Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPB 2016-10-25 Wii 30 8:43i �oss4c Acpc,,H,� �. \3 _ ORLEANS TOWN CLERK p-A4 6D ORLEANS PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 25,2016-Minutes A meeting of the Orleans Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Nauset Meeting Room at the Orleans Town Hall. Present: Chairman: Charles Bechtold;Vice-Chairman:Andrea Reed; Clerk: Thomas Johnson. Regular Members: Chet Crabtree and Steve Bornemeier. Associates: William Mone and Richard Hartmann. Planning Department Staff: George Meservey. There were 35 people in the audience. DOWNTOWN ZONING WORKSHOP Bechtold explained that the Planning Board has been working for more than a year on this proposal,and has been studying the downtown and Village Center for several years. Bechtold stated the Planning Board is here to gain input in the form of questions and comments from residents and business owners in town. Bechtold stated that amending zoning requires a formal public hearing and ultimately a 2/3rds majority approval at the town meeting in May which is when we plan to propose it. Meservey described Orleans as a traditional seaside community with historic character and charm desired by residents. Meservey noted that Orleans is a market town and lower Cape business hub. Meservey explained that a review of what exists today shows there has been limited recent investment in the downtown area. Meservey stated that the value of commercial properties has not kept pace with the value of residential properties in town. Meservey said that residents have expressed a desire to improve the vitality of the downtown with the Village Center as the main focus. Through the use of a zoning map,Meservey demonstrated that a vast majority of the town is zoned for residential and 10%of the town is zoned for commercial. Meservey gave the following excerpts from the town Vision Statement approved by voters in 2009: • A vibrant commercial and community center • Focal point for community and cultural activities • Services for residents • Small town character of the village will be maintained • Appropriate development will be encouraged • Development pattern will be safe and attractive for pedestrians • The scale and materials in keeping with the village character • Residential units will be encouraged. Meservey stated that some of the existing commercial buildings in the downtown are consistent with the vision statement. There are two and three story buildings which are inviting with businesses located at street level and other uses above,which is the kind of thing we hope to encourage long-term. Planning Board Minutes—October 25, 2016 Page 1 of 12 Al/information discussed at Planning Board meetings Is kept on file in the Planning Department • Meservey described work done previously through the Planning Board: ❖ Village Market Study(done in 2011 and updated in 2015)to include the entire downtown district • Streetscape Plan for the Village Center helped to inform the town about how to make the area more attractive and functional ❖ Downtown Planning Workshops with participation by the Planning Board and other town boards and committees • 2015-2016 Zoning Process after valuable input from the town residents regarding allowing higher density in the Village Center ❖ Route 6A Corridor Study was completed by the Cape Cod Commission last year which jumpstarted our review of the whole Route 6A corridor. Meservey described the following reasons for zoning change: The bylaw allows for apartments in all the districts,but there have not been many projects in the past two decades. It appears that the town requirements may not be encouraging to housing development. The housing needs of the community are not currently being met. Rental vacancy rates run around 1%,which mean essentially fully occupied. Housing opportunities are currently needed for young people, single adults,older residents, and they are limited. There has been a strongly expressed interest by residents to improve the vitality of the Village Center. A major component of vitality is to have more people residing in the downtown. Downtown development will also help existing businesses to remain viable so that residents can obtain goods and services they need without having to leave the town and it also increases the tax base. Meservey stated that the current zoning bylaw allows six units per acre in the study area with a caveat that mixed use projects(commercial with residential units)can go up to 12 units per acre. A Special Permit is required with a public hearing with abutter notification to allow for addressing concerns before a project is approved. The Planning Board feels this is a viable process that should continue. The maximum building height in the town is 30 feet from the natural grade which is not adequate to allow for third floor apartments in a purely residential development. Meservey gave an overview of the three options the Planning Board has reviewed over the past year: 1)Overlay District;2)Cape Cod Commission recommendations; or 