Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 03/23/2022Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 23, 2022 'EIVED MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING ROOM 31AM" u 0 F F I C E AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM Im i.)q2 I0 A q- 28 Present: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair; Joseph Cerretani, Clerk; Diana Breq;,Sh qn,� i man; Ralph Penney; Michael Feck; and Adrian LeCesne, Alternate' I f� Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Michael McClanahan; Brendan Roche, Alternate Motion to appoint Ms. Bren as acting Clerk for the meeting. (Feck-Friedman) Roll call vote Sharon Friedman — in favor Diana Bren — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Beth Ashman -Collins - in favor Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES i, : There were no submitted Form A plans. Minutes — March 9, 2022 Motion to approve minutes as presented. (Friedman-Feck) Roll call vote Sharon Friedman — in favor Diana Bren — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Beth Ashman -Collins - in favor Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Mr. Burke updated the Board that Town Counsel had suggested a further amendment to Site Plan Approval which was submitted for public hearing discussion. Mr. Burke apprised the Board of the Community Development Grant funded session and quarterly report requirement of progress to match the grant application outline and that the progress meets expectations. Planning Board Meeting 3/23/22 Page 1 of 5 7: 04 p.m. Mr. LeCesne arrived at the meeting. Mr. Burke explained the current progress for the grant. 7: 06 p.m. Mr. Penney arrived at the meeting. Mr. Burke referenced the Town's Buildout Study draft calculations that was submitted to the Board and explained the buildout methodology and summary report. He said that the study is Town wide for every residential zone, business zone, and industrial zone and anything that can be subdivided is assumed to be subdivided for the study. Discussion ensued for Board clarification to reading and understanding the calculations for existing, future, and difference between the two. 7:12 p.m. Mr. Cerretani arrived virtually to the meeting. Mr. Burke reminded the Board that the calculations are in draft form. He referenced that there are some sub dividable parcels, but very few large sub dividable parcels and cited examples. The calculations are to provide a sense of current to date and where the Town will be under current zoning and any future zoning or variances granted for density will change all the calculations. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the buildout does not have to address what is feasible in the near future, but whether it is allowable. Mr. Burke agreed and further explained calculations for various zones. Mr. Feck inquired if there is an advantage to calculating units per acre versus FAR calculations. Mr. Burke responded that for the purpose of MBTA community units per acre makes sense, but the FAR calculations were created to give developers more flexibility on sites. To amend the Zoning bylaw Ch. 230, Sec. 5.3 Site Plan Approval, to remove Section 5.3 and replace in its entirety with updated standards for submission and plan evaluation criteria. Ms. Bren read the hearing notice into record. Judi Barrett of Barrett Planning Group was present for the hearing and she apprised the board of the draft Site Plan Approval that she provided for discussion referencing procedure changes, that there was no change to land use requirements, and noted standards of review. She also referenced a major versus minor site plan review process. Standard procedures such as the number of copies required for submission can be in Planning Board regulations so that there is no need to make changes at Town Meeting. Mr. Penney inquired if the Town currently has Planning Board regulations for site plan. Mr. Burke stated that there are no current Planning Board regulations but that there are Subdivision Regulations. He further noted that if the Board accepts the Site Plan Approval as presented, then the Barrett Group would forward a draft Planning Board regulation for review. Mr. LeCesne suggested that minor versus major applications be taken on a project by project basis and submission requirements for all aspects be taken into consideration and conditional on Planning Board Meeting 3/23/22 Page 2 of 5 what would be required to support the project. Mr. Penney inquired as to how the applicant would know if the project is major versus minor prior to application submission. Mr. Burke suggested that the requirement be in the Site Plan Regulations. Ms. Barrett suggested that specific requirements relating to minor versus major would be clarified in the application and the applicant could waive specific requirements. Discussion ensued for examples of waivers for submissions. Ms. Friedman noted that there could be times that waivers should not be granted due to the condition of the property and environmental sensitivity of the land that is proposed to be developed. She further expressed hesitation in language for minor versus major projects and would prefer more standardization. Town Counsel submitted