Wellfleet Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting of December 18, 2002
Town Hall, Second Floor Conference Room
Present: Lisa Brown, Vice-chair; David Wright, Alfred Pickard, Mark Berry,
Helen Miranda Wilson, Gerald Parent; Rex Peterson, Assistant Town
Administrator
Excused: Dennis O'Connell
Vice-Chair Lisa Brown called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., noting that she had earlier spoken by phone with Chair Dennis O'Connell, who was at home doing well after his surgery.
ANR #02-13, Kevin A. Rose, 160 Long Pond Road, Map #13, Lot #s 201.1 & 201.3, 2 lots proposed. David Wright and Mark Berry reported that they had inspected the site that morning. John McElwee of Felco, Inc. in Orleans attended the meeting to represent owner Kevin Rose; he explained that the plan proposed to readjust the lot lines of Lot 10 (40,000 square feet) and Lot 11 (37,000 square feet), both of which retained frontage on Long Pond Road. McElwee noted that a reason for the changes to the lots was the square footage per bedroom requirement of Title 5 septic regulations. He added that an easement exists through Lot 11 to the Boyd property behind it.
Mark Berry queried whether the Board objected to the "pork chop" shape of Lot 11; Gerry Parent noted that there is no regulation on shape restriction.
Parent added a "heads up" to McElwee, stating that the Building Inspector would have Felco create driveways off Lots 10 and 11; McElwee saw no problem with doing this, even though he stating the his client would use the existing driveways.
Parent moved and Berry seconded that the Board deem this plan an ANR; the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. The Board members signed the plan. Helen Wilson, who had recused herself from this discussion, joined the meeting at this point.
Subdivision Regulations Review. Ms. Patty Daley of Daley and Witten LLC joined the Board as a consultant to the Board's revision of subdivision regulations. After a discussion of the documents which had so far been used to work on this revision (including David Wright's contribution of the 1997 document containing changes worked upon at that time) and a determination of which version of the Subdivision Control Law was official, Ms. Daley and the Board turned to the Board's previously prepared Preliminary List of Objectives (11/25/02) for discussion (see attached).
To Ms. Daley's question on topics of concern, Lisa Brown noted that road width is a constantly recurring topic in subdivision hearings. Gerry Parent commented that regulations for road width (40') and for paving have never been changed since the first subdivision regulations. He added that when developers proposed to the Board subdivisions which took into consideration the location of every house, the Planning Board had the option of using road restrictions as a bargaining tool and could make concessions as to width of pavement as a compromise. He concluded that in his opinion regulations as to road width are relatively easy to deal with--his question was what the Board was looking for in subdivision.
Ms. Daley, referring to Chapter 40A and the use of the mandatory cluster housing, suggested that the Planning Board could decide whether to look at grid subdivision or cluster. She stated that clustered development dovetails nicely with Boards of Health interest in clustered septic systems.
Helen Wilson read the description (from the definition of "subdivision" from MGL Chapter 41) of a Planning Board's consideration of adequate ways in relation to specific situations as they occur and referred to her "unofficial survey" of dirt road residents and their preferences for dirt roads. She stated that while she likes the 40' width layout, she wants to consider the individual neighborhood when deciding road width. Parent noted that the 40' width takes into account whether the town will need to do a "taking", e.g. for water pipe, sewers, etc.
Wilson asked how useful it was to repeat state law in Wellfleet's local regulations; Ms. Daley agreed it contributed to the ease of the reader but added that state law could be referenced and it was not necessary to repeat it.
Re:11/25 Objective Sheet #4. Discussion moved to 2.2.4 of the Wellfleet regulations, the 60-day deadline for preliminary approval, which does not agree with the state's 45-day regulation. It was noted by Helen Wilson that Wellfleet's deadline change was an error; however, Gerry Parent pointed out that, when applying for preliminary approval, the public was more than willing to take the time to work the proposal out with the Board and avoid having to deal with changes later coming out of the hearing for definitive approval.
Ms. Daley suggested additions to preliminary plan regulations: getting a landscape architect to sign off on plans (over a certain threshhold), determining any archeological significance of the site, compiling a natural resources inventory, determining cubic yards of fill to be removed (in the case of roadway construction), and adding the town Historical Commission to the list of recipients of the preliminary filing.
