ORLEANS PLANNING BOARD
January 23, 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; Kenneth McKusick; Clerk: Seth Wilkinson; Associates: Paul O’Connor; Gary Guzzeau. Planning Department: George Meservey; John Jannell; Secretary: Karen Sharpless. Also Present: Board of Selectmen Liaison: Jon Fuller.
RESIGNATION OF NATHANIEL PULLING
McGrath announced that Nathaniel Pulling has resigned from the Planning Board after many years of service for health reasons and noted that he will be missed.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENTS
Chairman Sims McGrath noted that the following Regular members will be voting on the Public Hearing for the proposed zoning amendments: Sims McGrath, Seth Wilkinson, Kenneth McKusick; John Fallender and asked Associate member, Paul O'Connor, to vote as a full member due to the resignation of Nathaniel Pulling.
1. AMEND THE ZONING BYLAWS SECTION 164-32, Dwellings in Commercial Structures
The Clerk, Seth Wilkinson read the public hearing notice for this zoning bylaw amendment into the record. Meservey gave a powerpoint presentation for each of the proposal zoning amendment articles.
For the edification of the public hearing attendees, McGrath explained the process by which the Planning Board proposes changes to zoning bylaws and stated that input is received from public comments from residents, the Zoning Bylaw Task Force, Town Departments and guidance from the Orleans Comprehensive Plan.
Meservey presented this proposed amendment for dwellings in commercial structures, such as residential dwellings over stores. Currently three dwelling units are allowed over retail in a commercial building in the Village Center District as long as the retail component is at least 50% of the building. There is a need in the Village Center District for workforce apartments. This section of the bylaw has been clarified and incorporates changes to help business owners create residential dwellings in the Village Center District. The business mix ratio has been lowered from 50% to 30% of the floor area which must be dedicated to commercial use. The requirement to have the residential dwelling units in the same structure as the commercial uses has been lifted which will allow for detached
residential structures on commercial lots. The open space requirement of 450 square feet has been removed. This proposal would ensure that all new commercial development is consistent with good planning practices. In mixed use buildings, all commercial will be located on the first floor and on the street side of the buildings, and residential will be located on the second floor and /or behind the commercial building on the lots. The intent is to maintain the functionality of the Village Center by requiring shops and retail to be easily accessible to the public by locating them on the first floor and near the street.
Correspondence:
Wilkinson read a portion of a letter from the Cape Cod Business Roundtable dated January 22, 2007 in support of this proposed zoning bylaw amendment.
Comments:
Attorney Ben Zehnder questioned why the Planning Board is retaining the limit of two dwelling units in the rest of the business districts while allowing three and four dwelling units in the Village Center District and suggested that the Planning Board consider adding allowances in other districts to boost their development potential. McGrath responded that the Village Center was chosen as the first district to use conventional planning wisdom in planning business development nodes and noted that the infrastructure is stronger in the Village Center at this time. Meservey indicated that the Planning Board has not yet considered higher density in other districts.
Tom Gardner questioned why the Planning Board is proposing to eliminate the open space requirement and how open space on these types of developments is commonly laid out.
2. AMEND THE ZONING BYLAWS SECTION 164-19.1, Village Center District
The Clerk, Seth Wilkinson read the public hearing notice for this zoning bylaw amendment into the record. Meservey gave a powerpoint presentation and noted the need for more workforce housing in the in town which could be accommodated with the allowance of increased building height in the Village Center District only. Meservey noted that Orleans has a history of three and four story buildings and as recently as 2005, visioning forums have shown that residents want more workforce housing in town. Meservey stated that the proposal would change the way building height is measured (30’ to the midpoint) and thus would allow three story buildings with more dwelling units (third floors could only be used for residential purposes). Meservey noted that pitch roofs would be required as opposed to
flat roofs, and noted that dormers would be allowed under limited conditions. Meservey noted that commercial buildings would be allowed to have up to four dwelling units which could add 70-75 apartments in the downtown. Review by the Site Plan Review Committee and the Architectural Review Committee would be required for proposals using expanded height limits.
