Print
Share page with AddThis

Planning Board Meeting

Meeting date: 
Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Planning Board Minutes

January 12, 2016

Town Hall, Griffin Room

 

 

I.  Call to Order

The public meeting was called to order at 6:35 PM by J. Atkinson, Chair, with the following:

 

Members Present:                                             Planning Staff:

James Atkinson                                                David Spitz, Town Planner

Peter de Bakker

Joe McParland

Allan Peterson

Tom Stello

Larry Brophy (by phone)

 

 

I.a.  PB2015-31, DeStefano, Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review, Route 28

 

Mr. J. Atkinson said that two members, Mr. de Bakker and Mr. Brophy were not at the previous meeting but had reviewed the record of that meeting and were prepared to participate this evening.  Mr. J. Atkinson also noted that Mr. Brophy was participating remotely.

 

Mr. J. Atkinson said he remembered two points from the previous meeting to be addressed – (1) the discrepancy in calculations for residential and commercial area and (2) submission of a landscaping plan.  Mr. Spitz reported that the applicant had addressed both issues and that Staff was satisfied with the applicant’s response.

 

Attorney William Crowell appeared for the applicant with project engineer Dan Croteau of Moran Engineering.  Mr. Crowell said that the application included 1920 square feet of commercial space and 3164 square feet of residential area.  That results in 37.8% of the total square footage to be used commercially, above the minimum requirement of 33%.  He described the landscaping plan including existing trees on the property, extension of an existing fence and provision of a landscaped public area as required by the by-law.  In response to a question from Mr. de Bakker, Mr. Crowell said that the landscaped public area would be for the use of residents only.  He also said the applicant had submitted a written request for a waiver of three parking spaces.

 

There were no comments from members of the public.

 

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to approve the following findings of fact:

 

  1. The site is the C-H-1 and R-R zoning districts. 
  2. Total site area is equal to 34,634± SF with 20,714± SF in the C-H-1 District and 13,919± SF in the R-R District.
  3. Mixed-Use is an allowable use in the C-H-1 zone with a special permit.
  4. Site density is based on the total parcel area and is limited to one (residential) unit per 10,000 SF.
  5. Based on the parcel acreage a maximum of three (3) residential units are allowed and three (3) are proposed.
  6. The residential use will be at the rear of the developed portion of the property and is wholly within the C-H-1 zone.
  7. The professional / commercial use is proposed to be fully within the converted antique home and includes all of the ground level facing the street.
  8. The proposed usable commercial area equals 1,920 SF.  The three residential buildings total 3,164 SF of residential floor area.  Total floor area dedicated to commercial use is 37.8% which is greater than the 33% required in a Mixed Use development.
  9. Further screening for parking is not required as the parking is contained in the C-H-1 portion of the lot.
  10. Sufficient parking spaces have been provided for based on the application’s combination of residential units and professional use. 
  11. The mixed character of the property does not distract from the surrounding area as both residential and commercial uses exist on abutting parcels. Therefore the proposal will not be more detrimental to the established character of the neighborhood.
  12. The use as proposed is appropriate for the area and will not create nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians.
  13. Adequate facilities exist for septic treatment.
  14. Drainage plans are adequate to serve the proposed development.
  15. Further permits / review may be required due to the Historical position of the home.

 

 The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).

 

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. Peterson seconded a motion to approve the applicant’s request for relief of 3 parking spaces from §325-39 Off-street parking regulations due to the nature and scale of the proposal.  The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).

 

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to approve the Special Permit Use for the property located at 1004 Route 28 based on the foregoing findings and the fact that the application meets the necessary requirements and criteria for approval pursuant to the Code of the Town of Harwich.  The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).

 

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to approve the Site Plan Special Permit for the property located at 1004 Route 28 based on the foregoing findings and the fact that the application meets the necessary requirements and criteria for approval pursuant to the Code of the Town of Harwich with the following conditions:

 

  1. Any changes to the site plan shall require further review.
  2. Modification or changes to the existing exterior residential lighting may require further review and is subject to the requirements of the Town Code.
  3. Signage is subject to the requirements of the Town Code.