Ms. Wilson, noting that since most plans that the Board hears are ANRs, these should use the same filing procedure as do subdivisions. She suggested the submission of 9 copies of the plan with topography included: getting the plan located on assessors' maps and noting land contours. Rex Peterson queried that since the Board is supposed to look only at frontage and access for ANRs, why should contour maps be needed? Alfred Pickard considered this discussion from the point of view of an applicant bringing in a plan without topography because he did not believe this was in the Board's purview, knowing he could prove adequate access and frontage. Pickard queried whether this applicant could then, the plan being denied by the Board, take it on to the Registry and
record it? Ms. Wilson added that the topo map would help determine whether access was possible grade-wise.
Re: Objective Sheet #5. Commenting on the topic of rural road standards, Ms. Daley pointed out that the Cape Cod Commission has some model bylaws on the topic. Peterson added that from what he had been hearing in the discussion he deduced that the Board wished to consider road standards on a case-by-case basis.
Re: Objective Sheet #6. Regarding fire ponds and cisterns being placed in subdivisions, Gerry Parent noted that normally the tanks (5000 - 10,000 gallons) are too large to fit into the lot configuration and must be specially placed, e. g., buried in the road layout at an intersection. Discussion also covered lines connecting to ponds, question of fire departments replenishing and maintaining the tanks, existence of a formula triggering installation of tanks, attitude of fire chiefs on their use (since pumper trucks of 10,000 to 20,000 gallons literally carry fire ponds with them). Mark Berry suggested that Ms. Daley contact Chief Hight to determine what his wishes were in the matter of the use of fire ponds and cisterns. Alfred Pickard suggested that there
needed to be an actual engineering plan for them, that the fire truck needs to "fit with" them if they are to be of any use. He added that he thought the existing tanks had been donated to Wellfleet; Helen Wilson stated that the cost was roughly $11,000 for a 10,000 tank.
Re: Objective Sheet #7. On the matter of use of DPW or outside consultants to review and approve final work, Ms. Daley suggested charging the subdivision proponents for review of the final work. Helen Wilson added that the Planning Board should choose the outside consultant.
Re: Objective Sheet #8. A discussion of stop and street sign specifications covered colors for signs (town road--green, private road--blue). Gerry Parent asked the Board whether it wanted consistency in signage or wished to allow the subdivision latitude to exercise its own aesthetics within subdivision boundaries. Wilson inquired about the possibility that subdivision signs be limited; Berry referred the Board to the sign codes.
Re: Objective Sheet #9. Regarding filing procedures, it was stated that there was a need to update to reflect practices already current.
Re: Objective Sheet #10. Ms. Daley cited Foxboro's documentation requirements and proposed to get a copy of that for the Board; Alfred Pickard suggested that she also get regulations for a town without public water.
Re: Objective Sheet #11. The Board discussed lot shape requirements:
at present there are none
Wilson cited the width requirement in place up until 1973
Mark Berry asked regarding a general norm on these requirements
Ms. Daley inquired whether Wellfleet's regulations mention upland and non-upland and was answered that they did
Gerry Parent noted that septic regulations play a great part in lot configuration changes because of no town water or septic; he cited this evening's ANR shape as an example of this
Mark Berry commented that basically the Board is covered by frontage and setback requirements
Ms. Daley proposed to provide examples of shape factors.
Re: Objective Sheet #12. Ms. Daley noted that in the case of environmental provisions, "no work before approvals" is very important. Helen Wilson suggested that 3.6 (subdivison regs) be hooked in with 4.5--that "maintained" means that if something dies it must be replaced. Gerry Parent stated that he would rather see language on this first, since he did not wish the Board to get into a discussion about whether a road should be moved because of a tree. Wilson disagreed. Parent added that when town water is not available it is difficult to replace vegetation; that the natural habitat does not easily allow this. Daley pointed out that there is a difference between specimen trees and new plantings. David Wright felt that a
road could be built around the tree if the tree was there first. Parent emphasized that exact wording describing circumstances for protecting the tree is necessary; the Board can give general permission, but qualifications must be specified. Wright added that indigenous plantings are slow growers and there is a need to avoid disturbing them as much as possible. Ms. Daley proposed to look for the best examples of protective regulations.
