Written comments after Public Hearing
Jay,
As promised, please find my comments on the proposed new zoning bylaw
below. Comments are identified by section number. Some of these comments
were made at the meeting and I want to reiterate those.
2: The maximum slope should be 15%. Further, the usable land should be
contiguous.
4: the limited time guest visitation rights should be limited to '60 days
per year' to make it clear what the restriction is. Without this
clarification, the clause might be read as '60 consecutive days per related
minor child'.
6(b): The maximum number of dwelling units in an SRC should be based on the
number of buildable lots under a conventional subdivision, with each lot
satisfying all relevant regulations. In particular, the number of dwelling
units should be 110% of the number of buildable lots. i.e. give the builder
a 10% bonus (this is also George Harrington's suggestion). In no case shall
the density exceed 3 units per usable acre.
6(f): Change the perimeter buffer as follows: rather than the 20 foot
buffer, have ' 20% of the tract area shall be reserved as a perimeter buffer
of substantially equal width between a SRC tract and abutting properties.
This buffer is required around the entire perimeter, and the width at any
point shall not be less than 75% of the average width.' This works out to
the same 20ft for a 5 acre square lot, and rises to 50ft for a square 25
acre lot. This way the perimeter buffer scales nicely with the tract size.
6(n): I am very disturbed by this provision. I would like to see it removed.
If this is not possible, then change the text to say that the Planning Board
can modify any dimensional requirements by no more than 15% either up or
down. This gives us some protection against future planning boards not being
as strict as the current board.
7:Replace the last sentence by text such as: All external lighting using
lamps of 2000 lumens or more shall use fully shielded fixtures. All external
lighting using lamps of less than 2000 lumens shall be restricted to no more
than 2000 lumens per acre. These limits do not cover seasonal decorations.
For more information about good lighting, see:
http://www.nofs.navy.mil/about_NOFS/staff/cbl/LC_Handbook_v11.html
12(a)(1): This clause seems weak to me. Replace the second sentence with: No
development, including clearing, primary or accessory structures, parking,
wastewater disposal or stormwater management, shall take place within the
100-foot buffer area of any jurisdictional wetland, unless authorized by the
Conservation Commission. Upon approval of the Conservation Commission, the
buffer area may be reconfigured to provide better protection of resources on
the site if such reconfiguration achieves a similar goal of resource
protection; however, in no event shall the total area of the 100-foot buffer
be reduced without compensation in an equal amount elsewhere on the site.
The open space areas shall be selected to maximize the value of wildlife
habitat, shall be contiguous to the extent required to preserve significant
habitat, and shall be configured to minimize the perimeter to surface area
ratio in order to preserve large blocks of undisturbed land. The open space
shall be left in an undisturbed, natural state. Landscape plantings shall
not be permitted, except in areas where revegetation may be necessary to
increase buffering, as determined by the Planning Board. If revegetation of
any area is within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, the
Commission shall determine the type and extent of plantings, to be
compatible with the values and functions of the wetland and upland resources
of the site.
12(b): delete paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
17: I note that the Planning Board stated that a super-majority was needed
to grant a special permit. However this is not part of this bylaw. It is
unclear (to me) whether that clause got dropped out, or whether there is
some overriding bylaw that only permits a super-majority to grant a Special
Permit. I strongly support the requirement for a super-majority. I would
like to see this requirement incorporated in this bylaw either directly or
by explicit reference.
I would like to add another clause: 'the site of the proposed SRC has not
been recently altered in a way to materially affect its treatment under this
bylaw'. This protects the environment from unscrupulous developers (and even
scrupulous developers who threaten this) who level the ground *before*
applying for a permit, and then claim that the entire lot is usable.
17(e): and the phrase 'water drainage, water provision,' to the list of
factors to be considered. This ensures that the planning board must find
that (in areas of town without public water), that the wells/septic systems
of the proposed SRC will not be detrimental to the neighboring properties.
As I'm sure that you recall from last night, this was one of the principal
concerns of the community that attended the public hearing.
