RPP Subcommittee Members Present: Subcommittee Chair Elizabeth Taylor, Jacqueline Etsten, Kevin Grunwald, Charles McCaffrey

Transcription

1 Cape Cod Commission Regional Policy Plan Subcommittee Meeting Cape Cod Commission Large Conference Room 3225 Main Street, Barnstable, MA November 29, 2018 The meeting of the Cape Cod Commission s Regional Policy Plan (RPP) Subcommittee convened on November 29, 2018 at 12:30 p.m. in the Cape Cod Commission Large ( Ocean ) Conference Room, 3225 Main Street, Barnstable, MA with a quorum of Subcommittee members present. RPP Subcommittee Members Present: Subcommittee Chair Elizabeth Taylor, Jacqueline Etsten, Kevin Grunwald, Charles McCaffrey Commission members present: Harold Mitchell, Commission Chair Ms. Taylor called for a motion to approve the Subcommittee meeting minutes of November 1, Mr. Grunwald so moved, seconded by Ms. Etsten. The motion carried unanimously, with Mr. McCaffrey abstaining. Ms. Taylor then read the meeting notice and opened the Subcommittee s review and discussion of the Ocean Resources, Capital Facilities and Infrastructure, and Housing Technical Bulletins (TB). The Commission s Chief of Staff/ Affordable Housing Specialist Heather Harper began by presenting the Housing Technical Bulletin, using a PowerPoint presentation. She gave a general overview of the Housing Goal and Objectives HOU1, HOU2, HOU3 and HOU4 from the draft RPP, including when these various objectives might apply during Development of Impact (DRI) review. She reviewed the Housing TB s methods under objective HOU1, which deal with increasing housing diversity and choice. Methods vary from encouraging redevelopment and re-use of existing buildings for housing, to creating small scale housing. She reviewed Housing objectives HOU2 and HOU3 and their corresponding methods which deal, respectively, with creating year-round units (including seasonal workforce units) and improving and preserving existing housing stock in the region. She reviewed the last Housing objective HOU4 that deals with housing affordability, which has historically been the Commission's focus in the RPP and in DRI review. She said that, pursuant to this objective, any DRI that proposes ten or more residential lots or units would be required to deed restrict at least 10% of the proposed lots or units as affordable. However, the Commission would have the discretion to allow year-round workforce or rental units to satisfy the affordability requirements, and could allow payments or off-site units in lieu of on-site affordability restrictions. RPP SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES-11/29/18-PAGE 1

2 She completed her presentation by reviewing the application materials section of the Housing TB. The section calls for a project description of the housing units, including the proposed location and size of affordable housing units within the development, and copies of proposed draft affordability restrictions, appraisals, and marketing plans, as applicable. Regarding Housing objective HOU2, Mr. Grunwald asked about the administration and enforcement of an affidavit that might be offered by an applicant to ensure that certain housing units are limited to year-round rental use. Ms. Harper answered that such an affidavit would be a title document recorded against subject property, and would be enforceable by the relevant town. Mr. McCaffrey asked about the difference between year-round and seasonal housing. Ms. Harper responded that this distinction is spelled out in the Housing TB. Mr. McCaffrey followed up by noting the DRI approved within the last few years by the Commission for the Cape Club (former Ballymeade Country Club) in Falmouth, which included proposed detached singlefamily residences that will likely be used seasonally. Ms. Harper noted that there will continue to be, given the Cape s economy and housing market, demand for homes used and occupied seasonally notwithstanding the CCC s objective of promoting the creation of additional yearround units, and different housing types. Ms. Taylor asked about incentivizing the creation of duplexes rather than detached single family homes and whether DRI affordable housing mitigation funds could be used to improve the habitability of existing units, in conjunction with municipal affordable housing trusts. Ms. Harper said that there is flexibility in the Housing TB to use such funds as suggested, and said that duplexes were a housing type referenced in the Housing TB. Ms. Taylor asked whether most of the Cape towns have affordable housing trusts. Ms. Harper responded that they are not uncommon on the Cape, but it varies from town to town. Ms. Etsten commented that she thinks there should be greater reference to natural resources protection in the Housing TB, though she recognizes that there are other TBs which deal more specifically with natural resources protection. Ms. Harper responded by referencing certain sections of the Housing TB, like the Placetype table, that she suggests deal with natural resources protection vis a vis housing siting and development. Ms. Etsten expressed that the Housing TB should deal more with the design of housing, and that all homes should have front door entry that relates such housing to the adjacent street corridor and larger community. She also mentioned what she believes to be the limit of 4 units per acre for residential septic systems, that she believes senior housing should be designed differently than other housing (given its intended residents), and that affordable housing units should be small and developed in a dispersed manner generally among all housing units. Mr. McCaffrey commented that he thinks there should be express consideration for preserving areas for future possible maritime uses, not just existing uses, in the Maritime Area Placetypes. RPP SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES-11/29/18-PAGE 2

