 |
Wellfleet Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting of February 4, 2004
Town Hall Hearing Room
Present: R. Dennis O'Connell, Chair; Lisa Brown, Harriet Miller, Alfred Pickard, Ben Gitlow; Rex Peterson, Assistant Town Administrator
Excused: Mark Berry, Gerald Parent
Chair O'Connell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The board members signed the mylar copies of approved subdivision plans for SD# 04-01 and SD #03-04 (their appeal period being over) provided by Chet Lay of Slade Associates (see minutes of 1-4-04).
Public Hearing: SD #03-05; Lewis and Jill Landsberg, 60 & 70 Arrowhead Road & 273 Old Chequessett Neck Road, Assessor's Map #12, Lot #s 17, 18, & 19, l lot proposed. Chet Lay of Slade Associates and Attorney Ben Zehnder presented this proposal in behalf of the Landsbergs; it involves the consolidation of Lots 17, 18 and 19 of Assessor's Atlas 12 into one lot and the shortening of the unconstructed cul-de-sac of Arrowhead Road and requires an 81W modification of the original subdivision plan (see minutes of 11-19-03 for preliminary hearing). Attorney Zehnder informed the Board that the owners of Lots 21, 22, 15, 16 and 20, who have rights on Arrowhead Road, have signed off on an agreement to shorten the cul-de-sac. Zehnder added that the owner of Lot 25, which was not part of the
original subdivision, has no frontage on the road and has indicated that he has neither rights to nor interest in the road. (The Chair also noted the Board's receipt of a phone message from this abutter, Mr. Laycock, in which he stated this fact.) Lay stated that the owners plan to put an addition on the house already existing on Lot 17 and need land area in order to do so; shortening the paper road will make the necessary square footage available. Lot #19, which carries a buildability restriction, will remain vacant. Lay added that he planned to monument Arrowhead Road (as in a new subdivision) in response to an earlier suggestion from Albert Pickard and to place bounds on Old Chequessett Road also (a total of 6 new monuments). Chair O'Connell moved and Lisa Brown seconded that the Board approve SD #03-05 under 81W; the motion carried, 5-0.
While waiting for the next scheduled public hearing, the Board agreed to change the agenda:
Minutes of January 7 & 21, 2004. Lisa Brown moved and Alfred Pickard seconded the approval of the 1-7-04 minutes; the motion carried, 4-0-1 (O'Connell abstaining). Chair O'Connell moved and Pickard seconded the approval of the 1-21-04 minutes as amended; the motion carried, 5-0.
Additional Meeting. The Board scheduled an additional meeting in order to finalize recommendations for zoning by-law changes on Thursday, February 5 at 4:00 p.m. in the 2nd Floor Conference Room. Because a number of Board members would be out of town for the regular meeting of February 18, it was agreed that this meeting would be cancelled.
Public Hearing: SD #03-03; Harvey R. Geiger, Baker Road Extension, Assessor's Map #29, Lot #s 335 & 335.1, 3 lots proposed. [Chair O'Connell disclosed his connection with the Wellfleet Conservation Trust, an abutting owner, but did not recuse himself from discussion, citing the Rule of Necessity. Lisa Brown chaired the hearing.] Chet Lay, representing Mr. Geiger, noted that the land is to be divided into 3 lots rather than the 4 proposed in the preliminary hearing (see minutes for 7-2-03). Lay noted that a new well had been constructed in small Lot 2A which will serve as principal water source for Lot 2, and that a new Title 5 septic system will serve all three buildings. Lay presented the proposed covenant with waivers requesting pavement width of less than the required 40' of a
full-spec road and permission to use the existing grade. Chair Brown reviewed the comments from town bodies, noting that DPW Director Mark Vincent had stated that the town would not provide snowplowing. Alfred Pickard moved that the Planning Board approve SD Plan #03-03 with the waivers requested; Brown seconded, the motion carried, 5-0. [O'Connell returned to the Chair.]
