Town of Lenox
Planning Board
May 5, 2015
Landuse Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Kameron Spaulding, (KS); Mark S. Smith, (MS); Tom Delasco, (TD); Kate McNulty-Vaughan, (KMV)
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.
Proposed Village Center Parking Overlay District Zoning Bylaw Amendment-Review the final version of the map and draft to correct grammatical errors noted at the April 28, 2015 meeting in preparation for the Annual Town Meeting scheduled for May 7, 2015.
Summary of the process leading up to this date: In late 2014, KS and TD began work on improving the parking situation in Lenox Village with the goal of putting rules in place and finding solutions that would be realistic, enforceable, and fair to all interests (residents, businesses, municipal employees, and visitors). Both Town Bylaws and Zoning Bylaws needed to be amended to achieve this. On November 24, 2014 KS and TD met with Town Manager, Chris Ketchen, and subsequent to that Attorney Jeff Lynch and Gwen Miller, Land Use Director/ Town Planner joined in the discussions. The Planning Board has met eight times over a period of seven months to discuss parking: September 23, 2014; November 20, 2014; December 9, 2014; February 24, 2015 (At this meeting the first draft, entitled “5.1.20
Parking and Loading in the Historic District” was presented.); March 19, 2015; April 14, 2015; April 21, 2015; and April 28, 2015. On February 24, 2015 the first draft revisions were made and a second draft was presented on March 19th. Revisions were made and a third draft was presented on April 14th. Two minor edits were made and the fourth draft, along with diagrams for handicap parking, was presented at the Public Hearing on April 21st. (This document was printed in the Town Meeting Warrant.) Among those at the Public Hearing were six members of the public. More changes were suggested and fifth draft, dated April 27th, was provided at the April 28th meeting. At that meeting a few grammatical errors were corrected and the boundaries of the overlay were expanded. This sixth draft which included additional revisions
by KMV, Attorney Jeff Lynch and GM was presented at tonight’s meeting.
KS asked, for the sake of brevity, if the changes could be pointed out rather than to have to review the entire document. GM asked KMV if she would share her changes with the Board.
KMV said that she had found the previous draft unclear and contradictory in terms of process, so she reconstructed the document based on looking at the sign section. She took out a lot of what she considered repetitive.
She detailed other changes that she made. They included but were not limited to:
- If one proposes to modify the building in size or with new construction, it can be done unless the new use generates a lot more parking. In that case it is to be reviewed by the Building Commissioner (BC) and Land Use Director/Town Planner (LUD/TP).
- She took the burden off of the Building Commissioner who hands off the paperwork to the LUD/TP, and put the burden on the applicant to submit to both the BC and LUD/TP.
- The applicant needs to submit parking configuration.
- She created some new sections called “Determination of Parking Space”.
- Minor changes were made in the list of criteria, but in the last one, which refers to the letter, she suggested that the DPW Superintendent “give his assessment”.
- She also made some other language changes.
KMV said that she was not happy with 5.1.21 Purpose. After reviewing “purposes” in other sections of the zoning bylaw she decided to add some language to Purpose. Her biggest concern was that in that section it was allowing any change of use, which she said that “use” is an indicator of how much parking would be needed. She used an example of someone coming into the District, buying two adjoining lots and building something huge. KS explained that what she described could not happen with this bylaw as that would be new construction and further explained that one would be limited to work within the same area. She encouraged the Board to look at the Use Table and be aware of the uses allowed. KS and TD said that the Use Table was one of the first elements they looked at
when studying a bylaw amendment. KS said that he really likes this amendment but believes that in its current form it is a temporary measure as it is expected that there are plans to make massive changes in the bylaw in approximately 8 months. (A consultant has been hired by the Town to look into the use table and other parts of the zoning bylaw and work with the Board on amendments. ~It had been expected that this process would have been started in early 2015.)
KS said that the plan is to have signage to alert to parking areas which should help to address shortage of parking on inner streets in the District.
KMV sought clarification of the lines on the expanded parking map. She had taken out the verbiage entirely or partially within. After discussion it was decided that it should be included again.
