Issue 9 October 2024
Planning Board 8/26
This meeting concentrated on the White Pond development. The board heard from the applicant and was pleasantly surprised by his ecological intents.
The minutes from 7/22/24 were tabled since they had not been reviewed.
A draft of these minutes can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planning-board/minutes/7-22-24-pb-meeting-minutes-draft.
Public Hearings
McGovern Blvd. Ext. The Applicant is requesting a continuance to the September 9 meeting.
This public hearing is being continued from March 25, 2024. The Applicant, 7802, LLC is proposing a Definitive Subdivision of two lots located off McGovern Blvd. in North Lancaster. The lots are identified in the Town of Lancaster’s Assessor’s Office as Map 8 lot 45 and map 14-Lot 4D. Project Documents can be found here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planning-board/pages/mcgovern-blvd-ext-definitive-subdivision-0.
This was continued until September.
357 Sterling Road
The Applicant is requesting a continuance to September 9. This is a continuance of a Public Hearing that was opened on January 8, 2024.
This Public Hearing is being continued from March 25, 2024, for an application for a Stormwater Permit and Site Plan approval to construct a proposed 6,780 square foot community center accessory attached to an existing place of religious assembly at this site. This site is identified in the Town of Lancaster’s Assessors Office as Map 41 Parcel 11. Project documents can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planning-board/pages/357-sterling-road.
Chair Frank Streeter said the applicant wants a continuance until Thanksgiving. Brian Keating, Planning Director, said public hearings should not be continued past 90 days. The motion to continue past this meeting was approved.
White Pond Road Flexible Development
This is a continuance of a public hearing that was opened on June 24, 2024. The applicant is proposing a residential development consisting of four residential units contained in two separate buildings using the Town of Lancaster’s Flexible Development Bylaw (Ch. 220-15) See the text of the Bylaw here: https://ecode360.com/11813794#11813794. Project Documents can be found at this link: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planningboard/pages/white-pond-rd-flexible-development-plan.
Chair Streeter said the greater part of the discussion is about the open space, referencing comment #5 in a letter submitted by Thomas Corbett, Senior Project Manager for the applicant, GoVenture Capital Group, LLC. This letter quotes Brad Stone, Conservation Agent’s comments, and a response. In particular, Streeter asked for some photos of the “visual amenity”, saying the phrase needs some backup. Streeter said the town is not required to accept the applicant’s conveyance of the open space as stated in the letter, as the town would have to vote on such an action. Essentially the “open space,” 8.4 acres, is wildlife habitat and wetlands with steep slopes, within which pathways or walkways would need environmental permissions. Corbett stated in his letter that this open space was a visible amenity and therefore does not need access. Also, any clearing would create a line of sight to the solar panels on the other side and thus be detrimental. At the end of the comment, he cited a bylaw that would allow GoVenture to convey the open space to the town and negated any town entity from commenting on its desirability. It was this language in Corbett’s letter which prompted Streeter’s comment.
Corbett came to the podium and spoke to the letter, saying the development is aiming to keep the rural nature of the area. Discussion followed with a review of the actual site plans. Some areas were identified as good for paths, but the major goal of GoVenture was to get a building permit. Corbett was adamant in his desire to preserve the quiet and nature of the neighborhood. He spoke about many ideas to do this. The Board reacted positively. Corbett would like to have a site visit by the Board. Streeter asked for some pictures. Corbett will provide some better plans and the hearing was continued.
Public Meetings
580 Fort Pond Rd - Special Permit Extension
Request can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif4586/f/pages/permit_extension_request_- _580_fort_pond_rd_lancaster_ma.pdf. A Special Permit to allow over 15% of impervious surface pursuant to Lancaster Zoning Bylaw 220-39 was approved on January 30, 2023. The applicant is now requesting to extend the two year time limit for the special permit.
This was approved.
Master Plan
Motion to Adopt the Master Plan as revised through June 22, 2024.
This was approved.
Wayfinding Signage Program
Motion to adopt proposed design and map of sign locations. The Town of Lancaster accepted a state grant from the Massachusetts Downtown Initiative as part of the FY 2023 One Stop for Communities grant round. The Town worked with the Consultant Civic Space Collaborative to create a design concept for a Wayfinding Signage program for the Town and a map of proposed locations. The final draft report can be found here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif4586/f/pages/lancaster_branding_wayfinding_signs_report_7.2024.pdf.
This was approved.
Conservation Commission 8/27
This meeting was very short with few applicants showing up. The situation at 397 Center Bridge Road is being referred to the Central MA DPW for further consultation.
Public Hearings
Continued Notice of Intent – 0 Heritage Lane
Construction of a driveway crossing and single-family home.
This was tabled due to no applicants present and continued until September 10.
Continued Notice of Intent – 10 Fire Road 54
Continued until September 10th, 2024.
This is already continued.
Continued Notice of Intent – 0 No Main Street (Map 24, Parcel 41.A)
Construction of a single-family house, driveway and septic system.
This is tabled due to no applicants present and continued until September 10.
Continued Notice of Intent – 121 Fire Road 11
Retaining wall replacement and site improvements.
This was continued September 10.
Request for an Amended Order of Conditions – 314 Fort Pond Road
Construction of stairs, tree removal, dock platform, trench drain, patio and kitchen
No applicants present and the notice to the abutters did not go in time, so the notice needs to be re-sent, but the hearing was opened upon Brad Stone, Conservation Agent’s recommendation. The hearing was continued.
Discussion
Enforcement Order – 397 Center Bridge Road
Stone gave an update: he has been in contact in the Central MA DPW and made a formal request for aid.
Conservation Commission membership organization – vote for officers
This was tabled until all members are present.
Minutes to Approve
7/23/2024
Some items were missing and have corrections. The minutes were approved with the corrections and the items added.
Select Board 9/4
This meeting had contentious discussions with Chair Steve Kerrigan taking umbrage at some of Member Ralph Gifford’s suggestions and comments. The most telling of these was the vote on the budget goals when Gifford voted no since the goals did not include any stated goals of trying to trim back budgets to lower tax rates.
