ORLEANS PLANNING BOARD
February 13, 2007 – Minutes
A meeting of the Orleans Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in Meeting Room A, American Legion Hall. Present: Chairman: Sims McGrath; Vice-Chairman: John Fallender; Clerk: Seth Wilkinson; Associates: Paul O’Connor; Gary Guzzeau. Planning Department: George Meservey; John Jannell; Also Present: Board of Selectmen Liaison: John Hinckley (representative for Jon Fuller). Absent: Kenneth McKusick.
In order to have a full voting quorum, Chairman McGrath asked Associate members, Gary Guzzeau and Paul O'Connor to vote as full members for this meeting.
7:00 P.M. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENTS
McGrath stated that this is a continuation of the Zoning Bylaw Amendments Public Hearing which was held on January 23, 2007.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-32, “Dwellings in Commercial Structures”
McGrath stated that the essence of this proposed change is to allow up to three dwelling units within commercial structures (or in a separate structure) and reduce the commercial requirements to 30% of the use of the structure rather than 50% and the elimination of the 450 square feet of green space required in the zoning bylaws.
Correspondence:
No correspondence was received on this proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment.
Comments:
There were no public comments on this matter.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-19.1, “Village Center District VC”
McGrath stated that this is a proposal to amend the Zoning bylaws to allow third floor housing in the Village Center District. This article would change how the height of buildings are measured and would ultimately change the absolute height of a building under certain conditions and would require a roof pitch. Dog house dormers and pitched roofs would be allowed and would require Architectural Review Committee approval. Third floors would only be allowed to be used for residential units with an allowance of up to four dwelling units as well as the 30% - 50% occupancy for commercial uses.
Correspondence:
No correspondence was received on this proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment.
Comments:
John (Bob) Bonscher questioned the “thesis” behind this amendment and asked how the town can
determine that the workforce housing will be maintained only for Orleans residents and/or workers.
Sims McGrath responded that the “thesis” is the need in town for workforce housing and historically Orleans has had three and four story buildings as seen in old photographs. The infrastructure to support additional residents is in the Village Center such as shopping, and transportation with the Flex bus route and thus reduces the need for automobiles. It is very difficult to restrict the workforce housing to Orleans residents and/or workers and there is a strict interpretation of the term “Affordable Housing” in the State regulations. Meservey stated that Federal Fair Housing Laws do not allow restricting housing to local people and noted that the Village Center is the perfect area for higher buildings and increased density as residents have expressed in various
workshops. McGrath stated that one of the foundations of the Orleans Comprehensive Plan is increased residential density which creates a healthier Village Center and encourages diversity. McGrath referred to the planning principle that nodes of commercial activity should be created where the infrastructure can support them such as the Village Center and the areas at both ends of town where the two grocery store shopping centers are located.
Joseph Lewis complained that the East Orleans areas is being restricted and stated that there is a need in East Orleans needs for workers and workforce housing. O'Connor responded that other Rural Business areas of town could subsequently be affected if the increased density is successful in the Village Center.
John (Bob) Bonscher stated that the Village Center housing will provide for workers throughout town.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-13, “Schedule of Use Regulations” - Apartments in Rural Business District
McGrath stated that proposed zoning bylaw amendment pertains to multi-family housing developments in the Rural Business District. This proposal would prohibit the development of multi-family housing as a principle use of a parcel and would have no affect on apartments that are accessory to commercial uses or apartments that are accessory to a dwelling as may be permitted under other bylaws.
Correspondence:
Wilkinson read letters of support for this proposed bylaw amendment from the following people:
- Letter from Fran & Bob Bonscher dated February 8, 2007 in support of this zoning bylaw amendment.
- Letter from George Webbere dated February 9, 2007 in support of this zoning bylaw amendment.
- Letter from Brooks Woods received February 9, 2007 in support of this zoning bylaw amendment.
- Letter from Bruce & Janet Taylor dated February 9, 2007 in support of this zoning bylaw amendment.
- Letter from Constance Calderwood dated February 12, 2007 in support of this zoning bylaw amendment.
- Letter from Ralph Demont dated February 11, 2007 in favor of this zoning bylaw amendment.
Comments:
Jeff Karlson expressed concern that businesses are limited in the Rural Business District by
setbacks and parking requirements and suggested that regulations be relaxed and allow business uses to expand in the absence of allowing multi-family housing.
