Planning Board Minutes Public Workshop Meeting Tuesday November 15, 2011
Members present: Maggie Leonard, Alan Salamon, Larry Klein,
Barry Karson, Stephen Enoch
Public present: Mark Bobrowski Consultant to the Planning Board, Wayne Burkhart Select Board chair, Bob Lazzarini Zoning Board of Appeals, Jan Bucher, Mike Banner, Maureen Banner.
Meeting opened at 7:35 p.m.
There was a brief description of the project of the revision and the reorganization work on the Zoning Bylaw. Meeting participants were supplied with a printed version of the first draft of the Zoning Bylaw revisions.
Leonard introduced Mark Bobrowski the Planning Board’s consultant and Mark suggested that we use the time to go through each section.
•Section 1 – “Handshake of the Bylaw” – definitions will be at the end as a glossary- no comments on Section 1.
•Section 2 – Districts – how to spell bylaw with or without “dash”. Also do we want terms capitalized or all in lower case? Larry asked how is it in the statute and Mark said it’s all lower case so we decided to go with lower case. Mark noted that there were no new districts created. Mark asked if we need to keep the wordy description of the districts since we are going to import an map into the bylaw. It was agreed to dispense with the definition and just go with the maps. Bob also suggested putting a map on the town web site with lots of overlays. Stephen suggested we use GPS references. Alan suggested that the “s” be removed from Overlay Districts.
• Section 3 – Use Regulations – Mark said he would leave discussion of the tables until later. Mark indicated that all the strike-thru language would now be represented in the charts.
•Section 4 – Dimensional Regulations. Dimensions have not changed. Caution on page 8. 4.2.2 – Delete #5.
•Section 5 – Nonconforming Uses and Structures – Alan had a question re: the right of the bldg. inspector to issue a bldg. permit when the addition does not encroach. Alan asked about the 25% limitation. Leonard reviewed the 3-tiered approach of the existing Zoning Bylaw. Mark questioned if this approach makes sense? (23:16) Important question is when did it become nonconforming. Mark thought that the 25% limitation was “Draconian” and that it should not apply to single family dwellings and only should apply to office bldgs and auto body shops. Mark agreed to re-word 5.1.6. (34:16). Bob Lazzarini stated that 60% of properties in Monterey are nonconforming.
•Section 6 – General Regulations – Alan pointed out that we don’t have loading docks. Barry mentioned loading docks at the camps. 6.1.3 Special permit by the Planning Board is new. Parking lot is a key feature of site plan review. Prior to this the Planning Board did not issue Special Permits. Wayne asked if the Planning Board needs to observe special procedures? Mark said no it would be the same as the ZBA. Mark also suggests that the Planning Board be the SPGA for signs also. Mark asked if he should put the number in parentheses such as two (2) or can he just use the number?
• Section 7 Special Regulations – No changes – Alan asked Mark if he recalled mentioning that we had something that was inappropriate in the bylaw? (49:42) Mark discussed the frontage issues and did not really answer Alan’s question. Mark said he would add Special Permit to 7.3.1. Alan asked about the map referred to in 7.2.2 and said that we should use a map instead of a description. Mark said the only addition is the B&B wording that was taken from the Lenox bylaws. It’s a policy decision to see how we want to handle the B&B’s. We are also going to change it to 3 guest rooms instead of 3 guests. We also need to consider if we don’t restrict B&B’s will they become hotels and motels? Mark said it could all be Special Permits in all districts. Leonard requested that a definition
of B&B be in the definitions section and not referred back to the section.
• Section 8 – Special Districts – Leonard requested that the title be changed to Telecommunications or something more informative. Alan mentioned that we need to change the 25’ limitation on the compound size. Larry said that we should change it to whatever AT&T is requesting now.
•Section 9 – Administration and Procedures – 9.1.3 New dimensions from State Bldg code (14X14). 9.2.4 Alan noted that we need to add “Special Permit” to that section. Mark needed a bit more information on the Planning Board; are we elected, is there an associate member of the Planning Board, do we want to stay 7 members, etc.? Alan suggested that we may want to go back to 5. The board will discuss if we should change it back to 5. Mark reviewed 9.5 Site Plan Review – He emphasized that if he was representing an educational organization he would ignore the regs. Mark also asked if we want to have solar and wind regs in our bylaw? Leonard replied that we would like to have the language but that we don’t want to introduce controversy into getting the revision passed. Stephen asked if
camps are institutional. We looked in the Use Table and it’s under Recreational. Wayne pointed out a numbering conflict beginning on pg.41. Mark noted that the Planning Board may decide on a Site Plan Review with a simple majority, or if the impact seems bigger then we could hold a Public Hearing. Barry wondered about the one-year time period is 9.5.7. Mark said it could be whatever we want; it could be two years.
• Section 11 – (should be section 10) – Definitions – Bob had a question about Structure and wanted us to consider adding words to the definition citing that driveways, stepping stones, stone walls, retaining walls are not structures. Mark said he would send us the new state bldg. code definition of Structure. Stephen said that we need to discuss this as a board because prior decisions have called retaining walls structures (Germain).
• USE TABLES – there was a lot of discussion about all the various use tables.
Mark questioned our definition of Family and said that typically this is only a problem in college towns.
We decided that B&B’s would be BA in every district.
Bob pointed out that in the Bus Dist if there is a dwelling on the property it is ½ acre zoning.
We decided to delete “Two family dwelling” in the Use Table since in our bylaws it’s all Multi-family (if it’s not a single-family dwelling).
Bob wondered if we should distinguish between “purpose” and “use.”
Leonard said that we need to allow camps in AG-RES by special permit.
Mark noted that our old bylaw allows “any lawful use” and he is attempting to outline various allowed uses and not have the town open to everything from cement plants to whatever. We all agreed that we need to re-review the Use Tables.
What next? We need to decide our next move with the Zoning Bylaws revision.
Respectfully Submitted,
Maggie Leonard/chair
| 
