Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPB Minutes 2003-01-14 ORLEANS PLANNING BOARD January 14, 2003 —Minutes A meeting of the Orleans Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on January 14, 2003 in Meeting Room A, Orleans Town Hall. Present were: Chairman: Alan Conklin; Vice-Chairman: Mark Zivan; Clerk: Sims McGrath;Nate Pulling; William Wilcoxson; Associates: Karen Etsell; Kenneth McKusick; Town Planners: George Meservey; Secretary: Karen Sharpless. Kenneth McKusick joined the board as an Associate Member. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Meservey asked for input from the Planning Board on how to present the proposed zoning amendments at the public hearing on January 28, 2003. McGrath suggested town meeting format—(i.e. show each article and explain the rationale for it). Zivan stated that a powerpoint presentation is effective—with the article description, rationale and the pro's and con's. Etsell stated that the articles should be explained since it is possible that different people will attend the public hearing than came to the workshop. The committee discussed agreed that it was best to present one article at a time in the order they are published in the legal ad. Zivan suggested turning off powerpoint and summarizing each article. McGrath stated that it is best to avoid conflict on the town meeting floor. Meservey explained that he will meet with Mike Ford(Town Counsel) before the public hearing to clarify the wording of the articles. Land clearing - this article was forwarded without a full consensus of the Planning Board in order to avoid a repetition previous incidents. Storage Trailers—this amendment would change the use of storage trailers for municipal use only. Zivan state that people find the sight of storage trailers offensive. This by-law was originally intended for municipal recycling only. Zivan suggested mentioning the Local Comprehensive Plan in the powerpoint presentation. Autos—Zivan said this amendment would affect future additional auto sales. Current use is protected by grandfathering for existing establishments. Bay Ridge Lane—This is to provide relief from the reduction in the other Industrial area. It will adjust the zoning to provide for existing non-conforming structures. REVIEW OF WISE LIVING 40B PROPOSAL Meservey stated that Mr. Wise is coming for a Comprehensive Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 22, 2003. The Planning Board has been asked to submit their comments on this proposal. This use was voted down at town meeting for this density. Voters did not want to see this high amount of density. The affordable units would sell for $115,000 vs $362,000 for other units. The formula states that no more than 30% of income can be used for the affordable housing units. The proposal is mixing affordable with market rate units. The Planning Board needs to study whether it is consistent with the Local Comprehensive Plan regarding future growth and density. Planning Board Minutes January 14, 2003 Page I Comments and questions: McGrath asked how the income is decided for the affordable units. Zivan stated that this complex is limited to seniors and yet there is a pressing housing need is for young families in town. Meservey said the State permits age-restricted apartments. McGrath stated that there are restrictions on the units—they cannot be used by heirs if the heirs are not the in the appropriate age group. Wilcoxson said that the Planning Board should stress the need for young family housing. McKissick questioned the number of bedrooms in previous Wise's previous proposal vs. the number in this proposal. The Town rejected the density for the previous proposal. McGrath stated that article was indefinitely postponed from town meeting floor. McKissick questioned the condo fees, whether they would be reduced for the affordable units and increased for other units? Meservey stated that the Town is responsible for maintaining the affordability in a Deed Rider in the future for the affordable units. This means that the town would be granted the right of first refusal and if they don't want to buy it, then after the appropriate period of time they can go at the market rate. McKissick—should find out about the time constraints on the town acquiring units before they go on sale to the public at regular price. Then the affordability aspect is lost permanently. Etsell said she has concerns about the traffic and the height of the lamp post(20' high). Zivan reiterated the density concerns and the fact that there is no assurance that the market rate units will be sold to Orleans residents. Zivan stated that this is a violation of Local Comprehensive Plan Etsell asked about the process. Meservey answered as follows: if the Zoning Board of Appeals denies the application—only the developer can appeal to the State Housing Appeals Commission. They have ruled in favor of developers in 94% of cases. Zivan—recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals negotiate lower density? Meservey - density- this site would allow 19 units. McKissick stated that this is not in keeping with the town plan and also impacts nitrogen loading for town cove. Meservey clarified that this area heads for Namskaket Creek. Wilcoxson reiterated that the biggest housing need in Orleans is for young families. McGrath stated that this application does not satisfy the needs of the community. Wilcoxson questioned making the units non-age restricted. The Planning Board stated the need to include references to the Local Comprehensive Plan. Inappropriate nature of age restriction could be mitigated by a stipulation. McGrath expressed concerns with traffic, and non-compatibility with the Local Comprehensive Plan. McGrath also stated that it does not address the needs of affordability for this community. LIST OF CONCERNS: Inconsistent with Local Comprehensive Plan in a number of goals and recommendations of the plan. Density should be negotiated to a substantially lower density. (violates current by-law and proposed by-law that was defeated at town meeting which was originally sought by the developer). Affordable housing units should be for families. This could proliferate other such projects in town. Traffic is unsafe for this density. Planning Board Minutes January 14, 2003 Page 2 Foreclosures—need better deed rider. Lighting not acceptable and too high Sewer treatment system. Parking concerns—density of vehicles. Also concerned about leaking from vehicles. List of waivers extensive, including Development of Regional Impact review waiver. Application forces town to skip normal review processes. How long affordable units available to town? Emphasize unit not completely protected as affordable. Clarify how costs to stay affordable. Not exclusively for Orleans residents. Meservey suggested that Planning Board members come to the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing Wednesday, January 22, 2003 @ 7 p.m. Meservey stated that this application is for 41 independent living units & 1 manager's quarters. Meservey— this is pretty high density. Waivers are being requested because this is a 40B proposal. McKissick—Should emphasize the number and types of waivers that are being requested. McKissick—list all waivers and impact on town is density and traffic. McGrath indicated a concern with extra people coming and going from the structure (i.e. nurses, emergency vehicles, service workers, etc.). Zivan—this is a bad traffic area already. Meservey—Cape Cod Commission is considered a local board and can only make recommendations. McGrath—concerns about a second market for the units—including the age restriction. Can Wise prove that there really is a market out there for these units? McKissick—ambiguity on age restriction of units. McGrath asked if the affordable housing units could fail? MOTION: On a motion by Mark Zivan, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted to forward a letter stating strong concerns regarding this project for the chairman's signature to the Zoning Board of Appeals. VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous. CORRESPONDENCE: Association to Preserve Cape Cod, Inc. re: Coalition for Zoning Reform bill filed with legislature re: MOTION: On a motion by Mark Zivan, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted take no action. VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous. Planning Board Minutes January 14, 2003 Page 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: On a motion by Nate Pulling, seconded by Mark Zivan, the Board voted to approve the minutes of December 10, 2002. VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: On a motion by Nate Pulling, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous. SIGNED: DATE: (Clerk: Sims McGrath) Planning Board Minutes January 14, 2003 Page 4