 |
CHILMARK PLANNING BOARD
Subcommittee APPROVED
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 @ 10:30 AM
Present: Janet Weidner, Chair, Dan Greenbaum, Cathy Thompson, Andy Goldman, Joan Malkin, Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
Public: Thomas Bena (filming), Mark London, Jessica Roddy, Molly Doyle, Eli Dagostino(with camera), Lenny Jason
Not Present:
- Chair Weidner called meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. and alerted all to the filming being done by Thomas Bena.
- The Chair reiterated her plan to discuss the residential bylaw topic amongst subcommittee members first and then take comments from the public.
- Mr. London presented GIS maps of larges houses in Chilmark.
- The committee reviewed Mr. Greenbaum’s Sept. 12 emailed memo.
- Mr. Goldman proposed to continue the work of fine-tuning a residential bylaw, propose amendments for things such as detached bedrooms & accessory buildings, consideration of absolute caps on house size.
- a. through d. were reviewed by committee.
- Mr. Greenbaum expressed concerns that the Planning Board’s bylaw would not provide the ZBA with the necessary tools to make decisions.
- Chair Weidner noted that, if visibility is the prominent concern, then the possibility of altering the existing DCPCs to limit house size should be reconsidered. Chair Weidner noted that the Site Review Committee (SRC), which reviews development in DCPCs, is already comprised of members from various entities in town, representing different interests.
- Ms. Thompson expressed a reluctance to create a complex regulation that will require extensive explanation to the voters of the town. Ms. Thompson further advocated the importance of fixing the areas within the current bylaw that are unclear: so-called detached bedrooms, barns, etc…
- Extended discussion occurred regarding the underlying impetus for creating the residential bylaw and Ms. Malkin, specifically, questioned how the subcommittee could simplify the bylaw so that the most important goals are met. ‘Intrusive homes’ was the term proposed by Ms. Malkin as the focus of the proposed residential bylaw. She further suggested that FAR (floor area ratio) might be considered as the one limiting tool, with a requirement that the applicant must mitigate, to the highest degree, the visual impact.
- Ms. Thompson reiterated the possibility of focusing on the strengthening of DCPCs in town and suggested there may be an additional DCPC created, such as a Pond District or Menemsha.
- Ms. Malkin noted that the strengthening of DCPCs would not solve the problem town-wide.
- Discussion occurred regarding visibility, how much notification neighbors will be allowed, and the entity that would determine the visibility of a development.
- Extensive discussion occurred regarding the character of Chilmark, how character may or may not be useful in developing a residential bylaw, visibility concerns, the limits of using FAR as a tool, and the pros and cons of strengthening DCPCs as a way to limit house size.
- The subcommittee listed tasks that need to be done and chose those which they would accomplish by the next meeting.
- Ms. Malkin offered to meet with Pam Bunker, Asst. Assessor, to discuss living area calculation.
- Mr. Greenbaum posed questions regarding the extent of the proposed bylaw’s concern regarding lot sizes less than 3 acres. In the interest of simplification, Mr. Greenbaum further questioned whether the subcommittee was very concerned with whether an applicant’s development consisted of one large residence or a compound. He asked, “Do we need the distinction between two sizes-residence and total living area?”
- Mr. Jason asserted that the bylaw needs to clearly tell applicants what will be permitted. He also noted the permitting authority should be the Planning Board or the ZBA, and visual impact will be very difficult to regulate, possibly creating great discord among neighbors.
- Mr. Greenbaum suggested reducing the size of developments in DCPCs.
- Mr. London addressed the idea of strengthening or instituting DCPCs in town. He suggested that the impact on a public way should be a foremost concern regarding visibility, the Planning Board should fine-tune the definitions of things such as so-called detached bedrooms and the DCPCs could be used as a trigger for a review process.
Minutes:
- Minutes for the Planning Board Subcommittee Meeting on September 11, 2012 were approved as presented.
Next Meeting:
- Wednesday, September 26, 2012 @ 10:30AM
Meeting was adjourned at 11:39 AM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| |