Scheduled Appearances and Public Hearings
Public Hearing – Proposed Laying Out of Hawthorn Lane as a Public Way
The Lancaster Select Board will hold a public hearing, in accordance with G. L. c. 41, § 81I and G.L. c. 82, § 22 regarding the proposed laying out of Hawthorne Lane as a public way for its entire length from its intersection with Hilltop Road to its terminus, as shown within A 17-page set of plans entitled "Definitive Subdivision Plan off Hilltop Road, Lancaster, Massachusetts" by Whitman & Bingham Associates, LLC, Plan No. 17-C-126, dated October 6, 2015, a copy of which is on file with the Lancaster Town Clerk, and available for viewing online at https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/ , and the potential acquisition of land in fee and/or easements for said way and related drainage, access and utility, utility, and other easements by eminent domain.
This public hearing was closed. Member Jason Allison made a motion to take Hawthorn Lane as a public way and to present this as an article on the Town Warrant for the Special Town Meeting, October 7, 2024.
Public Comment
Chair Steve Kerrigan made his usual introduction about how the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled against town officials curtailing public speech and then asked for civility.
Jean Syria, 102 Bolton Road, spoke first. She opened with the statement she found it ironic that Member Allison was on Zoom since he had led a motion to eliminate Zoom participation. At this point, Chair Kerrigan is seen seemingly to rub his nose while appearing to make an obscene gesture.
Syria then went on to say that with the override that passed, there had been a promise of no new jobs being created in town government. Since the override, there is now a new town assistant and the town is advertising for a new executive secretary, and paying to advertise the job. She said that these jobs are being slid through and not being put on the town warrant and she resents being lied to. She said the town has less DPW workers than before, which is worrisome. She stated that Kathy Lamb used to take Mondays off and yet, attend SB meetings on Monday nights and get all the other town work done without an assistant.
Roy Rezac, 125 Harvard Rd, spoke to two issues. He has provided to Member Allison’s query about staying in his family home while paying town taxes, a multipage written response summarizing the tax fairness report outlining the various strategies available. He stated there was no silver bullet to the tax rate faced by seniors. The second item has to do with the Tax Fairness Report which is being reviewed later in the meeting and he requested that he be able to comment at that time.
Meeting Minutes
Member Ralph Gifford wanted to amend the minutes of page 4 of July 15 to correct a statement and make his words specific. He wanted to the minutes to reflect his graduated per year tax rate decline. Both Chair Kerrigan and Allison disagreed that the minutes had to be this specific. Kerrigan asked him to withdraw his amendment and then the motion to approve the minutes would be tabled, while the recording again was reviewed by Kerrigan. This was approved.
The August 5 minutes were approved.
The motion to review and take action on the Executive Session Meeting Minutes (redacted) to allow the release of Item #2 – Negotiations with Nonunion (bylaw) Employee, released upon affirmative vote: June 3, 2024 was approved.
Resignations
Affordable Housing Trust
Carolyn Read’s resignation is effective immediately.
Appointments
Community Preservation Committee – Member at Large
Chair Kerrigan announced that this appointment would not be done “at the moment” to give people a chance to apply.
Licenses and Permits
All were approved.
Administration, Budget and Policy (Votes may be taken)
The motion to open FY24 Special Town Meeting Warrant (scheduled for 10/7/2024) was approved.
The motion to finalize the proposed Community Preservation Act (CPA) Policies and Procedures was approved.
Public Hearing – Enterprise Water Rate Adjustments
The Lancaster Select Board will hold a public hearing, in accordance with G. L. c. 41, § 81I and G.L. c. 82, § 22, in conjunction with the Public Works Commissioners, regarding the proposed change in Water Rates charged to those who are part of the Town of Lancaster’s Enterprise Water operation.
The meeting was opened by both the Select Board and the Public Works Commissioners. The steps of the water rates were explained; there are 4 steps based on consumption. The 5% rate increase will affect the people consuming at step 2 and above. Member Allison asked why they are raising the rate; the answer was to induce water conservation and to improve the water quality. Member Gifford reaffirmed that people at step 1, the basic rate for low consumption will not see a rate increase and this covers about 50% of customers. He also asked what is the driver for the conservation efforts? The commissioners answered that consumption has been going up because of expansion. Also new meters will be going in to help with accuracy of the water readings. The new meters will send alerts to a customer’s phone so they can view the usage. This is especially helpful if the customer has a pipe break. The hike will take place in October.
Linnea Lakin Servey, 1394 North Main St asked how the rate hike will affect the contingency funds. She would like to know where to get a view of the finances of the Enterprise Water operation. Chair Kerrigan said it is online.
Dick Trussell, 13 Burbank Road, has objections to how the rate hike is being applied. He thinks it should apply across the board.
The hearing was closed. The Board approved the rate change.
Proposed Amendment to FY25 Capital Budget
Fire Apparatus Emergency Acquisition Project
Commissioner Everett Moody presented the need of a new pumper truck to replace Engine 4 (1999) which is at the end of life with well-known deficiencies, including the inability to draw water in and spare parts are not available because of its age. It is the last one in service in the country. The replacement for the one truck would be ~$1.2M. He offered a proposal where the engine would be replaced by two trucks, one a mini pumper (~$525K) which could better serve Lancaster rural residences as it is smaller and has all-wheel drive and a 2000-gallon tanker truck (~$575K). The costs presented are based on a lease agreement. These trucks will help the Town’s ISO (Insurance Safety Offices) rating which is reflected in residents’ insurance home policies. One third of the town does not have direct access to a hydrant. Kate Hodge, Town Administrator, advised the 10% down could be paid from the capital stabilization fund and the rest financed on a 7 year loan at ~5.5%. This was approved as an article at the Special Town Meeting. The full details of the financing are listed in the October 7th Warrant as Article #1.
Thayer Memorial Library Structural Repair
Joel Mule presented the need for additional funds for repointing the brick work in the old part of the library. The CPA funds (~$75K), along with an amount from the library funds (~$10K), will not cover the full cost according to the consultant working on the project. Mule is asking for another $10K to make sure they can do the project. Hodges said there is about $8900 in unused funds in the capital and so this could be used. It was approved that Hodges could repurpose these unused funds for the library.