3)Alteration of the current bylaw. Overlay District-This was brought to us last December as a way to allow a large mixed use project to occur. An apartment project would be allowed by right with approvals only by the Site Plan Review Committee and Architectural Review Committee. There would be no public hearing process required. The overlay district as presented would allow the property owner to either choose to use it alone,or be regulated by existing zoning which would result essentially in a mix of projects in the same district regulated in two distinct ways. Dealing with non-conformities or future alterations could be complicated making this approach potentially difficult for the town to manage over time. The Overlay District proposal was very helpful to the Planning Board in identifying the kind of development that the Planning Board thinks that the townspeople would like to see occur. Route 6A Study-The corridor study provided an analysis of the full Route 6A corridor between Brewster and Eastham. It recommended creating additional zoning sub-districts that would help to graduate density from the lowest in the outlying areas to the highest in the Village Center. It recommended incentives for desired development and revising parking regulations so that there is no excess requirement. We have incorporated these concepts into what is being proposed. The Cape Cod Commission also thinks we should Planning Board Minutes—October 25,2016 Page 2 of 12 All intimation discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on file in the Planning Department • adopt a maximum building size. The regional planning agency's Development of Regional Impact regulations may change and may not have that maximum to guard the town against large buildings. Proposed Zoning Amendment—In the proposed zoning amendment,the base zoning density would be increased from six to ten units per acre. There are density bonuses in addition to meeting community goals. For each affordable housing unit that is provided,the developer can build an additional unit in his project. Due to the need for one bedroom units in town,the developer would be allowed an additional unit for each one-bedroom unit provided. If a developer preserves an historic building,he would be allowed additional density depending on the size of the preserved building. A Special Permit would still be required with abutter notification and a public hearing. There would also be an option for a Master Plan permit to allow a single permit for projects that can be phased in over time. The maximum building height would be increased to 35 feet in the Village Center only to allow for 3th floor housing. There is an ability to reduce overall parking requirements and an incentive to put parking underground. Site Plan Review Committee and Architectural Review Committee approvals would be required with a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals as the ultimate permitting authority. It is believed that the proposal would incentivize investment in the downtown helping to improve the local economy,tax base and increase the town's housing supply. Meservey noted the remaining question of minimum lot size in the Limited Business and General Business Districts for apartment development. Meservey stated that currently in the Limited Business District and General Business District a lot would have to be 60,000 square feet in order to be used for apartments and the Planning Board is considering lowering that standard to either 40,000 square feet or 20,000 square feet. Meservey stated that 275 additional units would be added if the lot sizes were reduced to 40,000 square feet at 10 units per acre. Meservey stated that there are 100 lots that if reduced to 20,000 square feet,could result in 680 more potential new dwelling units. Meservey stated that evaluating the issue of minimum lot size,it is important to apply good planning principles for the town. An Orleans Comprehensive Plan goal states that density should be in nodes of development,not strip development. Meservey stressed the importance of limiting active curb cuts on the state road. Meservey stated that the Village Center has a 20,000 square feet minimum lot size for apartments which was adopted last May. Meservey explained that by having the same density all along Route 6A it could result in redundant development which might undermine the Village Center goals of the town. The town has said that density in the Village Center makes sense and is desirable. Meservey explained that land use decisions and policies do not rest solely with the Planning Board and town meeting: 1)The Planning Board works on zoning;2)The Board of Health has nitrogen regulations that limit sanitary flow up to four bedrooms per acre which is a substantial limitation in the Limited Business District along Route 6A; and 3)The Board of Selectmen is working with the consensus wastewater plan which is working on sewering the downtown study area. Meservey stated that any change in zoning to encourage apartment development