HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal 2268 Meeting Minutes 01.23.86 hoard ni Appeals
Minu Cs for Appeal #12268
PETITIONER : The Green Company ,
Light House Associeates
DATE : 1 / 23/ 86
The chairman called the meeting to order and read the petition . All the
abutters were notified and the necessary correspondence was made in thr
Register .
Members of the Board Present : Donald Henderson , Leslie Campbell ,
Judith Sullivan , Myer Singer , Richard Heitz
Mr . Edward J . Sweeney , Jr . represented The Green Company , petitioners ,
as well as Allan J . Green , President of The Green Company .
Mr . Sweeney stated that The Green Company seeks approval by this Board
on its proposed development in accordance with earlier decisions of this
Board as originally decided in October of 1975 and also in April of 1984 .
The current Special Permit and the related variences for the overall project
contemplate future modifications of the project by the resubmittal by the
developer of more detailed development plans to this Board . Specifically ,
the Special Permit on page 6 states in part "particular locations of buildings
shown on the Plan are not intended to fix absolutely the eventual site or
arrangement or layout of building or structures . " Further , the Special
Permit goes on to say in part" that this Board shall receive from the
Petitioner detailed site plan of such stages or phases . " Also , variance #lll
for this project states in part "that it is essential that a flexible approach
be taken to the design and placement of the buildings from stage to stage . "
Inasmuch as The Green Company is a successful developer, it is now preparing
to move forward with these developments and understands its obligations to
provide future building details to this Board . However, in addition to
providing plans cluster by cluster , it ' s necessary that the petitioner be
assured of the Board ' s approval of the overall development plans . TLe Green
Company ' s proposals and plans will be explained in detail by Mr. Green .
Technically , inasmuch as the petitioner is submitting updated and revised
development plans , as well as permits , the relief we are seeking is a modi-
fication of the existing Special Permit as extended and the variances as
already modified . For the record , I ask you to look to page 8 of the petition .
There you will find a series of paragraphs starting with paragraph A which
outlines the approval that we seek. I will not read each of them but I will
just note that A, indicates that we will be seeking approval of development
concepts and of the Green Company site plans . We also in paragraph B
will have a revised lot plan and certain reallocation of clsignation of uses .
In paragraph C , we seek approval for the proposed revised open space. area and
also we are showing you where the location of the various dwelling units will
be and asking for approval for that under paragraph D.
Paragraph E concerns connection of enclosed walkways with regards to the
retirement housing section of the project , and also , in paragraphs F & G ,
we show the various locations for the community center , sewage treatment and
disposal facilities , etc .
EXHIBIT
•
G
(27 Pares)
In sn ' far as this Board determines t 'iat the t;r;inting of this relief is a
mods ication of the existing permits and variances , you have the power to
so .modify as stated in "Massachusetts Standard Procedures Chap . 40 A , Se.' . 14 "
which states in part that this Board has the power to exercise a modification
of its prior decisions .
I also request at this time , for the record , that all of the material that was
placed before this Board at the time of the originnl petition including memo-
randums , data , etc . , and the original decisions themselves , be incorporated
within this presentation in so far as they apply to the criteria for special
permits , variances and open space village developments . These arguments are
all clearly stated in the Board ' s existing 15 page Special Permit and the 25
page Variance. Except for the construction of Heights Condominium M �
and circles currently on site , the conditions on the land
have not materially changed . In of these previous materials that I have
sited , and with Mr . Green ' s presentation , we will be able to find that - all
the criteria with regards to the original and present permit are still met .
By way of reminder , I would indicat!2 to the Board that you will be looking
at these plans and excercising your jurisdiction with regards to criteria
for Special Permits as stated in Section 103 . 2 . 2 of the By-law , in Chapter 40
Also , in so far as vnu may feel this modification is an alteration of a pre-
existing non-conformi-ng use, the by-law speaks to these criteria in Section
104 . 3 . 2 .
We are also , under the Fire Zoning By-laws , at the time of the original
decision which is Section 1807 of the then Yarmouth Zoning By-laws . Also ,
the current by-law speaks to the criteria for variances ; again , all of which
are spoken to in the previous decisions . With that , I will turn the presenta-
tion over to Mr. Green .
Mr . Alan Green , President of The Green Company , and for those who have not
attended any previous meetings , just a brief word about The Green Company .
We have won also some national awards for land planning , architecture , land-
scaping and environmental activity. We do not consider ourselves as builders
or developers but rather as creators of environment . The creation of an
exceptional plan of beautiful community really relies on the input of not
only architect and land planner , engineer , environmentalists , public policy
person and the various people of The Green Company but it is the interplay
of all of those talented people that really produces a beautiful plan . That ' s
what we feel that we have created here. This Plan is very similar to the
previous plan except that we are oriating it into a different market segment .
Our main appeal will be to the retiree, the preretiree, the empty nester ,
and the active elderly. We are dedicating a central facility to the active
elderly which will provide living accommodations , social and minimum health
support services oriented to independent living in a quality of life which
enhances self-dignity . The basic components will include dining room faciliti
security , emergency call system, a resident advisor, food service and nutritioy
al and social needs , stimulating and creating activities and educational pro-
grams , health maintenance and medical counseling services , swimming pool ,
health and physical therapy programs , tennis court , convenience type stores
including beauty shop, barber , bank, etc . , and grounds and building maintenanc
Reviewing the plans quickly , Oak harbor Circle is something as pointed out .
that it is retained as originally . Route 6A is located down on the bottom
portion , and that which is outlined in green is the perimeter of the entire
property . We have included an 18-hole executive course designed by Brian
Silva , Brian is somebody who has natioaial fame and has done many golf courses
in the area . That golf course runs through the housing area in the northerly
portion of the property . There is located separately , a club house with a
pool and tennis course located in that area there . That is for the golf
course ; there is cart storage , etc . in there .
In the bottom portion of the property , there are sewer maintenance sheds ;
these arc located on the same lot as originally provided for ; there is a
central sewer system subject to the review of the Town and the State . It
should be noted that this sewer treatment plant is not in a recharge area ,
in that we do all that we can in terms of reducing its impact including
using water saving devices in all of our units .
There is another component to our proposal and that is the active elderly.
That ' s located in the portion up there. We do have some renderings of what
that will look like . It ' s a facility that will have over 200 people (units)
in it ; it will have the same type of feel of earthy colors , New England
setting , something that is part and parcel of the community.
There is parking under the various buildings where there will be dwelling
units and there will be guest parking on various guest lots .
There ' s also a component here for a common facility that will be used
by everybody . We will get into that discussion later , but that ' s an area
that the major portion of that will be used by everybody while the dining
facilities also within that configureation will be used primarily by the
active elderly. There is a separate parking area that will be located just
below it that will service that building.
The balance of the housing or the next to the last part of it , is basically
attached single family housing that runs around the golf holes ; there are a
few larger buildings scattered at prime view areas and we would like to just
show that this really a schematic approach to how we go through the land planni
process . We have taken blocks of 30 ' wide by 80 ' deep and those individual
units are put together to give us a feel of what sort of density can be a-
chieved and what it might look like.
If we start over in the very far corner , we can see what that will look like
before we get into a more serious and detailed vein and we can see how the
units run in there. And then, as we get into our more detailed phase, we can
see that there are some substantial changes that take place, that the buildings
are all lined up; there ' s articulation; the buildings move in and out ; the
articulation of the green space between the buildings and that will be mounded
up so that units will not be visible across that divided way and it gives it a
feel that really tells what can be done . 30 x 80 is just building lots so that
we can identify what we feel can really be done on it .
In addition on the other side of that golf hole is a future area dependent on
the market place. It could be possible active elderly , attached single family ,
or larger buildings or a combination of both.
In order to accomplish what we have proposed here , we have rearranged lot line:
for both building lots and for open space lots . There are only 5 building lots
as we have proposed rather than ' I forget how many were proposed originally,
-4-
•
and there is a maximum density of 750 homes and that includes the 19 that
have already been built .
