HomeMy Public PortalAboutPB Minutes 2003-03-11 ORLEANS PLANNING BOARD
March 11, 2003 —Minutes
A meeting of the Orleans Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on March 11, 2003,in Meeting Room
A, Orleans Town Hall.
Present were: Chairman: Alan Conklin; Clerk: Sims McGrath;Nate Pulling; Associates: Karen Etsell;
Kenneth McKissick; Town Planners: George Meservey, Al Brodeur; Secretary: Karen Sharpless. Absent:
Vice-Chairman: Mark Zivan; William Wilcoxson.
There were 12 people in the audience, including Will Joy, Kendall Farrar, John Hinckley, Jeff Karlson, Brooks
Woods, Augusta McKissick, Charles Crozier, Allen Gibbs, Vince 011ivier, Bob Wilkinson, Bill Fonda, Thomas
W. "Will"Joy.
7:00 P.M.—PUBLIC HEARING—Proposed Zoning Articles for the 2003 Annual Town Meeting
McGrath read the public hearing notice into the record. There was no objection to his waiving the reading of the
entire legal ad, but he instead read the legal advertisement and the Headings of each article. The Planning Board
will discuss the bodies of the articles during the meeting.
McGrath read correspondence from the following people into the record: Sheila McGorman, Erica Parra, and
Ann Donaldson.
The Planning Board agreed to go over the changes to the articles rather than redo the whole original
presentation.
Open Space Residential Development(Cluster Development)—Meservey stated there was a question as to
District 2—limit the number of bedrooms to 1 bedroom per 10,000 sq. feet of land area. There was a question
as to whether the open space in such a development could be allocated to each of the lots and there is language
that has been added for wastewater treatment. Meservey stated that in District 2 there are limitations on
impervious surface and lot coverage. Meservey talked to Michael Ford(Town Counsel)and he recommended
adding a sentence to §164-17 that would read, "lot area as that term is used in determining compliance with
District 2 requirements in an Open Space Residential Development(164-40.1), shall include a portion of the
Open Space proportional to the total number of lots in the subdivision."
Meservey stated that some of the open space can be allocated toward the impervious space and lot coverage
requirements. Meservey explained that §164-17 mandates open space for all subdivisions of 5 lots or more in
the future. There should be no penalty on the ability to develop those lots as if they were standard 40,000 sq. ft
lots.
Meservey noted that the Open Space Committee raised the question of raising the open space requirement in a
cluster subdivision. It is currently 35%. The By-law states that it must be done in perpetuity. We have
advertised this as 50% as open space. Planning Board would need to decide whether 35% or 50%is the
appropriate number.
Audience Comments:
Hinckley asked if this is an opportunity to have some other kind of regulatory requirement other than submitting
two complete sets of plans. If a person wants to go ahead with a cluster development, to avoid the costs of
having a 2nd set of plans and the engineering associated with it. Meservey answered that this would require a
Preliminary Plan showing both a cluster and conventional subdivision plan to determine the density. The
Planning Board Minutes March H, 2003 Page 1 of 5
Preliminary Plan does not require an engineer's stamp. The Preliminary Plan shows the perimeter of the lots,
how big they will be and where they are located. It is used as a planning tool. A Preliminary Plan is never
recordable. The cost is significantly lower than for a Definitive Plan. Hinckley asked if the town's global
mapping system could be used to preclude the added costs in some situations.
McGrath stated that the Preliminary Plan is a surveyor's exercise of where lot lines go? Meservey said they
carve out lots for a subdivision for density purposes. With the new mapping system, it might be possible the
town can calculate buildable upland without the need for a Preliminary plan.
Woods asked if there is currently the capability for cluster zoning in town. Answer: Yes. Woods asked if
anybody has exercised the ability to have cluster zoning in this town. Answer: No, nobody has exercised the
right to do cluster zoning in town. Woods asked if a 5 lot subdivision it will be required to be cluster zoning.
