Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 09/21/2005 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 5 September 21,2005 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21,2005 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—LOWER LEVEL MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred Moore, Chairman Peter J. Pratt,Vice Chairman Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Mike Westcott Board Members Absent: Robert Sturdy Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:02 PM 7:02 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS • 21 BOW ST., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION, APP: STEVEN&DIANE DUTTON, date stamped: 08/30/05. Attorney Richard Henderson was present to represent the application. In its September 7,2005 review of this ZBA Special Permit Application,the Planning Board felt the submitted material was inadequate for the Board to fully evaluate details and to adequately understand the plot plan. The Board therefore voted unanimously to not make a recommendation to the ZBA until the Planning Board could evaluate more detailed information(in the context a Large Home Review if Building Inspector Egan determined that a Large Home Review is required)provided by the applicant. To provide more definitive information,Henderson submitted detailed floor plans and area take-offs for the proposed Dutton Residence.According to the new information,the GSF of living space is 3,493 SF. The mass is<30%coverage and the house is<20%coverage. Existing non-conformity does not become any more non-conforming post construction. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this Special Permit Application. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3-0 MOTION APPROVED • 355 ATLANTIC AVE., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APP: DOUGLAS McNARY, date stamped: 09/20/05 Building Inspector Egan explained that the applicant would like to replace an existing non- conforming garage with a new garage. While the proposed garage will also be non-conforming, it will be slightly less non-conforming than the existing. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this Special Permit Application. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3-0 MOTION APPROVED • 38 ATLANTIC AVE., AMEND SPECIAL PERMIT,APP: PETER& CAROL BROWN, date stamped: 09/20/05. Building Inspector Egan explained that in a June 9,2005 decision,the ZBA approved putting a pitched roof on one tower,but denied increasing the height of a second tower, directing the applicant to keep the height of the second tower lower. Constructively, this does not work as it creates a chronic water leakage problem. The applicant therefore would like approval of a revised design that lowers the height of the new roof so as not to exceed the height of the main tower as approved by the ZBA on 06/09/05. Egan felt this was a minor modification. (Planning Board had already approved at a higher level at its 04/03/05 meeting). MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this Amendment to Special Permit #05-04-13 as it is,in the opinion of the Planning Board, a minor alteration. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3-0 MOTION APPROVED • 85 ELM ST., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APP: VALERIE LIPSETT,date stamped: 09/20/05. Building Inspector Egan explained that this application involves two side by side barns which share a party wall, one owned by the Lipsetts and one owned by the Fultons. The barns are in poor condition and are in the Planning Board Meeting 2 of 5 September 21,2005 flood plain. The applicant,Valerie Lipsett,wants to tear down her barn and rebuild it 4' from the Fulton's barn. The existing barns are non-conforming. The proposed barn will still be non-conforming although less non- conforming that the existing. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this special permit application with a cautionary note to the applicant to ensure that the Fulton's neighboring barn is not adversely affected during tear down and reconstruction of the Lipsett's new barn. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3-0 MOTION APPROVED 7:15 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • DISCUSSION—ATTORNEY HUMPHREYS' REQUEST TO WAIVE ENGINEERING AND LEGAL FEES FOR MILL RIVER SPR. MOTION: by Member Pratt to waive the fee deposit for engineering and legal fees,with the Town reserving the right to request the fees if/when determined necessary. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 3-0 MOTION APPROVED • VOTE TO ACCEPT 06/29/05 and 09/07/05 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept the 06/29/05 and 09/07/05 minutes. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3-0 MOTION APPROVED 7:30 P.M. 247 FOREST AVENUE,LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING,APP: WILMARC CHARLES, OWNER: RENATA KLUZA, date stamped: 09/06/05, (35 day deadline for public hearing=10110105.) Member Ivimey read public hearing notice. Owner Renata Kluza and Attorney Michael Cook were in attendance to represent the application.Applicant Wilmarc Charles was not in attendance due to conflicting personal committment. Member Moore pointed out that this current filing is being considered totally new and separate from the filing by the same applicant and owner that the Planning Board reviewed in June, 2005. Attorney Cook noted that the new filing is essentially the same as the last filing,the only substantive change is the location of the garage to under the house instead of projecting out from the house. Zoning issues before the ZBA have been resolved as reconfiguring the garage eliminated the need for a variance and the special permit was granted for