HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-31March 3~, ~980 - MOhSAY
Special Meeting
The PLanNING BOARD held a Special Meeting on Monday evening, ~arch 24, 19~O at
7:30 P.M. in the Totem Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and
voting: William Chepulis, Chairm~u; Paul A. Hedstrom, Clerk; and Michael P. Roberts.
Approximately 20 people present.
PUBLIC t~_ARINGS:
1 - Pk~5%~ED RESIDENTIAL D~YEIJOPM~T: Den Osgood -and John Brown present. The Clerk
read the legal notice. Bro~.m sts~ted that this wou~d be only residential uses with the
clustering of lots but in ~ higher density than Cluster Development; frequently
f~xnily, 4 family or townhouses. This by-lav~ is intended for tracts of land at ~east
20 acres in size, ~uything less would not benefit the developer or the Town. A mini-
mux~ of ~ of the entire tract would be open space land ~ud 1/2 has to be non-wetl,~nd~.
2~ of the required open space has to be suitable as permanent open space in natural
fo~r~ ms conservation l~ud. The other type of open space is for recreation. They
red'tawed, he said, last year's cluster zoning proposal and came up with 3 possible
to create the ?~ainten~m~ce route for the open space: ~ - condomini~nm trust or home-
o~ers association; 2 - convey land to ~ non-profit org~ui~;ation such ~s Esse~ Green
Belt or 3 - to the Con. Com. of the Town for park ~-,nd open space use. The denisty
would be not ~,~ore than 2 units per acre (there is ~ formula to be used); there is
buffer zone requirement, 30 ft. a~ound the entire plot a~d .?etb~ck req~Airements also
on which nothing would be allowed. In ~ddition to the 30 ft. buffer one c~muot build
within 75 ft. of the property line, with 20 ~t. between buildings; m~×imu~m height is
35 ft. ~mnd three a, tories; minimum frontage is the ss~ae as for the zoning district in
v~hich the site is located. ~owever~ each individual ~u~it does not have to have that
required front~e. It may be appropriate to locate single family d~.~ellings on some
po~'tion. Parking ~,~e~Iuirer~-.,ents s~re the same as required by the By-Law. Gro,~s area is
the entire site; net area is the portion to be developed.
Scott Follansbee, resident ~ud developer, spe~king ~,s ~, developer crc,ted that they are
hectically ~:tuek with the kind of developr.~ent th;~t c~n be done; one of the mo~t contro-
versial pieces of l~ is C~mpiou H~ll ou which development is going to be of traditio~a]_
ty2e ,~d so~ething like this propo~s,i could ha~e given the ~oard .~other tO'pc of plan
to e:.:plore; with the cost~~ of' ener~ ~d interest rates we h~ve to have some flexibi]_lty~
he ~d.ded.
Dill [.'.*c~u~on, resident, e:.:pressed concern if passe~ th~,t ~yone in ~$: section of to:m
who ~cquires 20 acres co~Id '~:se PEP. ir~e was told that the parcel m. ust first be re-zone,~
r~ad then a Si~ecial Permit has to b~ obt-~ined. Felt this was not in the best interests
of t,[. A. Jolm Bro~m st~ted that different ki. nds of households are being form,,.ed and are
needed ~md r~orma~ly they are smaller in size. ~'fanzon opined that ~,~-~ the dt,;ellings', itl
town built in the last 10 years: were multi-fmv:ily. The Planner told him ths, t multi-
f%r~ily dwellings were phased out in ,~,~ '-3md those that have been built were locked in
to the zoning in accordance with the law. Brov~ pointed out that there are economies
to the developer m,_%nd to the to~.rn later, i.e. less costs for road building, engineering,
etc. to the developer -~nd 1.tier on maintenance for roads by the town. ~,ffember Roberts
stated that he would be more in favor efa limit on the number that could be put in such
as one or two over a 5 year period of time. Fol!ansbee said this could be accomplished
by Special Permit but this adoption would get the concept on the books.
Narch ?,1 !~9,0 - cont.
Chepulis asked if -any savings in the construction of such a project would be passed
on to the buyer - Bream: don't k~iow of any builder or develoPer who doesn't work
toward the lowest price for a product, it ia ~ competitive market, when the developer
reaches his profit level i% will result in a lower price for the sons.er. ChepuliS
then inquired wha~ would happen if the to~m votes to approve the district ~d the
Special Psrmit is denied by the Pk~INC BOARD- Bro~m: you h~ve st~dards by which
.... ~ ' ao~m~t with rea~ons for s~e.
you c~n approve or disapprove sj ~ spe~i~
John Desmond, Great Pond Rd., felt tha~ ~hem~D'~ reason for ~he proposal is due to %he
~'~ + ~ ~* of '
· ~c~ that~o~ ro~d construction is ~:'o e:?e~sive~ cluster honing oh~es the economic
~d cultural nature of the towrG we nave vary ~,e,lu~tely built single-f~mily homes
people seem to enjoy them w~ether they ......... ~-,~
~ .... ,,_ z ~ not needed.
