Mr. DiMaggio called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.

Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance, Section 620. Golf and Sports Complex/Residential Sub-District ("SCR Subdistrict"), related sections and charts which would allow buildings within the SCR subdistrict to have more than four (4) units, but not more than forty (40) units in a building, so long as those building did not exceed fifty five (55) feet in height per the International Building Code and were set back four hundred (400) feet from the property line and/or town roads. These amendments to the zoning would not increase the allowable density and would correct omissions, typographical errors and recodification of the sections if necessary.

The planning board opened the continuation of its public hearing on proposed zoning changes to sections 620, 500:9, 510:1, 530, 600:1, 600:7, 600:8, 600:9.

The revised text to section 620 which was introduced at the previous meeting was submitted with the requested clarification of the text (i.e all changes and cross-outs were removed so that only the actual text was shown). A polling of the board showed that the majority of the board had already read the cleaned text.

Mr D. went through the new text with typographical changes recommended by Steve Keach and himself. Discussion centered around a grammatical change to the density under new section 620:7,a. While rearranging the words to properly define density, the suggestion by two board members and Steve Keach (prior to the meeting by phone) to add the term "Buildable" before "acre" created lengthy discussion. It was determined that the word "Buildable" was purposely omitted in the existing zoning for several reasons and that the original intent was not to subject the RRRCD units to the standard restrictions for clusters under section 600:6,a, (in regards to limitations to what is considered "Buildable" land). It was determined that the reason for the relaxing of the ordinance for units under the RRRCD was due to the facts that there would be waste treatment facilities rather than individual septic, and because it was an incentive to create the elderly housing units for societal benefit. The board unanimously agreed to keep the meaning of the text the same as the existing ordinance by omitting the suggested word "Buildable" from the new arrangement of the text. Thus the new ordinance should read "on the basis of four (4) bedrooms per one acre lot." In place of the existing "on the basis of one (1) acre lot per four bedrooms."All changes were unanimously approved by the board.

A review of the previously approved changes to the text was given by Mr DiMaggio for the benefit of the board and the Public.

The meeting was opened to the public, and Mr. Jim Chisholm requested that the board consider seriously what Mr. Polito had suggested at the last meeting, that a consultant study the impact of such a zoning change before it is put to the voters.

Lengthy discussion followed with the Police Chief and Chuck Early and John expressing some of the opinions of the Police and Fire Chief’s and their joint meeting on the issues of the impact on their Depts. Mr.DiMaggio also expressed his opinion that this change would be a positive financial benefit to the town and to society at large. It was suggested by Mr. DiMaggio that the board consider such consultation and should be investigated in the future towards the end of instituting impact fees.

With no more input from the public, the discussion reverted back to board considerations.

Mr. Fletcher suggested the document be reviewed before the next meeting by Town Counsel, and the board all agreed to send the text immediately to Attorney Kalman.

Mr. Earley, made the motion, seconded by Phil to move the approved changes to section 620, as well as the other sections not discussed this night, forward to the next Public Hearing on Jan. 4^th. The vote was unanimous.

Mr DiMaggio requested a decision from the board as to whether or not the new text and the changes made to the text at the current meeting constituted substantive change. The board unanimously agreed that there was no substantive change, only grammatical and typographical changes.

Mr. Earley made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fletcher that we approve section 620 to be moved forward to the ballot. Discussion ensued, and Mr..DiMaggio strongly advised that since the board had the time legally to have at least one if not two more hearings, that the board ought to take the time to look at it again. After some discussion Mr. Earley withdrew his motion (Mike did not withdraw his second however). In the absence of Mike making a new motion Mr. DiMaggio ended the meeting with full board agreement.

It was noted that Attorney Levine would forward the revised text by e-mail to the clerk to have available for the January 4^th meeting.

Submitted by Paul DiMaggio, Vice Chairman

 

 

 

APPROVED___________________

PB Min pdm fnl12-22.doc