Minutes of the Monterey Planning Board Meeting, March 23, 2006
Members Present: Cindy Hoogs, Maggie Leonard, Brian Puntin, Janet Cathcart, Wayne Burkhart, Beth King, and Steven Rose.
Meeting called to order 7:00 pm.
Maggie opened a public hearing at 7:00 pm on the zoning by-laws changes proposed by the Planning Board. She explained that the board held a public hearing on these by-law changes on November 17, 2005, and as there were material changes to the language of the proposed by-laws, the board felt that it was necessary to hold another public hearing.
The public hearing was taped.
The first proposed by-law is a change in the definition of Agricultural Use. Brian Puntin explained that this definition was modified to include commercial horse farms and greenhouses as a use by right in the Agricultural/Residential District. The purpose of modifying the definition is to make the new definition more in line with the state definitions, and to allow their use in town as an agricultural use by right.
Joe Baker explained that these two uses were not allowed by right when this definition was created because at the time it was felt that horse stables created a lot of traffic, and that greenhouses created a good deal of night light. By allowing horse farms and greenhouses only by special permit would allow the town and abuttors a greater review process. Joe felt that horse farms and greenhouses should continue to be allowed only by special permit.
Jon Sylbert agreed with Joe Baker.
If this definition is adopted at Town Meeting, then the board should remove Section IV.B.2.a. remove commercial greenhouses from the uses by Special Permit only.
The second by-law change would be the deletion of the phrase in the definition of “Repair, Ordinary”. Brian explained that the phrase “(Massachusetts Building Code, Article 20)” should to be deleted. Article 20 refers to the regulation of the use of aluminum in construction. This is a clerical error. There was no discussion.
The next proposed by-law would be an addition to the footnotes at the end of Section VI on page 19. The proposed by-law would add footnote (f) regarding the construction of a retaining wall that would be a required part of a septic system plan. Janet stated that there are some properties in town where a septic system cannot be built without a retaining wall or retaining structure. The board agreed to change the replace the word “optimum” with the word “only”.
The next proposed by-law change involved Section VIII.B.1. Exceptions which do not require a building permit (page 26). The board proposes a change to #2 with respect to garden sheds to increase the size from 100 square feet to 120 square feet. The change would also clarify that if said building is to have a foundation, then the building would require a building permit. The purpose is to make the language more closely match the state code definitions. Joe Baker suggested that the board add a definition for “foundation”. These buildings would apply only to a detached structure. Any attached structures would require a building permit.
The Board then opened discussion on the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
Maggie explained that subsequent to the November 2005 public hearing the board went back to the drawing board on this by-law and made the following changes:
1. Reduce the size of an ADU to a maximum of 800 square feet without getting a special permit.
2. Am ADU could be established by right in an existing detached building, (a building existing at the time the ADU was adopted by the Town)
3. Impliment more control over visual impact.
4. Removed the language regarding architectural integrity.
Discussion from the floor followed.
Questions asked included – Why is the board proposing this by-law? Who wants this? Why is by right?
Maggie explained that there is concern in town regarding the lack of affordable housing. The ADU would allow housing for parents, children, care givers, i.e. in-law apartments. The ADU would not qualify as affordable housing under the state’s definition, but in effect it would be affordable housing, which the board feels in needed in town.
The sentiment of the people attending the public hearing was definitely anti-ADU. A number of people present felt that this by-law would ruin “2 acre” zoning, double the number of houses and contribute to a population growth.
A number of people felt that if there was an ADU by-law, that it should be by special permit only, so as to allow abuttors the opportunity to review applications. People want to preserve 2 acre zoning. There was some discussion regarding cluster zoning, and suggested that ADU would be a form of cluster zoning. However, cluster zoning would guarantee permanent open space. The ADU does not provide for any acreage set aside as open space. It was suggested that language regarding open space be a part of an ADU. However, due to size constraints, this would probably not work on a 2 acre lot.
Jon Sylbert suggested that if an ADU were to be adopted, it should be only in an attached structure, to be no larger than 650 square feet, and be by special permit only.
Maggie closed the public hearing to discussion from the public.
The board voted as follows regarding each of the proposed by-laws:
1. Ag Use. Janet made a motion to approve this bylaw as presented and place the bylaw on the warrant for the annual town meeting. Steven seconded. Vote – all in favor, 6-0 (Beth King had left and was not in attendance for the voting).
2. Repair, ordinary. Steve made a motion to approve this bylaw as presented. Brian seconded. All in favor. 6-0.
3. Footnote “f”. Janet made a motion to approve this bylaw as presented with the change in the work from optimum to only. Brian seconded. All in favor to change optimum to only. Motion to approve bylaw as amended made by Janet, seconded by Brian. All in favor, 6-0.
4. Section VIII.B. Regarding storage sheds. Steven made a motion to approve as presented. Brian seconded. All in favor, 6-0.
Regarding the ADU, the board felt that the public was very anti-ADU, much more so than at the last public hearing. Brian suggested that we could send out a flyer requesting more community input.
Maggie suggested that it would be better served to not take this bylaw to a town meeting at this time, as it probably would be defeated. And to come back with another version of an ADU after a town defeat is difficult. Maggie suggested that we work on an ADU as part of our Master Plan. A basic concern among citizens is the reduction of the zoning to one acre zoning.
Brian made a motion to table this bylaw and not take it to town meeting. Cindy seconded. Steve opposed this, he would like to see this bylaw debated on the town meeting floor. There was concern that if it went to town meeting floor, there would be a lot of people present who would be against the bylaw, and that those people in favor of the bylaw would not be present.
The board voted to table this bylaw, 5-1, Steve opposed.
Maggie read a letter from Jerome Scully, Town Counsel, in response to the board’s request to take the building inspector’s definition of “dwelling unit” to the ZBA for interpretation. Mr. Scully responded that the ZBA cannot rule on the abstract. The board can appeal only after someone has been aggrieved. The board would need to wait until there was a specific case. Janet requested that the letter drafted at a previous meeting be forwarded to the Selectboard with a copy of Mr. Torrico. Janet wants to let the Selectboard know what the Planning Board’s position is regarding Mr. Torrico’s interpretation of a dwelling unit and in what ways in conflicts with the zoning bylaws’ definition of a dwelling unit. Janet made a motion, seconded by Wayne, all in favor.
Susan Beacco applied for the secretarial job. Brian made a motion to hire her, all in favor. Maggie will contact her.
Approved the minutes of the March 9, 2006 meeting. No amendments. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia T. Hoogs
| 
