HomeMy Public PortalAboutPB Minutes 2005-02-08 ORLEANS PLANNING BOARD
February 8, 2005 —Minutes
A meeting of the Orleans Planning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in Meeting Room A, Orleans
Town Hall. Present: Chairman: Kenneth McKusick; Vice-Chairman: Sims McGrath; Clerk: John
Fallender;Nate Pulling; Seth Wilkinson; Associates: Paul O'Connor; Garry Guzzeau. Town Planners:
George Meservey John Jannell; Secretary: Karen Sharpless. Also Present: Board of Selectmen
Liaison: Jon Fuller; and Finance Committee Liaison: David Dunford.
Preliminary Subdivision Plan—Ralph L. & Sherry L.Boas—18 Boas Drive & 17 Chase Lane
As an abutter of this property, Paul O'Connor stepped down from the Planning Board.
Peter Soule (Soule Land Surveying)presented the plan. The proposal is to create 4 lots. There is an existing
dwelling in the area where the proposed way is going. The existing dwelling will be removed. They intend
to create a cul-de-sac to serve all four lots. Access for all four lots will be from the proposed way, not from
Boas Drive. Lot 92 is a panhandle lot. Lots 1 & 4 have frontage over 150 feet on the proposed way. Lot 3 is
a cul-de-sac lot with frontage of 50 feet. All of the lots meet the buildable upland requirement, minimum lot
area requirements, and the new shape factor. The topography on the plan was taken from the Town's Base
Maps. They will do an on the ground survey of the entire property before the Definitive Plan application.
They will delineate the wetland edge that abuts Lot 1, as well as the Conservancy District lines and ACEC
lines. They will appear before the Conservation Commission regarding the delineations. Mr. Boas has an
existing house on Lot 2 (which will remain)which allows for 3 other lots. Soule stated they are asking for a
gravel surface road. The existing Boas property is approximately 5.1 acres. There is a potential of 3
dwellings on this property. They are asking for 4 dwellings. Soule said this is an increase of only one
dwelling over and above what is presently allowed in this district.
Meservey said this Preliminary Plan was sent to boards and committees in Town that have authority or
jurisdiction in permitting in the future and requested comments. The Highway Department is concerned
about drainage not flowing onto Chase Lane. This will need a Road Plan and Profile for the Definitive Plan.
The Fire Department had significant concerns related to the existing conditions of Boas Drive, which
presently serves three homes. It is basically a dirt path through the woods. It appears to be year-round
access for at least one house. Hydrants have been requested for Boas Drive and the proposed way. The
Conservation Department wants the Conservancy District delineated. The wetland line and the ACEC line
need to be delineated. The ACEC in this area for Cape Cod Bay is the 10' contour line. There were
comments from the Open Space Committee and the Orleans Conservation Trust. They are concerned that the
applicant work with the Board of Health to consider a common septic system or a disposal area for a
neighborhood septic system or a sewage treatment plan for the future. The Planning Board can ask the
applicant to talk to the Board of Health about this issue, but cannot require it at this time.
There was a letter from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife regarding endangered species. This is within
the priority habitat and estimated habitat for three species that have a special concern or threatened status.
Before the initiation of any work on the above listed project site,plans must be reviewed by Natural Heritage
and Endangered Species program for compliance with their protection provisions. The applicant has to
adhere to state requirements outside of the Planning Board's jurisdiction. The applicant will pursue
compliance with it before coming forward with a final plan.
Lot frontage for Lots 1 &4 is off the proposed way of 150 feet which is required by the bylaw. The
frontage narrows to 13' near the end of the cul-de-sac. There are serious questions of whether this meets the
definition of frontage because it does not really have the ability to be used for road access. Lots 1 &4 may
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 1
be viewed as panhandles. Waivers for panhandles can be applied for, but there is a limit of two waivers on a
subdivision. The Planning Board may want to ask the applicant to rework this plan and bring the cul-de-sac
out further and make cul-de-sac frontage for each of those two lots of 50' on the arc. There may be a benefit
to moving the proposed way to the east or west.
McKusick noted that the revised memorandum from the Planning Department on February 7, 2005 should
reflect that the Board of Health comments had been received. Meservey stated the opinion that the Health
Department reviewed this in terms of being a Definitive Plan. Town water must available to all of the lots.
