Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakeville planning board considers site-plan edits to require proposed-use statements, clarify parking
Summary
The planning board discussed adding a requirement that applicants state proposed uses in site-plan submissions and clarifying parking calculations using a hairdresser example to prevent shortfalls during customer turnover.
The Lakeville Planning Board on March 24 reviewed proposed edits to site-plan review rules that would require applicants to state proposed uses and help ensure parking and utility needs are sized to actual operations.
Town Planner Nancy Durfee told the board applications often arrive without clear proposed uses, making it difficult to evaluate parking demand and sewer or septic needs. She used a hairdresser example to illustrate overlapping customers: "You have four hairdresser's chairs. You have four clients in each chair at, about 10 of the hour when it's gonna switch to a new client in the chair, four new clients will show up. So now you have eight clients at that building," Durfee said, explaining why parking calculations should account for short overlaps.
Durfee proposed two changes: amend section "278-6.7" (as cited in the draft) to add "use" to the purpose statement for site-plan review so the bylaw reads that review ensures the use, design and layout of developments are permitted; and add a requirement under the site-plan application checklist (cited in the packet as item number 19) that applicants submit a statement of proposed use. She said the change would not require excessive detail but would give reviewers enough information to assess parking, sewer, septic and other infrastructure needs.
Durfee said she had sent the proposed language to Amy (staff) for review and recommended the board review the edits on the upcoming Thursday meeting with Amy present. Michelle McEachern and other board members supported the revision; the board plans to review the edits on March 27 and could vote to place the change on the warrant at that meeting.
No formal vote on the amendments occurred on March 24; the item remains scheduled for the board's March 27 meeting for further review and potential action.