Seth Wilkinson stated that the previous comments are good and suggested that the Planning Board could take into consideration the possibility of being more specific about lot coverage and setback restrictions some of which are out of the Planning Board’s control such as wastewater issues.
John Fallender noted that Mr. Karlson has a good point and the Planning Board is taking the first step to allow for more business availability by not dedicating more land to apartments and condominiums.
Joseph Lewis stated that the rundown motel in East Orleans was replaced with a better project resulting in a restoration of the Barley Neck area.
George Webbere stated that current zoning has allowed the cost of property to rise to a level where it cannot support business development and consequently have destroyed the concept of a Rural Business District. If apartment complexes are allowed to continue, this area will be inundated with apartment complexes and will no longer be a business district.
Gary Guzzeau stated that zoning changes are typically made to accommodate the realities of the area in question such as zoning map amendments. It might be wise to study the setback requirements and bring them into conformity with the area to eliminate the need for multiple businesses having to apply for special permits.
George Webbere suggested rezoning the East Orleans area into a Residential District instead of a Rural Business District.
Sims McGrath responded that previous Planning Boards have gone through various rezoning proposals in East Orleans and South Orleans including designations as General Business District, Residential District and consequently Rural Business District to encourage smaller business development. The Planning Board is guided by the idea that a neighborhood’s character is maintained and sound zoning principles are preserved as directed by the Orleans Comprehensive Plan. Residents have expressed a desire to preserve the character of the various neighborhoods in town raising the question of how to allow for the inevitability of progress and still maintain the current character of the various districts in town. This proposal is designed to help maintain the character of the Rural Business
Districts.
Jeff Karlson questioned the credibility of McGrath’s comments due to the fact that the motel at the Barley Neck Inn could not economically be run without a substantial influx of funds. The economy determines the character of the area (i.e. if finances are available, character can be maintained). A mix of retail and residential can be achieved on a smaller scale in a Rural Business District and still preserve the character of the area.
George Meservey stated that the issues in the Rural Business District include the 15% building coverage and the 25 foot building setbacks on the front, side and rear (all of which are comparable to the Residential District). It should be noted that the retail use is limited to 1,500 square feet per business, (not per lot) which could result in a lot containing multiple small retail use storefronts.
Brooks Woods stated that the Rural Business Districts seem to be a remote adjunct of business downtown. The atmosphere of East Orleans and South Orleans will not remain the same as multi-family facilities are development. Relaxation on building facilities might be an option. This is a very miniscule piece of land in the heart of a big residential area and large multi-family developments destroy the area. It might be preferable to encourage retail businesses in the Rural Business District.
Kathi Lewis remarked that approximately eight businesses have gone out of business in East Orleans in the past three years and it is difficult to maintain business levels during the wintertime. The economics do not support the Rural Business District, especially in the off-season. There is a limitation on the type of business that is allowed in the Rural Business District. Joseph Lewis complained that businesses that are part of a “chain” are making it difficult for the small businessman to stay in business.
James Trainor stated that he is the owner of a recently refurbished building in East Orleans which took an additional five months after the renovation was completed to find a tenant. There is no longer the demand for business space in East Orleans and the highest and best use of land is condominiums which are in demand.
Jeff Karlson stated that the vitality of all businesses is being challenged at the present time, and therefore window shopping should be encouraged to improve the problem. In order to make East Orleans a destination, it might be prudent to relax the zoning enough to encourage more businesses. It might be possible to emulate the downtown density on a smaller scale. Don’t shut the door on multi-family development.
Kathi Lewis declared that the character of the East Orleans has already changed and zoning restrictions should be relaxed so that local people can afford to live in town.
Paul O'Connor explained that the Planning Board gauges the needs and expressed desires of the community when proposing zoning changes. The Planning Board has heard many concerns from the residents about growth, but no interest has been expressed in developing East Orleans or South Orleans. The Planning Board received a petition with 111 signatures expressing support of the proposed zoning amendment to limit multi-family development in the Rural Business Districts located in East Orleans and South Orleans.
George Webbere stated that within 5-10 years if six apartments on one acre zoning is allowed to remain as it is currently written, there will be no business district as many of the properties will only contain condominium developments.