Correspondence:
Wilkinson read a portion of a letter from the Cape Cod Business Roundtable dated January 22, 2007 in support of this proposed zoning bylaw amendment.
Comments:
John Hinckley asked why only four units are allowed in a commercial building and suggested that some buildings may be large enough to support more than four units and still meet the 30% mix requirement and the roof requirements. Meservey responded that lots must be 1½ acre in size in order to be allowed to be a multi-family development and it is important to maintain the commercial uses on the street front and increased density could be a consideration in future deliberations. McGrath noted that changes are being made incrementally and further liberalization could be considered in the future.
Jeff Karlson asked whether the new development proposals would still have to meet all of the parking and septic requirements and expressed concern with the “salt and pepper” effect where some lots would be able to go up and others would not, thus creating a look that may not be desired. Meservey responded that in many instances septic is located under parking due to land limitations and in some cases property owners have shared parking agreements or have the option to purchase parking spaces within 500’ of their buildings.
Tom Gardner expressed concern with increased parking and noted that there is a lack of parking downtown in the summer and questioned where new parking would be located if density changes are incorporated in the downtown. McGrath responded that some parcels have the capability to supply their own parking or parking can be acquired off-site. Meservey stated that there are plans through the Capital Improvement Plan to purchase parcels for parking in the downtown for future use.
Jim Trainor: The speaker thought there may be a conflict between the proposed intense use allowed in the Village Center and the abutting Residence district. He is concerned about 38’ building abutting smaller buildings and crowding/overshadowing effects. McGrath noted that the Limited Business District acts as a buffer from the General Business District and residential districts, and noted that recommendations are made in the Orleans Comprehensive Plan to encourage nodes of development using general zoning principles.
Will Joy questioned whether Special permits would be required for three story buildings in the Village Center District and whether Mansard style roofs would be allowed under this provision where their pitch meets the requirements, but the roof is flat. Joy stated that the impact of the other regulatory codes in Town may ultimately prohibit what you are trying to get developed in the Village Center. Meservey stated no type of flat roofs will be allowed, and noted that currently dwellings in commercial structures are allowed by right. Meservey stated that if the use currently requires a Special permit, then it would still require a Special Permit under the proposed new zoning regulations.
Attorney Ben Zehnder expressed concern regarding change of use and the resulting need for Special Permit review of the commercial component of the projects. Zehnder stated that this review would allow the whole development to be reviewed when the residential component came under scrutiny.
Bob Wilkinson stated that he has a mixed use building with an apartment above his commercial building and stated that the commercial use and the residential use share the parking well since the peak parking uses do not coincide and stated, “It’s a nice blend”.
3. AMEND THE ZONING BYLAWS SECTION 164-13, Schedule of Use Regulations
The Clerk, Seth Wilkinson read the public hearing notice for this zoning bylaw amendment into the record. Meservey gave a powerpoint presentation and explained that this proposed zoning bylaw amendment deals with apartment development in the Rural Business District. Meservey noted that the Rural Business District allows small business establishments such as coffee shops, convenience stores, grocery stores, small restaurants, which are limited to 1,500 square feet of retail space and can have apartments above. Meservey stated that there have been multiple complaints from residents regarding the high density of multi-family developments in the Rural Business District. Meservey stated that the Planning Board has determined that the high density of multi-family development is not compatible with
the intent of the Rural Business District and this proposal would prohibit future multi-family housing as the principle use of a property in the two Rural Business Districts located in East Orleans and South Orleans.
Correspondence:
The Clerk, Seth Wilkinson read letters from the following people into the record:
- Letter from Irene Wright dated January 23, 2007 in opposition to this zoning bylaw amendment.
- Letter from Kathi Lewis dated January 23, 2007 in opposition to this zoning bylaw amendment.
- Letter from Joe Lewis dated January 22, 2007 in opposition to this zoning bylaw amendment.
Comments:
Dick Philbrick stated that he feels that not allowing uses in the Rural Business District which are currently allowed is too drastic and suggested there might an incremental compromise in-between in the transitional period.