Finalization of Tax Fairness Committee Report & Adoption (vote may be taken)
Chair Kerrigan restated the town will not support the publication of the report with reverse mortgages.
Rezac came forward to comment on this refusal. He said it is important to get the report out to get people educated, stating that reverse mortgages are legal and there is information widely available.
The committee has talked about Kerrigan’s objection and it provided the possible resolutions:
He said the report could take the image of town hall off to negate any connection with town, Kerrigan said no.
He said the committee could put a footer on the report saying it is not financial advice. Kerrigan said yes to this.
He said it could revise the wording to make sure that financial expert advice is sought on reverse mortgages.
He said the Select Board could make a statement on that page stating reverse mortgages are not advisable.
He said the statement about reverse mortgages could be moved to an appendix.
He said if residents don’t see this information they may have concerns about the thoroughness of the information.
Kerrigan said he could support the idea of moving it to an appendix. Kerrigan accused the committee of being disingenuous, though he said he was not saying that.
Rezac said the very last option to eliminate the term.
Kerrigan said they want the report distributed.
A motion was made by Member Allison to let Kerrigan and Hodges make changes.
Gifford said that this is a missed opportunity to educate the residents on reverse mortgages. Hodges said she sent language to the committee but doesn’t feel anyone but the committee could make changes.
Kerrigan said he has been clear but he will consider some language to go into an appendix.
The motion passed with Kerrigan and Allison approving and Gifford disapproving.
Review & Approval of Special Town Meeting Warrant Articles
Public Safety Classification & Compensation Plan [Fire & Non-Union Police]
This was approved.
Bylaw Addition, Denial of Permits or Licenses with applicant(s) in tax arrears
Gifford asked if there would be some guardrails on the process. Hodges said yes, depending on what the different town committees and boards wanted to put in place. This was approved.
Amendments to Special Acts 2002, Chapter 315 (Finance Director Language) & other language to include Lancaster’s Finance Director within the Personnel Bylaw.
This was approved.
Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) – Sale Partnership Agreement, Zoning Options & MassDevelopment Grant Process Outline
Hodges explained the DCAMM property does not provide some of the things needed for a 40R development. There is not enough funding for investigation into both a Smart Growth Overlay 40R and an Integrated Plan Overlay District (IPOD) development. Kerrigan said since the 40R development in North Lancaster is soon to come to fruition, he recommended pursuing an IPOD.
The Board approved a motion to instruct Hodges to investigate the IPOD.
FY26 Budget Goals, Department Heads/TA (continued from 8/5/24)
Hodges covered 7 goals and objectives that supported by the master plan. Gifford asked how, has there been any discussion about how to reduce the town budget? Hodges answered in affirmative, but she does not know how to keep taxes low with the new high school. Kerrigan said that there is a budget, and Hodges is keeping to the budget with her hiring practices.
A motion was made to approve the Budget Goals. Kerrigan voted yes, Allison voted yes, and Gifford voted no. Kerrigan then turned to Gifford in protest, accusing him of dismissing the hard work the town employees have been doing. He then explained that he would give Gifford as much time as he needed to explain his no vote. Gifford responded that he had first-hand experience with voters. He said that while talking with a resident, “the resident said, ‘if I get another email about how to do cake decorating at the community center, I will commit hari-kari, or something;’ she was making that comment because she saw the town as spending money on things that she saw as not adding value. So, the question is have we had discussions about what we can do to keep our taxes manageable. I am not convinced we are working hard enough at the things that will keep our taxes low.” Gifford asked “if we have had discussions on what we can do to keep the taxes lower.”
Kerrigan said these are budget goals and not budget planning and he asked Gifford what was his big idea for lowering taxes. Gifford said he did not have the one big idea to solve the world’s problems but he wanted focus on that goal nevertheless. Kerrigan countered that he thought Gifford’s comments were insulting and were not good enough. Gifford said he was clear, and he is still looking for ideas to trim the budget. Allison said he and Kerrigan are looking for an alternate suggestion from Gifford based on a No vote. He recited how there are no meaningful cuts from the town budget because the schools are $0.68 of every tax dollar. He thinks the programs like cake decorating are beneficial to the town. Splitting the tax rate was the only option he has heard.
Public Records Requests
Gifford made the request that if a town official is subjected to a Public Records request that they have direct access to town counsel. Kerrigan said he granted access and Gifford said in the email he was asked to direct all his questions to the town administrator and that potentially put the town administrator in the middle of the Public Records request. He cited a hypothetical situation where the town administrator may be personally involved with the person making the request and this would put her in a situation, she should not be in. Kerrigan said Select Board Members have direct access to town counsel through him. He also said that Gifford’s questions had to do with how to satisfy the request and since the town administrator had lots of experience with these requests, Gifford should ask his questions of her. Hodges then said that she found Gifford’s supposition of a supposed conflict insulting. Gifford then made the motion the town officials have direct access to town counsel. No one seconded the motion.
A staff writer notes:
At the August 5 meeting of the Select Board, Gifford brought up a $100K payment as being due to the town per terms of the North Lancaster agreement. Alison demanded to know how Gifford knew of this payment and Gifford explained that a resident had brought it to his attention. Allison said he did not know of this. This was to be investigated. The following week a request was made by the Town Administration Office to the entity owing the payment and payment was made by the end of August.
Executive Session
The Select Board will entered Executive Session pursuant to M.G.L c.30A, §21(a), for the following purposes: i. Purpose (3): To discuss strategy with respect to litigation in the matter of Town of Lancaster (Plaintiff) v. Heather Lennon, Richard Belanger, and Lancaster Historical Society (Defendants) v. Lancaster Historical Society (Counterclaim Plaintiffs) v. Stephen Kerrigan and Jason Allison (Counterclaim Defendants), as the Chair has determined that discussion in open session would have a detrimental effect of the Town’s litigation position; and ii. Purpose (2): To conduct a strategy session in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel, town bylaw (non-contracted) employees; and iii. Purpose (7): "[T]o comply with, or act under the authority of, any general of special law or federal grant-in-aid requirement, specifically as it relates to Open Meeting Law, G.L. Ch. 30A, S22 (f)(g) and for the purposes of discussing and approving the Select Board Executive Session Minutes from 08/05/2024; and not to reconvene in Open Session thereafter.