The open space in the bottom area has been increased in excess of 14 to a.l .,ost
15 acres . . This plan on the right shows the open space comparison with what
was before to what it is now. The solid green and the tan represent that
which was open space on the previous plan . We arc suggesting that the tan
be removed from the open space and that the diagonal line which were original ]
possible building areas would now be open space . We can clearly see how
particuarly around some of the permanent that the open space has been increase
substantially by in excess of 14 acres .
Oak Harbor Circle has not been changed and nothing should be visible from
6A.
Just going through one more time on the plan on the right , just running
through what we feel are the nice features of the plan , we come up from 6A
up our entrance, nothing built on either side of it , and a third of the way
up we come to a golf hole which has a nice feeling of the whole right hand
side . The left hand side is open space with some of the other recreational
facilities but as one comes straight up , we will be looking at a highly land-
scaped area just in front of the active elderly area .
In going around the entire perimeter, we have open space, golf course , some
building area, not really actively built on both sides of the road . . We think
its a superior plan , that there are many units on the golf course and there is
at least a 70 ' cutback from the property line and open upper space on existing
houses .
We do have a very exciting plan, a plan that is oriented to the older popula-
tion with facilities that cater to their life style . We anticipate that
a substantial number of purchases will be existing Cape residents with many
of them coming from Yarmouth.
•
The advantage of this type of housing is that it reduces effective density .
The density is truly measured not by the .number of dwelling units but better
by the number of bedrooms , and even better, by the number of occupants . In
the active elderly section , particularly , there will be a substantial number
of one-bedroom units , but importantly, the national averages tell us that
there will be approximately 1 . 3 occupants per dwelling unit.
There is currently outstanding a permit to build a total of 750 homes on this
site. We are requesting several amendments to the Special Permit to enable us
to reorient Oak Harbor to an exciting plan that appeals to a major group of
people, the active elderly. There is no such facility available to this group
on the Cape. As outlined by Mr. Sweeney, the requested changes are as follows
We follow on. page 8 , /IA - Approval of the development concepts
We talked about those development concepts , the golf course, the active
elderly, and the type of housing .
•
The next one which covers B & C refer to the approval of the revised .ot plan
use designation , open space areas and golf course layout .
What we have done as identified previously , is that there are fewer building
lots , more open space and buffer areas , and a golf course in the open space.
This shows the various lots that we have divided the plan into and its a
substantial reduction in the lots that were previously shown .
We ..identified the building parts and the open space buffer area .
lll) - Refers to the maximum number of dwelling units per lot .
In this , if we look at the first in exhibit A , the first part that ' s in
the request , we will see that there are a total of 5 lots that will contain
building lots . The balance of the lots contain open space . The number of
dwelling units are subject to the overall limitation of 750 units in
aggregate .
Since we do not know which type of housing will be most popular , since we
don ' t know what the market warrants until we start selling, we arc suggesting
that we need flexibility . In any event , we may never have more than 750 units
in Oak Harbor .
This concept of allowing some flexibility is a carryover from the original
permit which did allow some flexibility in it .
Approval of the enclosed walkway - E.
Enclosed walkways of building containing housing for the active elderly .
These people need to be able to get from one end of the facility to the
other without being exposed to inclement weather; to be able to visit
their friends ; to participate in social activities ; to take their meals
and to be part of the whole program. These will be multilevel connectors
in some places and single level connectors in others ; particularly where
they attach to the main facility. There are different grades that will
result there, some are higher than others .
CIF The reconfigureation of the Community Center .
This again , these figures are shown in the exhibit called the Community
Building . Our request is to use the same amount of floor area as in the
existing permit but to keep it one or two -story building that are more
architecturally pleasing particularly on the inside and are more easily
used by our active elderly population .
We are currently permitted 13 , 500 square feet of ground floor coverage in
35 ' high two and a half story buildings , and our suggestion is to spread
this vertical permission which covers the lower level , the first floor and
the second floor, instead of going vertical , we would like to be able to
spread it out into one and two-story buildings but still permitting only
of still retaining the total permitted gross square foot floor area of
40, 500 square feet .
Since the original decision limited the usable area to 85 . 5 percent , we would
still be limited to 34 , 600 square feet for specific uses . There are ten
specific uses defined currently in the permit , from 500 square feet per use
to 4 , 000 square feet per use . We are suggesting that these be combined to
three specific but perhaps broader uses . And these uses are on the left
hand side of this page; the club house and the pro shop as we discussed ,
are to be in a separate building with a maximum floor are not to exceed
5, 000 square feet .
The second component would be within the community complex located centrally
which would include dining rooms , kitchen, bar and related facilities to the
dining room. This facility would not exceed 20 , 000 square feet in gros maxi-
mum floor area .
-0-
The third category would be resident services including garden club , community
hall , craft and games room , health and medical facilities , offices , convenienc
store , post office , barber and beauty shop , and similar support services . Tha
phase would not exceed 20 , 000 square feet . Again , to gain some flexibility ,
because we arc not sure precisely how much of what will be needed , we have
made these figures subject to a maximum gross floor area of 40 , 500 square feet
Since they add up to 45 , 000 square feet , there is a limitation of maximum
limitation .
Although we have had added health and medical facilities , we have eliminated
the ten guest rooms as specified uses . While we have done that , however ,
the total maximum area are the same as the original permit and enable us to
put the facilities into one and two-story buildings . All other terms and
conditions of the existing permit will remain in full force and effect .
Incidentally , these facilities except for the golf course on a limited time
frame will be available only to residents and their guests .
We are required to go back to various boards including the Board of Appeals
for many specific approvals such as sewage treatment facilities , final design
of these buildings , the Building Inspector , the Water Department , the Board
of Health, etc .
We have met with the Board of Anpeals previously on an informal basis , to keep
everyone updated with our plans . We have reviewed our plans with the Planning
Board , the Board of Health, the Town Engineer, the Building Inspector , Con-
servation Commission , Water Department , and we have gone through Site Plan
Review. These meetings were all constructive; we came away with a very positi
feeling that we would establish a strong working relationship. The various
reports are on file with the Board of Appeal .
In conclusion, we have also spoken to abuttors , neighbors and others in Town
to acquaint them with our plans for Oak Harbors . If our request is granted ,
we feel we will accomplish the following :
1 . A far superior plan incorporating the golf course, good land planning ,
our usual landscaping in the architectural design of the units that will
be there .
2 . There is more open space, approximately 14 to almost 15 acres ; and that
means less building foot rate . They planned on zoning for the active
elderly , an age group that does not really have this type of facility
.available. There is less density. One-bedroom units - there are a
number of them in the active elderly facility varying from 25% as a
minimum and going probably even highter than that .
There is group transportation that is fostered so that there is the
capability of those who do not have a car or prefer not to drive to be
able to use that transportation facility whether it be for shopping or
theatre or movies or a trip to Boston or whatever. And by the very
factor of that density that we are appealing to active elderly.
There is a central sewer system. It is not in a recharge area and as
indicated there are water saving devices that we use ; all of which address
the issue of water quality .
It is really a project that wp feel most excited about . It will be a proud
addition to The Green Company family . We appreciate the time you have given
us and we would be pleased to respond to any questions that might be asked .
Mr . Henderson briefly summarized the contents of the correspondence from
the other Town Boards to become part of the records .
He covered the following :
Memo from Paul A. Wilson , dated 1/10/86 - Water Department
" James A. Robertson , Chairman , Planning Board Dated 1 /23/86
Bruce Murphy , Board of Health Dated 1 /10/86
" Conservation Commission , Dated 1/23/86
" " Richard deMello , Engineering Department , Dated 1/23/86
Mr . Henderson asked Board Members if they had any questions regarding
this petition.
Mr . Singer asked whether the facilities would be open to the Public .
Mr . Green replied that the facilities would be limited to residents and
guests with the exception of the golf course -which does have permission
to be able to have public access to the golf course under a limited time
frame of three years .with which they intend to abide.
Mr. Singer asked about the community facility carrying 34 , 000 square feet
to 40, 500 square feet and whether there was a present limitation which
they wanted to increase or whether it was because of vertical as opposed
to horizontal.
Mr . Green advised that 34 , 000 square feet is maximum gross floor area.
Since there is a factored in loss of 14 . 5% loss due to corridor , vestibule
etc . , only 85 . 5% of total gross floor area may be used for specific purposes .