Mr. Averka, Great Pond '~' asked if this ,~ ~ ~ be sewered the
r~., -o,,~(. - ~n~rm~r, told him that
we don't ~owr~c,~'~' * now, it is the ~me ~,~ :%.,~?~ '~th~r development in that sometimes the
developer will eztend the se,~er line e~ud other ~m~'t~m~_.~ won't. Averka asked if that
l~d w~s not subject erosion ~d le~c~mng '~ ~ ~
provisions ~or ~hi~ ~nd ~he ~on. vop~. ~ oon~e~ in~o DI~~. Ave~ka brou~n~ up
~o ll~e_~ ~o con8~ruo~i?e in)u~, on how ~o ore~te ~ better ~t-L~w. = · oonoer~ed
about ~l~,in~ *' ~chool,
:mo~er not~nouo~i r~.:~trictioiu; o:n .hat wiii ~e Con .
:~e.r~a~r~ Darker ~ & Osgood ~-~ · ~ ~ ~ if
bon(.e_w~ there - restriction in
-Law ~"-~'~,.~ wol~td limit t~i:'c number of unitf: Z~ m .tore - ~: per gross: !ore or y~ ~i!s per
net ~c.e ~z~er siit, tractinjo.~'~'~n space l:~id.~,.~n~'~"'n"~'~,.,~l.. ~.o~'"e~'+~d~. ~ a ma::im~n of 1 ~ni% per
~Icl-e not includ~i~ wetlands ~,d ~ 200 ft. ~ -~ ' ' if
o~ .....~. O, Soo.~ felt that 2%e tram
~lOn z,~l it would n~ve ]~eeii ~ oi~.:~ rTcal b~ ~ ,er o~ ~ ~}lan a~.Vl~ houses
on the ~'' '~'=
validity but it should ',e m~de tougher. 0, gooa~ sa~ that the object of 80~S was to
allow thc expression oF the developer~ snd %mm~peop]c to cive inputw~n~*1 i
development by the P.~m L.u~ BOh~D' ' ' ~
.... , r~jc~ no;-: ~-~u bav~: no vehicle for ~oinj this; mwZer
tho present zoning there .... ~,'e no incen~ivet ,,t:, ~..11.
~ ..... Blekicki, ~rentwood Ci~'c!e, suj.Iezte~ .... Sn~ t:p % co,,,,~ee 2o review 2his
come up with ~idelinec ~ a '
.,rom pla~minj po~t~t of view. The Chairm~ stated %ha2 the
.~. ~.~ is a committee reviewing_ it and will Lc re:d-:inL- .a recommend:~tion a% Tram
Xotion then made by, Heclatrom to take tlie matter under ,4,'~.~t~e,.~m~.~ ~ ~oecona' 5y Roberts
,7~d 13~uMi~ou.s vo~c,
o CLU~T~ D~ ~LCP. ~ Clerk *~ ..... '-~
- ......... , e~,,.t ..... ego.:..~o oi~e. O~:~jood fc Dro%~ representing.
Told those pre~ent that tl-my h~d met ,"~'~ tire ~ ~o~
. ~l~ .... ~.o on ~l e,%r!ier occasio~ a~ nave
been working on the project since Jzmu~.rj. C]i~Ster Development wou].~ allow single
family dwellings on !otc shuttered on a :itc wi~, intervening open space. This by-law
would on!j bo allowed in E-l, R-2, ~ud ~,~-_.. ~ ~ ...... ~, there has to be ~ minimm of
~' ~ ~;:m ,i .... ~ ~re~ req~ired in the district
10 acres; each lot s.,nl~ contain not le~ ~ ~ ~ ~-
....... ' bonus in this proposal;
within which it i~' lom~ted. There is no ....... 1~ .~,._'~n-~,~'~-'~
this responds to the rli~¢ic"~i'~.. ~._ ~ in the ~urchn~i~ of large ~mo,~n~s of ~mnd and the
const~ction expenses of r ~ ~ ..... _
o~.c~ , open so~,oe ~s ~tr:~il~.r to P~.,. o?med, by trust,
by Con. Com., or o~ed by a r. on-pro~it or-',~n~z~ic~'o_ ~-.- ~, -~ ~inimum of 2~,J of the Eross site
area shall be ~' ~ %side space .....
