Wellfleet Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting and Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Senior Center Long Pond Room, 7:00 p.m.
Present: R. Dennis O’Connell, Chairman; Barbara Gray, Ronald Harper, Stephen Oliver, David Rowell, Gerald Parent
Absent: Alfred Pickard
Chairman O’Connell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Before getting started with Site Plan Review, O’Connell asked for assurances that the Planning Board reappointments will be made at the next Board of Selectmen meeting.
Planning Board continued revision of the proposed Site Plan Review (SPR) draft of June 4, 2008. O’Connell resumed the review of the draft at Part D. Review Standards and Criteria. Additional language was added to D.1. Gray suggested voting on changes at the end of the meeting. The chairman said this could be determined at that time.
Each part of Section D was considered. In Section D.3 there were changes made to the first paragraph. The second paragraph of D.3 on slope was discussed but left as is. Section D.4 on building sites had an addition made to the end to read, “wherever possible.” Also the word minimize replaced the word avoid. There was discussion of changing “30-year period” to “50-year period” in regards to erosion concerns covered in D.5. Gray said a bylaw cannot be made to take into consideration every single lot and every situation. There were adjustments made in D.6 for punctuation and sentence placement. Also the term “legal’ will be added so that access will be qualified as “legal public access and
legal public right-of-way.” Rowell called for a definition of “coastline.” Instead the “coastline” was struck from the second sentence. Sections D.7 and D.8 were discussed and some changes were made. Section D.9 on lighting and noise remained the same. Parent plans on revising D.10 to improve the section for the next SPR draft.
Having a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) was considered for addition to Section E. Preliminary Discussion/Review. The preliminary step was viewed from two perspectives: that of a collaborative process and that of a screening process. The importance and weight given to a preliminary review was discussed at length. A preliminary SPR, Parent said, would give the applicant assurance that the project can proceed. O’Connell said the applicant would have to go to ConsCom, BOH, and Historic Review first. Parent imagined a scenario of an applicant coming for SPR and the possible outcome. Harper said a smart applicant would try to get waivers at the first step of the process.
Requirements for a preliminary review were considered. Peterson discussed Eastham’s process which begins with a denial from the Building Inspector because of size triggers. Parent proposed that preliminary submission include: elevation sketches from all four directions, a development location that includes but is not limited to septic and well location, dwelling location, driveway location, access, and contours not greater than 5 ft. Additional information may be required by the SPR committee at the preliminary hearing. These requirements were added to Section E.
O’Connell said the preliminary requirements above were basically the same as the Section G Required Submissions for SPR. Only Section G.f on landscaping had not been included. Harper noted the preliminary step did not include “approval”; it would be a review. O’Connell said the preliminary sketch/information did not have to be formal, but it should match the required submissions for the definitive submission.
Section F. Site Alteration will be moved to the D. position. In Section D’s preface “majority” will be clarified.
The Board discussed what happens when an applicant comes back with a proposed addition sometime after undergoing a SPR on the original structure. Gray suggested that a standard condition of approval of a SPR would be that further addition require another SPR. Additions are covered in Section B.2.
O’Connell questioned “clearing and altering” in Section F.2. Section I. Public Hearing will define “abutters to abutters within 300 ft.” to match the definition as previously stated in the draft.
An appeal period was considered for Sections J. Planning Board Decision or K. Recording of Decision. Parent said that there must be an appeal period. Peterson reported that Town Counsel had said that the appeal process gets folded into the Building Inspector’s decision. O’Connell asked about the other side if someone appealed the SPR project that went forward. That too would follow the Building Inspector’s decision. Parent was looking for a set period of time between SPR approval and an abutter’s appeal.
Section N. Expiration specifies a two year time limit on SPR endorsement. Parent said that there didn’t need to be a time limit. Gray pointed out the clause for an extension on the time. The two year limit could follow the term and date of the building permit.
The Waiver Section, which had been cut from the current draft, was reconsidered. Parts of SPR can be waived, but an entire waiver of SPR would not be done.
O’Connell asked Peterson to prepare a SPR draft for Planning Board review prior to sending it to Town Counsel. Peterson said the Selectmen and Town Administrator had asked him to send the draft to Town Counsel. O’Connell asked if Town Counsel should be invited to the next meeting. The Board indicated that they were not ready for Town Counsel to attend the meeting June 18, 2008. Before advertising for the SPR hearing, Peterson said, it is advisable to have the bylaw proposal as finished as possible.
Parent presented proposed figures of percentages based on lot coverage Parent said the equation would limit lot coverage although building size could still be big. O’Connell’s said his approach was to say SPR would allow an increase in lot coverage.
O’Connell said the public could submit letters in advance of the public hearing for the SPR bylaw proposal.
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________ ____________________________
Mary Rogers, Committee Secretary R. Dennis O’Connell, Chairman
________________________ Date
Planning Board approved these minutes at the meeting held 6/18/08.
| 
