Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20160126 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting Minutes 1 ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tuesday, January 26, 2015 7:00 PM Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: John Coutinho, Chair, Brian Karp, Vice Chair, Ted Barker-Hook, Jim Ciriello, Mike King, Mavis O’Leary, Michael Peirce, Paul Pilotte, Scott Richardson, John Savignano, Matthew Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandy Altamura, Bryan Brown, David Hamacher 1. Elmwood Sustainable Enterprise District/Elmwood Park Business District The Committee reviewed a revised draft of a proposed zoning district for the Elmwood Park area. Mr. Peirce noted that “air supported structures” are listed as a use by special permit, and asked if they are best addressed by site plan review rather than a special permit. He noted that the concerns people have with them revolve around lighting, which is addressed in Site Plan Review. He noted that the structure itself as a use isn’t significant, it is the lighting that people are concerned about, and questioned whether a structure should be treated as a use. Mr. Ciriello stated that they need a broader review, but site plan review is still a broad review. Mr. Peirce noted that site plan review is not as discretionary as a special permit, but it isn’t the use that is the concern, it is the visual impact of the structure. Mr. O’Leary asked if there can be conditions imposed through site plan review as to when the lights are turned off, and the answer was yes. Mr. Peirce moved to delete air supported structures from the draft bylaw. Ria McNamara, 39 Oakhurst Road, asked if it will pass at town meeting without restrictions on these structures, and the issues were discussed. Mr. Ciriello seconded the motion, and the vote in favor was unanimous. A motion was made to pass the draft bylaw along to the Planning Board for action. Mr. Karp seconded the motion. Mr. Peirce questioned the name of the district, and asked if the words “sustainable” and “enterprise” will be confusing or make people uncomfortable. Mr. Richardson agreed, and the name of the district was discussed. A motion was made and seconded to change the name to Elmwood Park Business District. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor. The Committee voted unanimously in favor of the main motion, to pass the bylaw along to the Planning Board. The Committee discussed area to be rezoned, and whether it should be the same area presently zoned Industrial B or if it should include more land. A motion was made and seconded to propose rezoning the the same area presently zoned Industrial B to Elmwood Park Business District. The vote in favor was unanimous. The Committee reviewed the proposed definition of “licensed medical care facility for inpatient and outpatient services”. In response to a question, it was noted that such uses could include overnight stays for patients. It was moved and seconded to propose the definition as drafted, and the vote in favor was unanimous. The Committee discussed the other components of the Elmwood Park Business District article, namely removing the area from the Hotel Overlay 2 District and having signs in the district comply with those applicable in the Industrial A and B districts. A motion was made and seconded to propose the changes as drafted, and the vote in favor was unanimous. Mr. Richardson left the meeting at this time. 2. Sign Bylaw The Committee reviewed changes to the draft Sign bylaw. Mr. Pilotte asked Ms. Lazarus to check with the Marathon Committee to see if 24 sq. ft. banners is adequate. The definitions of banner and temporary sign were discussed, and it was noted that there should be more of a distinction between them. Language changes were discussed. It was decided to modify the banner definition to indicate it is a temporary sign that it is hanging, and to modify the temporary sign definition to indicate it they are not permanently affixed and to note that the types of signs listed in the definition are examples. Mr. Peirce moved to recommend the bylaw changes to the Planning Board. The motion was seconded and the vote in favor was unanimous. 3. Garden Apartments in Residential District, Senior Housing Development and Village Housing in Residential Districts Bylaws The Committee reviewed the proposed modifications to the three bylaws, some recommended by the Planning Board, and some housekeeping items recommended by Ms. Lazarus. After discussion, Mr. Peirce moved to recommend that the Senior Housing Development bylaw be deleted from the zoning bylaw, with the recognition that such developments can’t necessarily be restricted to seniors. Mr. Ciriello seconded the motion, and the vote in favor was unanimous. Mr. Peirce voted to recommend the modifications to the Garden Apartment bylaw. Mr. Pilotte seconded the motion and the vote in favor was unanimous. It was moved and seconded to recommend the modifications to the Village Housing bylaw to the Planning Board, and the vote in favor was unanimous. 