high quality of life for its neighbors. The impact this has on the quality of life within the community will greatly. I also have for your review a copy of an ongoing petition signed by 92 of my neighbors in support of denial of this project.

Elizabeth Fawcett (51 Victoria Street): My husband is 3rd generation in that house. Many of my neighbors are also life long residents in the City. I was impressed that families stay here. It is our intent to stay here for our lives. We are not pleased with this project. I did read the traffic study that was submitted to you. Under crash history, the intersections appear to be above average for crashes. The other thing is that the data is between 2002 and 2004, I think this is an area that is congested, and this project is going to add to this problem. It seems that a lot of traffic is going to be diverted to the Connector. The on ramp to the Connector at Industrial Ave is very dangerous. It's dangerous now in my opinion. There is going to hopefully be a new tenant Cross Point Tower, with 600 new jobs potentially 600 new cars. Also, when you come out of the cross point towers parking lot, there will likely be conflicts with the proposed lights. Further home depot is just a few miles away. From what they are saying this will be the largest retailer in Lowell. It just doesn't seem to be the appropriate site for this retailer. No matter what they do with landscaping, you are putting a giant retailer in our back yard. There is going to be noise and dirt during construction that we are going live with. I think this is an overly ambitious project for this site.

Brian Fawcett (51 Victoria Street): One of the biggest problems is that we cannot get onto the Lowell Connector. There is going to be 520 parking spots in Lowe's. There is going to be a lot of traffic stopped at that light. All that traffic is going to be out on Chelmsford Street. A lot of people here are from the area. I don't think people in the other side of the city realize how much this is going to affect the city. The fact that they are lowering the building 9 feet would put their air conditioners at eye level.

Bruce Briere (793 Chelmsford): I'd like to make a few points; this is an established old Lowell neighborhood. The first thing that comes to my mind is the traffic. It's a state highway; I can't even get out of my driveway now. I went down to Home Depot and I sat there in the parking lot and I realized what it was going to be like across the street from me, and I don't like it. There are lots of houses that are for sale now in this neighborhood. It's a good neighborhood, and its reasonable, and I don't think they have an idea what is going on across the street. That's not the case. They are trying to jam that in. When Wang was there, they would have a police officer to direct traffic out of the complex. What is going to happen when they have all that traffic there?

Jim Moynihan (619 Stevens Street): As I was looking at the presentation tonight, and the traffic study that was completed, it seems like it was not as comprehensive as it should have been. I suspect that Wellman Street will be the main entrance off of Chelmsford. When I look at the traffic mitigation there, the only thing I see is three lanes of traffic coming up Industrial. I don't know if you have been on Stevens Street, but the traffic has become extremely heavy. I look at the traffic study, and nothing is going to be done to Steven Street. The easy way to get into this site is to go Chelmsford Street to Wellman Street. There is a potential for additional cars. Also the Route 3 cinema site is also adding a Super Stop and Shop. We are now also going to be added two lights. Now if they are proposing one from Parker and Steven Street, I would urge the board to look at where they.

Jane Fleming (843 Chelmsford Street): The Lowell police department is very familiar with me. I am concerned with the new traffic. I don't; complain now, about picking up the trash. I can't even imagine how the increase in traffic will affect my house.

Mary Katsirebas (835 Chelmsford Street): I've lived there since 1979. I live in the duplex next to the house. The two duplexes were built by my husband's family. I saw the 99; I saw the Cross Point and all of it was handled well. But Lowe's is ignoring all these issues, I see this project is different; it's a residential area. Everyone has made mention of the traffic but no one has mentioned the kids. Will Lowe's respect the kids?

Jeff Dietrich (27 Alberts Street): It was my understanding to be put before the committee. The zoning code and the master plan, this is not zoned for regional retail. The special permit must adhere to the Master Plan. This area is zoned for HRC and not industrial. How does this project protect and enhance the character of the neighborhood or the community means the neighborhood not Lowell.

Jackson Rodriguez (32 Morse Street): on the underground building of the sewer. That concerns me because there is an underground stream there. That nine-foot drop concerns us, because my neighborhood gets flooded. That stream has moved in the last couple of years.

