MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING
HELD FEBRUARY 13, 2008
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING BYLAWS FOR SIGN PERMITTING, OFF-STREET PARKING, REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS, SIGN LICENSING APPLICATIONS AND SECTION 3.6.B.3) CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Patricia Halpin, John Baker, Karen Paré, Lawrence Salate, Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: None
Ms. Halpin opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Salate, it was unanimously voted to postpone this public hearing until the completion of the subsequent continued public hearing. No one was in attendance from the public for this hearing.
At 7:45 p.m., Ms. Halpin re-opened the public hearing and Ms. Paré read the legal notice of public hearing that was published on January 30, 2008 and February 6, 2008 in the Telegram & Gazette. At the February 6, 2008 meeting of the Board of Selectmen, the Board voted to refer these proposed Zoning Bylaw amendments to the Planning Board for public hearing. These amendments were proposed and presented to the Board of Selectmen by Mr. Brodeur, the Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer.
Amendment of Section 5.6.D.3. Sign Permitting for public, civic and non-profit organizations will be submitted to Town Meeting as written.
Amendment of Section 5.2.A.f. General Provisions for Off-Street Parking needs to be changed to read Section 5.2.A.1.f. Ms. Halpin queried how it will be determined whether construction equipment is actually being used and not just "stored" at a site during periods when construction is dormant. Mr. Baker stated that he is OK with the "process" and the proposal should remain as written.
Amendment of Section 3.5.B.1. General Requirements for Home Occupations needs to be rephrased to read. "…or other variation from the residential character of the principal
buildings. This includes parking of commercial vehicles, except as allowed in Section 5.2.A.1.f. There shall be no exterior storage of related equipment and supplies."
Amendment to Section 5.6.F.2.a. Permits. The letter "s" needs to be added to "Inspector of Buildings". There was confusion as to the intent of the Building Inspector in this proposal, especially concerning the "Building Permit Application" and "Sign Permit Fee".
Amendment to Section 5.6.F.2.d. Permits. There was a question whether the insertion intends to state "sign license" or "sign permit." The extra "s" needs to be deleted from the word "as" in the second line.
Amendment to Section 3.5.B.3 Site Plan Review. Ms. Paré stated that the previous proposals should be presented as a separate Warrant Article at Town Meeting. It would be too confusing and not productive to present them as one proposal. Concerning Site Plan Review ("SPR"), Ms. Halpin questioned the Town's new Stormwater Bylaw. During a review of previously developed sites, these guidelines will not necessarily be addressed. Mr. Vignaly stated that, if there is no increase to impervious areas, then adherence to the new guidelines is not required. The Stormwater Bylaw requires review by the Planning Board for subdivisions and new site plan submittals. Otherwise, review is within the scope of the Building Inspector or the Conservation Commission. The DPW is then supposed to
monitor the drainage operation.
Ms. Halpin presented to the Planning Board a draft document highlighting requirements for Site Plan Review ("SPR") from other surrounding towns as well as issues to be considered by this Planning Board. She questioned how "intensity" of use is to be assessed, other than an increase in parking. Ms. Paré stated that other towns look at intensity differently and she queried whether SPR should be necessary if the intensity of the use of a site drops. Ms. Halpin stated that she finds the current triggers for SPR to be confusing, especially the language "involving 15 spaces". Mr. Baker stated that he considers it to be a good bylaw that has held the "test of time". Ms. Paré stated that there have obviously been problems with "triggers" and the issue needs
to be clarified. Mr. Vignaly linked the issue of intensity with "trip generation" of cars (i.e. how many vehicle trips/day). There are also issues to be addressed with additional parking required in malls, such as the one including WalMart. If a restaurant is added to that mall, parking will become a problem, but the Planning Board does not want to have to conduct a SPR every time a tenant changes in a mall or office building. Mr. Vignaly suggested that Town Counsel be consulted to clarify definition of a "Business Center". Ms. Halpin added that the Building Inspector would welcome clarification of this issue, as well. Upon motion of Mr. Vignaly and second of Ms. Paré, it was unanimously voted to continue the public hearing until 7:00 p.m. on March 12, 2008. Until then, members will review the draft remarks distributed this evening by Ms. Halpin.
Date Accepted:___________ By:________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:_____________________
Susan Abramson
| 
