HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 4/16/1997RECEIVED
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TCk' N CiLCC)' C F ICE
April 16, 1997 97 MAY _8 AM D, 27
Present: Thomas French, Chairman; John Sullivan, Clerk; Planners Bernie DolhiANS IELD
Marydee Flynn; Duane Frederick; Thomas McShane and Kenneth Torman. K11&5 Aaen[ISLTTS
was Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development.
Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Scheduled Development Public Hearing (continued)
The public hearing, which commenced on March 26, 1997, continued with a second
roundtable discussion with the builder /developer community in an effort to reach a
compromise by -law to limit residential growth and development in town.
Mr. Burke presented a revised version of the amendment in which he stated he tried to
touch upon points that were raised during the last roundtable session, in addition to some
fine - tuning of the amendment. All additions and revisions to the last version were printed
in bold type. The first change was in:
* Section 4.2.3.1 Purpose -- and was added to establish a finite period of time which the
by -law would be in effect.
* Section 4.2.3.2 Applicability was modified by the addition of the word
"reconstruction" and a senior citizen exclusion and definition.
* Section 4.2.3.3 Building Permit Limitations - new paragraph was added dealing with
the rollover of permits.
* Section 4.2.3.4 Building Permit Standards was amended to twenty (20) permits
and the wording in the applicant definition was modified for clarification purposes
* Section 4.2.3.5 was added as a new section addressing zoning change protection
Board members engaged in a discussion of rollover provision for unused building permits
and the advisability of making the rollover non - cumulative. Various formulas,
percentages and time periods were discussed in an attempt to arrive at the maximum
number of permits per year which the town could reasonably afford.
Mr. McShane pointed out that in previous discussions with the building community, he
got the impression that they didn't want to be held to a calendar year because of the
cyclical nature of the business. He suggested that we might consider trying to do an
average of multiple years to reach a reasonable number.
Mr. Dolan noted that the calculations used in the examples given were not correct. Mr.
French asked why we used 115 as a base number, rather than holding out the 15 permits
reserved for owners of single lots and basing the calculations on 100 permits.
Dr. Torman questioned 4.2.3.2 Applicability and whether there should be a provision
made to cover a situation whereby an owner /developer was unable to rent all available
units to persons over the age of fifty -five. Mr. Burke pointed out that there would be a
restrictive deed and it would not be possible to rent to persons under the age of fifty -five.
Mrs. Flynn noted that it would be up to the developer to look at the market carefully in
determining the number of units to build.
Mrs. Flynn, in commenting on the rollover provision, stated that she understands the
builders wanting to be able to utilize unused permits, but feels that the rollover provision
defeats the original rationale of a building cap. She also questioned if 4.2.3.5 Zoning
Change Protection was worded clearly enough so that builders would not misinterpret the
extension to mean that they now have ten years to complete an approved subdivision.
Mr. Burke pointed out that the extension was provided for instances where completion
had been constrained by the by -law to prevent an eminent domain taking without
compensation.
Mr. McShane suggested that the extension might create an incentive for "last in - first
out" and that we should instead be encouraging a developer to deplete his inventory by
using his first permit to finish first, rather than giving them an incentive to stall to get an
extension. Mr. Burke responded that the idea is to head -off eminent domain appeal and
this by -law shows a good faith attempt to avoid it.
Mr. Burke warned that the board should avoid making amendments that substantially
change the intent and scope of the by -law which could result in the moderator disallowing
the article at Town Meeting.
Mr. McShane commented on Section 4.2.3.1 Purpose, and the ten year period allowed in
order to provide the town adequate time to study its land use and capital needs. He stated
if in Year 6 the town has a solid plan, the purpose of seeking the ten year timeframe
would be negated. Mr. Burke advised the board that this point was addressed in a legal
opinion received from Mark Bobrowski on the Town of Chilmark case and that he would
provide board members with a copy of the opinion.
Mr. Sullivan stated that he too believes that we should be basing the calculations on 100
permits as 15 are reserved for individual homeowners.
Mr. Frederick said that his concern is avoiding another building spike and that the
number of rollover permits should take this into account by establishing a finite number.
Mr. Burke again cautioned the board that any amendments should stay within the scope
advertised. Mrs. Flynn stated that a rollover provision would be a big compromise for
her, but that she is willing to listen and moderate her thoughts.
Mallory Digges of O'Brien & Meeks stated that since the last meeting she has had the
opportunity to read the report of Dr. Mullin and believes that a large part of the by -law is
drafted around that report. She expressed concern that the Mullin report does not address
commercial buildout and that no consideration is being given to introducing commercial
tax revenues into the equation to balance it and produce a positive cashflow. She
IWC
maintained that increased residential development also produces an increase in
commercial development, resulting in much greater tax revenue without the demand for
additional schools and municipal services. She also stated that the amendment would
make it impossible to build larger apartment and condo buildings and that people build
upwards when land is minimized. She also stated that the idea of providing for the
rollover of unused permits was to address the economic cycles of the industry and that
they need to be cumulative to do that. It was her contention that in establishing a number,
the town is stating its ability to handle a given number of new homes each year and a
cumulative rollover would not exceed the total number the town believes it can
responsibly handle.
