Wellfleet Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting and Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Senior Center Long Pond Room, 7:00 p.m.
Present: R. Dennis O’Connell, Chairman; Barbara Gray, Ronald Harper, Stephen Oliver, David Rowell, Alfred Pickard, Gerald Parent
Chairman O’Connell called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Preliminary Subdivision #08-02, Clover, 130 Old County Rd. & 0 Off Old County Rd. (Map 30, Parcels 67, 67.1 & 67.2) – Cont. from May 7, 2008
Richard Lay of Slade Associates represented the Clovers for the Preliminary Subdivision at 130 Old County Rd. and 0 Off Old County Rd. The Board had done a site visit to the property. Mr. Lay said there would not be any waivers for the road size. There was a discussion of the width of the paved road and the throat of the road at Old County Rd. Mr. Lay said there would be a full MESA review of the subdivision plan. Pickard moved to approve Preliminary Subdivsion #08-02. Gray seconded, and the motion carried 7-0.
While Mr. Lay was here, the Board had a brief discussion of MESA review. The Board would like to have further discussion on MESA restrictions at a future meeting.
Site Plan Review –Public Comment
Planning Board agreed upon a half hour of discussion with the audience. Gooz Draz had material he had researched and printed for the Board. One of his studies was on Building Permits from 2005-2007. He had used Eastham’s square foot floor-area site coverage definition as a basis of what would have been affected in Wellfleet had Eastham’s method of Site Plan Review been in place. Draz’s second study had been on net living area (NLA) for Wellfleet’s complete housing stock. His figures for this report had come from the Assessor’s office, he said. The NLA medians were done for the whole town by lot sizes. He had broken down medians by the entire town and by homes inside the National Seashore.
John Duane, who is on the Board of Wellfleet Assessors, presented more information on how the Assessor’s data is calculated. Draz reviewed how he had arrived at his figures. O’Connell said the report gave him a sense of the different house sizes on various lot sizes throughout the town.
Draz said that he considered Site Plan Review a good idea; he had included in his summary what he believed should be included in site coverage calculation.
O’Connell expressed appreciation for the work Draz had put into his study and noted some cases, included in the endnotes of Draz’s report, which could have used a Site Plan Review.
Other members of the audience voiced their concerns. Helen Miranda Wilson, commenting on the April 17 Draft Site Plan Review’s Part G, objected to the final sentence that stated the Board’s right to waive any or all parts of the Site Plan Approval. Gail Ferguson had submitted a letter to the Planning Board in which she discussed a building on a small lot which negatively affected the neighborhood. Ferguson recommended the inclusion of buildings on small lots, not just big houses. John Duane had a question on reconstruction and threshold triggers for Site Plan Review. Dale Donovan asked about the Site Plan Review draft of 4/17/08. Donovan said that consideration of the Town’s character was important. Peter Watts asked to hear more about Eastham’s Site Plan Review process. Ronald Harper of the Planning Board discussed having a trigger of value that seems appropriate for the community. Draz had concluded that a 2,000 square foot footprint trigger was useless. Using a 2,000
sq. ft. trigger, Draz said, homeowners are able to go right up to the 2,000 sq. ft. and then build upward. Helen Wilson urged the Board to take into account visibility, volume, height, and lot coverage, but not character because that can be interpreted in many different ways.
Parent asked Gail Ferguson for more information about the house on the small lot which she had written about in her letter. Ferguson said noise as well as lighting should be considered in a Site Plan Review bylaw. Ferguson said she believed people in Wellfleet would want to maximize their homes, and the effect on the neighborhood should be taken into consideration.
Site Plan Review Draft Bylaw – Working Session for the Board
O’Connell asked for Oliver’s and Rowell’s impressions of Eastham’s Site Plan Review, which they had observed at Eastham’s Planning Board’s last meeting. Rowell explained that there had been three meetings for a commercial property on Route 6 which came up with four findings for various aspects of the project. The second case had been a residential Site Plan Review which passed rapidly. Oliver and Rowell expressed concern about the process. From the floor, Tom Reinhart had comments on the Eastham review.
O’Connell explained what had happened at the joint Planning Board meeting with Truro on Tuesday night. Both towns have been working on Site Plan Review drafts. Rowell said he considered Wellfleet as more of a “sister” town with Truro. The eclectic styles of Wellfleet and Truro have more in common than what is found in Eastham, Rowell said.
