Planning approves remaining amendment

On Monday Sept. 21, the Planning Board met for a session that ran about two and one-quarter hours. More than half of it was spent on the public hearing – continued from the Aug. 24 meeting – regarding the proposed zoning amendment addressing parking definitions.

At that meeting, local development attorney David Hern – speaking as a resident – had questioned the proposed definition of motor vehicle storage and its intended purpose. In doing so, he put forward that the draft amendment was unnecessarily complicated and lacked clarity, leading to the possibility of unintended consequences, including litigation against the Town.

Consequently, the hearing on the article was continued to allow the drafting subcommittee to consider the points raised by Hern, and for Town Counsel to review the definition in question.

That noted, the Planning Board came to Monday’s meeting prepared to continue the hearing with the focus on that particular definition, and Hern returned to the podium to give more testimony.

However, in his review of the article, Hern had prepared a list of itemized comments for all eight parking definitions, and he suggested changes to many of them. After submitting copies to the Board, he spent more than an hour advocating for what he had written.

Throughout, Hern gave examples of what he considered to be the weaknesses of the definitions’ language, while staying with the theme that he had previously established regarding the proposed amendment: to make it as clear and unambiguous as possible. “It will save us all trouble, it will save arguments, and it will save litigation expenses, which we’re already dealing with because of multiple interpretations of the bylaw,” he put forward, alluding to the open 55 Lenox St. lawsuit.

While most of his suggested changes were minor, several of them – including the definitions for parking and parking facilities, as well as for motor vehicle storage – were significant and substantive. That and the number of them appeared to catch the Board off-guard, resulting in what could be interpreted as mildly exasperated acknowledgment. “Better to do it here than at Town Meeting,” Board member Debbie Holmwood said of the immediate task at hand.

Director of Community Development Sarah Dixon noted that the deadline to submit warrant articles to the Board of Selectmen was the next day and floated the idea of submitting the article and then tweaking it to potentially bring its own Town Meeting floor amendments against it.

In the exchange that followed, Hern brought up the placeholder component of the warrant and Dixon responded by referring to the documentation rules of submitting zoning changes to the Attorney General. This, in turn, led Selectman Cheryl Doyle – who was in attendance – to interject that she would call Town Manager Tony Mazzucco for clarification on submitting the article by Sept. 22, stating that “you don’t want to discuss something like this on the floor.”

“It’s a lot tougher to get it through when people are getting up arguing this, than presenting a pretty clean package to Town Meeting,” Hern added in support of that position.

Ultimately, Doyle did not call Mazzucco. After that interlude had played out the Board finished making its way through Hern’s comments, reaching consensus in favor of all of them, including his revised definition of motor vehicle storage, which was included in one of them.

The definition addresses the storage of motor vehicles for sale, lease, or rental. It also deals with “the placement of motor vehicles not intended for routine personal or commercial use,” which Dixon said was the subcommittee’s attempt to “screen for that practice in residential areas.”

Joseph Sheehan, a member of the parking definitions subcommittee, added to Dixon’s statement. “The building inspector really wanted to keep his options open so that he could enforce it,” he clarified, referring to the draft definition. “That’s why he wrote it the way he did here.”

This raised concern – expressed and repeated by Board member Robert Bamber at different points – regarding off-the-road project and/or dream cars on residential lots falling into prohibited status. This prompted Vice Chair Ernie Paciorkowski to request that Town Counsel review the revised definition as it pertains to the potential of such an unintended consequence.

With no other public testimony, the hearing was closed, and the motion was unanimously approved to submit the parking definitions article to the Board of Selectmen for its inclusion on the Fall Town Meeting warrant and recommending that Town Meeting approve it.

For more information or to comment, go to https://gvimes.link/pbznngamndmnts.

In addition to the parking definitions hearing, there was also a site plan review appointment for “Tiny Pillars Childcare,” a new business planned for the property located at 258 Dean St., which is on the same side of the road as Stash’s Pizza and at the entrance to Yankee Spirits.

The Board’s primary concern had to do with parking and pick-up/drop-off safety, as well as the traffic congestion at the Route 1 end of Dean Street, and the applicant was asked to adjust the site plan’s parking configuration to account for that. The appointment was continued until Oct. 5.

The Planning Board next meets on Oct. 5 at 7 p.m. at the Senior Center (275 Prospect St.).