HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130503-PLUS memo re Baxter Rd Access Relocation_201404071232218787
TO: Libby Gibson, Town Manager
FROM: Andrew Vorce, Director of Planning, PLUS
Kara Buzanoski, DPW Director
Robert Gardner, Director Wannacomet Water Company
RE: Baxter Road Access/Relocation
CC: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator
Richard Ray, Health Director
Date: May 3, 2013
Introduction
Pursuant to your directive, we have met to outline issues related to the possible closure of a section of
Baxter Road in the vicinity of Bayberry Lane and provide a recommendation. Severe erosion experienced
in the vicinity of the eastern side of Baxter Road between numbers 81 and 93 may affect the stability of
the roadway leading to its closure to traffic. In addition, there are subsurface water and sewer lines,
electric service and overhead electric and cable service. If the roadway is compromised in the location
identified, there will be fifteen residential properties at the northern end of Baxter Road with no access
as well as no public access to the Sankaty Lighthouse. There also must be utility relocation or installation
of septic systems for remaining houses to be habitable.
Access Options Page1 There are no public ways connecting Baxter Road to nearby Sankaty (Polpis) Road north of Bayberry
Lane (formerly known as Saint Elmo Lane) so any access connection would require acquisition of
property rights (easement or fee) of private land and there are no existing utility easements. There is
also a large area of wetlands between Baxter Road and Sankaty Road at the center of the block that is a
limiting factor preventing lateral access near Bayberry Lane. Also impacting the options are steep grades
Page2 at the northernmost end of Baxter Road. We identified four primary options for access identified in this
report as “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” with alternates “E”, “F”, “G” and “H” included for discussion. We did not
consider an option of stabilizing the bank so that existing access can be maintained because this
approach involves other parties and environmental considerations beyond the scope of this assignment.
Access “A”: This is the shortest of the possible access points affecting three properties identified as 94
(Assessor Map 48 Parcel 45), 107 Sankaty Road (Assessor Map 48 Parcel 46) and possibly a “paper” road
between 94 and 96 Baxter Road. 94 Baxter Road is a vacant lot with a current assessed value of
$1,863,100. It is zoned Siasconset Residential‐20 (SR‐20) and the owner also owns a developed property
to the south at 92 Baxter Road. It is heavily overgrown and standing water and wetland plants were
visible on the southeastern corner (4/24/2013 site visit). The property at 107 Sankaty Road has a
somewhat dilapidated 1 bedroom structure and no visible wetlands. The land’s assessed value is
$1,693,800 or $55.55 per square foot and located in the Limited Use General‐3 (LUG‐3) zoning district.
Roughly 5,000 square feet would be necessary for a roadway layout at $55.55/square foot is $277,750.
Total land costs based upon the factors above are therefore estimated at $2,140,850. Any final
acquisition costs would have to be confirmed by an appraisal. Removal of land for roadway purposes
would increase non‐conformities for the 107 Sankaty Road property and possibly the others depending
upon final layout. Further study of wetland impacts for this option would be required. Although this
option is north of the current erosion, its location may be close enough to a potential unstable area to
warrant one of the northern options.
Access “B”: Located to the north of “A” this access point would follow a “paper” road between 100 and
104 Baxter Road and affect a property at 115 Sankaty Road. The property at 115 Sankaty Road is a
vacant lot with a 2013 assessed value of $2,561,600. It contains 2.75 acres and is the minimum size lot
for its LUG‐3 zoning designation. Family‐owned property is located at 111 and 117 Sankaty Road to the
north and south. There are no wetland or grade issues with this access option. There are impacts from
the road to both Baxter Road properties with 102 Baxter Road being closest to the edge of the “paper”
street. The rear of a home at 111 Sankaty Road is also somewhat close to the edge of the access option.
Access “C”: This access affects the Sankaty Head Golf Course Inc. property at 125 Sankaty Road
following an easement known as “Sankaty Head Road” (not constructed), a portion of the golf course
land at the southeasterly corner of the property and a “paper” street between 110 and 112 Baxter Road.
The Sankaty Head Golf Course Inc. property is a 65.3 acre parcel assessed at $918,300 under
recreational property allowances of the tax code. This option has the least impact to the operation of
the golf course because it provides separation from the green and affects the edge of the property
which is largely wooded with scrub oak and brush. The “paper” street between 110 and 112 Baxter Road
has moderate grades at the intersection of Baxter Road requiring regarding for access and contains
driveway and landscaping that would be impacted. There is greater separation from abutting residential
uses in this option.
