MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 13, 2011
PROPOSED CHANGES TO INCENTIVE ZONING BYLAW
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Vincent Vignaly, Patrick McKeon, Karen Paré, Lawrence Salate
MEMBERS ABSENT: Patricia Halpin
OTHERS PRESENT: Marc Frieden, Linda Isgro, Ted Beckner, Steve Muscente, Charles Witkus
Reference Document: Incentive Zoning Bylaw, Proposed April 13, 2011
Mr. Vignaly opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. The Clerk, Ms. Paré, read the Notice of Public Hearing that was published in the Telegram & Gazette on March 30th and April 6th, 2011. Mr. Vignaly stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss the changes proposed for the Incentive Zoning Bylaw, which are being made to clarify and update the document, first approved five years ago. There has been some confusion and questions from the Building Inspector and Board of Health about multiple dwelling units being allowed on one lot. The Board of Health questioned sewage issues and the Building Inspector questioned the number of sewer connections that will be required. Multiple dwelling units will not be allowed in a Single Residence District, Mr. Vignaly stated, but in a
multi-family district. The change encourages multiple buildings in multi-family districts in order to create better aesthetics and to better fit the configuration of the land.
Mr. Ted Beckner, Davidson Road, questioned whether buildings with multiple units will be allowed on property adjoining his. Mr. Vignaly stated that they will only be allowed in districts where they are already permitted. Mr. Beckner also asked if the lot size can be reduced with Incentive Zoning. Mr. Vignaly answered “yes” and stated that the changes will clarify the issue of density based upon area. The Planning Board proposes that wetlands and water not be included in calculations for the density bonus. Ms. Linda Isgro, Prospect Street, asked how Cluster Zoning will be affected the bylaw changes. Mr. Vignaly stated that they could be used together. Cluster Zoning allows for reduced frontage. Ms. Paré added that combining both bylaws may allow for increased density but the
proposed changes will limit the use of wetlands to calculate density. The Conservation Commission determines what are considered to be wetlands, Mr. Vignaly stated. Ms. Isgro stated that there are not a lot of buildable lots left in town.
Minutes of the Planning Public Hearing 2.
April 13, 2011- Incentive Zoning
Ms. Isgro stated that the bylaw as proposed does not allow for DHCD oversight nor is there an annual review by the DHCD. She queried whether the language supports the intention of the changes. These types of projects would fall under the Subdivision or Site Plan Review control, Ms. Paré stated. Ms. Isgro stated that the DHCD oversees subsidized housing and governmental financing.
In Section 3.10.D., Ms. Isgro questioned the inclusion of the words “or another program”. Mr. Vignaly explained that this phrase is included to sustain the longevity of the bylaw, so that the bylaw doesn’t have to be amended every time a different program is created to calculate the SHI. We agree, Ms. Paré stated, that all affordable units will fall under the guidelines of the DHCD. On page 3, the only change to paragraph 7. is the addition of the words “or its successor”, Mr. Vignaly stated, but the wording can be rearranged for clarity.
Mr. Beckner asked for an explanation for the inclusion of the “Fees-in-lieu” paragraph. Ms. Paré stated that this proposal was included in the Housing Production Plan and added here on the recommendation of CMRPC. These fees will help the town build their own affordable units. Mr. McKeon suggested that the first line be deleted under Section 3.10.E.1. Mr. Beckner stated that there are many people in town who have non-conforming lots and they could offer the extra lot to the town for fees-in-lieu. He questioned whether there is any provision to change the status of affordable units. This issue is governed by state law, Mr. Vignaly stated. Mr. Frieden suggested that the language be clarified in the section on “fees-in-lieu”.
In Section 3.10.D.3., Ms. Paré suggested changing the word “dwellings” to “buildings in a General Residence or Business District. This could encourage higher buildings, Ms. Isgro stated, but Ms. Paré stated that buildings 35’ in height are already allowed in those districts. Under Section 3.10.G.1., Mr. Vignaly stated that the Housing Authority will assume responsibility for the affordable units after the final occupancy permits have been issued. Details concerning the timing of marketing of the affordable units will be part of the Rules and Regulations for Incentive Zoning that the Planning Board will be adopting in the near future.
Upon motion of Mr. McKeon and second of Mr. Salate, it was unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Date Accepted:_________________ By:_______________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:_______________________
Susan Abramson
| 