Useable 85 . 5% space is achieved by use of three levels .
Mr . Singer asked if some part of this going to be condominium formal ownership
Mr . Green stated that the active elderly will be a combination of rental units
condominium for sale units as well as single family-attached unit , which since
they now come under existing permits , will not come under commercial condo-
minium conversion by-laws.
Mr . Singer asked what is meant by active elderly.
Mr . Green said that it is for people who are older, whose family is grown, who
don ' t want to be a burden to their children, who want to live independently
and with dignity and want to be with their peers and it is definitely not a
nursing home.
Mr . Singer asked, with regard to the current by-laws whether or not the common
dining rooms would affect the density computations .
Mr . Sweeney advised that no they would not be and therefore, they are asking
for a modification of the existing permit which speaks to the previous by-law.
Mr . Green also advised that all the facilities except for the health and medic;
were permitted in the prior special permit.
Judith Sullivan asked if they would simply tell the Board what they arc
asking for .
Mr . Sweeney said that they have an existing special permit and variance
which arc still in effect ; those permits indicate that because of the
size of the project , that the permits themselves be flexible in nature ,
and as a result , a developer would be required from time to time to come
before the Board to provide specific building plans for each of the clusters
and stages . At the time the original permit was granted , the developers
then provided with conceptual design plans for the Board ' s use . The permit
itself says very specifically that buildings as shown on those plans were
not specifically sited . In other words , the developer could place 750 units
on any of the building lot areas .
He advised that the Green Company was coming before the Board tonite because
they want to make sure the Board approves its now siting location of the
various things they intend to build before they go into the next phase. That
in accordance with the Building Inspector ' s advice to come back to the Board
of Appeals , they are resubmitting the plans .
Mr . Campbell then asked to reaffirm whether or not they knew how many
units would be one-bedroom/two-bedroom facilities , and whether some type
of survey had been done to determine whether the market is geared to the
elderly.
Mr. Green stated that they had done a market survey which indicates that
there was such a need and that the very next step would be to design the
1-2 bedroom units. It was also stated that the current special permit
does not speak to the issue of a limitation to the number of bedrooms in
the 750 units. (Is it limited to 2-bedroom units maximum or any limitation. )
Mr. Neitz asked whether there might be more one-bedroom units than might
have been origianlly planned, and asked for a ball figure as to price of
the units .
Mr. Green replied that they should be moderately priced , $100 ,000-$200 , 000
as opposed to $300 , 000-$400 ,000 .
Since the Board had no further questions , Mr. Henderson turned the meeting
over to the audience.
Frances Viniav:sonVllo lives directly opposite the entrance asked if there
was going to be another entrance.
Mr . Green advised that there is a permit for a single entrance on Route 6A
and also an emergency access onto one of the other streets located there ,
that there has been State approval of the entrance and access point and
that ' s really the most appropriate location for it .
Mr . Nels Laigonica asked if there is a projected time limit and what is an
emergency exit .
Mr . Green said that there is no time limit and the emergency exit is for
police or fire
Discussion also took place regarding location with regard to abutting propert)
Mr . Arsenault asked whether or not the entrance was going to be changed or
whether or not the sign or lighting are going to be changed .
•
Mr . Henderson stated that the permit is an existing permit which goes back
many years for 750 units , and as laid out in the original decisions , there
is only one access .
Mr . Arsenault said that with the present lighting , it is very difficult for
egress from his driveway now and wondered what would happen with the
addition of 750 units .
Mr . Sweeney said that as a practical matter , there is not a great deal of
frontage that exists on 6A; that it was specified that there should be no
access onto any of the other streets and determined that it should be a
single entrance which was approved by the State. He felt that their
concept in terms of lighting and the signs would show .a substantial change ,
and it would be a beautiful spot .
Discussion followed regarding frontage .
Ms . Scavargio asked how they intended to stop traffic.
Mr. Green advised that the people who live there will be required to agree
in the condominium documentation that they will use the way provided and not
use Hochanum. The o b ligation in the deed (requirement) can be monitored
and enforced , and should not be a problem.
Ms . Scavajo asked about the water level in 5-10 years and whether there
would be 3-bedroom units as well as what is happening to open space , i.e.
Johnstone/Fitzgerald property .
Mr. Green stated they do not anticipate 3-bedroom units . With regard to
the Johnstone/Fitzgerald property. they did not buy this property and do
not know what is happening there.
asked what kind of a buffer would exist , that her property line
was 100' from the boundary line.
Mr . Henderson that between 4/500 feet .
stated that in spite of obvious problems , they just can ' t do
anything about it.
Mr . Milton Smith asked the location of the 7Sewage
5 agetTreatmm ent plant and was
shown on the map that it is approximately 1
Mr. Sweeney advised that the Sewage plant has nnotbeen
75approved
units caby thee e State
and local authorities and under the existing permit ,
occupied on site until such time State and local approval has been obtained .
The current permit has built in prohibition.
Further discussion ensued re: sewage plant .
Mr . Tulley said that he used Hochanum Road and that the development ' s use is
restricted. He also asked if they were asking for a change in a special
permit that was granted under an outdated by-law; what of location of conser-
vation area accessible only through Hochanum Road ; was an Env. Impact Study do
Mr. Siae'eney replied that the .permit was granted in 1975 and is still valid
even though the by-laws have been changed ; the conservation area runs almost
the entire property line; the Environmental Impact Study was done and is filed
with the Board of Appeals .
-10-
Discussion covering buffer zones , the sewage treatment plant , placement of
the ,golf course, time frame in putting units in , Special Permits , etc . and
the John Hall gravesite were covered .
With regard to the John Hall gravesite , Mr . Green assured the Board and
audience that this will be well taken cared of .
Questions which were the subject of the above discussion were asked by
Mr . Whittemore, Laurene Morin , Pam Tolley , Donal Shaw, Scabion , Forrest
White , Peter Strand , Mr. Justavitch , Carol Reed , Mr . Robertson .
After considerable discussion following the questions , the Board ruled that
this petition be taken under advisement and set another meeting for Monday ,
February 3 , 1986 at 4 : 30 p .m.
-11 -
Appeal P2268 (Continued )
Oak Harbour - The Green Company
DATE : 2 / 3/86
Chairman Henderson advised the Board that colored-up site plans were
available as well as the minutes of the 1 / 23/86 hearing ; Also , comparison
plans of the open space between what the original permit required and w'-.at
this variation will have ; the original decision and the decision whereby
the life of the permit was extended for five years (late 1984 ) .
Mr . Singer asked if the plans that were here were a comparison of open space
and they are.
Mr . Henderson asked what the dates were and was told that one was December ,
1985 received Board of Appeals January 30 , 1986 and the other plan does not
have a date but was received January 30 , 1986 ; that the December , 1985/
January 30 , 1986 were the final proposed configuration .
Mr . Singer asked about the question raised by Forrest White-if there is a
change in the subdivision plan , does that affect any zoning decrees , one
way or the other . He stated that he did not feel, that ' s no: cur problem .
Mr . Henderson revived what the aspects of the request are . He stated that
basically , they ' re looking for approval of the revised plans , approval of
the building in open space lot allocation , retirement housing types , a
community center and they ' re asking whatever amendments of the existing
permits are necessary to accomplish the request .
Mr . CampLell asked Mr . Sweeney if there was a grave site on the property .
Mr . Sweeney said that there was one and pointed out the location ; it is
located in a green area .
Mr . Campbell asked where the buildings were going to be located .
Mr . Sweeney replied that these plans were a conceptual design and shows
the building lots and the general location of the buildings on the lots .
As they come to each cluster , they will submit specific plans as required
by the permit and show the exact location ; where the buildings will be on
the lots , and generally i_TI the areas that I have shown.
Mr . Green stated that one of the things that were wrestled with in ' 84 was
to what extent considering the change in zoning should the Board consider
not approving the extention and thereby a) maybe not having the project at
all or b) that whoever was then owner would go ahead and develop it anyway
they could just to get the units in before the ten years are ups or now
15 years . He said that if we were to deny all the requests outright , would
that be a positive or negative thing for the community; would it revert to
open space; might there be some merit in if we otherwise felt it was
appropriate to impose some conditions as to density in order to grant
some of the other modifications they have requested .