David Centene (18 Morse Street): I will have to move if this goes in. This is a nice neighborhood. The traffic will be horrendous. We have had neighbors that have been Monday through Friday, and this really concerns me this 7 day a week, business.

Dwight Alexander (743 Chelmsford Street): I am a full time foster parent, and I foresee my son running across the street, also, I see the school busses, there are so many cars in the morning that can't wait to let my child get into the bus. My concerns are about safety. Also, all our bedrooms are along Chelmsford Street, and for pollution. My concern will be for the safety of my children.

Eric Murphy (18 Wellman Street): I will be looking out of my bedroom window now at this. There is no landscaping to block my view.

Liz Tucker (38 Newell Street): We have a significant sewer problem. Beyond that each time someone has developed in the neighborhood has changed the ground water. And I am not sure if with a project of this size, we will be able to handle the impact to the runoff.

General Discussion:

George Proakis: I want to take a moment to go through a few things, first to touch on the approval process. Second to discuss the city and neighborhood concerns, and to discuss the process by which the developers and the city have worked together. First, the city works very hard to ensure any project conforms to the master plan as well as the zoning. The second thing to address is the process. Before you tonight they are here for a site plan review. This project also does need a special permit because of the use. That will be before the ZBA. The requirement in the ordinance notes that a project must go before the Board first.

This process has included a number of neighborhood meetings. In addition to that the plans were reviewed by the city departments. We have pulled all those comments together and put together a list of concerns from the various departments. This list does not necessary take into account all of the issues that come out of a public hearing. To date, the applicant has worked very closely with the City to address the concerns. What we have done is put together a list of conditions for possible approvals. These are things that have been discussed with the applicant. (Reading through comment letter provided to Board from DPD)

There are 6 under traffic. In additional to the proposal would be the installation of a light at Parker and Stevens Street. DPD is proposing that the developer not do a signal at Wellman and Chelmsford. It does not provide improvements to the site itself. This together with other improvements proposes to direct all traffic to the Composite Way and Industrial Ave site. We have also added a note regarding the traffic mitigation within the neighborhood.

Parking: we are asking the PB consider an idea to ensure three is a plan to clear the carts out of the lot, so we are not blocking mobility throughout the site.

Wastewater: (reading through the concerns) This particular project is working very specifically to ensure that the areas that have been getting storm drainage are actually being mitigated.

Building design: One of the things that the Planning Board has before them are pictures from the Framingham Lowe's, we are promoting that design.

Landscaping and sidewalk: We would also like to ensure that our design planner has final sign off on the landscaping plan. That buffer is the one thing that blocks the site from the neighborhood. There is also a proposed guardrail along Chelmsford Street; we would like to make sure the design of this is more sensitive to the sidewalk. We also asked the developer to work with use to update the sidewalks along the other side of the Chelmsford Street.

Signage; they do not have a final approval for the signage. Signage is usually under the ZBA, but when it affects the traffic pattern it is under SPR as well.

G. Eliades: Let me first say that I am tempted to discuss the comments made earlier. I think the chairman has made it clear that tonight is the Site Plan Review. These items are part of negotiations that have been going on for a long time. These plans are subject of literally hundreds of hours of discussions, arguments, and discussions. The end result of this is that my client is committed to make more than 1.5 million in commitments to enhance the neighborhood. We are in agreement with the conditions that have been laid out here.

J. Clermont: Motion to take a 5 minute break, to go over out notes and the testimony.

T. Linnehan: It is the Board's time to do deliberations. Whenever a site plan goes before the City, it has to go through a formal internal review within the city for comments. We receive comments from all the department heads. In fact in our regulations, we are not allowed to approve comments back from all the department have signed off. DPD was alluding to these comments prior to the break, and these are made on any site plan approval.

G. Proakis: We summarized the concerns from the various departments into a letter of a condition if the Board is concerned.

J. Clermont: I would like to thank the department for their comprehensive review, as well as the neighborhood for coming out for tonight's meeting. I do have a couple of questions concerning the conditions the department is recommending. With regards to the traffic mitigation, one of the things that is going to be required is land acquisition. One of the conditions suggests this. With regards to the proposed acquisition, what is the time frame you are looking for in this process?