The septic system on Lot 2 needs to be located and shown on the plan and must be inspected to see if it
complies with Title 5. Remove the dwelling on Chase Lane to make way for the proposed lane and the septic
system needs to be abandoned properly. The Board of Health recommends the proponents consider the use
of a common septic system with enhanced treatment for the removal of nitrogen. There is some concern
from the Board of Health due to the proximity of wetlands and contour of the land. The Board of Health is
concerned with the suitability of developing proposed Lot 1. The edge of the wetland must clearly be
defined on the subdivision plan.
Meservey stated this is a Preliminary Subdivision Plan and is not a recordable instrument. The purpose of a
Preliminary Plan is to 1) Hash out development issues with the Town prior to the applicant finalizing with an
engineer on the design, and 2) To protect the applicant from any zoning change that may occur in the near
future. If the Planning Board approves the Preliminary Plan, the applicant has seven months after that date,
during which any zoning changes would not apply to this property. McGrath stated that the Preliminary Plan
is only guidance for the applicant, it doesn't provide any approvals that can be acted upon.
McKusick asked if the Fire Department was referring to Boas Drive in their comments about a gravel road.
Meservey stated there is no work proposed for Boas Drive. It is a limitation on the number of lots that will
use Boas Drive for access. This is a proposed gravel way off Chase Lane.
Meservey stated the Planning Board must deem that access is suitable because the 1984 approval, Condition
3 states that the 15 acres divided into 3 lots "shall not be further subdivided unless access is provided which
is acceptable to the Orleans Planning Board". If the Planning Board thinks work needs to be done on Boas
Drive, it is possible for the Planning Board to talk about doing some improvement to the road.
McGrath questioned whether Lot 4 could have some rights to Boas Drive. McGrath suggested removing Lot
4 from the proposed way and moving it to Boas Drive?
Comments:
Ann Boas (24 Boas Drive) stated concerns about any of the lots in the new subdivision using Boas Drive for
access and stated the new subdivision lots should use Chase Lane for access. Boas Drive is currently shared
by three properties. There are three sets of utilities going underneath that narrow road which is only 14'
wide. Boas requested that the utilities for the existing house on Lot 2 be switched from Boas Drive to Chase
Lane. Boas stated that if this subdivision goes through and the access is straightened out, she and her brother
would be willing to improve Boas Drive to make it more accessible. Boas stated she is putting a
Conservation Restriction on her property and fully supports open space. Boas requested buffer zones on the
lots in the subdivision that abut her property to avoid building rights close to her property.
Vince 011ivier(Orleans Conservation Trust) stated he is working with Ann Boas on the Conservation
Restriction on her property at 24 Boas Drive. The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program sent
site specific comments which have been given to the Planning Board. These comments point out some
important features of the property,particularly its environmentally sensitive nature and its relationship to
Namskaket Marsh. It is part of the inner Cape Cod Bay ACEC. Ann Boas' request for a buffer zone will
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 2
provide permanent protection for species that are approximate to this site. This would be a good time for the
Planning Board to bring up the subject of a Conservation Restriction on portions of the property that are
germane to endangered species. A number of the boards have referred to enhanced treatment for septage.
The Town has set a precedent by the Planning Board,with the Board of Health and the assistance of the
Orleans Conservation Trust with regard to enhanced treatment or IA systems with the Peterson Subdivision
on Arey's Pond. The attributes of that particular project should be carried forward because this marsh and
the waters that flush in and out of there are considerable. The USGS has plenty of data since the 1980's on
the tidal surges and flows in this marsh. The Planning Board should send a strong message to the applicant
that enhanced septage treatment be the business as usual now in the Town of Orleans. This approaches what
might be considered cluster. Whether or not you cluster or simply use the conditioning of Conservation
Restrictions and enhanced treatment for a subdevelopment like this in order to protect the resources of
Namskaket Creek as well as the resources that are directly on the property that are protected by State law.
There is a new tool that came down from Massachusetts Wildlife called Biomaps which are available online.
The Biomap information can be overlaid onto GIS maps which would benefit boards in making decisions.
This will provide site specific information about priority habitat and estimated habitat is important and
should be taken into consideration. There is another piece of property between the Orleans Conservation
Trust property and the two Boas properties which belongs to the Town of Orleans. There is no legal access
to that property.
