 |
CHILMARK PLANNING BOARD
APPROVED Meeting Minutes
Monday, August 27, 2012 @ 4:30 PM
Present: Janet Weidner, Chair, Catherine Thompson, Daniel Greenbaum, John O. Flender, Andrew Fischer, Rich Osnoss, Mitch Posin, Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
Not Present:
Public: Joan Malkin, Andy Goldman, Frank LoRusso, Alison Burger, Katie Plasse Decker, Doug Dowling, Jonathan Mayhew, Sergio Modigliani, Thomas Bena(with camera), Ken Iscol, Chris Murphy, Wesley Look, Russell Maloney, Ben Robinson, Remy Tumin
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Janet Weidner at 4:30 p.m.
ZBA Input & Discussion:
- Chair Weidner alerted all to the filming of the meeting and opened the meeting to the discussion of the residential bylaw topic. The Chair stated the Board would first engage in a discussion with the ZBA members and then open the discussion up to the general public. Ms. Weidner referred to the draft bylaw distributed to the ZBA prior to the meeting and summarized what has been done with an interim bylaw idea so far.
- Comments offered by ZBA members regarding the interim bylaw:
- Triggers are too low, thinks 5000 sq. ft. should be a trigger
- Environmental concerns should be more of a concern
- A percentage of “coverage” should be included as a trigger.
- He noted people “build to the limit”.
- Would like to know what the average size of a house is of those who live here year-round as opposed to seasonally.
- Would like to encourage small houses and those that are environmentally sound.
- Believes the ZBA is not the place for reviews to happen, and proposes the Planning Board as the review board.
- ZBA is not elected, while PB is elected
- ZBA interprets bylaws only
- Site Review Committee (SRC) needs to be redefined and its duties need to be clarified
- Advocates looking at the root of the issue and asks, “What is the problem with a big house?”
- Is it size alone that is the issue?
- Should there be a different trigger other than size?
- Advocates slowing down the building so that “build-out” does not occur.
- Feels a DCPC is where the Planning Board is headed.
- Advocates doing a thorough revision of bylaws and not rushing to put in an interim bylaw that is not exactly what is needed.
- Questions the legality of regulating size
- Feels that the bylaws, as a whole, should be revised and feels the ZBA should not be in position to evaluate with insufficient bylaws to guide them.
- Advocates the revision of the most obvious problems in the bylaws such as definitions of Barn, so-called “Detached bedrooms”, and guest houses.
- Notes that a bylaw which would require the ZBA to determine whether a project has “minimal impact” puts the ZBA in a bad position with the possibility for too much subjectivity in their determination.
- Discussion continued concerning the pros and cons of developing an interim bylaw as opposed to embarking on a full revision of the bylaws, the legality of regulating and restricting house size, how the Development Guidelines are or are not useful to the permitting process, the need to develop the least subjective review process possible and whether the ZBA was the right entity to implement the review process.
- Ms. Malkin responded to the ZBA members:
- FAR is an imperfect way to limit house size
- It is not necessarily beneficial to discard the interim bylaw in the interest of revising the bylaws as a whole.
- Making a town-wide DCPC will still require the town to devise criteria.
- Agrees that the definitions in the bylaws need to be fixed
- Feels that there is no one Board or Committee that is perfectly suited to being the review entity
- A wide-ranging discussion occurred concerning the impact of regulations on size, the need for a legal opinion on size regulation, the interest in hearing from the Aquinnah review board on their DCPC and how they evaluate projects, the light pollution of large houses, how a rigorous review process would deter applicants due to the time commitment, and the history of developing bylaws for other accessory structures.
- Chris Murphy urged the subcommittee to look at the best answer to the problems before them and come to town meeting with that rather than compromise with what is thought to be politically feasible.
Wesley Look: Green Communities:
- Mr. Look gave a short description of the Green Community designation process and answered questions.
- It was noted that Seth Pickering, Green Communities Southeastern MA Coordinator, will be giving a presentation at a Board of Selectmen meeting in September.
Youth Lot- Plasse/Decker:
- Katy Plasse updated the Board on her Youth Lot application. Ms. Plasse noted that she is unable to purchase an additional bit of acreage in order to create a 1 acre lot. Ms. Plasse also noted she and Sam Decker met with Chris Alley of Schofield, Barbini & Hoehn to determine if a septic and well could be placed on their proposed lot. Mr. Alley determined that it was possible. Ms. Plasse & Mr. Decker do not have an approved septic and well plan as yet.
- Discussion occurred concerning the fact that the Plasse/Decker youth lot plan is for .5 acres, rather than the traditional 1 acre minimum. Boardmembers stressed the need to consider the bylaw which does not specify a minimum lot size for Youth Lots and indicates the deliberation should focus on impact to the area.
- Discussion occurred regarding the differences in Youth Lots & Homesite lots, the possible ramifications of granting a Youth Lot under one acre, the possibility of clay rights under the area, and the need to eliminate the age requirement from the Youth Lot process.
- Chair Weidner asked Ms. Plasse to come back with a Form C application, to go to the Board of Health for a septic and well permit, to provide the Board with a letter from the lawyer stating the will is not available (and, therefore no land is available from the other abutting land) and to ask her stepfather, Leo Cossutta, regarding clay rights on the land. Andrew Fischer suggested Ms. Plasse inquire with Chris Alley for a list of things to check into.
Bennett Form A:
- Board members signed the ANR decision letter.
Doug Dowling for Langman:
- Mr. Dowling presented a plan, for Thomas L. Langman dated 12/14/2011, needing a signature of “Certificate of no change”. The Board approved the Town Clerk signing the plan’s certificate of no change.
- Mr. Dowling requested the Board advise on a road change through to the Langman Lot 4. The driveway is to be changed so that there is more privacy when the lot is sold to a person outside of the family. Mr. Dowling asks how to change the road: through an adjustment to an approved plan or through a public hearing?
- The Board questioned the location of wetlands, noted the need for Mr. Dowling to go to the Conservation Commission, requested that the neighbors/abutters be notified again about the change in road and that the Board be given documentation that the abutters were notified, determined the change in the road should adhere to the town’s specifications and directed Ms. Christy to provide Mr. Dowling with the road specifications. Mr. Dowling is to come back to the Planning Board, after going to the ConComm, to present the plan.
Minutes:
- Minutes of August 13, 2012 were reviewed and approved with an amendment.
Next Meeting: September 10, 2012, 4:30 PM
With no more business to discuss, Chair Weidner adjourned the meeting at 7:35 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| |
