Meeting Minutes
Planning Board
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Newbury Town Hall
Members Present: Kathleen Pearson, Chair; Linda McCamic; John O’Connell; David Powell; John Weis
Members Absent: Arthur Costonis (Associate Member)
Staff Present: Martha Taylor, Town Planner
Chairman Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
A. Meeting Minutes:
Motion: A motion was made by J. O’Connell and seconded by J. Weis to approve the meeting minutes of March 7, 2012, as amended. The motion passed with a vote of four in favor (Pearson, Powell, O’Connell, and Weis) and one abstention (L. McCamic, who was not present at the March 7, 2012 meeting).
B. Colby Lane – Road Acceptance Request:
In accordance with the referral from the Selectmen at their March 13 meeting, the Planning Board reviewed the request by the Colby Village Condominium Association Trustees to have Colby Lane accepted by the Town as a public way. M. Taylor noted that all requirements under Newbury’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been met and the performance guarantee has been released to the developer. She noted also that letters recommending acceptance have been received from the Director of the Department of Public Works and the Police Chief; the letter requested from the Fire Chief has not yet been received.
Motion: A motion was made by J. Weis and seconded by J. O’Connell to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that Colby Lane be accepted by the Town as a public way. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board’s recommendation will be submitted to the Selectmen for discussion at their next meeting, to be held on March 27, 2012.
C. Zoning – Use Regulations:
The Board discussed questions raised by the Chair regarding uses listed on the proposed Table of Use Regulations, in particular light manufacturing vs. light fabrication, seafood processing and distribution vs. seafood handling/distribution, and the various types of open storage that are included. The consensus was to keep the list as it is.
At 7:30 p.m. the regular meeting was closed in order to open the Public Hearing to consider the zoning amendments being proposed for the Annual Town Meeting.
D. Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Amendments for the Annual Town Meeting:
At 7:30 p.m., Kathleen Pearson, Chair, opened the public hearing to consider zoning amendments being proposed for inclusion on the Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting to be held on May 22, 2012. John Weis, Clerk, read the legal notice for the public hearing, which had been posted in Town Hall, published in The Daily News, and mailed to the Planning Boards of abutting Towns and to the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission and DHCD in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A, § 5.
K. Pearson then gave an overview of the changes that the Board is proposing: 1. Master Table of Uses; 2. New Parker River Marine and Light Industrial Byfield Districts; 3. Byfield Village Business District; 4. Revised Accessory Apartment By-Law; 5. Revised Flood Hazard By-Law to accompany the new FEMA maps; 6. Correction of boundary description of the Commercial Highway District.
1. Master Table of Uses: K. Pearson explained that the proposed Master Table of Use Regulations provides a format that is easier to read and more user-friendly, establishes consistent language for all zoning districts in town, addresses uses that are not currently covered in the by-law, removes the blanket statement prohibiting all uses which are not expressly allowed under the by-law, and more adequately reflects uses which currently exist in the various districts. She added that in the process of developing the Table and reviewing uses, the Board replaced the Industrial District with two new districts and changed the names of three districts to identify them by location.
She explained the format of the Table, reviewed the different use categories which are included, reviewed updates in uses for each of the districts, and noted a couple of corrections that needed to be made – “Lodging house” in the Residential use category should have been deleted completely as a use, “Offices for general construction, landscaping, or similar contractors, with open storage…” should have been marked as NP in the R-AG District, and U.S. Post Office should be an allowed use in all districts.
David Mountain, 9 Larkin Road, asked for clarification regarding the use in the Industrial category listed as “Water and wastewater systems.” J. O’Connell replied that this would be a multi-customer system or an industrial system. D. Mountain asked if this was referring to shared systems such as the ones that were installed at Caldwell Farm and Colby Village. He added that in some areas of Town, such as the Parker River Residential District, it is very difficult for individual properties to meet the requirements of Title V and said that he just wanted to understand how the Board was defining this use.
K. Pearson pointed out that some uses had been changed from Special Permit to Not Permitted in the Limited Business District because this district contains only one parcel and could not actually support those particular uses.
Alissa Rice, 7R Austin Lane, asked where this district was. K. Pearson said that it was on Orchard Street and pointed it out on the map.
K. Pearson then reviewed uses for the Business District in Byfield and the Commercial Highway District, identifying updates that had been made in those districts to include uses which are currently not in Newbury’s zoning.
D. Mountain said that he was puzzled by the fact that automotive repair was not permitted in the Commercial Highway District. K. Pearson replied that a large part of the district was in the Water Supply Overlay District or an area which is a public water supply contributor. D. Mountain noted that some other allowed uses were equally detrimental. M. Taylor asked if A.L. Prime does auto repair. D. Mountain replied not currently. He then asked why gasoline distribution is allowed in the district and noted that the DPW and truck maintenance are being done in the district.
D. Powell said that the three areas which comprise the Commercial Highway District will be divided into three separate districts in the future, at which time the uses will be reviewed in more detail for each. D. Mountain said that he was just trying to understand the distinctions. K. Pearson noted again that the reason for the prohibition was the Water Supply Protection District, but said that she understood D. Mountain’s point. J. Weis noted that establishments selling, servicing motor vehicles, etc., tend to be large and were not appropriate for those areas.
