Planning Board meeting 9-26-13 minutes
Co-chair Leonard opened the meeting at 7:09.
Members present: Alan Salamon, Larry Klein, Barry Karson, Roger Tryon, Maggie Leonard, co-chair.
Members absent: Stephen Enoch, Bridget Krans.
There was no public present.
The board received the resignation of Planning Board member Bridget Krans. Krans was the clerk of the board and a stalwart member for several years. She has more and family and work commitments now and can no longer serve. Planning Board members are thankful her for her service and participation and wish her the best.
The Planning Board discussed who might be interested in joining the board and filling the vacancy. Leonard mentioned Cliff Weiss who attended the public hearing on cell towers and made a lot of sense. Otherwise no one had any ideas. Leonard indicated that she would put out some feelers for a new member in the Monterey News. By the date of this meeting we missed the deadline for the October issue so it will have to go in the November issue (deadline October 23).
The board resumed discussion on the National Floodplain Insurance Program. Klein stated that he did not want to drop work on the NFIP bylaw and thought that there should be at least some kind of informational statement in the zoning bylaws indicating where a citizen can find information on building in the floodplain.
Salamon reviewed the purpose, motivation, and timeline of the zoning bylaw stating, “The reason we looked at this issue and created a zoning bylaw was to qualify for the NFIP. At that time is was our understanding that in order to qualify for the NFIP we had to have a zoning bylaw. We have since learned that we don’t need a zoning bylaw and that the NFIP is functioning well in Monterey. In light of those facts I suggest that we drop work on the NFIP zoning bylaw.”
Salamon asked if he could make some additional comments, “I think that the Planning Board does not have an appropriate understanding of the function of the Zoning Bylaws. Our recent bylaws are much too detailed; just look at the common driveway bylaw, the telecommunications bylaw, and the recent work on the solar bylaw. All those bylaws are much larger and more detailed than anything that went before.” Tryon said that he agreed with Salamon. Leonard stated, “Regarding the telecommunications bylaw and the solar bylaw, those are both very industrial-type land uses that are not typical in our town which is primarily agricultural-residential. It is essential that we create zoning bylaws that will protect property values while simultaneously allowing for these constructions for which the State has provided special
rights and which must be allowed.”
Karson said that the town has had the agreement with the NFIP since 1981 with no zoning bylaw and added that we could put information about the NFIP either on the town web site or have an informational statement in the zoning bylaws. Klein noted that other towns have created zoning bylaws to help citizens understand the NFIP and we should pay attention to that. Klein asked that Leonard make inquiries with Town Counsel.
The board read and reviewed the changes Leonard made to the solar power bylaw to require special permits. Leonard noted that the board would need to hold another public hearing for the bylaw. The board agreed to delay a vote on the changes so that all members can have a chance to review it.
Leonard stated that she has been seeing a lot in the news about the recent approval of medical marijuana dispensaries in Massachusetts. She would like the board to turns its’ attention to creating a zoning bylaw. Leonard noted that Sheffield and Egremont both enacted moratoriums to provide time to create regulations and that BRPC had recommended that other towns follow suit. There were questions about the legal process for a moratorium and if you need a town meeting or if the Planning Board can enact it with a board vote. There was general agreement to move forward and members recommended contacting BRPC to see if they have any sample bylaws or advice.
The board has a renewed interest in Accessory Dwelling Unit’s (ADU’s) and is gathering information in that regard. Leonard brought in documents from prior board work on the subject and gave them to Salamon for review. Salamon said that the board needs to decide on the purpose of ADU’s (why do we want them?). Klein noted that there would be concern about more dwelling unites and the possibility that every building lot would potentially be a two-family. Tryon said that it would enable older senior citizens to remain in their homes while having others living on the premises to help.
The mail was opened. There were two notices on special permit ruling from Great Barrington both approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Maggie Leonard, co-chair
| 