suggested changes to paragraph G to which the Board agreed to incorporate. Public Comments Jill Keyes of 11 North White Pine Lane confirmed the square foot structure size requirements for major versus minor projects. Mr. Burke confirmed that Site Plan Approval refers to structure size and cited an example for R1 zone a site would have to have a land area of 60,000 square feet and be less than 5,000 square feet for administrative review and 5,000 square feet or greater for a full review. Ms. Keyes referenced Section 1 of the Site Plan Approval draft and inquired if the Town were an abutter, would they have to follow the same requirements for the buffer zone. Mr. Burke referenced the Dover Amendment and that zoning requirements are in place and are reasonable requirements to place on the applicant. Ms. Keyes then asked about the Fire comments to projects. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the Fire Dept. and other department heads do submit comments to the Board for each project. Ms. Keyes asked if architectural design is considered. Ms. Ashman -Collins replied that there are no specific design requirements, but the Board may provide comments to the applicant. Mr. Burke further noted that zoning bylaws cannot regulate construction as they are already regulated in the building code. Mr. LeCesne stated that an objection based solely on architectural design would not have grounds for objection on its own, but an objection based on mismatch to the neighborhood, may have enough ground to send back for design adjustment. Ms. Barrett noted that it is important to clarify that character, form, height, and setbacks can be adjusted, but architectural style is different from design impact. No further public comments. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked in reference to the administrative plan approval, if a plan is submitted for under 5,000 square feet, but upon Town Planner review, it is determined that it is complicated and should be submitted for Board review, does the Town Planner have that discretion. Ms. Barrett clarified that Town Planner would have that discretion. Town Counsel also commented that internal language should be cleaned up to be consistent. The Board agreed that the revised Site Plan Approval are much improved with clearer direction, but does deviate from current submission requirements. Mr. Feck referenced Section 4.b and asked for examples of traffic conditions. Mr. Burke said that the applicant either conforms or they don't. On a reuse of a site, reasonable use must be reviewed and would possibly require relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Planning Board Meeting 3/23/22 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Penney referenced Section F. La Site Plan Approval Criteria regarding "...could not be reasonably altered to:" and "improve, pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular safety, and safety of circulation design..." does this mean it cannot be altered. Ms. Barrett clarified that it means that they have done as much as they can and the Board determines what is reasonable. Mr. Penney suggested that Section E.6 be changed to reference that the applicant shall submit to the Registry of Deeds after the 20-day appeal period. Mr. Burke clarified that substantive changes to rules and regulations would go before a public hearing for public input. Mr. Cerretani agreed that changes should be justified. Motion: To recommend to the Select Board to support at Town Meeting Zoning Bylaw Ch. 230 Sec. 5.3 Site Plan Approval to support, as printed, with the exception of recommendation by Town Counsel on the section amended and section for applicant submittal to Registry of Deeds for recording. (Bren-Friedman) Roll call vote Michael Feck — in favor Diana Bren — in favor Ralph Penney — opposed Sharon Friedman - in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Joseph Cerretani — in favor Beth Ashman -Collins - in favor Six (6) in favor, One (1) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing. (Bren-Friedman) Roll call vote Michael Feck — in favor Diana Bren — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Sharon Friedman - in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Joseph Cerretani — in favor Beth Ashman -Collins - in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Mr. Burke referenced the buildout study calculations and that the summary sheets will be distributed to the Board for further review and clarification. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the Planning Board joint meeting with the Select Board is scheduled for April 20`h. Downtown Committee — meet monthly on Monday. Discussion ensued. No volunteers at this meeting. Planning Board Meeting 3/23/22 Page 4 of 5 Motion: To adjourn at 8:21 p.m. (LeCesne-Feek) Roll call vote Michael Feck — in favor Diana Bren — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Sharon Friedman - in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Joseph Cerretani — in favor Beth Ashman -Collins - in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting: April 13, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Signature of Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting 3/23/22 Page 5 of 5