|
March 31, 2021 Adjourned Session of the 2021 Annual Town Meeting, cont'd...
<br /> 4. Modify the dimensional controls of§4.0;
<br /> 5. Modify the off-street parking and loading requirements of§5.1; and
<br /> 6. Modify the landscaping, transition and screening requirements of§5.3.
<br /> 6.2.5 Required Findings.
<br /> In order to grant a special permit, the SPGA shall determine that:
<br /> 1. The uses or the modification of standards and requirements authorized in §6.2.4 are
<br /> necessary to maintain the historic or architecturally significant building, structure, or
<br /> element;
<br /> 2. The proposed renovation, repair, adaptive reuse, or relocation preserves, to the
<br /> maximum extent feasible, the historical and architectural features of the building,
<br /> structure, or element;
<br /> 3. For relocation of buildings, structures and elements to another location, no other
<br /> preservation measures are practical or reasonable, on the existing site;
<br /> 4. The historical and architectural features of the building, structure, or element will be
<br /> preserved for the duration of the special permit;
<br /> 5. Failure to grant the special permit is likely to result in inappropriate use or physical
<br /> modification or demolition of the building, structure, or element; and
<br /> 6. The use or the modification of standards and requirements will not generate negative
<br /> impacts to the surrounding area or zoning district or that any negative impacts
<br /> generated may be feasibly mitigated.
<br /> 6.2.6 Contributory Lots.
<br /> For one or more lots that do not otherwise qualify under §6.2.2, the SPGA may grant a
<br /> special permit to modify the standards of§3.3, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3; the dimensional
<br /> controls of§ 4.0; the landscaping, transition and screening requirements of§5.3; and the
<br /> off-street parking and loading requirements of§5.1, provided that the SPGA makes a
<br /> finding that such modifications are necessary to make historic preservation feasible on
<br /> another lot within the same development on which an historic element, as defined in
<br /> §6.2.2, is located.
<br /> 7:47 p.m. Mr. Peters moved the question.
<br /> 7:47 p.m. Charles Hornig, Chair, Planning Board, presented the video for Article 39 and
<br /> reported the unanimous support of the Board.
<br /> 7:50 p.m. Joseph Pato, member, Select Board, reported the support of one member of the
<br /> Board, with four members waiting to hear discussion of the Article.
<br /> 7:50 p.m. Marilyn Fenollosa, member, Historical Commission, reported the unanimous
<br /> support of the Commission
<br /> 8:12 p.m. Members posed a number of questions to Mr. Hornig, to Town Counsel, Mina
<br /> Mikarious, and to the Select Board regarding the definition of"historic significance", public
<br /> input during the hearing process, the nature of the vote yet to be cast by Select Board members,
<br /> and details related to the Hosmer House.
<br /> 8:39 p.m. Steven Heinrich, Pct.3, called the question.
<br /> 8:40 p.m. Following remote electronic vote tallying, the Moderator declared the Motion to
<br /> call the Question Adopted on a vote of:
<br /> Yes No Abstain
<br /> 129 41 16
<br /> 8:45 p.m. Following remote electronic vote tallying, the Moderator declared Article 39
<br /> Adopted by the necessary two-thirds on a vote of:
<br /> Yes No Abstain
<br /> 143 34 11
<br />
|