Paul O'Connor (31 Sky Meadow Drive) As an abutter, O'Connor stepped down as an Associate Member of
the Planning Board and spoke as a member of the public. In addition to the three species which are listed in
the Fisheries and Wildlife letter, the State website for ACEC includes another species, the diamondback
terrapin, which is identified as having a habitat in Namskaket Creek. O'Connor stated his support for the
recommendations of other organizations and agencies regarding the use of an enhanced nitrogen removal
system for these properties. These 4 lots are perched very precipitously on edge of the ACEC, and all four
of them have some subsurface disposal system within 300' of the edge of the ACEC. The surface contours
don't necessarily indicate the subsurface flow. Given the fact that these are so close to the ACEC, the
nitrogen input into the marsh will be rapid on these lots. This ACEC is already a receptor for septage from
the Tri-Town Septage Treatment Plant which is located very close to the edge of the ACEC and it is also
under consideration for other disposal options in this town. We need to understand that we should protect
this area of critical environmental concern. Namskaket inner marsh is part of the Cape Cod inner ACEC and
we need to assure that we prevent as much nitrogen from being shunted into the Area of Critical
Environment Concern as possible. There is a concern about drainage onto Chase Lane. Don't allow road
runoff to drain into Namskaket Marsh. The town's Comprehensive Plan listed this as something that needs
to be prevented and we should apply that at every chance we get to protect the quality of our coastal waters.
Peter Soule stated that regarding the width issue of the lots, that is based on lots not being less than 14'. We
can solve that easily by decreasing the diameter of the cul-de-sac. Lot 2 is a panhandle lot requires 30'.
Another solution is to bring the road in further.
McGrath asked if there are any guidelines for setbacks for roads from abutting parcels. Meservey answered
that a right of way can be put on any parcel. McGrath suggested moving the proposed way to one side and
make a nonsymmetrical circle and give Lot 4 a 50' arc. Lot 3 would have a 50' arc. Lot 2 would still be a
panhandle lot. There would be a substantial arm for Lot 1. Meservey noted that all panhandles require a
waiver. It is in the town's best interest to have a minimum amount of roadway and asphalt surface.
Soule stated the important issue is whether the lots have adequate access to get vehicles to the property.
Soule stated his intent to discuss all the issues with Mr.Boas.
Wilkinson stated for the record that he is a Trustee of the Orleans Conservation Trust.
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 3
McKusick went over the issues for this subdivision. The Fire Department and others have expressed
concerns that Boas Drive not be used as access for this subdivision. The Fire Department has requested fire
hydrants on both roads. Utilities should be placed underground for all of the lots. A wetland delineation
needs to be completed and accepted by the Conservation Commission. McKusick also brought up the
previously discussed subjects of enhanced nitrogen systems, cluster, concerns about the ACEC, and the
current activities of the Orleans Conservation Trust.
Wilkinson asked for clarification from the Fire Department on the gravel road and which road it is referring
to. There are concerns from the Fire Department about safety for the residents of Boas Drive. Wilkinson
suggested the Emergency Access Provision for Boas Drive.
Peter Soule stated all access will be from the proposed way.
McGrath suggested that the existing dwelling on Lot 2 might create a challenge to arranging a cluster
proposal. There are enough conservation, conservancy, wetland or habitat concerns on the periphery of this
parcel so that a cluster proposal would solve a tremendous number of problems because it would be the way
to concentrate the dwellings away from the critical habitat. Mr. Soule needs to clearly bring it up to his
client's attention that that sort of arrangement might solve a lot of concerns.
Soule stated he has discussed this with Mr. Boas and Mr. Boas really likes the normal 40,000 square foot
minimum lots. Lot 1 is more challenging because of the Conservancy District.
McKusick stated the Peterson model is something to consider regarding Condition 8 which states the
applicant must meet with the Board of Health and consider the potential to use a common septic system with
enhanced treatment to remove nitrogen. Soule stated that the Board of Health can't require it, but at least
consider it.
011ivier suggested that Mr. Boas talk to a tax attorney regarding the advantages of a Conservation
Restriction. The value of his Conservation Restrictions will be much greater from an environmental
standpoint and the value of his lots will be much greater from the market standpoint with conservation
around it.
