Monterey Planning Board
Minutes 3/9/06
Members present: Janet Cathcart, Beth King, Stephen Rose, Cindy Hoogs, Brian Puntin, Wayne Burkhart, Maggie Leonard.
Public present: Laurily Epstein, Peter Vallianos, Peter Chait, and Mark Amstead.
The board met with Laurily Epstein from the Agricultural Commission regarding the Right To Farm bylaw proposal and the public hearing that will need to be held for it. Laurily suggested March 30th at 5:30 p.m. This is earlier than is customary to hold a public hearing but all present agreed that it was likely to be an uncontroversial bylaw proposal and easily dealt with to be in time for dinner. Laurily and board member Brain Puntin (who is also on the Ag Comm) explained that the Right To Farm bylaw is largely a re-hash of existing laws that were collected together to create a statement that eloquently reinforces a community commitment to farming. There was also discussion about where this bylaw would appear; does it belong in the Zoning Bylaws or the Town Bylaws?
The board had a discussion to determine its response to the letter from the Building Inspector, dated January 23, 2006, regarding his clarification of the definition of Dwelling Unit. Board member Janet Cathcart presented a draft letter that stated that the Building Inspector’s interpretation of the definition constitutes a material change in the bylaw and, as such, requires an amendment to the bylaws. Board member Stephen Rose stated that, in all probability, the Building Inspector has seen a lot of this going on and is frustrated with citizens who are essentially lying about the use of their outbuildings. Rose then related his knowledge of a structure being built with cooking facilities, that the owner was issued a cease and desist order and then removed the stove, was issued a Certificate of Occupancy, and then changed it
back to, basically, an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Cathcart stated that, anecdotal evidence not withstanding, if the Building Inspector is to make this kind of interpretation it should be agreed upon by the Town, and presented at a Town Meeting.
Peter Vallianos, who was visiting the Planning Board for this discussion, stated that it is the job of the Building Inspector to interpret the Zoning Bylaw and the State Building code, and that the Planning Board may find that Torrico is within his rights with such an interpretation. Vallianos also stated that if the Planning Board is aggrieved by this action then they should make an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Board member Cindy Hoogs agreed with this stating that “Through writing a letter the Building Inspector has taken an action. Now in response to that action we can make an appeal to the ZBA and find out their interpretation.” Brain Puntin made a motion to make an appeal to the ZBA, which Janet seconded, and discussion followed. Board member Wayne Burkhart suggested that the Planning Board not frame the discussion
in an adversarial manner. Cindy Hoogs stated that using correct procedure and going through the ZBA is less personal and Burkhart agreed saying that “A review doesn’t necessarily have to be confrontational.”
Peter Vallianos stated that perhaps the definition in the Monterey Zoning Bylaws is inadequate and needs clarification and that the Planning Board may need to create an “understandable bylaw.” Burkhart said, “It’s nearly impossible to create something that everyone will agree on.” (Burkhart was then reminded that he wanted to introduce the Planning Board to Ken Wishnick (sp?) who is at Gould Farm and has a background in professional planning.)
Peter Vallianos also stated that perhaps the best way to proceed would be to ask Town Counsel if the Planning board should make an appeal to the ZBA, before actually beginning the appeals process and finding out it’s the wrong way to go. Janet Cathcart clarified to Maggie Leonard, who will be in communication with Town Counsel; “We need to ask him if we have standing to appeal this letter under section IX. B. 1. Of the Zoning Bylaw. Brian Puntin amended his motion in stating that the motion was now to see if the Board would write a letter to Town Counsel and go forth in that manner. It was unanimously agreed to do so.
Regarding the ADU bylaw and the upcoming public hearing (March 30, 7 p.m.!) Peter Vallianos suggested that the Planning Board present the new draft of the bylaw side-by-side the old draft for compare/contrast purposes. He also stated that “The whole thing (meaning ADU’s) should still be a Special Permit process. Why not? The ZBA looks the thing over and if it’s injurious or noxious or glare or whatever they look for then there is some over sight.” Planning Board members respectfully (and strenuously) disagreed with him. They reminded Vallianos that it can take up to 65 days and $100 to get a special permit for a use that, besides being enjoyed by many citizens already, is in keeping with the use and character of the Ag/Res district.
The minutes from 2/23/06 were read and Beth King noticed that she was not reported to be among the members present, although she was at the meeting. That change noted, the minutes were approved as amended.
Maggie Leonard asked for feedback regarding the submission of the Monterey News monthly article on the Planning Board. Stephen Rose said that it should be shorter. All members agreed that Maggie should keep writing it.
Leonard also informed the Board about conversation with James Mullen the Planning Board chair in New Marlboro. Mullen called Leonard to find out what the fees are in Monterey for Forms A, B, and C. Leonard reported that the New Marlboro Planning Board was reviewing their fees and updating/raising them. The board reviewed the fees for Monterey and agreed that perhaps they were low.
From the Subdivision Control Regs:
Form A (ANR=Approval Not Required) Plan: $40 per lot
Form B (Preliminary Plan): $50 plus $10 per lot or per housing unit whichever greater.
Form C (Definitive Plan): $100 plus $20 per lot or per housing unit whichever is greater.
New Marlboro currently charges $50 per lot on a Form A and is increasing that amount to $100. Leonard reported that in her conversation with Mullen she became aware of the concept of having the fees that the Planning Board takes in cover it’s yearly budget, which is what they are trying to accomplish in New Marlboro. Wayne Burkhart asked “Isn’t there a way in the Subdivision Regs where the applicant has to pay for services?” As in the services of a professional if the Planning Board needs to confer with an expert in matters of an individual subdivision. The Board consulted the Subdivision Regs and the answer is yes, the applicant must pay for professional services rendered the Planning Board for determinations on a given subdivision.
The meeting was adjourned 9:36
Respectfully submitted,
Maggie Leonard
| 
