Wellfleet Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting of January 21, 2004
Town Hall Hearing Room
Present: R. Dennis O'Connell, Chair; Lisa Brown, Harriet Miller, Gerry Parent,
Mark Berry, Alfred Pickard, Ben Gitlow; Rex Peterson, Assistant
Town Administrator
Chair O'Connell called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Release from Covenant: David S. Johnson, SD #02-04. Chet Lay of Slade Associates presented this request for release from covenant of a single lot (#3) of the Johnson subdivision, leaving Lot #s 2 and 4 still under covenant (#1 having been exempted at the time of approval--see minutes for 1/15/03). Gerry Parent voiced concern over the Building Inspector's possible assessment of the frontage of Lot #2, which could be accessed by Long Pond Road, when that lot is removed from covenant; discussion of this question followed. It was determined that a Homeowners' Association is in place for all four lots and that all lots are deed restricted to residential zoning (two lie within the commercial district). Gerry Parent moved that the Planning Board approve the request to remove Lot #3
from covenant, with #s 2 and 4 remaining under covenant, and that a letter be sent to the Building Inspector specifying access to Lot #s 2 and 3 be from the easement. Lisa Brown seconded; the motion carried, 7-0. [Lisa Brown disclosed that she is acquainted with the Dimitris, the prospective buyers of Lot #3.]
Proposed Bylaw Revisions. Rex Peterson led discussion of the proposals for zoning by-law amendments (1/14/04) for the Annual Town Meeting in April 2004; he had prepared this document from joint discussions of Planning Board and ZBA members in the Zoning Bylaw Working Group. The Board compared suggested changes with current bylaw language.
Definition of Lot Frontage:
The Chair did not see the need to restrict access to "over frontage."
Ben Gitlow emphasized that the definition should make clear that it should be demonstrated that it was physically possible to access a lot over the claimed frontage.
Gerry Parent noted that Wellfleet's current definition of lot frontage (being considered for change at the suggestion of the Building Inspector) had been satisfactory to the Board over the years. He explained and defended the 60% rule for measuring frontage over curved streets.
Alfred Pickard queried why the Board could not return to a recent decision concerning increasing of frontage from 125' to 135' by increasing the arc of a cul-de-sac.
Ben Gitlow moved that the Board retain the existing definition of lot frontage; Chair O'Connell seconded; the motion passed, 7-0.
Home Occupation and Service Trades:
Peterson stated that he had taken long list of allowed occupations, requirements and standards out of the Definitions section and moved it to a proposed new bylaw section: Home Occupations 6.22.
Gerry Parent suggested taking the a-d section of the current Wellfleet Bylaw definition, making a through c the new definition and d an explanation to lead the reader to the allowed occupations, requirements and standards of 6.22.
Peterson suggested eliminating Service Trades from the Home Occupations section, since it has its own section.
Discussion ensued concerning the difference between home occupation (small) and home industry (larger, like a small business--see 6.16).
Lisa Brown moved Board approval of the changes to the definition of Home Industry (using a through d from original definition) and the movement of the rest of the explanatory material to new section 6.22; Ben Gitlow seconded; the motion carried, 7-0.
Service Trade. Peterson proposed that the definition of service trade be left "as is" and the requirements and standards be moved to new section 6.23. Lisa Brown moved that the Planning Board approve keeping the definition of Service Trade and moving the requirements to Section 6.23; Gitlow seconded; the motion carried, 7-0.
Rear line setback for accessory buildings (6.2). Peterson explained that the working group wanted small buildings to be allowed to locate at 10' from the rear lot line but decided that a larger building would need a special permit. [It was at this point time for the 8 p.m. Public Hearing; the Board agree to continue this discussion at its close.] Continuation of discussion: The Board discussed the proposed amendment, considering the implications of changing the use of an accessory structure, i.e., a garage, to a residence (under Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit). It was noted that the Building Inspector had voiced a concern that a residential dwelling might be built within 30' of the property line. A wording change, the addition of not to
exceed 17 feet to be added to the phrase no more than one story tall, was proposed. Lisa Brown moved that the Board accept the revision to Section 6.2 with the wording change as noted; Mark Berry seconded; the motion carried, 5-1-1.
