 |
CHILMARK PLANNING BOARD
APPROVED Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 28, 2013 @ 4:30 PM
Present: Janet Weidner, Chair, Catherine Thompson, Daniel Greenbaum, John O. Flender, Andrew Fischer, Rich Osnoss, Mitch Posin
Not Present:
Public: George Sourati, Sourati Engineering, Mr. & Mrs. Rivera, Sandy Broyard, Candy Shweder, Chuck Hodgkinson, Sophie Abrams, Matt Poole, Lenny Jason, Pam Bunker, Billie Hancock, Buffy Carroll, Joan Malkin, Jessica Roddy, John Demers, Dyan Schmidt, Thomas Bena (w/camera), Remy Tumin (V Gazette)
- Meeting was called to order by Chair Janet Weidner at 4:30 p.m.
- Chair Weidner noted the fact that filming was taking place by Thomas Bena who had asked for permission previously.
- All attendees stated their names and affiliation, if necessary.
- Chair Weidner summarized the efforts of the Board up to this point.
Gross Living Area (GLA) Definition Discussion:
- Chair Weidner stated the purpose of the discussion is to arrive at a definition of Gross Living Area as it is understood by the Asst. Assessor. Chair Weidner invited Ms. Bunker, Asst. Assessor, to state her concerns about using the GLA number as a beginning point for the permitting process.
- Ms. Bunker stated her concerns:
- The task of assessment of value of property occurs after the structure is built and, therefore, using the GLA number in the beginning of the permitting process may conflict with the Building Inspector’s (BI)process.
- GLA does not include screened porches or open porches.
- Chair Weidner explained why the GLA was chosen originally:
- Publically available numbers for all lots.
- What was calculated in the GLA seemed aligned with the goals of the regulation.
- Discussion continued regarding the way GLA is calculated, the discrepancies in the GLA calculation as compared with how the BI calculates size of living space, and the conflict within the guest house zoning bylaw concerning enclosed porches. More discussion occurred regarding the usefulness of GLA since the builder/homeowner visits the BI first, who has a different way of calculating square footage/living area.
- Discussion turned to the bylaw definition for a Detached Bedroom (DBR).
- Mr. Poole noted the prohibition of washers & dryers seemed to eliminate the use of DBRs as guest houses.
- Chair Weidner asked Mr. Jason & Ms. Bunker whether there was a mechanism that could be developed, aligned with the Board of Assessors’ GLA calculation method, that may be used by the BI to use in the permitting process.
- Mr. Jason described the permitting process and noted that he does sometimes consult the information in the BOA’s office, but not always. Ms. Bunker stated she also consults the BI’s records at times.
- Ms. Malkin asked if the Board could review the GLA ‘definition’ draft that she developed so that the Board may come closer to seeing what Ms. Bunker calculates to arrive at GLA.
- Ms. Jason stated that he complies with the zoning bylaws, not with the BOA’s practices for evaluating replacement cost/value.
- Ms. Malkin went through the GLA definition draft line by line, gathering feedback from Ms. Bunker, Mr. Jason and others. Discussion occurred and meeting attendees attempted to narrow down what living space is and what document Ms. Bunker may be provided that gives guidance on that definition.
- The discussion highlighted the Asst. Assessor’s process of evaluating a property to determine GLA, but did not result in a clear definition or in a way to reconcile the GLA calculation with the BI’s way of calculating square footage/living space.
- Ms. Malkin noted in conclusion that it did not seem that using GLA as the basis for determining living area would be useful if the BI is not aligned with GLA. Ms. Malkin worried applicants would be continually caught in between the two types of calculation and confusion would result.
- Mr. Jason reminded that he consults the Zoning Bylaws to know what to do when issuing a permit. Mr. Jason continued to describe how he measures square footage: he measures the exterior perimeter of the building and the entire second floor unless there are partitions.
- Mr. Greenbaum expressed concern that the Planning Board is coming up with definitions that other departments will use in following the bylaw. He also noted that the data used to support this proposed residential bylaw will be skewed if we change how we are calculating space/living area.
