ZBA Administrative Meeting Minutes
Date: 9/19/13
Meeting began at: 2:07pm
Members Present: Jonathan Levin, Chair, Cynthia Weber, Vice-Chair, Robert Lazzarini, Stanley Ross (for a part of the meeting) and Ian Jenkins Alternate
The Board reviewed the revised application and had a few formatting changes to make. Approving the application was tabled until after the hearing at 3pm.
The Board discussed corrections, issues and possible changes to the current zoning bylaws. Suggestions made by Bob, Jon and Stan were reviewed. Once all suggested changes have been reviewed the Board, the Board will submit its recommendations to the Planning Board with the request that the Board and Planning Board meet jointly to review and discuss the recommendations.
Minor suggested changes were as follows:
Purpose and Authority, Sec. 1.3, page 1 add “the number of dwellings on one lot”
Districts, Sec. 2.4.2, page 3 the current concern was that the way it is currently worded in our bylaws, the exact location of the. The Westerly bound reference of the Business Zone may fade with memory. If this is a deed boundary it is ok to keep it this way but if its not then it was suggested to use a more modern reference such as the Assessor’s records effective xxx, the name of the road or GPS points. The consensus was that the Assessor’s would call the mapping company and have them add the boundary lines for the business district to the town maps.
Table of Use Regulations, Sec 3.1.3B, p.5 “Child Care Center” The current issue is that this is allowed in all districts. The Board is going to look at incorporating the language of MGL Chapter 40B into this section of our bylaws.
Table of Use Regulations, Sec 3.1.3C, p.5 “Commercial piggery, etc.” Jon felt that the issue was these are outdated negative uses and we should modernize them.
Table of Use Regulations, Sec 3.1.3J, p.8 “Incidental crafts sales…” Right now approval of a B&B allows the incidental sales of crafts, the Board suggests deleting this all together.
Table of Use Regulations, Sec 3.1.3J, p.8 “Renting of Rooms…” The Board felt that this was currently open-ended and that a limit to the number of rooms based upon the size of the house and property should be added. It was suggested that renting of rooms to unrelated parties should require a permit if it is more than 2.
Table of Use Regulations, Sec 3.2.2, p.9 “Customary or Professional…Occ”
Issue: The By-Law is unclear whether the two employees includes the home professional or not;
Possible Solution: State that two employees are either inclusive, or exclusive of home professional. It was also suggested to prohibit independent contractors. After discussion it was agreed to limit it to the homeowner plus one employee.
At this point the Board continued the administrative meeting to resume after the completion of the Solosky hearing, time permitting. (3:03pm).
The administrative meeting reopened at 3:31pm.
The Board reviewed the suggested changes to the revised application and a motion was made to approve and release it once those changes have been made. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
Continuing with the discussion of suggested changes to the existing zoning bylaws:
Table of Use Regulations, Sec 3.1.3.D, p. 6. “Boat or canoe, riding academy or stable” and “Camp and/or Recreational Facility, seasonal or year round”.
Issue: These uses seem to be appropriate for LS, provided they are not detrimental to the neighborhood.
Possible Solution: Change both to "BA" in the LS district and separate the definitions out as boat or canoe livery and riding academy or stable as two different use categories.
Table of Use Regulations, Sec 3.1.3.F, p. 7. “Studio business”
Issue: No entry for B district
Possible Solution: District B – Y
Table of Dimensional Requirements and the Notes to the Table. P. 11.
Issue: There are no references to the 15 ft setback requirement for lots in existence prior to May 3, 1986.
Possible solution: Insert a superscript ** footnote reference in the Table of Dimensional Requirements at the entries for Front, Side and Rear Setbacks in LS. The column titles of "Side Yard" and" Rear Yard" need to be changed to "Side Setback" and "Rear Setback". The ** footnote should be listed directly below the* footnote about B lot size requirements. Footnote ** should read "Lots in the Lake Shore District existing prior to May 3, 1986 (and not having been changed since), shall have setback requirements of 15 feet front, side and rear".
Section 9.1.3 Work Exempt from Permit. #1
Issue: Permit these structures within the setbacks.
Possible Solution: Change language so that this work is not exempt from obtaining a building permit within the setback areas. The question was whether or not to allow the Building Inspector to have jurisdiction over items that are not attached to the ground, are moveable and are smaller than 200 square feet. Jon believes that if this work is within the setback areas, it should require a permit.
Section 9.1.3 Work Exempt from Permit. #9
Issue: Inconsistent with prohibition of work within lake set back.
Possible Solution: Specify that this work cannot occur within lake set back. Bob and Stan felt that this was here to allow residents to construct boardwalk access down to the lake.
Section 10. Definitions, page 51 “Family”
Issue: “six (6) unrelated individuals” which is very subjective
Possible Solution: fewer than six. Discussion ensued about multiple couples that purchase a home or summer cottage together and given that a number of properties in Town are seasonal, it may not be appropriate to make any change to this section.
Section 10.0 Definitions, p. 53 – “Setback”.
Issue: Our Setback bylaws restrict the presence in the setback areas of certain structures that are commonly found there. These would include driveways, walkways, freestanding masonry walls or fences, and retaining walls used to retain soil topography.
Possible Solution: Add the following sentence after the first sentence in the definition of “Setback”: “With respect to the restriction of structures in lot setback areas, driveways, walkways, freestanding masonry wall or fences and walls used to retain soil topography shall not be deemed as structures.”
The Board agreed that they also have to deal with multiple dwellings on one lot at a future meeting.
The Board agreed to refine the manner in which the issues were addressed and to have further discussion at a future meeting.
The meeting concluded at 4:30pm
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, Executive Secretary
| 
