Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 11/27/2007
PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 27, 2007 - Minutes

A meeting of the Orleans Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Nauset Meeting Room at the Orleans Town Hall.  Present:  Chairman: John Fallender; Vice-Chairman:  Seth Wilkinson; Sims McGrath; Kenneth McKusick; Associates: Gary Guzzeau; John Ostman.  Planning Department Staff: George Meservey; Secretary:  Karen Sharpless.  Also Present:  Board of Selectmen Liaison:  Jon Fuller.  Absent:  Clerk:  Paul O'Connor;

In the absence of Seth Wilkinson and Paul O'Connor, Associate members, John Ostman and Gary Guzzeau were requested by the Chairman to vote as regular members.  


7:00 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING FOR A DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR SUZANNE SMITH DEAN FOR 23 DUCK FARM LANE

Acting Clerk, John Ostman read the legal ad into the record.  McGrath offered to recuse himself from discussion and voting on the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Suzanne Smith Dean on the basis of his election to the Board of Health and affirmative vote on this subdivision at a Board of Health meeting.  Phil Scholomiti (applicant’s representative) stated he had no objection to McGrath’s presence during the Planning Board discussion and vote on this matter.  

Phil Scholomiti (Ryder & Wilcox) stated that the application is for property located in the Residential District on the west side of Smith Neck Road.  Scholomiti noted that this subdivision will consist of two buildable lots known as Lot 9 and 10 (Lot 10 will have frontage on Whydah Lane).  Scholomiti stated that both lots meet the shape factor calculation.  Scholomiti stated that the Fire Department has determined that no additional hydrants will be required for the construction of this subdivision and the applicant has worked with the Fire Department regarding adequate access to these lots.  Scholomiti indicated that Whydah Lane will be increased to 16’ wide by 16’ high (which goes beyond the normal requirement) and there is no requirement for a turnaround on Whydah Lane due to an increased radius to 10’ on the northerly entrance.  The Planning Board discussed recommended language for a Maintenance Agreement for the road to maintain at least 12’ wide by 12’ high.  The Fire Department has requested that the house numbers be posted at the Beach Road and Duck Farm Lane intersection as well as on the individual houses and should be noted in the Statement of Conditions.  Scholomiti alluded to a meeting with the Orleans Water Department Superintendent (Lou Briganti) regarding a new water service for Lots 9 & 10 and noted that a water easement will be supplied over Whydah Lane.  

Scholomiti talked about the Board of Health approval of the subdivision plan for Suzanne Smith Dean and noted the Board of Health condition that no variance will be granted for design and construction of the septic systems for the house on Lot 10 and it was noted that the existing dwelling system must be inspected as required for Title 5 following the Definitive Subdivision Plan approval and before Planning Board endorsement of the plan.    



Scholomiti noted that waivers have been requested for this subdivision plan for the panhandle access for Lot 9 and the proposed driveway over Whydah Lane.  Scholomiti stated that the total parcel meeting the
grandfathering clause for a second  dwelling on the property.  George Meservey noted that the parcel had the ability to be further subdivided but now the panhandle limits it to one single family home.  Scholomiti stated that the plan meets all zoning requirements.  

FINDINGS OF FACT:

  • Lot 9 shall be limited to one single family dwelling.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No public comments were voiced on this subdivision request.  


MOTION TO CLOSE EVIDENTIARY PORTION

MOTION:  On a motion by Ken McKusick, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Planning Board voted to close the evidentiary portion of the Definitive Subdivision Plan public hearing for Suzanne Smith Dean for property located at 23 Duck Farm Lane.  

VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  


WAIVER REQUEST FOR §164-21-A.  MINIMUM FRONTAGE

The Planning Board discussed a waiver request from the minimum 150’ lot frontage on the panhandle lot known as Lot 9 which contains a circle with a 150’ diameter panhandle frontage of 30’ and panhandle access width of greater than 20’.  The request is in compliance with the minimum standards Article IV Section 164-22-5.

MOTION TO APPROVE:  On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Ken McKusick, the Planning Board voted to approve the waiver request for §164-21-A from the requirement for 150’ minimum frontage for the panhandle lot known as Lot 9 for Suzanne Smith Dean for property located at 23 Duck Farm Lane.

VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  


WAIVER REQUEST FOR §192-3 - ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS: SURFACE WIDTH

The Planning Board discussed a waiver request §192-3 from the road design standards regarding surface width and noted the proposed gravel driveway over Whydah Lane with a surface width 12’ wide, cleared 16 ‘ wide x 16’ high with incoming northerly radius of 20’.  The existing gravel drive will serve the existing dwelling connecting Duck Farm Lane to Beach Road and will remain unchanged, except it will be maintained and cleared 14’ wide by 14’ high in compliance with the request from the Fire Department.

MOTION TO APPROVE:  On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by John Ostman, the Planning Board voted to approve the waiver request §192-3 regarding surface width for the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Suzanne Smith Dean based on the limited existing and potential use of Whydah Lane.

VOTE:  5-0-0       The motion passed unanimously.  


MOTION TO APPROVE DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN

MOTION:  On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Ken McKusick, the Planning Board voted to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan prepared for Suzanne Smith Dean for property located at 23 Duck Farm Lane, scale 1” = 40’, dated October 23, 2007, prepared by Ryder & Wilcox, Inc., subject to the following conditions:

Town water must be made available to each lot in the subdivision.
A paved apron must be installed between the Town Road and the proposed 12’ wide gravel driveway.
Access to Lot 10 must be constructed as shown on the Plan and Profile attached to the Definitive Plan dated October 23, 2007.
Any Board of Health conditions shall be met at the time of the Definitive plan filing.
A Restrictive Covenant must be executed for the required improvements.
Access to Lot 9 shall be maintained at 14’ wide, properly signed, and a Maintenance Agreement shall be executed.  

VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  


7:20 P.M. – PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MODIFICATION TO A DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR THOMAS & PATRICIA KENNEDY FOR 40 & 50 TOM’S HOLLOW LANE

Acting Clerk, John Ostman read the legal ad into the record for the Modification to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for Thomas and Patricia Kennedy.  Meservey stated for the record that this is a new submission of a Modification to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for Thomas and Patricia Kennedy for property located at 40 & 50 Tom’s Hollow Lane and any waivers would have to be requested and approved by the Planning Board despite any waivers that may have been requested in the past.  Attorney Jack McCormick agreed with the statement that this is a new submission of a Modification of a Definitive Subdivision Plan for Thomas and Patricia Kennedy for property at 40 & 50 Tom’s Hollow Lane.      

Attorney Jack McCormick stated that the original subdivision for Tom’s Hollow Lane was approved by the Planning Board in 1975 with the condition that any further subdivision or dwellings would require that the application meet the current town standards at that time of the subdivision application.  Attorney McCormick stated that this subdivision proposal is to create two additional lots from the existing two lots (resulting in four buildable lots).  Attorney McCormick acknowledged comments made by neighbors and the Orleans Conservation Commission regarding the condition of the existing rural road and its proximity to wetlands and vernal pools in the area.  Attorney McCormick stated his belief that this new proposal  has road improvements that address road deficiencies and wetland concerns.  Attorney McCormick suggested that site distance problems on Tom’s Hollow Road could be solved by constructing an intersection with a stop sign using the services of William Sculley (MS Transportation Systems) for traffic studies.    

Showing proposed road profile plans, Brad Malo (Coastal Engineering) explained proposals to pave or lay gravel on portions of the roads leading to 40 & 50 Tom’s Hollow Road.  Malo described areas where berms would be constructed along the road and stated that 25-year storm drainage would be maintained


through the use of runoff catch basins.  Malo stated that a waiver would be requested for the excess length of a dead end street with a cul-de-sac to be constructed at the end of Tom’s Hollow Lane to provide a turnaround for emergency vehicles.  During a discussion regarding a waiver request for §192-10.F - Standards of Adequacy:  Surface Type, Malo stated that the road will be sloped to one side to avoid water ponding.  Planning Board members expressed concerns over the adequacy of the proposed road for emergency vehicles.  Planning Board members discussed a waiver of dimensional requirements for surface width and noted that the proposed cul-de-sac will be 20’ wide with 14’ wide gravel through the midsection of the road.  Malo stated that road surface runoff will drain into vegetated swales and avoid ponding on the road.  
 
