Wellfleet Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting and Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Senior Center Duck Pond Room, 7:00 p.m.
Present: R. Dennis O’Connell, Chairman; Barbara Gray, Stephen Oliver, Gerald Parent, Alfred Pickard, David Rowell; Rex Peterson, Assistant Town Administrator
Absent: Ronald Harper
Chairman Dennis O’Connell opened the hearing at 7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m. Hearing
Petitioned Article for Town Warrant – Section 5.3 USE REGULATIONS
Table 5.3.2 “Restaurant Indoor”
Pickard and Parent disclosed that they own businesses in the Central District.
Attorney Ben Zehnder introduced the Article that he had placed on the Warrant through petition. Zehnder said the proposed bylaw change would allow more flexibility in the creation of new restaurants in the town.
Planning Board members expressed an inclination to expand the allowed usage.
Barbara Gray asked that the record reflect that another board had discussed a particular restaurant. Zehnder gave the background of the case which had gone to ZBA and the two appeals.
Members of the audience and Planning Board expressed their opinions for and against the bylaw change, raised questions, and discussed their hopes for the Central District.
Parent moved that Planning Board recommend Petitioned Article 36. O’Connell seconded, and the motion carried 6-0.
O’Connell closed the hearing a 7:30 p.m., and the regular meeting began.
Regular Meeting
O’Connell and Parent recused themselves from the meeting. Barbara Gray assumed chairmanship. Upon request from Mr. Lay, O’Connell remained in the room as President of the Wellfleet Conservation Trust which may have an interest in the subject property.
Preliminary Subdivision #08-01, Arnold 115 Cove Road (Map 23, Parcel 208.8)
Chester Lay of Slade Associates came forward to present the Preliminary Subdivision plans for James Arnold. The proposal is to subdivide the property into 5 lots. Three lots are under negotiation with the Wellfleet Conservation Trust. Mr. Lay explained how two lots are partially in the Commercial District and partially in the Residential District. Mr. Slade said the property will undergo a MESA review. Planning Board members had questions about the road specifications. Rowell moved to approve PSD #08-01. Pickard seconded, and the motion carried 4-0.
Parent returned, and O’Connell resumed as chair of the meeting.
Discussion of Large Structures
O’Connell introduced invited representative from the Eastham Planning Board, Mike Cole, who explained their use Site Plan Review for large houses. Cole gave an overview and history of Eastham’s Residential Site Plan Review. He said there were triggers of size and floor area ratio of livable space that send a building plan to Planning Board for review. It’s an attempt to quantify massing, Cole said. Their Planning Board has criteria on neighborhood character, and view sheds. Eastham Planning Board meets once a month and usually deals with around three Site Plan Reviews and often with continuances at each meeting, Cole said.
Mr. Cole explained about their lot coverage, which includes all finished and enclosed areas of the structures. He said farmer’s porches were excluded because they alleviate solid massing. Eastham does not have provisions for impervious surfaces, Cole said. Architectural review is another consideration that Eastham does not make, according to Cole. He also answered questions from Planning Board members regarding Eastham’s Water Protection District. Cole said their bylaw had provisions for visual impact with regard to steep slopes, flood plains, hilltops, dunes, scenic views and wetlands.
Further discussion with Mr. Cole concerned Truro’s approach to size by lot coverage instead of volume; height limits; scale in terms of neighborhood; segmented plans which are met with disfavor by Eastham’s Planning Board; lot sizes in Eastham; Orleans’ allowance for size by square feet of living area; and the subjective nature of the review process. Cole also discussed a scenario where the Board is indicates many negatives to the applicant. In such a case the applicant usually has the review continued, Cole said. He also discussed the pitfall of having neighbors control what you build.
Discussion opened up to the audience who discussed Eastham’s approach; asked about Seashore Guidelines; and discussed a bylaw that included footprint and lot size, the impervious areas, setbacks, and scenic view.
O’Connell expressed his favorable opinion of Site Plan Review, especially language in Truro’s proposed Site Plan Review bylaw. He liked the “Purpose” section of Eastham’s review plan. O’Connell said Wellfleet, timewise, was a long way from the Seashore Guidelines and did not think that was the route to take. He also said he was interested in town-wide bylaw, not just the Seashore District.
Cape Cod Commission members John Lipman and Martha Hevenor were in attendance and expressed their thoughts on comparing Eastham and Truro’s Site Plan Review ideas; using hydrological analysis especially with a consideration of impervious surface coverage. Lipman said there were multiple values with any bylaw that is proposed. He said Wellfleet needed to define what values it would like to protect.
O’Connell said at this time he was not looking at setbacks, especially for small lots. Parent asked about height triggers in Truro’s site plan review. He pondered increasing lot coverage allowances if second story trade offs were made. O’Connell said that topography was also a consideration.