-12-
Mr . Henderson said that the petitioner in their presentation indicated
that it might be in effect less dense development of the property as
opposed to what w;,s originally proposed . 750 units ir, not necc ssar ily
750 units and there was an indication that from their standpoint the number
of bedrooms was more indicative density than number of units . There was an
indication 25% was a guestamit were 1-bedroom units . Originally , in all of
the discussions over the years , basically everyone assumed that all of the
units would be 2-bedroom units . but along your line of thinking , it might
be appropriate to th ;nk in terms of perhaps a limitation in the number of
bedrooms along the lines that was represented .
Nr . Neitz a;'1d that wasn ' t it also represented that the company doesn ' t
build anymore than a 2-bedroom unit or hasn ' t built anymore than a 2-bedroom
unit or doesn ' t build a 3-bedroom unit ?
Mr . Green replied that they don ' t build any 3-bedroom units and their use is
for 2-bedrooms but they like to have a place for their grandchildren or what-
ever else ; usually limited occupancy on the basis of so many people per bed-
room.
Mr . Henderson advised that a faster way to approach this would be to take
the requests individually . As indicated earlier , part of what they ' re
asking is to allow approval of the revised plans , building in open space
lot allocation. He said that he personally , he doesn ' t see any problem
from our standpoint with approving reallocation of the building sites in
the open spaces . It was represented to us that the new plan would give the
town or give the project roughly an additional 15 acres of open space . What
they have done is logical (it ' s a huge piece of land) from their standpoint
and he would be in favor of approving the revised plan that is before us .
He asked how does anyone else feel about it .
Mr . Green asked with respect to one of the neighbor ' s concern with work within
50 ' of the property line, do we have any overall concern about the buffer
around the entire property , not just that neighbor ' s concern - the entire
north is going to be built up , at least the concept , do we care what goes
between those buildings and the property lines other than what the Zoning
by-laws say .
Mr . Sweeney commented that the by-law does require the 50 ' buffer strip of
green space around it and at this time we already have that condition existir
and is shown on this plan .
Mr . Green - Buffer can mean , however, grass or can mean trees .
Mr . Sweeney said that traditionally , green space has been space that ' s a
vegetative area , whether it be grass or trees , a vegetative area under the
old by-laws and under the new by-law as well can be open space recreation
area as well , so the golf course fairway would be a green buffer .
Mr . Green - fin some respects it ' s a green buffer but it ' s not a visual buffer
as opposed to if there was a condition, I 'm not saying that we should , but
if we want to impose a condition in any area of the property left in its
natural state.
Mr . Hendersolt-i_haveaot walked the site either but I suspect that it ' s typical
of what Yarmouth used to be in that it ' s pich pine , oaks , scrub growth and
when you try to thin pitch pine , specially when they get old , you don ' t have
much luck. I don ' t know whether I want to second guess the develcper with
•
respect to the type of green strip . We ' d all like to see a visual buffer
.but ] don ' t K,'ow hi.u. to accomplish that . Do you have any suggestions?
Mr . Green-1 don ' t have any problem with it , ] just raised the issue only
because someone had asked about it - devil ' s advocate .
Mr . Henderson asked the pcititioner that in the past , in projects of this
type and we know you ' ve been involved with a number , what ' s your policy has
been with respect to buffers around the project , around the property . Have
you used trees or berms or what would you antiicpate doing here.
Mr . Green stated that they use a combination of existing vegetation and
shruol.ery depending upon where it is and we have used berms ; I think in
this particular situation , we have observed more than 50 ' in terms of
where buildings are . The issue that Mr . Singer presents is a person who
is not an original owner when this went through and purchased the house
on the golf course was complaining that he wasn ' t sure he wanted a golf
course view from his home , and I would only suggest that there are a
number of people who prefer a golf course view than any other view they
might possibly have .
Judy Sullivan said that if the 50 ' buffer is already in the condition , I
think we should just go with and it looks like it ' s going to look all right .
Mr . J . Robertson - I obviously have no interest in this project but I have
financial interest in another project which is Cummaquid , a golf course
project . As I view the issue , the issue is the present landowner , who is
the abuttor , the presence of a green or fairway would increase or decrease
the present value of his property . I would suggest , based on 10/12 years
experience in building houses on Cummaquid Golf Course , that front-on or
rear-on , frontyard or backyard on a green or fairway is a substantial
increase in the value of the property . Whether you prefer scrub oak vs .
a fairway or green , the question isthe economic affect , I would suggest
that the arrow points only one way.
Mr . Henderson stated that the major change aside from the change in the plan
and the change in the open space, concerns the concept of 'the retirement
housing built basically pretty much in the center of the project and pretty
much connected to dining facilities and other amenities which were described
as active elderly use. Does anyone have any problem with that concept vis a
vis what was essentially clusters of traditionally styled condominiums .
Mr . Nietz said that the major difference would be the enclosed walkway and
the connection of the buildings to make them accessible without having the
people go outside, I think that ' s going to be an asset rather than a detrimet
of course , this has still got to go through the Historic District and every-
thing else , I would think too . There certainly going to give a lot of input
from the architectural standpoint . From our side, .I don ' t see where that ' s
anything but providing a source of housing for the need that ' s there .
Mr . Campbell - I don ' t have any problem. It just kind of hit me looking at
the plan , if the retirement neighborhood which would appear on lot 62 by
its lonesome on the new subdivision plan , do we want to be concerned about
one or more portions of this being built and other portions maybe not being
built and tying in certain open space area if that gets built and nothing
else gets built in this concept , could they then take all these other lots
and devote them to other uses and wind up with no open space allocated for
that particular?
-14-
Mr . S\•'ccnc'v - The existing permits have a formula for dedicating open space
'as any specific number of units are built and approved , so if we go into
that area first and develon those active elderly units , we would in
accordance with the formula of the existing permit have to dedicate
sufficient open space to cover all those units , so if the developer fails
to do that , l ) they couldn ' t get permits to build on the other areas for
some other use that ' s not permitted , and 2 ) in the follow up process of
submitting specific plans , one of the things that the developer is required
to do under the permit is to show you that open space that is being dedicated
is sufficient to those particular units; so again , that particular condition
or question is covered .
Mr . Cambell - Skip , let ' s assume that the Green Company comes in to build
that section first or wants to build that section first , they have to come
in under the original permit with specific plans for that section?
Mr . Sweeney replied that ' s correct .
Mr . Campbell - Does this concept under today ' s by-law make for remarkably
different density - I think this area is still zoned for 2 units per acre -
some people will be surprised .
Mr . Sweeney - Two units per acre is allowed, I think it ' s 20 , 000 square feet .
Mr. Campbell - I think this question was raised before and I think it was
four units previously under the previous zoning and two under the present
zoning .
Mr . Sweeney - We used to have that 100% incentive bonus so that you could
double the number of units that were allowed.
Mr . Campbell I also have squared the buffer zone 70 feet , I don ' t know
if someone has brought that up .
Mr . Henderson - I think there was an indication that in most cases the
buffer around the property was well in excess of 50' and in many cases
it was 75 ' ., or close thereto .
Mr . Campbell I think if we 're going to impose any density conditions , it
would be in this section . I think this would be that portion of the entire
project that might have a 1-bedroom units as opposed to the apartment develor
ment area.
Mr. Henderson - In this central section, interconnected section , was the
representation of all of those units would be 1-bedroom?
Mr . Green - Some of them. 25% of the active elderly parcel - there would be
at least 25% of those units would be 1-bedroom. We would attempt to market
1-bedroom units throughout the rest of the project . That ' s going to relate
to market conditions much more so than what we would be able to expressly
represent .
Mr . E:r--e-e-A.'1- Would you refresh my memory with respect to the number of units
in that active elderly section .
Mr . Sweeney - I think our plans call for 212 although it says here we could
build up to 225 .
Mr . Henderson - One other question , this is a difficult one because of the
volume of paper, etc . , has anyone 'prepared some kind of proposed decision
-15-
Mr .' Sweeney - I wil.] have a proposed decision for the Board which should
he delivered here momentarily .
