ORLEANS PLANNING BOARD
June 12, 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: Acting Chairman: John Fallender; Sims McGrath; Kenneth McKusick; Paul O'Connor; Associates: John Ostman; Gary Guzzeau. Planning Department: George Meservey; Secretary: Karen Sharpless. Also Present: Board of Selectmen Liaison: Jon Fuller. Absent: Clerk: Seth Wilkinson.
PLANNING BOARD APPOINTMENTS
- Fallender reported that Paul O'Connor has moved up to a one-year term as a Regular Planning Board member.
- Fallender welcomed John Ostman as an Associate Planning Board Member with a one-year appointment.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - MODIFICATION TO A DEFINITION SUBDIVISION - THOMAS & PATRICIA KENNEDY - TOM’S HOLLOW LANE
Fallender turned this portion of the Planning Board meeting over to the previous Planning Board Chairman, Sims McGrath due to the fact that McGrath has presided over the Tom’s Hollow Lane Subdivision modification discussions and the commencement of this public hearing in previous Planning Board meetings. McGrath opened the continuation of the Modification to a Definitive Subdivision public hearing for Thomas & Patricia Kennedy for property located at 40 & 50 Tom’s Hollow Lane.
McGrath stated for the record that Kenneth McKusick and Paul O'Connor were not present for all of the public hearings on this issue, but as permitted by Law, they have certified that they have familiarized themselves with the issues, read the minutes of the hearing and have reviewed the file and they will be voting members for this application. McCormick stated that he did not object.
McGrath stated that he is an elected member of the Board of Health and has recused himself from all discussion of this subdivision plan for Tom’s Hollow Lane during Board of Health meetings.
Attorney Jack McCormick and Brad Malo (Coastal Engineering) were present for the continuation of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision for Thomas and Patricia Kennedy for property located at 40 & 50 Tom’s Hollow Lane. McCormick noted that this was originally approved by the Planning Board as a 6-lot subdivision plan in 1975 with conditions restricting further subdivision or buildings until Tom’s Hollow Lane is improved to meet the standards of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations at the time of the request. McCormick noted that there has been a recent on-site visit with the current Planning Board members to determine the issues on this subdivision request.
McCormick stated that the Kennedy’s have proposed the creation of one new lot on 40 Tom’s Hollow Lane and one additional lot at 50 Tom’s Hollow Lane, which would result in four lots where there are now two lots. McCormick stated that the reasons for the numerous waivers are to maintain the character of the rural roadway and immediate neighborhood, and to protect the environmental aspects of the neighborhood such as the concerns stated by the Conservation Commission. McCormick stated that the Kennedy’s are willing to meet the Planning Board Subdivision Rules and Regulations and have been in this process with the Planning Board and Conservation Commission for two years. McCormick listed the various town departments that have submitted input to this subdivision request including the
Fire Department, Water Department, and the Board of Health which covered limitations on the number of bedrooms, nitrogen reduction systems, water mains and fire hydrants. McCormick’s stated his belief that this subdivision request and the numerous waivers are in the public interest.
McCormick stated that there was no Wetlands Protection Act in 1975 and the vernal pools in this area have recently been certified. It was noted that any reduction of trees and the shade they provide would result in damage to wetland areas. A note was made that there is a need for safe areas for vehicles to pass each other on the road and it is important to maintain emergency vehicle access on the road that is partially paved and partially made up of a gravel surface. McCormick stated the intention to use vegetative swales on the sides of the roadway and noted that drainage calculations have been filed with the Town.
Brad Malo (Coastal Engineering) stated that the revised Subdivision plan submitted to the town contains shape factors required by the town. Using maps and drawings, Malo demonstrated the proposed roadway design and stated that it would be constructed to cover all of the environmental issues that have been raised by various town departments and noted that the itemized list of requested waivers has been expanded to cover the issues.