Answer: McGrath stated that the developer is required to explore cluster subdivision, but he can seek a waiver
from that requirement and he can pursue a traditional subdivision. Woods expressed concerns about the
financial aspects of cluster zoning and called it an invasion of owner's rights. Meservey stated that a developer
must convey open space to someone, (the Town of Orleans, Orleans Conservation Trust, or a neighborhood).
The Board of Selectmen never take land, but they can accept land.
Augusta McKissick noted that it would be advantageous where neighbors have a commonly shared parcel for a
treatment system.
Gibbs stated that the Open Space Committee supports the original and revised proposals.
011ivier said there are subdivision lots coming before the Planning Board in the future that will be likely
candidates for cluster zoning. There could be different size lots in these subdivisions.
Gibbs indicated that it is important to remember that the cluster plan is written for future developers -Not
current landowners. The intent is to guide future developers.
Joy stated that with cluster subdivision in other towns, the developers resist common treatment systems—they
are too expensive. If there is no incentive, they won't do it. Joy stated that part of the problem is collecting it"—
collecting it is as expensive as treatment.
Landclearing regulation—Meservey stated that this applied to the residential districts—no more than 30,000
sq. ft or 70% of a parcel, whichever is less, may be altered from its natural state "except for minor removal of
existing trees and ground vegetation without first obtaining a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals
in accordance §164-43 and §164-44".
McGrath indicated that the Planning Board has received a lot of correspondence on this subject. The Planning
Board asked the audience if this is a change that they would like to see. Answer: The audience members said
"no". Planning Board agreed to table this article.
Storage trailers—Meservey stated that there is currently language in the by-law that states that"trailers used for
purposes of storing goods, materials, equipment and the like, or warehousing, except recycling are prohibited
unless the use is incidental to the construction of a permanent home or business". The proposal here is to take
out"except recycling" so that trailers are not permitted to be used for such purposes. The by-law allows
municipal uses in all districts so a municipal recycling facility or trailer would be permitted.
Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2003 Page 2 of 5
Audience Comments:
011ivier asked about container storage. Answer: Meservey said that they are considered a trailer under the by-
law definitions. Vince asked if this article is more restrictive than it needs to be. Meservey stated that a
temporary permit can be issued with a 6 month extension allowed. Meservey said this by-law means when
businesses come into town, they could not use multiple trailers for their businesses.
McGrath stated that this is not to discourage recycling; the point is to prohibit the proliferation of trailers as
substitute buildings. There are health and aesthetic issues. Farrar asked if this is preventing recycling.
Meservey answered that this would prevent the use of trailers as storage trailers. Augusta McKusick asked
about condominium units with trash containers and private units to pick up. Answer: This is considered a
dumpster and would still be permitted.
Route 6A zoning—rezone from GB to LB—Meservey indicated that retail and restaurant activities would no
longer be permitted by right, but would need a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Meservey
also said that in the Limited Business District, apartments and offices would be allowed by right. Large retail
establishments could not come into this area.
Prohibit Automobile sales from the General Business District- Meservey stated that a change was made to
clarify the category of used car sales. The only reference to auto sales in the current by-law is "used car lots".
Mike Ford recommends using "new and used motor vehicle sales" and make it prohibited in the General
Business District.
Bay Ridge Lane Zoning—Meservey said that proposal has not changed from the last public hearing—it is to
change the area by highway garage from General Business District to the Industrial District. The major changes
would be that single family homes would still be prohibited; they would be non-conforming. Warehousing,
wholesale and light industry are allowed in the district. Light industry is already allowed by special permit, it
would be allowed by right. Wholesale uses (tradesmen storing goods in bays)would be allowed, where it is not
allowed now. Residences would have to be proven as pre-existing, non-conforming. This article would align
the zoning with the current uses. There are currently seven legal residences in that area.