Re: Objective Sheet # 15. Ms. Daley stated that Barnstable has good regulations for property owners association agreements. To Wilson's question on how to regulate homeowners' associations, Daley responded that perhaps the only option is to step in and collect money. Parent suggested getting a tight homeowners' association agreement written so that the Board did not have to step in.
Re: Objective Sheet #16. Discussion points for inclusionary regulations for affordable housing and open space included Helen Wilson's statement (referring to 3.6 of the subdivision regulations) that she wanted language that would provide money to the Housing Authority, using number of lots/number of acres as a threshold which would require the subdivision developer to participate. Ms. Daley responded that the requirement of withholding one lot for ten has been overturned; she proposed to collect a couple of examples of inclusionary bylaws.
Re: Objective Sheet #17. Ms. Daley commended cluster development and stated that she would get information on it for the Board; Lisa Brown mentioned work which had been done on Martha's Vineyard. Parent asked Ms. Daly to determine whether the number of units per lot could be reduced from 4/5 to 2/3, stating that he would like to see small clusters, e. g., for the elderly. A discussion of "shared walls" followed.
Re:Objective Sheet #18. Discussion of bonds and security for getting work done included Ms. Daley's question on whether acceptance of covenants worked. Gerry Parent stated that state law prohibits restricting the use of covenants and that the Board has been more successful with covenants than with a bond.
Re: Objective Sheet #19. Helen Wilson emphasized the importance of definitions, which she felt "decided the whole situation." She continued that the Board needed to know the meaning of certain terms, which must be consistent with state law and identical with zoning bylaw. Ms. Daley noted that Black's Law Dictionary was a good source for definitions and that she would go through the list provided by Ms. Wilson and identify the important terms. Lisa Brown asked to add quorum and super-quorum to that list.
The discussion concluded; the Board thanked Ms. Daley for her help.
Other Business:
Peets Variance--The Board inquired if any response had been received from the Building Inspector on questions on the Peets variance and was told there had not been.
Regulatory Board Seminar--Peterson announced that a joint meeting of the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health would be held on 1/14/03 at 5 p.m. The discussion on the topic of Development of Marginal Lots would be led by Jon Witten and George Heufelder and would concern such areas as redevelopment, tear-down, control, methods of control.
Minutes of 12/4/02--Mark Berry moved and Lisa Brown seconded the approval of the minutes of 12/4/02 as amended. Unanimously approved, 6-0.
Mail--Chair Lisa Brown discussed the mail with the Board.
Communication from members of Citizens for the Preservation of Wellfleet--consensus was that this was a position paper, not an official document
Cape Cod Commission Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2002
Letter from Atty. Arthur Croce (12/11/02) to Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator asking the town to plow Dow Drive in Capt. L. D. Baker Estates. Gerry Parent noted that this was not in the Planning Board purview and suggested that the letter be forwarded to the DPW. (The secretary later ascertained that this topic had been discussed at the BOS meeting and the situation had been resolved.)
Alfred Pickard moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.; it was unanimously adjourned with good wishes to all for the holiday season.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________ ______________________________
Frances J. Castillo, Assistant to the Lisa Brown, Chair
Committee Secretary ________________________Date
Revision of Subdivision Regulations
Preliminary list of objectives
November 25, 2002
1. Number all pages (x of y pages) and dated as of approval date
2. Table of contents
3. Update filing fees
4. Conform review periods and deadlines to State statutes
5. Develop rural road standards
6. Fire ponds/Cisterns
7. DPW or outside consultants to review and approve final work
8. Stop sign and street sign specifications
9. Filing procedure, required number of copies, submission to other departments
10. Specify documentation requirements, plan contents, scale
11. Lot shape requirements
12. Environmental provisions
13. Time limits on disturbances
14. Seeding banks and shoulders with native species
15. Property owners association agreement
16. Inclusionary requirements for affordable housing and open space
17. Cluster development
18. Bonds and security
19. Definitions: high water mark private way
public way curved street
| 
