Town of Chatham - Planning Board
Zoning By-Law Rewrite Workshop
Meeting 46
September 20, 2005
Present: Chairman Wayne Jostrand, Len Sussman, John Storey, Bill Southwick, Lynne Pleffner, Skip Kendrick, Tommy Doane
Also Present: Paul DeCoste, Town Planner, Town of Chatham; John Connery, Connery Associates; Ron Bergstrom, Selectman, Town of Chatham; and a number of interested Chatham residents
1. Call to Order – 7 PM – Wayne Jostrand called the meeting to order. He said that the Planning Board (PB) members had been working on the zoning by-law rewrite, with the community, for about 18 months. He feels that the Connery Associates draft of proposed zoning is a good format for proceeding through the discussion. It is a working document. The PB is seeking community input and he asked that judgment on how well it works be reserved until we are further along. Public input has been received from the start of this project and will be encouraged now during this initial draft review. Mr. Connery
will create a final draft based upon PB comments and public input. Then there will be a public hearing for additional input. The format of this document is a change from the previous layout. Using his memo dated 9-19-05 (see Handout 1 attached), Mr. Connery lead a discussion of what differences are found in this draft from the current by-laws. General discussion included:
· One objective is to have freestanding sections.
· General Provisions – the big change is the enumeration of districts – big advantage is that you can change zoning in one district without affecting other areas.
· Basic Requirements for all Districts.
· Use Regulations – set up in same format for each district.
· Dimensional Density and Intensity Regulations.
· Overlay Districts.
· Development regulations
· Administration – basically the same as it is today. Major change is proposing a Zoning Administrator.
· Definitions – every time a term of use is used, it is defined - also defines terminologies.
· Section IV – models to illustrate dimensions will be added shortly.
· Section VI – sign code is added to this section.
· Section VII – new Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Jostrand and all members of the PB agreed that the draft is a significant improvement. It is typical of modern by-laws. Readability is much improved.
Audience comments included:
· Norm Pacun – concerned that definitions are at end of the document. That section may get lost there - currently they are at the beginning.
· Earl Hubbard asked if all parts of old zoning are included. Mr., Connery replied that some items, as discussed previously, have been removed i.e. flexible overlay. Mr. Jostrand said that Mr. Connery will indicate where and what has been removed as he proceeds through discussion section by section.
· Mr. Hubbard asked how he (Mr. Connery) made additions Mr. Connery replied that these are the result of 18 months of work with the PB and the citizens of the town.
· Mr. Hubbard asked Mr. Jostrand if the subcommittee has three members. Mr. Jostrand said yes and explained the goal of the subcommittee. Also Paul DeCoste and Kevin McDonald participate in the subcommittee meetings. Mr. Hubbard asked if public input is received at the subcommittee meetings. Mr. Jostrand said that is decided at each meeting. The meetings are open, posted meetings. E-mail comments can be sent to Mr. DeCoste at any time.
· Peter Farber said he needs to see the differences. The current code is 92 pages in a large font – the proposed is 139 pages in a small font.
· Addressing Mr. Pacun’s comment, Mr. Sussman said that most people expect to see definitions at the end of a document. Mr. Connery said that traditionally definitions are in the front in zoning codes but he feels it can be imposing to have all those pages up front. It is a personal preference – it can be easily switched. The members of the PB agreed that it should be in the back. A requested audience show of hands resulted in only a few hands in favor of putting up front – many audience members did not vote.
· Mr. Sussman asked about sequencing of use regulations for overlay. Mr. Connery said he can move it after dimensions.
· Switch sections IV and V.
· Leave IV as is – change III.
· Mr. Sussman questioned having PB under Development regulations and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) under Administrative. Mr. Connery said that the ZBA function is to interpret by-law. When the PB is doing Site Plan Review, it seeking to determine if applicant meets criteria. The PB concurred that it likes it the way it is.
· Section I – sets overall ground rules. Non-applicable items deleted. Some items covered elsewhere. Direct reference to Town of Chatham - Comprehensive Plan (CP).
· Ms. Pleffner asked about the airport hazard area. Mr. Connery will check on this - it may be a subsection of another district.
· Mr. Kendrick feels that it would be easier reading with bullets rather than all narrative. Five members of the PB concurred.
· Premises – include buildings as well as land? Mr. Connery will add a new definition - use land and premises.
· Mr. Sussman suggested adding verbiage “and are graphically delineated on the zoning map below”. He later withdrew this suggestion.
· Gloria Freeman requested that the PB incorporate the goals of the Land Use section of the CP into the zoning b-law. She read these goals into the record. If these are added, there will be no doubt as to what PB is trying to achieve. Also instead of word “encourage” use “ensure”. Mr. Connery said it is difficult to ensure anything but we can encourage. Mr. Sussman said that lawyers would probably say don’t use word ensure. He feels that it is not necessary to quote from another Town document. Mr. Kendrick said that “ensure” implies no flexibility while “encourage” indicates
flexibility. All PB members want to retain “encourage”.
· Mr. Connery suggested not quoting the CP – it may change over the next few years. Mr. Sussman pointed out that there is a lot of congruency between the documents but not 100% - neighborhoods may have a different idea for themselves than that in the CP.
· It will remain as is with reference to CP date and “as amended”.
· Toddy Everett – say “consistent with goals of CP”.
· Mr. Pacun – 1C language is identical to existing – what is not there is second paragraph of existing – Section 2a2 is different – we need a document that shows strikeouts or sidebars to show changes. Mr. Connery said that can not be done in this document, but he can beef up notes to further explain changes/additions/deletions.
· Mr. Pacun said he also wants to know why changes were made. Mr. Connery said they were made because that is what was agreed upon.
· John Payson said that “ensure” is used in Section 1B. Mr. Connery will change this to “encourage”.
· Peter Farber said he would like the purpose and intent to be shorter. Add “preservation of open space, views and vistas”. This is found in Site Plan Review criteria. General discussion of views and vistas and as of right. Mr. Jostrand will ask Town Counsel regarding as of right.
· Bill Tuxbury – Re height requirement – R20 should have separate height requirement than R40 and R60.
· Use of consider/consistent – PB said consider.
· Use of ensure vs. encourage – PB said encourage.
· Mr. Sussman opened a discussion of the purpose of the subcommittee. Mr. Jostrand said that this needs to be done with the full PB. The subcommittee can talk and give comments and thoughts to the full PB. Mr. Sussman said he thought the subcommittee would do a markup of the proposal – not all PB members have time for this. Two hours twice a month is not enough time. Mr. Kendrick said that after 2 hours we are only on page two. He suggested that the subcommittee review and make recommendations to the full PB. Then the PB can discuss and accept or change and go forward. If we try to get consensus from 10 members of the
audience, then it will require 60 meetings. We can’t get general consensus from audience on every word. Mr. Southwick and Mr. Doane agreed with Mr. Kendrick.
· Mr. Jostrand said that at the next Subcommittee (September 26th at 4 PM in the Annex conference room) they will get specific as to how to proceed. Mr. Sussman feels that at this rate May 2006 Town Meeting is not realistic. All PB members agree that November 2005 is not realistic.
2. Minutes Review – Review of the minutes from August 30, 2005 will be done at another time.
3. New Business – Mr. Sussman has asked to be relieved as representative to the Community Preservation Committee. Ms. Pleffner has offered to do it. All PB members agreed to this.
4. Adjournment – Mr. Kendrick moved to adjourn; Mr. Doane seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 9:25 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Genie H. Griffin, Secretary
| 
