Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12/06/1982DECEMBER Present: W. F. Koch, Jr., Mayor Joel Hunter, Commissioner Robert Dixson, Commissioner Absent: Brian Pfeifler, Commissioner Alan I. Armour, Commissioner Present: Charles E. Eaton W. A. Mayer Thomas O. Boucher Kenneth Rubsamen arrived at 9:30 A.M. Franklin O'Brien Commission Planning Board Civic Association Also attending: Town Manager William Gwynn, Town Clerk Barbara Gwynn, Town Attorney John Randolph, Gene Caputo Executive Management. Mayor Koch called the Joint Town Commission and Planning Board Meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. for the purpose of reviewing the proposals submitted by the Consultants and the Planning Board. The time frame was discussed, and by way of explanation he stated that a Public Notice is necessary before the first and second reading, so that it could take between 45 and 60 days, and under the present ofdinance, after it is presented on first and second reading, it does not take effect until 90 days thereafter. Also, during the 90 day period, if three or more registered property owners state any objections, the Commission would be forced to have a referendum. Commissioner Dixson suggested that an overview report be given by Mr. Caputo, of Executive Management Co., and Town Attorney Randolph, and then revert to the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and deal with it on a page by page basis, and offer whatever suggestions or revisions seem in order. Mr. Gene Caputo of Executive Management Co. stated that this was a document passed as the result of several meetings of the Planning Board -- a ccoposite of their review and recommendations of the issues that came up in the current ordinance. It is an ordinance containing sections that are not in the present ordinance and that update it to today's standards. He stated that there are some basic flaws that must be discussed, which relate to the multiple family density issue. There was discussion about the definitions, and Mr. Caputo stated that many of the definitions came from the current ordinance and many from a standard zoning language glossary. Commissioner Dixson stated that the more precise and explanatory the definitions are, the less basis there will be for challenging a particular section of the ordinance which is using language that has not been defined in a definitive section. Joint Meeting of the Town CaTmission and Planning Board December 6, 1982 Page 2 There followed a discussion on a page by page basis as to any corrections, additions or deletions, on the following items: Issuing of certificates of occupancy Sign definition Ceiling height in buildings Swimming pools Number of cars in driveway Height of hedges for traffic visibility, Height regulation on walls and fences Replacement of buildings on school sites Height of buildings -- number of stories Minimum floor requirements Maximum percentage of lot coverage Signs Iandscaping and the use of visibility triangles Mayor Koch stated that he would contact the other Commissioners for a future meeting. There being no further business to come before the Joint Town Commission and Planning Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:00 P.M. Barbara a ynn Town Clerk 12: TOWN COMMISSIONERS K: COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW I was unable to attend our December 6, 1982 meeting. However, I have the following questions regarding the proposed Ordinances. Page 24, Section M. Walls, Fences and Hedges I believe the height of hedges on the front, rear and side yards should be changed. The front hedge height must be higher than 3 feet and the rear and side height should exceed 6 and 7 feet respectively. The new Ordinance would make most hedges non-con- forming, !.e, Page 24, Section N. Additional Provisions An additional sentence should be added to Sub - Section 1, requiring any replacements to the school should be required to go before the Zoning Board and the Commission for approval as to the size, design, etc. Page 27, Section K. _Building Site Area In Sub- Section 4, I believe the minimum floor area requirement for apartments should be increased. Page 34, Section H. Residential Outdoor Recreation Facility Regulations In SulrSection D, pools that are next to a canal or intracoastal waterway should have a smaller set- back requirement. Page 34, Section H. Residential Outdoor Recreation Facility R_�ilations In Sub Section F, I do not believe all pools must be enclosed by a fence. Page 36, Section K. Landscape Requirements In Sub - Section 1 and 2, here again the hedge and fence heights are too low. My reasons have been expressed above. In Sub - Section 3, the require- ment that the new trees should be 8 -10 feet at planting is too restrictive and 6 -8 feet would be more appropriate. In Sub - Section 9, I believe that the requirement that existing trees shall be con- served and integrated into the landscaping design plan should be clarified. In general, I believe that much more attention and discussion should be given to the Landscape Requirements. I do not believe that the proposed Ordinance reflects the character of the community and would be detrimental to the future appearance of the Town..