Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20121022 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting Minutes 1 ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, October 22, 2012 7:00 PM Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: John Coutinho, Chairman, Carol DeVeuve, Vice Chairman, Sandy Altamura, Fran DeYoung, David Hamacher, John Marculitis, Robert McGuire, Craig Nation, Mavis O’Leary, Michael Peirce, Scott Richardson, Matthew Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Karp, Ron Thalheimer, Mario Würzl Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting 1. Zoning Forum Mr. Coutinho noted that the public has been invited to present ideas/proposals for zoning changes. Carol Esler, 16 Oakhurst Rd., stated she would like the Town to have regulations that protect views of Lake Maspenock. She stated that her lake view was ruined by new construction, noting that the older, smaller scale home was demolished and replaced by a large structure that not only ruined their view but makes the older homes look like second class citizens. She stated that view protection might be accomplished by height and/or width restrictions. She noted that such regulations exist elsewhere, and examples could probably be found. She stated that it is too late for her, but the changes would protect others. Claire Wright, 28 Hayden Rowe St., showed photographs of the area. She stated she has looked around the Lake on Oakhurst Rd., Downey St. and Lakeshore Dr., for example, and there are more than 60 homes uphill from the homes ringing the lake that would be affected. She stated that property values and property rights are important, but they cut both ways. She noted that the land slopes down to the Lake and she looked at the homes on the lower side. She stated she has seen that the lower rooflines there still block views, so maybe side yard setback adjustments, etc. would also help to preserve views. She noted that there is maximum lot coverage of 25% in the Lake Front district, which is probably too high also. She noted that there were historically summer cottages in this area and now they are year-round homes. Ms. Altamura states she thinks it would take more than a year to come up with something to address this complex issue. She noted there are other places with restrictions like these, and asked if the proponents would be able to do some research on it. She asked whether the Lake Maspenock Preservation Association (LMPA) would do that. Ms. Esler stated that the executive board said that they have to represent everyone, and would need more details before taking a position on it. Ms. Altamura noted that the support of the LMPA would be necessary in order for any restrictions to be adopted at town meeting. Mr. Hamacher asked what would have prevented Ms. Esler’s situation. Ms. Esler stated that height and width restrictions would have been 2 helpful. Ms. Wright noted that this is a planning issue, and the Land Use Dept. has the ability to do the necessary research. Mr. Peirce noted this is like creating a historic district, where people in the area need to feel that the new restrictions they are imposing on themselves elevates all of them. He noted that it could benefit a large group. Ms. Altamura noted that this should be a grass roots effort with broad support from the neighborhoods. Mr. Marculitis asked about the percentage of people in the LMPA who are located directly on the lake versus the number that are not. The numbers were not known. Don Kaiser, 16 Oakhurst Rd., stated that the elimination of the view in front of his house has poisoned the neighborhood with bad vibes. Finley Perry, 87 West Elm St., representing the Hopkinton Chamber of Commerce/Hopkinton 2020, introduced a Main Street Planning Corridor initiative. He stated that they would like the Committee to be aware and supportive of this initiative and eventually work on any zoning changes that might result. He described the Main St. Corridor as West Main St.-Main St.-East Main St. from Downey St. to Clinton St. He provided historical context, noting that Hopkinton was an industrial community for much of its past, although there is little evidence of it now. He stated that with respect to the corridor, it is traffic versus people and landscape, and some of the major intersections are not pedestrian friendly. He noted that places that are good examples of a more favorable pedestrian/traffic mix and attractive development are Wellesley, Concord, Amesbury, Hingham, Chatham and Amherst downtown areas. He provided a handout to the Committee, and noted that the town could make improvements in appearance and accessibility of the corridor. He questioned whether gas stations belong at two corners of the major downtown intersection, what businesses would thrive there, how stormwater can be addressed, and how can the Town enhance this area. He noted that this is a long term planning venture that would be for the future residents and businesses because it would take a long time to achieve. Ms. Altamura stated that this is a great idea, but it could be expensive. She asked if the Lumber St./West Main St. proposal for a zoning change would fit with this vision. She asked if a master plan is desired for the area. She stated she would like to see examples of types of zoning that would achieve the result. Ms. DeVeuve stated she supports the concept, but the Town has studied many things without following up on them. Mr. Peirce stated that addressing the gas station corners is hard because they are in private ownership. He noted that Legacy Farms worked because there were people ready to invest in it, and he is