Wetland Delineation
Meservey noted that the applicant has provided all of the requested materials to the Planning Board, but noted that the wetland delineation has not been approved by the Conservation Commission (as requested by the Planning Board) due to a discrepancy in the size and shape of the wetland delineation and the roadway encroachment into the wetland area.
Street Frontage for Lot B
The Planning Board discussed the June 8, 2007 memorandum from the Planning Director which states that proposed Lot B provides only illusionary frontage and is therefore considered as a panhandle lot.
§192-10 C. Dead End Streets
Meservey noted that the proposed roadway for Tom’s Hollow Lane exceeds the 600’ limit for dead end streets and must provide a cul-de-sac, since there is no emergency vehicle turnaround area provided and it should be noted that private driveways would not always be readily available for this purpose. The applicant has proposed that the current 40’ right of way be allowed in place of the 80’ diameter property line turnaround required.
§192-10F. Standards of Adequacy: Radius Curve
The Planning Board noted that a significant waiver has been requested for the radius curve since 290’ is required and the applicant has proposed a minimum centerline radius of 92’ (center of gravel) which becomes very narrow in places along the roadway and is not up to Orleans road standards. Meservey noted that the applicant cannot proceed with this project if this waiver is not granted.
§192-10F. Standards of Adequacy: Surface Width
Meservey noted that the applicant has requested adherence to a Rural Road Alternative {14’ paved plus 1’ berm (590’); 14’ gravel (560’); 12’ wide gravel (390’); 12’ paved plus 1’ berm (390’)} which has been granted by the Planning Board for four or fewer building lots in a subdivision instead of the required 20’ wide road required by the Orleans Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
§192-10F. Standards of Adequacy: Maximum Grade
Meservey noted that the application is not in compliance with the maximum grade requirement (6% allowed; 13% existing, 12% maximum proposed) at the end of the road where it turns sharply to the left and on to the end of the road. It should be noted that there are two proposed dwellings on that property and one current dwelling on the Mazzarese property with a potential for more dwellings on the property located at the end of Tom’s Hollow Lane.
§192-14F. Surface Materials
Meservey noted that the alternative surface materials proposed appear to be appropriate.
§192-14G. Berms
Meservey noted that berms are required for both sides of the roadway where the grade is 3% or greater, but the applicant has proposed that they be only constructed on one side of the roadway. It should be noted that easement requirements would apply for the roadway encroachment of grading and swale requirements onto 21 Tom’s Hollow Lane. The easements would be required in order for the application to proceed for approval.
Environmental Analysis
Meservey noted that in order for the Planning Board to determine whether they would be granting authorization for a roadway to be constructed within a wetland, it is necessary for the Conservation Commission to completely delineate the wetlands in this area.
Planning Department Comments:
Meservey urged the Planning Board consider each of the requested waivers in light of the actions of previous Planning Boards and noted that those Planning Boards did understand development and its future impacts.
Planning Board Comments:
Ostman questioned the road grading and runoff. Brad Malo stated that the road would be cross sloped from one side and all surface water will be directed to the southerly edge of the roadway.
In response to a question from Guzzeau regarding a lack of a turnaround or a cul-de-sac on Tom’s Hollow Lane, McCormick stated that Captain William Quinn indicated in a letter dated June 29, 2006, that “If the road is trimmed out to fourteen (14) feet, away from the critical areas, and a surface to support the fire apparatus is made to 12 feet wide, I believe the vehicles would be able to pass on the road without worrying about getting stuck. Short of this it places the heavy vehicles on soft sand as we run the risk of getting stuck and not allowing any other emergency vehicle to pass”. It was noted that in a subsequent letter dated March 20, 2007 regarding the Definitive Subdivision application, Captain Quinn stated, “I would like to take this opportunity to impress upon the Board the
need for adequate road size”. Captain Quinn also wrote, “We are still troubled with the possibility of one of our vehicles becoming stuck on this small road trying to get to a medical or fire emergency and rendering any further aid useless due to the road being impassable”.