[This ended the presentation of the six proposed zoning articles. Now the Planning Board needed to decide
about inclusion of these articles on the town meeting warrant.]
MOTION: On a motion by Nate Pulling, seconded by Kenneth McKusick, the Board voted to close
public hearing.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Open Space Residential Development(Cluster Development)
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Nate Pulling, the board voted to recommend to the
Board of Selectmen that the cluster development zoning bylaw be put on the town meeting warrant as amended
by the Planning Board discussion. The amendment was (noted by reference) concerning using the common area
for septic purposes.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
AMENDED MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Nate Pulling, the board voted to
recommend to the Board of Selectmen that the cluster development zoning bylaw be put on the town meeting
Planning Board Minutes March H, 2003 Page 3 of 5
warrant as amended by the Planning Board discussion. The amendment was (noted by reference) concerning
using the common area for septic purposes and the allocation of each open space should be proportional to the
size of each building lot not to the total number of building lots.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, and seconded by Nate Pulling, the board voted to approve the
article as amended and forward it to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the May 2003 Annual Town
Meeting warrant.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Landclearing regulation
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, and seconded by Nate Pulling, the board voted to
remand the landclearing article back to the Zoning By-Law Task Force for further work.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Storage trailers
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, and seconded by Nate Pulling, the board voted to
approve the amended article regarding storage trailers and forward it to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on
the May 2003 Annual Town Meeting warrant.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Route 6A Zoning
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, and seconded by Nate Pulling , the board voted to approve the
amendment to the zoning bylaw on zoning map changing portions of Route 6A to Limited Business District and
forward it to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the May 2003 Annual Town Meeting warrant.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Auto Sales Prohibited from the General Business District
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, and seconded by Nate Pulling, the board voted to approve the
amendment to the language included in the legal ad for the March 11, 2003 public hearing specifically replacing
"used car lots"with"new and used motor vehicle sales" and forward it to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion
on the May 2003 Annual Town Meeting warrant.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Bay Ridge Lane Zoning Change
Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2003 Page 4 of 5
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, and seconded by Nate Pulling, the board voted to approve the
zoning amendment on Bay Ridge Lane zoning and forward it to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the
May 2003 Annual Town Meeting warrant.
VOTE: 4-1-0 The vote passed by a majority. (Karen Etsell voted against).
Meservey told the Planning Board that they need to decide how they will present the articles to town meeting
and various civic groups. Meservey agreed to forward the articles approved by the Planning Board to the Board
of Selectmen for inclusion on May 2003 Annual Town Meeting warrant.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED—Michelle Rich—Rock Harbor Road
Meservey explained that this Approval Not Required is a request to combine 2 lots to a single lot on Rock
Harbor Road. Meservey said the Planning Department recommends endorsing this plan. There are setback
issues for building a porch on the existing house while it is 2 separate lots—the buildings must be 25' from lot
lines. The 2 parcels were purchased by a single deed.
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Kenneth McKusick, the Board voted to
authorize the Planning Board Chairman to endorse the Approval Not Required Plan prepared for Michelle M.
Rich, dated February 21, 2003, scale I"=20', by Bennett and O'Reilly, Inc.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
DEFINITIVE PLAN ENDORSEMENT—Delia Ayleshire Quinn—Locust Road
George Meservey—The Planning Board endorsed the Mylar for Delia Ayleshire Quinn. This is a 2-lot
subdivision on Locust Road. The executed standard Maintenance Agreement has been received by the Planning
Department.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES—February 25, 2003
MOTION: On a motion by Sims McGrath, seconded by Kenneth McKusick, the Board voted to approve
the minutes of February 25, 2003.
VOTE: 4-0-1 The vote passed by a majority. (Karen abstained)
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: On a motion by Nate Pulling, seconded by Sims McGrath, the Board voted to adjourn at
8:50 p.m.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
SIGNED: DATE:
(Clerk: Sims McGrath)
Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2003 Page 5 of 5