Planning Board Meeting

Planning Board Minutes

January 26, 2016

I.  Call to Order

The public meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM by J. Atkinson, Chair, with the following:

Members Present:    Planning Staff:

James Atkinson     David Spitz, Town Planner

Peter de Bakker

Joan Kozar

Joe McParland

Allan Peterson

Alan Atkinson (by phone)

I.a.  PB2016-01 Till and Jericho Harwich Nominee Trust, Pleasant Lake Avenue and Long Pond Drive, Special Permit for Alternate Access.

Attorney William Crowell appeared for the applicant.  He said that two lots were involved at the corner of Pleasant Lake Avenue and Long Pond Drive.  There is a steep slope up from Pleasant Lake Avenue to any potential house site on the vacant lot.  A driveway would be dangerous both due to the steep slope and access onto a busy roadway.  Far preferable would be access onto Long Pond Drive via a shared driveway with the second lot.  A copy of the easement plan has been submitted.

Mr. J. Atkinson asked if the easement had been granted yet. Mr. Crowell replied that the two lots were in separate ownership by a husband and wife and that they have agreed to the easement.

Mr. Spitz summarized the staff comments.  Mr. de Bakker asked about the purpose of a Town of Harwich slope easement depicted on the plan, and Mr. Crowell replied that it was for drainage purposes.

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 legal frontage for Lot #1, 2 Long Pond Drive is on Rte. 124, Pleasant Lake Avenue, immediately south of the rail trail crossing and General Store parking entrance.

2.     The shape of Lot #1, its topography, legal frontage and slope easement to the Town all favor the use of alternate access.

3.     The proposed driveway access across Lot #2, 4 Long Pond Drive provides superior access for vehicles and pedestrians.

4.     The use is appropriate for the area and will not create nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians.

5.     The proposed use is allowed by Special Permit under the Harwich Code §325-18.P.

6.     The character of the surrounding / abutting parcels is residential and recreational use.  Therefore the alternate access will not be more detrimental to the established character of the neighborhood.

7.     All necessary easements for this access have been agreed upon by both property owners.

The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. A. Atkinson seconded a motion to approve the Special Permit Use for Alternate Access to benefit the property located at 2 Long Pond Drive as shown on the easement plan recorded at the Barnstable Registry of Deeds: Book 28719, Page 335 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 condition(s):

1.)     The proposed alternate access shall be cleared to a minimum of 16 feet in width and 16 feet in height to meet public safety standards.

2.)     Any additional town requirements must be met at the time of the application to construct.

The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).

Mr. J. Atkinson announced that the public hearing was closed.

I.b.  PB2016-03 Seminara & Doane, c/o HFH Development LLC – Approval Not Required (ANR)

Attorney Jamie Norcross and Engineer John O’Reilly appeared for the applicant.  Mr. O’Reilly said this was the first of two interrelated items.  Mr. Doane now owns parcels A and A-1.  Mr. Seminara owns parcels B and B-1.  A-1 will be transferred to Seminara for use in the proposed development.  B-1 will be transferred to Doane.

Mr. Spitz summarized the staff report.  Mr. J. Atkinson asked what would happen if the ANR plan is endorsed and the subdivision is not approved.  Mr. O’Reilly asked if the Planning Board could endorse the plan but not sign it.  Mr. J. Atkinson said no.  If the plan was endorsed this evening, it would be signed as well.  He recommended holding off until the subdivision proceedings were complete.

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to continue the ANR review until the subdivision is resolved.  The motion was approved unanimously (5-0).

I.c.  PB2016-02 Seminara & Doane c/o HFH Development LLC, Definitive Subdivision, Sisson and Forest Roads

Engineer John O’Reilly presented the Definitive Subdivision plan.  He said it was a 9-lot subdivision with lots #8 and #9 unbuildable due to lack of sufficient upland.  Lots #1 through #7 all have sufficient area and frontage to be built on.  There were no substantial changes since Preliminary Subdivision review other than responses to comments made by the Planning Board and staff at that time.  He said they met with the Board of Health and received an approval with conditions.  They also met with the Conservation Commission, and an Order of Conditions is still being reviewed pending further natural heritage information.  Mr. O’Reilly said the road meets the requirements of the Harwich Rules and Regulations except that they are requesting a waiver of side slope requirements.  The plans include a slope stabilization note.  They agree to move the sidewalk to the east side of the road per staff recommendations.  Regarding the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act, the applicant has received preliminary consent regarding the layout of building envelopes.  The applicant must provide a Conservation Restriction or other protection of the wetland area on Lot 8.

Mr. Spitz summarized the staff report.  Mr. J. Atkinson noted that the list of conditions was longer than usual.  He also asked what would happen if the Town of Harwich does not agree to accept Lot 8.  Attorney Jamie Norcross said if the Town or conservation entity will not accept control, the applicant must work with the Commonwealth to allow the homeowners association to control the wetland lot.  In response to a question from Mr. J. Atkinson, Mr. Norcross said it could take a while for approval of control by the homeowners.  He further responded that there was little chance that the Commonwealth would not accept such conveyance.

