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..