Planning Board Meeting
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2015
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:
Alan Atkinson David Spitz, Town Planner
James Atkinson
Peter de Bakker
Joan Kozar
Joe McParland
Allan Peterson
I.a. PB2014-21 Pleasant Bay Community Boating, Site Plan and Use Special Permit Reviews, Head of the Bay Road (Route 28)
Ms. Kozar excused herself since she is on the Pleasant Bay Community Boating (PBCB) Board and will not be voting on this application.
Attorney William Riley and Judith Underwood appeared for the applicant. Mr. Riley said that Pleasant Bay Community Boating has now taken title to the property. The applicant is a non-profit educational organization under Massachusetts General Law chapter 40a, Section 3 and is exempt from the use requirements of local zoning. He said that reasonable dimensional and parking requirements are appropriate, but use discussions are not.
Mr. J. Atkinson said that the Planning Board had previously requested more detail on the intensity of the proposed use. He felt they still needed more discussion of potential future use. Mr. Riley said they are continuing the existing use which is moving from Jackknife Cove. There will also be some modifications, e.g. a program to be offered by UMass Boston in the shoulder season. Judith Underwood, PBCB Board member, said they are not intending large programs. She said educational programs will be active during the school year. Mr. J. Atkinson noted his concern with natural growth of current activities as programs become more and more popular. Ms. Underwood said that the number of available spaces in classes will be limited. Mr. J. Atkinson repeated his concern about the intensity of use as it relates to access and parking. He was worried about people trying to park along Route 28. He felt the applicant should provide a designated plan for future expansion of parking, if needed.
Mr. McParland said this use is an exciting one. He said the applicant could return to the Planning Board if any problems arise. Mr. Riley said that any concerns could be addressed with a condition of approval. He said the applicant would be willing to come back in a year or two. Mr. J. Atkinson said he did not want the Town to have to shut down the use if a parking problem develops. Mr. de Bakker discussed options for extending the parking to the south. Mr. A. Atkinson said that this use is a wonderful idea, but he is concerned about providing only 19 parking spaces. Mr. McParland said that he could show other Board members a similar facility in Barnstable which has very light parking needs. Mr. Spitz described design issues related to expansion of parking and suggested that an engineer would be needed. Mr. de Bakker said an engineer could show generally, but not in great detail, how more parking could accommodated.
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to approve the following findings which shall be presented for review by the Planning Board one year from this date:
- The application covers multiple parcels in Harwich, Brewster and Orleans. These findings address the portion located in Harwich only.
- The proposed use is an appropriate use and will not adversely affect the neighborhood.
- Adequate and appropriate facilities for the removal of stormwater and for sewage disposal have been provided and approved.
- Vehicle and pedestrian safety has been addressed via newly located and designed curb cuts which will provide safe access and egress. The Town Engineer states that a minimum of 250 feet of sight distance is required for a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The applicant’s engineer states that measured sight distance is 280 feet to the north and just under 300 feet to the south.
- The curb cut is subject to Massachusetts Department of Highways approval.
- A 19-car parking lot will be located within the Harwich portion of the parcels. A memorandum from the Pleasant Bay Community Boating Facilities Committee describes anticipated use of the parcel and states that 19 parking spaces will be adequate to serve such use.
- A contingency parking plan shall be prepared by the project engineer and shall be submitted within 30 days to the Harwich Planning Department.
Mr. A. Atkinson asked how the contingency parking plan would be implemented, if needed. He said he would prefer to see a contingency plan prior to a vote. He said he is not firm about the number of additional parking spaces to be shown. He felt parking needs might be double the amount of parking spaces shown, but he would consider a lesser number. Mr. A. Atkinson said the same result could be accomplished with a condition of approval.
The vote was 4 to 1 in favor of approval (Mr. J. Atkinson voted against). Since a 2/3ds majority of the full board is required for a Site Plan Special Permit approval, the motion did not pass.
Mr. Peterson moved and Mr. de Bakker seconded a motion to continue the application for two weeks until January 27, 2015. The motion was approved 4 to 1 (Mr. McParland voted against).
II. New Business
II.a. Route 28 Planning.