O'Connor noted that all of the waivers, whether reviewed separately or together, must be consistent with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and requires that the scope must fall within the public interest.
Fallender expressed concern with the proposed road width and noted that 12’ is less than the width required for a subdivision of less than four houses. Fallender also stated his concern with the inadequate site distance and noted that 100’ is required for less than four houses.
McKusick noted that an evaluation of existing and potential dwellings on Tom’s Hollow Lane indicate the potential for 15 dwellings and corresponding vehicles using Tom’s Hollow Lane on a daily basis.
McKusick expressed concern regarding McCormick’s comments of 1975 Planning Board member, Marc Norgeot’s letter dated March 8, 2007 which states the Planning Board concerns regarding a Tom’s Hollow Lane subdivision they reviewed and approved with specific conditions for the possibility of future development. McKusick stated that he wants to emphasize that the 1975 Planning Board wanted the subdivision to be consistent with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations at that time and they were fully aware of the potential building possibilities in the future on Tom’s Hollow Lane. McCormick stated that some wetland delineations are only recognized by the Town of Orleans, but not the State of Massachusetts. McKusick reiterated his belief that the 1975 Planning Board members were fully aware
of the fragility of the area at that time and fully expected compliance with that understanding by future Planning Boards. McCormick stated there were no vernal pool restrictions in 1975.
McKusick referred to two letters from Captain Bill Quinn of the Fire Department dated June 29, 2006 and March 20, 2007 and it was noted by Meservey that the second letter was written in response to the filing of the Definitive Subdivision Plan application and therefore would be more specific as to the requirements that the Fire Department would have for emergency vehicle access based on the formal application.
Meservey questioned Malo on the intended location of the water main with a 20’ wide road which would adhere to the 5’ separation requirements. Malo responded that the location of the water main would be determined at the time of installation with respect to the required separations from other utilities, and if necessary the gas or electric utilities could be relocated to meet the separation requirements.
Meservey questioned Malo on how the slope of the roadway would be maintained in the short term as well as the long term. Malo stated that they would follow the guidelines for gravel road construction with significant cross sloping and enhanced vegetation in order to maintain the integrity of the roadway and to allow the drainage water to flow down the swale side of the road.
In response to a road width question, Malo noted that under current conditions the narrowest portion of the road is 8’ located near the Galazzi home. Malo noted that the proposed 12’ wide gravel surface would be enhanced to 18’ wide with vegetated shoulders.
Meservey agreed with the Planning Board that Parcel D would have to be considered as a panhandle lot and would require a waiver request from the frontage requirements. Meservey read the following Orleans Bylaw definition of lot frontage (§164-4) as requested by McGrath:
Lot Frontage – The boundary of a lot coinciding with a street line if there are both rights of access and potential vehicular access across that boundary and the street either has been determined by the Planning Board to provide adequate access to the premises under the provisions of the Subdivision Control Law and the Orleans Subdivision regulations or is shown on an approved definitive subdivision plan; measured continuously along one (1) street line between side lot lines or, in the case of corner lots, between one (1) side lot line and the midpoint of the corner radius.
The Planning Board discussed the lack of frontage for Lot B and questioned whether it qualified as a panhandle lot. O’Connor questioned the waivers required for subdivisions with greater than 10 lots vs. a lower number of proposed dwellings.
McCormick stated that a number of dwellings that could result in this subdivision already exist and have already been using an 8’ wide road with poor sight distance. McCormick stated that the Planning Board should only look at this application as a request for two additional lots, not the 15 lots that could eventually result if the road is improved to the required town standards.
Public Comments:
Mary Lou Brier told the Planning Board that if a waiver is allowed and Tom’s Hollow Lane is improved, it would most likely result in the creation of 10 more lots.
Sheldon Brier stated his strong opposition to the proposed subdivision and stated that the environment should be left alone.
