The Meeting was held in the Town Hall Dining Room on Nov. 20, 2008. On the table as one entered the hall were cookies and other goodies provided by Jan Conover, cider, a sign up sheet, and handouts for each attendee which included the Agenda, a condensed copy of the Zoning Bylaws with all changes, and a copy of the Power Point Presentation.
Present were Ted Cady, Kimberly Noake-MacPhee, Jan Conover, John Williamson, Brad Compton, Chris Duerring, Nick Arguimbau, Bob Rivers, Jaylin Dibble, Mandy Hampp, Beth Anderson, Ann Kendall, Arthur Long, Alan Morgan, Keith Ross, Dan Dibble, David Young, Miryam Williamson. Due to the snow storm and icy roads Peggy Sloan and Elan Sicroff were not able to attend.
The Welcome and Introductions were given by Ted Cady, substituting for Elan Sicroff who was not able to make it, at 7:10 PM
The Overview of the Proposed Zoning Revisions, Including Accessory Apartments was given by Brad Compton.
The Power Point Presentation for Conservation Development with Site Plan Review was given by Ted Cady and Kimberly MacPhee.
Some questions came up during the Power Point Presentation, some during the Question and Answer Session that followed, and some by phone from people who did not attend because of the storm or Thanksgiving commitments. (Note: considerable editorial freedom has been exercised. In many cases the questions and answers referred generally to the text and I have taken the liberty to state the exact section. In those cases where I gave and incorrect or incomplete answer the corrected or additional appropriate material has been added. tc)
Section Two:C.5 Shouldn't the impervious area be 20% or 10,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater less?
Q. Have you changed the road width requirements?
Cady: They are the same as Subdivision Regulations, which requires 20 ft paved width for minor road and 24 foot paved width for major roads, with ROW of 55 ft and 60 ft., respectively.
Q. Have you considered requiring underground utilities?
Cady: (Cady answered the question incorrectly by stating that underground utilities were not required. This was incorrect and what should have been said follows.) The issue of Utilities is addressed in the Subdivision Regulations Section 6-11, which requires underground utilities unless such installation is impractical or not in the town's best interest.
Q. Do you get bonus points for being adjacent to several thousand acres of state forest?
Cady: No, but if you took the conservation land that you are setting aside and set it up against the state land where the state might want to put a trail on it , we'll give you bonus points for that. If you are using the land in a good way in addition to setting it aside, we'll give you bonus points.
Q. You have a 35% set aside and a road set aside; can septic systems be in the conserved area?
Cady: You can have a well's protected zone and you can have a septic system leach field in the conserved area, but you can not have buildings or roads.
A number of questions and comments came up about the negative bonus points and a discussion followed. There seemed to be agreement that the sentences mentioning negative bonus points be deleted from Sections 6.G.6, 8, 9, and 10; further, that Sections 6.G.9 and 6.G.10 be combined. There were comments that the negative bonus points of Section 6.H.11 and 12 be eliminated because it was difficult to clearly define what "harmony" meant and without clear criteria there was significant possibility of misunderstandings between the developer and the Planning Board.
It was commented that in Section 10.J.1 the statement, "including Section One. A. paragraphs 4,5,6, or 7," be deleted as vague and frightening to a developer. These criteria might be difficult to comply with and open the door to legal challenges.
Q. Is low impact development required?
Cady: Yes and No. Our current Subdivision Regulations require sidewalks, street lights and curbs while the new ones encourage not having these unless they are needed in the opinion of the Planning Board. When a curb is required the new Subdivision Regulations call for a "Cape Cod Berm" that is low impact. The emphasis has shifted towards low impact, but it is not required.
It was commented that in the condensed handout of the Zoning Bylaws Section Four. C. Lot Frontage and Access, and Section Four: D Setback Requirements were listed as being skipped over because there were no changes, but there were frontage and setback changes made in Section 6 and these should be referenced or included.
It was pointed out that Section 2.C.9, as supported by the Definition of Accessory Apartment in Section 11, requires 4 acres, while Section 3.B.3 allows the conversion of a dwelling built before May 22, 2006 into two dwelling units without requiring additional acreage provided the footprint of the building remains the same.
Cady: Well, back to drawing board.
It was commented that this bylaw "absolutely prohibits the creation of a New England Village," and that anything we can do that would create low impact development in the village would be a positive thing.
It was commented that Section 2.B.7. requires a special permit for lumbering or sawmilling operations exceeding one year on a site, but the state allows 2 years when it grants a harvesting permit. A discussion followed of what the word "lumbering" meant and the intention of this provision of the bylaw.
Cady: We'll take that under consideration.
Comment: How do you appeal Site Plan Review? Nobody knows. Why do we need Site Plan Review when you can get a special permit? This is something the Planning Board can use to link to other activities; it adds cost, and gives the planning board more tools to spread out and have input on people's activities.
Q. As you look into the clustering of several homes in a small area are you thinking of fire protection?
Cady: In our new Subdivision Regulations Section 6-12, which applies to this as well, we have significantly beefed up fire protection requirements. A subdivision of 10 units or more must meet ISO Rural Fire Flow Requirements.
Cady asks: In the Condensed Version of the Proposed Warwick Zoning Bylaw Changes that you have been working from tonight we included large sections with no changes such as the Purpose Section and the entire Section on Special Permits because we thought you might like to see it the whole thing. For Town Meeting do you think we should take out what is not absolutely needed or should we present it as it was presented to you tonight.
One respondent said, "I think it is nice to have the whole thing." A brief discussion followed. The consensus seems to be to keep it as it is.
(Special thanks to Miryam Williamson who logged many of the questions and answers, however I am responsible for the quality and accuracy of the edited questions and answers. This write-up of the questions and answers were, hopefully, presented in a way to provide an agenda for the next Zoning Task Force Meeting while not losing sight of the questioners' intent. tc)
The Wrap up, Next Steps and Thank You were given by Ted Cady.
Cady announced that a Zoning Task Force Meeting will be scheduled to consider the questions that came up tonight.
The Public Hearing for these Zoning Changes is scheduled for January 16.
The Public Information Session was adjourned at 8:35 PM