The Planning Board spent most of last Thursday’s session discussing potential zoning articles for annual Town Meeting. There were several. They included: a discussion of accessory structures, a historic preservation overlay, permitting bed & breakfast establishments, home occupation bylaw, and a bylaw allowing construction of assisted living facilities.
Two options for permitting bed & breakfasts were presented. One would require an applicant to get a permit from the Town Clerk’s office; the other would require filing a special permit and appearing before the board. Chair Emily Innes had researched how other towns had implemented zoning regarding the regulation of bed and breakfast establishments. There do not appear to be consistent procedures and regulations. Some towns have bylaws with regard to guest houses. Member Whiteside was not enamored of the idea, voicing the concern that these were commercial enterprises that would sprout up in residential neighborhoods.
Local attorney Ned Corcoran has drafted an article somewhat related to the above and appeared before the board to discuss it. His article would expand the space allowed for home based businesses and not require them to be in the principal dwelling but also in garages , barns or other structures. This would allow more flexibility to home based businesses such as attorneys, accountants, fitness trainers and the like. Mr. Corcoran assured that any such business would be done in a manner that was respectful of the neighborhood. The applicant would require a special permit if the business occupied over 400 square feet. Currently regulations only require a home business to obtain a permit from the Town Clerk’s office. Mr. Corcoran listened to the feedback and will return to resume the discussion at the Planning Board’s next session on the 15th.
Another local attorney, Bob Sheffield, has also drafted an article. This one pertains to development of assisted living facilities on land great er than 3 acres and on state roads. Twice during the discussion he identified Horseplay stables on Randolph Ave. as an “excellent location” for such a facility. The board questioned if the language requiring property to be on a state road was too restrictive. Whiteside mentioned a property across from Milton Hospital and near Winter Valley that might also be a good location and so asked whether language should be modified to include such a parcel. Another concern raised was how someone might be prevented from assembling a series of purchases into a 3 acre lot. They agreed that the property would need to be 3 acres as of an agreed upon date.
Last but not least of the attorneys drafting articles was Alex Whiteside who has drafted an article that would make affordance for historic preservation. His article is targeted at the St. Elizabeth’s property. In short the proposed article would allow for 8 units and require that the current structure on the property be preserved and restored. This is essentially a compromise between what the developer, Corvo Construction has been asking for (12 units) and current zoning for the site allows (6). Preserving the building gives the developer a 2 unit bonus.
There was also discussion of an article regarding accessory structures. At issue is placement of generators and other devices within the setback of a property. There currently is no zoning to regulate these items.
No votes were taken in part due to some confusion regarding the posting of the agenda. It wasn’t available and consequently, Chairman Innes made clear no votes could be taken and all items would be for discussion only.
This issue arose during Citizens Speak. Tow local architects, Cheryl Tougias and Ellen DeNooyer, spoke to the board about their concerns regarding the Hendries development. Tougias expressed concerns over the massing of the building and questioned why there were not scaled drawings that would illustrate how the building would fit relative to the other structures around it. In addition, she questioned the granting of the FAR bonus in light of the fact that the tree had been removed. She also felt more could be done to make the building attractive to retailers. She highlighted the side of the building facing the trolley tracks as being particularly unattractive. “If you don’t consider the needs of the retailers, they may not come.”
Ms. DeNooyer echoed Ms. Tougias’ remarks and added some sharper criticism saying that the developer had not been a good neighbor. Sidewalks for example had not been cleared of snow properly and that the general condition of the existing building was unacceptable. DeNooyer felt hte developer’s neglect of the building demonstrated a lack of respect toward the neighborhood and the town.
It was after Ms. DeNooyer’s comments that Chairman Innes emphasized the need for the public to come forward and state their concerns during Citizens Speak. At that point DeNooyer pointed out that agenda had not been posted. It was unclear where in the clerical chain the agenda got lost; but a committment was made to ensure agenda was posted in a timely manner going forward.