~e~ for ~eil T'.'l~r~ ire ~s m.' ~-
.... ~. as 40 coroner, tries in State
that ]~ave adopted ctl~ster dev'alopment.
The Chairman ~otion~ .... ~(e) in the propoz'~.l_-,e~-~'~ .... ~,~ Doard of Appeals. Brovm said
this could be stricken because whether it i~: ~'.t ~ted or not the right still remains.
Jo~n" ~ '
,',ar_~ck, Cre~.t Pond Rd., st:~ted ~h"t it
~ ~. wou]_c Ii,ye helped on his propertj if the
option were ~h
:'la'.,."c'h 31~ t?~0 - '.:ont.
,,~.,n~lone~, th,.~ there would be no ~" '~ ,' involved with fhis proaosal,
would come right to the BO~IRD for a Special Permit. Roberts fel~ that a~ propos;~]
should go ~:efore 2he ~own. ~rovm said ~hat %he purpose is no2 ~o cm~tinuously use up
the time o*~. To~ ~.~eeting on particular prooosa!s. . A s', ~m~l~,' ~ parallel would be th~%
each subdivision jo before To~m ~eeting. Osgood interjected tha~ this proce~:s would
give the BOARD the ability to dictate what is going on in a subdivisio~ such as, avoid-
in~ roads going through wetl~ds. ~ ~
~ ~.0.~ has to be devclopa~le lead. ~ appe~s tha~ we
might be ending up with slot of cul de sacs, stated Chepulis, mud we still have
keep in mind approaches, accesses, etc. Borvm added that the adjoining l~ds are going
to be placed in open space ~d if you are going to put in "stub" ro~d you are crating
cul de sacs.. The ro~ system could be privately oz~ed ~d the town would not have
maintain them. The Planer stated that throngh the Special Permit procedure the possi-
bility of having ~y cul de sacs could be eliminated. ~Ie don't w~t to put by-laws in
the Z~L that are so prohibitive tt~t they won't be used ~ all.
U. rs. B!ekioki asked if this was not a f~cy wa~' of getting around the zoning - O~good
compared what a conventional subdivision a~,~ opposed to cluster would be like on the
parco! he is considering for re-zoning by showing plans.
Jo}m Thompson, ~PW, stated that this might be fine if all to~m boards are in agreement
witk ~, base line stud~- which addresses ali the details so they won't be in a court
ca~e every time a subdivision comes through.
John Desmond stated that drainage ds poor there~ e:.ztreme hard pan and suggested making
the by-l=,~w tight enough se that we don't get into a case of a piece of property that
c~n't be used for ~lything else is used for c]'~cter. Chepulis added that if that is ~
problem the PI~[L"?G 2~RD will consider it ~u~d also the Con. Com.
The Highw.%j; Surveo'or voiced opposition to a.n.z tOQna of cluster zoning'. Thompson then
inquired if we would ge*~ a com]~ine~1%~oard effort on this - Chepu!ir replied tl'~at we
skould~ before Town ~.~eeting. L*,otion made bo~ Hedstro~.] to take the mc. tier wn[]er advise-
TL~ Clerk ~ .... ~ the zonal' ~' notice. ~,'~.o~m, ctat~a' that the .cure'ese. would be
in the even2 ~ha~ the PRD wa:~ adop~e5 at Tom~ Hooting. This parcel would be placed
~.,z~n tl~i~ aonin~ ~n,~ red, est be ~ ~'b~
wo~za made Specs ~3. Pe~it. cont zins
~cre~. The ]_omd in on the market ~zd eventu~llj people are d'oing to build .iwellin~
unit~' on it in one fern or Jaiot]ier. 2lekioki.' would ~z,'~i,.~ ........ ~z~=n go ~nrou~:z +'.zze Con.
Com.? Bz.ot-m 'told has' that the Planning Board wou!(~ h+zve to confer with other ]:.oard~:~
~n the Speci?.l Permit process ~nd make a determination ~s to how m~g' lo~s that Izmd
could mipi;,ort based on the input. ~ieli the cloister number would be arrived at.
?.o~oert~ made a motion -to t.~ce the matter o~der advisement and L~edstrom ~econded.
Unamimouz vote.
][iscell~meous t~tters: none
~?oeting ~djourned at ~0:30
,. ,~,-~~,~ ...... Chairmam
/ ~ilda Bl~ckstock