Planning Board members revisited their ideas on the parameters of a Site Plan Review (SPR) bylaw; the possible approaches to SPR; the advantages and disadvantages; and alternatives to SPR. Most members expressed their interest in having a set of Site Plan Review bylaws that covered the entire town, not just the Seashore District. The possible approaches to follow included: sliding scale; lot coverage with floor-area ratio; architectural review (This was not viewed favorably.); height-width ratio (an idea introduced by Harper); and conditioning to give strength to SPR.
The advantages of using Site Plan Review have been often reported by Eastham’s Planning Board, who already use this method. It helps in reducing height and massing; it takes into consideration steep slopes, flood plains, hilltops, dunes, scenic vies and wetlands; it sometimes makes incentives available for lowering height; and it takes into consideration what is appropriate for a neighborhood.
Difficulties that Planning Board continues to grapple with include dealing with small lots; visibility issues; setting concrete criteria; second floor issues; avoiding the “box” look, dealing with cathedral ceilings in a floor-area formula; the “arm-twisting” factor at some point in process; setting SPR triggers; the impact of change in neighborhoods over time (What happens to the first and/or last homeowner to remodel?); and the subjective nature of SPR.
Alternatives to Site Plan Review were still under discussion. Creating a Water View Overlay District, going by view sheds, or accepting Seashore 50% enlargement guidelines as a zoning bylaw were all considered. The 50% guideline was rejected as a proposal.
Gray said she would like to get things in writing. O’Connell said the Board was not focused solely on the SPR draft. Parent added that draft was not a set plan.
O’Connell said the Board had agreed a bylaw should be town-wide, have reduced lot coverage and use a sliding scale.
Pickard asked that submissions to Planning Board be made in advance so that they can be included in the meeting packet.
Parent considered alternatives of one big house on a three-acre property or three smaller houses on three separate acre lots. He noted that there is a trade off. Parent said he found Draz’s study interesting; it let him know more about what is out there.
O’Connell suggested working with Rex Peterson on specific criteria for Site Plan Review. Parent asked if there was a danger in being too specific. If an individual gives a specific preliminary plan, the PB might turn it down without giving the homeowner recourse.
Peterson said that the Board was getting away from Site Plan Review. He said the criteria for Truro and Eastham were pretty much the same. Peterson said the Board did not seem to be supporting SPR. He said quantitative criteria might be the direction to work on. Determining what is an “egregious case” is the problem according to Stephen Oliver. Peterson said that Eastham’s site coverage definition is understandable. The trigger mechanism is a clear mathematical formula even though the review might be subjective. Peterson said projects that don’t set off the triggers do not go into SPR.
Peterson said a suggestion from Truro’s meeting was that a subcommittee work out some definite criteria for Site Plan Review. Eastham, he said, had not set a maximum size. He said writing the criteria is difficult to do. Peterson asked about working on the sliding scale approach.
O’Connell said he still favored the floor-area ratio as a surrogate for volume. Peterson said setbacks had to be considered also. Peterson explained Eastham’s trigger mechanism and case by case consideration of SPR. Parent made up a hypothetical case that a SPR could redirect from a two-story to a one-story building. Parent further considered a neighborhood of two-story houses and having a Site Plan Review lower the height and thereby the value of the house. Peterson said that would most likely be appealed.
O’Connell asked how to set criteria for SPR. Peterson said people learn after awhile what is acceptable and what will not be approved.
Minutes of May 7, 2008
Gray moved to approve the amended minutes of May 7, 2008. Parent seconded, and the motion carried 6-0.
Other Business
An RFP for the Landing Strip access project was discussed.
Harper asked about the Lay brothers comments on Subdivisions Rules & Regulations, another document Planning Board has been revising.
Mail
? Several Eastham decisions using Site Plan Review were in the file.
? A letter dated 5/13/08 from the National Seashore to the ZBA was distributed. Board members will consider its contents for the next meeting.
Adjournment
Gray moved to adjourn. O’Connell seconded, and the motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________ ____________________________
Mary Rogers, Committee Secretary R. Dennis O’Connell, Chairman
________________________ Date
Planning Board approved these minutes at the meeting held 6/4/08.
| 