Mr. J. Atkinson said he had requested Route 28 planning as a priority for 2015. At this meeting he wanted to discuss the structure to be used for this effort. Based on input from Mr. Spitz, he recommended full-board meetings to be held outside of regular Planning Board meetings. He encouraged all Planning Board members who are available at the selected time to attend. Mr. McParland said that the entire length of Route 28 from Dennis to Chatham was reviewed recently. Mr. Spitz said that nothing had been done in his five years in Harwich, but he would review the Planning Department files. Mr. J. Atkinson said that the first meeting would be scheduled for the first half of February.
II.b. Village By-law Amendments
Mr. Spitz presented proposed village bylaw amendments relating to dimensional requirements for small lots and required square footage for residential units in mixed-use developments. The Planning Board supported proposals and directed Mr. Spitz to prepare them for the required public hearing prior to Town Meeting.
III. Old Business
III.a. PB 2012-27, Letter from Monomoy Regional School District regarding traffic.
Mr. Spitz presented a recently submitted letter from the Monomoy Regional School District responding to a Planning Board condition of Site Plan approval relating to traffic. The School District reported that traffic at the Oak Street/Route 39 intersection was no worse than it had been with the previous Harwich High School. Mr. Spitz commented that his own observations supported the School District statement. The Planning Board agreed that the report satisfied the Site Plan condition. Mr. Spitz said no further action was needed.
III.b. Board of Appeals Advisory Opinions
The Planning Board offered no comments on current Board of Appeals cases.
IV. Briefings
East Harwich Subcommittee
Mr. J. Atkinson thanked Ms. Kozar and the subcommittee for its tireless efforts on East Harwich and for its thorough and open discussion of all issues involved. He felt the committee proposal met the Board of Selectmen goals and responded to many community concerns though perhaps not to the extent desired by some people. He would have supported that proposal if it had gone forward.
Ms. Kozar said that at a December committee meeting, a Cape Cod Commission traffic presentation indicated that any development would have an adverse traffic impact. As a result, the committee took a few steps back to re-measure the amount of development that East Harwich could support. Other recently noted factors that could affect development were the availability of natural gas, cost of electricity, lack of a wastewater solution at present, a great need for additional affordable housing, and a desire to limit additional retail uses. At the January 6th meeting, the subcommittee decided to pursue a revised proposal as put forth by Mr. Spitz.
Mr. Spitz presented a memo on East Harwich zoning (attached). Ms. Kozar agreed that the open space strategy should be town-wide. Mr. McParland said we should revisit the direction from the Board of Selectmen on this topic. He did not want to return to any proposal that included 5-acre zoning. Mr. J. Atkinson said that the traffic report described three problematic intersections: Route 137 and the Route 6 exit ramps, Route 137 and Pleasant Bay Road, and Route 137/Route 39. He said we need to prepare a mechanism, such as impact fees, to deal with improvements at these location. Regarding next steps, he said he wanted to make sure the Planning Board completely supported the new direction, then have the subcommittee flesh out remaining details, prepare a draft proposal, and present it to the Board of Selectmen.
Carole Ridley said many details remained to be discussed. She said the overarching issue is that this approach includes only half of what is included in the EHVC Handbook. The development potential in the commercial district will double without an equal reduction elsewhere. This fundamental difference is not resolved in the latest proposal.
Mr. McParland said that East Harwich is likely to be the first place in town to be served by municipal sewer. Mr. de Bakker said there will be an article at May Town Meeting for acquisition of sewer recharge area. The treatment issue is still in the hands of the Board of Selectmen. Mr. McParland recommended that the Board take a tour of the Chatham treatment plant.
Mr. J. Atkinson asked if the Planning Board fully supported the new proposal. After several affirmative comments, he said there appears to be a consensus to move ahead with this proposal.
Other
Mr. de Bakker reported that the Community Preservation Committee has concluded its review of this year’s applications. About 50% of those applications were approved, and there was still an available $1 million to be spent next year.
Mr. McParland said that the Capital Outlay Committee had concluded its report to the Board of Selectmen. He said that under the direction of the new Town Administrator, it had been much easier this year to get good information from all departments.
V. Minutes
Mr. McParland moved and Mr. A. Atkinson seconded a motion to approve the November 25, 2014 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. de Bakker moved and Mr. McParland seconded a motion to approve the December 9, 2014 minutes. Mr. J. Atkinson said that the full text of the Cumberland Farms decision must be attached to the minutes. The makers of the motion agreed to that change. The motion was approved unanimously.