Sims McGrath stated that current regulations allow lots equal to 60,000 square feet (or more) of contiguous buildable upland are presently allowed multi-family housing at a rate of 7,000 square feet per dwelling unit which calculates to six dwelling units per acre or nine dwellings units on a 60,000 square feet parcel. McGrath questioned the feasibility of revising the proposed zoning zoning to accommodate one dwelling unit per 14,000 square feet which would allow three dwelling units per acre.
Brooks Woods suggested revising the zoning down to two dwelling units per acre which is comparable to the surrounding residential area. McGrath responded that a legal blockade would mean that the zoning would have to allow zoning between 6 and 3 dwelling units or the proposal presented at this meeting to eliminate the use. If the zoning allowance were reduced to two which functionally eliminates the use, the Attorney General could disallow the amendment. Brooks Woods stated that he would then prefer the proposed amendment as it has been presented during this public hearing.
James Trainor stated that the only place for condominiums is in the Rural Business District, Limited Business District, General Business District or the Village Center District and downsizing the zoning would mean it would be unfeasible for developers to create housing for seniors.
George Webbere questioned the need for developing housing for more people in town. The town should not necessarily be against developers, but there is no need to serve the developers.
Joseph Lewis voice his opinion that if development is not economically feasible, then it is being eliminated and the town will be left with many vacant lots.
John Hinckley stated that he likes having a business center and feels that there is an opportunity to find a middle ground on this issue which would allow business and condominium development. A mixed community in East Orleans is important and it is important to take the Orleans Comprehensive Plan recommendations regarding nodes of density into consideration in considering zoning changes. Orleans is going to grow to a buildout estimate and there will be an opportunity to preserve land for open space by avoiding sprawl and using density to control the makeup of various areas in town.
Jeff Karlson agreed with Hinckley’s comments and noted that development is inevitable, but it can be done tastefully and still preserve the economic vitality and character of the town. A little more development should be allowed in this area, but it is important to minimize the chain stores to maintain the small town character.
Brooks Woods indicated that he does not feel that it was ever intended that the East Orleans Rural Business District should emulate the downtown area. Many people have expressed the wish that Orleans be a “little fishing village” and that identity will be lost if the current regulations remain in place.
John (Bob) Bonscher urged people not to be frightened about the concept of box stores and noted that the ones that are currently in town have not adversely affected the town. The density momentum will continue if apartments are not prohibited.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-3, “Applicability”
Sims McGrath explained that this zoning amendment refers to alterations to previously existing non-conforming structures and the intensification of the use of the non-conforming portion of that structure which would trigger the Special Permit process.
Correspondence:
No correspondence was received on this proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment.
Comments:
Seth Wilkinson noted that the definition of coastal banks needs clarification. George Meservey stated that the definition of coastal bank should be studied as a separate issue in the future.
There were no public comments on this matter.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-22, “Modifications”
Sims McGrath noted that comments received regarding the existence of overhangs over steps and stoops and the possibility of creating non-conformities where none previously existed due to the language in the State Building Code which the zoning bylaws are dependent upon. Town Counsel ahs been advised that some minor wordsmithing would be required so that no new non-conformities are created as there is a distinct effort not to create a restriction.
Correspondence:
No correspondence was received on this proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment.
Comments:
There were no public comments on this matter.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-6 “Zoning Map”
Sims McGrath explained that the intent of this proposal is to rezone a number of parcels in the Childs Homestead / Locust Road area which is presently zoned as General Business and Limited Business and the proposed is aimed at rezoning some of the parcels from General Business to Limited Business and from Limited Business to Residential.
Correspondence:
No correspondence was received on this proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment.
Comments:
James Trainor said that the property on Locust Road should not be limited to residential due to their proximity to the Comcast Tower.
There were no public comments on this matter.
Motion to Close the Public Hearing for the Zoning Bylaw Amendments:
Sims McGrath explained that the Planning Board will take all of the comments and correspondence that were received on the proposed zoning bylaw amendments during the public hearing process under advisement and will discuss them and make a decision on how to proceed as to their inclusion on the Annual Town Meeting warrant in May 2007.
MOTION: On a motion by Seth Wilkinson, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to close the evidentiary portion of the public hearing on the Zoning Bylaw amendments.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. (Chairman McGrath made a note that Paul O'Connor and Gary Guzzeau voted as regular members for this public hearing).