Mr . Henderson - The reason I asked for that it i.:: t :; . icr to deal with something
that ' s written down , whether you approve or disapprove , it ' s a starting point
and it ' s difficult for us not dealing with this project every day as you
gentlemen do to deal with it .
Mr . Sweeney - I have a proposed decision outlined generally the areas that
we ' re seeking approval for and possibly will assist the Board if you go to
page 8 of the petition , it would help you to formulate your decision as well
as well as formulating your motions . The specific request that we' re seeking
approval for arc listed on page 8 , the number A. Possibly each of those or
all of them could be considered .
•
Mr . Henderson - As I understand it , let ' s assume we adopted your language
precisely and gave these approvals , you still would have to come back for the
specifics of the architectural design and final plans in each and every cluster
Mr . S:•i n. g e .r - I think we have already voted on B and C , maybe not C including
the Golf Course , but in D , the number of 750 units specified for each area , is
that what was attached to the original?
Mr . Sweeney - Yes , if you look at the second page of exhibit A. Mr . Sweeney
proceeded to review the plans . According to the information on the plans ,
(green clan tabulation) the number of units that rout .: be built on those
specific building lots are listed . That totals in excess of 750 because as
in previous permits , the flexibility is given , but what we have stated in
the petition on this portion of the exhibit as well , the overall building
limitation would be t1i' 7.5) units even though there will be more on some and
less on others .
Mr . Singer- We ' re talking about lot 62 right now . That would be a maximum
of 235 but they ' re talking 212 or 25% of which would be 1 a bed . They may
come tc that with 3/4 ' s being 6 bed . I don ' t have a problem, I think that
somewhere we should just tie in maybe the end or in each section a special
density . I don ' t have any problem with the concept .
:ir. Penderson : Does anyone have any problem with the concept ? Why dc•r, ' t we
go that far . We made the underline assumption that at least , as far as we ' re
concerned , the permits are good and they are good for 15 years , so if you assum,
that , and now we have found we don 't have any problem with this revised concept
then we nave to go to the specifics which have been neatly laid out for us on
8 & 9 . That ' s the heart of the request .
Mr . Singer -Something was mentioned about this area . _;ich I didn ' t get , about
certain spaces spaces are going to be enclosed allow for a c _Ttain coverage
and they were changing that in terms of heig'.,t of building?
Mr . Creen - That would be sub-section E. The existing buildings can be several
stories in the Community Center complex.
Mr . Singer - Is that not then this section 62 that ' s :7*. ffcrent from, this would
still he within the active elderly? Is that a new word fur congregate living ?
Mr . Henderson - One other general question , I. think in the presentation you
indicated that You were going to perhaps build a go'_ f course in the first
stages of the construction? Is that correct. ?
-1t,._
Mr . Green Yes , at least the first nine , and hopefully the full 18 .
Mr . Henderson - So that would indicate a willingness to carry the project
through to completion and not abandon at some point when it was half built .
Mr . Campbell - Mr . Chairman , 1 know this was addressed before but the golf
course venture is going to be private for the residents or will the public
have access to it .
Mr . Henderson - I think under the existing permit , the public will have access
to the Golf Course for 8 years from its completion ; thereafter , without furthe
approvals from this Board , I would assume it would become a private course to
the residents of the 750 units .
Mr . Singer - Since you phrase it that way , at least the first 9 will be built
right away , the S years runs from completion of the golf course or
Mr . Sweeney - The way the current language is drafted it indicates that the
8 years runs from the date the Golf Course is available for play .
Mr . Singer - O. K.
Mr. Sweeney - I 'm not sure that helps .
Mr . Singer - Well we can make it help ; we can always resolve that by whatever
decision we now make if we have a concern about it..
Mr. - What was your intent ?
Mr . Green - Our intent is that the date those first 9 holes are available to
play starts the running, and we ' re required to write you a letter informing
you of that date that it is available to play.
Mr . Henderson - Any other concerns or questions ? While everybody is tl-.iiiking ,
at what point would the sewer treatment plant be under construction. I under-
stand that after you have 75 units including the pres -nt 19 , you ' re basically
56 units , you have got to have it in operations , what status does that have at
the moment?
Mr. Green - At the present time we ' re preparing all the necessary applications
for permits , and assuming approval by this board , we will move forward to
meeting the filing of those permits in the plan design , etc . , and then it will
be all due speed in getting it permitted and getting under construction. It
is critical for us that we' move forward as quickly as possible .
Mr . Campbell —What Site Plan Review Team, maybe a comment from you ,
highly recommend combining this into one lot SPR inspec-
tions etc . relative to the Engineering Department . Is that something we shoul
be concerned with?
Mr. Henderson : I think that would be very difficult to do from the stand-
point that it is going to be built in phases or sections , I would assume ,
if these are going to be condominium units , they would have to have separate
lots in order to phase in a particular block of units . I understand what the
Engineering Department is saying but I don ' t know as a practical matter how
you can do it unless you ' re going to go with all the units and amenities at
once, and sell them off simultaneously . Maybe Mr . Sweeney might want to say
something about that .
-j /-
Mr . Sweeney - Under the existing permits , we ' re required that certain areas
be dedicated to open space , that ' s one of the primary reasons for having
several so that we can dedicate those specific lots to open space .
if the whole project was all one large lot , it would be more difficult to
do that . If the original permit was drafted with that certain flexibility
locating building lots , locating open space lots , with the specific intent
that those lines could be moved so dedication could occur , so while one lot
does not appear feasible , we have attempted to see Site Plan Review' s point
by reducing the overall number of lots to the minimum that we can see that
is workable .
HenZerson - allowing' more from the audience .
•
Mr . Ed Davidson - You mention that the Golf Course will he open to the public
for 8 years when it is first built , is this a requirement by this Board or
any other board that this be done or is this just a
Mr . Henderson - This was requested by the petitioner , I believe , and the
reason for the request was an economic one . It ' s something that was built
in the earlier decision . They requested a limited accessibility to the
public for that period of time to offset some of the costs . It ' s not
required by this Board , it ' s not required by any Town by-law.
Mr . Davidson - I was just asking the question in conjunction with the cost
of going public versus the cost for the residents . I lust wanted to see
w'.;,ether it was a requirement if there would be any difference that way .
'1 . Henderson - We have allowed the petitoner a chance to answer some of
our questions and if anyone else in the audience wants to speak or has any
questions or comments , we would take them.
Mr . Davidson - So any other conditions on the Golf Course having to do with
bordering pesticides , nitrates or anything else, are there any other condition:
put on it by any other boards ?
Mr . Sweeney - It would be subject to all of the other conditions as any other
individuals would seek to construct a golf course on the site. There are no
specific conditions relative to tonight ' s request , etc . , has been determined
the particular location is not within a watershed area, and we are building
a on-site sewage treatment facilitiy as well , so we are sensitive to those
issues.
Mr. Henderson - The Board of Health doesn ' t have any requirements vis-a-vis
Golf Course?
Mr . Sweeney - Not specifically for a golf course .
Betty Hall - How about the environment and environmental studies . Is any
of that going to drain into marshlands .
Mr . Henderson - This project was the first project in the State to have an
Environmental Impact Study , that was done when the project was first approved .
It is about 2 inches thick and it was gone into by the Board sitting on the
original permit , in great deal . The original petitioner had a number of
experts who personally testified in addition to presenting the. Study , and I
think Mr. Sweeney has indicated that that Study indicates none of the property
is within a water recharge area . Obiviously, the petitioner ' s experts are
representing the petitioner but nevertheless , the conclusion of the experts
is-
a•t the time was that there be no adverse consequences with respect to the
marsh and to the water supply .
Mr . Henderson - Any questions from the Board ?
Mr . Neitz - I think the problem is that we ' re all looking for someway to
incorporate u11 of which is in front of us into something that is manageable
from a discussion standpoint and also from approval standpoint .
Mr. Singer - It appears another short document has just arrived . I make an
overall suggestion . I havn ' t hear from among us as a group if there is a
problem with the concept . Would it make sense for us to express whatever
we feel would be appropriate by way of conditions and appoint one of us to
either draft a decision in line with that ccve ent - I don ' t think it ' s going
to be easy for five people sitting here to come up with it . As long as one
person such as our Chairman has direction , you would be able to prepare it
and we would certainly review it before it was voted and signed , but at least
for us to sit here and try to make a motion , it ' s going to be relatively
complicated as long as we know where we want to co .
