Laserfiche WebLink
The Chair noted that coffee roaster did not appear in the use table for Light Industrial zoning, but <br /> that food incubator/food manufacturing/food processing did appear on uses, and would follow up <br /> with Town Counsel to confirm that it was an allowable use. Mr. Kirrane believed it was an <br /> allowable use. Additionally, changes made to the Bylaw in May 2019 and approved by the <br /> Attorney General, required consideration of design standards. The Chair previously requested a <br /> summary from the project proponent about the appearance of the building and architectural and <br /> site design standards, Articles 26 and 27. Mr. Kirrane inquired whether the Plan and Review <br /> Committees were aware of the design standards and the Chair responded that she had notified the <br /> project proponent and anticipated that the building would comply with the guidelines, but a <br /> summary was needed in writing. Mr. Kirrane spoke with the architect who would look into the <br /> matter further. <br /> Mr. Cummings had no comment. <br /> Regarding use, Mr. Lehrer confirmed that the proposed use of coffee roasting was an allowable <br /> use in the Bylaw. Regarding seeking relief from the ZBA without notifying the Planning Board, <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that the project proponent believed their plan was compliant based upon advice <br /> from the Planning Department. After the first Public Hearing, and the matter of 40% <br /> undisturbed area, Mr. Lehrer advised the applicant to seek relief from the section. The Chair <br /> asked that Mr. Lehrer first consult with the Chair because the hearing had been continued in <br /> order to receive the report from the Town's Consultant Engineer. Mr. Lehrer stated that <br /> applicants had a right to seek relief from any board. <br /> Mr. Rowley referenced the ZBA decision granting the variance and referencing 6 pages of plans, <br /> noting that the plans presented tonight were different than what was considered by the ZBA. Mr. <br /> Rowley inquired whether the ZBA had reviewed the plans with the 26%undisturbed area and <br /> Mr. Kirrane responded that the ZBA received a sketched plan and it would not conflict with the <br /> decision of the Planning Board. Regarding traffic movements noted by Mr. Balzarini, the plan <br /> showed the route of the fire truck through the site. Mr. Rowley stated that he had not yet been in <br /> receipt of the new plans for review, and would need to do so in order to issue a new report. <br /> The Chair stated that there was a request to reduce the required 100 foot undisturbed naturally <br /> vegetated buffer adjacent to a residential zoned parcel in C-3 to 50 feet. It was Mr. Kirrane's <br /> opinion that the natural buffer was not applicable, but would supplement with landscaping. Mr. <br /> Rowley had not yet reviewed that aspect of the plan. Mr. Kirrane stated that they were seeking <br /> relief in order to fill in the hole on site. Mr. Kirrane stated that they were seeking relief from the <br /> 100 feet and not the undisturbed natural area, adding that the site was not next to any <br /> residentially zoned parcel. Mr. Kirrane confirmed that the applicant was seeking relief from <br /> 174-25.1 Sub Section 4. The Chair stated that it was not included in the Public Hearing Notice. <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that the Zoning did not allow development within 100 feet of a residentially <br /> zoned parcel, while requiring a 100 foot buffer, but that the Planning Board could waive it to 50 <br /> feet. Mr. Lehrer confirmed that the abutters were appropriately noticed and it was his opinion <br /> that the section of the bylaw cited in the Notice applied but Mr. Kirrane believed differently. Mr. <br /> 6 <br />