Martine McLaughlin requested that the Planning Board not allow the road to be improved due to traffic speeding and safety issues for residents of the road and stated her belief that it is not in the public interest to grant the waiver for road improvements on Tom’s Hollow Lane.
Donald McLaughlin requested that Tom’s Hollow Lane be left as it is.
Marcia Galazzi stated that her home used to be surrounded by required 50’ buffers which have now been raised to 100’ buffers and noted that this is an ecological peninsula and told of turtles recently laying eggs in her yard. Galazzi noted that the neighbors on Tom’s Hollow Lane paid for an Environmental Report on the area surrounding Tom’s Hollow Lane prepared by C. Diane Boretos of Call of the Wild Consulting & Environmental Services entitled, “Vernal Pool Habitat Evaluation for Tom’s Hollow Lane, Orleans, MA”, dated April 2006 which was submitted to the Orleans Conservation Commission during their evaluation of this application which was in opposition to two reports done by Donald G. Schall, ENSR International entitled, “Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment, 50
Tom’s Hollow Lane, Orleans, MA”, dated November 22, 2005 and “Spring 2006 Vernal Pool Habitat survey, 50 Tom’s Hollow Lane, Orleans, Massachusetts”, dated April 20, 2006. Galazzi stated her belief that the Planning Board members in 1975 were very well aware of future consequences of subdivision development in this environmentally sensitive area which is why they conditioned the subdivision at that time. Galazzi also expressed concern that road improvements will cause the removal of the shade canopy over the road and damage the critical life of the vernal pools.
Beth McCartney stated that only the Kennedy’s will profit from this subdivision application and the resulting proposed road improvements.
End of public comments
The Chairman offered McCormick an opportunity for closing comments. McCormick noted that the neighbors have come forth with strong and impassioned comments and claimed that the proposed subdivision and road improvements would be consistent with their concerns. McCormick stated that the applicant would be willing to work with the Planning Board if any adjustments need to be made to the plan. McCormick stated that if there were no environmental concerns, the applicant would have the right to construct a 20’ wide road. Malo stated that the number of waivers requested is necessary to allow this application to go forward and still be sensitive to the environmental issues.
MOTION TO CLOSE EVIDENTIARY PORTION OF PUBLIC HEARING:
MOTION: On a motion by Ken McKusick, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to close the evidentiary portion of the public hearing for Thomas and Patricia Kennedy for property located at 40 and 50 Tom’s Hollow Lane.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION OF INDIVIDUAL WAIVERS
The Planning Board discussed individually the following list of waivers submitted by Thomas and Patricia Kennedy for 40 and 50 Tom’s Hollow Lane.
§192-10C. Dead End Streets
The Planning Board discussed the proposed alternative of using the existing 40’ wide Right of Way and individual house driveways to the required 80’ diameter property line turnaround requirement and questioned whether the road is hardened enough to support heavy vehicles.
§192-10F. Standards of Adequacy: Surface Type
The Planning Board discussed the fact that bituminous concrete is required for road surfaces, and noted that the applicant has proposed a bituminous concrete surface over a portion of the road (980’) and a gravel surface over another portion of the road (950’). McGrath noted that the Planning Board is willing to be flexible on road surface waivers as long as it can be demonstrated that the road can support the required vehicle weight.
§192-10F. Standards of Adequacy: Radius Curve
The Planning Board noted that a radius curve of 290’ is required (with a note that the existing centerline radius is 60’) and the applicant has proposed a design increasing the minimum centerline radius to 92’ (center of gravel), not the 290’ noted above. Planning Board members expressed concerns with the proposal and stated the need for the applicant to at least meet the minimum requirement. It was noted that the radius curve has an impact on sight distance. The Planning Board expressed concerns with the number of vehicles (up to 80 vehicle trips per day) which could result with further subdivision on this road and noted that would required better site distance as well as improved road conditions.
