 |
APPROVED
Chilmark Planning Board Subcommittee Meeting
October 13, 2015
Present: Janet Weidner, Chair, Joan Malkin
Not Present: Dan Greenbaum
Public: Pam Goff
Staff: Jennifer Christy, Administrative Asst.
Meeting called to order at 3:40PM:
- Historical Structure DRAFT zoning bylaw amendment:
- Ms. Goff would like to make sure that the document is referred to as a draft zoning amendment to an existing bylaw.
- Ms. Weidner suggested a flyer needs to be developed to explain the amendment to the public prior to the Annual Town Meeting.
- The subcommittee members and Ms. Goff reviewed the questions and comment submitted by the Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA):
- A question was asked regarding the significance of the year 1980, in the Historic House proposed definition, is: The proposed bylaw amendment would apply to houses which were constructed through the Civil War. Many of these houses include additions built after the Civil War. Since building permits were not consistently documented prior to 1980, it was decided that additions prior to 1980 would be considered part of the original historic structure. Any additions made post-1980, however, would not be considered historic and would be calculated in the TLA for the property.
- The subcommittee members discussed question 2: In reference to “Applicability to Historic Houses reads “The Historic Commission shall review the proposed changes and prepare a written report…..whether the changes preserve the integrity of the historic features”….Do you think it’s necessary to indicate the features referred to are purely exterior and not interior? It was stated that the interior of buildings are not regulated. The subcommittee recommended the following change: amend the second paragraph of the second section, 2., to say “The Historic Commission shall review the proposed changes and prepare a written report…whether the changes preserve the integrity of the historic features of the exterior of the house.”
- The subcommittee discussed the wording of the paragraph about historic houses destroyed by a natural disaster. In answer to the 3rd question (“If a building is destroyed by natural disaster”…some might think this means hurricane, wind, earthquake but not think a house fire is a natural disaster so perhaps this should be reworded to something like “if a building is destroyed by natural disaster or non-intentional event”?), the subcommittee recommended taking out the brackets and rewriting the section to say, consistent with other language in the bylaws: “The replication of a destroyed or partially destroyed Historic House by fire, hurricane or other catastrophe may be allowed by special permit. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) shall seek comment from the Historical Commission prior to making its determination as to whether to
grant a special permit.”
- The subcommittee answered question #4 (Why would the ZBA need to grant a permit to rebuild a house that has been destroyed? If a non-historic building of any size is destroyed today doesn’t the owner have the right to seek a building permit to rebuild the structure?): The subcommittee stated the ZBA would need to grant a special permit to rebuild a house that has been destroyed because the owner has already taken advantage of the historic house total living area exemption to ensure that the exterior of the rebuilt historic house replicates the original historic house.
- See revised draft produced and to be recommended to the Planning Board.
- The subcommittee answered #5 of the ZBA’s questions (Regarding item 3 – Accessory Uses – Guest Houses excludes the 5 year ownership requirement-Can you explain why this requirement is specifically excluded? The subcommittee stated this was recommended to further encourage the preservation of historic houses in Chilmark.
- It was asked if Ms. Christy would request that Mr. Greenbaum determine the number of historic houses that may be preserved if this amendment were to be enacted.
- Brief discussion occurred about the S 122 legislation.
- Ms. Malkin discussed, briefly, the salient sections of the legislation.
- Ms. Malkin noted the advantages to the proposed Master Plan part of the legislation.
- Flowcharts were not reviewed.
- Minutes from Sept. 28, 2015 were reviewed. The minutes were approved as written.
Meeting adjourned at 4:15PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer L. Christy
| |