18. Replace with:
a) In order to implement a Special Permit for a SRC and to assure compliance
therewith, the Planning Board shall in the Special Permit set forth
requirements and conditions that before a building permit is issued for any
buildings in any stage or phase of the SRC
(i) the applicant shall have submitted to the Planning Board detailed plans
showing the locations, designs and layouts of such buildings and all
driveways and accessory structures included in such stage or phase,
(ii) the applicant shall have provided security by covenant, bond or other
means satisfactory to the Planning Board securing the construction and
installation of driveways, utilities, drainage and related services in such
phase, and
(iii) the Planning Board shall have determined that the detailed plans are
in substantial conformity with the conceptual plans approved in the Special
Permit.
b) The Planning Board shall have so notified the Building Inspector of its
review and approval of each phase.
c) The Planning Board may in a Special Permit for a SRC set forth further
requirements and conditions as the Board shall deem appropriate to
accomplish the purposes of this Bylaw, including requirements of recording
of plans and documents and report thereof to the Board.
I note that there is no section on Enforcement. I propose adopting the
sudbury text:
xx. Enforcement
In accordance with the provisions of the General Laws, the Town may enforce
the conditions and safeguards imposed on the exercise of special permits
under this Section in equity or at law and to recover from the applicant,
his successor or approved assignee(s) all moneys that may be required to
complete the development plan approved.
a) The penalty provisions of these bylaws may be imposed upon the applicant,
his general agent, tenant(s), architect(s) contractor(s), or any and all
persons having an interest in the development site, including a mechanics
lien, mortgage or attachments.
b) All provisions of the development plan approved shall run in favor of the
residents thereof but only to the extent expressly provided in the plan and
in accordance with the terms of the plan, and to that extent such
provisions, whether recorded by plan, easement, covenant, or otherwise, may
be enforced at law or in equity by said residents acting individually,
jointly or through their organization.
c) In the event of a violation of law, an unauthorized sale or lease of the
approved development site or any dwelling unit therein, development that
deviates from the development plan approved, any use of the property that is
not permitted in the development site, the failure to maintain residential
land or if the applicant shall otherwise fail or neglect to comply with the
conditions and safeguards imposed on the exercise of the special permit, the
Building Inspector or Zoning Enforcement Officer may deliver a stop order to
the applicant or his agent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and
by posting the same in a conspicuous location in said site. The order shall
describe the nature of the violation, and the date on which said order shall
expire, which date shall not be less than six days later than the date of
the stop order. Failure of the Town to deliver a stop order for any reason
shall not prevent the Town from pursuing any other legal remedy permitted
under law. Any person who shall violate the provisions of a stop order shall
be deemed in violation of the zoning bylaw.
I note that the planning board stated (last night) that an SRC would have
private trash pickup. However, I couldn't find this clause in the proposed
bylaw. I may have missed it and/or it may be a consequence of some other
rule. If the clause has dropped out, then either the planning board should
stop using it as an argument, or it should be reinserted into the proposed
bylaw. I have no strong feelings one way or the other.
I do not have a very strong position on the issue of whether the perimeter
buffer should be allowed to be included in the common open space or not. My
feeling is that the common open space is intended for different purposes
than the perimeter buffer. Hence my feeling is that there should be a clause
'12(a)(3) The Common Open Space area shall not include space reserved for
the perimeter buffer as defined in 6(f) above.'
I hope that for the town meeting presentation, the plot that is chosen for
analysis would be one where the developer would choose an SRC development as
more profitable than a conventional subdivision or cluster. I heard from the
Selectman's meeting last night that 40(b) development may become more
difficult as it appears likely that Framingham will certify with the State
that we exeed the 10% affordable housing requirement. This should reduce the
profitability of 40(b) development and make SRC/ANR/subdivision/cluster more
likely.
With the current state of the bylaw -- i.e. 2 units per acre, it is unclear
why in R-3 a developer would choose to do an SRC rather than a subdivision.
The SRC units will sell for less than the so-called 'trophy homes' that are
currently being built. I realise that the subdivision process is long and
complex, and it may be that a developer would chose to take an SRC route
purely because it is quicker and more certain. Though, if this were the
case, you would expect that the current OSRD (cluster) bylaw would have had
some takers by now.
Thanks for reading this (rather long) message. I hope that you will consider
these points in the calm light of day -- rather than the heated atmosphere
that was the public hearing last night!
Peg & Philip Gladstone
48 Nixon Rd