Minutes
Bylaw Committee Meeting Minutes
March 7, 2017
The Bylaw Committee convened on March 7, 2017 in Wellfleet Town Hall at 10:10 am. Present at the commencement were members of the Committee: Dawn Rickman, and Secretary Liz Stansell. Also in attendance was Selectman Helen Miranda Wilson. Chairman Roger Putnam arrived while the meeting was in progress.
HMW explained that she found attending committee meetings for Warrant recommendations helpful in understanding the thought behind and the decision process for recommendations. HMW asked the Committee members if they had suggestions for how their input into the Warrant articles could be more successfully disseminated. LS noted that on prior occasions Committee members had directly contacted those Boards responsible for drafting articles with suggestions or corrections as well as Committee members speaking on Town Meeting floor to explain the reasoning or reservations behind the recommendations. LS stated that the minutes for the Bylaw Committee meetings typically memorialized these deliberations and were provided to the Town Administrator’s executive assistant for posting on the website shortly after the meeting.
DR confirmed this practice. HMW agreed but opined that providing the Select Board with a hard copy of the Bylaw Committee minutes to review prior to their final meeting on the Draft Warrant might be helpful. DR suggested HMW direct this request to Executive Assistant M. Miteva. HMW concurred.
DR opened the meeting by verifying that all present had a copy of the Draft Warrant Articles for the 2017 Annual Town Meeting before them and that the articles the Committee proposed to review were numbers 27 through 36.
Article 27
This article would extend the demolition delay period for buildings of historic value from 12 months to 18 months. DR queried whether LS had an objection to this article. LS remarked that the additional period was not particularly onerous. DR noted that the AG had approved the change. LS moved that the Committee recommend Article 27. DR seconded. The motion carried 2-0.
Article 28
This article proposes to ban the use of polystyrene disposable food service containers and cutlery as well as disposable freezer chests from distribution and sale by local restaurants and merchants and is an expansion of the plastic bag ban bylaw. DR speculated that this article would provoke much debate and discussion at Town Meeting. DR and LS agreed that while they had no argument with the spirit of the article or the goal behind it, the application was bound to prove troublesome. DR questioned the feasability of banning plastic cutlery. What is the alternative? HMW commented that our country was just beginning to catch on to practices such as carrying a reuseable bag and a set of one’s own cutlery which are customary in Europe. DR pointed out that even if Wellfleet residents were on notice and quickly adapted to supplying their own cutlery, the main demand would come from day trippers and tourists ordering take out who would need spoons to eat their chowder. LS added that even Whole Foods Market which has recycling bins throughout the store and has switched to paper for all their self-serve prepared foods still has plastic cutlery. HMW noted that the Shellfish Committee had looked at the effect of plastic particles on the harbor and oyster fisheries and that the results were very worrisome. LS agreed and opined that the banning of disposable foam freezer chests was a great thing because of the many times these were thrown as trash on the beach and off of boats. DR interjected that they were useful for transporting live lobsters and shellfish for tourists purchasing in the local fish markets and taking them home, but there was no way to determine if they would be disposed of locally. DR and LS concurred that failing to provide cutlery for take out customers was not an option. After further discussion, none present could offer a disposable alternative to plastic cutlery without further research. LS moved that the Committee recommend Article 28 with the exemption of “Cutlery” from Definitions. DR seconded. The motion carried 2-0.
Article 29
This article extends the period of protection from bylaw amendments to building and special permits from 6 months to 12 and adds the proviso that nonconforming structures or alterations of 10 years or more are considered legal only if no objection as been recorded against them in the Registry of Deeds. These changes mirror those made in 2016 to MGL c. 40A and as such bring Wellfleet into accord with State law. Due to the delays attendant on most construction projects neither DR or LS could see a problem with this change. DR moved that the Committee recommend Article 29. LS seconded. The motion carried 2-0.
Article 30
This article extends the period before a Special Permit lapses by excluding the time utilized in any appeal or determination of an appeal. These changes reflect those made in 2016 to MGL c. 40A. Both DR and LS affirmed this was a minimal, appropriate alteration. LS moved that the Committee recommend Article 30. DR seconded. The motion carried 2-0.