Access “D”: This access follows an unnamed “paper” way at the southerly lot line of the Sankaty Head
Lighthouse property (Sconset Trust), an unconstructed “50’ way” and/or an easement known as
“Sankaty Head Road” and a portion of a “25’ way” (both not constructed) on the Sankaty Golf Club
Page3 property at 125 Sankaty Road, a portion of a parcel owned by the Sconset Trust, former US Coast Guard
land (f.k.a. Assessor Map 48, Parcel 30), from this point, there are three options: “E”, “G” and “H”
discussed below. This option would likely have an effect on adjacent golf course operations, be highly
visible and require significant grade changes.
Alternative “H” continues northerly on the constructed portion of an easement known as “Sankaty Head
Road” to Hoicks Hollow Road, a public way. The way serves 12 seasonal homes and is narrow, with a
surface of sand, shell and gravel. It is private way. “D” and “H” provide the most indirect route.
Alternative “E” would eliminate access over ““Sankaty Head Road” to Hoicks Hollow Road in “D” above
and instead follow a route over the Sconset Trust and Sankaty Head Golf Club, Inc. property to Polpis
(Sankaty) Road as shown as “G”or cross Massachusetts Audubon land to connect to Hoicks Hollow Road,
requiring a taking or other means of acquisition. Both options would impact golf operations and at least
three residential properties built close to the edge of the Sankaty Head golf course property.
Alternative “F” would use a portion of the easement Known as “Sankaty Head Road” (unconstructed) on
the Sankaty Head Golf Club, Inc. property. There are grading and impacts to two residential properties if
this alternative is selected.
Sequence of Impacts
Closure of Baxter Road to traffic is likely to be the initial impact, should sections of the roadway be
impacted by the gradual adjustment of the banks to an angle of repose. Heavy trucks and tour buses
might be initially restricted. Pedestrian access could continue and be relocated to the western edge of
the right‐of‐way for until the erosion significantly advances.
The water line is located on the east side of the road except for the last 600‐700 feet at the northern
terminus of Baxter Road where it transitions to the west side. Relocation could be handled within the
right‐of‐way by moving the line to the far western edge as a temporary installation if necessary.
Electric/cable lines may also be more easily rerouted to the western edge of the right‐of‐way.
The sewer line is located in the middle of the road and relocation once severed may not be feasible or
economically justifiable if it is compromised. Installation of individual septic systems will be problematic
as well however requiring waivers for lot size, proximity to the coastal bank and percolation challenges
due to the presence of clay soils. Tight‐tanks may be a potential solution for seasonal structures only
although a DEP appeal may be justifiable for year‐round use under the circumstances. (Consultation
with Richard Ray, April/May 2013)
Recommendation
Based upon the information we have and the limitations of the assignment, we recommend that Access
“C” is the most advisable and “B” would be the alternate.
Page4 Access “C” largely follows existing easements (Sankaty Head Road) and a “paper” street, has moderate
residential impact to one property (newly constructed 112 Baxter Road) and the least impact to golf
operations on the golf course property, and has lower land damages due to current recreational land
assessment. It is not ideal for sewer relocation (uphill), likely requiring the construction of a pump
station and has possible grading issues, which may require retaining walls and drainage installation.
Access “B”, although shorter and with no wetlands or grading issues, has moderate residential impact
and high value land impacts. Access “B” could be implemented with “C” for differing purposes, ie. a
sewer easement in “B”, one‐way paired streets, etc.
Access “A” is not recommended due to possible wetland impacts, high value land issues and the fact
that it may be in an unstable, erosion prone area requiring another connection in the future.
Access “D” with any of the alternatives is also not recommended due to residential impacts, indirect and
long route distance, grading and construction issues, interference with Sankaty Lighthouse (50’ way is
located east of the current location of the lighthouse and within “Sankaty Head Road” (see attached
easement plan) and cost considerations.
Policy Questions‐Implementation
We believe that there are a number of policy‐level questions that the Board of Selectmen should
provide guidance on and financial analysis of Access “B” and “C” that needs to involve discussions with
the affected property owners if the Board chooses to accept our recommendation. If the Board wishes
to pursue stabilization of the bank to avoid the steps outlined, then direction should be provided. We
have framed some of the questions/direction that we will need to further develop an action plan as
follows:
Is public access (by vehicle, in tours, by foot/bicycle?) to Sankaty Lighthouse a priority?
Should access to sewers (ie: inclusion in sewer district) and/or zoning changes (LUG‐3 to SR‐20) be
considered to minimize damage awards?
Should the takings be temporary or permanent?
Should access impacts be shared at different locations?
Once an overall direction is provided, we will be in a better position to develop necessary warrant
articles, capital budget requests and other documents to implement the access as outlined or other
actions necessary to provide access to the northern portions of Baxter Road should the road be
compromised as discussed. We recommend that decision making occur within the next few months so
that resources can be gathered to address issues related to further erosion.