The planning commission proposed that provision to bring that district into alignment with other districts in the town, after presenting the proposal to the 12 affected property owners via a personal letters and three public hearings.
AN HOUR
The board, at this week's January 26 meeting, spent over an hour discussing whether the provision should or should not be included, given the fact that the town does not have municipal sewage.
"Don't you think this puts a burden on the guy who wants to add on to his building and has to add residential?" asked board member Paul Hartshorn.
Planning commission chair Steve Shea explained that the provision was proposed due to concerns from village residents about keeping a strong residential component within Waitsfield Village and to make the district consistent with other districts in the town where new construction must have a second story. The provision, which the board rejected, would have required that (for the 12 affected parcels) any addition over 1,500 square feet would require a 35 percent residential component.
PROPERTY OWNERS
"Do you think the fact that no property owners have come forward to complain means they are okay with it?" asked board member Bill Parker.
"We think it is good for the town to increase the number of residential units, but we also know that that requires infrastructure," Shea said.
Hartshorn suggested that the board remove the provision until the town has municipal septic. Waitsfield voters, after three votes, approved a municipal water project in November. Last March, voters turned down a municipal septic project.
"I disagree on removing this provision. We went out of our way to contact each of those 12 property owners and those 12 owners are not asking to have this removed," said planning commissioner Robin Morris.
AN APOLOGY
"I think we, the select board, owe you, the planning commission, an apology because we did not bring this up earlier when we discussed the proposed zoning," select board member Kate Williams said, and town administrator Valerie Capels pointed out that when the specific provision was discussed in December, the board opted to leave that provision in.
"This provision is for new construction. My concern is that without wastewater, it backfires," said board member Roy Hadden.
"We're planning for 20 years from now. For the long term, this is the right regulation for the village," Morris said.
"This categorical mandate is sort of harsh," said board chair Charlie Hosford.
SOONER VERSUS LATER
"A lot of time and effort went into these regulations and I think they are helpful to the town. We'd like to get them adopted sooner versus later. If you don't feel that residential element is appropriate, remove it and let's get the rest of the regulations moved forwards as fast as possible," Shea said.
Hartshorn made a motion to remove that provision, which Parker seconded. Hartshorn voted in favor, along with Hadden and Hosford. Parker voted no and Williams abstained.
A PETITION
Later in the meeting, the board took up the issue of a petition submitted by town resident and planning commissioner Brian Fleisher calling for the board to include a Town Meeting agenda item requesting that the board direct the planning commission to consider green enterprise zones.
The petition had 51 legitimate signatures but needed 70 to be considered. It also lacked a specific actionable request, according to the town's attorney Paul Guiliani. Nonetheless, the board discussed the request with Fleisher this week as Fleisher explained his idea was to get a discussion going about the town's limited business/commercial lodging district and creating "green enterprise zones" in that district that allow certain businesses (American Flatbread and Yestermorrrow) to grow.
"You can call it spot zoning, but that's not a four-letter word for me. These would be controlled zones, green zones. A lot of people are supportive of the idea. I'd like to get a discussion going so that things like Flatbread and Yestermorrow could grow without having to do a whole district zoning rewrite, and things like the Bundy, Kenyon's and Small Dog," Fleisher explained.
APPROPRIATE FORUM
Board members questioned whether Town Meeting was the appropriate forum for the discussion and also suggested that the topic should come from the town planning commission and select board.
"I'm a little surprised that you, a member of the planning commission, and without the commission's involvement, would bring this forward. Why take this to Town Meeting if the planning commission doesn't support it or have a voice?" asked Hosford.
"I agree that Town Meeting is not the place for this discussion. And my first response is that this is spot zoning. Why even have zoning at all if that's the case? Why not let companies come and do their thing? Why not just throw out zoning altogether?" asked Hadden.
RESPECTING THE PC
"It feels uncomfortable as a member of the select board to move this forward if the planning commission is not on board. I feel uncomfortable and as if that is not respecting the planning commission. There may be an opportunity, as the planning commission works on revising the Town Plan, to review this and discuss it and maybe there is the way to get this conversation happening in a way that is appropriate," said Williams.
Fleisher reiterated his desire to get the conversation started and said he wanted to work outside of the conventional model of the planning commission proposing and writing zoning (which is passed by the select board). He said he didn't just want to "think outside the box, but I want to smash the box."
Hartshorn said there was nothing to prevent Fleisher from bringing the idea up under "Other Business" at Town Meeting.
MAKE ZONING GO AWAY
"I could present an advisory thing asking if the town wants to consider asking the planning commission to consider taking this up. I don't have the concept. I'm purposely leaving it kind of open-ended. I have certain parameters, such that it be green oriented, that it's directed towards supporting and advancing existing businesses with the possibility of future businesses being allowed as Planned Unit Developments and as mixed uses; and the town would be able to vote on each one. It would not be creating a zone, or spot zoning. The townspeople would vote on each project individually," he explained.
"So zoning would pretty much be out the window?" asked Hosford.
"The property owners would describe and have certain guidelines and the town would then get to vote to approve it and that would give the town control, not the boards, of saying, 'Yes, we want that here, or no we don't.' If that business changed substantially, the town would have to revote a new permit for the next business to operate in that space," Fleisher continued.
"It does kind of make zoning go away," Hadden commented.
"This seems subjective to me," he added and Fleisher concurred that that was a problem, in terms of "conventional law."
{loadnavigation}