MOTIONS ON THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENTS
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-6 “Zoning Map”
Planning Board members agreed that comments received from residents indicates that the proposed zoning bylaw amendment to rezone the Childs Homestead Road / Locust Road area of town should not proceed to Town Meeting.
MOTION TO DISMISS: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Gary Guzzeau, the Board voted to drop the proposed zoning bylaw amendment for Section 164-6 from any further consideration at this time.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-32, “Dwellings in Commercial Structures”
George Meservey stated that no changes are proposed from the advertised legal ad on this zoning proposal.
MOTION: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Seth Wilkinson, the Board voted to forward the proposed bylaw amendment regarding Section 164-32 “Dwellings in Commercial Structures” to the Board of Selectmen for their review and inclusion on the Annual Town Meeting warrant in May 2007.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-19.1, “Village Center District VC”
Sims McGrath explained that this proposed zoning bylaw amendment would allow third floor housing in commercial structures in the Village Center.
George Meservey clarified changes that were made as a result of comments from the first portion of the public hearing including a “purpose” subsection stating that this would allow increased building height in the Village Center for the development of accessory dwelling units within commercial buildings. Language has been changed to explain the midpoint between the eave and the peak of the ridge. Roof pitch requirements have been clarified regarding mansards and gambrels. A clarification of the use for third floors states that they can only be used for residential dwelling units and /or storage of commercial goods.
Seth Wilkinson expressed concern regarding the use of gambrels and the possibility of abuse and suggested that they should be prohibited.
MOTION: On a motion by Seth Wilkinson, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to forward the proposed bylaw amendment regarding Section 164-19.1 “Village Center District VC” to the Board of Selectmen for their review and inclusion on the Annual Town Meeting warrant in May 2007.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-13, “Schedule of Use Regulations” - Apartments in Rural Business District
Seth Wilkinson expressed his support of the option of allowing one dwelling unit per 14,000 square feet. George Meservey noted that there have been concerns expressed by the Planning Board and residents regarding high density in the Rural Business District. Any parcel in the Rural Business District is allowed to have two apartments over or behind commercial space regardless of the outcome of this proposed zoning bylaw amendment which will have the effect of preserving the business and mixed use aspect of the Rural Business District providing less incentive for properties to convert to totally residential within that district and seems to be a good compromise taking into effect various comments that have come from the residents in town.
Sims McGrath expressed concerns with the compatibility of high density multi-family housing in the Rural Business District and how it matches up with that type of zoning. Numerous comments in the first portion of the public hearing on zoning amendments indicated that numerous residents in the Rural Business District may wish to downsize from a full house to a condominium-type arrangement. The allowance of three units per acre still allows for some economies of the common expenses, but does not eliminate a use that several people have suggested as beneficial for the neighborhood. The issue of density would be addressed by making it somewhat less profitable to so thoroughly develop a parcel which may result is some space for business and mixed use purposes. This is a good incremental change and a
significant step forward in protecting the character of the neighborhood without eliminating a use that has been suggested as an option by some residents. Sims McGrath noted that this proposal provides an opportunity to limit the amount of real estate used for multi-family housing which leaves a greater opportunity for a business or mixed use to be applied.
Sims McGrath questioned whether the Planning Board would consider moving forward with a newer proposal providing for less density of one dwelling unit per 14,000 square feet.
Comments:
Brooks Woods questioned why the Planning Board is considering moving forward with another density proposal when 111 resident signatures were gathered on a petition showing strong support for the Planning Board’s original proposal prohibiting the development of multi-family housing as a principle use of a parcel. Woods questioned why the petition does not seem to carry much weight since a new density proposal is now being considered by the Planning Board.
Sims McGrath responded that the 111 signature petition carries great weight with the Planning Board, but at several public hearings there have been a substantial number of comments were received by the Planning Board in opposition to the prohibition of multi-family housing in the Rural Business District and there have been suggestions that a middle ground can be reached where the use would be allowed in such a way as to provide lower density of the Rural Business District. McGrath stated that in order for the Planning Board to be able to discuss a new lower density proposal, public hearings must be held in order to gauge public opinion and determine how the Planning Board should proceed on this matter.
MOTION: On a motion by Seth Wilkinson, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to forward the proposed bylaw amendment regarding Section 164-13 “Schedule of Use Regulations” on a proposed density change to the Board of Selectmen for referral back to the Planning Board to be advertised for a Planning Board public hearing on March 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-3, “Applicability”
George Meservey stated that no changes are proposed from the advertised legal ad on this zoning proposal.