Wilkinson commented on the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and stated that the Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife has made it clear that they are interested in this lot. They have not reviewed it
because they do not have the necessary information. They can do one of two things once they have reviewed
it, they can decide that no further review is necessary, or they can decide that they may want to study the area
further. Wilkinson stated he would like to see a decision from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife before
deciding on a Definitive Plan, because they can have dramatic impacts on the layout of a subdivision.
MOTION: On a motion by Seth Wilkinson, seconded by Nate Pulling, the Board voted to approve the
Preliminary Subdivision Plan prepared for Ralph and Sherry Boas,dated January 11,2005,scale 1"=50',for land
located at 18 Boas Drive and 17 Chase Lane,subject to the following conditions:
1. Access to all lots be via the proposed way off of Chase Lane
2. Safety improvements to Boas Drive and adequate access to the new proposed way be
incorporated into the Definitive Plan. .
3. Hydrants shall be shown on the Definitive Plan in accordance with the January 14,2005 memo from the
Fire Department.
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 4
4. Utilities for all of the proposed lots be placed underground
5. A wetland delineation,including the ACEC line,be completed and accepted by the Conservation
Commission prior to the Definitive plan filing to ensure that Lot 1 has an adequate building area.
6. A waiver will be required(for frontage)for the creation of Lot 2,a panhandle Lot.
7. All outstanding issues described in the January 21,2005 Health Department memo must be resolved prior
to approval of a Definitive Plan.
8. The applicant must meet with the Board of Health and consider the potential to use a common septic
system with enhanced treatment to remove nitrogen.
9. The Definitive Plan not be submitted until the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program has
completed its review of the project.
10. The Definitive Plan comply with any and all of the requirements of the Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species Program
11. Applicant is encouraged to consider a cluster development to protect natural resources and buffer zones
and minimize disruption of the land nearest Namskaket Marsh.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Meservey stated this was a 3-lot subdivision in 1984 and it is now a 6-lot subdivision. There were immense
waivers granted in 1984 to allow this subdivision, with the understanding that any future subdivision may
require full adherence to all requirements of the subdivision regulations. It is within the Planning Board's
purview to require improvements to Boas Drive up to the cul-de-sac.
MOTION: On a motion by Seth Wilkinson, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted to amend
Condition 92 to read: Safety improvements to Boas Drive and adequate access to the new proposed way be
incorporated into the Definitive Plan.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Fallender stated that one of the incentives of not having to do Boas Drive was that there be no access from
Boas Drive to this subdivision. Fallender suggested that the Planning Board should note that there shall be
no access from Boas Drive.
McGrath stated that these points have been made over the discussion and it's fair to assume that the applicant
will incorporate it.
McKusick asked if there was anything in the conditions to deal with buffer zones. Meservey suggested
adding an l la'condition to encourage cluster and buffer zones.
MOTION: On a motion by Seth Wilkinson, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to add
Condition 911 which states: Applicant is encouraged to consider a cluster development to protect natural
resources and buffer zones and minimize disruption of the land nearest Namskaket Marsh.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 5
Point of Order: McGrath stated that this is a Preliminary Subdivision Plan and all the Planning Board is
doing is giving the general guidelines that this plan doesn't look too bad right now and here are some things
to think about when you go to the Definitive. By making a motion and voting it, the Planning Board is
simply providing the protection and starting the clock. There is no need to go into the minutiae at this point,
that is what the Definitive is for.
Soule asked if he could infer that a hydrant is not necessarily required on Boas Drive. There is no town
water on that road. McGrath noted that the official that made that requirement may not be aware of the
financial burden this would represent. The Water Department will require it on the proposed way.
7:00 P.M. -Public Hearing—Modification to a Definitive Subdivision Plan—Peter C. Peterson—
Peterson Lane
John Fallender read the legal ad into the record.
Meservey stated that when the Planning Board approved these six lots (5 of which are buildable), several of
the offers of a donation of land and conservation of other portions of the subdivision offered by Peter
Peterson were listed as conditions of the approval of the plan. Mr.Peterson has been a terrific developer to
work with and has helped work with the Town to find a mutually beneficial outcome. There is some land set
aside for future wastewater treatment. A broad portion of this ten acre site is conserved from development.
