Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board debates bylaw revisions covering site-plan triggers, FAR/GFA definitions and retaining-wall standards
Summary
Board members and public commenters reviewed redline edits to sections of the zoning bylaw (notably 9.4/9.5 and proposed 6.4) and debated whether to adopt definitions for FAR/GFA, objective terrace-wall standards, and how much detail belongs in the bylaw versus administrative rules.
The Planning Board spent a substantial portion of the meeting reviewing proposed amendments to the town zoning bylaw, including site-plan triggers (sections 9.4 and 9.5), a proposal to clarify FAR versus gross floor area measurement, and new objective standards for terraced retaining walls.
A frequent contributor, introduced to the meeting as Mr. Feigenbaum, presented a marked-up redline for 9.4 and 9.5 focused on clarity and consistency. He said the edits aim to reduce repeated disputes at the Zoning Board of Appeals over technical definitions such as "garage" and "basement." The board welcomed the edits but asked staff to merge the Feigenbaum redline with a consultant-supplied redline and return a single consolidated version for review.
Members debated whether the code should use FAR (floor-area ratio) or gross floor area as the limiting metric and how those metrics should be calculated (measured to exterior dimensions or interior livable area). Several members said a townwide change would have far-reaching consequences and requested a consistent definition to be inserted into the bylaw's definitions section.
A separate discussion focused on proposed new standards for terrace retaining walls in section 6.4: whether to set the permitting threshold at 3 feet (more permissive) or 4 feet (aligning with building-code engineering thresholds), how to measure a "toe" or bottom of wall, and rules intended to prevent a continuous, monolithic 50-foot wall without visual breaks. Members raised process concerns about placing highly detailed engineering prescriptions in the bylaw rather than the rules-and-regulations, and asked that Tom and other staff help simplify permitting steps.
Public comment underscored the real-world impact of ambiguous definitions. "Every single thing that you talked about today — parking, the 120-foot setback, demolition — affects people's projects and timelines," said Jeff Canada, a resident who offered to help with technical review.
Next steps The board asked members to provide tracked comments to staff and asked staff to consolidate the consultant and public redlines. The board tentatively expects to vote on a consolidated draft at a future meeting pending legal counsel review and staff recommendations.
