Category Archives: Planning Board

Improvements to the Project Review Process

Tonight the technical review staff will be presenting to the Dennis Board of Selectmen changes recently adopted by the Planning Board to improve the project review process. The cornerstone of this process is the early involvement of the technical review staff in all projects going before the Planning Board.

Ideally, all applicants will request, before submitting an application to the Planning Board, to meet with the technical review staff. This will provide an opportunity for the applicant to get as much staff review as possible prior to starting the permitting process. However, should an applicant file with the Planning Board without going through the staff review process, the Planning Board’s recently adopted Rules and Regulations will direct applicants to meet with the staff and the Planning Board will coordinate its Public Hearing process with the ability of staff to fully vent site design issues.

In the end, the goal is to make the project review process as painless as possible for both the applicant and the Planning Board. To that end, a clearer set of plan submittal requirements have been attached to the Planning Board Special Permit and Site Plan Review Application. Soon, similar revisions to the Approval Not Required, Preliminary and Definitive Subdivision Applications will also be available.

These plan requirements are nothing new, they simply represent pulling the requirements of adopted town by-laws and regulations into a more easily accessible list. We expect to take this same process through the requirements for the Zoning Board of Appeals and the other regulatory boards.

The full Planing Board Special Permit and Site Plan Review Application is on the Town Website and available through this link as well:

Planning Board Special Permit and Site Plan Review Application

An Interesting Court Decision Out Of Texas

Thanks to the Inverse Condemnation Blog for this one, their discussion is found here.

HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, PETITIONERS, v. EDWARD A. AND NORMA KERR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS is a Texas Supreme Court decision which, while not setting any precedent in Massachusetts, provides some important guidance for our local boards (Planning, Zoning and the Conservation Commission).

We now have about 5,000 properties in the flood zone. Many of these property owners will be looking to make changes to protect their property from flooding. How they do it may have consequences.

Years ago I argued that fill in the flood zone would have incremental impacts on adjacent properties. This argument was met with a rebuttal that it would be inconsequential due to the vastness of the ocean. I did not agree with that position then, I sill do not agree with it now.

Dennis is subject to storm surges, wave action that pushes water into our coastline and does not let it back out. Thus, fill located in the flood zone will push that water elsewhere, nearby. Not elsewhere in the Atlantic as was argued when this came up reviewing another project in Dennis.

Without a concerted effort to protect property, like dune construction, piecemeal attempts to protect one site needs to be balanced against the greater good. Elevating homes above base flood elevation is a good thing. We need to carefully consider how we approach this.

Harris County tells us that we cannot allow one property to solve its flood problems by aggravating flood problems for others. Essentially supporting my argument several years ago that filling the flood zone to protect one home without considering the surrounding impact to others is not only a bad idea, it may be compensable as a governmental taking.

As we start to work with more and more property owners on meeting flood zone elevation requirements, we may need to provide guidance on acceptable practices. Practices that design with accommodating the flow of storm surges, without displacing it onto neighboring properties are more acceptable than ones that displace the storm surge and increase the potential for flooding, scouring and erosion on adjacent properties. Elevating with flow through structures and flood vents are preferable over building islands around individual homes that will create channels around the retaining walls needed to protect these islands, which, just like connection a small hose to the end of a larger one, will increase the velocity of the storm surge for other surrounding properties.

Recently I had suggested relaxing the permitting process for elevating structures in the flood zone. If we do move forward with this idea, I think we have to make sure that structures taking advantage of a relaxed permitting process do not involve the use of fill.

A Zoning Thought Regarding Lifting Homes In The Flood Zone

Our neighbors to the far south (New Jersey) are providing me with many lessons regarding things we can do to better prepare for potential storm related flooding. The nightmares associated with rebuilding are hindering recovery. One issue that delays recovery is having to submit plans to various boards for approval before they can start work, work to simply elevate existing structures.

As I have watched these discussions,  I have give our process considerable thought. We too may have too much red tape. A house in West Dennis or Dennis Port could be forced to undergo Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission and possibly Board of Health Review before they can lift an existing structure.  In South Dennis and on the North side, you might add historic district review into the mix.

We need to cut the red tape, and take preemptive action, before a disaster strikes. Looking at a New Jersey law we might be able to craft a Zoning provision to at least remove one delay.

