Planning Board Meeting
Planning Board Minutes
March 22, 2016
Town Hall, Griffin Room
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
Joe McParland
Peter de Bakker
Tom Stello
Alan Atkinson (by phone)
1.a. PB2016-05 Tonka Girl, LLC, Definitive Subdivision (Industrial), Main Street Extension
Project Engineer Matt Farrell and Attorney Peter Farber appeared for the applicant. Mr. Farrell said the applicant is requesting three waivers. They are not seeking a vote this evening as the Board of Health has not yet approved septic system details. The applicant is aware that the road may not be extended to the south without returning to the Planning Board for approval. They do not have any other issues with Staff comments. In response to a question from Mr. J. Atkinson, Mr. Farrell said the purpose of the subdivision was for industrial development.
Mr. Spitz summarized the Staff report. Mr. J. Atkinson asked for verification that the lots will come in for site plan approval, and Mr. Spitz agreed that was the case. Mr. McParland said he would rather have submission of payment for sidewalk construction elsewhere rather than in this subdivision. Mr. J. Atkinson agreed. Mr. de Bakker asked for an explanation of the waiver requests. Mr. Farrell referred to sheet 5 of 5 and described the intersection angle and turning radius. He noted that almost all traffic from this industrial subdivision would turn right onto Main Street Extension in Harwich rather than left onto Love Lane in Dennis. Mr. McParland suggested adding a “no left turn” sign. Mr. Farber said there might be occasional left turns. Mr. A. Atkinson asked about the 12’ berm waiver and was told that this was the preference of both the applicant and the Town Engineer.
Brook Williams suggested that fencing be required now, and he reminded that it must be placed 10 feet from the property line. Mr. J. Atkinson and Mr. Spitz replied that this requirement is part of future site plan rather than subdivision review. Mr. J. Atkinson said it is difficult to impose landscaping or screening until we have a real site plan.
Stephen Gonzales, a resident at 95 Main Street Extension, said he has lived on this road for many years and seen traffic grow. He has always brought up the issue of a sidewalk, but it has never been put in. The road is very busy, and a sidewalk is needed for safety. Mr. J. Atkinson said that the Planning Board relies on input from the Town Engineer and Police Department and had not received any suggestion for sidewalks. Mr. Gonzales said he also preferred only 1 industrial use rather than the 4 proposed lots.
Abigail Chapman, representing the abutting Thankful Chase residential development, noted that the plans show rerouting of an existing pathway. She said that they were required to keep the path at its current location when Thankful Chase was built. Attorney Farber said he had researched the legal status of the path and found no records suggesting use by the general public. Mr. Spitz pointed out that the plans depicted an “existing path” on Sheet 1 and a “relocated path” on Sheet 2. Mr. Farber said this shows some recognition by the project engineer that there may be some rights. This is an exercise in caution in which the applicant has diverted a path as allowed by Massachusetts law. Ms. Chapman noted that Thankful Chase had contributed to a sidewalk fund and recommended that it be used for Main Street Extension.
Kim Gonzales, a resident at 95 Main Street Extension, submitted a petition requesting a sidewalk. She said the condition of the road has deteriorated due to traffic from warehouse businesses and the nursing home. A sidewalk would help, at least from Thankful Chase to the main intersection. Virginia Esau, a Dennis resident, said it was currently used as a bridal path.
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, April 26, at 6:30 pm. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
1.b. PB2016-06, Harwich Water Department, Site Plan Special Permit, Water Tower, Lothrop Avenue
Allin Thompson, Water Commissioner; Dan Pelletier, Water Superintendent; and Paul Costello and Jason Federico, Project Engineers appeared for the applicant. Mr. Pelletier described aesthetics of the project including the building design of the shed. Mr. Costello said they are reducing the tank height and that a portion of the tank would be below grade. Due to location of the existing tank and wetland areas at the rear of the property, the only available space for the new tank is at the front of the parcel. The two new parking spaces near Lothrop Road will reduce asphalt by eliminating the existing long drive and parking spaces near the existing tank. After the new tank is constructed, the old tank will be demolished at a later date.
Mr. Spitz expressed concerns about the aesthetic impact on immediate neighbors due to the extent of proposed clearing and grubbing. Mr. Pelletier said they had no problem with adding landscaping after the tank was constructed. The landscaping would be done by his department rather than being put out to bid. Mr. J. Atkinson recommended that landscaping be coordinated with the Planning Department, and Mr. Thompson and Mr. Pelletier agreed.
Mr. McParland said he was opposed to the applicant’s request for a fee waiver since the Water Department is a revenue-generating entity. Mr. A. Atkinson asked if the tank would increase capacity. Mr. Costello said that it would not change from the existing situation. Mr. A. Atkinson said he wanted to make sure the project addresses future growth needs.
Ken Keenan, a resident at 217 Lothrop Avenue, said he lives just across from the water tank. He asked about the front setback distance, and Mr. Costello replied that it is 110 feet to the existing tank and will be 36 feet to the new tank. Mr. Keenan asked if the new tank could be pushed back further. Mr. Costello noted issues with the existing tank and wetland setback requirements.
Mr. de Bakker moved and Mr. McParland seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to approve the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use is a reconfiguration of an existing permitted municipal use in the Residential - Medium Density (R-M) Zoning District.
2. The southerly abutting parcel at Lothrop Avenue (Map 29 Parcel M10-12) and the parcels across the street are residential in use. The remainder of the direct abutting parcels are owned by the Harwich Conservation Trust.
