7:00 PM Continuation of Public Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
. Article A-Site Plan Review Clean Up
. Article C-Clarify Definition of Structure
. Article D-Amend Section I-C (Enforcement)
. Article H-Amend Section III-H (Non-Conforming Uses)
9:00 PM 87 Leavitt Street
Preliminary Discussion of Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision
9:30 PM Request for Bond Reduction, Baker Hill Subdivision-cancelled
Old/New Business
Comments on Modification to Linden Ponds Development
Central Meeting Room South
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey, Judy Sneath and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7:14 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
The Board was joined by several members of the Zoning Permit Study Committee including Victor Baltera, Mary Powers and Bill Ramsey, as well as Jerry Seelen, who is the liaison from the Advisory Committee for zoning articles.
RE: Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-Law
Ms. Murphy reviewed all of the articles, and then the group proceeded to discuss each article in more detail.
Article A Special Permit and Site Plan Review Clean Up
Ms. Murphy explained that this article includes various changes to sections I-G, (Special Permits with Site Plan Review) and I-I (Site Plan Review) of the Zoning By-Law, with the goal of clarifying the process for Site Plan Review, and to better coordinate it into the Special Permit A2 process. This proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law would also modify Section I-J (Special Permits A3) to allow for the appointment of an associate planning board member to act on Special Permit A3 applications if necessary.
Ms. Murphy went over each of the proposed changes proposed in the article.
Article C Clarify Definition of Structure
This article would clarify the definition of the word "structure" in Section VI of the Zoning By-Law (Definitions) to include mechanical equipment which services a building or structure, with the intent of ensuring that such equipment comply with all setback requirements.
Paul Healey asked if there was a serious problem with mechanical devices being located outside of residential setbacks.
Mary Power and Susan Murphy explained that this article had come about in response to actual situations in which a property owner had placed air handling and pool filter equipment right on the property line with their neighbor, much closer, in fact to the neighbor's house than their own. Other examples included neighbors placing air conditioning generators on the side of their house, but in plain view from a neighbor's deck or patio. In all of these cases, both the noise and the unattractive appearance of the structures were of concern to the abutting property owners.
Victor Baltera pointed out that, according to his reading of the by-law, mechanical devices should already be required to comply with setbacks. This article is simply intended to clarify this interpretation to provide more guidance for the Building Commissioner.
From the audience, John Riley, noted that this change could present a hardship for older properties on smaller lots. He also pointed out that by placing mechanical devices too close to a building it can create a "sound boarding" effect, which makes it even louder.
Jerry Seelen wanted to know the full extent of this problem. He also expressed concern that this would cause undue hardship to owners of smaller properties.
Sarah Corey pointed out that central air conditioning is increasingly popular, and she feels that this problem will only increase in the future. Gary Tondorf-Dick concurred that this is a pro-active move that may prevent problems in the future. He noted that it is frequently the lots housing new, larger "Mc Mansions" that have such mechanical devices.
Susan Murphy asked Mary Powers to consult with Dick Morgan to find out the extent of the problem, and how it is currently handled.
Article D Amend Section I-C (Enforcement)
This article would amend Section I-C (Enforcement) to provide for a non-criminal process for the enforcement of all Zoning By-Laws. Ms. Murphy explained that currently the By-Law allows for a civil process for enforcement of the sign by-law, but would require a criminal process for enforcement of other aspects of the By-Law.
Paul Healey asked whether enforcement was a problem. Zoning Permit Study committee members said that currently it was almost impossible for the Building Commissioner to enforce compliance because it was currently a criminal procedure and the current clerk at the Plymouth District Court was very uncooperative. Consequently, the reality was that the Town's ability to enforce zoning was actually quite limited. While in most cases the threat of "enforcement" addressed the problem, there are certain individuals who are aware that there will be no consequences if they do not comply. They noted that it would be good if the Town had a civil mechanism like a parking ticket for enforcement. Bill Ramsey stated that this was the case in other municipalities where he had worked.
Ms. Murphy asked Mr. Ramsey to look into the differences between statutorily permitted civil vs. criminal procedures for zoning enforcement. She asked Ms. Lacy to consult with Towns that use a civil procedure to find out how it is done.
Article H Amend Section III-H (Nonconforming Uses)
This article will modify Section III-H (6), which addresses non-conforming uses, by requiring a Special Permit A1 determination from the Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Section 6, that "the alteration of, addition to, extension of, or structural change to an existing non-conforming single or two-family residence or structure which increases the non-conformity of the building or structure" is not "substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood."
Ms. Murphy explained that the goal of the modification would be to provide for a public process whereby abutters could review and weigh in on proposed extensions of non-conforming uses. Currently, extension of non-conforming uses is permitted by-right.
Mary Power said that she had reviewed the records in the building department, and found that there were approximately 30-40 projects a year built though this provision. She said that the projects ranged from small additions to complete reconstruction of a house.
Victor Baltera said that he had reviewed some other Town's zoning By-laws, and found that 5-6 out of 25 also allowed some sort of increase in non-conforming use by-right, but the majority required a Special Permit.
John Riley pointed out that this was more a problem in sewered areas, where an increase in the number of bedrooms was not restricted by septic capacity.
Mr. Tondorf-Dick asked whether this might be better handled through a lot area requirement in conjunction with a floor area ratio requirement to positively manage the maximum size and density of the proposed application within the zoning requirements of the abutting properties for residential districts.
Ms. Murphy noted that this article had the potential to be very controversial, and she wanted to get more input from the public. She asked the Board if they would be willing to reconsider this on the 12th of February, and asked Ms. Lacy to see if the Journal would include an article about the subject prior to the hearing.
RE: 87 Leavitt Street - Preliminary Discussion of Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision
The owners of the property at 87 Leavitt Street, Carlene and Evan Pennell, showed the Board two alternative plans for dividing their approximately 3.5 acre property on Leavitt Street. Both plans involved the creation of a new subdivision roadway coming into the property from Leavitt Street in order to create sufficient frontage for the lots.
Board member reviewed the two plans. Both plans resulted in lots that, while oddly shaped, did meet the lot shape requirements. The Board also concluded that in order to create two buildable lots the existing house, which is located in close proximity to Leavitt Street, the existing house would have to be demolished.
The applicants asked whether it was possible that the Planning Board would waive some of the requirements for the roadway if they could show that they actually could build it in accordance with the Planning Board Rules and Regulations. Board members responded that this has happened, but that it is determined on a case by case basis. They noted that, no matter what happened, the Fire Department would require the applicant to create some sort of hammerhead in which a fire engine could turn around.
Board members recommended that Ms. Pennell review the files at the Planning Board to look at similar projects and review what waivers were granted and what was involved.
RE: Old/New Business
Linden Ponds Proposed Modification to 40 B Permit
The Board discussed this proposal briefly and determined that they would not make a recommendation on this proposal.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner