Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm by Tom B as substitute
chairperson. Members present were Tom B, Phil K, Linda M, and Barry S.
chairperson. Members present were Tom B, Phil K, Linda M, and Barry S.
The minutes of the previous meeting were motioned for
approval by Phil, seconded by Linda. Motion passed.
approval by Phil, seconded by Linda. Motion passed.
We have decided to add a line for PUD usage per district in
section 308 of our current zoning code.
section 308 of our current zoning code.
There was a brief discussion concerning the difference
between a subdivision and a PUD. The PB feels that PUD’s may be preferable to
subdivisions for our town. There is more flexibility for development on smaller
lots of land yet still fit well with the overall comprehensive plan.
between a subdivision and a PUD. The PB feels that PUD’s may be preferable to
subdivisions for our town. There is more flexibility for development on smaller
lots of land yet still fit well with the overall comprehensive plan.
The PB board was grateful for the information forwarded by
Mr. Sipos. It will be helpful to us in our study of PUD’s and what should be
included in the code. However, the PB would still like to request a moratorium
on the issue because we think a section on PUD’s should be included in our
current zoning code rather than become a separate town law. A request will be
forwarded to the TB to add this to the next meeting agenda (12/4/12).
Mr. Sipos. It will be helpful to us in our study of PUD’s and what should be
included in the code. However, the PB would still like to request a moratorium
on the issue because we think a section on PUD’s should be included in our
current zoning code rather than become a separate town law. A request will be
forwarded to the TB to add this to the next meeting agenda (12/4/12).
We spent the rest of the meeting reviewing minimum acreage
for PUD’s as well as minimum setback requirements. We thought the Fayette code
acreage for PUD’s (25 to 35 acres) was quite large. We were more comfortable
with a minimum of 10 acres and a maximum of seven houses in that area. However,
no lot can be less than .7 acres. This will also allow for reduced setbacks for
irregular shaped lots. The PB determined that such lots should be a minimum of
50’ width at the road and no less than 50’ at any place in the lot. A house
must have a 40’ setback from the road and a 90’ width at that point on the lot.
Side setbacks shall be at least 15’.
for PUD’s as well as minimum setback requirements. We thought the Fayette code
acreage for PUD’s (25 to 35 acres) was quite large. We were more comfortable
with a minimum of 10 acres and a maximum of seven houses in that area. However,
no lot can be less than .7 acres. This will also allow for reduced setbacks for
irregular shaped lots. The PB determined that such lots should be a minimum of
50’ width at the road and no less than 50’ at any place in the lot. A house
must have a 40’ setback from the road and a 90’ width at that point on the lot.
Side setbacks shall be at least 15’.
The PB is also concerned that PUD’s not be placed so as to
create congested areas. Restrictions will be set in place to assure that such
developments are not too close to each other. It is also agreed that road
access would be allowed through lake district land.
create congested areas. Restrictions will be set in place to assure that such
developments are not too close to each other. It is also agreed that road
access would be allowed through lake district land.
The meeting adjourned at 9:01 pm – motion made by Linda,
seconded by Phil and approved by all. The tentative date for the next meeting
is 1/3/13.
seconded by Phil and approved by all. The tentative date for the next meeting
is 1/3/13.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Somerville, secretary