Planning Board
February 2, 2010
Present were Chair Fran Cusson, Members Lucien Langlois, Ernie Allain, Dave Morin, Councilor Tom McCue, Aline Boucher, Alternate Members Laura Jamison, Greg Estrella, Richard Cassidy
Others present included Pamela Laflamme and Martha Creegan
Members Excused: Sue Tremblay, Julie Cooney
Members Absent: Ralph Collins, Andre Duchesne
Chair Cusson opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. She indicated changes to the agenda that included adding a Conceptual Site Plan Review discussion with Shawna Croteau, 87 Willard Street.
Public Comments – none
January Minutes:
Mr. Morin asked the minutes to reflect he was excused from the meeting January meeting. Mr. Morin moved to accept the minutes with the noted correction of his presence; Mrs. Boucher seconded the motion and it carried with all members voting in favor.
Conceptual Site Plan Review Discussion
The City Planner explained that she met with Ms. Croteau, a local entrepreneur who is interested in opening a restaurant and sports bar. After her meeting with the Fire Chief and the Code Enforcement staff, it was decided that Ms. Croteau should appear in front of the Planning Board to determine if Site Plan Review is necessary.
Ms. Croteau shared her plan with the board which involved using the former Toussaint Bakery building at 87 Willard Street. Her plan is to have a breakfast and lunch restaurant with a sports bar and dance area for evenings. She showed the board her interior drawings; let them know where the main entrance is proposed to be, etc. Parking seemed to of the biggest concern to the board. While the building is in an appropriate zone and is historically commercial, the proposed use could add to the congestion in that neighborhood. It was discussed that the Upper Pleasant Street parking lot is within 500 feet of the building and that could be a possibility for parking. Ms. Croteau also mentioned she is in negotiations with St. Kieran’s Arts Center to utilize their parking area as well.
The board discussed exterior lighting, street lighting and typical neighborhood concerns, such as noise. Hours of operation were discussed. Ms. Croteau intends to utilize the existing signage. The façade sign labeled as “Signs” from the old Lessard Signs is the one she was referencing. She intends to name the club “Signs.”
Snow removal was discussed. It is currently maintained by the owner. This is not a new issue as there is no new construction so the current maintenance plan is unlikely to change.
Mr. Langlois told Ms. Croteau he thought this proposal was a good idea. He encouraged her to continue to work on her permits and to talk with her potential neighbors.
Chair Cusson stated she thought that it would be a good idea to have Ms. Croteau come to the board for a formal site plan review.
Ms. Laflamme recommended that the board engage Ms. Croteau in a modified site plan process at the March meeting that would focus very specifically on parking, noise, lighting and any other pertinent neighborhood concerns that would gives public a chance to have input.
Mr. Morin made a motion to follow Ms. Laflamme’s recommendation, which was seconded by Mr. Langlois. All board members voted in favor of the motion.
Councilor McCue suggested allowing the City Council Traffic Safety committee to have input on the parking issues
It was mentioned that other departments such as Health & Fire will have input as the process moves along.
Master Plan Discussion
Ms. Laflamme explained Master Plan adoption process to board. She also reminded the board to attend the meeting with the Council on February 8 to get any feedback from the Council before the Planning Board starts the process to adopt the document. Councilor McCue asked to send the document to the Council as soon as possible to allow adequate time for review before Monday’s meeting
Zoning Ordinance
Ms. Laflamme started reviewing a proposed new nonconforming structures, uses, and lots chapter. The~current ordinance requires interpretation and the goal would be to become clearer in the ordinance to help staff. ~This zoning draft was reviewed by staff including the City Manager, Code Enforcement officer and Housing Coordinator.
Staff Recommendation of Big Changes: ~Agreement was to change the code enforcement officer or city planner or their designee could determine non-conformity. ~Effective date of the City’s first Zoning Ordinance is 1964. Ms. Laflamme asked for clarity if that date should be used as the effective date throughout the ordinance to apply to nonconforming lots of record and zoning. ~Sentence added “except to the extent authorized…the planning board may choose to create a nonconforming lot.” This would give the planning board a little more latitude. ~Casualty Loss: Staff liked this version better than the current definition. Staff recommended striking the good-faith effort language. ~Also wanted to add may be replaced if have same dimensions, except for two conditions: (see print version, attached). Structural alterations change from green space requirements to lot land coverage.
Also, staff removed number 9 on page 5. ~1734, page 3: There was a lot of discussion on what is the footprint of a structure is and what that really means. ~Residential accessory structures: If someone has a garage, replace the footprint on the foundation, but if you go to a flat roof to a pitched roof? ~Mr. Langlois stated the reason we have zoning is to protect the neighbors. ~If replaced the structure in the same location and the same purposes, how can we make it more specific? ~If the roof has always been pitched? Mr. Allain feels the footprint includes the roof. From the air, the roof is my footprint. ~~If a building is taken down, must use exact footprint. ~Unless decide the width or size to accommodate current zoning setback requirements. ~Councilor McCue shared another issue such as the overhang of a roof
and asked if means it’s an expansion is the size of the structure? ~Old 1964 zoning ordinances, page 3 paragraph 5 – the residential lot size waiver issue – Ms. Laflamme stated this clause has been carried through all versions of zoning ordinances. ~No frontage or setback requirements in the original ordinance except for residential lots. ~~~Today’s standard is 100x100 lots if creating new lots. ~Majority of lots in city are 50 x 100 lots. ~Language on nonconforming lots, page 2 for the ZBA to interpret for future use. ~All lots that do not have 100 feet of frontage cannot be developed for non residential uses. ~If it has a footprint, it can be rebuilt on the same foundation.
Board agreed with Ms. Laflamme that more work needed to be done to the ordinance before it was ready to recommend to Council for its adoption.
Public Comments
None
Member Comments
Councilor McCue felt his position about Clean Power was misrepresented by the Berlin Daily Sun. He stated the petitioners asking Clean Power to go through Site Plan review believe that the citizens of Berlin need to be protected from themselves. He thought the process went well and that the City was well represented. Ms. Laflamme will email a copy of the decision to the board when it is made available.
Planner Comments
With regard to Route 110, the report from the hearings commissioners will likely not be released until the end of this month or next month. They will start engineering, and appraisals and offer packages to homeowners for buyouts in the fall with construction to happen in the next year. DOT has been asked to send a letter to property owners which will explain the process.
If you receive a survey request from the Office of Energy and Planning, please fill it out. The Planning Conference will be in April and the location is yet to be announced.
Adjournment
Mr. Langlois moved to adjourn; Mr. Allain seconded and the motion carried. The meeting ended at 8:35 p. m.
Mr. Langlois and Ms. Boucher will not be at the March meeting.
| 