Brooks Woods thanked the Planning Board for the proposal to limit multi-family developments in Rural Business Districts and voicing his support for this proposed zoning amendment and presented the Planning Board with a “Proclamation of Concern” petition with 111 signatures of support.
Tom Finan stated that he is a resident in East Orleans and feels that the district is functioning well and finds the new multi-family developments more pleasant to view than the run-down motels that were there previously and stated that the town is gaining tax income from those properties. Finan stated that the proposed change would impact the potential future tax revenue gains from these new growth projects.
Pete Butcher stated that he is a business owner and it is his opinion that it is a mistake to further restrict affordable housing in Orleans and stated that the new multi-family developments add architectural charm to the area.
George Webber stated that it is unrealistic to consider multi-family housing in East Orleans “affordable housing” as it is cost prohibitive. Webber stated that zoning should not be planned based on potential tax revenue, but rather on sound zoning principles. Webber noted that multi-family development could drastically change the appearance of the whole Rural Business District.
Associate Gary Guzzeau arrived at this point in the meeting due to an earlier meeting conflict.
Jackie Philbrick stated that she is the co-Chairman of the Friends of Affordable Homes and stated her preference that East Orleans remain in its present character rather than provide more multi-family developments.
Bruce Taylor stated his support for this proposed bylaw change and indicated his desire to retain the current character of East Orleans and indicated his preference to retain workforce housing over shops and business.
McGrath noted that the definition of “affordable housing” is very specific, and therefore it is better to use the term “workforce housing” and noted that the proposed change would not affect apartments above businesses or apartments accessory to single family dwellings. McGrath noted that workforce apartments which are secondary to the primary use of the property would not be affected by this proposed bylaw change.
Attorney Ben Zehnder stated that both recent apartment development projects in the Rural Business District in East Orleans were changes in use from existing non-conformities and noted that they have restrictions on the type of use for each dwelling unit and must comply with increased nitrogen reduction
Regulations. Zehnder stated his opinion that there is a housing need for condominiums in other areas of Town other than the Village Center or the General Business District. Zehnder suggested that the character of the Rural Business District could be preserved through lower densities or lower roof lines and setbacks instead of eliminating this provision.
Will Joy stated his preference not to have multi-family developments in South Orleans and stated that the one convenience store that is there now provides a nice service to the area.
Bob Wilkinson stated that he is a businessman with previous experience on the Planning Board in 1976 when the Rural Business District was created. Wilkinson stated that residential encroachment was one of the original concerns when this district was created. Wilkinson stated that zoning should be based on what the community wants, rather than on economic demand. Wilkinson stated his support of this proposed zoning bylaw amendment.
Beverly Fuller noted that apartments over businesses are a part of the character of East Orleans.
Jeff Karlson stated that he is sensitive to both sides of this issue in the Rural Business District and stated his preference that the Rural Business District be primarily business oriented. Karlson noted that multi-family developments “condos” are the highest and best use for those properties now and without increased ability to develop business use in the Rural Business District, it will tend to end up with multi-family developments rather than smaller businesses. Karlson the Planning Board to look into providing businesses the ability to develop on those properties possibly by revising those regulations that apply to business development in the area.
George Webber wondered about whether there would be a reduction in expensive real estate costs in the Rural Business District as a result of the proposed zoning bylaw change.
John Hinckley stated his support of business development in the Rural Business District in East Orleans as well as apartments over businesses in the district. He urged the board to consider a middle ground on the zoning proposal.
Attorney Duane Landreth reminded the Planning Board that change does not happen in a vacuum and stated that the Planning Board should consider the impact of property owners filing plans with the Planning Department to take advantage of a “Plan Freeze” which would preserve the right of property owners to develop apartments for up to three years.
Connie Calderwood stated her support of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment and noted that multi-family development would ultimately change the character of the Rural Business District in East Orleans.
