 |
CHILMARK PLANNING BOARD
Subcommittee
APPROVED
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, November 1, 2012 @ 10:00 AM
Present: Janet Weidner, Chair, Cathy Thompson, Joan Malkin, Dan Greenbaum, Andy Goldman, Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
Public: Bill Randol, Jessica Roddy
Not Present:
Residential Bylaw Discussion :
Accessory Structures
- Discussion occurred regarding limits on accessory structures.
- Ms. Malkin clarified that the current draft of the bylaw regulates ‘gross living area’, which is what Pam Bunker, Asst. Assessor, uses to assess the value of the main house and other buildings that have livable space but are not accessory structures.
- Mr. Goldman stated he saw no reason to regulate the accessory buildings within the proposed residential bylaw.
- Ms. Malkin clarified the initial task of the subcommittee was to ‘limit big houses’, but there was a problem with big accessory buildings as well. As it stands, Ms. Malkin stated, the proposed bylaw does not limit accessory buildings. Ms. Malkin asked for comment from other members regarding whether this was the direction to go in or whether the subcommittee wanted to return to a proposal which limits accessory buildings as well as the main residence.
- Chair Weidner expressed satisfaction with the current structure and content of the proposed bylaw and noted the fact that the revised and new definitions would accomplish the task, mostly, of limiting accessory structures.
- Discussion continued regarding the pros and cons of regulating accessory structures, most specifically detached bedrooms and other large structures such as ‘squash barns’.
- Chair Weidner asked Mr. Greenbaum whether he was satisfied with the current structure and content of the proposed bylaw which does not regulate the entire ‘collective accessory structures’. Mr. Greenbaum stated he was satisfied with regulating using Pam’s ‘gross living area’.
- Ms. Malkin requested the minutes to show the subcommittee ‘considered, at this time, a limit on accessory structures, but, given the amendments to the definitions and the overall cap on ‘gross living area’, for the time being, the subcommittee did not think it was necessary to take that step. If, in the future, there is a proliferation of accessory structures that are intrusive and, therefore, need regulation, we can propose a separate regulation.
- The topic of imposing a separate size limit for the main house, within the overall size limit on ‘gross living area’, was briefly suggested but the majority of members felt it was not necessary to include. This discussion led to a further deliberation on the overall size limit. It was agreed that 6000 sq. ft. was the proposed ‘gross living area’ total so far drafted. More discussion occurred regarding the final number to be used for the ‘gross living area’ limit. Chair Weidner proposed postponing the discussion on the final number.
- Chair Weidner stated again that the accessory building definition should not be included in the definitions.
Barns :
- Mr. Goldman began the discussion of the barn definition and questioned Mr. Modigliani’s prior concerns about how the definition would limit current farmer’s use of barns. Mr. Goldman asked for feedback from the subcommittee.
- Ms. Malkin proposed new language regarding change of use. Discussion occurred regarding exactly how to phrase the language in the barn definition in order for it to clearly define a use that is only for agricultural uses.
Detached Bedrooms :
- Ms. Malkin gave suggestions regarding the wording of this definition. She particularly pointed out the issue of preparing food in a detached bedroom and wondered if the subcommittee should be more specific in defining what is and what is not allowed in a detached bedroom. Ms. Malkin noted the Town of Edgartown’s more specifically defined regulation for detached bedrooms.
- The subcommittee determined that the detached bedroom definition was sufficient.
- Discussion turned to the topic of structures becoming non-conforming upon passage of this proposed bylaw and the need to place the wording in the proposed bylaw. It was proposed that the wording, in Chair Weidner’s Proposed Residential By-Law Analysis, regarding conformation (“existing DBRs would become non-conforming structures”) be eliminated. The subcommittee agreed that this was appropriate.
- Mr. Greenbaum questioned whether there is a need to care about the size of the detached bedrooms. Ms. Roddy noted the need to regulate bulk rather than number of structures. Mr. Goldman succinctly stated two clear reasons to limit the size of detached bedrooms: the regulation regarding the detached bedroom may pass at town meeting while the residential bylaw may not (and, therefore, we have achieved something) & we are trying to make sure people are not prematurely building guest houses. Mr. Goldman expressed satisfaction with the detached bedroom definition draft.
Change of Use :
- The subcommittee expressed satisfaction with the proposed by-law.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) :
- Ms. Malkin suggested the review of Mr. Greenbaum’s annotated FAR document. Ms. Malkin also asked if her notes regarding advantages and disadvantages should be kept in the final document. Chair Weidner answered that they should be kept for now. Ms. Malkin broached the topic of how this FAR approach should be summarized. Ms. Malkin suggested stating simply ‘residential structures’, rather than saying ‘primary residences’.
- Discussion continued regarding the disadvantages of the FAR cap approach.
- Mr. Goldman suggested that the draft address smaller lots that are less than 3 acres. He noted that relating the limits to the size of the lot would further strengthen the legal stance of this limitation strategy.
- Chair Weidner stated that Ms. Malkin should redraft to include two different options that show size limits for one-acre, two-acre….& the currently proposed limit which is for everything up to three acres. Extensive discussion occurred regarding size limits, the current state of house size and the realities of helping voters visualize the limits and how those limits would relate to their particular situations. It was decided that 4000 sq. ft. would be the number the subcommittee would agree upon for presentation to the Planning Board for option 2. To clarify, Chair Weidner stated the two options for FAR: option 1, a ‘step function’, would be to give limits for one acre, two acre, etc…; option 2, ‘a linear function’, would be lots up to 3 acres in size, FAR would be 4000 sq. ft., with a scale above that to give a
larger limit for more acreage. 4000 sq. ft. refers to ‘gross living space’.
- It was confirmed that Pam Bunker, Asst. Assessor, uses the term ‘gross living area’.
Further Discussion:
- Ms. Malkin questioned Mr. Hodgkinson’s statement at a previous meeting regarding conflicts of two bylaws, particularly for ‘family compounds’. Ms. Malkin will address this issue in her final draft.
- Mr. Goldman noted he added a ‘purpose’ to Ms. Malkin’s proposed bylaw draft. Ms. Malkin questioned where this passage should be. She proposed including portions of Mr. Goldman’s purpose. Mr. Goldman agreed to these changes.
- Mr. Goldman & Ms. Malkin will produce the final drafts of their documents.
Visual Only Review:
- Mr. Greenbaum expressed dislike of the term ‘visual only’. ‘Impact Assessment’ was suggested. It was agreed to change the term.
Next Meeting:
- Planning Board & Planning Board Subcommittee Joint Meeting on Monday, November 5, 2012.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:45 AM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| |
