MEMBERS PRESENT:       Tucker Holland (Chairman); Dick Elkins, Peter Gibbs, Gary von Stange, Kay Kraushaar, Kate Lalley.

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

CONSULTANT:                    Mike Munson.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Jeremy Matosky, John Dubrul, III, Pat Seal, Barbara & Jack Morrish, Jeff Nick, Brian Precourt, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

Tucker Holland called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.

 

The agenda was approved by acclamation.

 

Mike Munson explained why zoning regulations contain language governing non-conformities. Dean Pierce identified two situations the Planning Commission may want to address in the ‘Nonconformities’ section of the zoning bylaws. Changes could allow existing non-complying lots or buildings to be changed and made less non-conforming. Currently, the bylaw prohibits any changes that make lots or buildings anything less than fully conforming.  The Planning Commission discussed the pros and cons of such language. Mike Munson will prepare a first draft on possible changes to the ‘Nonconformities’ section and make it available prior to the next meeting.

 

The Planning Commission discussed language related to abandonment.  Dean Pierce mentioned the Town Attorney provided comments to staff and the Selectboard. Comments will be provided to the Planning Commission prior to further discussion of abandonment or discontinuance.

 

The Planning Commission discussed the first draft of revisions provided by Mike Munson. Issues/questions highlighted included maximum size of fuel containers, vehicle idling, and regulation of abandoned vehicles and appliances.  Language regulating outdoor furnaces was also discussed. Mike Munson explained some of the language presented was based on material provided on an industry association web site. The Planning Commission suggested modifications related to increased setback requirements and separation between outdoor furnaces and structures on adjoining properties.  Dean Pierce urged clarification of language on enforcement of the performance standards.

 

The Planning Commission discussed the second draft of materials prepared by Mike Munson.  Attention focused on criteria applicable to the Shelburne Falls District. Peter Gibbs suggested adding the word "increased" to section 1920.4.f.  Dick Elkins suggested the addition of a criterion on traffic generated being compatible to a residential area. Proposed language on the maximum size of building footprints was also discussed. There was agreement with the language as drafted.

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

The Planning Commission agreed to delete the date relative to accessory apartments (1/31/07) under Permitted Uses. There was also agreement to remove ‘elder housing’ and ‘housing for the elderly’ as an allowed use under Conditional Uses. With regard to Bed & Breakfast uses, the limit of two bedrooms should be maintained due to parking and traffic impact on the residential character of the neighborhood. Inns can provide more bedrooms. Retail establishments, restaurants, personal service shops, medical/dental offices, banks, financial institutions, veterinarian clinics, churches, licensed home day care, and daycare centers were eliminated from the list of conditional uses in the zone. Business and professional offices and artist studios remain as conditional uses. Dick Elkins suggested the Selectboard review Mt. Philo Road and Marsett Road with the same eye as Falls Road.

 

Pat Seal, resident, expressed concern about changing the residential nature of an area if homes are allowed to turn into businesses. This change makes it less desirable for people to want to buy a house as a residence in the neighborhood.

 

There was discussion of 100’ minimum lot frontage (increase from 75’). It was felt the lot frontage does not encourage smaller more efficient homes. The Commission supported 75’ frontage. The Commission also supported 10” side and rear setbacks for accessory structures.

 

It was suggested the Purpose section be clarified to say what is desired in the district. The date relative to accessory apartments in the district was removed. Regarding farming as a permitted use, the Planning Commission does not necessarily want to encourage agriculture in the district, but farming is allowed under state law provided the state requirements are met. Conditional uses in the Mixed Use District include retail and personal services with drive through facilities.  A straw poll of the Planning Commission showed the majority in favor of drive through pharmacy service only. Dick Elkins spoke against drive through service due to idling cars and the need for more pavement.

 

Jeff Nick, resident, commented drive through service for prescriptions is low impact and a convenience for the elderly and people with small children.

 

Regarding senior housing, staff will ensure consistency in language in the document. A majority of the Planning Commission agreed to remove the date restriction on existing vehicle sales uses. Regarding construction related services as conditional uses, most of the Commissioners felt this should not be a conditional use due to impact on the residential nature of a neighborhood. Peter Gibbs and Gary von Stange felt construction related services are acceptable as a conditional use provided they are in accordance with the definition of “construction services facilities”.  A majority of the Planning Commission wanted to retain “Other Similar Uses” as a safety valve.

 

Regarding daycare centers, there was agreement to set the maximum number of children at 75. There was agreement permitted and conditional uses in the Mixed Use District should be consistent with the Commerce & Industry District. The Planning Commission was evenly split on motels as permitted uses or conditional uses in the district. The Planning Commission agreed research and testing laboratories should be conditional uses in both the Mixed Use and Commerce & Industry zones so there is some level of review. The same applies to upholstery and fabric working and public and private schools. There was no change to farming, orchards, or raising poultry and livestock uses in the zone. There was agreement garden centers and nurseries should be conditional uses, and indoor recreation facilities, dance studios, bowling alleys should be permitted in both the Mixed Use and Commerce & Industry zones.  Accessory uses (retail and other services accessory to the principal use) are covered in Section 1010.14. There was agreement wholesale sales is a conditional use in the Mixed Use District as is building material sales, enclosed light manufacturing, enclosed auto/machine repairs, enclosed self storage, and roadside stands for seasonal produce sales.

 

There was brief discussion of minimum lot size in the Mixed Use District for a use such as nursing home.

 

Jeremy Matosky mentioned the proposed zoning has maximum building size which precludes any additions on existing building that already exceed the maximum (Section 1030.6). It was noted Section 1030.5 deals with lot coverage of up to 50% for all lot sizes, and regarding yard requirements and setbacks, there is a combination of formulas with caveats so existing businesses can continue. Section 1030.3 (design requirements) adds flexibility for sites already built. The Planning Commission agreed with the Selectboard comments on Section 1030.3 and 1030(c), 1030(d), 1030(e). Regarding lot coverage the majority of the Commission spoke in support of 50% coverage. Kay Kraushaar commented the Planning Commission made a change in lot coverage and now is being asked by the Selectboard to make more of a change without testing the initial revision. Gary von Stange suggested Section 1030.6 be changed to include a 30,000 s.f. footprint and a provision to allow existing buildings to expand.

 

 

The Planning Commission will continue work on the Phase 2 zoning revisions with Mike Munson on December 11, 2008.

 

The Planning Commission will continue review/response to Selectboard comments on Phase 1 zoning changes on December 4, 2008 at 7 p.m.

 

The Planning Commission received a copy of the memo from John Giebink regarding Article XV – Historic Preservation and Design Review Overlay.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.