Mr. Henderson - Myer , I agree with you because the original decision was
forty-five pages long and for us to sit here , we have got to decide in
principal where we ' re going and I think we have to look at ;c1,at1ver he has
here as a handout as his proposal , and I think we have to rev: ; it . I
would suggest that we all review it individually and that either one or two
of us try to revise it in an fashion that we think the others will approve ,
but I really think it may require a meeting, perhaps next wee_: , a short
meeting hopefully, to review it and then vote. We can approve concepts ,
but when we get into the snecifics we are going to have a problem.
I don ' t know how any one else feels . I ' d like to see what he has here and
I ' d like to review it and spend as much time as we need this afternoon re-
viewing it .
Mr . Sweeney made suggestions regarding the motion . (Covering A, B,C ,D, E, F ,G) .
He stated that if the vote is favorable, another motion could be made that
the Chairman of the Board make a working draft of the decision and thereafter
the final language of the decision be finally approved . He said he thought
it would be better at this meeting that a vote be actually taken on specific
approval . He advised the Board that he had a "working draft " of a decision
for the Board to review.
Mr . Henderson - We would like to see it . We would like a few minutes to look
at it .
For the benefit of the public , what we had given to us is a 17 page proposed
decision .
The Board commenced reviewing the draft .
Mr . Singer asked under resident services , health and medical facilities are
listed , is there any more definition to that , also , there is going to be no
nursing home, this isn ' t someway of saying nursing home?
Mr . Sweeney - The resident services as described here are the simply ref.
:_sting
of those services that were listed in the original Special Permit , just a
recapitulation, nothing more than what was originally permitted is requested .
-19-
We have eliminated some ( the 10 guest rooms) .
Mr . i ::? c-i But this health and medical language is new langugage?
Mr . Sweeney - Yes , 1 apologize for
Mr . Singer - That ' s all right . Can you give us any more definition to
what those words mean?
Mr . Green - All of these things in resident services are limited to
20 , 000 square feet . Secondly , the health and medical services are keeping
of records of what each person , a diary of their condition is in case there
should be an emergency so that the appropriate doctor or hospital , could he
called . A place for doctors to have a clinic or see patients under certain ,
as a doctor ' s office , rather than make the people go all the way into town to
visit a doctor . A place for a podiatrist as an example which is an important
element in elderly housing , to he able to come in and see patients on those
occasions when he does come . It ' s not meant to be a whole full fledged
community health plan situation . Just to be able to service those people
on an actual basis .
Mr. Henderson - Would it be limited to residents?
Mr. Green - Yes . Absolutely .
Mr. Singer - So that a doctor would have an office there for general service
to the community.
Mr. Green - All of these facilities are for residents only.
Mr . Singer - With reference to Dining room (s) . Is it possible that we could
have some definition of that . Is that again just for residents in the active
elderly section? Or is the dining room for anyone there who might be using
the community facilities and when the golf course is open to the public for
that first eight years , is this meant to 'be a community restaurant ?
Mr . Green - The size is not very large and the point of it is that it would
function - the reason for the (s) is in order to give variety to people who
are living there eating there on a regular basis is to have some variety
rather than one big dining room, they break it up into two dining rooms . Its
use is primarily for the residents of the active elderly portion of it ; it
would also be available to anybody who lives in Oak Harbour , their guests
and certainly not to outsiders .
Mr . Henderson - Anyone else after reviewing this have any specific questions ?
Mr . Sweeney, do you want to make a few comments? I rave one question, and
I havn ' t obviously taken this all in . At one point , you talk about a modi-
fication of varience.. Are there modifications. of variances nr
are strictly special permit aspects of this?
Mr. Sweeney - There is a modification of the special permit as asked for
as you have described insofar as certain of the items are listed within the
number of variances as listed in II1 - 17 (whatever) . Some of those we have
changed the area of the building such as on the exhibit you have just looked
at insofar as that could be construed as a modification of the varienee. I
have included that criteria .
Mr . Henderson - Thank you . Did you want to make any other comments?
-20-
Mr . Sweeney - Just so the Board would understand , I have attempted to make
this work draft in the form normerly utilized by the Board . The first page
reCerenccs both the assessors lots and in , certificates of titles
on lots . We then recite what was requested on the petition and go on for
several pages in substantially the same language provided in the original
memorandum. I have also included the exact same exhibit that were in that
memorandum.
In page 15 , indicates the Board as on the evening of the Hearing ,
that you have the authority to modify the existing permit and also recite
the criteria variances and open spaces as in the origianl by-laws .
Thereafter . I conclude by once again listing those paragraphs A-C that
specific approval and then finish with the normal language
Mr . Singer - Skin, on nage 5 , paragraph B, you may have talked about this
last time , but I don ' t remember . You ' re suggesting we nut this language
into a decision and can we reasonably do that unless we know what conditions
are being talked about . I don ' t know if this needs to be our decision , hut
if it is to be our decision , I think we would lit:c to know what it means .
Mr . Sweeney - First of all , that language is found in the section of the
proposed decision which is entitled "Facts . " We are lust reciting certain
facts that have been represented to you in either the petition or orally
at the Hearing, which give you sufficient information in which to make your
decision . At the Hearing we did indicate that the Green Company is the
petition, that they are here as a proposed buyer under a Purchase/Sale
Agreement with Lighthouse Associates and that closing is currently
scheduled and will take place shortly, and the conditions which are
referred to are so-called simply the type of conditions that would normally
be found in a Purchase/Sale Agreement relative to the title , etc .
Mr . Singer - And approval of the petition as submitted?
Mr . Sweeney - No that is not a condition .
Mr . Henderson - Anyone else any questions or comments? How do you want to
proceed? Esentially we suggested two things . One , we take a vote and that
is also the motion to approve the concept . So we take a vote that myself
or somebody else be allegated to work from this draft and the notes on various
other documents and come up with a proposal that ess'ntially is approval and
then submit it to all of you at another meeting for final approval .
The other suggestion made by Mr . Singer was that somebody be delegated without
taking a vote review this in view of the fact that there seems to be a con-
sensus everybody is pretty much in accord with the petitioner ' s request that
we modify in whatever way we sit fit Mr . Sweeney ' s decision using whatever
want and then come back with a proposed decision for a vote at a later time .
Now, there may be some other alternative too , but I think we should put some
kind of a motion before us and then give it whatever discussion you want to
give it .
Mr . Singer - It would help the petitioner greatly if we took a vote. I don ' t
have any major r.robi.em with that except if there are going to be any sibstantiE
conditions , I would think those would have to be incorporated into the vote.
At least on a conceptu..1 basis . Maybe there aren' t going to be. The only
one I havn ' t thought through would be something in the terms of bedrooms or
density . The rest of the things about when the first nine holes are to be
built or when the 8 years are up , etc . that could always be incorporated in
-21 -
the draft , but 1 think
J . Sullivan - What did you have in mind for restrictions ?
Mr . Singer - I 'm not sure 1 have any and I ' m not sure we have to . 1 guess
my overall concern is today ' s by-law is different than yesterday ' s by-law .
and we ' re working on the yesterday ' s by-law , and the landowner by coming
in asking for something does allow us to some extent take advantage of
today ' s by-laws by imposing ,conditions . Of course , if we went too far in
that direction , I am sure they would throw..out the amendment and all the
conditions and go back to where they were . And maybe we don ' t impose any
conditions .
Mr . Ncitz - Could I ask a question about the treatment plant . If you ' re
formulating your plans for the treatment plant , are not the plans for the
treatment plant dependent upon the number of units and the number of
bedrooms that are being serviced that that plant is servicing? Don ' t you
have to have a pretty good idea as to how many bedrooms you have to have
before you can design the treatment plant ?
Mr. Green - Yes . The treatment plant is to be built in size and such a
manner that it can be added on as we increase the different phases as
we go through that process and the question becomes one of fields that
are created , but the plant itself has the capability of being expanded
to meet whatever the conditions are.
