 |
CHILMARK PLANNING BOARD
APPROVED Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 4:30 PM
Present: Janet Weidner, Chair, Catherine Thompson, Mitch Posin, John O. Flender, Andrew Fischer, Rich Osnoss, Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
Not Present: Daniel Greenbaum
Public: Andy Goldman, Thomas Bena(with camera), Jessica Roddy, Joan Malkin, Selectman Warren Doty
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Janet Weidner at 4:35 p.m.
- Chair Weidner alerted all to the filming of the meeting.
- Ms. Christy gathered signatures on the Leonard Bell plan, submitted by Doug Hoehn, and the Lorna Flanders plan, submitted by Glenn Provost.
Residential Bylaw Discussion:
- Chair Weidner summarized the recent meetings and the state of development of the proposed bylaws:
- Elimination of the proposed Barn Definition Bylaw
- Building Inspector suggested, at the subcommittee meeting earlier in the day, eliminating this proposed bylaw from consideration since there isn’t an apparent problem with the regulation of Barns and Change of Use.
- Detached Bedroom proposed bylaw
- Discussion occurred regarding wording of the bylaw.
- Chair Weidner noted the size limitation of 400 sq. ft. for a detached bedroom was arrived at because two other island towns use this size for their own detached bedroom definition.
- Chair Weidner also noted that the Building Inspector has suggested that only one detached bedroom be allowed and further detached bedrooms would require a special permit. Mr. Doty expressed support of this proposal.
- The Board agreed to send this Detached Bedroom Bylaw to the BOS for their next meeting and to advertise this bylaw for a public hearing.
- Elimination of the proposed Change of Use Bylaw
- Building Inspector suggested, at the subcommittee meeting earlier in the day, eliminating this proposed bylaw from consideration.
- Residential Bylaw based on a FAR approach, Visual Impact approach or a combination:
- Limiting size of living area, based on the acreage of the parcel(Pam Bunker, Asst. Assessor, has a number for every parcel detailing the taxable living space on the parcel).
- Chair Weidner noted Mr. Greenbaum’s research and compilation of information about the size of lots in town and the size of houses in town on those lots: “Existing Houses on Lots Under Three Acres”, dated November 18, 2012 and submitted by Mr. Greenbaum for consideration at this meeting and the subcommittee meeting earlier in the day.
- Chair Weidner expressed support for the FAR approach since it is “cut and dried” and it clearly defines what square footage amounts will be allowed. She noted there is no review allowed in this approach.
- Discussion occurred regarding the correct number to put forward for the FAR approach. Chair Weidner noted an advantage to the FAR approach is that it appears to be legally defensible and easily enforced. Ms. Malkin noted one drawback would be that people may build up to the limit in this approach with no consideration of the visual impact of the structure. Ms. Malkin further noted that a proposed house, with a sq. footage over the FAR limit, but that is carefully screened from view and has low visual impact, would not be allowed because it is too large and above the FAR limits.
- Ms. Thompson expressed a preference for the simplicity of the bylaw with a FAR approach.
- Mr. Posin initiated a discussion regarding subdivision and the possibility of this proposed bylaw creating an incentive to avoid subdivision in order to create a larger house. Chair Weidner noted the point Building Inspector Lenny Jason made earlier in the day, at the subcommittee meeting, regarding an opposite view that the proposed bylaw may encourage subdivision in order to maximize number of built structures.
- Discussion occurred regarding how this proposed bylaw may change the value of parcels.
- Mr. Goldman suggested the advantages of a trigger approach with review even though there are subjective elements to the review process. He stated he thought a combined approach of the two proposals (FAR & Visual Impact) might encourage a more nuanced, thoughtful town process of permitting larger houses.
- Ms. Malkin stated her opinion that the bylaw should simply address large houses and not try to accomplish the amelioration of the affordable housing problem or try to alter how people may subdivide their parcel.
- Chair Weidner stated the current proposal is for a trigger of 3000 sq. ft. for a one acre lot with review of the project up to a 5000 sq. ft. cap. For 3 acres, the trigger may be 4000 sq. ft. with a difference of 500 sq. ft. for each acre above that (4 acre parcel would allow 4500 sq. ft. of living area, a 2 acre parcel would allow 3500 sq. ft. of living area). The cap would rise linearly as the acreage increases (for example, the cap on 3 acres would be 6000 sq. ft cap.) Chair Weidner asked for clarification of her numbers. Ms. Malkin noted there was discussion earlier in the day, at the subcommittee meeting, about the “increase number” or “slope number” and that it should be different from 3 acres to 1 acres than from 3 acres and above. Extensive discussion occurred about what the right numbers would be. Discussion also
occurred about how the numbers may effect smaller lots as opposed to larger lots.
- Mr. Doty suggested the Planning Board take a straw vote to come to some decision on the “concept”, either a concept that is a trigger number and maximum cap number (a “band of review” concept) or just a concept that just deals with a FAR approach. He stated that this would allow the Board to progress to a discussion on how the concept would work. Board members were not all in agreement on the numbers but they all agreed the concept of a trigger number of square footage with an upper cap was a good concept. There was some discussion re the ultimate goal of a ‘large house bylaw’ and that an alternate way to effect house size may be through the structure’s performance and through environmental initiatives. Mr. Fischer noted more restriction can have the effect of creating innovation in building. Ms. Roddy stated it
would be important for voters to see that most of the building permits in Chilmark are for small projects and houses under 3500 sq. ft. Ms. Malkin noted that since the year 2000, only 6 houses over 6000 sq. ft. have been built in Chilmark, according to Mr. Greenbaum’s documents.
- Chair Weidner wrapped up the meeting by stating that the Board is in agreement that the Detached Bedroom bylaw should go forward and a Residential Bylaw should go forward with a combination concept of a trigger square footage number above which the applicant is required to submit their project for review up to a certain square footage, all depending on lot size. Chair Weidner asked for clarification of the numbers from the Board. She stated that the numbers, settled on at the subcommittee meeting earlier in the day, would start at a 3 acre parcel, with a trigger of 4000 sq. ft. and the top limit would be 6000 sq. ft. and the rate of increase would be 500 sq. ft per acre. After much discussion, it was agreed the numbers would be 3500 sq. ft. for one acre, with a 5500 sq. ft. limit, rising 250 sq. ft. per acre (meaning the 3 acre numbers would be 4000 sq.
ft. & 6000 sq. ft.)
- It was agreed that Mr. Goldman would revise the Detached Bedroom bylaw draft to indicate only one detached bedroom is allowed and more only by special permit.
- Chair Weidner discussed, with Mr. Doty, placing the advertisement for the public hearing in the newspaper before the Board of Selectmen meeting. He agreed this would be ok. Chair Weidner directed Ms. Christy to advertise the public hearings for the two bylaws for Monday, December 17, 2012.
Minutes:
- No Minutes were reviewed.
Next Meeting: Monday, December 10, 2012, 4:30 PM
With no more business to discuss, Chair Weidner adjourned the meeting at 6:14 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| |