needs to also address Board of Health regulations,and a commitment to move forward with a plan to sewer the downtown. Cape Cod Commission Leslie Richardson, Sharon Rooney&Heather Harper(Cape Cod Commission)were in attendance for the PowerPoint presentation. Richardson stated that"Build out"refers to what is possible under the rules you have in place. Planning Board Minutes—October 25, 2016 Page 3 of 12 All information discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on Ale in the Planning Department. • Goals • Maintain a maritime village character • Have distinct Commercial Nodes,particularly in the Village Center. • Provide year round job opportunities while protecting your environment and water quality. • Limit pressure on existing transportation infrastructure • Encourage pedestrian traffic downtown • Create a greater sense of community • Diversify housing options • Attract working age residents Using PowerPoint slides,Richardson compared current and proposed density allowances in multiple districts and the anticipated impacts on the town. Audience Comments Beverly Carney(Longview Drive)expressed a concern that mixed use zoning causing homogenization is counter to the Old King's Highway Historic District goals. Carney questioned the appropriateness of development outside the Village Center all the way to the Brewster town line. Carney asked that the Planning Board coordinate with the Land Use oversight offered by the Old King's Highway Historic District committee. John Smith(Rock Harbor Road&Board of Health member)questioned the number of bedrooms the proposed zoning would create throughout town,and noted the need for sewers in town before changes to zoning can be made. Meservey responded that growth neutral does not mean you cannot exceed the amount of wastewater flow that exists today, it means you cannot exceed the flow that could have occurred with the regulations that were in place on the day that the wastewater plan was adopted by the State which was January 28,2010. Meservey expressed his opinion that if the town can demonstrate to the State that we have properly planned for appropriate growth in our town,the State's main interest with that regulation is that they don't fund something that turns out to be the wrong size in the future. They want to make sure that they invest in appropriate infrastructure for communities. Meservey expressed his opinion that the town can still achieve that growth neutral approval and be eligible for that financing should be get to that point in the town. Walter North asked"Do you believe that`by right' you can get 0%financing for the zoning as it currently stands?" Meservey responded affirmatively. Meservey stated it is a change in the residential density proposal because it appears that the town is over-zoned for commercial business and if that is potential growth as it exists,the town would rather transfer that potential growth into residential units. North stated his opinion that the"by right"residential right now is much higher than is actually being used in town and Meservey agreed. North questioned the financial implications of a bigger plant and resulting higher density in town,and whether the finance Committee has reviewed the prospect. Richardson responded that the Health Regulations existed when the wastewater plan was adopted by the State,which affects buildout and financing. Sid Snow(Tonset Road)asked if we know how many property owners within the districts we are talking about have plans or interest in building additional apartments? Meservey responded that the State says you can't exceed the potential growth that was in place at the plan approval date in 2010. Meservey stated that since that time,the town has purchased open space in residential areas and avoided growth in those areas and there have been other regulations that have limited growth in other parts of town. Meservey noted that this is a town-wide question. Meservey stated that the State Revolving Fund(SRF)program that regulates this,has Planning Board Minutes—October 25, 2016 Page 4 of 12 All infomnation discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on file in the Planning Department. looked at a couple of applications and realized that no town will put in sewers and experience neutral growth,so appropriately planned growth is best. Greg DeLory stated his opinion that the Village Center creates an identity for the town, so why are we trying to include a large portion of our Limited Business and General Business District into this amendment? DeLory questioned whether it makes sense to promote sprawl in town, or retreat from smart growth instead of embracing it? DeLory stated his opinion that the town should concentrate on the Village Center and see how much pressure comes up from that being developed so then it spreads out in more of an organic process. Meservey responded that the town has made a series of statements that have been corroborated by the townspeople that the focus on additional dwelling units in the Village Center is appropriate. Meservey