•
Mr . Singer - So it would be a range of use that the plant would be designed
to carry depending upon the market demand for the units that you are building .
But you would still have to meet the requirements of what DEQE and everybody
else that reviews that type of plant ?
l;: . Sweeney - Yes . As we request building permits , the sewage treatment
.ac.ility as approved will have to meet the necessary criteria fur those
particular units and the size of those units as well .
]`lr . Ncitz - I don ' t think there ' s a problem on the Board with the concept so
much as there ' s a concern about the possibility of a concern about the density
If: there ' s 750 1 ort 2. bedroom- un:i.ts , it ' s a little bit different then having
750 3 or 4 bedroom units . Not to say that that ' s what the intent is , but
I think we are struggling with whether we should in some way restrict the
number of bedrooms in each unit .
Mr. Henderson - I think that ' s a fair statement . I think the other thing ,
and this is certainly no reflection on the Green Company , but we ' re now
dealing with a third developer , a third different entity , and we hope this
is going to be the last developer , but we thought that the last time.
Mr . Campbell - Do we as a Board care how big the units are if we have a number
of bedroom limitations . Does it make a difference if there are six three
bedroom units in a given section or 18 one bedroom units? The bigger units
are going to provide for families and one bedroom units and probably many
two bedroom units , you ' re not going to have young children. Once you get
into three and four bedroom units , the average couple doesn ' t need it ;
therefore, you ' d be looking towards having families with younger children .
Is that good or bad? Probably good in my opinion .
The Board discussed this question .
-22-
Mr . Sweeney The developers would agree to limit themselves to 1 , 500
bedrooms . In other words , two bedrooms for 750 units . in the overall
project plus or minus , meaning that in the active elderly section , we
would also agree that 25;; of those units would he one bedroom units .
Mr . Henderson - Was there any limitations in the original permit on the
number of bedrooms?
•
Mr . Sweeney - I.n the existing Special Permit Variance as drafted , executed
and recorded , 1 cannot find any limitation or any reference to two bedrooms .
Mr. Henderson - Was there a reference that denotes a limitation? 1 don ' t
know. I heard there is but I really don ' t know because I havn ' t read the
notes .
Mr. Sweeney - I don ' t know. Just so that you ' ll understand the proposal
that I 'm making, they will limit themselves to 1500 bedrooms and agre that
the active elderly area , 257 will be one bedroom units .
Mr. Henderson - With respect to Mr. Campbell ' s question on the par course ,
is my recollection correct , you can ' t have a public golf course in the
project , that you have to at some point be private . Was that what the
by-law provided for at the time the permit was granted .
Mr. Sweeney - I don ' t believe that the open space under that by-law
necessarily has to be private. I think that the by-law speaks to con-
veyance, ultimately , of that property etc . I believe the limitation was
one that was placed by the Board of Appeals at that time based on the
number of people they: felt would be using the facility over a different
period of time.
Mr. Green - Very quick Math says that 1500 bedrooms with approximately 58-60
units being one bedroom, 25% of the maximum of 235 in the active elderly ,
you wind up with 60 bedrooms that could go elsewhere into 3/4 or more units .
I 'm not sure I have problem with that but I just tome up with that quick math .
Maybe Skip is telling me I 'm wrong?
Mr. Sweeney - I don' t want to mislead you but those bedrooms that we 're
taking out of the active elderly will not be placed somewhere else in the
project . We give them up entirely. In other words , its 1500 bedrooms but
fc.r the fact that in the active elder] ' area , we will subtract 25% and make
those just one bedroom units. I can ' t give you that figure , but it will be
1500 minus X number of bedrooms because we ' re not exactly sure how many units
will be built on the active elderly area.
Mr. Green - Assuming the maximum of 235 , we divide that by 4 it comes out to
58+, if you were to build the maximum, you would be talking about 1500 less 58 .
Mr. S'•?eeney - That ' s correct .
Mr. Green - But yonr ' re still not limiting a maximum number of bedrooms in any
other unit .
•
Mr . licit : - I feel more comfortable , at least having some restrictions on
the number of bedrooms , personally .
Mr . Campbell - I don ' t have a problem .
Mr . Ilenderson - As long as the members of the Golf Commission are here , let ' s
explore the question with them, just so we can see what they have to say , if
anything .
Mr . Campbell - Tom , would you like to respond to that ? I just raise a
question about the feelings on this golf course being public opposed to being
private . •
Tom - We ' re not members of the Commission , per se of the Bass River Gol.
Course Commission , we ' re members of the Golf Course Building Committee , the
sole purpose of which is to construct a new municipal course . I think , cer-
taiuly , any go ! fcr :is happy to see iitw facilities , I think they can be self-
sustaining. There need not be any worry on the developer ' s part in making
money . The demand appears to be insatiable on Cape Cod . Asking for an
opportunity to review the layout is none of my business in terms of the land
but I ' d be more than happy just to look at the layout with them and give them
our insight that we have acquired with the various golf course architects that
we have worked with over the years . Other than that , we ' re happy to see it .
As far as it being public or private the developer ' s in-
tention is to maintain it as a strictly private course , he can just increase
the green fees and he won ' t have to worry about any general public . That ' s
not going to bet on it because he ' s turning away some revenue that he other-
wise would have. I don ' t know whether the developer *.•oui d feel it ' s critical
to have it as a private club it might enhance the saleability of the units
or not . But either way, he can pretty much , the fact that there
maybe a restriction or rather condition that it be a public course , I don ' t
think it means too much due to the fact that he can control the greens fee.
Are we leaving open a loophole that ' s one that ought to be closed? Not
necessarily . There will be , I hope, two facilities in the Town for the
townspeople to play and another facility is always welcome , but if they
prefer to remain private , I don ' t think it ' s going to jeopardize the best
interest of the project .
Judy Sullivan - Les , I think in the original appeal , they didn ' t want it to
be public because of the traffic problem. That we were giving them permission
for it to be public for a while to sort of help them out , but that the Town
did not want it open to the public .
Mr . Singer - In this active elderly area , is there any buy-in price other than
the by the unit? Do they get the use of the unit for the rest of their life
and then they loose it in any fashion or come up with some front money to get
in it or?
Mr . Green - Not an endowment .
Mr . Singer - Do we discuss time sharing? Is that any part of this? Particu-
larly the recreation facility or selling interest in the golf course or
anything? •
Mr . Green - We never get involved in such matters .
Dick Neitz - How about a conceptual motion?
4 _
Mr . Singer - l would move that we approve the petition subject to the
condition that there be no more than 1 , 5(10 bedrooms in the overall
development , t h• mrx imum num',er to be decreased by the number of one
bedroom units in the active elderly area to . be constructed on lot 62
.and that no more than at. least 25' of the units in the active elderly
area be one bedroom units and that the intent of this motion is to
include the apl..roval s for •r:Hnet,t. ed as l i tte'rod items A through G on
pages 8 and 9 of the petition .
The Committee discussed the motion .
The motion was seconded by Dick Nietz .
Further discussion took place regarding review of the subject .
Mr . Henderson stated if it ' s going to •bc reviewed , it should be-reviewed
by everyone that sat because we ' d have to act unanimously of four ' in .favor
and in view of the complexity , this was the case of the original decision
even .with the extension , that everybody review it . lie said that he did
not think we ' d have any problem or delay , but he would be much more comfortabl
if everybody read the whole thing to be sure ::hey knew what they had voted on .
Mr . Singer - If that is the case , do hav oblig:: tion to meet under the
open meeting law because ar advertised :,r 1 . :.. . d hearing needs to be met .
Because the last thing we or the petitioner needs is a decision as a result
of an illegal meeting .
Mr. Henderson - Well , my suggestion would be to do that and in order to
eliminate , we can vote on the motion ; presumably we know what ' s going to
happen , we ' re going to vote in favor of it ; we have a few comments . We
have a Hearing coming up , it ' s going to take a while to review this anywzzy
and put it in a final form. We have a meeting come up on the second Thursday ,
it ' s a full schedule but presumably if all the copies were given to people
in advance, presumably that night they could as one group reaffirm or make
any changes in 5/10 minutes .