3. Plans include adequate and appropriate facilities for the removal of stormwater.
4. Vehicle and pedestrian traffic associated with the water tank will be minimal and will not adversely impact traffic along Lothrop Avenue.
5. The two parcels have been combined via a fully executed copy of an 81X plan (Plan Book 663 Page 77) at the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds, and said plan has been presented to the Planning Department.
6. The applicant agrees to save to the extent possible existing trees in the so called “clear and grub trees” area as shown on sheet C-3.
7. In areas where existing trees are removed, the applicant agrees to add landscaping for screening of the property as required by the Planning Department.
The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to approve the Site Plan Special Permit for the Harwich Water Department for the proposed Lothrop Water Tank Replacement plans, dated March 21, 2016, based on the fact that the application meets the necessary requirements and criteria for approval pursuant to the Code of Town of Harwich with the findings and the following conditions:
1. Outdoor lighting, if any, shall comply with the Harwich Zoning Code Article XXI.
2. Signage, if any, shall comply with the Harwich Zoning Code Article VII.
3. The existing conditions plan packet shall be made part of the record.
4. Any changes or expansion to the plans shall be subject to further Planning Board review.
The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
II. Proposed Zoning Amendments
II.a. Building/Structure Height in Flood Hazard Areas
Mr. Spitz described the 2014 revisions to the FEMA flood hazard maps and increased requirements for flood proofing measures in the building code. He noted that several other communities already had changed building height requirements so that when a building had to be raised to meet flood requirements that it also be allowed a corresponding increase in building height. Mr. Spitz said that in Harwich the easiest way to meet this objective was to measure building height from base flood elevation rather than from average existing grade. He said that perhaps 1,000 existing homes might be affected by this bylaw change.
There were no comments from the Public Board or from the public.
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. A. Atkinson seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to endorse the bylaw change regarding building height in flood hazard areas. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
II.b. Various Zoning By-Law Amendments
Regarding construction signs, Mr. Spitz said that these were allowed in the previous Harwich sign bylaw but were eliminated in 2009 when the bylaws was completely rewritten. He believed the omission was an oversight and that these signs should be added back in.
Mr. de Bakker moved and Mr. McParland seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
Mr. de Bakker moved and Mr. McParland seconded a motion to endorse the bylaw change regarding construction signs. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
Mr. Spitz described the proposed bylaw revision for two-family dwellings. In response to a question from Mr. de Bakker, Mr. Spitz said that perhaps a dozen properties might be affected by this revision. Brook Williams said that if consistency is a goal, then we also should be consistent with long-range Local Comprehensive Plan and housing goals. Rather than change the minimum lot size requirement to 40,000 square feet for duplexes, the minimum lot size for single-family homes should be changed to 20,000 square feet. He said this proposal would be going backward. Mr. J. Atkinson asked if this bylaw revision was just to address an inconsistency in the current bylaw. Mr. Spitz said yes. Mr. J. Atkinson said they were already meeting resistance on the larger goal of enabling more housing in certain areas. That effort would have to come later. Mr. de Bakker pointed out the need to provide a clearer explanation of this bylaw revision at Town Meeting.
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to endorse the bylaw change regarding two-family dwellings. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
Mr. Spitz described the proposed bylaw revision for guest houses. There was mixed Planning Board reaction as to whether this revision was necessary. Mr. Stello suggested either getting rid of guest houses or redefining them.
Mr. de Bakker moved and Mr. A. Atkinson seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
There was no motion on the recommendation for guest houses, and therefore there was no Planning Board endorsement of this bylaw revision.
Mr. Spitz said he would prepare the Planning Board report for distribution to the Board of Selectmen, the Financial Committee, and Town Meeting.
III Old Business
None.
IV. Briefings and Reports
Mr. Spitz said he had submitted a letter to the Town Administrator regarding his July retirement date. Mr. J. Atkinson said he would like Planning Board input on Mr. Spitz’s replacement and that he was meeting soon with Town Administrator Chris Clark to discuss this item.
Mr. J. Atkinson reported on the Route 28 rezoning effort. He said that he and Mr. Spitz had put further details together and held two preliminary meetings to get a sense of public reaction. Those meetings were with Jeremy Gingras from the Harwich Chamber of Commerce and with several West Harwich residents. A number of concerns were expressed in both meetings, particularly on the loss of commercial potential on the proposed “Village Connector” district between villages. He said it might be advisable to address certain sections of Route 28 rather than rezone the entire corridor. He also noted that he and Mr. Spitz recently met with Chatham planners which also is dividing up an effort to rezone Route 28. In Harwich, he felt the most promising area in which to move forward would be Harwich Port. In West Harwich, it would be wise to wait to see what develops with citizen group efforts to create a Historic District. Mr. A. Atkinson agreed with the idea to scale back to Harwich Port at this time and that West Harwich had multiple issues.
Mr. Spitz reported that TD Bank has submitted a draft license agreement to allow the Town to use the bank’s rear parking lot for summer parking. It would require construction of a driveway connection to the municipal parking lot. He said he has forwarded the draft agreement to the Town Administrator for review by Town Counsel and by the Board of Selectmen.
V. New Business
V.a. Minutes
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. A. Atkinson seconded a motion to approve the minutes for February 23, 2016. The motion was approved unanimously (5 to 0).
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
David Spitz
Town Planner
Adopted: April 26, 2016