Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dover planning board debates ‘intensification’ trigger, sports-court setbacks and exemptions in site-plan rewrite
Summary
At a continued public hearing on Article 19, the planning board debated when existing uses should trigger site-plan review (the draft replaces 'extension' with 'intensification'), setbacks for sports courts and accessory structures, proposed exemptions for small garages, sheds and pools, and whether noise requires quantitative standards; the hearing was continued to April 13 for revisions.
The Dover Planning Board spent the bulk of its April 6 public hearing on draft revisions to Article 19 (site plan review), exploring where the planning board should draw review triggers and which accessory structures should be exempt from review.
Town Planner Melissa said the draft creates two tracks — partial site-plan review (for accessory structures and ADUs) and full site-plan review (for business-district projects) — and includes updated timeframes (30 days for partial, 60 for full) and a mutual-extension procedure. She told the board she replaced the phrase "extension of use" with "intensification of use" to capture changes in the degree or quality of activity (parking, traffic, lighting, landscaping, noise) that could increase impacts on abutters.
"When I think back to intensification, the difference between a fro-yo store and a Dunkin' Donuts to me fits an example of an intensification," the chair said in describing how business-type changes can alter impacts in town centers. Several residents and board members pushed back, saying the word "intensification" could be subjective and might invite legal challenges; one resident noted lawsuits in Massachusetts involving similar language.
Noise and enforcement were a recurring theme. Residents asked for quantitative noise standards; Melissa and the chair said Dover does not currently set decibel caps for non-construction activity and that noise complaints are often handled by the building inspector or police. Board members agreed noise and lighting regulation (dark-sky protections) are priorities for future amendments but said the current Article 19 draft focuses on clarifying procedures and removing vague language.
The draft also proposes new setback rules for accessory features (patios, sports courts, playground equipment) and a list of exemptions that would avoid "nuisance" site-plan reviews: garages under roughly 1,015 sq ft (footprint), sheds under 1,000 sq ft used strictly for storage, and swimming pools. The board debated the proper size thresholds, whether a bathroom or finished second floor should change treatment, and whether abutter notification via OpenGov and waivers would mitigate concerns. Resident Mike Savage urged caution on tightening deadlines (the draft ties some time-limits to special-permit timeframes) and on imposing heavy documentation requirements for short-term rentals; Melissa said the draft retains the special-permit path and includes waiver language.
Because board members and the public raised multiple substantive clarifications, the Planning Board voted to continue the public hearing to 7 p.m. on April 13 so staff can update the draft and circulate a revised version in advance of Town Meeting.