MOTION: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Board voted to forward the proposed bylaw amendment regarding Section 164-3 “Applicability” to the Board of Selectmen for their review and inclusion on the Annual Town Meeting warrant in May 2007.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
Amend Zoning Bylaws Section 164-22, “Modifications” - Steps and Stoops
George Meservey noted that changes have been made to this proposed zoning proposal regarding the projection of steps and stoops based on comments received during the public hearing process. Sims McGrath noted that all structures are required to have two means of egress, and this refers to steps and stoops that encroach on setbacks.
MOTION: On a motion by Paul O'Connor, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to forward the proposed bylaw amendment regarding Section 164-22 “Modifications” to the Board of Selectmen for their review and inclusion on the Annual Town Meeting warrant in May 2007.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED - JMP REALTY TRUST – 21, 23 & 25 CANAL ROAD
Bill Weller (Weller Associates) stated that the applicant has appeared before the Conservation Commission and Board of Health for the approval of a new septic system for this property. Even though the owner has procrastinated, there is a still a valid Conservation Commission Order of Conditions for this property, but the Board of Health will have to re-approve the variances. In order to proceed, the three lots shown on the Assessor’s Maps are on one deed with an easement and the Planning Board has been requested to approve the plan as an Approval Not Required to combine the lots. There is no anticipated change of use for the property and the new septic system will serve all of the structures and businesses on the combined property.
Planning Department Comments:
George Meservey stated that this is a 3-lot combination that meets all of the Approval Not Required submittal requirements and Planning Board endorsement is recommended.
MOTION: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Board voted to authorize the Planning Board Chairman to endorse the Approval Not Required plan prepared for JMP Realty Trust, dated January 15, 2007, scale 1” = 20’, prepared by Weller and Associates.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. (Chairman McGrath noted that Paul O'Connor and Gary Guzzeau are voting as regular members at this meeting)
RE-ENDORSEMENT OF STIX DEFINITIVE PLAN
George Meservey explained that the Stix Definitive Subdivision plan (which is Land-Courted land consisting of a panhandle into a paper cul-de-sac subdivision in the Pah Wah Point Conservation area) was approved by the Planning Board in 1991, but was never recorded. Land was offered as a donation to the town in 1991 but the conveyance was never transacted. Due to Land Court scheduling or other issues, the surveyance was not completed within six months and Town Counsel has requested that the Planning Board authorize the Town Clerk to certify that the Planning Board is aware of the issue and there have been no substantive changes since the Planning Board’s review in August.
MOTION: On a motion by Paul O'Connor, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to authorize the Town Clerk to certify that there have been no changes to the Stix Definitive Subdivision Plan since the Planning Board’s last review of the plan.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
CORRESPONDENCE
Summary of Proposed Zoning Articles – 2007 for various Cape Towns
Sims McGrath noted that a summary of proposed zoning articles for all the Cape Towns in 2007 has been included in the Planning Board’s packet and noted that there are seven wind-turbine articles listed.
Cape Cod Commission Public Hearing on Orleans Comprehensive Plan, dated January 31, 2007
George Meservey explained that the Planning Committee of the Cape Cod Commission will be holding a meeting on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. to review the Orleans Comprehensive Plan (approved by town meeting voters) and take it under consideration for recertification. The Cape Cod Commission has since requested that George Meservey and Sims McGrath meet with them to make a brief presentation of the merits of the Orleans Comprehensive Plan. George Meservey noted that the Orleans Comprehensive Plan is highly consistent with the Cape Cod Commission’s Regional Policy Plan when it was last certified with no substantive changes to the Actions, Goals and Recommendations. It is anticipated that there would be no significant objections to the Orleans Comprehensive Plan by the Cape Cod
Commission. John Hinckley stated that the Board of Selectmen has requested that the local Planning Boards be allowed input into local issues under consideration by the Cape Cod Commission.
Charter Review Committee
George Meservey informed the Planning Board that the Charter Review Committee has requested input from the Planning Board on suggested charter amendments regarding planning issues and the Orleans Comprehensive Plan such as the three annual Planning Board reporting requirements.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Seth Wilkinson, the Board voted to adjourn at 9:30 p.m.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
SIGNED: ______________________________ DATE: _______________________
(Seth Wilkinson, Clerk)
| 