Article 31
This article extends the period before a Special Permit lapses from 2 years to 3. Although MGL does not require municipalities to extend the Special Permit lapse period Town Counsel has recommended these amendments to bring this section into compliance with MGL c. 40A Section 9. HMW remarked that this would bring Wellfleet up to date with current state law. DR and LS agreed that this change was reasonable. LS moved that the Committee recommend Article 31.. DR seconded. The motion carried 2-0.
Article 32
This article seeks to correct a typographical error by deleting a parenthetical note directed to Town Meeting voters which was inadvertently included in the final text of Section IX Overlay Districts, Section 9.3.11.2 of the Zoning Bylaws. DR queried what was an RMD? LS offered that SPGA was Special Permit Granting Authority but that she didn’t know what RMD was and probably neither would the voters, although as the change in the article was not substantive, it was not critical to the Committee’s recommendation. HMW opined that it was probably Registered Marijuana Dispensary but that the abbreviation should be spelled out for its first usage in the article so as to make it clear what the article concerned. DR and LS agreed. HMW offered to oversee the correction of this omission in the final copy of the Warrant. DR moved that the Committee recommend Article 32. LS seconded. The motion carried 2-0.
Article 33
This article amends the Zoning Bylaws by changing the reference to the Town of Wellfleet Zoning Map from a map description including a specific title and date to that on file with the Town Clerk’s office. LS remarked that this would remove the necessity to update the text of the Bylaws whenever there were changes to the Zoning Map. HMW noted that this was a Planning Board Article. DR moved that the Committee recommend Article 33.. LS seconded. The motion carried 2-0.
Article 34
This article revises the Sign Bylaws. DR pointed out that Section II 2.1 Definitions at the very beginning of the article is not struck through and will create a repetition of the section numbering if not corrected. HMW made notations to add this to the corrections to be made to the final copy of the Warrant. LS noted reductions in property line setbacks from 5 feet to 2 feet and decreases in signs projecting over a right of way from 6 feet to 3 feet as well as a decrease in height for Route 6 signs from 12 to10 feet and that temporary signs are now prohibited from sidewalks. DR added off premises signs are now prohibited. HMW remarked that she attended the Planning Board meetings on this article. DR hoped that these new Bylaws would be effectively enforced. HMW opined that having a full time, experienced Building Inspector now should be instrumental in that endeavor. DR moved that the Committee recommend Article 34. LS seconded. The motion carried 2-0.
RP arrived at 10:45 am and apologized, explaining he did not receive DR’s e-mail and was at an appointment when he received M. Miteva’s call. DR and LS offered to review the Committee’s recommendations thus far to obtain RP’s votes, in favor or against for the final Warrant record as RP was already thoroughly and deeply informed on the content of the articles. LS read back the Committee’s recommendations on Articles 27 through 34. RP concurred unanimously with the recommendations made and his vote was added to the Memorandum containing the Committee’s recommendations for inclusion in the Warrant.
Article 35
This article repeals the Zoning Bylaw’s Formula Business Special Permit Bylaw due to it being declared invalid by the Land Court during the Cumberland Farm’s litigation. LS observed that all were familiar with the background of this article. DR moved that the Committee recommend Article 35. LS seconded. The motion carried 3-0.
Article 36
This article adds Food Trucks to the Definitions and Use Regulations of the Zoning Bylaw and specifies the districts where they will be allowed by Special Permit. DR objected to the word “licensed” as applied to the Board of Selectmen in reference to special events, such as Oysterfest. HMW stated that “licensed” had already been changed to “approved” for the final copy of the Warrant as the Board of Selectmen are not responsible for licensing special events and she had noticed this error immediately. DR moved that the Committee recommend Article 36. RP seconded. The motion carried 3-0.
LS completed the Memorandum for the TA and his Executive Assistant outlining the recommendations made by the Committee on each article for inclusion in the Warrant. LS circulated the Memorandum among the Committee members for review and signature.
After brief discussion, RP, DR and LS agreed to meet on Friday, March 10th at 10:00 am for final review and approval of the minutes.
Upon motion made by DR, seconded by LS and unanimously approved the meeting adjourned at 11:00 am.