Affordable Housing Trust 9/5
This meeting centered on the Hilltop development with the applicant asking questions about Lancaster bylaw for Inclusionary Zoning.
Approval of Meeting Minutes
The minutes of May 2 and June 6 were approved. August 1 minutes were tabled until next meeting.
Scheduled Appearances
Nicole Ferguson, Whitney Companies & 0 Hilltop Road LLC
Developer of Hawthorn Hill, a proposed 18-unit subdivision on Hilltop Road, has requested a review of Inclusionary Zoning bylaw.
This property is under an open hearing with the Planning Board. Ferguson went through her questions. She questioned whether the payment in lieu of units was based on the average listing prices of the units or the market value of the units. Both terms are listed in section K, concerning this option in the bylaw. Chair Victoria Petracca said it was the listing prices that were the basis; the marketing value referred to the fact that the value needed to be current to the marketplace. Ferguson then asked how Lancaster came to the 80% ratio when other towns are much lower. Her firm is having a hard time with this option as opposed to just building the units and selling at a reduced price. Petracca said the Trust has not made any official preference. She went on to say that it is the bylaw, and it can’t be changed as it was voted on by the town. She went on through the process of writing the bylaw in detail. Ferguson said when they look at the numbers, how much it cost to build something, she said the only option for them is to build the homes. She went on to say that all these homes in this development are going to be “spec homes” so they will be built to the buyers’ specifications. How would the homes for the inclusionary zoning be designed to blend in with the development? Petracca said that the median number of bedrooms would be key, as well as other aspects, like any finishing, siding, type of home, etc. The Trust would be looking to combine the median and majority of parameters into these homes. They are to be not distinguishable from the other homes in the development. The bylaw says the interior need to be indistinguishable from the other homes also and this was not Ferguson’s understanding since this is not what other communities had as to regulations. Ferguson then said these homes would have to be built last out of each phase to understand what the other homes looked like. Both Petracca and Frank Streeter, the Planning Board liaison, say that section G covered the timing, and the homes had to be built before the building permit for the last unit could be issued. Ferguson then commented that then the units would have to be second to last. Petracca also advised the affirmative housing plan and affordable restricted deeds need to be recorded before building permits are issued. Streeter asked if Ferguson had been involved in single housing units, she said not but works with a consultant who is knowledgeable. Petracca asked Ferguson to feel free to come back to discuss any aspects.
Charter Commission, requested by Trustee Jason Allison as a Select Board Member
Allison was not present.
Transfer of Community Preservation Funds to Affordable Housing Trust
Kate Hodges, Town Administrator suggested via email communication with Petracca, that the Trust create a Town meeting request (warrant article) to appropriate existing CPA funds earmarked for affordable housing to Trust for future use under Community Preservation Act, MGL Chapter 44B, and Section 5(f). Streeter questioned whether after a transfer, town wide approval would still be needed to spend the funds. Petracca then said that the Trust’s account could accept payment in lieu of units under the Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw and also have the CPA funds, which could have different rules on expending the funds. She asked Kelly Dolan, Assistant Town Administrator, about this. Dolan said the funds would not co-mingle and they would have two different line items and two different accounts and be subject to separate audits. Ten percent of the CPA funds go to the Affordable Trust, though the Trust can ask for more if more is needed. Streeter clarified that if the town votes to give that 10% to the Trust, then another town vote is not needed to spend that money. Petracca agreed. Dick Trussell, Chair of the Finance committee asked Petracca, who would be the approval authority to spend any money in these accounts? He stated the sums could be large if a developer had paid into the account in lieu of building units. This type of money is much larger is different than operating money. Petracca said the situation has not been encountered. She thinks that there may be a state law. There is no known procedure. The town collector/treasurer is a custodian of the funds. Because the Trust does not have a budget, some of Hodges’ email is unclear but she states in the email that spending the money involves the approval of the Town Finance Director and the Town Administrator. Discussion followed. Streeter said that the process Hodges describes with the Finance Director and Town Administrator is the standard process to get any check cut, so this is not approval per se for what the funds are being spent. Petracca asked Dolan to get clarification of under what authority the money can be spent. Petracca remarked during this discussion that when 0 Hilltop Road was before the Planning Board before she had told Ferguson that it is easier to use funds for payments in lieu of building but she was not speaking on behalf of the Trust.
Update on Housing Production Plan (HPP) 2024 – 2029 Approval
Petracca said CommunityScale wants to come and present their finished product, the final report for Planning Board and Select Board approvals. If these two boards approve, it goes to the State Legislature. If approved there it becomes part of the two pieces the town needs to achieve safe harbor on affordable housing.
Affordable Housing Series – Fall 2024
The list was recited; Director of Bigelow will present Public Housing, Carolyn Read will present Habitat for Humanity, Clearpath will present veteran housing loans, RCAP will talk to world community housing, and Petracca will talk about the Affordable Housing Trust.
Updates to SHI Pipeline (in order of number of affordable units)
40R Smart Growth District, approximately 1410 – 1474 Lunenburg Road, Route 70
No update.
Neck Farm Estates, 13 Neck Road, Chapter 40B, Comprehensive Permit
A summary of revised plan for the 10 units in two buildings was given and that the matter still before the Zoning Board of Appeals for their judgement.
Laurel Hill, Harbor Classic Homes, 2038 Lunenburg Road, Special Permit
Streeter gave the update that a professional arm of Habitat for Humanity will be involved in the construction of the affordable units. Petracca protested that according to the bylaw, the deed restricted units are supposed to be undistinguishable from the other units, and she did not believe this could be accomplished with a different construction entity with different parameters.
Hawthorn Hill, 0 Hilltop Road LLC, Inclusionary Zoning, Local Action Units (See Agenda Item III)
Already discussed.
