 |
CHILMARK PLANNING BOARD
Subcommittee
APPROVED
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 @ 10:00 AM
Present: Janet Weidner, Chair, Dan Greenbaum, Cathy Thompson, Andy Goldman, Joan Malkin,
Public: Walter Teller, Myles Jaffe, Sergio Modigliani, Monina Von Opel, Jessica Roddy, Billy Meegan, Ken Iscol, Arleen McGlade?, David Meehan
Not Present: Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
- Chair Weidner called meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. and stated the plan for the meeting was for Board members to continue to review the chart distributed at the previous subcommittee meeting on July 24, 2012. Chair Weidner also stated the subcommittee’s function was to advise the Planning Board on the issue of a possible new bylaw.
- Chair Weidner asked Ms. Malkin to describe her chart re size of houses in Chilmark. Ms. Malkin outlined the main findings of the chart. She pointed out that the information was gathered from the ‘tax’ definition of size. Mr. Goldman noted the chart shows that, if 3500’ square feet were selected as the trigger amount, 27% of Chilmark’s houses would need to obtain a special permit if further work were done. Ms. Malkin noted only 36 homeowners, according to this chart, would need to obtain a special permit, if this bylaw were enacted, if they added 10% of space to their home.
- The idea of using FAR as a measurement and trigger was discussed briefly.
- Mr. Greenbaum asked if there was information about the size of houses built by year. Ms. Malkin agreed to add more detailed information regarding that.
- Discussion continued about average size of houses in Chilmark. Mr. Goldman and Mr. Greenbaum noted that a trigger of 3500’ square feet does not seem to be an appropriate number (too small) according to the information provided in Ms. Malkin’s chart. Chair Weidner noted she also was surprised by the average size of the houses, based on the chart information, in Chilmark as well. Discussion occurred concerning the meaning and usefulness of moratoriums as opposed to interim bylaws and about the pros and cons of smaller & larger trigger square footage numbers.
- Chair Weidner inquired whether the committee members should initiate site visits as was suggested at the previous meeting. Discussion continued about whether this would be useful in order to gather information. It was noted that the appearance of the house affects how the size is perceived. Ms. Thompson noted that site visits would be useful, nevertheless.
- Mr. Jaffe was recognized and described his bylaw outline. The committee members discussed the two proposed triggers, one for a house and one for a total built space, regardless of how the built space is defined. Mr. Meegan disagreed and argued the accessory structures need to be defined and the purpose of each of them needs to be defined. Mr. Meehan identified the need to be very clear in the wording of the interim bylaw. Mr. Jaffe reiterated that the need is for triggers as he has outlined them and to include definitions of accessory structures would unnecessarily complicate matters.
- The topic of aesthetic/architectural review was broached and briefly discussed. Chair Weidner expressed reluctance to delve into the topic. She agreed with Ms. Malkin that it is a valid topic to discuss but is not directly related to the task at hand and, therefore, should be dealt with at another time. It was pointed out that there are some areas in town where historical architectural review may be required. This was discussed.
Mr. Meegan spoke to the need to make the majority of the ‘Development Guidelines’ part of the zoning bylaws.
The subcommittee considered #6 on Chair Weidner’s chart. Ms. Malkin proposed that a preamble be added to the bylaws which addresses the character of Chilmark. Ms. Malkin also stated her support for using the ‘trigger’ questions in Mr. Greenbaum’s original proposal, Version #2. Chair Weidner pointed out that there is a preamble to the Zoning Bylaws already that at least provides a good start to addressing the character of Chilmark.
The issue of visibility was broached by Mr. Teller and the subcommittee was urged to carefully consider the importance of how a project is visible to neighbors.
A wide-ranging discussion occurred about visibility, notification limits, how a neighbor/abutter or person in the vicinity of a project has input, DCPCs, and environmental impacts of large houses on surrounding waters.
Mr. Iscol urged the subcommittee members to take full responsibility for preserving the historical character of Chilmark as it was and is valued by long-time residents. He reiterated his desire to see clear ‘shall’ and ‘shall nots’ in the bylaw so there is no subjective decision-making during the permitting process. Mr. Iscol further addressed his views on the role of Planning Board subcommittee members. He characterized members as ‘defenders’.
Ms. Malkin offered to create the next ‘iteration’ of the bylaw draft, based on Mr. Greenbaum’s version #2 draft and an incorporation of the concerns that have been brought to the subcommittee meetings in July & August regarding what would happen at the actual ZBA meetings.
Chair Weidner asked if there were any other concerns. The public expressed a desire to ‘tighten’ up the rules.
- Meeting was adjourned at 11:45 AM.
Minutes:
- No minutes were reviewed.
Next Meeting:
- Tuesday, August 14, 2012 @ 10:00AM
Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| |