George Rivera Form A:
- Chair Weidner summarized the topic as it was presented on January 14, 2013 and she asked Mr. Posin & Mr. Fischer if they had walked the road. They had walked the road. The Board examined photos of the road taken by Mr. & Mrs. Rivera.
- Mr. Sourati showed plans for where the road would be improved. He stated the Riveras would like to improve the road past where their driveway exits. The road is adequate up to their driveway.
- Ms. Thompson queried the Riveras about the history of the road improvement situation. Mr. Osnoss noted that there had previously been some issues concerning the improvement of the road with neighbors. Mr. Sourati clarified that the Board is not to consider what will happen in the future, but only what is proposed in considering the adequacy of the road. Chair Weidner stated the Planning Board indeed does consider what development will happen in the future in determining the adequacy of the road.
- Chair Weidner, in response to a question from Mr. Posin, noted that the Planning Board had asked for a legal opinion concerning subdivision of the Rivera’s large parcel into 3 separate lots. The legal opinion did not address the adequacy of the road.
- Mr. Posin noted the Riveras could be asked to only have turnouts on their side of the road. Chair Weidner stated she remembered there was a concern previously about access and turnouts.
- Chair Weidner & Mr. Posin questioned whether the Riveras would need to get permission from neighbors to improve the road. Mr. Posin noted that the landowner that would need to be approached would be the Sheriff’s Meadow Association. Mr. Sourati stated the landowner is required to improve the road, but is not required, by the Planning Board, to ask for permission from the neighbors.
- Chair Weidner read the requirements for the Planning Board to endorse or not endorse a Form A. The Chair stated the road would need to be improved before a Form A application is endorsed. The Riveras were asked to grant an extension to the Planning Board until March 11, 2013 to allow time for the Riveras to improve the road and come back to the Planning Board on March 11, 2013 to request approval of their Form A Application. The Riveras agreed to give an extension to the Planning Board until March 11, 2013 and to send the request to Ms. Christy.
- Mr. Flender asked for the Board to conduct a straw poll on the question, “If the road is improved, would the Board endorse the Form A application?” The Board unanimously stated they would endorse the Form A if the road was improved.
- The Board voted unanimously to accept the request from Mr. & Mrs. Rivera for an extension until March 11, 2013.
John Demers & Dyan Schmidt:
- Mr. Demers reviewed the newly proposed road location for accessing the Khedouri subdivision lots off of Bartlett Woods Road. Plans were reviewed.
- Reid Silva is working on a new Form C application and Mr. Demers hoped this new application would be submitted this week.
- Mr. Demers noted that the old Bartlett Woods Road (currently being used) would be sealed off and landscaped if the new plan was approved. This is a change from the previous Form C.
- Mr. Demers stated he had spoken to some of the neighbors and they had expressed support for the new plan. Mr. Demers noted that landowners of Wayside, however, had not been in recent contact with him regarding the change. Chair Weidner asked for clarification about how Wayside’s access/easement would change. Mr. Demers explained the change.
- Mr. Demers noted some of the advantages to the new plan: one curb cut instead of two, the exit/entrance is opposite a wooded area rather than directly at a house, Wayside’s driveway is on the house side of the road rather than across the road from the house, and the existence of riser poles that could be used in the new plan.
- Mr. Demers requested a speedy consideration of the Form C application, as much as possible
Chapter 91 Permit Oyster Restoration Project: WT & Chilmark:
- Received by the Planning Board
2012 Town Report Draft Review:
- The Board made a few changes and voted to approve the town report draft unanimously as amended.
Minutes:
- January 7, 2013 Minutes were reviewed and approved with changes.
- January 14, 2013 Minutes were reviewed and approved with changes.
Next Meeting: Planning Board, Monday, February 11, 2013, 4:30 PM
With no more business to discuss, Chair Weidner adjourned the meeting at 7:36 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| |