stated that the Board of Selectmen, as part of its wastewater planning process,has asked the Planning Board to look at all the business districts along Route 6A, so the Planning Board has considered whether the density should be adjusted,and to what extent other districts should be affected. Hartmann stated that the Planning Board has discussed the concept of"fair"quite a bit and we've thought that one thing we would do is open it up, look at what the dynamics would be,look at the impacts,consider unintended consequences,and hear what people have to say.Richard Hartmann stated that the Planning Board has not reached a conclusion on this issue. DeLory questioned whether zoning is supposed to be"fair",or whether it is supposed to be used to shape the town. Bornemeier stated his opinion that the Cape Cod Commission presentation suggested there is a limited capacity for residential development in the Village Center for a number of reasons which needs to be considered before we box ourselves in a limited geography. Bornemeier suggested there might be other benefits if there were the possibility of residential development along Route 6A Corridor that might not accurately fall into the category of"sprawl". Bornemeier said that at some point we'll have to take a look at Richardson's analysis of what could be built in the Village Center. Richardson responded that what could be built in the Village Center is determined by the minimum lot size so there are more buildings that could build more apartments if you didn't have a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size in your Village Center limiting what is currently allowed. Mark Powers(West Road)stated that having property within the Limited Business zone we are already restricted by the Nutrient Management Regulations, so the change doesn't do us any good anyway. When you use the term"sprawl",to me that means something much greater than my next door neighbor who is actually in the General Business District with a lower minimum lot size requirement. I disagree with how the term"sprawl"is being used. Powers stated his opinion that the Limited Business District is always being pushed aside. Powers stated his opinion that the zoning in town isn't fair. Dave Currier(Baker's Pond Road) said he agrees with Powers' statement regarding zoning fairness. Benjamin Zehnder said"I own a mixed use business with medical use,office use and two apartments. I bought the building 12 years ago. Commercial rentals are not there. I could add two apartments and rent them tomorrow for far less than the rentals stated by the Cape Cod Commission without changing the appearance of the building". Sid Snow thanked the Planning Board for the zoning work they have done. "I believe in what the Planning Board has done with zoning districts. Orleans is a tough place to do business with an aging population, losing population and intemet competition. You have to allow businesses to be able to expand and grow to give themselves the ability to increase revenue in order to stay in business. Without businesses,there won't be increased vibrancy". Planning Board Minutes—October 25, 2016 Page 5 of 12 All information discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on file in the Planning Department. Walter North said this seems to be a classic case of the kind of problem that you always have in formulating policy where you have the"Poetry of the vision clashing with the prose of trying to get everything right and meet the needs of a variety of stakeholders". North stated his opinion that a vibrant downtown with mixed uses,pedestrian friendly,and the creation of additional jobs is a great vision,but how much is too much and what are the implications? North expressed his concern that the process should involve more stakeholders. North said he does not feel that the information is very user friendly. North questioned the traffic implications,based on his stated feeling that the traffic downtown is terrible. North questioned the results of the extent of buildout being discussed. North acknowledged that the business community is facing different challenges,but North asked"do we trash the character of this so-called semi-rural community in the anticipation of something that may not pan out?" North stated his opinion that there needs to be a more robust discussion within our community,and I don't think it should be tied time-wise to meeting the engine of the sewer question. North stated"I think it needs to be thought about carefully and I would encourage a different process to think about it so you can engage more stakeholders and get more feedback and reach consensus on what that vision might be". Ryan Weber(So. Orleans Road)asked if the development being discussed could happen without sewering. Meservey responded that if the zoning were to change,and you are in an area exempted from the Nitrogen regulations, like the Village Center,then you would have the responsibility to put a septic system in that was functional and met the discharge requirements of the