HomeMy Public PortalAbout20141112 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting Minutes1
ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:30 PM
Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA Room 216
MINUTES
Members Present: John Coutinho, Chairman, John Ferrari, Vice Chair, Sandy K. Altamura, Jim
Ciriello, Carol DeVeuve, Ria McNamara, Mavis O’Leary, Scott Richardson
Members Absent: David Hamacher, Michael Peirce
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
1. Minutes
The Committee reviewed the draft Minutes of the Oct. 27, 2014 meeting. Ms. McNamara stated
she wants to discuss a clear-cutting/lot clearing bylaw, so that lots are not cleared before plans
are approved and the proponent is ready to proceed with construction. She noted that she doesn’t
see that this item was discussed on Oct. 27 even though it was on the list to be discussed. Mr.
Coutinho noted that the item wasn’t prioritized by the Committee on Oct. 27 and in prior
discussions some members indicated that it would be a taking. Ms. DeVeuve moved to put this
item back on the Committee’s list for discussion, and Ms. Altamura seconded the motion. The
vote on the motion was 5 in favor (DeVeuve, Altamura, McNamara, Ferrari, Ms. O’Leary) and
Mr. Richardson and Mr. Coutinho opposed, with Mr. Ciriello abstaining. Mr. Ciriello noted he
will abstain from all votes this evening since he has not been sworn in yet.
The Committee discussed exterior lighting. Mr. Coutinho stated he wants to define lighting by
zone, in the zoning bylaw. Mr. Richardson asked for clarification, noting that the draft the
committee prepared in early 2014 was a zoning bylaw. Mr. Coutinho stated he is waiting for
clarification from Town Counsel, noting that Town Counsel had many suggested revisions, and
there may be problems with the concept.
On the motion to approve the minutes of Oct. 27, 2014 as amended, the vote was 5 in favor
(DeVeuve, Altamura, McNamara, Ferrari, Richardson, Mr. Coutinho) and none opposed, with
Ms. O’Leary and Mr. Ciriello abstaining.
Ms. DeVeuve stated the Committee last year was distracted by latecomers to the process, which
pushed off other things that the Committee had planned to do. She stated the Committee has a
public forum and that’s when items should be submitted.
Ms. O’Leary stated that she will not participate in discussions pertaining to the Crossroads
Redevelopment District due to a potential conflict.
2. BD District – Parking Between Building and Street
Ms. Lazarus described current zoning bylaw provision in the Downtown Business District, which
prohibits parking between the principal building and a street. She noted that the provision was
adopted in an effort to reduce the probability that the downtown area could be redeveloped with
2
a strip development character rather than a downtown character. It was noted that the Planning
Board has requested that the Committee look at allowing parking between the building and a
street by special permit.
Ms. O’Leary questioned if the setback was needed for fire safety. Ms. Altamura stated that when
this was originally written, the intent was to keep buildings located at the street. The history of
activity under the section was reviewed, and it was noted that two variances have been granted.
Mr. Ciriello asked why the provision is needed, and if the Planning Board approves the variance
then it should be ok. Mr. Richardson noted that variance requests go to the Board of Appeals, so
it means a second application to a separate board in the case where a project is also subject to site
plan review. He stated it is better if an applicant can go before one board instead of two. Mr.
Ciriello stated the system is not broken now, and people who legitimately needed a variance got
them. He noted that there are some buildings where this would not be a good idea. Ms.
McNamara stated that a special permit would allow the unique circumstances to be reviewed on
a case by case basis, and she supports the change.
It was moved to recommend the change to the Planning Board with criteria for the Planning
Board to use relative to the impact on the downtown streetscape. After discussion, it was
decided that the Committee would not take a vote on the matter until the final language is drafted
and reviewed.
A question was raised relative to whether the term “restaurants where all patrons are seated” is
appropriate, and whether restrictions on live entertainment in the Downtown Business district
should be reviewed. The Committee decided to discuss them at future meeting.
3. Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development Bylaw
Ms. Lazarus described the proposed changes, one to insert a missing provision in Sec. 210-110.A
so as to match the language in Sec. 210-108.A, and the other to insert language in Sec. 210-
113.C(4) clarifying that trails are allowed in the perimeter buffer area of the open space. After
review and discussion, the Committee voted 7 in favor, none opposed, with Mr. Ciriello
abstaining, to recommend the changes to the Planning Board.
4. Industrial B District – Indoor Recreation
The Committee reviewed the request of a property owner on Lumber St. to include indoor
recreation as a use allowed in the Industrial B District. Ms. McNamara stated that big fitness
clubs need a lot of parking, and the smaller clubs need 20-25 spaces for each class. She stated
that the use should be by special permit so that parking and lighting, for example, can be
reviewed. It was the consensus that indoor recreation use, if allowed in the Industrial B District,
should be by special permit.
The Committee discussed the parking requirement for the use. Ms. Altamura stated that air
supported structures should not be allowed for this use because they are so bright and so big. It
was stated that a swim and tennis club would be nice to have, and he is not sure the air supported
structure would be a bad thing. Mr. Ferrari suggested that the Committee can discuss air
supported structures at a later date.
3
It was moved to recommend that indoor recreational facilities be allowed in the IB district by
special permit, and the motion was seconded. The Committee voted 7 in favor, none opposed,
with Mr. Ciriello abstaining, in favor of the motion.
The Committee discussed a definition of indoor recreation facility, and reviewed and discussed
possible definitions. The Committee recommended that the proponents be invited to a meeting
to discuss the proposed use. The Committee noted that it would need to work on a definition that
also takes into account the existing related terms in the zoning bylaw. The Committee noted that
information was contained in the proponent’s material that was submitted, which could be
helpful in this regard.
5. Lots in two or more residential districts
Ms. Lazarus stated she is proposing to move the “Lots in two or more residence districts”
provision from Section 210-4 (Definitions) to the Supplementary Regulations section of the
zoning bylaw. She noted that the provisions are located in the definitions section but are in fact a
regulation that is often missed because it is in the wrong place. Mr. Ferrari moved to
recommend the change to the Planning Board, and Ms. Altamura seconded the motion. The vote
in favor was 7 in favor with Mr. Ciriello abstaining.
The Committee decided to change its next meeting date from Nov. 25 to Nov. 24 at 7:00 pm.
Adjourned: 8:40 PM
Approved: November 24, 2014
Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
Documents used at the meeting:
Meeting agenda
“Draft Article – Move “Lots in two or more residence districts” Provision”, dated 11/6/14
Draft minutes of the Oct. 27, 2014 meeting
Zoning Bylaw Articles VIA, Downtown Business District and Industrial B District
Memo dated 11/7/14 from Elaine Lazarus to Zoning Advisory Committee, Re: 11/12/14 Zoning
Advisory Committee meeting
“Current Zoning Bylaw provisions – Recreation”, undated
Zoning Bylaw Article XVII, Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development, with proposed
language changes noted
Recreation use definitions copied from The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions and A
Planners Dictionary