3 He also commented that introduction of newer, non-maritime uses in such areas could create compatibility or nuisance issues with maritime related uses and development. Ms. Etsten commented that she thinks housing uses in Maritime Areas should be limited, in order to preserve the maritime character and traditional uses and activities in Maritime Areas. Ms. Taylor asked why housing is not encouraged in Industrial Activity Centers (IACs), as stated in the Housing TB. She provided some examples where she thought that housing and industrial uses might work well together, especially where Cape Cod s industrial-type uses are generally not all that intense or noxious. The Commission s Chief Planner, Sharon Rooney, responded that housing isn't absolutely prohibited in such areas, but that IACs are specifically mapped from a larger domain of industrial land on Cape Cod, and because of the suitability of such land for certain industrial uses, should generally be preserved for such uses, where housing and other uses could be developed in other areas of the Cape. Ms. Rooney then presented the Capital Facilities and Infrastructure (CFI) TB, with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation. She said this would be the first time the Commission has had a dedicated Capital Facilities and infrastructure technical bulletin. She discussed the definitional and other differences between infrastructure and Capital Facilities, though this CFI TB deals with both. As defined in this TB, infrastructure includes Capital Facilities, the latter of which is specifically defined in the Commission Act. She provided some examples of infrastructure types, which are contained in the definition. She reviewed the first of the two objectives in the CFI TB, which objective emphasizes sustainability and resiliency. The corresponding methods relate to and include collocation, siting outside natural hazard areas, and supporting compact land use patterns. The second objective deals with infrastructure coordination. Related methods include site sharing, using existing easements for siting, and diversifying industry through providing the necessary supporting infrastructure. She then reviewed the CFI TB application materials, including a statement of need, resiliency statement and an alternatives analysis. Mr. McCaffrey asked why energy generation is not referenced in the CFI TB but energy distribution is? Ms. Rooney said that the Energy TB would also apply, but that the specific reference to energy distribution as an example is not intended to exclude energy generation infrastructure from the purview of the CFI TB. Ms. Taylor noted that many of the infrastructure projects on Cape Cod do not require DRI review, but that it is important that infrastructure projects should be pursued in accordance with the practices and policies set out in the CFI TB (which only apply within required DRI RPP SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES-11/29/18-PAGE 3

4 review). Ms. Rooney discussed how such best practices could be incorporated into the ways non-dri infrastructure projects are designed and pursued. Mr. Grunwald asked what the DRI thresholds were for infrastructure projects. Ms. Rooney responded that infrastructure projects that come under DRI jurisdiction generally come to the Commission through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) thresholds. Commission regulatory staff Jon Idman added that there are some other relevant DRI thresholds, though, such as the ones relating to wireless communication towers or outdoor commercial space greater than 40,000 square feet. Ms. Taylor mentioned the relationship of infrastructure projects that usually involve more than one town. Ms. Rooney reminded the Subcommittee that preparation and establishment of a regional Capital Infrastructure Plan is an action item in the draft RPP, which would involve a very broad cross-section of regional stakeholders and authorities. She noted that the development of a regional Capital Infrastructure Plan would help coordinate actions and projects by and between towns. Ms. Taylor mentioned that she thought there would likely be better funding and grant opportunities for infrastructure if there was a such a regional capital plan. Ms. Etsten mentioned that in her estimation wastewater treatment is the region's greatest capital facilities need, and thinks that the CFI TB should be more explicit about it. The Commission s Executive Director Kristy Senatori agreed that wastewater treatment infrastructure is a regional priority. She mentioned that the Commission develops and maintains plans outside and complementing the RPP, such as the updated and approved Areawide water quality, Section 208 plan and related initiatives, which deal directly with wastewater and water quality infrastructure and planning for the region. Ms. Rooney offered that wastewater planning and infrastructure is mentioned many times throughout all of the TBs, but that the CFI TB would apply to wastewater infrastructure as might be presented to the Commission during DRI review. Ms. Taylor asked whether waste management infrastructure is covered under the CFI TB. Ms. Rooney stated that in addition to the dedicated Waste Management TB, the CFI TB covers waste management infrastructure, and is specifically included in the Capital Facilities definition. The Commission s Natural Resources Specialist, Heather McElroy, then presented the Ocean Resources TB, using a PowerPoint presentation. She said that the Commission does not review many ocean-based DRIs, but there is the potential that such projects may be proposed and require DRI review, for instance, with certain off-shore wind energy projects. She noted that the Ocean Resources goal and objectives that she will present in the Ocean Resources TB have been amended from those appearing in draft RPP as released for public comment. She advised that the draft RPP would be revised to conform to the revised language of the Ocean Resources TB. RPP SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES-11/29/18-PAGE 4