Section 5.1.21 Purpose was analyzed. Attorney Lynch pointed out that Sections 5.1.18 and 5.1.19 are only loading standards, so 5. 1.5 needs to be restored which had been deleted from an earlier draft. He stated that “this will exempt” doesn’t affirmatively state anything and that in the process of editing previous versions the language that says in “change use of a property shall not be subject to the parking and loading requirements of the Lenox Zoning Bylaw” has been taken out. Attorney Lynch feels that the document has been edited down and in doing so what they Board hoped to accomplish has been removed. He further stated the wording must say “is exempt” and not “will be exempt”.
KMV, referring to “purpose” felt the language should be clearer. KS responded that he felt that the April 27 and April 28 drafts sufficiently stated that. GM asked how verbose should the purpose be, i.e., are you prohibiting, regulating or encouraging? She added that there is so much language for an applicant to find out “What do I need to know to submit an application to the Building Commissioner or before going to the Planning Board or Zoning Board.” KMV felt that the Board should be making a case for an overlay district.
Attorney Lynch stated that in the April 15 draft the Purpose stated: 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 VCPOD shall be exempt from the parking requirements or loading standards of the Zoning Bylaw. He said earlier drafts made the case for an overlay district.
KMV provided her suggestion for 5.1.21 Purpose which is as follows:
The purpose of this bylaw/overlay district is to promote the historic heritage of the Lenox Village area and its pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and streetscape, and allow the many historic downtown houses and small-scale businesses now converted/evolved to commercial use to maintain economic vitality by creating a set of standards more applicable to the scale of these buildings, streets and this Village.
KS feels that this language is perfect for responding at the Annual Town Meeting, but all agreed it wasn’t necessary to be put in the bylaw amendment. Attorney Lynch said that it is important that the minutes reflect what has been discussed in the event in the future there are questions regarding the intent of the amendments.
KMV asked if there was a need to have a Section that is separate for change of use. Discussion ensued. GM and MS suggested that there be a new section referred to as Applicability following Purpose and Boundary. It would become 5.1.23 and would read: “Except as provided in Section 5.2.24 and 5.1.25, any new use, change of use, building modification or new construction is exempt from Sections 5.1.1-5.1.19 of the Lenox Zoning Bylaw.” The numbers will not be referenced in the first part.
KS said that Purpose would now read: “The purpose of this section is to remove minimum parking and loading requirements from the Village Center Parking Overlay District. This will exempt all properties within the Village Center Parking Overlay District of Lenox from Section 5.1.1 to Section 5.1.19 of the Lenox Zoning Bylaw.” He continued to say: “That completes Purpose. Boundary would follow as written, followed by Applicability. Any new use, change of use or building modification or new construction is exempt from Section 5.1.1 thru Section 5.1.19 except for a substantial structure change as described in Section 5.1.24.”
KMV asked why “except for” was included when those are dealt with in 5.1.23 and 5.1.24. Attorney Lynch said that starting with “except as provided in Sections 5.1.24 and 5.1.25 any new use, change of use or building modification or new construction is exempt from Sections 5.1.5 thru 5.1.19”.
In what will be the new Section 5.1.24, Building Modification and new Section 5.1.26, one says substantial change in the size of the structure and the latter says substantial change in the size of an existing structure. The first should read the same as the latter.
Substantial structure change in previous versions was italicized and that could be defined then the long phrase would not have to be used. KMV said that she changed the phrase because substantial is modifying structure when the intent is to be a substantial change. KS feels that having the phrase defined will be adequate. Substantial change in size was agreed upon as the phrase and is defined as the lesser of an increase in the existing building’s gross square footage by more than 25%; or an increase in the existing building’s gross square footage by 1,000 square feet.
TD noted that they were agreeing to put back in what was in the April 27th draft but adding the lesser of.
Building Modification will now be renumbered. Under this section the two bulleted items will be changed to read:
An increase of more than 25% of the existing building’s square footage ; or an increase of 1,000 square feet to the existing building’s gross square footage.