4. AMEND THE ZONING BYLAWS SECTION 164-3, Applicability
The Clerk, Seth Wilkinson read the public hearing notice for this zoning bylaw amendment into the record. Meservey gave a powerpoint presentation and explained that in May 2006 the Town Meeting voters approved a comprehensive rewriting of the section of the regulations for non-conforming structures. Meservey noted that one section that was written to allow the intensification of a non-conforming structure without requiring a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals and noted that this is different from traditional Zoning Board practice and the Zoning Board of Appeals has requested that the Planning Board review this issue. After review, the Planning Board has proposed that any project that intensifies a non-conforming structure would be required to obtain a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Meservey noted that an addition which was added on inside of setback requirements to a non-conforming building could still be done by right without a Special Permit.
Comments:
Attorney Ben Zehnder questioned the setback zoning on coastal banks in §164-3(c).i-iii and requested that the Planning Board consider the relationship with §164-21.C under this proposed change. Zehnder advised the board that this section of the bylaw often causes applicants a lot of trouble and is not clearly defined and suggested that the Planning Board could amend this section in concert with this proposal.
5. AMEND THE ZONING BYLAWS SECTION 164-22, Modifications
The Clerk, Seth Wilkinson read the public hearing notice for this zoning bylaw amendment into the record. McGrath noted that this was brought to the attention of the Planning Board by the Building Inspector as a result of a change in the State Building Code as of 2007 which differs from the town’s rules. Meservey gave a powerpoint presentation showing examples of means of egress that were non-conforming and noted that in response to the State Building Code this is applicable only to the required means of egress such as uncovered steps and stoops only, and noted that eaves and chimneys would have to meet yard setbacks and is limited to 30 square feet or less.
Correspondence:
It was noted by Sims McGrath that no correspondence was received either in support or in opposition to this proposed zoning bylaw amendment.
Comments:
Will Joy stated that many homes be become non-conforming if eaves and chimneys are not included in this proposal and suggested that an allowance be made for them in the code.
6. AMEND THE ZONING BYLAWS SECTION 164-6 ZONING MAP
The Clerk, Seth Wilkinson read the public hearing notice for this zoning bylaw amendment into the record. Meservey gave a powerpoint presentation and stated that the purpose of this proposal is a zoning map change with rezoning to protect the residential areas of town from business encroachment and would minimize the properties that are non-conforming. Meservey stated that over the past several years, the Planning Board has worked to make the zoning in town consistent with the goals of the Orleans Comprehensive Plan which has included defining the Village Center as its own district, limiting the business growth potential alone Route 6A and on Old Colony Way. Meservey noted that the nodes of business activity are in the Village Center District and at both ends of Orleans at Cranberry Plaza and the Skaket
Corners plaza. Meservey noted that the areas of interest for this proposal are at the intersections of Main Street, Locust Road and Child’s Homestead Road.
Correspondence:
Wilkinson read a portion of a letter from the Cape Cod Business Roundtable dated January 22, 2007 in support of this proposed zoning bylaw amendment.
Seth Wilkinson excused himself from the Planning Board meeting at this point and left to attend a work-related meeting.
Comments:
Sherrill Smith gave a summary of the neighborhood’s history of small business and cottage industry use and stated that those uses should be allowed to remain as they are and stated his opposition to the proposed zoning changes in the Locust Road area.
Tom Gardner stated his intention to have a business and stated his opposition to the proposed zoning bylaw amendment designed to change the zoning on Locust Road.
Chris Donovan stated that he is a property owner of 3 Namskaket Road which is located in the General Business District and stated his desire that his property remain in the General Business District and indicated that this area is successful as it is currently zoned.
Attorney Larry Spaulding stated his opinion that if any change is made to his property it would be to put it in the Village Center District and not the Limited Business District. Spaulding stated his opinion that due to the location of his property, he considers his business as a “Main Street” property and therefore should more likely be included in the Village Center District.
Tom McIntyre stated he is the business owner with an investment company on the corner of Main Street and Locust Road and stated that due to his location he considers himself a “Main Street” business and noted that this has been zoned as General Business for a long time. McIntyre stated his opposition to the rezoning proposal and considers it arbitrary and “not fair” to the property owners in this area. McIntyre questioned the Orleans Comprehensive Plan directives regarding this area of town.
