Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-07Planning Board April 7, 1994 Library Conference Room The meeting was called to order at 7:16 p.m. Members Present Richard Nardella, Chairman, John Simons, Vice chairman, and Richard Rowen Staff Members Present Karen H.P. Nelson, Director of Planning & Community Development, Kathleen Colwell, Town Planner and Richard Doucette, Conservation Administrator Other Presegt C. Foster, T. Laudani, D. Stewart, K. Crouch, J. Savastano, R. Joyce, P. Breen, G. Willis, J. Leemah, D. Kindred, H. Fink, and Bob Brown. Public Hearinos Warrant Articles Amend Section 8.34 - Site Plan Review Mr. Simons read the legal notice to open the public hearings. Mr. Nardella gave an overview of the Board's review of the existing Zoning Bylaw, the streamlining process and a review of other bylaws. Mr. Rowen explained what Site Plan Review is and the need for the requirement of an elevation of the building to aid in review of the projects. Examples were shown. Mr. Foster asked if the project changes from what is shown on the elevation, is a modification needed. The answer was that the Town Planner makes that determination. Mr. Rowen further stated that the elevation is used in review, the building may change without review as long as changes are minor. 2.65 - Definitions Ms. Colwell explained that this article is a housekeeping article that adds the Watershed Protection District to the list of Special Permits issued by the Planning Board. The addition of frontage exception lots to the list of Special Permits may need to be deleted depending on the outcome of a proposed article. ~end 8action 4.~ - Phased Develgpmen~ Mr. Simons spoke on history of the current bylaw. It was taken from Nantucket Bylaw. There was discussion regarding the need to clarify the term "per annum". It is currently interpreted to run from January 1 to January 1. Proposal would start period from date of issuance of first building permit. Currently there is the lack of ability to increase rate of development if the project lends itself to a faster rate of development without obtaining a variance. Mr. Laudani stated that he was involved in the Planning Board discussions on changing this bylaw. He stated that currently you have to go to the ZBA at a later date. He would like to be able to go to one Board and have the subdivision reviewed at one time and have the rate of development set at that time. Mr. Rowen stated that the town wants/needs to retain some control over the rate of development. Mr. Crouch said it seems like the Board needs to work on this article. Mr. Crouch encourages a joint meeting to collectively get input from the Board of Selectmen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board and Staff. Mr. Peter Breen, 770 Boxford Street, stated that large land owners want to be notified of proposed changes to the Zoning Bylaw. He further commented that there is a need to follow the Balanced Growth Plan. Mr. Crouch asked how many times has the Zoning Board of Appeals granted variances. Ms. Nelson answered, 6 to 8 times in the past two years. Attorney Ralph Joyce would like to see more public discussion on these articles and more public information disseminated regarding proposed issues. Proposed Warrant Article~ Planned Residential Development - Section 8.5 Mr. Rowen discussed the article. He explained what a PRD is and accomplishes, proposed article adds hillsides as a reason to permit a PRD. There was discussion of the difficulty in determining the density, especially on hillsides. This would clarify standards so that a developer would know up front what will be taken into consideration. Mr. Bob Brown, Bradford Street, expressed concern with the Board taking a number of lots away, concerned that the Board will be eliminating lots on hill sides. Mr. Rowen explained to him that this only clarifies that the number of lots in a conventional plan is the same n,,mher of lots allowed in a PRD. Mr. Simons stated that it should be put in the bylaw clearly that you get the same number of lots under both a PRD and a conventional subdivision. Mr. Savastano asked about changing from 1/2 acre to i acre. Mr. Simons told him the Board did not put that in the warrant. Mr. Laudani spoke to the Board from a developers stand point. Most of the proposed articles would not have a ma~or effect on the large developments, but they may effect small landowners. He suggested forming a committee to revise the zoning Bylaw with a cross section of the community, and he would be willing to serve on that committee. Mr. Nardella stated that the Board was not attempting to hurt the small landowners, but continue to allowthings by a Special Permit. Attorney Joyce stated that there needs to be further public debate on these issues. Amend Section 4. 136 (?) Mr. Simons discussed this article which would clarify submittal requirements for watershed special permits. This article adds the requirement that a plan be submitted. Currently the Board requires a plan to be submitted; but this is not clearly stated in the bylaw. Amend Section 4.136(9) This article would add a non-criminal penalty section for violations of the watershed protection district. Mr. Savastano believes that this should go before D.P.W., authority of entire watershed. Mr. Crouch expressed concerns about fining in general. Mr. Doucette, Conservation Administrator, stated that there were many overlapping responsibilities in the watershed. D.P.W. does not control everything in the watershed. Mr. Foster stated that this should be done under the Town Code. Amend Section 2.30.1 Ms. Colwell read a letter support of this article. from William Dolan, Fire chief, in Mr. Crouch questioned driveways having certain radii. He would like to see a full set of driveway standards created. Mr. Paul Plisinski told the Board to require sprinkler systems where access is not feasible for fire trucks. Mr. Henry Fink said to put driveways together along a lot line to create a larger area of access to lots. Amen~ Seotion 7.2.1 - Lot area Mr. Nardella presented this article which would require access over the legal frontage of the lot. Mr. Crouch stated there were problems with non-conforming use. He wanted the D.P.W. to address this issue under driveway curb cuts, were they originate. Change language to cover only newly created lots and state no curb cuts on adjacent lots. Mr. Foster asked about corner lots. Mr. Nardella stated that most other communities require people to access over the legal frontage. Amen4 Section 7.2 - Frontaqe Exception Lot- Mr. Nardella stated that this article would give the Planning Board some discretion in reviewing subdivision plans. It was not the intent of the Board to hurt small landowners, as frontage exception lots would be allowed by special permit. Mr. Gene Willis questioned that the proposed article would change the current bylaw that allows two frontage exception lots in a row to every other lot, can this be altered by special permit. The answer was yes, you could have six in a row under a special permit. Mr. Kindred asked under what circumstances would it be denied. Mr. Simons replied, lots of curb cuts in a row. Mr. Kindred stated that pork chop lots create more open space because they require twice the area. Mr. Nardella stated that the pieces of land that are becoming available for development are very difficult, i.e. steep slopes, wetlands. There is discretion by the Board built into this. Mr. Willis was worried about what future Boards would do, the Board is hurting the landowners with the article and taking away a landowners current rights. Mr. Simons stated that this would mean higher land values, better and more careful development, frontage exception lots can diminish the street scape, public safety issues with curb cuts. Mr. Willis stated that abutters can stop pork chop lots by appealing the special permit. He stated that Town Meeting is tyranny by majority. Amend 8eotion 7.2 - Lot area Mr. Willis questioned why go to 80% from 75%. Mr. Nardella comments: We canUt beat the computerized systems from creating subdivisions, homes are crunched on to lots. Mr. Simons argument in order to have a livable lot and protect wetlands, he would go to i acre of upland in the R-1 District, R-2 need 80% and R-3 and R-4 may need 100%. Discussion that the Board would be reviewing the CBA requirement in the next year and would be creating a sliding scale. ad4ournu~ The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ~ Richard A. Nardella, Chairman