Flood Plain Exemptions. Peterson noted that the Building Inspector and the ZBA had stated that the Bylaw needed criteria for granting flood plain exemptions; he provided two examples, from Westford Zoning By-Law and from the Cape Cod Commission Model Floodplain By-Law, for the Board's consideration. The Board preferred the Commission's model, making slight changes. Lisa Brown moved and the Chair seconded that the Board approve the proposed Flood Plain Exemption Procedure from the Cape Cod Commission model (80.0 - 08.2.3) with the changes noted; the motion carried, 7-0.
Wellhead Protection District. The Board considered the amendment to Section 9.1.2, Districts Established, in order to protect the well for the Cole's Neck water system. Ben Gitlow demonstrated boundaries by tracing on a map; several suggestions were considered: a 3000 foot radius around the new well; taking the district all the way to Newcomb Hollow; definition of the district (for clarity at Town Meeting) as a circle centered on the existing well but with the radius terminating at Route 6. It was agreed that these suggestions would be incorporated.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Town of Wellfleet request to install two Antennas and Towers, at the Cole's Neck Water Station off Gristmill Way (33') and at the Department of Public Works facility on West Main Street (38'), for communication purposes to allow for remote monitoring of the water distribution system utilizing a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The Chair declared the hearing open at 8:00 p.m.; the project was represented by Nick Nikolaou of Environmental Partners, Inc. and Francis Neylon of Industrial Technical Services (see minutes of 12/17/03 and 1/7/04). Chair O'Connell announced that the Board would consider this application by using the requirements of 6.18.2.15 of the Zoning Bylaw for "applications for siting on public land." Nikolaou
distributed two maps showing the locations of the proposed towers for monitoring the municipal water system; the SCADA system, using UHF radio waves, is to replace current telephone lines. The engineers, noting that such lines must be in working order "24-7," explained that telephone lines used for this purpose have been unsatisfactory; they have gone down in lightning storms and the phone company has disconnected them. Discussion followed, with contributions from the Board and the audience:
Ben Gitlow felt that area phone lines have not often been interrupted. Nikolaou responded that he know of one instance of interruption in which it took Verizon two days to respond.
Neylon stressed that the most reliable link between the DPW and the pump stations must be established.
Hugh Guilderson asked if the equipment had been tested; Neylon noted that it had tested in the high 90's, with a factor of a 2-second interval in case of an interruption in data communication; there would be no damage from such an interruption.
Guilderson asked if the towers would have to go any higher than the stated 33' and 38' heights; Neylon stated they would not.
Selectman Gerry Houk stated that he was asking about the following in reaction to several phone calls and complaints from neighbors:
The project had been started without a permit.
He did not recall that this project had been discussed by the Water Commissioners.
Rex Peterson stated that a permit had been issued for the foundations of the towers; Nikolaou replied that the project existed as part of the specifications for the water system and that he was not aware whether it had been part of the Water Commissioners discussion.
Alfred Pickard introduced discussion concerning placement of the tower at the DPW building, which he stated should be constructed out of view, according to the Bylaw. In the pre-application meeting, when he suggested placing it in back of the building, Mr. Neylon had stated that the tower had to be placed within 100' of the line (from the 30' point on the tower down). Consensus noted that the tower could be placed behind the building.
Bill Line, from the audience, complained that the Cole's Neck Tower had been poorly sited; he also criticized the fact that the towers were up before he received his certified letter informing him of the Public Hearing.
Guilderson asked whether the towers and system could be used for any other purpose (e.g., cell phone transmission). Neylon replied that the SCADA system has a single purpose for which data radios are designed; they have no practical purpose in use for cell phones.
Arlene Kirsch asked what could disrupt these UHF signals; Neylon replied that they allow the passage of data immune to bursts of noise and fairly immune to electrical noise of any kind. He cited the Provincetown towers, which have had no failures in their 6 locations.
To the Chair's question on the source of power, Neylon replied that they run on a 12-volt back-up battery.