G. Eliades: Well it would have to go before the City Council, I would guess it would have to go some time in the beginning of the year. Fortunately there are no houses involved. We will possibly have to take out two spaces with the 99, but we will mitigate that by offering them some spaces if possible. This is something that could be done almost by agreement without takings. Mr. Clancy has spent many hours with the property owners.

J. Clermont: There was some discussion about the drainage that I just didn't catch; it goes directly from the catch basin and into the brook?

G. Eliades: I am going to ask Ken to address this. The reason why much of this sewer overflow takes place, all of the water from the streets goes into the catch basins and into the sewer line. That all ends up in Duck Island. It floods Downtown, so the separation that the City is being required to do by law, says that no longer can the runoff go into sewer.

Ken Staffier: Actually you covered it pretty well. The drainage will take out the runoff from the streets and the neighborhood, and into the brook.

J. Clermont: Will you need conservation approval for that?

K. Staffier: Yes.

J. Clermont: One of the neighbors has completed a feasibility study, and what is your sense regards to where your traffic is coming from?

Traffic Engineer (VHB): We have done a very extensive analysis with regards to where the traffic is coming from. There is a very sophisticated analysis that takes into account many factors. We use all of this information in our analysis to come up with projections. Based on our analysis, we are looking at about 26 % coming from the north on Chelmsford Street, from Plain Street. 14 % will come down Stevens Street. 60 % will come from the Lowell Connector and from the south along Chelmsford Street. One of the main attractions for this site is the regional access. This site has good access to Rt. 3 and the Lowell Connector. The fact that you have these highways to the site will mean much of the traffic will use these highways.

J. Clermont: Several of the neighbors have concerns regarding the site location of the site and a stream under the site.

K. Staffier: We have done an analysis, and we are not familiar with any stream under the site.

J. Clermont: One thing we really could not get our arms around is the parking lot configuration. There are some concerns as to whether this will be the best plan. We are trying to direct traffic to Composite Way. I would also like to ask that the applicant consider other considerations if there are any.

R. Lockhart: Personally I think the 30 conditions are very thorough and really nailed down the site with regards to the concerns for the site. I think one thing that I see that may not be totally covered here are pedestrian safety issues. But neighborhood people are going to be walking around here, just pay attention to that. There was one lady in the balcony with regards to bus stops. We need to make sure that this is not a concern.

G. Eliades: We have already talked at length with those issues. One of the things we have discussed regarding pedestrian concerns, and I think there may be some pedestrian mitigation plan.

M. Burns: Basically, I want to thank the neighbors for coming out tonight. Most of the questions that I have concern about have been answered, and every vote that comes before the board is a tough vote. And we have to look at this site as a city and I don't think we can turn our back on Lowe's. I just want to make sure that if this project is approved, that the neighbors and the children are safe.

T. Linnehan: I only have a couple of questions. In regards to the issues, if you come across any water on your site, you will ensure it will stay on site. Under existing requirements, you cannot allow any waters to leave the site. I think a cross walk or a pedestrian walk may be necessary across Chelmsford.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to APPROVE the site plan with the following conditions:

Traffic

Parking

Wastewater

Fire

Water

Conservation

Building Design Impacts on Neighborhood Character

Landscaping / Sidewalks / Pedestrian Issues

Signage

Light Impacts

Noise Impacts

Economic Impact

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

All members voted to APPROVE the site plan (4-0).

Repetitive Petition & Special Permit: 1881, 1883, & 1857.1 Middlesex Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Middlesex Partners Limited & Lexy Development for repetitive petition and special permit review of the development of the property located at 1881, 1883, & 1857.1 Middlesex Street. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the construction of 128 housing units in four (4) buildings on a 402,930sf lot, with associated parking and landscaping. The site will be accessed via a 426-foot long driveway, through a curb cut located at 1881/1883 Middlesex Street across from Dingwell Street. On July 17, 2006, the Planning Board voted to approve the site plan 3 votes to 1. The special permit for driveway length was therefore denied because it required 4 `yes' votes. The current proposal requires a repetitive petition review to determine that the new application contains specific and material changes from the first application, as well as special permit review under Section 6.7.2 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance for driveway length. Repetitive petition and special permit applications will be heard concurrently for this project.

