 |
CHILMARK PLANNING BOARD
Subcommittee
APPROVED
Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 16, 2012 @ 9:30 AM
Present: Janet Weidner, Chair, Joan Malkin, Dan Greenbaum, Andy Goldman, Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
Public: Mark London, Jessica Roddy,
Not Present: Cathy Thompson
Residential Bylaw Discussion :
Pros & Cons of DCPC
- Ms. Malkin summarized a visit to the MV Commission to discuss/learn more about DCPCs and their possible use as a mechanism for administering the proposed bylaw.
- Mr. London discussed the possible opposition to the proposed bylaw.
- Mr. Greenbaum asked for clarification of the idea of inserting the proposed bylaw into the DCPCs only.
- Extended discussion occurred regarding whether to apply the proposed bylaw to the existing town DCPCs.
- Chair Weidner expressed tentative support to the idea of applying the proposed bylaw to just the existing DCPCs, if the area of Menemsha is ‘supported’ to a good extent.
- More discussion occurred concerning how much of the existing DCPCs apply to Menemsha area.
- Ms. Roddy expressed her desire to have the proposed bylaw applied to the whole town.
- Chair Weidner expressed her interest in presenting ‘one plan’ at the Annual Town Meeting.
- Ms. Malkin clarified the underlying question facing the subcommittee and, ultimately, the Planning Board as a whole: “Is it about what you can see? Or, is it about the character of the town?”
- Mr. Greenbaum expressed interest in applying the proposed bylaw to the existing DCPCs.
- Chair Weidner stated her support of the ‘FAR’ approach as the the proposed bylaw and stated she does not support the Impact/Visual approach. Ms. Malkin & Ms. Roddy expressed support of this direction.
- Mr. London further clarified the decision ahead. There are three options:
- Do not use the existing DCPCs and apply proposed bylaw to whole town
- Modify the existing DCPCs to apply the proposed bylaw to just those areas
- Establish a town-wide DCPC
Mr. Greenbaum’s Documents:
- Mr. Greenbaum reviewed his document, “Rationale for Establishing Cap Levels”.
- Extended discussion occurred regarding the need to simplify the rationale to present to the public, the need to include a ‘leeway’ of 5% or 10% to those who would be constrained to do any addition if the proposed bylaw passed. The topic of non-conforming houses was discussed at length.
- Ms. Malkin expressed the need to come to a consensus on the correct numbers for the cap approach.
- A great amount of discussion occurred regarding the cap level numbers.
- Mr. Greenbaum was requested to provide more information re 3 acre parcels.
- Mr. Greenbaum reviewed his document, “Rationale for Establishing Review Threshold Levels”.
- Discussion occurred regarding the combination of the two approaches.
Next Meeting:
- Monday, November 26, 2012.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:30 AM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| |
