The Planning Board at its meeting Monday night approved the articles it will be placing on the Annual Town Meeting warrant in order to meet the submission deadline of Feb. 3.
Chair Rob Benson explained that putting the articles on the warrant for the May 5 ATM does not indicate the board’s support. Benson noted that there will be future public meetings to allow for discussion on the articles.
The proposed article that generated the most discussion was to rezone properties at the intersection of Hayward Street and South Street from residence lakefront to rural business. The language of this article was substantially similar to a 2023 citizens’ petition made by resident Peter Bemis as Article 29 for the 2023 Annual Town Meeting. Bemis withdrew it from consideration beforehand.
Bemis originally proposed the zoning change to allow Hopkinton resident Jim Marguerite to relocate the headquarters of Marguerite Concrete to that location, which currently is forested land. Marguerite’s current headquarters is in Hopedale. Five of the lots there would have been used for an office and employee parking, while two of the lots would have been preserved as open space. No concrete was proposed to be mixed there.
Benson said that while he could see people on the Zoom meeting appeared to be attending in response to this proposed article, public comment would not be taken because it was not advertised as a public hearing.
“We’re not really going to get into the discussion of its validity of whether we support that or not tonight,” he said.
Member Lucia Lopez asked if the parcels that were proposed to be donated to the town as open space were listed in this article. Principal Planner John Gelcich responded that he did not have a plot plan that showed the specific parcels that are intended to be donated. Also, the details were not necessary to place the article on the warrant.
The board voted 5-1-2 to place the article on the warrant. Member Vikasith Pratty recused himself from voting because he is a direct abutter. Member Elise Mihajloski abstained, while Lopez voted no.
“We in general know the sentiment,” Benson said after the vote. “But this is more of a procedural thing tonight.”
The other articles approved were administrative placeholders. One article, approved in an 8-0 vote, would amend the definition of a veterinary clinic.
A second article, Gelcich explained, would amend the reference in Section 210-126.2 of the town bylaw that referred to duplexes. It was proposed to correct an incorrect reference number. It also passed 8-0.
An article modifying the language of the bylaw regarding accessory dwelling units was approved 8-0. It would bring the language in line with recently passed state legislation regarding the approval process for ADUs.
Gelcich explained that the state made ADUs allowed as of right in single family zoning districts across the state. Standards regarding maximum unit size and parking restrictions were included in the state law, which goes into effect Feb. 2.
ADUs currently are allowed under special permit, he added. Under the state law, one would be allowed by right, while additional ADUs would be allowed under special permit.
An article that would modify the language of the town bylaw regarding floodplain districts to comply with state and federal requirements was approved to be added to the warrant in an 8-0 vote.
Board OK with Winter Street stone wall
In an unusual case, the board voted 9-0 that a stone wall at 61 Winter Street that was suspected of encroaching onto Open Space Preservation Commission land did not justify a scenic road violation. There was speculation that the wall also was in the right of way, which is under DPW jurisdiction.
Benson explained that Winter Street is a road that forms a loop around Lake Whitehall. At 61 Winter Street, there had been a stone wall that was damaged when a vehicle struck it last spring.
The property owner built a “more permanent” concrete wall to replace it, Benson said. The OSPC believes that the new wall extends into its land. At a recent OSPC meeting, the commission voted to have the land surveyed to determine how much of the wall may be encroaching on its land. OSPC chair Ed Harrow told the board that the survey had not yet been completed.
Gelcich explained that building a wall on a scenic road is not a violation. But “tearing down a wall within a scenic road is a violation.”
In this case, it was not clear where the town’s boundary marker had been placed. An old photo of the stone wall showed the boundary marker. Gelcich said this picture showed that the stone wall did not appear to be in the right of way, although he could not make that determination for the board.
Said Gelcich: “This wall has issues that go beyond Planning Board.”
If the board voted that the wall was in the right of way or on OSPC land, Gelcich said the property owner would have to appear at a hearing before the board to justify how the current wall was built.
Harrow said that OSPC believes that the wall extends 15.5 feet onto its property. Fill placed behind the wall “is clearly on our property.” The OSPC voted to have the alleged offending portion of the wall removed.
Benson said that because there are no clear pictures that determine where the historical markers had been placed, and due to the nature of why the wall was replaced, there was no definitive information that would prompt the Planning Board to justify a violation. The board agreed in a 9-0 vote.
Wilson Street stormwater damage discussion continued
A discussion on stormwater damage on Wilson Street was postponed because the parties involved had scheduling conflicts that prevented them discussing the issue before the Planning Board meeting.
Department of Public Works Director Kerry Reed previously contended that stormwater runoff from The Trails development caused substantial damage to a portion of Wilson Street. The board will discuss this issue at its next meeting on Feb. 10.
0 Comments