A first draft of such a provision might look like the following:

Amend Section 6 Flood Zone

Amend Section 6.6 Definitions by adding the following:

“Existing structure” means any structure that presently exists at the time a request is made to elevate.

“Highest applicable flood elevation standard” means the FEMA base flood elevation plus an additional three feet.

“New and appropriate elevation” means any elevation to which a structure is raised, or is to be raised, that is equal to or higher than the applicable FEMA base flood elevation, provided, however, in no case shall the new and appropriate elevation exceed the highest applicable flood elevation standard.

“Original dimensions” means the exact vertical and horizontal dimensions of a structure as it presently exists.

Add new Section 6.7 Special Provisions for Lifting Existing Structures to New And Appropriate Elevations

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, except as otherwise provided pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection, a person shall be allowed to lift an existing structure located in an Area of Special Flood Hazard to a new and appropriate elevation, or constructing a staircase or other attendant structure necessitated by such raising without the need for Board of Appeals relief, provided, however, this exemption shall apply only to the minimum extent or degree necessary to allow the structure to meet the new and appropriate elevation with adequate means of ingress and egress.

(2) Appurtenant to lifting an existing structure, the existing structure may be relocated elsewhere on the lot as long as said relocation does not create a new, or increase the intensity of a setback nonconformity.  For the purposes of accomplishing meeting the new and appropriate elevation, the restrictions found in Section 2.4.1.2 D 2 (the so-called 40% rule) shall not apply.

(3) The exemption established pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not be available to a person who has altered or is seeking to alter the original dimensions of a structure if, had the alteration not been made, the structure could have been raised to meet the new and appropriate elevation either without the exemption or with an  exemption of lesser degree than is needed with the alteration.

New City Rule Could Make Somerville Housing More Affordable – Real estate news – Boston.com

New City Rule Could Make Somerville Housing More Affordable – Real estate news – Boston.com.

Definitely worth throwing on the table. We have programs that take care of those earning below 80% of median income, but very little for those earning just a hair above that 80% target. Somerville is taking a lead in promoting housing for that forgotten group of working class people who do not qualify for “affordable” housing.  We have it in the Municipally Sponsored Project part of our by-law, which has not been largely used. Perhaps we need to reconsider some aspects of our Affordable Housing By-law. Drop down to 20% for those under 80% of median and make a requirement of 5% to 10% for moderate income households. Perhaps 5% for those earning between 80% and 95% of median and 5% for those earning between 100% and 110% of median income.

 

DWELLING, ONE UNIT WITH ACCESSORY APARTMENT

A second zoning amendment the Planning Board will be discussing tonight deals with allowing for “in-law” apartments. In 1999 the Planning Board brought to Town Meeting amendments to definitions. One definition added was the creation of a term “DWELLING, ONE UNIT WITH ACCESSORY APARTMENT” however, this particular use was never added to the use table.

The Planning Board is considering adding this to the use table and will also be discussing the definition, which is a bit cumbersome at the moment.

Amend Section 5 Definitions by editing  the Definition of DWELLING, ONE UNIT WITH ACCESSORY APARTMENT (Deletions Strikethrough, Additions Bold Italic) as follows:

DWELLING, ONE UNIT WITH ACCESSORY APARTMENT An owner-occupied building containing two (2) dwelling units, one (1) of which shall be an accessory apartment with a net floor living area not to exceed six hundred (600) square feet, which includes not more than one bedroom, a kitchen, living room and bath. For the purpose of this definition, either one unit shall be owner occupied on a year-round basis, except for bona fide temporary absences during which the owner occupied unit shall is not be rented. The apartment created by this definition shall be restricted to use by the property owner’s immediate family, including in-laws (mother, father, brother, sister), and/or a health care professional providing a service to the above family.

Amend Section 2.2.2.2 Residential Uses by adding a new subsection 2.2.2.2.k DWELLING, ONE UNIT WITH ACCESSORY APARTMENT.

PRINCIPAL USES DISTRICT
R-40

R-60

Quivet Neck/Crowe’s Pasture Resource Protection District RR LB EB GC-I GC-II

GC-III

I DPVC

Area A

DPVC

Area B

2. RESIDENTIAL USES
k. Dwelling, One Unit With Accessory Apartment Y N Y Y N N Y N Y Y