5 She reviewed the three objectives from the Ocean Resources TB, and specifically referenced the relation of said objectives to the Commonwealth s and Cape Cod s respective Ocean Management Plans (OMPs). She said that the first objective deals with locating development away from sensitive resources; the second objective deals with protecting ocean habitat; and the third objective deals with protecting human uses and scenic resources. She continued that the methods related to the first objective specifically reference sensitive resources like rare species habitat, and prohibited and exclusionary areas as identified in the Cape Cod OMP established to protect habitats for ocean species like whales. The methods related to the second objective deal with protecting specific species like whales, rare or endangered species, eelgrass, fish, and benthic species. She mentioned construction and operational controls like time of year (TOY) restrictions to deal with impact to resources. She mentioned the importance of looking at collective human activities and cumulative impacts of such activities in the ocean, including the effects of noise on ocean species. She also mentioned the policy of using existing ocean conduit routes to locate activities. She said that the methods associated with the third objective include providing buffers to navigation channels, protecting the fishing industry and recreational interests, and preserving archaeological sites and natural ocean character. She then reviewed the application materials section, which she noted was very detailed and incorporates work done with the Center for Coastal Studies a few years ago. She reviewed the specific items like spatial impacts analyses. She completed her presentation by mentioning the reference section which provides citations to existing relevant laws, guidance, etc. Mr. McCaffrey mentioned the potential applicability of the Ocean Resources goal and objectives within DRI review. He thinks that coastal processes discussion in the TB should be broader and more detailed, beyond just habitat or species impacts. He thinks that there is independent value in reviewing the effect of off-shore projects on coastal processes, beyond just effects on habitat and species, especially as various sand mining projects for nourishment projects may be pursued off-shore over the next few years. He feels that preservation of coastal processes could be its own RPP goal. Ms. Taylor asked about the ability to collect mitigation to address ocean resource impacts. Ms. McElroy responded that she believes the Commonwealth can require and collect mitigation under the Massachusetts OMP. Ms. Taylor would like to see a fund created for the purpose of removing abandoned fishing gear from ocean waters. Ms. McElroy said that she is liaison to the Massachusetts Ocean Advisory Commission which will soon begin the update of the State s Ocean Management Plan, and that she can raise that idea at a meeting of that group. RPP SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES-11/29/18-PAGE 5

6 Mr. Grunwald asked about what ocean-based DRIs the Commission has reviewed in the past. Ms. McElroy referenced the hybrid Comcast/NSTAR submarine cable from Falmouth to Martha s Vineyard. Ms. Etsten questioned whether the Commission has reviewed Steamship Authority projects in the past as DRIs. Ms. McElroy responded that the Commission does not have mandatory jurisdiction over the Steamship Authority or other State entities under the Commission Act. Ms. Taylor asked about any potential statutory changes to the extent of Massachusetts ownership or jurisdiction in ocean waters. Ms. McElroy said she was not aware of any changes pending or under discussion at this time. Ms. McElroy concluded and reminded the Subcommittee members that various of the methods discussed in the Ocean Resources TB are "musts," i.e. requirements for DRI review when review under Ocean Resources is applicable. Noting that the RPP Subcommittee had now reviewed all fourteen of the proposed, draft TBs, Ms. Taylor asked generally about the comment period for the draft TB's, especially given the December holidays. Ms. Senatori noted that the Commission would formally open the public comment period on the TBs at its meeting immediately following the Subcommittee s meeting. She said that a comment period isn't required under the Commission Act, but she and other staff felt that one was important. The 30-day comment period would end in late December Commission counsel Jessica Wielgus mentioned a potential RPP Subcommittee hearing on Thursday January 3, 2019 to discuss comments received during the TBs comment period. Ms. Etsten noted that she would ultimately like to meet as a Subcommittee to review any TB revised as a result of public comment received, and that any revisions should be presented in redline to the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee expressed a desire and individual availability to so meet on January 3, 2019 at Commission offices to review TB public comments, preferably at 2 PM. Ms. Taylor asked about comments to date on the TBs that have been reviewed by the Subcommittee and posted in draft form to the Commission s website. Ms. Senatori responded that no public comments have yet been received on those TBs. New Business: Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair more than 48 hours before the meeting. No new business was raised or discussed. The meeting of the RPP subcommittee adjourned at 1:46 PM. RPP SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES-11/29/18-PAGE 6

7 Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Taylor, RPP Subcommittee Chair List of Documents Used/Presented at the November 29, 2018 RPP Subcommittee Meeting RPP Subcommittee minutes from November 1, 2018 meeting November 29, 2018 Regional Policy Plan (RPP) subcommittee meeting agenda. Draft Housing, Capital Facilities and Infrastructure, and Ocean Resources Technical Bulletins. Power Point from Commission staff for RPP Subcommittee meeting, November 29, 2018, consisting of 31 slides, entitled Technical Bulletin Review, Housing, Capital Facilities, Ocean Resources. RPP SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES-11/29/18-PAGE 7