 |
CHILMARK PLANNING BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE
APPROVED
Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 9:30 AM
Present: Janet Weidner, Chair, Joan Malkin, Cathy Thompson, Andy Goldman, Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
Public: Mark London, Jessica Roddy, Lenny Jason
Not Present: Dan Greenbaum
- Meeting Called to Order: 9:30AM
- Minutes :
Oct. 23 approved with amendments. Moved & seconded. All ayes.
Nov. 1 approved with amendments. Moved & seconded. All ayes.
Chair Weidner summarized the plan for the meeting.
Residential Bylaw Discussion:
Barn Definition
- Mr. Jason questioned the need for the proposed new Barn Definition.
- Discussion occurred regarding the current Barn Definition and the pros and cons of a revised Barn Definition. The subcommittee developed the revision to the Barn Definition because it believed that there were barns being converted to living space and that owners of the barns were “skirting” the rules such as setbacks, height, use. Mr. Jason denied this was happening. Mr. Jason stated a Barn converted to a guest house, for example, would require a special permit if it became a nonconforming structure after conversion.
- Mr. Goldman suggested the subcommittee remove the proposed Barn Definition from consideration due to the lack of a great amount of concern for the usefulness of the revision.
- There was general agreement to discard Barn Definition proposal due to a perceived lack of need.
Detached Bedrooms Definition
- Mr. Jason suggested adding a line re limiting a lot to one detached bedroom without a special permit.
- The subcommittee agreed this was a useful suggestion and agreed to add this to the proposed bylaw definition.
Change of Use Definition
- Mr. Jason questioned the need for a Change of Use Definition. He questioned whether the bylaws don’t already address the issue. Mr. Jason asked whether the proposed bylaw, as written, would require a special permit to change one permitted use to another permitted use. Discussion occurred regarding the process by which the subcommittee developed the proposed bylaw. It was determined that a Change of Use Definition was not needed since those who attempt a change of use to a structure most likely are required to obtain a special permit if the change of use creates a structure that does not conform to zoning regulations.
- The subcommittee unanimously agreed to eliminate this proposed bylaw definition.
Residential Bylaw Discussion
- The subcommittee reviewed Mr. Greenbaum’s ‘Existing Houses on Lots Under Three Acres’ document.
- Ms. Thompson noted that virtually all of the houses on 3 acre parcels are under 4000 sq. ft.
- There was discussion regarding whether Mr. Greenbaum meant ‘Houses’ or “gross living space.”
- Mr. London asked for clarification on what warrant articles would most likely appear on the ATM warrant.
- Chair Weidner clarified that the Planning Board would most likely succeed in having the Detached Bedroom Definition Bylaw on the ATM Warrant and would also like to have a Residential Bylaw for the warrant as well. For the proposed December 17 public hearing, the Planning Board could present a combined approach for consideration such as Mr. Greenbaum suggested in his email received earlier on November 26:
- “A trigger of 3,000 SF for houses on lots of one acre and going to 4,000 SF for 3-acre lots, 5,500 SF for six acres, 7,500 SF for 10 acres and 10,000 SF at 15 acres. The second level, which should be substantially above the review level, sets a maximum cap for houses with increasing limits for larger lots. The caps, increasing by 500 SF per acre, would be 5,000 SF for houses on small one-acre lots, 6,000 SF on 3-acre lots, 7,500 SF on six acres, 9,500 SF on 10 acres, and 12,000 SF on 15 acres.” Greenbaum
- Ms. Malkin expressed support of Mr. Greenbaum’s combined approach: a square footage that triggers review and a larger absolute cap.
- Ms. Roddy also expressed support for the combined approach
- The subcommittee discussed the numbers proposed by Mr. Greenbaum.
- Ms. Malkin expressed dismay with the larger square footages that may be allowed on larger lots. She suggested the square footage number should increase by 250 rather than 500.
- More discussion occurred regarding the underlying intention of the proposed Residential Bylaw: to protect the character of Chilmark overall by limiting the size of houses on all sizes of lots or to limit the building of large houses on visible and/or small lots. Ms. Malkin noted that a house of 5750 square feet on 10 acres would trigger review, IF the amount increased by 250 sq. ft. every acre (not 500 sq. ft.). Ms. Malkin also noted that 75 parcels (out of approx 2500 parcels total) are over 10 acres. Mr. Jason noted that the proposed bylaw may encourage subdivision. Discussion occurred about whether restrictions exacerbate the problem of retaining younger, lower income people in town. Ms. Thompson noted the Menemsha area has parcels that are small and the 1.5 acre zoning has not encouraged the retention of younger, lower income people. Mr. Jason noted
the Planning Board needs to determine why large houses are “bad”. In addition, he noted the need to have criteria clear for review and understand whether the proposed review board would be able to impose conditions on the plan.
- Chair Weidner expressed more support for a proposed bylaw which was simply based on the FAR idea (cap), not combined with the review proposal.
- Ms. Roddy stated a good number of townspeople would like a review process for projects over a certain square footage.
Planning Board Meeting Discussion
- Chair Weidner summarized the approach for the Planning Board meeting later in the afternoon.
- Chair Weidner asked for an informal poll to determine the right number of square footage for the trigger for a 3 acre parcel: all agreed 4000 square feet would remain the trigger number, for now. Further discussion occurred regarding what amount of square footage would be subtracted or added for each acre less or more than 3 acres. Ms. Thompson read the “gross living area” definition that Ms. Malkin drafted after meeting with Pam Bunker, Asst. Assessor, on October 23, 2012:
“Gross Living Area”~means livable floor space (including such space which, when developed or finished, would be livable, but excluding such space in a below-ground basement), and is calculated in the same manner that the Town Assessor calculates ‘gross living area’ for the purposes of real property tax assessments.
It was agreed that the square footage number triggering review would begin at 3500 for one acre and would rise and fall linearly at 250 square feet per acre and the Planning Board would bring this to the public hearing for further deliberation.
- Chair Weidner stated her intention to suggest a December 17, 2012 Public Hearing to the Planning Board.
Next Meeting:
- Friday, November 30, 2012, 9:30AM.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:30 AM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| |