D. Powell said that underground gasoline storage tanks would probably be prohibited in all three areas by State and Federal Regulations. K. Pearson reiterated that these areas will be split up into separate districts in the future and will be looked at more closely in the future.
She then continued on to discussion of the Commercial Highway A District, noting that “fast food establishments with ‘drive through’ facilities” had been included as a use allowed by Special Permit. D. Mountain pointed out that Church and Post Office should be allowed by right, not by special permit.
K. Pearson moved on to review of the Upper Green Business District and Business & Light Industrial District. She raised a question about allowing “Offices for general construction” by right in the Business & Light Industrial District, rather than by special permit; the other Board members did not feel that this needed to be changed. J. Weis questioned allowing “Water transport of goods and people” in the Business & Light Industrial District. The Board agreed that this had been included by mistake and should be taken out.
K. Pearson concluded with the Industrial District, saying that there were no changes in the uses for this district since the Board is proposing that it be replaced.
2. Parker River Marine and Light Industrial Byfield Districts: K. Pearson outlined the rationale for replacing the existing Industrial District with two new Districts – the Parker River Marine District and the Light Industrial Byfield District. The proposed Use Regulations are intended to reflect current uses and uses that would be more appropriate in each of those districts than the existing industrial uses.
She said that the Board created a list of marine uses specifically for the Parker River Marine District and met with a majority of the property owners to review these uses; some changes were made as a result. D. Mountain asked if restaurants were included as an allowed use in this district. J. O’Connell replied yes.
K. Pearson then reviewed the uses for the Light Industrial Byfield District.
Steven St. Arnault, 54R Central Street, asked about the use in the Residential category described as “A single family residence as an accessory use for the owner of or the security personnel employed by the commercial enterprise located thereon.” J. Weis said that this use reflects what is currently there.
D. Mountain then questioned allowing hotels and motels. J. Weis said that the Board debated this and was trying to consider uses that might be appropriate for this district when the current owner is no longer there. D. Mountain observed that the zoning doesn’t provide for anything between a small Bed & Breakfast and a hotel or motel. He suggested that perhaps the Board should allow a larger B & B by special permit but that a hotel or motel should not be permitted in this district.
3. Byfield Village Business District: K. Pearson said that the name of this district has been changed from Business to Byfield Village Business to identify the location of this district and that the Board was proposing to add “Mixed use” as an allowed use and “Multi-family dwellings, up to a limit of four units” as a use allowed by Special Permit in order to maximize the potential uses for the Yellow School.
4. Accessory Apartments: K. Pearson said that the revised Accessory Apartment by-law allows accessory apartments as rental units, establishes a new minimum size for the primary dwelling and a maximum size for the accessory apartment, and allows accessory apartments in detached accessory structures on lots of 60,000 s.f. or greater. She then outlined the criteria which must be met for approval of an accessory apartment.
D. Mountain asked what the dimensional criteria are for detached accessory apartments. J. Weis said that they are the same as for attached apartments.
5. Flood Hazard Overlay District: K. Pearson explained that the Essex County Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been updated by FEMA and are scheduled to become effective on July 3, 2012. In order to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program the Town is required to adopt the maps and the related revised Flood Hazard Overlay District By-Law. The By-Law has been amended to meet the minimum requirements mandated by FEMA.
Peter Sarajian, 4 Fordham Way, inquired about the extent of the changes and whether there were any mistakes on the maps. It was noted that the majority of the changes were on Plum Island, primarily the expansion of the velocity zone, and that there are some inland areas which had not been changed and didn’t accurately reflect conditions that have occurred during storm events.
Margaret Sarajian, 2-4 Fordham Way, asked if it would be possible to view the maps and what the insurance implications were going to be. She was referred to the Town’s Conservation/Building Department to see the maps and get information regarding insurance.
6. Commercial Highway District Description Correction: K. Pearson explained that this change was being made to remove the language describing the area along Route 1 that was formerly in the Commercial Highway District, since this area was merged with the Route 1Industrial District last year to form the Business and Light Industrial District. This language should have been deleted at that time.
D. Mountain raised questions about two of the proposed definitions. He expressed concern about the definition for “Contractor’s Yard” and the limitation on quantities of bulk material storage to 30 cubic yards of each material, saying that this didn’t seem like very much. He also expressed concern about the definition for “Open Storage” and the fact that it referred only to materials “open to view from the public way,” without concern for abutters. J. Weis said that the Board was trying to make these definitions meet the greater purpose of zoning to benefit the community. D. Powell noted that “open storage” is now banned in all but a few selected areas. D. Mountain nevertheless suggested deleting the words
“open to view from the public way.” The Board agreed that this would need to be reviewed with Town Counsel, since this would make the definition more restrictive.
In order to allow more time for receipt of comments from Town Departments, the Board agreed to continue the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Motion: A motion was made by J. Weis and seconded by J. O’Connell to continue the public hearing on the proposed zoning amendments to April 4, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Marsh Meadow Conservation Restriction:
M. Taylor relayed the Conservation Agent’s concerns regarding the language prohibiting construction of temporary and permanent structures in the Restriction area and possible impact on construction of fences and stone walls. The Planning Board had no additional comments and noted that the Conservation Restriction should be discussed at a Conservation Commission meeting and reviewed by Town Counsel.
On a motion made by L. McCamic and seconded by J. Weis, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha Taylor
Town Planner
| 