§192-10F. Standards of Adequacy: Surface Width
The Planning Board discussed the proposed waiver for adherence to a Rural Road Alternative {14’ paved plus 1’ berm (590’); 14’ gravel (560’); 12’ wide gravel (390’); 12’ paved plus 1’ berm (390’)} instead of the required 20’ wide roadway required by the Orleans Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Planning Board noted the potential for an increased number of vehicles traveling on this road with the advent of future subdivision and noted the need for the minimum required road surface width on the entire road.
§192-10F. Standards of Adequacy: Site Distance
The Planning Board indicated that the need for adequate site distance has been adequately indicated by this board.
§192-10F. Standards of Adequacy: Maximum Grade
The Planning Board discussed the grade at the end of Tom’s Hollow Road and noted that land would be destroyed if major changes were made and noted that the road has worked adequately for the current residents and there is no need to change it.
§192-14E. Grade: Road Cross Section
The Planning Board discussed the proposed cross slope of 5% for the entire road and noted that a Road maintenance Agreement may be necessary to maintain proper drainage on this road.
§192-14F. Surface Material
The Planning Board agreed that this issue has already been adequately discussed during this public hearing.
§192-14G. Berms
The Planning Board discussed whether berms would be required on both sides of the road and indicated they had no objection to berms on one side of the road.
Frontage Waivers
Meservey noted that the applicant has provided a plan with one panhandle lot, but questioned whether both Lots B & D should be considered as panhandle lots and would need waivers from frontage requirements.
Lots C and D - The Planning Board discussed whether Lot D should be considered as a panhandle lot and noted that it is clear that the applicant could meet arc frontage on a circle, thus eliminating the need for a turnaround and noted that a waiver would be appropriate in this case.
Lots A and B – The Planning Board discussed whether Lot B could be considered as a panhandle lot and some of the board members indicated their disinclination to grant this waiver noted that a turnaround would be preferable. Concerns were raised regarding vehicular obstruction and inappropriate snow clearing. Meservey noted that up to two panhandle lots are allowed in a subdivision with the appropriate frontage waivers. Guzzeau questioned whether a cul-de-sac would be appropriate.
McKusick stated that the 1975 Planning Board had concerns regarding the impact of future subdivision in the area around Tom’s Hollow Lane and reminded the Planning Board of the need to question why the 1975 subdivision findings should be overruled.
MOTION TO DISAPPROVE ALL WAIVERS: A motion was made by Ken McKusick, seconded by Paul O'Connor, for the Board to disapprove all of the waivers for the application for the subdivision for Thomas and Patricia Kennedy for property located at 40 and 50 Tom’s Hollow Lane. After some discussion, Planning Board members, Kenneth McKusick and Paul O'Connor agreed to withdraw the above-mentioned motion and vote separately on each waiver request from Coastal Engineering, Inc.
VOTE: No Vote Was Taken On This Motion.
McGrath stated his recognition that a lot of work has been done to bring this subdivision before the Planning Board, but noted that the Planning Board has serious concerns with the proposed 92’ radius and minimum site distance.
By consensus, the Planning Board agreed to discuss and vote on each of the waiver requests individually.
WAIVER REQUEST 192-10F. “STANDARDS OF ADEQUACY: RADIUS CURVE” AND “STANDARDS OF ADEQUACY: SITE DISTANCE”
MOTION TO DENY WAIVER: On a motion by Kenneth McKusick, seconded by John Fallender, the Planning Board voted to deny Waiver Request #192-10F “Standards of Adequacy” (#2. Radius Curve and #4. Site Distance) requested in a letter from Coastal Engineering Company, Inc., dated June 6, 2007, entitled, “Supplemental Waiver Request”.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
WAIVER REQUEST 192-10C. “DEAD END STREETS”
MOTION TO DENY WAIVER: On a motion by Kenneth McKusick, seconded by Gary Guzzeau, the Planning Board voted to deny Waiver Request #192-10C: “Dead End Streets” requested in a letter from Coastal Engineering Company, Inc., dated June 6, 2007, entitled, “Supplemental Waiver Request”.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
WAIVER REQUEST 192-10F. “STANDARDS OF ADEQUACY: SURFACE TYPE”
MOTION TO GRANT WAIVER: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Kenneth McKusick, the Planning Board voted to grant Waiver Request #192-10F: “Standards of Adequacy: Surface Type” requested in a letter from Coastal Engineering Company, Inc., dated June 6, 2007, entitled, “Supplemental Waiver Request”.