State,you could go forward. Meservey said that on some of the smaller lots,that may be a bit of a challenge,but it is probably possible to do from an engineering standpoint. Weber asked if there has been any discussion of changing the Nitrogen Management Regulations outside of the Village Center. John Smith responded that the Board of Health has had long discussions about changing or removing the restrictions of nitrogen,but you can't legislate nitrogen out of the ground and off into the air, it is a fact of our life here on the Cape,and in order to make sure that our marshes, and beachsides all remain the way they are currently which is very beautiful,we can't allow nitrogen regulations to go out the window. Weber asked"why not allow All systems to reduce a far greater nitrogen than is going into the ground,and base your regulations on that". John Smith responded that without a sewer system it would not be viable for the removal of the Nitrogen Regulations throughout the town. MODIFICATION TO A DEFINITIVE-SETH &ALISON WILKINSON-40 &66 BAKER'S POND ROAD Planning Board Clerk Johnson read the legal ad into the record Philip Scholomiti(Ryder&Wilcox)presented the Modification to a Definitive Subdivision plan for Seth& Alison Wilkinson for property located at 40& 66 Baker's Pond Road. Scholomiti stated that the property is situated on the west side of Baker's Pond Road,in the residential zone. The plan modifies a Definitive Subdivision Plan that was approved by the Planning Board in January of 2014. This amended plan reduces the number of lots from the approved plan from six lots to four lots. The four lots shall be accessed via a 40' wide right of way roadway,903' long. The proposed roadway is described on a plan and profile that accompanied the filing. We have a proposed road surface of gravel 14' wide by 14' high for safety. It has a base of 3"of hardening, and 3"of processed stones and then it is topped with an additional 2"of blue stone to provide an approved roadway. Scholomiti stated that the Wilkinsons would like to change the proposed road name from Beetlebung Way to Atwood Way. Scholomiti explained that the proposed road grades vary as shown on the Plan and Profile. Scholomiti stated that on the north side of Lot 1,there is an existing drainage pipe,which currently drains road runoff into a wetland,to be replaced by a catchbasin which will gather the water from the road runoff and direct it toward Planning Board Minutes—October 25, 2016 Page 6 of 12 All information discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on file in the Planning Department • a leaching catchbasin. Scholomiti pointed out drainage calculations for the first 250' of roadway,and the road runoff for the remaining length of roadway will be diverted to a series of four leaching trenches. Scholomiti stated the electric and water will be installed underground with a proposed fire hydrant located at the end of the cul-de-sac. Scholomiti stated that all four lots have in excess of 150' of linear frontage along the proposed way or in excess of the 50' of arc frontage along the cul-de-sac. Scholomiti noted that all four lots have in excess of 40,000 square feet which is the minimum lot size required in the residential district. Scholomiti said the proposal is for four large lots: 1)Lot 1 has 1.84 acres, with 874' of frontage along the proposed way with an existing dwelling partially located within the right of way;2)Lot 2 has 2.73 acres with 54' of frontage along the cul-de-sac. with a dwelling and barn.. 3)Lot 3 has 2.57 acres with 72' of frontage along the cul-de-sac where the Wilkinson family will reside in the dwelling; 4)Lot 4 contains a small portion of vegetated wetland in the southwest corner,with a total of 1.91 acres with 559' of linear frontage along the proposed way. Scholomiti clarified that there is a small triangle (2400 square feet)in the southwest corner of the property that is situated within the Town of Brewster. Scholomiti declared that all four lots meet the shape factor. Waivers: Scholomiti acknowledged that the proposed subdivision requires four waivers: §192-10C—The length of Dead End Street is not to exceed 600 feet. • The Applicant has proposed a street length of 903.26 feet. §192-10F—The maximum road grade of 8% • The Applicant has proposed a road grade of 9.62% §192-14C—The maximum slope ratio of 3:1 (cut)and 2:1 (fill) • The Applicant has proposed to maintain the existing side slopes at 1:1 §164-21A—Minimum Frontage • The Applicant has proposed no front yard minimum dimension with the existing dwelling to remain in its current location, 11.7 within the proposed Right of Way. Scholomiti stated that an addendum given to Planning Board members at the meeting show a guardrail, along the first 250' of roadway due to the steepness of the slope and to enhance roadway safety. Scholomiti stated that the requested waivers are to allow little disturbance to the bordering vegetated wetland on all the lots which would allow the maximum area of existing vegetation to remain intact. Scholomiti