Planning Board Meeting Minutes

January 14, 2004 Meeting

The Planning Board meeting convened at 7:10PM. Those present included Planning Board members Ann Howard, Chair; Howard Burchman; and Barnett Adler. Also present were Deputy Community Development Director Mark Latour (acting also as Recording Secretary); and for the second half of the meeting, Permit Coordinator Maxine Notaro was present.

Planning Board members considered the Request for Administrative Amendment from Kurt Raber/ William Rogers for 4 Telegraph Hill to change two small wall locations. This item had been continued from the Planning Board meeting of December 8, 2003. Members voted unanimously to grant this request. Members then signed off on the administrative amendment.

Members then discussed the draft Growth Management Report. The lack of tables in the earlier version of the report, which they received in December, had been an impediment to members understanding the report. These tables have been provided to the Planning Board members, and several were discussed.

Ann Howard mentioned that if there is a peak in pumping of septic systems in July and August, that the local septic haulers should inform people that they can do a pre-emptive pump in May, when the rates at Tri-Town are lower, and when property owners can save money, and have their septic systems in good shape for the peak summer months.

Howard Burchman indicated that the goal stated on the bottom of page two of the Growth Management report, “to mitigate peak seasonal demands on infrastructure by promoting the reuse of seasonal commercial uses with year-round community housing; to minimize impact on open space and infrastructure through promoting the reuse and redevelopment of already developed properties to meet the Town’s year-round community housing needs,” is not really supported by any of the tables they included in the report.

Planning Board members wondered if Figure 12 of the report “Water Consumption Before and After Conversion of Seasonal Housing to Year-round Condominiums” was somewhat misleading. If figures could be obtained, for July and August, they might bring one to the opposite conclusion: that conversion to year-round units leads to lower water consumption in the critical summer months. If this is the case, policies should be developed to encourage year-round property use, rather than to discourage such use.

All of the Planning Board members seemed uncomfortable with the merging of Affordable Housing issues and by-laws into the Annual Growth Management report. Though these two topics are closely related, members felt these items should, never the less, be reviewed and reported on, separately.

Planning Board members felt that they would like to see more building permit data in the Annual Growth Management Report. How many permits and bedrooms were issued in Categories 1 thru 4 in each calendar year, for example? This information should be placed next year in the Building Permit portion of the Growth Management report – on page 2.

Planning Board members had a problem with the observation at the bottom of Page 8 of the Growth Management Report regarding water withdrawals being “uncharacteristically low for 6 of the 12 months [in 2001] compared with 2000 and 2002.” Why were the withdrawals low? Is this related to drought or excessive rainfall, or some other situation?

Planning Board members indicated that the Growth Management report had too much advocacy, and was not entirely objective. An example is on the third paragraph of page 15, where the report states that [property owners] “seek to avoid growth management” through the conversions of certain commercial and non-commercial buildings to dwelling units. Members felt that very few property owners are interested in avoiding or circumventing the growth management process. They felt, instead, that many of these conversions were simply from a use with a higher Title V flow to a use with a lower Title V flow, and that there is no impropriety or illegality in this.

Planning Board members discussed the 4M proposal for growth management. It was clarified that this would not apply to all new residential development, but would be the requirement only for those housing projects, which wish to jump to the head of the growth management queue. Barnett Adler wondered if the 4M model might lead to an increase in the price of market rate housing in Provincetown.

Members and staff discussed various aspects of the growth management proposals including the 4M model; developing a pool of surplus gallons; developing a first come/ first serve priority system for Category 3 of the growth management by-law (for various types of dwellings with no affordable component); and compressing the five priority levels in Category 4, into just two priorities.

Members and staff also discussed the proposed affordable housing by-laws including the amnesty component of the Community Housing By-law; the Accessory dwelling component of the Community Housing By-law; the Inclusionary portion of the Community Housing By-law; and the use conversion portion of the Community Housing By-law. Members also debated whether the use conversion by-law should be limited to conversions of commercial units, or whether it should include conversions of residential units into different forms of residences. (i.e., if a single family home with four bedrooms is converted into four one-bedroom units, should this be addressed by the by-law?)

In conclusion, the Chair stated that the Growth Management Report as presented is sufficient for Planning Board members to develop conclusions about the Growth Management by-law. The Chair then reiterated the request that the Affordable Housing by-laws be presented separately from the Growth Management report in future years.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:20PM.