4. Historic Structure Related Zoning Changes The Committee reviewed proposed changes to the Site Plan Review, Lots with Historic Structures, and Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development (OSLPD) bylaws pertaining to preservation of historic structures. Ms. Lazarus briefly explained the proposed changes. While waiting for a Historical Commission representative, the Committee discussed other business. 5. Administrative Business Mr. Ciriello noted that there is no introductory purpose/preamble in the zoning bylaw, and moved to copy § 210-75.1.A and put it in the zoning bylaws as a new overall purpose, in the General Provisions section. It was noted that the language would need to be edited and discussed further. It was decided to work on this for the 2017 annual town meeting. Mr. Peirce moved to approve the Minutes of the January 6, 2016 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wade and the vote was unanimous. 6. Historic Structure Related Zoning Changes 3 Claire Wright, Historical Commission, joined the Committee. She stated that the changes are recommended to encourage preservation of historic structures as land is developed. The Committee discussed the proposed changes to the Lots with Historic Structures bylaw, which would state that a special permit can only be granted if an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan creates 2 or more lots. Ms. Wright explained that a loophole in the current bylaw may allow someone to apply to create a small lot to preserve a structure which isn’t threatened for demolition, solely for the purpose of putting it on a separate lot and making a larger development parcel adjacent to it. Mr. Peirce suggested that the Planning Board should consider requiring a preservation restriction if it grants the special permit, and it was noted that the bylaw allows for that. Ms. Wright stated that the bylaw was adopted after a developer having a parcel with an old house that was to be demolished wanted to be able to save the house, but the dimensional requirements made it very difficult. She stated that recently, someone investigating using the bylaw came to the Commission proposing to carve off a house on a small lot with no purpose in mind for rest of the property. She stated that there is concern that sometime later the house could be sold off for other purposes. She stated it is not threatened by development, they just want to use the ANR process to carve off a small lot and this is a misuse of the intent, and it opens it up to other people who might do this. Mr. Peirce stated that if this was married to a preservation restriction, then the goal to preserve the house is achieved, and is also an incentive for someone to do this for the right reason. Ms. Wright stated that preservation restrictions are very restrictive, they are onerous and she isn’t sure the Historical Commission would want to manage them. Mr. Coutinho stated that even if someone does get away with something, the house would be preserved. Mr. Peirce stated that the ANR plan could be recorded or it could not, and it doesn’t have to be used. He noted that preservation restrictions are standard and it is the price someone will have to pay to get the smaller lot. The issues were discussed. Ms. Wright stated she doesn’t want the tradeoff if new houses are going to be built. Mr. Peirce stated that the tradeoff is historic preservation. At the conclusion of discussion, the Committee voted to recommend the draft changes to the Site Plan Review and OSLPD bylaws to the Planning Board. Adjourned: 9:00 PM Approved: October 5, 2016 Documents used at the meeting:  Memo dated 1/22/16 to Zoning Advisory Committee from Elaine Lazarus re: Jan. 26, 2016 Zoning Advisory Committee meeting  Article XVIA, Senior Housing Development Draft modifications 1/13/16  Article XXXII, Elmwood Sustainable Enterprise District, Draft 1/21/16  Article XVII, Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development, Draft Changes 1/22/16  Article XX, Site Plan Review, Draft 1/21/16  Article XIIIA, Village Housing in Residential Districts, Draft modifications 1/13/16  Article XIII, Garden Apartments in Residential Districts, Draft modifications 1/13/16  Article XXVII, Signs, Draft 1/13/16, rev. 1/22/16  Zoning Map  Draft Minutes of the 1/6/15 Zoning Advisory Committee meeting