Town of Lenox
Planning Board
April 21, 2015
Landuse Meeting Room
Public Hearing
Members present: Chair Kameron Spaulding, (KS); Mark S. Smith, (MS); Tom Delasco, (TD);
Kate McNulty-Vaughan, (KMV)
Absent with notification: Linda Messana (LM)
Staff present: Chris Ketchen, Town Manager; Gwen Miller, Land Use Director/Town Planner, (GM); Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, (PA)
Also present was Selectman Ken Fowler and the following members of the public: George Jordan, Jim Biancola, Attorney David Naseman, Dan O’Brien and Attorney Alex Glover who represents Dan O’Brien and O’Brien’s Market.
Proposed Village Center Parking Overlay District Zoning Bylaw Amendment
Posted March 20, 2015 and noticed in the Berkshire Eagle on April 8th and April 14th.
KS read the public hearing notice and explained the purpose for the proposed amendment which is stated:
5. 1.21 Purpose: The purpose of this section is to encourage new or changed uses within the Village Center Parking Overlay District, as defined herein, by waiving the parking and loading requirements as set forth in Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Bylaw. Accordingly, any change in use of an existing structure located on a parcel partially or entirely within the Village Center Parking Overlay District shall not be subject to the parking requirements or loading standards of the Zoning Bylaw.
Except as specifically referenced herein, Sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.19 shall not be applied to any parcel partially or entirely within the Village Center Parking Overlay District.
Copies of the following documents were made available: Zoning bylaw, the study area, a report which looks at area and possible effects of this proposal and maps of the area. The maps show the area compared to commercial district, lot and building size and a separate diagram showing the building size compared to lot size.
George Jordan of 138 Walker St. stated he believes that this is spot zoning and he is opposed.
Attorney Glover spoke against the proposal, citing that the ZBA should make decisions on a case by case basis through the Special Permit process. She does not favor delegating the determination of deviation to the Building Inspector and Land Use Director/Town Planner. She referred to case law said that she would share that documentation with GM.
David Naseman asked about existing parking, using an example of a change in a business use and the new business owner eliminating parking in order to expand the square footage of the building. He suggested that the amendment be changed to prohibit an expansion if it includes the elimination of existing parking.
GM stated that with the current draft, the Building Commissioner and Town Planner would review the proposed change and assess the impact.
KS explained that a proposed change in the district could trigger a requirement for a special permit. This proposed amendment would absolve one from the parking issues only. A massive addition may get into an issue of lot coverage and other issues.
KMV suggested doing another overlay map of parcels with looking at the extreme of everyone changing use and going out as far as they could and calculating how many spaces would be lost.
GM reviewed her analysis of increases of adding 1000 square feet versus adding 25% to the footprint. Some increases would exceed the maximum allowable of 75% lot coverage. At this time there are four lots which exceed the 75%. If every parcel suddenly added 1000 square feet to the footprint, there would be 10 non-conforming lots. If every parcel in the parking district were to increase by 25%, eight lots would be non-conforming. There are approximately 115 parcels in the district. Any change would be looked at on a case by case, parcel by parcel basis.
Attorney Glover suggested that it is unfair that existing merchants have complied with the parking requirements and new businesses would have a competitive advantage as they would not have to with this proposal. Mr. O’Brien agreed.
KS said that this amendment to the zoning by law comes out of idea that there are a number of properties in the downtown area that are currently empty and the need to make it easier for businesses. He pointed out that because some of these former businesses that have been empty for over two years, they have lost their previously granted use right and under the current zoning bylaw, they have essentially become unusable as they cannot meet the parking requirements. KS concluded that this bylaw mimics other zoning bylaws which exist in downtown districts in communities within Berkshire County and throughout the state.
Jim Biancola finds the amendment to be clear, supports streamlining the process and believes that negotiating on a case by case basis makes sense. He feels that the phrase “as used herein” is awkward and unnecessary. He thinks that the language could address the removal of spaces, and feels that handicap as addressed is inconsistent in the zoning bylaw.
Attorney Naseman used an example of someone building a cantilevered addition that would not increase the footprint. KS responded that any building in the Historic District would require approval of the Historic District Commission.
Attorney Glover pointed out that in 5.1.24 New Construction the last sentence: The number of parking spaces shall not exceed one-half of the required parking spaces required pursuant to Table 5.1.5-Parking Space Quantity Requirements of the Zoning Bylaw. It was agreed that this needed “tweaking”.
KMV said suggested that the word “encouraged” be replaced with “allowed” in first sentence of 5.1.21 Purpose: The purpose of this section is to encourage new or changed uses within the Village Center Parking Overlay District, as defined herein, by waiving the parking and loading requirements as set forth in Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Bylaw.
KS, noting that there were no other comments, asked Attorney Glover to provide the case law she spoke of regarding the delegation of authority to the Building Commissioner /Town Planner. Attorney Glover said that she would submit tomorrow, April 22nd. KS said that the Board will meet again on April 28th at 6:00 PM to continue discussion on this amendment
MS made a motion to adjourn and TD seconded the motion. The Board voted to agree and the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
