Town of Chatham - Planning Board
Zoning Bylaw Draft July 3, 2006
Public Forum 2 – Notes
July 24, 2006
Present: Wayne Jostrand, Chairman, Planning Board; Len Sussman, Vice-Chairman; John Storey, Bill Southwick; Lynne Pleffner; Tommy Doane
Not Present: Skip Kendrick
Also Present: Paul DeCoste, Town Planner, Town of Chatham; John Connery, Connery Associates; and about 50 interested Chatham residents.
At 7 PM Mr. Jostrand welcomed everyone to the second Public Forum being held in the Town Hall conference room. These public forums are being held to facilitate discussion of the July 3, 2006 draft of the proposed protective bylaws. He also welcomed the TV audience viewing the meeting via local access channel 18. He urged both the live audience and the TV audience to provide input by phone calls and e-mail as well as in person.
Prior to tonight’s discussion, Mr. Jostrand reviewed highlights from the first Forum.
1. Residents do not want a neighborhood center in South Chatham – please come forward, if you disagree with this.
2. A lot of discussion about conformance with Comprehensive Long Range Plan (CLRP) - we will try to explain where and why.
3. Build out – consequence of new by-laws on potential population. Mr. Jostrand feels Planning Board (PB) should ask Town Staff to provide data on this.
4. Affordable Housing – ample provisions for affordable housing as opposed to density issues.
5. Document – need to document what’s different and why.
6. Rush to November – we have always said that the most important thing is quality of work –we will not bring to Town Meeting until we are sure we will get a fair hearing.
PB comments included:
1. We will look more closely at the South Chatham issue – don’t know if there is agreement on making all businesses in South Chatham non-conforming. Let’s play this out - what are implications of phasing out business in South Chatham?
2. Build out study contains a lot of information for people looking at it from a lot of different angles – population, wastewater, density – fewer than 6,000 year round people.
3. Can have decreasing population but can have an increase in density.
4. Stearns and Wheeler study is more accurate.
5. Some people who are worried about appearing on TV can provide input other ways.
6. What is out come if we don’t get enough affordable housing? Mr. DeCoste said that it can affect eligibility for funds if Town is not at or attempting to reach goal.
7. Affordable Housing is not just a Chatham issue, it is a Commonwealth issue. There is not enough worker housing.
8. Waste water – we could do what Provincetown did – any lot that is unbuildable today is unbuildable forever.
9. A District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC) would create a moratorium on building in Town.
10. Mr. Connery said that 70% of properties are non-conforming – don’t think you need to shut Town down.
11. Could we have parcel numbers on zoning map?
Mr. Jostrand opened the meeting for public input. He asked that we try to avoid duplication and keep comments brief and specific. He would like to go section by section starting with one and moving forward. Italics below indicate comments made by Planning Board members or Town Staff.
1. Section 2 – 2.A page 2-1 inconsistencies with Section 7 – a number of inconsistencies regarding whether Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) or PB handles special permit. Does ZBA have only Section 2 d or does it have all of Section 2?
2. Examples - page 2-7 E4 and page 3-20 1 if these are correct then Section 7 is wrong.
3. Why are we reviewing these when there are so many errors and why is Town charging for these drafts when they are clearly not ready?
4. We know about these errors; we ask the public for forbearance.
5. Intent was to follow through with charge in the request for proposal. We asked the applicants to put teeth in the Site Plan Review.
6. Met with ZBA – they are concerned with cases in seashore conservancy – we need to look at that.
7. The Town issued errata sheet – issues being presented tonight are not included in them.
8. Section 2 page 2-1 entire important paragraph is eliminated – sets forth critical standard for ZBA to use in making decisions. (Existing code was read into record.) Why was this eliminated?
9. Page 2-1 – Town only has to come close to requirements but not meet them.
10. This draft does not include a number of votes taken by the PB – votes are reflected in the minutes – 1-18-06 and 2-01-06 minutes reflect your votes.
11. Page 2-4 Section 2 D 6 – poorly drafted – totally unclear.
12. Page 2-5 through 2-7 – are all requests for Accessory Uses under the PB? Need to know which Board has authority.
13. Yes, we missed some – Section A 2 remains with the ZBA
14. 2-7 was passed by State legislature that’s why it is that way. Municipal use in not similar to store or apartment – need to go to Town Meeting and get a 2/3 vote.
15. This is not a legal document until it is passed.
16. Re Section 2 page 2-3 2 D 4 and Section 6 – Section 6 says any increase in non-conformity needs variance. Section 4 says special permit protections removed on lots currently buildable in Town only a few buildable lots in Town. (Read from current by-law and cited Orleans case.)
17. Mr. McDonald said that there haven’t been any requests for this in last few years - he was not aware of any left in community.