not sure that this is the case along the corridor. The Committee reviewed the proposal received via email from Susan Franke, 19 Kimball Rd., to change the name of the Agricultural District because it causes confusion and problems. Ms. Lazarus agreed that the name often causes confusion and a name change reflecting the residential nature of the district would resolve. The Committee agreed that this would be a good idea and assigned a high priority to it. Jeff Doherty, 3 Angel’s Way, stated he is an owner of an agricultural business in the district, and such uses should continue to be allowed. The Committee agreed, noting that the only change would be to the name. Mike Shepard, Assistant Building Inspector, presented a proposal to change the zoning bylaw so that landscape/tool/storage sheds that are 120 sq. ft. or smaller would have a lesser setback requirement. He stated that at the present time, such structures are required to conform to a setback requirement that is at odds with owner’s desires to locate sheds at the edges of the 3 property. He stated this results in a lot of violations and enforcement actions that could be avoided. He noted that this type of structure does not require a building permit if it does not exceed 200 sq. ft. Mr. Shepard proposed that the rear setback requirement be reduced to 6 ft. in the RA, RB and RLF districts, and to 10 ft. in the A district. He recommended that the side yard setback should be reduced to 6 ft. in the RA, RB and RLF districts, and to 10 ft. in the A district. He noted that the front setback should remain the same. Mr. Peirce stated this is a great idea. Ms. Altamura stated she has concerns about people storing a lot of unsightly material behind the shed close to the property line. It was noted that the Town does not regulate such activity now. Claire Wright stated that the Design Review Board, of which she is a member, reviews site plans and includes signage in its review. She noted that when the building changes hands or businesses change, however, new signs are not reviewed. She stated that the kind of sign can be discordant with other buildings and other signage in town. She recommended that the Design Review zoning bylaw be tweaked to provide the mechanism to review signage changes. Mr. Peirce asked if the sign content changes would be reviewed, or only physical/structural changes. Ms. Wright stated the intent was to only review new signs as a whole – if the entire sign was removed and replaced. Mr. Peirce discussed a sign band concept where there is a review before permits are issued for the sign. Ms. Altamura stated that the Design Review Board process works well and the Town is more attractive because of it. She stated that she supports the proposed change. A question was raised as to whether the recent proliferation of neon and flashing window signs was allowed under the current bylaws. Ms. Lazarus noted that window signs are not regulated in the Town’s Sign bylaw. The Committee discussed whether it should undertake a review to determine whether they should be regulated with respect to the lighting and a maximum percentage of window covered. Ms. O’Leary stated that the residents abutting Legacy Farms construction activity have been burdened by construction noise. She stated that these lessons learned could be incorporated into changes to the Town’s noise bylaw or site plan review. She stated that constant jackhammers, backup alarm beeping, etc. has been difficult. Mr. Peirce stated it might be better to place conditions on a site plan approval via the site plan review bylaw, as it could catch only the larger projects. Mr. Shepard suggested language to the effect that an applicant will utilize all methods practicable to minimize the use of backup alarms. Paul Mastroianni, 9 South Barn Rd., introduced himself and Robb Hewitt, Mill Creek Development. He stated that Mr. Hewitt is an apartment developer who will be working with him on the development and possible zoning changes for 200 acres of land off Lumber St. and West Main St. He stated that the uses under consideration are office, retail, fitness/swimming pool, and luxury apartments. He stated that zoning changes will be needed to accommodate some of these uses. 2. Other Business 4 It was noted that the Committee had planned to meet on November 5, but that the Planning Board scheduled a meeting for the date so it should be rescheduled. The Committee decided to meet on November 19 and November 26. The Committee decided to discuss the following zoning proposals at the next meeting: Mastroianni zoning change; nonconforming structures; solar installations bylaw; drive-up windows SPGA change; scenic roads “major branch” definition; window signs and Design Review Board sign review; and setback reduction for sheds. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of October 1, 2012. Adjourned: 8:50 PM Approved: November 19, 2012 Documents used at the meeting:  Memo dated 10/18/12 to Zoning Advisory Committee from Elaine Lazarus  Meeting agenda  Draft Minutes of 10/1/12 ZAC meeting  “Potential Change to the Zoning By-Law for Consideration by the Zoning Advisory Committee” by Mike Shepard  “Hopkinton Chamber of Commerce” “Hopkinton 2020”, handout relative to Main Street Planning Corridor  Memo dated 10/12/12 to Elaine Lazarus, Ken Weismantel and Planning Board members from Mavis O’Leary, with attachment “OE Parts, LLC Technology news April 2009 Government Edition”  Email dated 10/17/12 from Sue Franke to Elaine Lazarus, re: zoning public forum  Email dated 10/17/12 from Jeanette Thomson to Elaine Lazarus, re: ZAC  “Suggestions for ZAC for 2012/2013” by Ken Weismantel, 10/1/12