Mr.Peterson wishes to take a tax advantage and the IRS told him those are conditions of the approval
(giving a piece of land away,putting a Conservation Restriction on the remainder and limiting the number of
bedrooms and dwellings). As long as those are listed as Conditions of Approval, he cannot get his benefit.
We would hope this type of offer would be duplicated in the future. The minutes show clearly that the
Planning Board did not negotiate any of those three conditions with Mr.Peterson, he offered them as a gift.
Mr.Peterson has asked that the Planning Board set the record straight and move conditions 1, 2 and 4 to
Findings of Fact so that they are no longer considered Conditions to the Approval of the subdivision and he
can take full advantage of his donations.
Meservey reported that Michael Ford(Town Counsel) has received confirmation from Mr.Peterson's legal
counsel that all mortgagees currently on the property have assented to the Conservation Restrictions,
therefore they would survive any possible foreclosure, so they are legally protected.
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Seth Wilkinson, the Board voted to approve
the Modification of the Definitive Plan prepared for Peter C.Peterson, dated March 15, 2004,revised May
19, 2004 with the following changes:
That Findings of Fact be added to the record indicating that Mr.Peterson presented to the Planning Board a
plan that contained several areas of proposed conservation restriction, a lot that was to be gifted to the Town,
and offered to limit the overall number of bedrooms and dwellings on the property. Based on the proposal
offered by Mr.Peterson, the Planning Board makes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The Conservation Restriction with the Orleans Conservation Trust must be properly executed and a
copy delivered to the Planning Office for the file.
2. Lot One has been offered to the Town as a gift for use as described on the Definitive Plan.
3. The developer has restricted the number of bedrooms and total dwellings as described on the plan.
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 6
And further, that Conditions 1, 2, and 4 of the original Definitive Plan, approved May 25, 2004,be deleted."
Wilkinson said he wanted to underscore for the record that Conditions 1, 2 &4 would not normally be
conditions of an approved subdivision. These were gifts and are not something the Planning Board can
require.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Paul O'Connor returned as an Associate Member of the Planning Board.
Preliminary Subdivision Plan—Jack McAlear—23 Rock Harbor Road
Meservey stated this Preliminary Plan has unusual access. There is sufficient land area to divide into two
lots, but there is a wetland on the east side of the property near Rock Harbor Road. The Conservation
Commission doesn't like the idea of putting in a driveway near the wetland if there is another possibility.
This is a circuitous panhandle proposal, but the main lot meets the second provision of the lot shape factor .
There is plenty of land in the back and it meets the zoning bylaws. There is a big electrical easement that
goes under there. It would be preferable if the applicant would share a driveway to avoid further curb cuts on
Rock Harbor Road. Meservey stated this is a panhandle lot and the Planning Board can require that the
applicant use a shared driveway.
The Fire Department wants a condition requiring an improved surface because of the slope and the
conditions and the electrical easement.
McGrath asked if a Definitive requires a Plan and Profile. Meservey said it does for a road, but this is not a
road. Meservey stated the Planning Board should require the Plan and Profile upfront.
John McElwee (FELCO Engineering) stated they will provide a driveway profile to the Planning Board.
There is a depression in the driveway and the applicant will provide drainage. The applicant will come up
with a profile and layout to solve the angles in the driveway and provide suitable access. They are proposing
an easement on Lot 1 to use the existing driveway, at some point they will deviate from it and run along the
proposed panhandle portion. Some of it depends on input from the power company, it is within their
easement. There is an existing Title 5 system which will be relocated. This property consists of Lot 1 and a
wooded area which is proposed as Lot 2. There is a shed on Lot 2 in disrepair.
Wilkinson commented that it is nice to have a Conservation Commission approval ahead of time.
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to approve
the Preliminary Subdivision Plan prepared for Jack McAlear, dated January 5, 2005, scale 1"= 30', for land
located at 23 Rock Harbor Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. The area and shape exclusive of the panhandle, including upland and wetland, shall be
shown on the Definitive plan for Lot 2.
2. Access to both lots shall be via one shared curb cut. This driveway shall be have an
improved, gravel surface. Plan and profile assuring adequate access for emergency
equipment.
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 7
3. Lot 2 should have a driveway consisting of an 8' wide gravel surface, that must be
maintained clear of vegetation and at least 14' wide and high in order to allow proper
emergency vehicle access and in accordance with the Town's Emergency Access Bylaw.