William Scully (MS Transportation systems) explained a proposed “T” type intersection (with a stop sign) on Tom’s Hollow Road to avoid site distance and geometric obstacles.  Scully noted that there is a low volume of traffic on this road and suggested that an intersection would handle sharp curves in the road.  

Attorney Jack McCormick claimed that Google maps show a different length and direction for Tom’s Hollow Road, but the Planning Board quickly noted that Google maps are not legal documents and do not have any significance in a decision on this plan.  Attorney McCormick suggested changing the legal length and direction for Tom’s Hollow Road, but the Planning Board stated a preference for dealing with the proposed project and dealing with other issues at a later meeting.  

Ostman read the Board of Health comments into the record.  McGrath made a disclosure that he is an elected member of the Board of Health and has recused himself from all Board of Health discussions and votes on Tom’s Hollow Road.  

Planning Board members discussed comments from the Conservation Administrator that state no Certificates of Compliance have been granted for either 40 or 50 Tom’s Hollow Road for the Re-vegetation Plans that were filed under Enforcement Orders.  The Conservation Administrator’s memorandum dated November 7, 2007 also states that the wetland delineation shown on the subdivision plan in front of the proposed panhandle was not accepted by the Conservation Commission and it further states that the wetland is larger than shown and extends into the roadbed.  The Conservation Administrator stated concerns that no wetland buffers are shown on the plan.  The memorandum also states that the Conservation Commission has not approved a beach access walkway where it is shown on the site plan and notes the existence of a path to the beach further to the south.  Cutting on the footpath easement has not been approved by the Conservation Commission.  Meservey questioned whether there was a proposal to replant the hillside.  

The Planning Board discussed the need to determine the intent of various Planning Boards since 1975 and why they denied further subdivision requests and whether granting the requested waivers are in the public interest.  Meservey noted that new waivers need to be requested and shown on the Definitive Plan.  

The Planning Board members discussed the applicant’s proposal for an intersection and a stop sign in a remote area and were not convinced that this proposal would be sufficient to provide public safety for vehicles traveling on this road.  Meservey stated that the length of the dead end street and cul-de-sac  
is three times the limit allowed in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as shown in §192-10.C and §192-10.D .  Planning Board members questioned the designation of Tom’s Hollow Road as a rural road under §192-14.J and noted the conflict with proposed future subdivision on this road.  McKusick questioned the size and length of the existing and proposed dead end road with respect to emergency vehicle access to the most distant dwellings.  Meservey noted that §192-10.C states the following:  “Dead-End Streets.  In cases wherever dead-end streets are used, the length of such dead-end street should not exceed six hundred (600) feet, and the dead-end street shall be provided with a turnaround having a property line diameter of


at least eighty (80) feet.  Length will be measured along the center line where it intersects the access way to the center of the cul-de-sac”.    Planning Board members noted that the radius curve is inadequate and does not meet the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and questioned how this could be considered to be in the public interest.    Meservey noted that since this area is considered to be an environmentally sensitive area, all previous attempts to further subdivide in this area have been denied.  

McGrath requested the definition of intersection to which Scully (MS Transportation Systems) replied that an intersection addresses site distance issues providing clear visibility of other vehicles.   McGrath stated his concern with the creation of an intersection that does not agree with the definition of an intersection in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations §192-10.A which states, “Intersections.  Right-of-ways for proposed roads shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles.  No right-of-way shall intersect any other right-of-way at less than sixty (60) degrees.  Property lines at right-of-way intersections shall be cut back to provide for a curb radius on the roadway of not less than twenty (20) feet, except where the angle of the intersections varies more than ten (10) degrees from a right angle, in which case the radii of the curve connection the acute angle may be less and the opposite radius must be correspondingly greater”.

Scully stated that the intersection would provide a “stop controlled setting” a left turn for vehicle on the road and the stop sign would provide a reminder for drivers to come to a stop before continuing on.  Scully stated his opinion that the proposed intersection and stop sign would provide control and safety and cause traffic to slow down on the rural road setting.  McGrath questioned the feasibility of being able to monitor and enforce traffic safety at the proposed intersection.  

