 |
APPROVED
Chilmark Planning Board
Subcommittee Meeting
February 10, 2014
Present: Janet Weidner, Acting Chair, Dan Greenbaum, Joan Malkin
Not Present:
Public: Rich Osnoss, Chair of Planning Board, David Damroth, Peter Alpert (Ropes & Gray Law offices), Chuck Hodgkinson, Zoning Board Administrator, Tom Wallace, Lenny Jason, Building Inspector, Zach Wiesner
Staff: Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
Meeting called to order at 3:00PM
- Chair Janet Weidner opened the meeting and summarized the status of the subcommittee’s work on the ZBL proposed amendments.
- No comments were made on the first two amendments to Article 11.
- Chair Weidner asked for comment on the third item, an amendment to Article 11, section 11.6. A. 2 c.4.
- Chair Weidner suggests replacing the word ‘provide’ with ‘except’.
- Ms. Malkin suggested a new wording for the last sentence in the Article 11 amendment regarding road width. It was agreed to propose new wording to clarify the proposed road width restrictions (and replace the proposed amendment underlined on the 2-6-14 draft under Article 11, section 11.6.A.2.c.4, 4.): “except that within a project for which a special permit has been granted, under Article 12 Section 12.4, B Zone B1, the maximum width of roads is twenty feet.”
- Chair Weidner asked for comment on the fourth item, an amendment to Article 12, section 12.4 B Zone B1
- Chair Weidner read through the items in 2., beginning with the sentence that introduces the special permit criteria.
- Mr. Alpert questioned the need to have the ZBA determine whether a project is a good design for a municipal public amenity when town meeting will have already voted on whether the public amenity is desirable or not.
- The benefits and drawbacks of adding a special permit process to a project that may have been voted favorably at a town meeting was debated.
- A benefit noted by some is that the details of a project may only be reviewed with the criteria developed for a special permit review process.
- Others noted that the special permit process would be redundant if town meeting has voted favorably on a project.
- Mr. Osnoss suggested eliminating ‘reasonably’ from a.
- Ms. Malkin noted that she included that word due to the inability for the Board to predict the duration of a benefit due to the effects of nature on the project.
- Mr. Alpert questioned how the plan for the maintenance (b.), as a criteria, is needed.
- Ms. Weidner explained how the ZBLs have addressed plans for maintenance and removal for other things such as Windmills and Wireless services (DAS.)
- Ms. Malkin noted that the special permit process would function as an extra level of protection for the town rather than a way to eliminate projects.
- Mr. Alpert asked for further clarification regarding the ‘plan for maintenance of the project.’
- Discussion continued regarding how the ZBA would apply this criteria in a special hearing.
- Mr. Alpert further stated that regulation of this project should not be done by the ZBA, but rather the Site Review Committee.
- Discussion occurred about whether a special permit process for projects such as the proposed Squibnocket project is a valid process.
- Mr. Jason stated his support for a special permit process which provides for hearings, neighbor notification and an open process.
- Ms. Malkin explained the benefits of a special permit process as opposed to a site review.
- Mr. Alpert stated he felt a project, such as the Squibnocket project, should not be regulated by the town due to the fact that it is not a use or a structure, but rather a road to a use or structure.
- Chair Weidner introduced the criteria in brackets, c., and explained why it has been proposed.
- It was agreed that the criteria is not intended to require the ZBA to ferret out alternative solutions, but rather to require the ZBA to allow input on alternative solutions.
- Discussion occurred about the powers of the ZBA during a hearing and whether to allow the ZBA to entertain other alternative plans/solutions. Mr. Alpert questioned whether the criteria would be reasonable to apply since it does not seem to be applied elsewhere in the ZBLs.
- Chair Weidner stated the wording of c. is inadequate. Discussion occurred about what the role of the ZBA is during a hearing. Chair Weidner stated the ZBA is tasked with considering a project and whether or not to issue a special permit for the project. Further discussion occurred whether the ZBA would have the right to consider alternatives.
- The subcommittee considered d. regarding visibility and view sheds.
- It was suggested that restricting the criteria to ‘public’ was not adequate. Mr. Greenbaum suggested taking out the words after ‘project’.
- The subcommittee considered e. regarding distance from project lines.
- The subcommittee considered f.
- Discussion occurred about the items: i-vi. Mr. Greenbaum stated the phrase ‘traffic management plan’ is adequate for the criteria with no need to include ‘adequacy of traffic design.’
- Discussion occurred regarding the definition of structure.
- Ms. Malkin reviewed what she will re-draft for consideration at the next meeting.
- Minutes: No minutes were reviewed.
- February 19, 2014, 2:30PM
Meeting adjourned at 4:25PM. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer L. Christy
| |