Property rehab, Cleveland Street LLC, 197 South Main Street, Inclusionary Zoning,
No building permit has been applied for the interior renovation.
Updates to Existing Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI)
None.
Correspondence
Letter of interest –Trustee Vacancy
Kristin Briner expressed interest in the vacancy. She is supposed to appear before the Select Board in September. Petracca is to meet with her but the Trustees have not met with her and therefore cannot vote on approving her though they did like the letter Briner sent in applying for the vacancy.
Action plan for amending Accessory Apartment by-law
(Section 220 – 9G Accessory Apartments and the Use Regulation Schedule of the Zoning Bylaw, 220 Attachment 1 Section 220-8.1 AB) to conform to new MA requirements.
Petracca explained the local bylaw needs to be in line with the state law. Streeter said the change(s) are relatively minor, with square footage allowed up to 900 square feet and not dependent on the primary residence. Also, parking may be affected if the property is close enough to public transit. He also doesn’t think owner occupancy is required, meaning there can be concerns with tenants that need to be explored. This will be an article on warrant for the spring town meeting.
DCAMM Property
Dolan reported that Select Board voted on the zoning for the DCAMM, not a 40R but an IPOD (see above). Discussion followed this with all the Trustees expressing surprise, and with Petracca and Streeter stating the Trust and the Planning Board need to be consulted. Also, Trussell brought up the MBTA consideration. Streeter stated zoning changes can be contentious and time consuming; the Planning Board needs to have public hearings, and a zoning change takes a town vote. Petracca stated with emphasis that the Trust wants to be part of the process.
Planning Board 9/9
This Board heard an update about McGovern Blvd but the meeting was primarily centered on the gym being proposed on Sterling Rd as an addition to the church there.
Public Hearings
McGovern Blvd. Ext. Application for a Definitive Subdivision
This is a continuance of a Public Hearing that was opened on November 13, 20243* *This public hearing is being continued from March 25, 2024. The Applicant, 7802, LLC is proposing a Definitive Subdivision of two lots located off McGovern Blvd. in North Lancaster. The Applicant has had a Notice of Intent (NOI) approved by the Lancaster Conservation Commission and is scheduled to receive an Order of Conditions at the Commission’s next meeting scheduled for 9/10/2024. The lots are identified in the Town of Lancaster’s Assessor’s Office as Map 8 lot 45 and map 14- Lot 4D. Project Documents can be found here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planningboard/pages/mcgovern-blvd-ext-definitive-subdivision-0.
Nathan Mahonen, the engineer from Bohler Engineering gave status of all the actions taken in front of all the town boards and the revised plans are now available and asked if there were any additional questions. He asked if there is any draft decision. Member Regina Brown asked if the road going further back in property would be shut down. The engineer replied that it will gated. The Board asked about emergency access. The engineer agreed that access through the gate would be necessary for emergency personnel. Chair Frank Streeter asked about water, applicant Bob Dipetri, said nothing was finalized. Streeter then asked about connecting roadways, which Dipetri said was not finalized and under planning, and then Streeter asked about stormwater to which Dipetri said each building will be responsible for their own stormwater plan. Member George Frantz asked about pending development timing, resulting in revenue for the town. Dipetri said the marketplace has been quiet but now he sees things picking up. Brown asked Dipetri about the vacant building down off RT 2. He said that the company wanted a single tenant and so that restricted tenancy and led to its long vacancy. Dipetri said location will be key for leasing. Streeter advised engineer to overbuild the stormwater since this year has been a very dry year.
The public hearing was closed, and an order of condition will be issued.
357 Sterling Road
Application for Site Plan Review and Stormwater Permit. This is a continuance of a Public Hearing that was opened on January 8, 2024* *This Public Hearing is being continued from March 25, 2024. This is an application for a Stormwater Permit and Site Plan approval to construct a proposed 6,780 square foot community center accessory attached to an existing place of religious assembly at this site. This site is identified in the Town of Lancaster’s Assessors Office as Map 41 Parcel 11. Project documents can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planning-board/pages/357-sterling-road. Staff Report 1. 2038 Lunenburg Rd.
Jeff Linthwaite, the Southern Conference of Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) Property Manager, 34 Sawyer Street, joined by Zoom. Brian Keating, Planning Director, asked Linthwaite about whether the parking issues had been resolved. Linthwaite replied in the affirmative. The church has stopped parking on Goss Lane and is using parking at satellite facilities and down further down in the Sterling Road lot. They have also acquired additional abutting property. Brown asked additional questions, confused about the ownership of the properties, to which Linthwaite replied that all properties are owned by the SDA. No charge or other transactions occur to use the parking facilities in different locations. Frantz asked about SDA’s plans for property in Lancaster. Linthwaite said the administration has had some changes in the past year, new president, etc. and he doesn’t think the educational hub is in the forefront right now; he is not sure where the new leadership will go with the property. Brown asked about residency in the properties. Linthwaite said he could not speak to that. Keating asked if the gym plans have been revised, that there is variance is needed. Linthwaite replied that the plans have been changed so that setback is being respected and no variance is required.
Member Kendra Dickinson asked about activities at the gym. Linthwaite replied there will be youth activities, sports like baseball, and the church has a Pathfinder club that will use the facility. Also, boy and girl scouts, as well as other activities concerning church members like large groups, weddings, etc. Dickinson asked about troubled youth to which Linthwaite could not say what the pastor would initiate but he did not think so; she asked then about buses, to which Linthwaite replied no.
Public comment opened with Brittany Anderson, 499 Sterling Rd, who had written a letter previously, she said could not go through all the items in her letter dated February 13, 2024. She cited parking problems on February 3rd on both Sterling and Goss Lane. Goss Lane had cars parked on both sides and the sidewalks were blocked on Sterling Road. Streeter asked if there were any issues since March 2024. She said the applicant had put no-parking signs on the roads but there was still parking and she questioned whether just anyone could post no-parking. She thought the parking situation was dangerous because the facility does not have designated parking if it was or became a standalone facility. Matt Anderson, 499 Sterling Rd, came forward to question the parking also and offered some opinions on what the bylaws say.
