As the Town Planner notes, many of the terms in that draft have been taken from the zoning of the town of Wells, Maine. http://ecode360.com/7611416
For example, the Wells, Maine, Chapter 145: Land Use, their Article II: Word Usage includes §145-10 Definitions.
There you will find that the definition in Wells of a SEASONAL COTTAGE is:
A one-story building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking and that is not occupied and to which water service is turned off between November 1 and April 30.
The Wells definition of a HOUSEKEEPING COTTAGE is:
A one-story building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking rented to transient guests for a period usually not exceeding 28 days. Such a unit shall not be occupied between January 10 and April 1. [Added 4-12-2003]
The Dennis Town Planner’s definition of a SEASONAL COTTAGE is:
A building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking and that is not occupied and to which water service is turned off between November 1 and April 30.
Since that 2 October 2016 posting, I have been reviewing with care those significant aspects of the Seasonal Resort Community bylaw which change dramatically from the Town Planner’s initial draft into the precise wording adopted by the Special Town Meeting of November, 2010, and which were subsequently approved by the Attorney General. These aspects include the definition of the term “seasonal,” as well as the size of the existing cottages on the properties within the proposed zone.
The next few posts will concentrate first upon the size of those cottages and how the Town Planner attempted to explain that change. Correlating the Town Planner’s written words with his often rambling, sometimes incoherent pubic presentations is a real challenge; however, it is essential to demonstrating how often his words simply do not coincide with his deeds. As the fellows of the AICP would note, this is “ethical quicksand.”
Once we have managed to navigate that size aspect, the concept of “seasonal” will be the next focus, as the Town Planner is now in the process of his second attempt to expand the season.
In both instances, we shall continue to ask: What did the Town Planner know? and When did the Town Planner know it?
In regard to the size of the cottages in this proposed district, the Town Planner’s initial draft indeed is in line with what was then present on the properties to be included in the zone. At this point, he is lending credibility to his statement of 19 November 2009 “to come up with something that gives you a level of conformity based upon what’s there.” To that end, the Town Planner provides these figures:
B. Seasonal Cottages may have a footprint of up to 400 sf exclusive of the area identified in subsection F below. (We need to really think about this one. Using the Assessor's data I find the following breakdown for cottage sizes 187 are under 400 sf, 234 are between 400 sf and 600 sf, and 64 are above 600 sf. The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf. There are also a mix of single family homes located within the boundaries of the cottage colonies. Perhaps, 600 sf would be an appropriate footprint, with 900 sf allowance for the loft. Let's mull this over.)
Based upon this information, the Town Planner reports that there are some 485 cottages on these properties. Of these, 187/485 (38.5%) are under 400 sf; another 234/485 (48%) are between 400 and 600 sf; and 64/485 (13%) are above 600 sf. The Town Planner states that there is one cottage which is 882 sf.
From these numbers, the Town Planner first proposes that the allowed footprint in the unique zone should be 400 sf, but then he suggests 600 sf. The public can only wonder about the breakdown of footprints for that 48% of cottages within the 400 sf - 600 sf category.
And though the Town Planner has stated that the LARGEST cottage in existence is 882 sf, we are yet to understand with any clarity just how that initial proposal of 400 sf became the 900 sf footprint that a property owner would be allowed by right. You will see that he uses the words “discussions” and “meetings,” but these words do not necessarily mean public discussions and meetings.
Though the Town Planner would go on to state on 20 August 2010 that, “I don’t think anyone here is looking to (pause) tear down all the cottages that are there and replace them with story-and-a-half y’know nine hundred-square-foot footprint-type structures, . . .” he should have known that a property owner would be able to do just that under the bylaw which he was proposing.
Of further interest is the Town Planner’s 8 March 2012 representation of those very same cottages to his Economic Development Committee. His slideshow can be viewed here:
https://dennismaplanningdept.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/review-of-proposed-may-2012-petition-to-restrict-the-size-of-cottages-in-cottage-colonies/
You might want to take note of slide #10.
How is it that the largest cottage in existence in 2010 was 882 sf, but the Town Planner would claim in 2012 that there were cottages of 1,290 sf and 1,640 sf?
That’s a damn good question, don’t you think?
Meanwhile, the next posts will review how the Town Planner presents that change from his initial proposal of 400 sf to that of 900 sf. Who and/or what changed his mind?
No comments:
Post a Comment