Due to a scheduling conflict the applicant requested to continue this public hearing to October 2, 2006.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to allow the CONTINUANCE of the project to the October 2, 2006 Planning Board meeting

Member Mary Burns seconded the motion.

All members voted to CONTINUE the Repetitive Petition and Special Permit (4-0).

Zoning Amendment & Additions: Sign Ordinance, et al

In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, the Lowell Planning Board will consider ordinances to amend “The Code of Ordinances City of Lowell, Massachusetts,” with respect to Appendix A thereof entitled “Zoning,” adding a Section 11.3.9: Notification of application before the Planning Board & ZBA, adding to Section 6.3.2a, #20: Request for Permit Sign, and other changes associated with these additions

In Favor:

None

In Opposition:

None

General Discussion:

T. Linnehan: This is a matter before us to discuss requiring a sign for construction project. And requirements that must be included regarding the sign. Basically the sign is up for the period of time, and then shall be removed or else be in violation of zoning.

G. Proakis: Yes that allows us to enforce the zoning like any other zoning.

J. Clermont: This was before the zoning subcommittee, and it basically provides notification before a project goes forward.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to recommend APPROVAL of the adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance

Member Mary Burns seconded the motion.

All members voted to recommend APPROVAL of the adoption of the proposed zoning amendment (4-0).

Old Business

Zoning Amendment Review: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance

As requested by the City Council Zoning Subcommittee, the Planning Board will further review the proposed zoning addition regarding the addition of “Section 8.4: Accessory Dwelling Units.”

General Discussion:

Jerry Frechette (80 Dunbar Avenue): What has come out of the council meeting is to have an ADU ordinance created. I would really ask for the Board to recommend that based on the extend on the changes proposed, it would be best to turn down what we have and get an opinion from general council whether we can go forward with these changes. We would like to take this to the table and hash out the final details.

Richard Cardvale (55 Varnum Park Road): I would like to speak about today, I am a rookie at looking at zoning, I look at that piece, I only had a little time to look at it. After two hours with the zoning before me, I was horrified by what I found out. My point of this is that it is difficult for people to look at it. I think it needs to be re-written.

T. Linnehan: The ordinance is drafted and comes to us from the law department from the Council, and we put forth some recommendations. Before it goes before the City Council, it can be voted up, and can be voted down, or be amended. I do agree that it is complicated. And every time I have read the ordinance a number of times and each time I read it something new is brought to my attention.

J. Clermont: Just to clarify: when the planning aboard first looked at this was to not recommend the ordinance as is be approved, we did suggest some changes, and at that meeting we determined that some other changes are necessary. I believe we should not rush this through. The more I look at this; I don't like the ordinance as noted. I believe we should delete all reference to detached dwellings. My recommendation is that we not recommend the ordinance before us and we go back to the drawing board. I think that should be completed and understandable before we submit that for publication. We should start to consider, max 1 in-law apartment per dwelling, appearance should be entered through main unit only unless permitted by SP granting authority. Max sizes of ADU, one bedroom only, one set of utilities, and documentation of these, something to be executed, signed by resident owner, recorded at Registry of Deeds, if in-law moves, or property sold, converted back to single family. Must be further clarified.

T. Linnehan: I agree with what Joe said. It needs to be clarified.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance

Member Mary Burns seconded the motion.

All members voted to NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the adoption of the proposed zoning amendment (4-0).

ZBA Notices:

300 Beacon Street (White Robert R)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (4-0)

46 Carly Way (Lougee John H)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

M. Burns: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (4-0)

517 Chelmsford Street (James Mansolilli & Diane Morgan Mansolilli)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to the project lacking sufficient space for the propose addition, the property already being too dense for the site, and the lack of consistency with the neighborhood.

M. Burns: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (4-0)

1121-1123 Lawrence Street (Ninteau John G)

M. Burns: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (4-0)

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on April 19, 2007

R. Lockhart: Motion to approve

J. Clermont: Second

Three members voted in favor with two abstaining (3-0-2).

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner/Planning Board Administrator

Planning Board Minutes

September 21, 2006 - Page 12