After multiple members of the community objected to the change, the Dublin Planning Board pulled a proposed amendment to the town’s conservation space development ordinance that could have allowed more density from the ballot last week.
During a public hearing Thursday, required before the proposed amendments can make it to the public ballot on March 8, residents, including representatives from the Conservation Commission and Select Board, called for the amendment to go through a more-rigorous public hearing process and be brought back next year, if at all.
Planning Board Chair Bruce Simpson noted the board had been working on ordinance amendments – including the conservation open space amendment – for a year in public meetings, with little input provided from the public, noting it had been a transparent process.
The main issue which brought objections from residents was the issue of how developers can calculate density on open space developments. In the current ordinance, in order to establish how many housing units could be built on a property, a developer must deduct any “unbuildable land” such as wetlands and steep slopes from the total acreage, and then reduce the remaining acres by 10%. That number, rounded to the nearest whole, is then divided by the minimum lot size allowed in the district by the town’s conventional subdivision development.
The proposed ordinance would have allowed developers to deduct only 50% of the acreage of unbuildable land, instead of the entirety, when doing that calculation, meaning more houses could be built.
Dublin Conservation Commission Chair Jay Schechter noted the commission had not been consulted or asked an opinion on the proposed change, and noted that while he realized the Planning Board was not required to consult them, it would have been a “good faith” gesture. He said the change in density calculation was a “massive difference” to the ordinance.
“What’s missing is any input from the public,” Schechter said.
Schechter noted there was also not a great need for housing growth in Dublin, and said the change was a “solution in search of a problem.”
Neal Sandford, an alternate on the Planning Board, pushed against that idea, saying there needs to be a change in the demographics of Dublin.
“Young families can’t afford to buy a four-acre lot,” Sandford said.
Planning Board member Steve Baldwin agreed, saying “We have to find ways to bring young families to Dublin.”
Planning Board members also noted that the open space development ordinance, despite having existed for years, has never been used for its intended purpose. Simpson said at least one developer, who had created other developments in town, had looked at the ordinance, but ultimately found it too onerous and had stepped away from the project.
Carole Monroe, the Select Board representative on the Planning Board, read from a statement, in which she said the Select Board had fielded several concerned comments about the proposal.
“There is strong belief that the process has not been transparent and that concerns/objections voiced at the hearing will not be taken seriously at this late date, that there is no time to further investigate the concerns or issues with the proposed changes and still make the ballot,” Monroe said. “Certainly there will not be enough time to present a revised version to the community. We suggest that if the discussion, concerns or issues with the amendment requires additional time to resolve that the Planning Board hold off on this modification for another year and hold additional hearings on the subject in the coming year.”
Planning Board members voted 4-3 – with Simpson as chair voting to break a 3-3 tie – to withdraw to proposed amendment from the ballot for this year. Two other amendments, however, will be moving forward to the ballot, after being approved as written during Thursday’s hearing.
Currently, any nonconforming use that ceases for any reason for a year or more can only continue after receiving a special exception from the Planning Board. The new proposed language would no longer allow the use to continue with a special exception, so after a year of non-use, any subsequent uses of the property must comply with the zoning ordinance or receive a variance.
Simpson noted the process for a special exception was a “fairly low hurdle” compared to the more-rigorous variance process, and said the “use it or lose it” philosophy was more common in municipal zoning.
In a separate amendment, the town also addressed its sign ordinance, and particularly temporary signs such as advertising for special events. Under the current ordinance, temporary signs are limited to under 6 square feet, and can be erected no more than four weeks before an event and must be removed no later than two days after the event has been held.
The proposed amendment would allow larger signs on private property for political signs or event advertising, allowing one sign up to 32 square feet per lot, which would allow billboard-type signs, which may be up for a maximum of four weeks at a time.
“You can have a fairly big sign, and leave it up for a month, which seems like a fairly good compromise,” Simpson said.
When asked why the signs were allowed at such a large size, Planning Board member Caleb Niemela said it allowed them to be seen when passing on Route 101.
Both these amendments were approved as written to appear on the ballot on March 8. All zoning amendments, by law, must be voted on by ballot and pass by a majority vote to be enacted.
Ashley Saari can be reached at 603-924-7172 ext. 244 or asaari@ledgertranscript.com. She’s on Twitter @AshleySaariMLT.