VOTE: 4-1-0 The motion passed by a majority. (O'Connor voted in opposition).
WAIVER REQUEST 192-10F. “STANDARDS OF ADEQUACY: SURFACE WIDTH”
MOTION TO DENY WAIVER: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Planning Board voted to deny the 12’ Surface Width Waiver Request #192-10F: “Standards of Adequacy: Surface Width” requested in a letter from Coastal Engineering Company, Inc., dated June 6, 2007, entitled, “Supplemental Waiver Request” (John Fallender suggested at least a 14’ road surface width).
VOTE: 4-1-0 The motion passed by a majority. (McKusick voted in opposition with a statement that he would prefer that the road width be maintained at 20’).
WAIVER REQUEST 192-10F. “STANDARDS OF ADEQUACY: MAXIMUM GRADE”
MOTION TO GRANT WAIVER: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Planning Board voted to grant Waiver Request #192-10F: “Standards of Adequacy: Maximum Grade” requested in a letter from Coastal Engineering Company, Inc., dated June 6, 2007, entitled, “Supplemental Waiver Request”.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
WAIVER REQUEST 192-14E. “GRADE: ROAD CROSS SECTION”
MOTION TO GRANT WAIVER: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Planning Board voted to grant Waiver Request #192-14E: “Grade: Road Cross Section” requested in a letter from Coastal Engineering Company, Inc., dated June 6, 2007, entitled, “Supplemental Waiver Request”.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
WAIVER REQUEST 192-14F. “SURFACE MATERIAL”
MOTION TO GRANT WAIVER: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Planning Board voted to grant Waiver Request #192-14F: “Surface Material” requested in a letter from Coastal Engineering Company, Inc., dated June 6, 2007, entitled, “Supplemental Waiver Request”.
VOTE: 4-1-0 The motion passed by a majority. (McKusick voted in opposition).
WAIVER REQUEST 192-14G. “BERMS”
MOTION TO DENY WAIVER: A motion was made by Kenneth McKusick to deny granting Waiver Request 192-14G, “Berms” with a statement that berms should be required on both sides of the road where the grade is 3% or greater. There was no second to this motion.
WAIVER REQUEST 192-14G. “BERMS”
MOTION TO GRANT WAIVER: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Planning Board voted to grant Waiver Request #192-14G: “Berms” requested in a letter from Coastal Engineering Company, Inc., dated June 6, 2007, entitled, “Supplemental Waiver Request”.
VOTE: 4-1-0 The motion passed by a majority. (McKusick voted in opposition).
FRONTAGE WAIVERS:
At this point, the Planning Board discussed the required frontage waivers for the two panhandle lots (as provided in 164-22.A.(5)) and took a vote on each.
WAIVER REQUEST. “FRONTAGE FOR PANHANDLE ON LOT D”
MOTION TO GRANT WAIVER: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Gary Guzzeau, the Planning Board voted to grant the frontage waiver request for Lot D.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
WAIVER REQUEST. “FRONTAGE FOR PANHANDLE ON LOT B”
Sims McGrath noted that proposed Lot B was found to have insufficient frontage as defined in the Zoning Bylaw and was treated as a panhandle request, even though the applicant did not request this waiver.