Under the old number 5.1.24 New Construction, TD said that on the version of April 27th note that the word building should be italicized. Throughout the document building should always be italicized so that it is directing people back to the definitions. KMV asked why the reference to loading requirements restored in the version. Attorney Lynch said that they need to be exempt because the Board agreed to state: “except as provided in 23 and 24”. Verbiage was changed to “should be exempt from the loading requirements of the Zoning By Law but may be required to create parking spaces”.
Under the old number 5.1.25 Determination of Adequacy of Parking-There was considerable discussion on this section and it was agreed that these parts would be edited to be written as such:
Any applicant proposing a substantial change in the size of a structure (5.1.23), or the construction of a new building shall provide to the Building Commissioner and Land Use Director/Town Planner copies of the building permit application together with a mortgage inspection plan or survey of the subject parcel and a parking space plan. Within 15 business days of receipt of the submission the Building Commissioner and Land Use Director/Town Planner shall determine the number of additional or new parking spaces to be provided, if any, by applying the criteria below: (As the only bulleted item changed was the last one, the others are not repeated here.) The last bulleted item now reads: Letter from the Lenox Department of Public Works Superintendent and Public Safety Chiefs
assessing the proposed parking configuration, and the risk to the health and safety of pedestrians in relation to traffic flow and circulation.
Also, the last sentence in this section was changed to read: The number of additional or new parking spaces required by the Building Commissioner and Land Use Director/Town Planner shall not exceed one-half of the parking spaces required in Table 5.1.5 Parking Space Quantity Requirements.
Under the old number 5.1.26 there was discussion about moving to the end of the amendments, but decided to leave it in place. It was decided that when referring to the ZBA, they reach a “decision”; the Building Commissioner and Land Use Director/Town Planner make a “determination”.
Under the old number 5.1.27 there were no changes.
Under the old number 5.1.28 the last sentence reads: “An accessible parking space is one that complies with 521 CMR for persons with disabilities.” There was considerable discussion on that sentence and it was determined that there should not be a reference to State Code, as the code could change and by default the bylaw would then be changed. Attorney Lynch suggested to pull the language from 521 CMR rather than to refer to it, but the Board decided to delete the sentence entirely. It was also agreed that the sentence: “Each accessible parking space shall be at least 8 feet wide with a corresponding level access aisle not less than five feet wide.” Additionally the second diagram was eliminated. Then it was agreed to combine the old numbers 5.1.27 and 5.1.28 under the heading:
Parking Space Size, Design and Construction.
The Board completed their revisions and it was agreed that the changes made tonight would again be incorporated and a new version would be created. This final version would be made available to the public at the ATM. The proposed amendment, Proposed Village Center Parking Overlay District Zoning Bylaw Amendment which was voted on and approved by both the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, is already in the printed Town Warrant. This version could continue to be amended on the floor at the ATM. KMV believes that the Board “is there”, but wants to have the latest version in her hand before approving. KS said that if this latest version doesn’t represent what was decided tonight, and the Board choses, the proposed amendment could be pulled at the Annual Town Meeting. He doesn’t
understand why it should be pulled now after all of the time and extra meetings were devoted to this proposal. MS made a motion to approve as amended. TD seconded the motion.
KS said that the amendment with tonight’s revision will be printed by tomorrow morning for the Board’s review. He added that if the vote is not taken tonight, what would be on the floor at the ATM would be four versions ago. KMV responded that she felt that it was put on the warrant prematurely and asked about when the Board could meet again to vote on whether or not to pull the proposal. A recess was discussed to allow time for GM to type up another draft for the Board to review tonight, but it was decided to proceed to take a vote.
The Board voted 4-0 to approve.
GM will provide to the Board tomorrow morning the latest draft and asked the Board to let her know before noon of any changes. She will then make copies of the final version for those who attend the ATM, Town Clerk and have the Assistant Town Clerk post to the website.
Other Business: A letter accepting the resignation of Linda Messana was read aloud and approved. Members agreed to sign.
KMV made a motion to adjourn and MS seconded the motion. The Board voted to adjourn at 7:52 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