Brad Malo (Coastal Engineering) stated that drainage on Tom’s Hollow Road would be through the use of grassline swale or stone.  Attorney McCormick noted that the application proposes adding town water and fire hydrants in an area where none previously exist.  

Public Comments:

Marcia Galazzi stated that biologist reports have been received that indicate this is an environmentally  sensitive area and should not be altered.  Galazzi insisted that long-time residents on this road have agreed that for safety, the speed limit should be maintained at 15 mph, but stated that the Kennedy family and their guests are known to drive 20-25 mph on the road causing hazardous driving conditions.  Galazzi stated that numerous speed limit signs have been posted by long-time residents and are consequently removed.  Galazzi questioned why the road needs to be altered, as it has successfully existed as a rural road for many years.  Galazzi stated that the Board of Health and Planning Boards have indicated serious concerns with the effect of future subdivisions in this area, and questioned the effectiveness of enforcement of stipulations that may be determined by town boards and departments for any proposed dwellings.    

Beth McCartney questioned speed limit enforcement on a private road and stated that widened and improved roads tend to result in faster vehicle traffic which is not in the best interest of the public.  McCartney stated that the Kennedy family members and their guests contribute to approximately ½ of the traffic now generated on this winding rural road.  

Sheldon Brier explained that his family has lived on Tom’s Hollow Road for 40 years and vehemently stated that the area and road should remain as it is, as stipulated by all of the previous Planning Boards since 1975.  Brier stated that currently the water adequately drains off the road and despite large trucks that now use the road; it should be left as it currently exists.  Brier vehemently insisted that there is no need for more houses on this road.  

Vince Ollivier (former Planning Board member and current Orleans Conservation Trust member) stated that this area has a pre-existing, nonconforming road situation which does not adequately
conform to the Orleans Zoning Bylaws.  Ollivier explained that there have been several attempts since 1975 to create further subdivision of the area and various Planning Boards have found that the road does not conform to the standards of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations or the Orleans Zoning Bylaws and have ultimately denied subdivision applications due to a lack of adequacy.  Ollivier noted that the applicant’s attempt to install town water and a cul-de-sac  would increase the non-conformity.  Ollivier stated his concern with increased traffic speeds on Tom’s Hollow Road and onto adjoining roads.  Ollivier expressed his concern with the lack of Certificates of Compliance from the Conservation Commission for these properties as well as ongoing buffer and wetland delineation discrepancies and questioned how granting the requested waivers for this application could be considered to be of public benefit.  Ollivier urged the Planning Board to carefully analyze the sound reasoning behind past Planning Board decisions to deny further subdivision in this area since 1975.  
 
Brad Malo stated the Mazzarese property well went dry (and had to be replaced) and noted that fighting fires with the use of a fire hydrant is better than relying on a tank truck on a muddy hill.  

Attorney McCormick declared that cul-de-sacs are common on Cape Cod and therefore should be allowed for the proposed subdivision.  McCormick claimed that Vince Ollivier was hired by the Tom’s Hollow Road neighbors to do a study (a claim that was vehemently denied by Marcia Galazzi who stated that Vince Ollivier met with the neighbors and recommended that they hire someone else to do the environmental study).   McCormick inferred that the 1975 Planning Board contemplated additional subdivision of this area, but stipulated that the road must meet the current Subdivision Rules and Regulations.   
 
Robert Wilkinson (1975 Planning Board member) clarified the 1975 Planning Board deliberations of Tom’s Hollow Lane, and stated that there was significant neighborhood opposition at that time to any further subdivision of the area.  Wilkinson stated that it was the 1975 Planning Board’s intent to make it clear that if any further subdivision was allowed, the applicant must meet any and all of the requirements of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations with no waivers.   Wilkinson stated that there was an Order of Conditions and a Covenant drawn up that stated there was to be no further subdivision and no exceptions for road construction.    