4. Town water must be made available to each lot in the subdivision.
5. Applicant must relocate the leaching area of the septic system that crosses lot lines so to
be entirely on Lot 1.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Approval Not Required—Franklin L. & Sara S.Joy—9 Old Timer's Lane
Meservey stated this is a gift of land. The lot that is giving the land still has sufficient land area. This
eliminates a setback non-conformity with an existing barn shown on Lot 1. The plan meets all of the
submittal requirements for an Approval Not Required.
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to authorize
the Planning Board Chairman to endorse the Approval Not Required plan prepared for Franklin L. and Sara
S. Joy, dated January 13, 2005, scale I"= 3',by Coastal Engineering, Inc.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments Discussion
Amend the Zoning Bylaws Section 164-35 Signs
Jannell showed a slide presentation showing the difference between internally illuminated signs and backlit
signs around town.
Jannell said this came up as a housekeeping item. There is a definition under EH2 that currently prohibits
internally illuminated signs. There are signs in town that lawfully exist in a pre-existing, non-conforming
nature. They can be maintained and the plastic can be changed. The second problem is that the definition in
the bylaw for internally illuminated signs actually defines backlit signs. The Planning Board needs to create
a definition that is proper for internally illuminated signs, that backs up their existing prohibition, and create
a definition for backlit signs or reword the one that is in there and give it the right heading.
McGrath asked about reinforcing backlit signs to conform to the requirements of the general lighting bylaw.
McGrath stated his concern with the control of lost light.
McKusick asked how often the building inspector measures the foot lanterns. Meservey stated that in the
existing definition the sign fabricator or his agent will certify after installation the average face to brightness
does not exceed the specifications of the article. The Town gets something in writing from them.
McGrath stated his opinion that backlit signs are non-objectionable. McGrath said he would like to minimize
the translucent panel idea. Wilkinson expressed concerns with flashing lights. Meservey stated this is
covered in prohibited signs. Wilkinson asked if the town could specify the backlighting color. Meservey
stated that the Architectural Review Committee looks at every sign and approves them.
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 8
Action: The Planning Board agreed to go ahead with this bylaw as written.
Amend the Zoning Bylaws Section 164-13 Schedule of Use Regulations
Meservey stated this requires a special permit for 2,500 sq. ft or more in gross floor area shall include
existing and proposed floor area. Meservey stated there was a general concern at the public hearing about
requiring smaller additions to obtain a special permit and that is not answered in the language. This is a
clarification.
There was a suggestion at the public hearing to take out the words "change of use"in this section. That
would loosen up the regulations so that an office of 3,000 sq. ft could go to a restaurant and not have to get a
special permit. McGrath asked about accepting changes between allowed uses. It is a burden to go for the
special permit process. Meservey noted that"change of use"is not defined in the bylaw. Meservey stated
there needs to be a definition of"change of use"by impact(performance based zoning). A performance
based evaluation of whether something is a change of use and requires a special permit is a good thing to
look at. McGrath expressed a concern that a change of tenants could become a burden on landlords.
McKissick stated there is an increasing interest in defining a use by its impact. O'Connor noted that some
uses have a higher impact than others.
McKissick said what we're trying to get at is the person who has 2,450 sq. ft and adds another 500 sq. ft and
says the building doesn't exceed the 2,500 sq. ft. McKissick suggested changing the wording to: Except A if
creating more than two thousand five hundred(2,500) sq. ft of gross floor area in commercial use through
new construction or revision. Take out the "change of use". O'Connor said a building could have more of an
impact on the town than just small increments of change and asked how onerous applying for a special
permit can be. McGrath stated it is a time delay. Meservey told the Planning Board that a special permit use
is a use that is generally permitted provided the applicant can prove that it is suitable to the site (8 criteria).
Meservey stated if you remove the words "change of use"here,you open the town up to a retail
establishment, or some other commercial building, going in as some innocuous little use and then converting
to something with a much higher impact and the town has no ability to regulate it properly, which is the
purpose of zoning.
McKissick said the calculation of the total gross floor shall include all existing and proposed floor area is the
most important part of it. "Change of use"is already part of the bylaw.