declared that the requested waivers are in the general interest of the public,and not inconsistent with Planning Board Minutes—October 25, 2016 Page 7 of 12 All information discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on file in the Planning Department. • subdivision control law as required by the zoning bylaw. Scholomiti announced that the Board of Health has reviewed the plan and made recommendations to which they will comply to meet regulations. Attorney Benjamin Zehnder described the process they used to gain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals before presenting the plan to the Planning Board with an explanation that it would be too expensive to move the existing house in the road layout. Attorney Benjamin Zehnder stated he disagrees with the Fire Chiefs decision regarding the location of the house in the roadway,and his concern that it could impede safe maneuvering of fire and emergency vehicles. Mone stated his objection to the proposal and said it would be bad precedent to allow the subdivision plan to be approved with a house included in the way, and future subdivisions applications could use it as an argument if it is approved by the Planning Board. Mone questioned how to sell the house in the future as it appears that the title would be impaired significantly by an encroachment into a way. Mone stated,"I practiced law for 45 years and I never would have approved a title like this". Attorney Zehnder denied the possibility of any future title issues on this property due to the house in the roadway. Mone disagreed and commented that there would be an issue because as the other lots are sold, with appurtenant rights to go back and forth across the road,there would be difficulty selling the house encroaching on the road where other people have rights to travel. Attorney Zehnder disagreed. Mone reiterated his opposition to setting this issue as a precedent and also due to the resulting title issue,therefore his opinion is that it would be unwise for the Planning Board to approve the plan. Reed questioned the safety and width of the road where is appears difficult at certain points for two vehicles to be able to pass each other. Meservey responded that under subdivision control standards,a 14' surface width is allowed for a total of four dwellings,existing and proposed. Meservey noted that Planning Board approval could make a condition that each of the lots is limited to one single family dwelling, so they don't exceed four. Meservey clarified subdivision controls for adequate street standards for subdivisions. George Meservey explained a conversation with Attorney Michael D.Ford(Town Counsel)where neither had seen a proposal for a new road with a building on it. Meservey stated he gained assurance from Attorney Ford that it is within the Planning Board's purview to make ajudgement call,of whether it is appropriate to allow a subdivision to go forward. Johnson agreed that it seems to set a dangerous precedent and expressed his concern with impeded access to the remaining homes in the subdivision which would clearly be owned by third parties in the future. Wilkinson described farming activities on the property over the past 10 years with deliveries on a regular basis. Wilkinson denied it would be setting a bad precedent to approve the conditions in this application for three buildings and plans for one additional one. Crabtree commented that there are multiple roads in Orleans where cars need to pull off for each other to pass and stated he would be inclined to vote in favor of this subdivision plan. Bornemeier asked for clarification of the Zoning Board of Appeals variance. Meservey stated he talked to the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman and they did approve the building location and the decision was stamped in September 16,2016. Bomemeier requested further clarification on the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. Attorney Zehnder stated that a variance is difficult to obtain in any circumstances because you have to show three things: 1) You have to show that you are going to suffer a hardship, (financial or otherwise)if they don't grant relief; Planning Board Minutes—October 25, 2016 Page 8 of 12 All information discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on file in the Planning Department. 