Frantz asked Keating about a change of ownership and whether or not there would be a need for an occupancy permit. Keating said yes and Frantz then asked about parking and Keating said the parking would be addressed if there was a change of ownership. More discussion on the parking followed. B. Anderson was asked if the parking had improved, she said yes but her property had been blocked on occasion. Linthwaite said that the congregation is aware of the issues. He said this is not a free-standing building but attached to the main building. Brown thinks Goss should be one way. More discussion followed with the Andersons about access to their house. Streeter suggested a discussion with Scott MacDonald, Supervisor of DPW, and Everett Moody, Commissioner of Safety, about traffic issues on Goss Lane.
Dickinson brought up that any actions affecting the historic stone wall need to be permitted.
A motion was made to continue until October 28 the hearing and approved.
Staff Report
2038 Lunenburg Road
Keating said there have been discussions about building permits especially about the affordable housing. Habitat for Humanity is involved with building these units, but it is not volunteer labor. The building is accomplished by a subsidiary well versed in building affordable housing. They will be able to satisfy the Inclusionary Zoning bylaw that the units are undistinguishable from the other units. Keating suggested that there be a presentation from this entity. Streeter would like a written statement from the developer stating the reason why they are asking Habitat for Humanity to participate.
The construction of the roadway will begin shortly.
A discussion followed about the requirements of the bylaw covering the affordable units.
DCAMM
The Board went over the decision by the Select Board to investigate an Integrated Plan Overlay District (IPOD) instead of a Smart Growth Overlay District 40R development. Keating distributed a chart going over the differences in requirements. Streeter reiterated his comments from the Affordable Trust meeting that a zoning change requires a lot of work, including hearings and a town vote.
Housing Production Plan
Draft copies will be available early October, and the final plan will need to be approved by both the Select Board and the Planning Board so a joint meeting with Select Board 10/21/24 was proposed, but the timing may not work if the plan is not available before the next meeting.
New Business
John Farnsworth, Farnsworth Engineering Associates, presented an application from Monroe Wire and Cable at 842 Sterling Road. They are planning a new building for storage, an addition to the main building. They have gotten a negative determination from the Conservation Committee so there are no issues there. There is a stormwater plan. Farnsworth would like to board to go for a site visit which was scheduled for September 17 at 1 PM.
Conservation Commission 9/10
This meeting was primarily focused on the 10 Fire Road 54 property and that hearing was again continued. Commission officers were elected, and two ongoing agenda items were added concerning fixing the bylaws and regulations, and understanding open space parcels for which the Commission has jurisdiction.
Public Hearings
Continued Notice of Intent – 0 Heritage Lane
Construction of a driveway crossing and single-family home
Continuance request until the next meeting was approved.
Continued Notice of Intent – 10 Fire Road 54
Bill Hannigan, Hannigan Engineering, had problems connecting to the meeting. Attorney Richard (Chip) Nyland spoke to what the applicant was hoping to accomplish. A site visit was done and there needs to be agreement on the vernal pond.
Once connected, Hannigan recounted that Commissioner Dennis Hubbard and Chair Tom Seidenberg came out to the site and reviewed the pool and the clump of trees. The line was redrawn to the commissioners’ opinions. A plan was shown with an area outlined and will be worked around. The new site plan showed the new location of the septic, and the driveway will be shifted east.
Hannigan would like to come back the second week in October. Hubbard asked if the original septic system had been located. Hannigan said no but he is talking with the Board of Health about this. Lavallee asked about the migratory paths of the vernal pool species. The shifting of the driveway does not have a known effect without knowing these paths. Hannigan said the applicant had a consultant from Oxbow Associates and said the town should have their own consultant on this; then hopefully there would be agreement between the two consultants about whether the driveway would work to help protect the vernal pool.
Lavallee would like the areas labeled as lawn or otherwise. Some discussion followed and so the plan was shown to have some areas labeled and Hannigan agreed he could add more notes to the drawing.
Patrick Garner spoke to the migratory paths and said Scott Symers from Oxbow Associates was very knowledgeable. He said the general plan looked good, but the migratory paths can only be observed in the spring during March and April and is a two-week process. He said this is a very important element. He said because the area to the east is raised, it may be that the species don’t use this area at all and come in from the north. He said until these paths were defined, the relocation of the driveway was premature.
Chair Seidenberg said the plan shows the house almost entirely inside the wetlands’ protection area of the pond and the structure is very close to the trees and so the trees are probably going to come down. He needs to know how this will be feasible. The driveway moving is problematic and needs to be addressed.
Hannigan requested a continuance until the second meeting in October.
Attorney Jeff Roelofs spoke next on behalf of an abutter, John Bowen. He said he thought the Commission reversed their opinion on the areas being affected. He said the Commission seems to be basing their opinions on the current conditions instead of the historical conditions which were more primitive. He showed comparison photos from before the applicants purchased the property and after the purchase. In the photos there is significant clearing down to the pond from the site after purchase. He said the conditions at the time the bylaw was adopted should be the conditions that count. He took the view that a bad precedent is being set. If people take actions to develop portions of their property prior to coming before the Commission, then no standards can be kept for wild areas to be left undeveloped. Bowen has submitted photos of the listing before the property was bought in 2007. Atty Roelofs said only the driveway and the structure can be considered developed areas. He showed a plan that is supposed to show the original driveway and, also, a redlined area that has been defined as a turnabout, but historically had not been part of the driveway. The surveyors in 2022 did not define this area as part of the driveway. He said the applicants are relying exclusively on the current conditions, not the conditions in 2007. He reiterated that only the original driveway and structure can be considered developed areas as exclusions from the vernal pool buffer zone. Roelofs said the Lancaster Bylaw was written to be more protective of the environment than the state laws, he said it is not fair to muddy the waters with imprecise terminology. “Developed” does not mean “disturbed.” He said the labels of lawn and other areas of interest will help.
Discussion followed among the commissioners.
