Land Use Notes
March 25, 2003
Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee
Present: Paul Schumacher, Karen Eger, Terrence Parker, Cheryl Dionne, Cliff Cleary, Brad Christo
~
Discussions as follows:
~
Place (TIF) and options for state grants in strategy column for industrial zone.
~
Discussion of process of review-general.
~
Remove I-Zone on west of 236. Place I-zone in B-zone? or Replace I-zone with R-3?
~
What size should I-zone be? Should it be reduced?
-should be left alone.
-will it make ex. auto dealer non-conforming. -will it limit expansion of auto dealer?
-should part of eastern I-zone be dropped if it abuts a conservation zone? -maybe. let's review conservation map~next time.
~
VILLAGE discussions.
~
B-3 on Rt. 4 has been changed back~to R-1. All present agreed R-1 should be changed to B-3.~
~
November ordinance was assumed to have protected area from a box store.
~
What type of commercial zone do we want? What type of multi- use? Define multi-use. Multi-use is encouraged because tax write-off helps people maintain properties.
~
What kind of language keeps out the box stores?
~
Street-scape should not be changed by new development.~
~
Proposal by Paul--average out current Sq. Ft of downtown buildings to determine what would be acceptable-was to already done by town?
~
What is historic district? we need a map.
~
Insure no impact to parking and traffic by any changes.~
~
Keep buildings to existing~ footprint? Debate about additions for businesses, site coverage, density and impact on owners.
-allow flexibility in new B-3 as relates to development in a multi-use downtown zone.
~
Debate and concerns about 2-lot combinations to one lot with buildings torn down.
~
Strategy--is density/site coverage an adequate measure?
-look at ex. densities of B-3
-reassement information?
-historical survey info of '97-'98
~
Do we need an architectural review board? How does it function? Debate.
-do we need standards for new buildings?
~
If 2-lots are combined, current regs. for one lot would apply which would force compliance to town regulations.
~
Consensus: New development should "fit" perception of town as it is now.
~
Discussion: should we let a building be torn down?- we must allow for positive change and preservation of existing quality and image.
~
What does the former petition from residents of Portland street say? - (Brad to check)
-proposed B-2 in '92 was protested in by owners, so zone change became a B-3. Then change to R-1 in Nov. 2002.
~
Suggestion: create a compromise of R-1 and B-3 to get residents to approve and satisfy their concerns.
~
Summarize: yes to B-3. (Brad to check density requirements and petition). (Paul to check Design Review Board details)
(Brad to contact Terrence if he needs help studying data on density and Sq. footage)
~
Homework:1) go through Land-use table and cross check R_1 and B-3 to develop a~hybrid zone which has best of both.-do we want to allow combined lots?
2)~Review pro's and con;s of expanding B-3~down Agementacus Rd to Suds and More.
~
Above written by Terrence Parker.~
| 