2) You have to show that the financial hardship is tied to a condition on the lot that owes to either the shape of the lot,or a soil or topographical condition that is unique to that lot,and doesn't apply generally to the zoning district as a whole; and 3) You have to show that they can grant the relief without substantially derogating from the spirit of the intent of the bylaw. Attorney Zehnder stated that the hardship here is financial because without the variance,they would have to move the house to another part of the lot at an expense to the owner. Attorney Zehnder stated that the • Zoning Board of Appeals found that the topography interferes with relocation of the house. Mone commented that it is an interesting decision because it does not speak about any of the dimensional requirements, it just says it is a use that can exist. But the other thing is that they really do pass the buck because#11 says it is granted subject to the Planning Board approval of the subdivision plan. So in other words, if we approve this encroachment,they are fine with it. Meservey commented that if the Planning Board doesn't approve it,it won't exist. Reed expressed concern that Planning Board approved a subdivision plan previously with the relocation of the house based on concerns about subdivision control and road safety. Yes,I understand that it is for fewer lots,but there was a logic applied in the previous application that was about the high standards that we want for subdivisions in Orleans. If the hardship here is financial to move the house,I'm not sure how we weight that against the best subdivision control for the town. Meservey read the following portion from the Subdivision Regulations: ARTICLE I,General Provisions §192-1. General Provisions B. Purpose. As provided in MGL(Massachusetts General Laws) Ch. 41, under Section 81-M, these regulations are adopted to ensure that the powers of a Planning Board under he Subdivision Control Law shall be exercised with due regard: (1) For the provision of access to all of the lots in a subdivision by ways that will be safe and convenient for travel; (2) For lessening congestion in such ways and in the adjacent public ways; (3) For reducing danger to life and limb in the operation of motor vehicles; Meservey reminded Planning Board members that the action of granting waivers should be in the public interest. Meservey noted that, if approved,this will be a four lot subdivision where each of these lots will be sold to different homeowners with an expectation that road standards were met and that it is in the public interest and not inconsistent with Subdivision Control Law. Due to personal experience trying to drive on the road and maneuver around another vehicle,Meservey expressed concern with the roadway dimensions and stated it is hard to find that this is in the public interest. Meservey noted that the proposal for this subdivision has changed since it was originally submitted and approved by the Planning Board. Meservey stated that it would be a new way of doing business if you allow a building within the right of way of a new proposed road. Attorney Zehnder told Planning Board members to ignore the existing building. Correspondence: > E-mail from Bob Korn,dated October 25,2016 in support of the four lot subdivision plan. Planning Board Minutes—October 25, 2016 Page 9 of 12 All information discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on file in the Planning Department. • Comments: Beverly Carney stated her objection with the appearance of a possible conflict of interest to Crabtree's participation in the deliberation and upcoming Planning Board vote on the subdivision plan for Seth& Alison Wilkinson due to his current employment with Robert Wilkinson. Carney expressed concerns and asked Planning Board members to research issues such as whether the barn is actually an existing dwelling space,panhandle access to Lot 3,additions granted on the property by the Old King's Highway Historic District,a"road"at 66 Baker's Pond Road that was originally a driveway to a house,and whether this proposed subdivision plan is a modification since there are significant changes in the plan. Crabtree stated that he has a business relationship with the applicant's father, Robert Wilkinson,but he has never had a business relationship with Seth&Alison Wilkinson and does not think there is a conflict of interest,but offered to recuse himself if any of the Planning Board members felt it was necessary. Bornemeier reiterated his concern that the many outstanding issues for this subdivision are unclear and requested a tour of the property as the Planning Board did in 2014. Attorney Zehnder stated that a continuance would be acceptable from applicant's standpoint,but Zehnder said he would like Town Counsel's opinion regarding whether the location of a building in a roadway falls in the purview of the Planning Board. Mone stated he is not comfortable having to seek town counsel's advice on the issue. Mone stated his opinion that as a board we can make the decision without the need for Town Counsel. Mone said he doesn't remember ever having seen a subdivision plan with a dwelling on it that was too close to a line or where a street was going to be that didn't have a cloud on it that says"existing dwelling to be removed". Mone said"If that weren't within our purview,why did they put it on the plans?" Attorney Zehnder reiterated he feels that is why Town Counsel should be consulted. Mone disagreed and said"I think that is delegating authority to Town Counsel that isn't really necessary". Meservey stated he met with Attorney Michael D.Ford(Town Counsel)and asked him whether the zoning relief was pertinent to the subdivision proposal and he said the Planning Board