|
MARSHFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
Approved Minutes of April 6, 2006
Board Members present: James Arisman, Tom Daley, Jon
Groveman, Martin Johnson, and Gary Wilson. Also
attending: Zoning Administrator Bob Light, Jenny
Warshow, Jake Marsh, Rich Phillips, John Johnson, and
Parker Nichols.
At 7:05 the Board heard from
Jenny Warshow,
who had submitted a letter requesting that the DRB issue
a “Declaratory Order” that all residential lots newly
created by subdivision be subject to the road frontage
requirements provided in the Zoning Regulations. Her
concern is that Section 302 of the Regulations might be
read to allow a 50 foot Right-of-Way in lieu of the
required frontage for new lots, and she did not believe
this was the intention of the regulations.
Bob Light, who as Zoning Administrator is a
member of the Planning Commission, reported that the PC
is taking up the question of whether Section 302 should
be clarified, particularly in light of a discussion on
this question that took place at the recent joint
meeting of the PC and the DRB. Regarding the Order that
Jenny was requesting of the DRB, the Board is of the
opinion that they have no authority to issue such an
Order in the absence of a Public Hearing on a permit
application or appeal, and that — in any case — such an
Order would not be binding on any future Decisions of
the DRB. The way to clarify this regulation is by
re-writing it and approving the revisions, and that is a
matter for the PC and the voters of Marshfield.
At 7:35 Jake
Marsh
described for the Board an antenna installation that
Cloud
Alliance
would seek to make on the property of
Steve Newton
on Hollister Hill Rd. This would be a repeater antenna
for the provision of wireless broadband internet service
to the surrounding community. It would be installed on
an existing agricultural silo, and extend to a total
height of about 78 feet. Jake wanted to speak with the
Board prior to submitting their application(s) to get a
sense of what regulatory issues would apply to a project
like this in Marshfield.
Some discussion followed about whether this
sort of equipment installation would fall under the
Town’s Wireless Telecommunications bylaw. Both Jake and
Bob expressed their understanding that it would not,
because the type of broadcasting involved with this
service was not regulated by the FCC. Bob and Jon
emphasized that the proper application procedure would
be for Cloud Alliance to submit a Zoning Permit
application to Bob, who would then refer the matter to
the DRB for Site Plan and/or Conditional Use approval.
Bob advised that, in this case, he may also deny the
application for reasons of height, in which case the
applicants may also wish to file an Appeal with the DRB.
This would also allow them to seek a Variance from the
height restrictions in the Zoning Regulations, should
they so choose. Bob told Jake that he would accept their
Zoning Permit application then and there, if that would
help expedite the process for them.
At 7:55 pm the Board heard from
Rich Phillips and
John Johnson,
regarding plans to create a “Covered Bridge Park” on the
Martin
Bridge
property held by the Town. As described by Rich, the
project will include shoring up the bridge and its
abutments, and the installation of a parking area,
walking trails, and a picnic shelter. The Town has
received some grants and done additional fundraising to
create this recreational area. They wanted the DRB to
know how these plans were developing, and to get an idea
of what requirements awaited them when they were ready
to submit their applications for zoning approval for
this project. Much of this property lies in the Flood
Plain zoning district, and the ensuing conversation
included a discussion of the Town’s strict zoning
limitations on adding stuctures in this area.
At 8:30 pm the Board reviewed a
Site Plan
application of
Twinfield Union
School
to construct an outdoor bread oven on the Twinfield
campus. The application was found to be complete, and
the Board will warn a public hearing on the application
for
Wednesday, April 26 at 7:00 pm.
Tom then reviewed for the Board the circumstances that
held up timely notification to the
Christ Covenant
Church
of the approval of their recent Conditional Use and Site
Plan application, and to
Larry Babic and
Patricia Joslyn
of the denial of their Conditional Use application. Both
documents were recorded with the office of the Town
Clerk on February 21, 2006, and copies went out to
various neighbors and other interested parties. However,
due to a miscommunication between Tom and the Assistant
Town Clerk, the original documents were not mailed to
the applicants themselves. Martin wondered whether there
couldn’t be a procedure for issuing formal documents
that would avoid this problem. Tom responded that there
is a procedure he follows that has evolved over the
years, and James and Jon agreed that it was probably not
realistic to expect that we could always avoid all
errors... particularly with the work of citizen
volunteers like ourselves. In any case, this particular
problem will probably not be repeated.
At 8:50 pm Jon moved to approve the minutes of February
2, 2006 as drafted. Seconded by James, all in favor.
Bob then brought to the Board’s attention another tough
question that had arisen regarding the regulatory
requirement that Conditional Use approval be obtained
for any development on a slope in excess of 15%. He has
before him a plan for a new home, including a new septic
installation. Neither the house nor primary septic
system have any slope issues, but a portion of the area
designated for a back-up septic system reaches16%. As
this is only the backup area, it may well be that no
system is ever installed here. Are the applicants still
required to get Conditional Use approval before Bob can
issue a Zoning Permit? After discussion with the DRB,
Bob concluded that the first step would be to encourage
the applicants to re-site the designated backup area, if
at all possible, to avoid the slope. There was also
consensus that, if the only “development” on the 16%
area was fill for the mound, and if the area of actual
water flow would not lie in the slope area, it would be
overkill to require a Conditional Use review for this
reason alone.
Tom then reported that he had had a phone call from a
land owner who owns a lot on both sides of Route 2. He
intends to sell the portion of his lot that lies on one
side of the road, and wanted confirmation that no
subdivision permit was necessary for this. Tom had told
the caller that any zoning questions regarding what
permits were necessary was a matter for the Zoning
Administrator, whose job it is to enforce the Zoning
Regulations. Tom wondered, however, whether this
automatic referral of the question to the Zoning
Administrator was unnecessarily cautious. As this DRB
has always proceeded on the assumption that a single lot
may lie on both sides of a public right-of-way, maybe he
should have just told the caller flatly that a
Subdivision Permit was required to sell any
portion of his lot.
The DRB as a whole and Bob all agreed that
that was their position, and unless and until someone
makes a successful legal challenge of this
interpretation, the simple answer from here on is that
the existence of a road across a single lot does not
create a de-facto subdivision under Marshfield’s
regulations.
At 9:05 pm Martin moved to adjourn the DRB meeting.
Seconded by James, all in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Daley
|