18. There are more than a couple of lots.
19. We will look into this.
20. Clarification needed – 5 D 4 says lots in existence on January 1, 1987 – also were they served by Town water and sewer? Interpretation is that, in order to be protected, lot has to be served by Town sewer.
21. Section 2 A on page 2-1 – was this supposed to replace 1 C of current zoning by-law.
22. CLRP should have provided you rationale for what is best for Town. CLRP has not provided you with any rationale to change ZBA authority.
23. Proposal requires a lot more discussion and debate.
24. We have no desire to fight the public on this. We just want to explain the charge to Connery Associates and why we are making the proposals.
25. Thank you for the time you have given and your good intentions.
26. Suggestions will be provided in writing with specifics. Debra Ecker distributed Handout 1. This is a memo to the PB dated July 24, 2006. It provides recommended changes to the draft dated July 3, 2006.
27. Discussion of Section 2 and Section 3 regarding South Chatham and the Cornfield and Crowell Road area.
28. Agree with comments re Section 2 D.
29. Section 2 part 3 a – if one adds a dormer to intrude into set back does it require a special permit? This is not a variance in residential – it is a special permit.
30. Must consider privacy and mass as impacting the neighborhood. Provided examples in her neighborhood – distributed Handout 2 showing line of sky plane.
31. Comments on section 2 – undersized lots – multiple permits – better to go before one board not two. Subsection 6 on page 2-4 is more confusing – this does not say it is only for commercial.
32. Building on undersized lots – could build without a special permit if doesn’t encroach in set backs.
33. In Bransford case the Court ruled that a special permit is required. I thought we were doing that; if not, we should be. Follow Bransford case.
34. Definition of non-conforming structure is missing - only non-conforming use definition is provided.
35. Variance language does not limit to commercial.
36. No reason to treat a non-conforming structure any differently than a conforming structure.
37. Suggest a definition of reconstruction.
38. Non-conforming lots and structures – it is a burden to homeowners, if they have to get a variance.
39. Suggest where bylaw says “substantially more detrimental” add “or objectionable”.
40. Page 2-5 #2 a1 wouldn’t it be good to define size of these – need some definitions regarding guest houses, boarding houses.
41. If ZBA approves, can be open for a court suit – could be held up for years.
42. Section 3 subsection N page 3-15 omits where congregate residences are allowed – this should reference Table of Uses – read definition of congregate residences – no limit on number of these in Town – this would allow 40 beds on a one acre lot – major potential for increase in density.
43. Also Section N – Boarding House – gives property owners on sewer an advantage over those not on sewer – Board of Selectmen support a growth neutral policy.
44. Page 3-16 re two family dwellings – does existing zoning have this section? Yes, this section dealt with conversion of a one to two family – maybe Deed restricted to affordable housing.
45. Page 3-20 – home occupation – number of employees or family
46. CLRP unanimously approved – West Chatham is critical of lack of green space, critical of traffic, no sense of place – Rte 28 is more dangerous than any other part of Rte 28 in Chatham.
47. 50% greater footprint in redevelopment.
48. Proposed laws will aggravate traffic. PB has paid little attention to CLRP. PB has paid little attention to West Chatham. No attention to safety or green space.
49. Traffic study – halt erosion of West Chatham’s rural character
50. Proposal is totally unacceptable for West Chatham.
51. We need to address these issues – we are looking for unintended consequences.
52. Maybe some confusion in reading dimensional table – maximum coverage of building is 30%. West Chatham has three lanes of traffic – no change in height requirement – moved setback – 40 feet is maximum so we have parking in rear – no one claims West Chatham is rural – the design is in relation to other neighborhood centers.
53. Affordable Housing - if goal is not reached by 2015 it is legal issue – more units in CLRP goal to reach by 2015.
54. Section 3 – mixed residential goals 7.2 g expand to allow with Deed restrictions.
55. Where did idea come from to put PB out of planning business and into special permits – why take away from ZBA? It was suggested and we tried it – part of linking site plan approval with special permit.
56. I request this board get out of issuing special permits and get back to planning. We are not questioning competency of ZBA.
57. Fail to understand problems regarding future – have had changes of businesses but only one ground up construction in last 25 or 30 years was on corner opposite George Ryder Road. Don’t see growth happening in West Chatham.
58. Unintended consequences – page 3-16 N1d section regarding permit for one year only.
59. Affordable housing – should allow dwellings on the first floor.
60. If, for any reason, the proposed draft by-law is not adopted, will old by-laws stay in effect? Yes.
61. Extensive statement on Section 3. I will stand down tonight if I can start at next meeting.
62. Suggest that this is a document that needs changes and corrections – not a user friendly document – consider reformatting – need to more easily see changes.
Mr. Jostrand thanked everyone for coming. The next forum is on August 7, 2006 at 7 PM in the Town Hall. There is a possibility of a July 31st meeting.
The meeting concluded at 10:03 PM.
Notes prepared by Genie H. Griffin, Secretary
| 