In response to a question from Mr. McParland, Mr. O’Reilly said there will be separate septic systems per lot. They had to do an environmental assessment, but this assessment was made easier by existence of the draft Harwich Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan.  He also noted that all septic system connections would be at the front of each property, thereby facilitating future connection to municipal sewer.

In response to a question from Ms. Kozar, Mr. O’Reilly said that buildable upland for lot size calculations begins at the edge of the wetland.  However, any building within the 100’ buffer from the wetland is subject to review by the Conservation Commission.  In the future, Lots 2 and 3 are likely to require individual Notices of Intent for construction within the 100’ buffer.

Judith Underwood, an abutter on the north side of Sisson Road, asked about the status of an ancient cartway shown on some town maps of this area.  She further questioned grading and drainage details.  Mr. O’Reilly replied that existing retaining walls exist on abutting properties, but no new retaining walls are being proposed as part of this subdivision.  Instead, the slope is being graded to meet existing grade at the edge of the applicant’s land.  He noted that the proposed road is being shifted a bit south of the existing trail location.  Ms. Underwood later asked how long was the flat area of the new road at its intersection with Sisson Road.  Mr. O’Reilly said it was 60’, sufficient for 2 or 3 cars.

Kathy Clobridge, an abutter on the south side of Sisson Road, asked about the waiver of the side slope and who enforces habitat requirements.  Regarding the latter, Mr. J. Atkinson said it was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Bill Kavaleski, an abutter on Forest Road, was concerned that increased runoff or rise in the water table would affect his property.  He also noted concerns about erosion from a steep dropoff at Lot 9 and the sensitivity of wetlands abutting Lots 2 through 6.  He said the homeowners’ association would have more incentive to keep Lot 8 picked up than the town.  He later said he had concerns about the extent of fill near Sisson Road and the safety of the sidewalk.

Mr. J. Atkinson asked about potential erosion on Lot 9 and whether there was any proposed landscaping treatment to protect that.  Mr. O’Reilly replied that slope stabilization notes would address that.  Mr. de Bakker asked who would maintain side slopes and deal with erosion in 5 years, and Mr. O’Reilly said it would be the homeowners’ association.

Robert Clobridge asked if this would be a private road and who will maintain catch basins.  Mr. J. Atkinson said that the homeowners’ association documents described this responsibility.

An abutter at 192 Forest Street asked how long the construction period be as she was concerned about her horse barn and noise from construction.  Mr. Norcross said they cannot estimate the construction time period now.

Mr. J. Atkinson recommended continuation of the hearing to resolve as many issues as possible arising from the staff report, Conservation Commission review and comments from the audience.  The applicant stated it agreed to continuation of both the ANR and subdivision applications until February 23^rd.

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. Peterson seconded a motion to continue the subdivision hearing until February 23^rd.  The motion was approved unanimously (5-0).

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to continue the ANR review until February 23^rd.  The motion was approved unanimously (5-0).

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

Mr. Spitz presented the latest changes to the by-law revisions.  Major changes were (1) revised treatment of the retaining wall by-law based on a provision in Chatham zoning and (2) a new section removing all references to “guest house” in the by-law.  Mr. J. Atkinson noted that the new wording for retaining walls referred to Table 2 and that Table 2 was not included in the packet.  He was not comfortable going forward with that section until he had a chance to view Table 2.

Mr. McParland moved and Mr. Peterson seconded a motion to approve the proposed zoning by-law amendment for building height in flood hazard areas and the proposal for various by-law amendments with the section on retaining walls removed and to forward the proposed amendments to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the Town Meeting warrant.  The motion was approved unanimously (6-0).

Mr. J. Atkinson recommended that Mr. Spitz return to the Planning Board with further description of the retaining wall amendment at a future meeting.

IV.  Briefings and Reports

Mr. J. Atkinson encouraged all Planning Board to view the new Cumberland Farms building in Chatham before the hearing on the Harwich Port Cumberland Farms application on February 9^th.

Mr. Spitz invited all Planning Board members to attend the public meeting on the Harwich Open Space and Recreation Plan on January 28^th.

IV.  New Business

Mr. McParland wished to comment on the Community Preservation Committee review of the Brooks Free Library application, as reported on page 3 of the minutes.  Mr. J. Atkinson ruled that the discussion was not part of the review of minutes and should take place separately.

Mr. de Bakker moved and Mr. Peterson seconded a motion to approve the minutes for January 12, 2016. The motion was approved unanimously (6 to 0).

Mr. McParland said the work at the library is preservation and not maintenance.  He felt that the cost of this work should be covered by CPC funds and not pushed back onto the tax rate.  He moved that the Planning Board instruct its representative to vote in favor of funding for the library.  Mr. de Bakker seconded for discussion purposes.  Mr. J. Atkinson said he and Mr. McParland differed on the topic of preservation vs. maintenance.  Mr. A. Atkinson said he supported Mr. McParland’s position.  Mr. de Bakker said he did not want to selectively affect the Planning Board representative’s vote on individual issues, though he also agreed that the project is preservation.  Mr. McParland withdrew his motion and Mr. de Bakker withdrew his second.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

David Spitz

Town Planner