Smart Growth Committee
Meeting – September 24, 2009
In attendance:
Therese Gould, chair;
Mark Amado, Larry Gould, Eve Kummel, Howard Levin, committee members;
Rebecca Utenis-Borders
Meeting started with a review of the minutes from the last meeting, which was held on Sept. 3rd. Mark asked for a correction to paragraph 2 to make it clear that our committee is requesting an operating budget to insure that all of our suggestions are within the laws of the Commonwealth and worded properly. Howard said he bring the idea to the next Selectman’s meeting.
Howard did say that he had been at the last Selectman’s meeting regarding hiring of Ed P, the attorney. At the meeting, Ed asked if there would be a conflict of interest, since Ed sits on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Andy Pyenson suggested that there are ways to do this, as we could hire Ed as a special employee and everyone concurred. We still have to determine the number of hours and the money involved to see if it makes sense. Also, it has been determined that there doesn’t have to be a bid for the job. Ed’s regular hourly rate is $250.00.
Mark suggested that we size the agenda down and prioritize what we want Ed to look at.
Howard suggested that issues have to be repaired as there are conflicts in it with regard to zoning and planning, especially regarding multi-unit issues and oversight.
Terry reminds the committee that we have to work from the existing by-laws and that she isn’t sure about the last paragraph having to do with more than one principle building or lot.
Howard suggested that we put together a list for the zoning board – issues that have to be addressed and ask if there are others….
The example was given regarding the Norton Rd extension/development project. Larry states that he received a call from the Realtor who questioned the intent of the by-law.
(Within 25 acre development, 5 town homes with buffer.) They went before the planning board about the intent of the by-law. Planning chose not to act on the “intent” stating that there was a mistake in the by law which needed to be addressed.
(Another example is the Marina – broke it down into individual lots which is how it got passed. Norton Rd – may be held up in Conservation ?
Terry – Letter to Planning 4.1.1. dimensional requirement change from 1 acre to 2 and 150 ft road frontage to 250’. Suggests we present this in person with information as to how other towns have dealt with these problems
Howard agreed and added that we need to know what other towns have done. Part of the issue with the board, he added is that we have rational positions to present for increasing the footprint of build-able individual lots.
Terry agreed that we have to gather all the information and re-visit all of the issues.
Howard suggested that we go to Ann with a 2 week window and get on the docket. Post public notices so there is transparency. 3 issues to be discussed: rezoning acreage and lots lines & mixed use issues.
The Committee agreed with the above approach and with making a black and white presentation.
Howard says that we have to keep the goal in mind – to come up with a way to have some discretion with future development, even if a property meets the set back requirements and can fill out a form A, we should be asking, “Does it fit?” We should make a pitch for joint meetings if we know there’s a conflict with Conservation and Planning Boards. Howard suggested that we give Planning more of an opportunity to delve into the gray areas and beyond the black and white and look into the driveway
specs and turnarounds, etc.
To that end, Larry suggested a formation of a technical review committee to give a final yeah or nay. The problem faced by the committee members is setting criteria for when the issues present themselves. What is the criteria? – if an application needs approval from more than one committee, it should trigger a preliminary investigation and a review by all board members to hear the issues, including but not limited to the Board of Health, Planning and ZBA.
Rebecca asked about a Master Plan…a way to look at the future to see if we are on course…
Howard thinks the town should be mapped – where we will permit this growth within the residential district, where cluster housing and businesses should be located. The problem, Howard added are that some of the people on the Planning Board are also developers by profession.
Someone suggested that we have a meet the candidates’ night so the voting public can meet the people running for these town offices.
Sept. 27th – Balloon test
Oct 27th – next All Board’s Meeting
Oct 29th – next Smart Growth Meeting
Meeting adjourned around 9PM
| 