Jim Trainor stated that if a vacant lot in the Limited Business District is rezoned to Residential it will lose some of its value on the market. Trainor stated his opposition to the proposed rezoning change in the Locust Road area of town. Trainor indicated his opinion density changes to the Village Center District would be positive, but indicated that those increases may devalue other properties in Town.
Dona Pike: The speaker felt the proposed change would de-value her property. She felt the zoning proposal did not make any sense.
Bruce Dinwiddie expressed his desire to remain in the Limited Business District and explained that his 10’ setback on his property is allowed in the Limited Business District and noted that a zoning change would force his building to become non-conforming. Dinwiddie expressed his opposition to the proposed zoning change to the Locust Road area.
Bruce Peters explained that his property is located in the Limited Business District next to Comcast and noted that changing his property from Limited Business District to Residential would reduce his ability to sell his property since it is located near the 300’ Comcast tower. Peters expressed his opposition to the proposed zoning change to the Locust Road area.
Sherrill Smith requested that the Planning Board leave the Locust Road area zoning as is and allow the residents the flexibility they have become used to in the district. Smith expressed his opposition to the proposed zoning change to the Locust Road area.
Will Joy stated that the Industrial District is rapidly filling up and noted that this area is a good spot to have cottage industries as they act as a buffer from the business district. Joy noted that Locust Road itself acts as a natural buffer between the business district and the residential areas. Joy expressed his opposition to the proposed zoning change to the Locust Road area.
Attorney Larry Spaulding stated his opinion that this rezoning would cause significant devaluation of the properties in this area. Spaulding expressed his opposition to the proposed zoning change to the Locust Road area.
Bob Wilkinson noted that the opposition to this proposal is overwhelming and he urged the Planning Board to table this proposal for further review.
Tom Gardner noted that the town has tried unsuccessfully to rezone this area in previous years.
Harry Pike made the following comment: “If it works, don’t fix it, and it does work”. Pike expressed his opposition to the proposed zoning change to the Locust Road area.
Bruce Peters expressed his dissatisfaction with Comcast as a neighbor and stated that bright lights are left on late in the evening and work starts by 5:00 a.m. Peters stated his opinion that rezoning his property from Limited Business to Residential would devalue his property. Peters expressed his opposition to the proposed zoning change to the Locust Road area.
Chris Donovan stated that everyone was in the room in opposition to the proposed zoning changes in the Locust Road area.
MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 23, 2007
Chairman McGrath noted that due to the fact that Seth Wilkinson had to excuse himself for a work related conflict, the following Regular members will be voting on the Public Hearing for the proposed zoning amendments and the rest of this Planning Board meeting: Sims McGrath, Kenneth McKusick; John Fallender and asked both Associate members, Paul O'Connor and Gary Guzzeau, to vote as a full members.
MOTION: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Paul O'Connor, the Board voted to continue the public hearing for the proposed zoning amendments to February 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously by Sims McGrath, Kenneth McKusick, John Fallender, Paul O'Connor and Gary Guzzeau.
PLANNING BOARD CONSENSUS: There was a consensus of the Planning Board that an additional meeting be scheduled on January 30, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. to review all of the comments received on the proposed zoning amendments in preparation for the continuation of the public hearing on February 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. (NOTE: This meeting was subsequently cancelled on the advice of Town Counsel).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 19, 2006
MOTION: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Ken McKusick, the Board voted to approve the minutes of December 19, 2006.
VOTE: 4-0-1 The motion passed by a majority. (Paul O'Connor abstained).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 2, 2007
MOTION: On a motion by Ken McKusick, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to approve the minutes of January 2, 2007.
VOTE: 4-0-1 The motion passed by a majority. (Paul O'Connor abstained).
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: On a motion by Paul O'Connor, seconded by Ken McKusick, the Board voted to adjourn at 9:40 p.m.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously.
SIGNED: ______________________________ DATE: _______________________
(Seth Wilkinson, Clerk)
| 
