Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Live reporting: Public Hearing - Site Plan and Design Review
D. CITIZEN COMMENTS
F. HEARINGS – 7:10 PM
1. Zoning Bylaw Amendment 12-695:Changes to § 185-31. Site Plan and Design Review
2. Zoning Bylaw Amendment 12-696:Changes to § 185-20. H. Signs. Sign Approvals
3. Zoning Bylaw Amendment 12-697:Changes to § 185-45. N. Administration and Enforcement. Design Review Commission
Overview from Jeff Nutting
how do we make this process simpler? If an existing space and not changing much, how do we make it easier; no site plan or limited site plan. We think it is a fair proposal to streamline the process. Currently all have to go through the full process. If there are tweaks required, we can do so between the 1st and 2nd reading.
Bryan Taberner, Director Planning and Community Development
Beth Dahstrom, Town Planner
Gus Brown, Building Inspector
Currently only one process in place, the Planning Board is stuck forcing all proposals to follow the same way.
12-695 a complete re-write of the site plan and design review bylaw
12-696 removes sign sections from this and puts them into one place as opposed to across documents
12-697 administration and enforcement information on the Design Review Commission
Economic Development committee has recommended this as well as the Planning Board
I also recommend looking at the comparison chart
Pfeffer - this makes no sense to me, hasn't from the beginning, doesn't now
Roy - why 500 sq ft the rule for exemption, just curious for the amount to make this the exemption
Taberner - we did struggle with this figure, we needed a simple number to go with a relatively small change. It is up for discussion on what is appropriate.
Nutting - for every 1,000 sq ft, you need a parking space; this is less so to make the smaller change easier; it may not be a magic number but that is how we did it.
Bissanti - I'd like to speak to my concerns on a broader manner, if there is not a site plan on a property regardless of size needs a full blown plan. If there is not one already, Even a small developer can not be put through the full plan. There is discretion now, a limited site plan is a misnomer.
Taberner - as it is today, if there is no site plan on the property, and want to make a change small or large, wording is so specific. We can leave it the way it is, we need to make it fair to each developer coming in. Silly things could happen, not that they do, they could. It is a mess, not only at a Planning Board meeting, maybe this or maybe that is not the way to deal with an applicant. Reality is it needs to be fixed. It is hard on the planning board, developer, and staff.
Nutting - we made a proposal, if we have to tweak it, we can.
Dahlstrom - Did you have a chance to read the scenarios? i hope you did. Each scenario has occurred in the office. We can not answer the question on whether it is limited or full, there is no way to say.
Vallee - the majority of the Council have an issue with the bylaw. I wan to appoint a subcommittee of three to meet and review this before it comes back to us.