0:28At the forefront of the meeting was a discussion about revising the zoning regulations for the Central Business District. The proposed changes, driven by a committee including Kathy Vagio and Steve Ban, seek to address the overly restrictive nature of the current regulations, which have remained unchanged since 1994. The committee highlighted that these outdated rules have been limiting business diversity and hindering growth in the downtown area.

Kathy Vagio presented these proposed changes, emphasizing the need to allow a wider range of services within the business district. The revisions would expand the list of permitted services, encouraging a more vibrant business environment. The discussion delved into the specifics of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, with board members examining what types of businesses are currently prohibited and which would be allowed under the new regulations. Steve Ban expressed the need for updates, pointing out the restrictive nature of the existing code and highlighting that many modern business types are not currently accommodated.

The board scrutinized various examples, such as the prohibition of certain photographic studios and shoe repair shops, which raised questions about the rationale behind these exclusions. As discussions advanced, the board aimed to finalize the proposed changes. A consensus emerged that the existing regulations were outdated and that the amendments were necessary to revitalize the business districts. The board supported the changes, though Mayor Jen Blumenstock and Councilman Carney abstained from the vote.

23:35Shifting from commercial to residential zoning, the board considered amendments initially presented in December. These focused on improving regulations concerning impervious coverage on residential properties. It was recommended that if proposed coverage exceeds 400 square feet, detailed plot plans must be submitted. The board outlined associated fees, which include a $100 application fee and a $500 escrow fee for plot plans, as well as a $200 application fee and a $1,000 escrow fee for grading and drainage reviews.

The board also discussed changes stemming from the master plan reexamination, such as removing the industrial commercial district from the zoning ordinance due to its absence on the zoning map. Additionally, they considered allowing two-family dwelling units to be constructed side by side in the RB Zone and lifting restrictions on professional offices being located above the first floor in the Central Business District.

Concerns were raised about the necessity of engineering involvement for minor residential projects, like a small patio. Some board members argued for a balanced approach that does not place undue burdens on residents while ensuring adequate stormwater management.

48:15Attention then turned to the topic of feather flags, a popular advertising tool among small businesses. The board deliberated on their regulation, considering safety concerns due to their instability in high winds. One board member noted that feather flags had previously been a nuisance during storms. Despite this, the potential benefits of allowing feather flags were acknowledged, as they are effective at attracting attention to businesses. Suggestions included subjecting them to similar regulations as portable signs, such as time limits for display and structural requirements to ensure safety. The board agreed to form a subcommittee to draft a proposal, with input from the Small Business Board.

Finally, the board reviewed a revamped developers’ assistance package, which included a new flowchart designed to clarify the application process for construction permits. The flowchart was intended to outline the necessary steps and conditions that must be met before proceeding. The board made minor revisions for clarity and moved to advance the revised flowchart for publication.

23:35The meeting concluded with public comments, where a representative from the Small Business Association raised issues about the sign code, seeking clarification on political signage and the potential for permitting portable illuminated signs. They also requested the consideration of feather flags and pointed out discrepancies in the current code. The Planning Board acknowledged these concerns and agreed to consider them further.