Planning Board Mail: Chair O'Connell reviewed the mail, noting:
Memo of 2-4-04 from Rex Peterson to town boards and committees re: Local Comprehensive Plan Committee to be created; Planning Board must select two members to serve by 2-10-04. Chair O'Connell and Ben Gitlow offered to serve on the LCPC. Alfred Pickard moved that these two volunteers be accepted; Harriet Miller seconded; the motion carried 3-0-2 (O'Connell and Gitlow abstaining).
Agenda for ZBA meeting for 2-12-04 which contains announcement of hearing for Porteus, West Main Street, for special permit under the Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit bylaw
Letter of 1-28-04 from the Clerk of the US District Court informing the Board of the dismissal of litigation in the case of Perez, et. al. V. Dennis O'Connell, et. al. (AT&T wireless litigation)
Announcement of new information on the website of the Community Preservation Initiative
Announcement of Cape Cod Town Centers Workshops planned by the Cape Cod Business Roundtable and the Cape Cod Selectmen's and Councilors' Association
Letter from Rex Peterson to Gary and Patricia Winn concerning area and frontage requirements on Perch Pond Way
Announcement of 3rd Annual Conference of the Citizen Planner Training Collaborative, Saturday, 3-20-04 at Holy Cross College in Worcester, MA; Planning Board will pay expenses for any members who wish to attend this conference.
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') and to mount an antenna (10') on the existing electrical box at the intersection of Pheasant Run and Whitetail Lane for communication purposes to allow for remote monitoring of the water distribution system utilizing a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. (See minutes of 12-17-03, 1-7-04 and 1-21-04.) The Planning Board, with engineer Nick Nikolaou of Environmental Partners Group and DPW Director Mark Vincent, considered the application and supplementary materials submitted by Environmental Partners in support of this request for the special permit to erect the
above-mentioned installations. Nikolaou distributed new application packets containing (in addition to the previous submission) answers to Board questions on certification and monitoring of the system, as well as the application for the third antenna at Pheasant Run and Whitetail Lane and a copy of the taking of the easement (12-11-89) for the Cole's Neck Water Line ATBS.
In response to an earlier question as to why a phone line could not be used for monitoring of the water system, Mark Vincent described to the Board numerous problems he had experienced with phone wires: lightning strikes, wires "stolen," wires down for as long as four days. He noted that he was looking forward to using the SCADA monitoring system, in-house, with alarm systems. Nikolaou added that it contains a built-in pager system.
In response to a question from Ben Gitlow on back-ups and handling of failures of the system, discussion turned to an explanation of the alarm system, which would be triggered by high pressure in the system.
The Board reviewed Section 1.2 - 1.11, Supplementary Information Required by Zoning Regulations, of the Environmental Partners application submission; the Chair requested Board Comments. Gitlow noted that the applicant had still not complied with the bylaw concerning the noise issue [Bylaw Section 6.18.2.11(C)] and approval of the permit request could therefore only be gained through Section 6.18.5 of the bylaw. Other items of discussion included Removal (Paul Gabriel representing the Town), Signs (determination that the system does not constitute an electrical hazard), Regional Criteria (consistency to CCCommission criteria in applicable areas; height regulations aimed toward cell towers), Fencing (fencing in the tower bases would
prevent children climbing on them), and Safety (since the tower is designed to withstand winds up to 125 mph and a Category 5 hurricane can blow up to 155 mph, it was noted that a waiver would have to be granted on Bylaw Section 6.18.2.4.).
The Chair asked for public comment: Arlene Kirsch noted her concern at the reliability of the towers' aluminum tubes during nor'easters and hurricanes when, she stated, the wind would come right at the towers. She inquired whether guy wires should be used. Ben Gitlow noted that the towers were of standard design and had undergone standard engineering analysis; the Chair noted that Paul Gabriel's signature on the first page of the application submission stood as a guarantee of his approval of all portions of the project. Mr. Lyons requested landscaping to soften the visual impact of the Gristmill Way tower. Lisa Brown commented that it was probable that, when the trees were in leaf, these towers would be less visible. Helen Wilson questioned the towers'
adherence to the setback requirements of 6.18.2.2.