MOTION TO DENY WAIVER: On a motion by Gary Guzzeau, seconded by Kenneth McKusick, the Planning Board voted to deny the frontage waiver request for Lot B as a panhandle and noted that a turnaround would be required.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION TO DENY DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN
MOTION TO DENY SUBDIVISION: On a motion by Kenneth McKusick, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Board voted to deny the Definitive Subdivision Plan prepared for Patricia and Thomas Kennedy dated February 15, 2007 and revised June 5, 2007, prepared by Coastal Engineering Company, Inc., Scale 1” = 40’, for the following reason: The proposed plan does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and the Orleans Subdivision Rules & Regulations and the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the waivers are in the public interest.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
Fallender resumed chairing the meeting at the point.
SCENIC ROAD - PUBLIC TREE HEARING - NSTAR - CIRCUIT # 600 - SOUTH ORLEANS
In the absence of the Planning Board Clerk, Fallender read the legal ad into the record. On behalf of NSTAR, Paul Sellers explained a proposal to trim trees around the power lines on Circuit #600 in South Orleans on scenic and non-scenic roads to a standard clearance of 8’ on sides and below wires and 12’ over the wires. Sellers noted that this circuit was last trimmed approximately 4½ years ago. Sellers stated that there will be no tree removals during this process. Sellers responded to a question about abutter notification that NSTAR has clearing easements over many properties and they try to obtain signatures from homeowners who are affected by tree cuttings, but it is not required for tree trimming.
Dan Connolly (Tree Warden) expressed his support for the proposed tree trimming on Circuit #600 and noted that he has a good working relationship with NSTAR personnel and monitors all of their work personally as well as monitoring done by NSTAR during and after the work is completed, including pruning, clearing and debris cleanup.
Public Comments:
Sandy Sheaffer-Ung stated her concerns with past NSTAR cutting practices and stated a complaint over a weeping willow overlooking a marsh that was cut down near her property.
MOTION TO APPROVE: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Board voted to authorize Paul Sellers of NSTAR to conduct maintenance pruning under the supervision of the Tree Warden in Circuit 600 located within the Town Road Layouts of designated Scenic Roads.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) - DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION - DOUGLAS NICKERSON - 110 BEACH RD
Meservey explained that the applicant, Douglas Nickerson is not ready to proceed with his Definitive Subdivision application for 110 Beach Road, before the Planning Board at this time and has requested that the continuation of the public hearing be continued to June 26, 2007.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Board voted to continue final action on the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 110 Beach Road to June 26, 2007 at 8:00 p.m.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
PARTIAL RELEASE OF COVENANT - FRANKLIN L. JOY AND SARA S. JOY - 8 PARADISE LANE
Meservey stated that a request has been received by the Planning Board for a Partial Release of Lot 4, located at 8 Paradise Lane originally submitted on a Definitive Subdivision Plan for Franklin L. & Sara S. Joy, scale 1” = 40’, dated August 19, 1988 by Nickerson & Berger, Inc. Meservey noted that there is an 18’ wide hardened roadway, although the proposed cul-de-sac will not be provided as shown on the plan. Meservey stated that this is only a Partial Release of Covenant and pointed out that Lot 5 has not been released from the Covenant.
MOTION TO APPROVE: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Board voted to approve the Partial Release of Covenant for Lot 4, located at 8 Paradise Lane, and shown on the Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land for Franklin L. Joy and Sara S. Joy dated August 19, 1998, scale 1” = 40’ prepared by Nickerson and Berger Inc.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Land Use Mapping Initiative
Meservey stated that a Land Use Mapping Workshop will be presented by John Lipman (Cape Cod Commission) and George Meservey on June 26, 2007 with participation from the Board of Selectmen.
CORRESPONDENCE
Charter Review Committee
The Planning Board was given a copy of the Charter Review Committee Minutes dated May 17, 2007 for review only
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 22, 2007
MOTION: On a motion by Ken McKusick, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Board voted to approve the minutes of May 22, 2007.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Ken McKusick, the Board voted to adjourn at 10:15 p.m.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
SIGNED: ______________________________ DATE: _______________________
(Seth Wilkinson, Clerk)
| 