O’Connell asked Mr. Cole if some reviews were easy and quick because of the applicant’s good preparation for the Site Plan Review. Cole said that was the case in the majority of cases.
Discussion continued from the floor with mention of nitrogen loading a part of a site plan review, consideration of mass and lot coverage, a working definition of “large,” and what is considered outside the character of the town.
O’Connell said there were two changes to consider. One is lot coverage, and the other is for a Site Plan Review. Planning Board discussed use of a sliding scale for determining lot coverage. Parent said sticking to percentages holds up better in court. Square footage limitations are open to interpretation by lot size, he said.
From the floor, Bob Costa asked about a time frame for developing bylaw changes. Costa recommended moving rapidly ahead with bylaw change. Barbara Gray pointed out that the Planning Board wants to proceed with changes, but the Board needs to talk about the issues among themselves in a public meeting. From the floor, Selectman Dale Donovan commented on the nature of hearings and open meetings.
The audience still had more questions on providing for the town’s character; open-endedness and neighborhood involvement in Eastham’s method; rights of property owners; differentiation of small lots and large lots within the Seashore; and a focusing on the size of houses.
Parent said that the Board needed to concentrate on Site Plan Review approach even though it had allowed public comment at the present meeting. Parent said size does come back to lot coverage. O’Connell suggested that a maximum lot coverage could be built in. Mike Cole emphasized that the numbers were triggers, not absolutes.
Parent said Orleans goes up to 15% lot coverage with a Site Plan Review.
Control of paved driveways, setback requirements on little lots, and Eastham’s triggers for Site Plan Review were considered.
Parent considered the many small lots in Wellfleet, taking into consideration the number of pre-existing, non-conforming lots. Parent also considered the square footage allowed for the large lots with respect to setting a Wellfleet number that would trigger a Site Plan Review. Pickard suggested checking existing house sizes through the Assessor’s data base. Parent asked Mr. Cole about where the Planning Board might cross the line into architectural review. Cole said scale, mass, density were all concerns.
Once a public hearing is advertised, the number for a trigger can only become less restrictive. PB would stick with the lot coverage allowances but wanted to fix a square footage trigger. Mr. Cole discussed size of small lots in Eastham.
Parent discussed not having an Overlay District without a review process and the resulting figures. O’Connell suggested the 2,000 s.f. trigger but without any driveway coverage included. Parent considered small pre-existing structures on small lots which would not even reach the 2,000 and 1,750 square foot triggers. ZBA would pick them up, the Board agreed. Parent considered using different triggers inside and outside the Seashore, but the Board preferred one standard.
O’Connell said that he preferred an approach where appeal is made to the ZBA instead of Superior Court although he liked the criteria he’d seen from both Eastham and Truro.
Mike Cole gave the Board a copy of Eastham’s Site Plan Review application that gets the homeowner to the Board. He discussed notices and maximum action time. O’Connell asked if there was a time that turned it into a constructive grant. Ben Zehnder said if the bylaw passed as “Special Permit” the constructive grant is triggered. Site Plan Review bylaws operate by simple majority of the quorum, unlike Special Permit.
John Lipman said massing could be considered in the bylaw. He gave an example of how a low mass structure could work. Having allowances for mass if the height is partially limited would be desirable, O’Connell said. Parent cautioned that Site Plan Review needed clear criteria. Cole answered questions on setbacks.
When asked about improvements for their Site Plan Review method, Cole said Eastham was considering further regulation on finished basements even though they do not usually have an impact on massing. Cole said keeping lot coverage did not make massing considerations easy.
Parent said an Overlay District near water would work with Site Plan Review. He said that applying an overlay with Site Plan Review could be the approach for bylaw change.
Zehnder said that the challenge he saw was to get the zoning changes to Special Town Meeting in fall.
Helen Miranda Wilson discussed her earlier Site Plan Review ideas from the time when she was on Planning Board. Her idea was that homes between two bodies of water be required to keep their same footprint and volume in the event of renovation.
O’Connell said that Rex Peterson and he would work on proposed bylaw changes before the next meeting. Parent stressed the need to examine the bylaw changes carefully. The public hearing process would give more time for consideration.
Minutes of March 19, 2008
Gray moved to approve the amended minutes of March 19, 2008. Parent seconded, and the motion carried 6-0.
Mail
A letter from James Reider was reviewed and it was noted that the issues raised were not in the purview of the Planning Board. The Board handed the letter over to Barbara Gray for follow-up.
Other Business
Draft copies of Rules & Regulations were distributed for a future meeting.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________ ____________________________
Mary Rogers, Committee Secretary R. Dennis O’Connell, Chairman
________________________ Date
Planning Board approved these minutes at the meeting of 4/16/08.
| 
