Chester planning board, DRB address problems in new zoning regs

By Shawn Cunningham
©2015 The Chester Telegraph

The Chester Planning Commission and Development Review Board met in a joint session on Monday Jan. 5 to discuss questions and problems associated with interpreting the town’s new Unified Development Bylaws. The bylaws, which were developed by the Planning Commission over five years, consist of revised zoning regulations, subdivision regulations and flood hazard regulations.

Members of the Development Review Board – a quasi-judicial body that implements the bylaws – came prepared with a copy of the bylaws marked up to show a number of typographical errors as well as lists of questions regarding the several discrepancies in the law.

Clockwise from front left: Planning Commission member Tom Hildreth; DRB chair Carla Westine; DRB members Amy O’Neil and Don Robinson; PC chair Tom Bock; Julie Hance; PC member Naomi Johnson; DRB member Philip Perlah and alternate Ken Barrett; and PC member Harry Goodell. PC member Randall Wiggins arrived a bit later. Photos by Shawn Cunningham.

These included the handling of the lot coverage in the new zone that encompasses the former Army Reserve Center (also known as the Armory), the lack of heavy construction, building trades and other uses  in any zoning district, the handling of uses in lots that span two districts and “an issue for one business” regarding the boundary lines of the Commercial Industrial and Residential Commercial district in the Elm Street area.

To begin, the commission looked at the Adaptive 3 district where the new owners of the Army Reserve Center have found in their conditional use hearings that the existing building is larger than the maximum lot coverage and would not allow for any expansion. “How that happened,” said Planning Commission chairman Tom Bock, “we don’t know. We have to change that.”

The commission looked at lot coverage in other districts and concluded that either the 35 percent in the Residential Commercial district or the 50 percent of the Commercial Industrial district would be appropriate.  Commission member Harry Goodell felt that 35 percent maximum lot coverage was “reasonable,” and the commission voted to include that change in the amended bylaws.

DRB chair Carla Westine noted that while there were definitions for uses such as “Mobile Home Parks, Construction Trades, Heavy Construction Trades, Manufacturing and Campgrounds,” none of those uses are allowed in any district under the new bylaws. The Planning Commission discussed the idea that they had consolidated many uses to give the DRB more discretion in making its decisions. Zoning administrator Michael Normyle pointed out that previous members of the DRB felt it was more important to have standards to be consulted in determining appropriate uses rather than a list of business types.

Two problems brought to the Planning Commission were related specifically to the Gold River Industrial Park owned by DRB member Amy O’Neil and her husband Mike O’Neil.

“How would the DRB handle it?”  Bock, wondering if another use would cover for those left out.

Two problems brought to the Planning Commission were related specifically to the Gold River Industrial Park owned by DRB member Amy O’Neil and her husband Mike O’Neil. The industrial park is located east of the Pleasant Street at the railroad right of way and straddles the Commercial Industrial and Residential Commercial districts.

The issues arise from the new rule in the bylaws mandating that uses in a lot that is located in more than one district be governed by the rules for the strictest district. Bock and Planning Commission member Naomi Johnson could not recall when that was changed during the revision process. The other question was whether the boundary for the Gold River property should be changed to one district.

The discussion then turned to several other issues including some that were not changed in the zoning revision. Calling it “problematic for a long time,” Westine pointed to the special criterion that calls for new and remodeled buildings to be harmonious with the “New England Architectural Style.”

“What is it?” asked DRB member Don Robinson, asking for a definition that he felt the DRB lacked. Planning Commission member Tom Hildreth suggested that it could be eliminated. “Give us a document we can work with,” said Robinson.

Westine wondered whether the special criteria was a “half-hearted effort” at design review and asked how a building owner could possibly afford to replace a 19th century building in kind. Bock noted that his hometown in Minnesota was once picture perfect with a downtown business district. Now the brick facades are gone, replaced by a strip with national brand stores and fast food restaurants. “It didn’t happen all at once but in 50 years time,” warned Bock.

Members of the DRB (aside from Goodell who serves on both boards) did not attend the many hearings – over five years –  that led to the new bylaws. According to Westine and O’Neil, they were uncertain whether it was proper to have input into rules that they would be implementing.

Aside from any typographical errors in the bylaws that town attorney Jim Carroll felt could be changed without issue, any amendments adopted by the planning commission must go through the same process of public meetings of the commission and Select Board that led up to the adoption of the new bylaws in September.

At the end of the meeting, Bock promised to take up the issues brought to the table in future meetings. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held at 7 p.m. Monday, Jan. 12 and continue the examination of the town’s sign regulations.