Paul Folkman agreed with the belief that the numbers were connecting houses with the
number of children and their effect on the school population. He suggested working out a
formula based on the number of bedrooms per building unit which would not be
prejudicial towards one housing type. He stated that many people live in apartments or
condos before buying their first single family home and that no consideration is being
given to types of housing that will not be a tax burden.
Al Turinese asked how the proposed by -law would affect existing lots and was told they
would be grandfathered. He responded, saying that he has had a subdivision since 1972
and was saving four lots for his grandchildren, and has recently been told he's lost two of
the lots. Mr. Burke commented that the lots were under subdivision control and at that
from the time of approval he had seven years to use them. He further stated that if the
lots are held in common ownership at the time of a zoning change, you lose protection
and would need to get a variance. Mr. Turinese, who is also a member of the Board of
Assessors, stated that with a variance, you only have one year to use it and that from an
assessor's view, a problem is being created if people start coming in looking for
abatements on lots that are no longer buildable.
Rick O'Brien of O'Brien & Meeks stated that he felt the time period of ten years for the
by -law to be in effect was too long and that once all the grandfathered lots have been
builtout, the town should have a better idea of what the average number of homes being
built each year will actually be.
Karl Clemmey said that he would like to see the time amended to five years. He also said
that under 4.2.3.2 he would like to see the deed restriction running with the land removed,
since no bank will lend money with restrictions on the land. He also stated that the
appeal process should, in his opinion, stay with the Planning Board rather than the ZBA.
Mr. Burke responded that under statute the ZBA hears denials of building permits and
otherissues
4.2.3.1 Purpose
Following a brief recess the board resumed discussion regarding the length of time the
( by -law should be in effect, with debate centering around the impact that 60,000 sq.ft. lots
will have on the rate of development and the number of grandfathered lots available for
-3-
building. Board members agreed by consensus to keep the by -law in effect for ten years,
with the understanding that the timeframe could be amended by Town Meeting at any
time.
4.2.3.2 Applicability
Board members considered comments regarding the impact of one bedroom units and
four and five bedroom homes and agreed to amend the section to say that each "single -
family detached dwelling unit or each three (3) bedrooms of a multifamily unit or
fraction thereof shall be considered to be one building permit." The board continued to
discuss the portion of the section dealing with senior citizens. Specific concerns raised
were whether lifecare centers, retirements centers, assisted living facilities and
independent living centers would be included and affected by the by -law. There were no
further amendments made to the section.
4.2.3.3 Building Permit Limitations
Discussion concerned whether the number "115" should be lower and the impact a
rollover clause would have on the total number of building permits issued annually. Mr.
McShane stated he had no problem with 115 permits per year if there was to be no
rollover, but that if we were to include a rollover provision, he believed the number of
permits issued per year should be lowered. Also discussed was the total number of new
houses the community is able to absorb and whether the final number to be agreed upon
would be defensible. The board's main concern was the ability to deal with any spike in
( the building rate resulting from the rollover.
I
Bill Moore of Union Street said that an established number with rollover provisions was
confusing and sounded like a con game and he did not believe the moderator would
accept such an amendment at Town Meeting. Michelle Sciabarrasi of Chilson Avenue
stated her belief that it should be kept simple and that the purpose of the by -law was to
give the town time to study and evaluate the situation.
Board members continued to discuss the rollover, with an attempt to simplify the
situation and avoid having the by -law thrown out or defeated at Town Meeting. Mr.
McShane pointed out that the building community could always introduce an amendment
on Town Meeting floor. Board members agreed that if such an amendment came from
the builders, the Planning Board would be less apt to lose the whole thing and expressed
general disappointment that the building community had not come to the roundtable with
a proposal they could support. Following discussion the board agreed to have Mr. Burke
draft an amendment based on the discussion and send a copy to the building community
for their comment.
4.2.3.4 Building Permit Standards
Change first sentence to read, "...no more than twenty (20) building permits plus any
portion of the rollover..."
-4-
4.2.3.5 Zoning Change Protection
Board members discussed the extension of the protection from zoning change from eight
to ten years. It was felt that there needed to be clarification as to when the time period
begins and "from the date of endorsement of plan" was added for clarification. Three
members favored reducing the time to eight years, as provided for by State Statute, and
four favored going to ten years.
4.2.3.6 Appeals
Discussion took place as to whether the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals
should hear appeals. Five members were in favor of the Zoning Board of Appeals doing
so, and one member opted for the Planning Board.
4.2.3.7 Relief and 4.2.3.7 - no changes were made.
Public Comment
Karl Clemmey said that under 4.2.3.2 Applicability he feels the term "multi- residential"
should be used rather than "multi- family."
Around the Table
Mrs. Flynn advised the board that she had a discussion with the Building Inspector and
that he doesn't care who does site plan review as long as when it's done, that all
department heads are given the opportunity of review and comment. She also reported
that he would welcome a discussion with any member or members in his office. Mr.
Sullivan asked if this response was in place of the letter the board asked him for. Mrs.
Flynn said that Mr. Cook stated he should have responded and also stated that he has to
consider both the building code and safety regulations, as well as the zoning by -law,
when dealing with site plans and that he has to be particularly careful with daycare
centers because of the latitude given them by the state.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
��
Sig ature of Cla' k
Date of Next Meeting: April 23, 1997
-5-
.5_11h;7
Date of Approval