Meservey suggested that people are concerned with overregulation. McKissick suggested amending this to
read: Except A if creating more than two thousand five hundred(2,500) accumulative sq. ft as an addition of
gross floor area in commercial use. Meservey noted that the calculation of total floor area includes existing
and proposed. Meservey said the businessmen who attended the meeting seemed concerned that the small
incremental changes will require a special permit and that is too much burden on them.
Meservey said this needs to be clarified for the Building Inspector.
Action: The Planning Board agreed to go ahead with this bylaw as written.
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 9
Amend the Zoning Bylaws Section 164-20 General Requirements
Meservey stated that most towns put a limit on the number of dwellings per lot, Orleans does not. Meservey
said that zoning is intended to regulate the use of land, and not the ownership. The purpose of this is to close
a loop in the bylaw with regard to the proper regulation of development .
McKissick asked about the comment that this limits family compounds. McGrath said if the parcel is suitable
for a family compound situation and a number of different dwelling units thereon, it should be otherwise
suitable for subdivision. It is inappropriate to put a strain of 5 houses on the 5 acre parcel that is 150' wide
and �/z mile long.
Action: The Planning Board agreed to go ahead with this bylaw as written.
Amend the Zoning Bylaws Section 164-11 Prohibited Uses
Meservey stated the intent was retail purposes.
Action: The Planning Board agreed to go ahead with this bylaw as written.
Amend the Zoning Bylaws Section 164-6 Zoning Map
Jannell said he talked to one of the people who would be affected by this change. His concern was the
protection of customary home occupations, which is completely lawful in the Residence District. His
concerns were alleviated.
Action: The Planning Board agreed to go ahead with this bylaw as written.
Amend the Zoning Bylaws Section 164-22 Modifications
The Planning Board discussed notification of abutters. Meservey stated that notification is not required, even
for map changes. Fallender stated this it is unfair not to notify abutters, even if it occurs after decisions are
made at town meeting. Meservey told the Planning Board that they regulate the use of land, not the
ownership, and Michael Ford(Town Counsel) has discouraged any aim towards licensing of grandfathering
rights. The Planning Board discussed the sunset time period and whether to increase it. McGrath stated his
opinion that this is to block speculators when the properties turn over. It is not meant to block the people that
purchased lots with the intent of building a guest house, or a house for a family member. This is intended to
stop the speculators who are condominimizing. O'Connor said the intent is to slow down development. The
Planning Board agreed that these lots have already had 25 years to make housing decisions. McGrath stated
people need to be given enough time to make housing decisions carefully and not rushed. Meservey stated a
building permit expires in six months, unless extended.
Action: The Planning Board decided to extend the sunset date to May 6, 2008.
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 10
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Seth Wilkinson, the Board voted to change
the sunset date to May 6, 2008.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Amend the Zoning Bylaws Section 164-40.1 Open Space Residential Development
Kenneth McKissick stated this refers to cluster development.
Action: The Planning Board agreed to go ahead with this bylaw as written.
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to send a
memorandum to the Board of Selectmen stated the Planning Board's intent to submit 7 articles for the May
2005 Town Meeting Warrant, listing the headings for the articles, asking for deference on the final language
until after the Planning Board's meeting on February 22, 2005.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Old Business
Town Survey Questions
McKissick stated the Planning Board has discussed presenting this as a web based survey. This would
provide a savings in postage over mailing it out to townspeople. This would impact the analysis phase of the
project. Paper copies will be available for people to use. McKissick noted that surveys can be used as
educational tools. McKissick said the questions should be used to figure out the real issues that we want to
get some insight on and figure out how much background should be given. Some of the questions are too
general and difficult to understand without a knowledge of the implications.
McGrath noted this started out as a Comprehensive Plan survey. McKissick said this survey revision is part
of updating the Comprehensive Plan. O'Connor said the Planning Board needs clear direction from the
townspeople on what direction they should take.
Action: Meservey will look at the survey questions, reword them and bring them back to the Planning Board
for review at the next meeting. The Planning Board can use a workshop environment to meet with other
committees and boards to solicit their input.
Approval of Minutes: January 11, 2005
MOTION: On a motion by Nate Pulling, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to approve the
minutes of January 11, 2005.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 11
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: On a motion by Nate Pulling, seconded by Seth Wilkinson, the Board voted to adjourn at
9:10 P.M.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
SIGNED: DATE:
(Clerk: John Fallender)
Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 12