Text · page 3 of 4
• Ms. Schutt stated that Boston’s lot sizes are in line with Eden and Hamburg’s, which she thinks is a good thing. She stated that she understands people’s desire to increase residential lot sizes, but she feels that increasing lot sizes will make housing that much less affordable in a time when affordability is a large concern for many. She stated that she would rather not increase lots sizes now, especially because the State is pushing for more affordable housing, and would rather deal with the State later if and when it requires small towns to put some sort of concentrated housing developments in. She noted that she does not think the Town should increase minimum residential lot sizes. • Mr. Stisser stated that he does not like restricting what builders can propose to the Planning Board. • Ms. Yuhas read the following statement: “After reviewing the discussion and considering the town’s comprehensive plan, I understand the reasoning behind the proposal to increase the minimum lot size requirement for new subdivisions from 15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet in an effort to preserve the rural character of the town. However, at this time, I do not believe a code change is necessary. The current code already provides the town with planning oversight and flexibility, while allowing each subdivision proposal to be reviewed on its own merits. I believe there are existing tools within the current framework to address concerns related to layout, density, drainage, and compatibility with surrounding areas without necessarily increasing minimum lot sizes across the board. I also do not believe cluster development should be eliminated entirely from the code. Cluster developments are not mandatory and are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Keeping that option available allows the town to retain flexibility in future planning decisions while still maintaining oversight of individual projects. While I understand and respect the goal of preserving the town’s rural character, I believe the town should also remain cautious of potential tradeoffs associated with larger lot requirements, including reduced housing availability, increased housing costs, and less flexibility in long-term planning.” • Mr. Stringfellow stated that he believes that cluster is being utilized by developers to increase their profits. He stated that he does not like leaving it up to the developer to decide how small a lot he is going to provide. He stated that all land not developed in a cluster subdivision should be used as developed and maintained park areas. • Chairman Ziarnowski read the following statement: “Cluster housing is not a given for developers, but an option. A conventional site plan must be submitted and an evaluation by the community and board of merits of each are considered. Getting rid of this option may present a less than favorable choice on a particular parcel. The number of houses does not change, just the layout. Evaluations of subdivisions should be on a case by case basis and keep the cluster options. This town does not live in a vacuum, and at present, with affordable housing being an oxymoron, and housing availability being limited, AND the recent completion of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code, timing of this proposal would have been better served 30 years ago. State and County oversight has an impact in what goes on in municipalities. We on the Planning Board are not privy to the pocket books of the town, and the needs and