clearly has full authority over subdivision regulations and the purposes for which subdivision control was put in place,and the conditions under which waivers are granted. After an objection from,William Mone regarding a possible conflict of interest, Chet Crabtree recused himself and left the room. Chairman Bechtold asked Associate William Mone to vote in the absence of Chet Crabtree. MOTION TO EXTEND DISCUSSION: On a motion by Steve Bornemeier, seconded by Andrea Reed, the Board voted to extend the discussion for the Modification to a Definitive Subdivision for Seth & Alison Wilkinson for property located at 40&66 Baker's Pond Road in order to review more information on the subdivision plans. VOTE: 3-2-0 The motion passed by a majority. (William Mone&Thomas Johnson opposed). MOTION TO CONTINUE PUBLIC NEARING: On a motion by Steve Bornemeier, seconded by Andrea Reed,the Board voted to continue the public hearing for the Modification to a Definitive Subdivision for Seth&Alison Wilkinson for property located at 40&66 Baker's Pond Road to the Planning Board meeting on November 29,2016 at 7:00 p.m. VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. Planning Board Minutes—October 25, 2016 Page 10 of 12 All information discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on file in the Planning Department Chet Crabtree returned to the meeting at this point. EASTWARD HOMES-REQUEST FOR LOT RELEASE, 198 MAIN STREET Susan Ladue was present to request the release of Lot 2(to be known as 200 Main Street). Meservey stated this was placed under a covenant to ensure completion of the required improvements,primarily a common driveway with a drainage system. The work was completed and inspected by the Highway Manager,Frank Nichols,who reported it to be satisfactory and to the plan. There is a later installation of a cobble apron that will be done after certain construction phases are completed. MOTION: On a motion by Thomas Johnson, seconded by Andrea Reed,the Board voted to authorize the Planning Board Chairman to sign a Complete Release of Covenant form for the Definitive Subdivision Plan prepared for Eastward Companies Business Trust, signed April 26, 2016,for land located at 198 Main Street. VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. ORLEANS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -FY'18 RECOMMENDATIONS Meservey stated that as required by the Town Charter,the Planning Board is expected to make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen by November 15th concerning elements of the Orleans Comprehensive Plan that should be emphasized and implemented in the next Fiscal Year. MOTION: On a motion by Steve Bornemeier, seconded by Andrea Reed,the Board voted to submit the Orleans Comprehensive Plan recommendations for FY18, as amended,to the Board of Selectmen. VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: On a motion by Andrea Reed, seconded by Thomas Johnson,the Board voted to approve the Planning Board minutes for October 13,2016. VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: On a motion by Andrea Reed, seconded by Thomas Johnson,the Board voted to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 9:31 p.m. VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. SIGNED: I ; , _ DATE: tt 7-11-(713,(6 (Thomas Johnson, Clerk) Planning Board Minutes-October 25,2016 Page 11 of 12 All information discussed at Planning Board meetings S kept on file in the Planning Department. LIST OF HANDOUTS: DOWNTOWN ZONING WORKSHOP • Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment,draft dated 10/20/16 MODIFICATION TO A DEFINITIVE—SETH&ALISON WILKINSON,40&66 BAKER'S POND ROAD • Public Hearing Notice • Application for Approval of a Modification of a Definitive Subdivision Plan • Letter from Ryder&Wilcox requesting waivers • Planning Department Memorandum,dated October 18,2016 • Memorandum from Health Department,dated October 12,2016 • Memorandum from Department of Public Works&Natural Resources,dated October 18,2016 • E-mail from Fire Chief Tony Pike,dated October 13,2016 • Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval with Conditions,dated February 11,2014 • Zoning Board of Appeals Decision for Case No 2040,dated September 7,2016 EASTWARD HOMES—REQUEST FOR LOT RELEASE FOR 298 MAIN STREET • Letter from Susan B.Ladue,Eastward Companies for a Release of Covenant Request,dated October 18,2016 • Memorandum from Planning Department,dated October 19 2016 • Complete Release of Covenant form(unsigned) • Covenant for Eastward Companies Business Trust ORLEANS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—FY'18 RECOMMENDATIONS • Memorandum to Board of Selectmen entitled,"Orleans Comprehensive Plan FY18 Budget Recommendations,dated October 25,2016 • Orleans Comprehensive Plan—Status Report,9/6/16 APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Planning Board minutes for October 13,2016 Planning Board Minutes—October 25,2016 Page 12 of 12 All information discussed at Planning Board meetings is kept on file in the Planning Department. •