 

The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).

 

II.a.  Conflict of Interest Law Signatures

Five Planning Board members in the room signed the acknowledgement form regarding the Conflict of Interest Law.  Mr. J. Atkinson asked Mr. Spitz to get the remaining four signatures from other Planning Board members.

 

III.a,  Old Business - Zoning By-law Revisions for May Town Meeting

 

Mr. Spitz presented two proposed articles for zoning by-law revisions.  The first was entitled “Various Zoning By-law Amendments” and included language for retaining walls, construction signs and two-family dwellings in the CH-1 District.  Mr. Stello asked if there was a distinction between inward-facing and outward-facing retaining walls, similar to the Chatham Zoning By-law.  Mr. J. Atkinson agreed that the two types of walls should be treated differently.  Mr. Spitz said he would research the topic further and return to the Planning Board.

 

Mr. J. Atkinson asked what constituted a construction sign.  He recommended substitution of the word “indicating” in place of “advertising”.

 

Mr. Spitz explained that two-family dwellings were an allowed use in the CH-1 District but are not referenced in two other sections of the zoning by-law.  For example, he noted that the required lot area for a two-family dwelling would default to 20,000 square feet as listed for “any other permitted use”.  Instead he recommended adding a requirement of 40,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling, the same as for a single-family dwelling.

 

Mr. Spitz presented the second of two proposed articles on building height in flood hazard areas.  He explained that new FEMA flood maps expanded boundaries of the flood hazard area and raised base flood elevation for many properties.  Approximately 1,000 homes in Harwich are impacted.  He recommended adjustment of the building/structure height definition so that height would be measured from the base flood elevation rather than from pre-existing grade.  In this way, such homes would not be penalized for major renovations that required compliance with FEMA requirements for base flood elevation.

 

Mr. Spitz distributed four sample maps showing FEMA base flood elevations compared to existing contours in various sections of Harwich.  He noted that in most cases, pre-existing grade differed from base elevation by 2 to 4 feet.  However, in a few cases, the difference might be 6 feet or more.  He explained that adjustment in building height calculations would primarily affect homes in the AE flood district.  He noted that base flood elevations in VE velocity zones were even higher, however further construction in those zones should be discouraged.  Mr. J. Atkinson recommended that further explanation would be necessary when presenting this article to Town Meeting.

 

Mr. Spitz said he would like the Planning Board to consider one other possible zoning by-law revision regarding guest houses.  He pointed out that the current definition of guest house was for rental use only.  He felt that recent encouragement of accessory units was more in keeping with the desired direction for Harwich.  The Planning Board concurred with Mr. Spitz’s recommendation to remove references to guest houses in the zoning by-law.

 

Mr. J. Atkinson said that all proposed zoning by-law should be put on the next agenda for further discussion.

 

IV.  Briefings and Reports

 

Mr. J. Atkinson said all Planning Board members were invited to a session to be presented by the Town Attorney on conducting a public hearing.  The session was scheduled for Thursday, January 14th, at 6 pm in the Griffin Meeting Room.

 

Mr. McParland inquired why the Community Preservation Committee had denied the funding application from the Brooks Free Library.  Mr. J. Atkinson said that the 5 to 3 denial vote included at least two concerns – (1) whether historic review had been properly conducted and (2) whether the work was deferred maintenance which would not be eligible for CPC funding.

 

V.a.  Minutes

 

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. Brophy seconded a motion to approve the minutes for December 15, 2015.  The motion was approved unanimously (6 to 0).

 

V.b.  Advisory Opinions – Board of Appeals

 

The Planning Board had no comment on current Board of Appeals cases.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

David Spitz

Town Planner                                                                            Adopted: 01.26.2016