MOTION TO CLOSE EVIDENTIARY PORTION OF TOM’S HOLLOW LANE HEARING

MOTION:  On a motion by Ken McKusick, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted to close the evidentiary portion of the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Thomas and Patricia Kennedy for property located at 40 & 50 Tom’s Hollow Road.  

VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  


DISCUSSION:  McGrath stated his belief that the Planning Board members in 1975 were correct in their intention that no further subdivision be allowed in this area and indicated his concern with the proposed intersection for a non-compliant corner in this road.  Meservey stated that the criteria is whether granting of the waivers is in the public interest and not contrary to the Subdivision Control Law.    



WAIVER REQUEST FOR §192-10.C - DEAD END STREETS

The Planning Board discussed the applicant’s request for a waiver from §192-10.C – Dead End Streets, and noted that it does not meet the Subdivision Rules and Regulations which states the following:  “§192-10.C states the following:  “Dead-end Streets.  In cases wherever dead-end streets are used, the length of such dead-end street shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet, and the dead-end street shall be provided with a turnaround having a property line diameter of at least eighty (80) feet.  Length will be measured along the center line where it intersects the access way to the center of the cul-de-sac”.  McKusick stated the requirement that dead-end streets be no longer than 600’ and noted that this request is for a road three times that requirement.  

MOTION TO DENY WAIVER:  On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Ken McKusick, the Board voted to deny the waiver request for §192-10C – Dead-End Streets noting that the Subdivision Rules and Regulations state that the length of a dead-end street should not exceed 600’.  

VOTE:  4-1-0     The motion to deny the waiver request §192-10.C Dead End Streets passed by a majority.  (Gary Guzzeau voted against).


WAIVER REQUEST FOR §192-10.F – STANDARDS OF ADEQUACY:  SURFACE TYPE

The Planning Board discussed the applicant’s request for a waiver from §192-10.F – Standards of Adequacy:  Surface Type, and noted that it does not meet the Subdivision Rules and Regulations which states the following:  “Standards of adequacy.  (1) Streets within a subdivision shall be considered to provide adequate access if and only if complying with the standards below.  Proposed access to a subdivision will be considered adequate if there is assurance that such access will also be in compliance with the standards below.  The basis for the different standards provided is the different volume of traffic that will be produced by the total number of existing dwellings plus the proposed lots in the submitted plan.  In the tradition of the town’s many unpaved roads with their rustic quality that adds to the town’s character, a rural road alternative for roads that serve no more than four dwellings is available”.  

McGrath made an observation that some of the individual elements were submitted in previous applications and granted.  McGrath suggested that rather than take the waivers under §192-10.F:  Standards of Adequacy individually, they should be considered and voted on as a whole blanket waiver.

MOTION TO DENY WAIVER:   On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Gary Guzzeau, the Board voted to deny the following waiver requests under §192-10.F, noting that they do not meet any of the Standards of Adequacy:

  • §192-10.F – Standards of Adequacy:  Radius Curve
  • §192-10.F – Standards of Adequacy:  Surface Width
  • §192-10.F – Standards of Adequacy:  Site Distance
  • §192-10.F – Standards of Adequacy:  Maximum Grade
VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  


WAIVER REQUEST FOR §192-14.E – GRADE

The Planning Board discussed the applicant’s request for a waiver from §192-14.E – Grade, noting the applicant’s proposal for a cross slope of 5% for the entire road section, which will remove surface water from the roadway.  



MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER:  On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by John Ostman, the Board voted to approve the waiver request for §192-14E - Grade.  

VOTE:  5-0-0     The motion passed unanimously.  


WAIVER REQUEST FOR §192-14.F - SURFACE MATERIAL

The Planning Board discussed the waiver request for §192-14.F – Surface Material, and noted that the applicant has demonstrated that the gravel surfaces are in the public interest in terms of environmental and pervious surface concerns.  

MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER:  On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by John Ostman, the Board voted to approve the waiver request for §192-14F - Surface material.

VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  


WAIVER REQUEST FOR §192-14.G  - BERMS

The Planning Board discussed the waiver request for §192-14.G - Berms, noting the requirement for berms on both side of roads where the grade is 3% or greater and this applicant has proposed berms only on one side of the paved road sections in order to follow the existing road profile and alignment and reduce impacts on the surrounding area.     

MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER:  On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by John Ostman, the Board voted to approve the waiver of §192-14.G Berms.

VOTE:   4-0-1   The motion to approve passed by a majority.  (Ken McKusick abstained stating a lack of adequate information to make an informed decision).  


WAIVER REQUEST FOR PANHANDLE LOT

The Planning Board discussed the need for a waiver request for the panhandle for Lot D from the lot frontage requirement.  

MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER:  On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Gary Guzzeau, the Board voted to approve the request for a waiver for the panhandle for Lot D.  

VOTE:  5-0-0     The motion passed unanimously.  


MOTION TO DENY SUBDIVISION PLAN   

MOTION:  On a motion by Ken McKusick, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted to deny the Modification to a Definitive Subdivision Plan prepared for Thomas and Patricia Kennedy, dated November 1, 2007, prepared by Coastal Engineering, scale 1” = 40’, for property located on Tom’s Hollow Road for the following reasons:  

  • The proposed plan does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and the Orleans Subdivision Rules & Regulations.
  • The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the granting of the requested waivers is in the public interest.
VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  


Regular Planning Board member, Seth Wilkinson joined the Planning Board meeting and will be voting for the rest of the meeting.  


OLD BUSINESS

2008 Zoning Bylaw Amendments

The Planning Board discussed a summary of comments received from local business owners (regarding the concept of adopting a formula business bylaw) at the November 13, 2007 Planning Board meeting and made note that many of the comments referred to a lack of adequate parking in the downtown area.  

ACTION:  The Planning Department will formulate a restrictive formula business bylaw proposal for restaurant (and possibly retail) for Planning Board review on December 11, 2007 and the Planning Board will make a decision whether to schedule a public hearing in January.  


NEW BUSINESS

Street Access Management Regulation

The Planning Board discussed endorsing the Street Access Management Regulations and forwarding them on to the Board of Selectmen for a public hearing and inclusion on the town meeting warrant.  

MOTION TO ENDORSE:  On a motion by Ken McKusick, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted to endorse the Street Access Management Regulations and forward them to the Board of Selectmen with a recommendation for adoption and inclusion on the town meeting warrant after a public hearing.  

VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  


Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Bylaw

The Planning Board discussed endorsing the Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Bylaw and forwarding them on to the Board of Selectmen for a public hearing and inclusion on the town meeting warrant.  

MOTION TO ENDORSE:  On a motion by Ken McKusick, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted to endorse the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Bylaw and forward it to the Board of Selectmen with a recommendation for adoption and inclusion on the town meeting warrant after a public hearing.  

VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  




Village Center Presentation

McGrath gave a summary of the Village Center Master Plan request for funding for professional studies to be presented to the Board of Selectmen in December 2007 for their endorsement.  McGrath stated that the Planning Department and Planning Board have undertaken as much of this project as possible in-house, but there are aspects of the project that need input from a professional consultant due to a lack of specific in-house expertise in some pertinent areas.  The Planning Board agreed that it is very important to move forward with the Village Center District Master Plan in conjunction with the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan to save money and avoid duplication of efforts.   

MOTION:  On a motion by Seth Wilkinson, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted to endorse the Village Center Master Plan presentation to be presented to the Board of Selectmen in December with a recommendation for their endorsement and inclusion for Orleans funding requests for Village Center District studies.    

VOTE:  5-0-0     The motion passed unanimously.  


CORRESPONDENCE

Due to the late hour, the Planning Board members briefly discussed the following two articles and agreed to discuss them more in depth at the next Planning Board meeting:

  • “Challenges & Opportunities in Cape Demographics” from the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce Economic Summit held on October 26, 2007
  • Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce Analysis of Target Visitor Markets

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 13, 2007

MOTION:  On a motion by Ken McKusick, seconded by Seth Wilkinson, the Board voted to approve the minutes of November 13, 2007.  

VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.


ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:  On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by John Ostman, the Board voted to adjourn at 10:27 p.m.

VOTE:   5-0-0    The motion passed unanimously.  




SIGNED: ______________________________  DATE: _______________________
                       (Paul O'Connor, Clerk)