VI. Executive Session
Mr. de Bakker moved and Mr. McParland seconded a motion that the Board enter into executive session pursuant to MGL c.30A §21(a)(3) to discuss strategy with respect to litigation for PB2014-01 Cumberland Farms if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the public body and the Chair so declares; and further that the Board return to open session after discussion. The motion was approved unanimously on a roll call vote: Alan Atkinson - yes, James Atkinson - yes, Peter de Bakker - yes, Joan Kozar - yes, Joe McParland – yes, and Allan Peterson - yes.
Open session was adjourned at 8:35.
Mr. de Bakker moved and Mr. Peterson seconded a motion to return to regular session. The motion was approved unanimously on a roll call vote at 8:55 PM. Alan Atkinson - yes, James Atkinson - yes, Peter de Bakker - yes, Joan Kozar - yes, Joe McParland - yes and Allan Peterson - yes.
All Board members were present when the regular session reopened.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
David Spitz
Town Planner
Adopted: February 10, 2015
MEMORANDUM
TO: Harwich Planning Board
FROM: David Spitz, Town Planner
RE: East Harwich Zoning
DATE: January 13, 2015
Please note that the comments in this memorandum have been reviewed in general with the East Harwich Subcommittee, but specific details remain to be finalized.
The East Harwich Subcommittee has worked hard to present a zoning package that will encourage a mixed-use pedestrian-friendly development pattern in the existing East Harwich commercial district (CH-2). In a series of public workshops in spring 2014, the overriding concern heard from East Harwich residents was that the draft zoning proposal would allow too much development. This concern was given further weight by a recent traffic analysis done by Cape Cod Commission staff indicating deteriorating traffic conditions at nearby intersections. These conditions will decline as a result of normal growth in the area, but will worsen more with projected new development. I have repeatedly argued that development based on “build-out” analyses is far greater than the likely rate of growth based on historic development patterns. However, this argument has not been successful as a response to resident concerns.
As a result, the subcommittee now proposes to scale back its proposal for a 66-acre incentive area with 75% lot coverage. Instead, a new proposal will begin with the 2011 EHVC Handbook as a base with a few important revisions. Highlights include:
- The Village Mixed Use (VM) District from the EHVC Handbook will be the central district. Most details from the handbook will remain including VM district boundary (30 acres in the northwest and northeast quadrants), 70% site coverage, 42 foot building height (2.5 to 3 stories with the 3rd story permitted only for residential use), and the list of permitted uses.
- Building size, location and appearance will be regulated by design standards similar to those found in both the EHVC Handbook and in the Planning Board 2012 zoning proposal. These standards will be required rather than an “incentive”. Thus there would be just one set of dimensional standards for the VM District (site coverage, building height, etc.) rather than a base level and an incentive level.
- The Corridor Commercial (CC) District will remain essentially as proposed in the EHVC Handbook. Site coverage will be 40% in all districts (including the Six Ponds area in the northwest quadrant) though developed lots may retain their existing site coverage as protected by pre-existing nonconforming status.
- The greatest change will be to the Village Residential (VR) District. As proposed in the EHVC Handbook, these 30 acres cover most of the undeveloped commercial land in East Harwich. The Handbook requires a minimum of 75% of each building in that district to be residential. The new proposal will encourage a greater mix of commercial and residential development opportunity. The primary exception is retail, which will continue to be targeted only in the VM District. “Neighborhood retail”, as defined in the EHVC Handbook is the only retail use to be allowed in the VR District. A number of details for this district remain to be worked out.
- Permitted uses throughout these three districts will very closely follow the list of uses from the EHVC Handbook. Prohibited and limited uses will also follow the EHVC Handbook, though the “Formula Business Limitation” will not be included. For such businesses (e.g. Dunkin Donuts), restrictions will be in the form of building and signage design standards.
- “Usable” open space requirements within these three districts will be very important. The Guidelines for Design of Public Spaces from the EHVC Handbook will be the starting point, but further description is likely.
- Open space planning outside these three districts will follow a town-wide open space strategy rather than use of the Natural Resource Protection District from the EHVC Handbook. The strategy will include continued public open space acquisition, designation of additional public land for conservation, stronger clustering requirements for private development, etc.
- Separate from zoning, recommendations will be made for a traffic mitigation effort to address traffic concerns related to East Harwich growth.
- The attempt to create East Harwich as a Growth Incentive Zone under Cape Cod Commission guidelines may or may not be pursued.