Chair Seidenberg asked that the original photos be provided with the date taken as that would helpful. Atty Roelofs will investigate dating the photos. He said the Commission does have the testimony from Bowen, who is an attorney, about the condition of the property over the past forty years. He said exchanging a lawn for a building is not an exempt activity.
Atty Nyland countered this has been gone through before and decided in the ORAD discussions. He feels comfortable with the current plan as defining the areas that are not natural and have been developed. He said once they have a clear idea where they can put the proposed construction then they will come back with a plan that will protect all the areas of concern, but it has not yet been agreed and defined where the proposed building can occur.
Chair Seidenberg asked about the property in 2007. Are the photos representative of its state?
Atty Nyland said some more investigation needs to be done to positively determine the exact date of the existing photos.
Hannigan said even though the photos show an overgrown situation but it may only mean negligence, not a natural state of maintenance.
Commissioner Hubbard wants to know the location of septic.
Atty Roelofs said the photos show the house as it was occupied.
This hearing was continued to October 22.
Continued Notice of Intent – 0 No Main Street (Map 24, Parcel 41.A)
Construction of a single family house, driveway and septic system
Dan Hazen, Elbag Engineering, spoke to a revised plan with an added no-disturb line. A response letter was sent to Brad Stone, Conservation Agent, and there had been a site visit. The entire property is within the 200 ft buffer zone of the riverfront. Details of the driveway crossing the culvert were shown. Stone said he just wants a wetland scientist to have eyes on the culvert construction so that native soils, etc. are used. He didn’t think this would be a burden. The application is still waiting for the owner’s signature. Without that, a decision should not be rendered.
Commissioner Jim Lavallee asked whether the building will occur when the intermittent streams are dry. Hazen replied that they are intermittent. Lavallee wanted a condition that only do the construction when dry. Commissioner Dennis Hubbard wanted to know if the 25 ft buffer zone can be respected with no erosion control encroachment. Hazen replied yes. Stone said he agreed with Hubbard’s concern. The Commission will not close the meeting or issue an order of conditions until the application is complete. Alex Watson, the owner, was present and promised to be down the next day to sign. The Commission was able to close the hearing and issue the order of conditions.
Continued Notice of Intent – 121 Fire Road 11
Retaining wall replacement and site improvements
A request for continuance until the next meeting was approved.
Continued Request for an Amended Order of Conditions – 314 Fort Pond Road
construction of stairs, tree removal, dock platform, trench drain, patio and kitchen
Engineer Ryan Proctor of Dillis & Roy provided a revised site plan and a letter of the changes. He went through the changes. Stone was all set with the revised plan. Chair Seidenberg asked about vegetation around the steps which will be replicated after step construction.
The hearing was closed, and the amended order of conditions was issued.
Request for Determination of Applicability
Removal of dead trees within the Seven Bridge Road right-of-way
The DPW superintendent has been working with Stone on this. He said it is a long stretch of road and there are about 40 trees that are dead. Stone showed a plan of the road, and it goes from the Bolton line to the edge of the Nashua River in the Flats. Details can include some GPS locations. The hearing will be continued to gather more detail. The trees are within the right-of-way, very close to the pavement. Some discussion followed. Commissioner Lavallee suggested that the tree removal form be used. He asked what the impact would be to the tree canopy over the roadway. Stone said the trees are interspersed in the tree line. He didn’t think the canopy would be overly affected.
Commissioner Hubbard said general location is necessary. He mentioned that work along the scenic roads may need to go before the Planning.
Commissioner Mallette asked why the trees died, may be some invasive factor.
Commissioner Lavallee said the trees may have died from flooding.
This hearing was continued.
Discussion
Enforcement Order – 397 Center Bridge Road
Stone did not have an update. He has not been able to connect with the Central Mass DPW. If no progress by the next meeting, then the Commission may want to go to the Town Counsel and Administration.
Conservation Commission membership organization – vote for officers
Seidenberg remains as chair.
Lavallee remains as vice chair.
General discussion regarding updating the Wetlands Protection Bylaw
Chair Seidenberg would like to tweak the bylaws and regulations for better enforcement. This will be an ongoing agenda item. Stone says the bylaw needs to be fixed.
General discussion regarding the oversight of Open Space Parcels
With the additional of more open space being added to the Commission’s jurisdiction from the last town meeting, Seidenberg said an inventory needs to be done and the trail map needs to be reviewed for property ownership. Valid uses need to be defined with signage, especially at the Cook Conservation and the newly acquired property in North Lancaster. This will be an ongoing agenda item.
Minutes to Approve: 8/13/2024, 8/27/2024
These minutes were not yet available.
Stone brought up the mailing of significant pieces of mail. He wanted the regulation changed to get the mailings out faster and least expensively. He also wants to make some form changes so the instruction sheets are filled out correctly and not confusing residents. Additionally, the fees for legal ads are understated. He mentioned the Worcester Telegram is being used instead of the Item because of timing issues. He also stated there were a lot of applications received this week. He wants the website updated with the new items.
Zoning Board of Appeals 9/19
This meeting was solely about 13 Neck Road. The public hearing was closed at the conclusion of the meeting.
2. Approve Minutes –July 18, 2024; July 25, 2024; August 22, 2024 The drafts of these Minutes can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/node/16/minutes/2024.
Tabled until the next meeting.
Public Hearing
Public Hearing Continuation of 13 Neck Road.
A petition by Neck Farm, LLC (applicant and property owner), 66 West Street, Suite 1F, Leominster, MA, for the following: Comprehensive Permit (M.G.L. 40B) for the construction of eleven (11) units of housing, including three (3) affordable units, on a .56 acre site. The property is located on Neck Road and Center Bridge Road in Lancaster and is identified on the Assessor’s Map 34 Parcel 42. All project documents under consideration by the Board of Appeals can be viewed at this link: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/board-appeals/pages/13- neck-rd-40b-applications-and-documents.