The Board then moved through the requirements of the Cell Tower Bylaw, noting findings and voting on each section:
6.18.2.1. No communication structure . . .shall be installed within Wellfleet Harbor Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Finding was that the towers and antennas are not in the ACEC, therefore complying with the bylaw. Moved by Brown, seconded by O'Connell, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.2. Setbacks. Finding was that the tower at the DPW does not meet setback requirements by 4 feet, but that the Board would waive this requirement, and that the Gristmill Way tower and the Whitetail Lane antenna satisfy the bylaw. Moved by Brown, seconded by O'Connell, passed 3-2. (O'Connell, Brown, and Miller said aye; Pickard and Gitlow said nay.)
6.18.2.3. Parking. Finding was that parking is adequate at all sites. Moved by O'Connell, seonded by Gitlow; passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.4. Safety. Finding was that the tower manufacturer supports its strength up to 125 miles per hour of wind, below 155 mph of a category 5 hurricane required by the bylaw, but that the Board would waive the requirement of design to withstand a category 5 hurricane and accept support against 125 mph wind velocity as adequate to satisfy the bylaw. Moved by Gitlow, seconded by Pickard, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.5. Removal. Finding was that the statement concerning removal in Section 1.2.3 of Supplementary Information Required by Zoning Regulations of the application and support materials supplied by Environmental Partners satisfy the bylaw section. Moved by Brown, seconded by Gitlow, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.6. Fencing. Finding was that fencing already exists at the pump station, that the whip antenna at Whitetail Lane is mounted on a pre-existing structure, not possible to fence, and that a fence will be constructed and camouflaging shrubbery planted around the tower at the DPW. Moved by Gitlow that the bylaw had been satisfied contingent upon the erection of the fencing at the DPW, seconded by Pickard, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.7. Lighting. Finding was that requirements of the bylaw have been satisfied. Moved by Gitlow, seconded by Brown, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.8. Signs. Finding was that the Board recommends that the posted signs should include a warning against climbing the towers. Moved by Gitlow that that requirements of the bylaw have been satisfied with the provision that the signs include a warning (e.g., no trespassing, danger), seconded by Brown, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.9. Visual. O'Connell suggested, because of abutters' concern, that the finish of the towers be painted to blend with surroundings; discussion covered whether the aluminum surface could or should be painted, whether anodized paints would reduce the efficiency of the equipment, the fact that aluminum weathers and "dulls down" in time, and whether such small structures, relatively far away from abutters, would "disappear in people's eyes" after time. Finding was that the visual requirement has been met. Moved by Miller, seconded by Brown, passed 4-0-1. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, and Miller said aye; Gitlow abstained).
6.18.2.10. Regional Criteria. Discussion established that the engineers had considered the applicable material; much of the Cape Cod Commission's criteria is aimed toward high cell towers. Finding was that the criteria set by the Cape Cod Commission has been met and satisfies the requirements of the bylaw. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Miller, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.11. Environmental. (A) Hazardous Waste--finding was that the project uses none; (B) Stormwater runoff--finding was that this is contained on site; (C) Noise from structure-1.2.9 of Supplementary Information . .section of the application states: "Even at high wind speeds the construction of these structures will not increase the noise levels from the current situation in any of the locations. The trees and buildings at each of the proposed sites generate ambient noise." Gitlow argued that the application materials did not adequately comply with the requirements of the noise section and that sound levels had not been demonstrated by measurement. Chair O'Connell noted that if the towers are noisier than represented in the
application, then there is misrepresentation on the part of the engineering firm Environmental Partners and that Planning Board and the Town have recourse. Moved by Miller that all requirements for A, B, and C of the bylaw have been met, seconded by Brown, passed 3-2. (O'Connell, Brown, and Miller said aye; Pickard and Gitlow said nay.)