Ben Gitlow asked if the requirements of Section C and D of 6.18.2.15 of the Bylaw had been fulfilled. The Chair stated that he was not sure that the previous documentation (from the pre-application conference) applied to 6.18.2.15.
Gerry Parent asked if the water system had been turned on; Nikolaou replied that it was operating at the DPW and Town Hall, using a dedicated line from the pressure valve to the pump station for transmission. Parent noted the dilemma in this situation in that the application for the special permit was not satisfactory but that the water line to these public buildings was in use and needed monitoring.
Mark Berry stated that the application did not satisfy the Bylaw and that building had been started before the hearing began.
It was noted that a complete application, including the previously requested information on the sound level of the system (6.18.2.13.D) and proof of federal and state certification (6.18.2.13.H) had not been received by the Board.
Ben Gitlow stated that he did not wish to question that the Board needed to receive a complete application; he pointed out, however, that 6.18.5 gives Planning Board the ability to overlook lack of completeness. He noted that building permits had been issued pre-hearing but that these communication towers are part of the on-going water construction project.
Both the Chair and Mark Berry agreed that the board had the right to request an application package, the Chair posing an additional question of what the Board could do with what is already in place, since the Board has the right to ask what measures could be taken to make the job better and what the cost would be to the town.
Gitlow pointed out that the application should include a cover letter and certification by appropriate professionals; he inquired if the Board should request the engineers to return with all the information required in Section 6.18.2.15 of the Bylaw, which would give the Board the basis to decide whether the present construction location should be moved (see above).
Mr. Nikolaou reminded the Board that he had at the pre-application consultation presented photographs showing what the towers would look like; Parent asked for a plan of the landscaping required by 6.18.2.15.D.
Guilderson questioned the strength of the tubular aluminum used in the DPW tower; Parent noted that the Board needed to see the specifications for this tower.
Mark Berry moved and Ben Gitlow seconded that the Planning Board continue the hearing to February 4, 2004 at 8:00 p.m. in order that a completed application package, per Bylaw requirements, could be presented.
Further audience questions included a query as to the reason these towers would use UHF signal rather than VHF (ans.: FCC issues the frequency), and requests for "someone with architectural skills in siting towers," for sound level information, and for a pictorial representation of what the Cole's Neck Tower would look like. Neylon stated that the manufacturer could supply no information about sound levels; the Board instructed him to consult with an appropriate professional.
The motion to continue this hearing was called and carried, 7-0. The hearing was suspended to be continued.
Proposed Zoning Change Maps. Peterson presented zoning maps produced by the Cape Cod Commission which showed both the old and new zoning districts; the Board discussed the implications of the changes so illustrated. Lisa Brown moved to continue with changes in the central district boundaries by presenting these zoning maps for adoption at a Public Hearing; Alfred Pickard seconded.
Peterson planned to go to the Commission for a map of the whole town.
Parent suggested some district lines might need checking, e.g. Whit's Lane.
Ben Gitlow noted that it would be necessary that the District Description on Page 63 of the Zoning Bylaw be made consistent with the new zoning maps (Brown amended her motion to include this).
It was suggested that parcel numbers on the map might make it easier to follow.
After discussion, the Board agreed that more time was needed to study the map; Brown recalled her motion, Pickard his second. Peterson stated that he was considering the date of March 17, 2004 for the Public Hearing date.
Other Business:
Minutes of January 7, 2004. The Board agreed to consider these minutes at the next meeting.
Mail. The Chair briefly reviewed the mail:
Truro Planning Board will hold a public hearing on 2-3-04 to amend the Site Plan Review section of its zoning bylaw
The Wellfleet ZBA has granted an exemption in the flood hazard district.
Two comments have been received at the time of deadline from boards and committees re: Open Space and ConsCom request to subdivide the Sandpit
Site Plan Review. Ben Gitlow suggested this discussion should be picked up after the Annual Town Meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________ ______________________________
Frances J. Castillo, Committee Secretary R. Dennis O'Connell, Chair
__________________________Date
| 