Jeanne Rich, acting chair, went through the waivers being requested to document in the comprehensive permit conditions letter. These waivers included curbs, setbacks, parking, parking design, signage, and stormwater as well as procedural actions. Both Attorney Christopher Alphen for the applicant and Attorney Adam Costa for the town made comments, clarifying various points. One waiver asked for a waiver on building permit fees for the affordable units. The Board disagreed. Alphen said they were only asking for the affordable units to be waived. Rich asked if paying the fees would make the project uneconomic. Another waiver was also asked for water and sewer fees for the affordable units. The Board again disagreed.
A presentation was made by the applicant’s engineer, Joe Peznola, showing a revised plan for the sidewalk and the right of way. There was some movement in the utility pole and the steps out of the buildings. Discussion followed about snow removal and other attributes of the parking situation.
The purpose and framework of the conditions was reviewed by Atty Costa as well as the configuration of the units, including the affordable units. The conditions of no parking on the associated roadways were recited. The reduction from 11 units to 10 units, and therefore to from 3 affordable units to 2 affordable units and other options were explained. The Board discussed the tradeoffs between the percentages of the affordable units. The affordable units are offered for 30 years. Lancaster residents will get preference, provided diversity is maintained. The configuration of the affordable units will be determined by the housing authority. Erosion control was discussed, and the site plans are considered by the Board to be finalized unless other situations arise. Regarding reports on site conditions, Bethany Ordung, Haley Ward Inc., town consultant, agreed with Rich’s suggestion that these should be available on a regular basis.
A discussion followed on the setback of the fencing regarding snow removal. Lighting was reviewed.
Condition 27 explained extensively the logistics for temporary immediate parking for deliveries, etc.
Other conditions concerning the construction phrase and the rules around providing supervision to limit any inconvenience to residents and responsibility to local authorities.
The agreement permitting construction expires after 3 years if no construction has started.
Public comment commenced.
Atty Benjamin Tymann, representing abutters, said the stormwater management is still an ongoing concern with other experts having submitted written comments differing from the applicant’s; because this is an environmentally critical area, the ground water level needs to be correct, and the experts do not agree with the current plan. He said stormwater management control is pending more stringent changes by the state agency because weather events are getting more extreme.
Alix Turner, 620 Main Street, asked what the basis was for granting some of the waivers as they involve public safety, environmental concerns, and the community. The scale and density of the project is still an issue, especially regarding parking.
She also cited her experience with the last heavy rain and felt the erosion plan should be reviewed again.
She asked for the hearing to be left open.
Gregory Wilson, 2 Neck Road, asked if the Board had considered where the workers will parked during construction as well as the machines, materials and moved earth materials.
Martha, Moore, 131 Center Bridge Road, commented also on the catch basin and the stormwater and she asked the Board to consider the domino effects, including the historic district and the abutting homes, as well as traffic congestion. She also asked if there had been definite understanding of emergency access ease. She talked about the precedent being set with this development.
Sam Malatos, 24 Neck Rd, thanked the Board for his opportunities to make his comments at previous meetings. He questioned again the ground water testing. He said the issue has not been resolved. He said a bad precedent is being set for 10 families inside this area, especially where the area is so congested.
Martha Schmidt, 115 Harvard Rd, spoke to the congestion at the intersection of Center Bridge and Harvard Rd and the trains which now do 40 MH through Center Bridge Rd as well as the traffic backup during train crossings; she is worried about children waiting at a bus stop and the emergency access for vehicles.
Joe D’Eramo, 127 Harvard Rd, questioned the setback, citing that the setback should be 74 feet according the bylaw since Center Bridge is considered an main road. Peznola replied that the setback is from the center of the road. D’Eramo said a child running off the porch with its closeness to the road, could be in the roadway in a matter of seconds. He cited Commissioner Moody’s assessment of the dangers this project allows.
David Sperduto, certified soil surveyor, on behalf of the Wilsons at 2 Neck, is an environmental scientist who has the concerns about stormwater management and groundwater height. He said there are enough contradictions in the documentation of this site. He said the groundwater cannot be ascertained, and the soil samples need to be confirmed. He went through the technology of soil testing. He said the design is missing some key aspects of stormwater management. He went through the aspects.
Lee Pothier, 66 Center Bridge Rd, questioned the pile up of snow up to 6 feet against a plastic fence without it breaking, and he told of his already wet basement, and he is concerned this snow will melt into his basement. He said Center Bridge is a highway and the traffic flies by. The whole neighborhood will be changed by this project.
Kendra Dickinson, 402 Oetman Way, cited the 40B guidelines, and that they allow for things that “aren’t pretty.” She said Lancaster was “pigeonholed by the State Legisature” and she asked the residents to go to the State Legislature to express their concerns.
Atty Alphen spoke to the scope of the project and how the applicant has tried to address the concerns and revised the plan to placate the objections and so he said he doesn’t have any reason to continue the public hearing beyond this.
Rich asked Ordung if she was satisfied with the ground water measurements. She replied not at first and went on to explain why and why there was confusion. She is confident in the second set of measurements. Peznola went on to further explain the conditions of the second tests. He said they could do further tests prior to finalizing the plan but they are confident in their testing. Member Hubbard asked Ordung about what kind of failure could be predicted if the stormwater system failed. Ordung said the system will continuously drain. Peznola responded also. He said the system will still function, but it just doesn’t provide the amount of separation it for which it was designed. There would be puddling.
Martha Moore, Center Bridge Rd, got back up to speak, and told of a concern with the current street catch basin being inadequate. Rich said it is in the conditions that this catch basin would be repaired.
Atty Costa said the reports will be filed on a regular basis and if there is a problem, the town would actively pursue a resolution.
Discussion followed about closing the public hearing.
Rich talked about her history with 40Bs. She said she had heard all the same complaints during their construction and yet those projects turned out all right. She said they should close the hearing.
Member Hubbard went through a question about a condition; that the Board cannot go back for new information. Atty Costa said peer reviews can be double checked with the entities as accurate.
The hearing was closed. The next meeting that the project will be on the agenda is October 24.
There was discussion about the final decision timing.
This project will be the only agenda item.
Correspondence and New Business: Potential new applications on next month’s agenda
Keating went through the next things up before the board, which was National Grid on Winsor Rd.