 |
Planning Board Meeting Minutes: 8/25/2011
Members Present: Maggie Leonard; Chair, Larry Klein, Alan Solomon, Bridget Krans, Stephen Enoch and Barry Karson
Public Present: Robert Lazzarini; ZBA, Stanley Ross; ZBA, Mark Bobrowski (consultant aiding in the re-organization of the bylaws), Fred Chapman; Chair of the ZBA, Cynthia Weber; ZBA, Mari Enoch; ZBA alternate
Larry Klein left at 9:30 and Fred Chapman left at 8:45
Meeting to Order: 7:05PM
- Mark Bobrowski bylaw reorganization- Mr. Bobrowski is a consultant that is being used by the town to help re-organize the bylaws. * Non- conformities: From the 90s until recently the courts have seen all they can on non- conformities. Also non- conforming structures and non- conforming land are two separate issues. Fred Chapman stated that he thought we did not have more than one non-conforming structure in the entire town. Others felt that the town had a lot of houses that were non-conforming. Specifically for Monterey, Fred stated that John’s auto shop was the only place he could think of in town. Mr. Bobrowski stated that the law would also affect structures. Currently our bylaw does not list what people may want to do. It needs to be listed so that we can include it for permitting. Maggie stated
that she was concerned and confused that we were supposed to be reorganizing the bylaws but for putting forth new bylaws and making new policy decisions she did not see that happening this round. Mr. Lazzarini of the ZBA underscored that opinion. He felt that we should stick to things that were clarifications and reorganizations. According to Mr. Bobrowski we need to “make a sushi menu” and list in our bylaw what the options are, what non- conformities are etc. * Bylaws need to include whether a variance or a Special permit will be needed when there is a non-conforming structure that is not a house. * Houses- if addition fully complies Mr. Bobrowski felt that should be fine. Fred Chapman of the ZBA really did not like that. Cannot create a new nonconformity and cannot result in more than 25% then the addition should be fine according to Mr. Bobrowski. It would be as of right if it was less than 25% and only a building permit would be required. * Monterey does not
have any rules for tear down. Reconstruction includes tear down and reconstruction. That is how Monterey has been handling it. Also Mr. Chapman stated that it needed to be the same foot print. Mr. Lazzarini stated that it could be bigger as long as it stayed in the setbacks. If it did not satisfy the setbacks then they needed a variance or a special permit. If you want to tear down and rebuild the same size regarding footprint and square footage you get a building permit. Otherwise you need a special permit. If the structure burns down a building permit can be issued to rebuild the same structure. A special permit would be needed for a larger footprint. Stephen wondered if we were trying to avoid having to send people through the special permit process and Mr. Bobrowski stated that unnecessarily we are. Maggie stated that in our bylaws we separate catastrophes and demolition. Mr. Bobrowski felt that we should lump them together. Maggie felt that this might deter fraud.
The rules should be the same, rebuild it within 2 years. Build it the same or get a special permit. Mr. Lazzarini wondered what our instructions to Mr. Bobrowski are. Mr. Bobrowski stated that our bylaw s are not very organized and his suggestions would tighten it up and make it a bit stricter and more governed. Mr. Bobrowski stated that what it all boils down to is if there is a house on a lot and there is an addition proposed and the lot is non- conforming and the proposed alteration meets all setbacks that would require a building permit. If the house had an infringement and it complied fully and did not meet setback it needs a special permit. Stephen thought that this was a significant change and we should not adopt a change this round. Mr. Bobrowski felt that this was an internal inconsistency. Stephen and Maggie strongly felt that it was important that we did not tack on 25% restrictions where they currently are not. *Table of use regulations- Single family,
multi family. There is no reference to a two family dwelling. Mr. Bobrowski wanted to know our take on Bed and Breakfasts. Mr. Chapman stated that you have to live there if you own the B&B. Maggie stated that it is a use by right in the ag/res district. People do not pay room and board in a B&B- that makes them boarders. Also we do not have regulations for parking and traffic. Mr. Bobrowski wondered what would happen if there were ten rooms and the owners lived there. Mr. Bobrowski felt that we needed to spell out what our intentions are. Stephen wondered if it is by right why would we restrict it. Mr. Bobrowski stated that if you are going to rent out your house there needs to be some restrictions. Barry felt that tightening up this particular bylaw regarding B&Bs was appropriate for what we were doing. Condominiums cannot be regulated due to form of owner ship. Family daycare is out of a home and is an accessory. It has between 6 and 12 kids. A daycare center is
a building with a lot more kids that is not a home as well. That is allowed by state law. *Municipal public service buildings and structures: there needs to be a better definition of a municipal building. If it is a state or federal public service building they trump. If it is a municipal building and structure/use do we want to allow all of them? Currently it is under special permit. Maggie pointed out that in Ag/Res it is a use by right. There are inconsistencies among our definitions. * Any agricultural use by right in the ag/res district. Mr. Bobrowski wondered if we needed to restrict the number of acreage we needed for animals or crops. Our bylaws state that you don’t need a specific amount of land. Mr. Bobrowski felt that that was very lenient. Most towns require 5 acres. The board felt that we may need to define “slaughter house”. * Recreational Uses- any use allowed by right in ag/ res is also allowed in business. Mr. Lazarini felt that we
should move boat and canoe livery. This would be lake side he felt. Should we remove this inconsistency? Do we want summer camps in the business district and ski resorts? Currently we allow them by special permit. Mr. Bobrowski stated that the purpose of this is to make the bylaw better. Also discussed was if a retreat center falls under a camp. Is the term year round camp more appropriate? Do we want golf courses in the business district? Restaurants were also discussed. We do not currently differentiate between fast food or not. Also what about temporary uses? * Mr. Bobrowski felt that we needed a wind and solar bylaw. Clarify large and small scale.
- Mr. Bobrowski is going to put a first draft together that will show the changes and what is staying as well as new wording and re-numbering. Then we will have a work shop and invite the public. The next meeting with Mr. Bobrowski will be October 4th at 7:00 PM with the 1st draft.
Previous meeting minutes approved with minor correction.
Adjourned 10:00 PM
Submitted by: Bridget Krans
| |