Judy Sullivan - Are you going to have that written and gotten out to us by the
13th of February, you ' re talking about 10 days?
Mr . Henderson - You have to put a deadline on these things , then they get done
I don ' t want to be responsible for the final draft alone. I want at least
everbody else to have a chance to look at it first -.an.0 ',e s1:17e. everybody agree
Mr . Singer - I don' t have any problem with the 13th other than since I don ' t
think I ' ll be sitting that night , I suggest the time circle , it makes it a
little easier for me , either at 7 : 00 or 10 : 00.
Mr . Henderson - My suggestion would be at 6 : 45 because we hi.ave a continued
Hearing brought over until 7 : 00 .
Mr . Henderson - We have a motion made and seconded . Do you want to discuss
it any further?
Mr . Singer - Are you suggesting that we not vote on the motion .
Mr . Henderson - No , I 'm suggesting we vote on the motion with the understandin
that this decision not be filed with the Town Clerk until it had at least been
reviewed by the five members at 7 : 45 P .M. on February 13 . If it ' s agreeable,
it can be filed the following day . It will be in that form. On Valentine ' s
•
Day .
Mr . Henderson - Does anyone have a problem with that ? Does anybody want to
discuss the motion ?
Mr . Henderson aslced for a vote . The Motion was voted unanimously .
Appeal #12268 (Continued )
Oak Harbour - The Green Company
DATE: March 27 , 1986
Chairman Henderson - Since we have the five members of the Board of Appeals
present , we will consider the Greene Company petition which is Appeal #2268 .
We will take this up at this time. I think you all have a copy of the
proposed decision that was actually prepared by petition ' s counsel and I ' ve
looked at it and provided you all with copies of it in advance of tonight ' s
meeting so that you could review it and make any comments , suggestions or
changes or conditions or deletions . I know that Mr. Singer has another
meeting to go to this evening and we have a regular agcnds that starts at
7 : 30 P .M. What comments or questions would the members have or do you simply
want to put a motion on the floor?
Mr . Singer - There were a couple of things in here that didn ' t quite make
sense to me. I don ' t have any problem with the concept but the third page
from the end , counting the end as the signature page not the exhibits , down
at the bottom of that page begins with #12 ; it says "insofar as the location
configuration of the Community Center complex, sewage treatment and disposal
facilities , other utility recreational service and accessory facilities are
governed by provisions of variances included in the prior decision , modificati
and reissuance of such variance so as to approve and permit the locations and
configuration of all such facilities as shown in Greene ' s plans is the same
and may be hereafter supplemented. " I don ' t know what the grammatical word
is but it seems to be missing in effect the conclusion. It just never says
anything . In #3 following , I have the same problem. It says "insofar as
necessary or appropriate will af.`. ectuate the provisions of the preceding
paragraphs 1 and 2 , in line of the prior decision and the recodification
and amendment of the Zoning By-law between the time of the prior decision
and this decision such other special permits and variances as are requisite
in relation to 2 . " It never says anything, that ' s my problem. I 'm not sure
what it means.
Mr. Henderson - Mr . Sweeney?
Mr . Singer - Before that , the previous page, I think on the bottom "grants
the following : 1) approval of" it ' s disjointed from there on.
Mr . Sweeney - I believe ,I see Mr. Singer ' s point , that you a careful reading
of it is that you have to carefully include each of the sub-paragraphs A thru
F . Words "approval of" just insert those, in other words at the beginning
of that section, it reads "particularly the Board hereby grants the following :
approval of" and then it recites what the approval is just as it was recited
in the original .
Mr. Singer - What do you do with #2 and #3?
Mr . Sweeney - Possibly it could be clarified by striking in each of those
paragraphs the words "insofar as . " I think that 's what '; causing the confusi
-26-
1f that read approval of the location and configurcat ion .
Mr . Singer - I don ' t thinks so . I don ' t have any problem . with it , 1 just
think that someone has to sit down and spend a few minutes cleaning up the
language . I don ' t have any 'problem with what the objective of the decision
is .
Mr . Sweeney - What would you see the objective of those two paragraphs , Mr .
Singer , go so that we could understand we ' re all talking about the same thing
Mr . Singer - I think that 112 appears to be saying that to the extent that the
original prior decision is ratified , l guess , to the extent that the plans
now show something different . The new plans supplement the old plans . I
assume that ' s why
Mr . Sweeney - I agree . I think that ' s what he was trying to say .by using the
words insofar as shown on the revised plans , approval of the location .
Mr . Green - To the extent that the new plans are different than the old plans
were approving the new plans . I think the next paragraph, to the extent that
we find that the reasons of the justifications of the original permits , aro
still in effect today . I think that that ' s what paragraph 3 is intending .
I was pleased to see in there that we are not reextending the permit . What-
ever we ' re granting now still expires in 1990 subject to the Board ' s further
review or further request . Although I suspect that most of this will he up
by 1990 .
Nr . Sweeney - Nave we resolved the issue concerning paragraphs .i2 & # 3?
Mr . Henderson - I think so . Yes .
Mr . Neitz - Just a question about where it says in the last phrase in that
last paragraph. "As the same hereafter , be supplemented?" Presumably , that ' :
with our approval? As the project goes along?
Mr . Sweeney - That refers to the existing permits . That we are required to
give overall development plans but we cannot acquire building permits for
those until such time as you are provided supplemental more detailed plans .
Mr . Henderson - Does anybody else have any suggestions or comments or questioi
with respect to the format of the d e cision? Would the changes as suggested
by Mr . Singer does everbody feel that this accurately reflects the vote that
we took at our original Hearing? Would somebody make a motion to adopt this
decision as our decision with the changes suggested in those two paragraphs .
Mr. Green made a motion to adopt the decision incorporating the changes
suggested in paragraphs 412 and i13 . The motion was seconded by Mr . Neitz .
Mr . Henderson asked if there was any further discussion .
•
Mr . Neitz•- Stated that basically, the conceptual motion that was made
previously , this decision certainly follows that motion.
Mr . Sweeney - On subparagraph #2 , beginning "insofar as the location of
the configuration" I would suggest that the it ertion reads insofar as
shown on the petition" there we want to make a reference to the plan. I
think that ' s were we agreed to clear it up .
-` 7-
Mr . Green - Would it make sense in paragraph 2 , the third line on the
second page where it reads "modification and reissuance of such variances
is hereby granted so as to approve and permit the locations , etc . " on the
Plans?
Mr . Sweeney - Modification or reissuance of such variances is hereby
granted - that would be acceptable .
Mr . Green - It would continue to read "so as to approve the location and
configuration"
Mr . Sweeney - That makes sense .
Mr . Neitz - Or at tlit end of variances , as are requisites or variances .
Mr . Green - Such are the special permits and variances are hereby granted
as a requisite.
Mr . Sweeney - I think that does it .
Mr . Henderson - Basically, we ' re confirming the original and probably it
would make more sense to just end the sentance right here by grant .
Mr . Green - How about adding at the end "such are the special permits and
variances as are requisite in relation thereto are hereby granted . "
Judy ul1ivan - I was just wondering if it would be better to put a period
after Greene ' s Plans and make a new sentance and say "These same plans
may hereafter be supplemented with the Board of Appeals approval . "
Mr . Green - It might be a little clearer if we change it and put a period
after Greene ' s Plans . These same Plans may hereafter be supplemented
Mr . Henderson - Everybody understands the motion to grant would be to grant
based on this decision with changes in paragraphs #2 after the word "variances
to add the words "hereby granted" after Greene ' s Plans, to put a ". " and the
sentance thereafter Greene' s Plans would read "the same Plans may thereafter
be supplemented with Board Of Appeal ' s approval . " Then in paragraph 113 ,
next to the last line , strike everything after the word "variances" and add
after the word variances "are hereby granted."
Mr . Green - No . We went back.
Mr . Henderson - O .K. Let the sentance stand as is but instead of ending
with the word "thereto" we add "are hereby granted . "
Does that meet everbody' s understanding of what the motion is and the
seconder accepts that?
Any other discussion of the proposed decision or motion?
Since there was no further discussion, Mr . Henderson asked for a vote.
The motion was carried unanimously.