6.18.2.12. Siting Standards. Finding was that the DPW building and the pump station have not been designed for additions (see engineers' explanation in 1.2.10 of Supplementary Information . . ). Moved by O'Connell that all criteria for the bylaw have been satisfactorily met, seconded by Gitlow, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.15.Applications for siting on public land . . . (A) Draft contract--finding was that since owner and applicant are the same, a draft contract is not required and the criteria of the section has been satisfied. Moved by Gitlow, seconded by O'Connell, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye). (B) Description of facility--finding was that the submission adequately meets the requirements of 6.18.2.15.B (1-3). Moved by Brown, seconded by O'Connell, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye). (C) Site Plan with elevation--finding was that criteria of Section C are adequately met. Moved by Brown, seconded by Miller, passed 4-1 (O'Connell, Brown Pickard and Miller said aye; Gitlow said nay.) (D) Landscape plan--finding was that that the requirements of Section D, with the representation of shrubbery and stockade fencing described by DPW Director Mark Vincent, have been adequately met. Moved by O'Connell, seconded by Brown,
passed 4-0-1. (O'Connell, Brown Pickard, and Miller said aye; Gitlow abstained.)
6.18.2.17.Referral of application to other boards. Finding was that Planning Board should make no optional referrals. Moved by Gitlow, seconded by Brown, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye.)
6.18.2.18.Completeness. Finding was that the application was not complete and did not comply with the bylaw. Moved by Gitlow, seconded by O'Connell, passed 5-0. (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye).
Although the application was judged not in compliance with all the requirements of the bylaw (Completeness Section 6.18.2.18), Ben Gitlow moved that the Planning Board grant the special permit (in accordance with bylaw section 6.18.5) because it is in the best interest of the town in that the application has demonstrated that radio communication between the three sites is substantially better than land line communication. Lisa Brown seconded; the motion carried 5-0 (O'Connell, Brown, Pickard, Gitlow and Miller said aye). The public hearing ended.
Discussion and Recommendation re: Sandpit property. [Chair O'Connell recused himself from discussion because of his association with the Conservation Trust; Lisa Brown chaired this section of the meeting. See minutes of 1-7-04 for earlier discussion.] The Open Space and the Conservation Commission have requested that the town allow the subdivision of the Sandpit area and the placement of its wetland area under conservation restriction. Chair Brown, in accordance with the Selectmen's policy on disposition of town-owned land, reviewed the mail received from boards and committees on the issue; this consisted of a memo from the Coastal and Pond Access Committee, which stated that the Sandpit area would receive sufficient protection under its own rules, and a memo from Lezli Rowell to the NRAB
advising that body that, in her opinion, no action was necessary.
Ben Gitlow noted that the request to preserve this tiny piece of wetland did not seem unreasonable.
Jan Plaue, of the Open Space Committee, stated that the Rowell memo was full of incorrect information and that the NRAB had recently voted 4-1 in favor of the project. She added that the project would not pose an expense to the Town, since the Conservation Trust has agreed to pay up to $3000 for the survey. She added that the idea that "if it's wet, it's protected" is erroneous, since the area in question, consisting of about 4 acres including a hole, vernal pools, and wetlands, has been a dumping ground, trespassed upon for years, a problem which the DPW has tried to rectify by removing garbage from the area. Ms. Plaue explained the Conservation Commission's plan for preserving and posting the land; they are asking for a third of the total 12 acres to be put
in conservation land.
Alfred Pickard moved that Planning Board recommend against the Sandpit proposal; Ben Gitlow seconded (for discussion purposes). Pickard stated that his concern was with the use of the property; he would want to see written evidence that the whole area could be used as a zone of contribution. He asked whether a town well could be put on the property. Gitlow noted that the Board did not know exactly where the boundaries of the wetland area were or what effect the project would have on the rest of the property in the C2 zone. Jan Plaue stated that the land had been marked and pointed out that lack of reaction from other town boards might indicate that they were not concerned with these issues. The question was called; the motion was
defeated, 1-0-3.
Ben Gitlow suggested that the Board could approve the project provided the dimensions of the parcel were provided and assurances received that there would be no adverse effect on the surrounding C2 district. He moved that Planning Board recommend the transfer to the BOS provided:
a clear surveyor's description of the area is completed
that this transfer shall not be used in any was to limit development on the remaining property.
Lisa Brown seconded; the motion carried 3-0-1 (Miller abstaining).
Brown moved for adjournment; Gitlow seconded; the meeting closed at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________ _____________________________
Frances J. Castillo, Committee Secretary R. Dennis O'Connell, Chair
__________________________Date
| |