the second story on the Forest Ave. side of the house. Public comment: Albert Buckley, 243 Forest Avenue noted that the septic has not passed Title V and that no occupancy permit can be issue unless the septic passes according to the ZBA decision dated 05105105. Two major issues were addressed: Septic System: Member Pratt noted the September 15,2005 letter from the Board of Health stated that"the existing septic systems (two)were built to accommodate a total of 5 bedrooms. The proposed house has 7 rooms which equates to 5 bedrooms per definition of Title 5." "The septic tank for one septic system may have to be replaced pending further investigation by the applicant. If the septic tank does not need to be replaced,the applicant would need to seek a variance from the Board of Health because the proposed garage does not meet the setback requirement from the existing septic tank."Member Pratt felt strongly that the detail about the septic system was vital. Member Moore requested full septic plans to obtain a complete and thorough idea of the design of the system and to determine if there is a potential disruption to neighborhood. Attorney Cook objected to this request stating that this is not relevant at this time,that it is not relevant to the Large Home Review,that it is premature at this time to look a the septic and what may need to be done and,that this is beyond the parameters of Planning Board authority. Attorney Cook stated confidence in the fact that the septic system is fine and that the applicant is not obligated to assume that the septic system or leaching field will need to be rebuilt. Member Moore continued to stress that it does not make sense for the Planning Board to review plans which could potentially change significantly if the septic system does not pass Title 5. Member Moore further noted that review of a large home takes an extra measure of scrutiny and that he is very uncomfortable not knowing if an existing septic system will or will not work for a proposed large home. Member Ivimey felt the applicant is trying to restrict the Planning Board to a review of the building proper and not the entire site whereas the Large Home Review is tripped by the entire site,not just the building on the site. Planning Board Meeting 3 of 5 September 21,2005 Height calculations: Member Ivimey questioned whether the widow's walk was included in the height calculations. He believed the height calculation should be based from the base of the garage to the top of the railing on the widow's walk. In a written review of the filing to the Planning Board, dated September 14,2005, Town Planner Harrington noted this as a missing item in the submitted documents and requested that the applicant submit this detail as well as information about average grade, existing and proposed grading and overall massing of the structure for the public hearing meeting. Additionally, on September 14, 2005,Harrington met with the applicant and reviewed these written comments. To date,this information has not been submitted. Member Ivimey would like to have the widow's walk removed, feeling it would be better for the neighbors not to have this towering over them. Member Pratt pointed out that the Planning Board can reject the plans if items on the checklist are missing. A motion was made and seconded to continue the public hearing to the October 5, 2005 Planning Board meeting requesting the applicant to submit the information missing on the application checklist and detailed information about the septic system. Attorney Cook respectfully declined this request after which Member Pratt withdrew his motion. Building Inspector Egan recommended to Attorney Cook that he not decline the continuance of the public hearing as these are questions that can easily be answered at the October meeting which will keep the process moving forward for the applicant. Attorney Cook felt he could not promise that information about what is going to be done to the septic or how they are going to pass Title 5 is going to be available at the next hearing date. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the Building Inspector not issue permits based upon the filings before the Planning Board which the Board finds to be inadequate for reasons that the applicant failed to include adequate data about the septic systems,the height issues and other points referenced in Town Planner Harrington's September 14,2005 memo. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED Member Moore pointed out to Attorney Cook,that if a Large Home Review Application is filed again by this applicant,the Board expects to see all the details and information mentioned above. 8:15 P.M. 15 HAYSTACK LANE, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING,LARGE HOME REVIEW, APP: MARK PETROCELLI, OWNER: HAYSTACK LANE REALTY TRUST,date stamped: 08/11/05. (35 day deadline for public hearing=09/14/05) Applicant Mark Petrocelli,Attorney Walter Sullivan,Neil Murphy in attendance to represent applicant. Attorney Sullivan addressed issues from last meeting: Covenant restrictions: Covenant was submitted to Planning Board. Sullivan believes the only sections that concern the Large Home Review are sections 2 concerning building plan review and section 5F concerning height limitations. Covenant is very clear regarding a 2-1/2 story height restriction except for specified lots (none of which is lot#12 of this application)which are restricted to 1-1/2 stories. Member Ivimey felt the proposed large home is 3 stories. Member Ivimey asked if the government is the arbiter of this covenant or if this is a private agreement enforceable by private individuals. Sullivan explained that this covenant expired on 01/01/00 and that there was an extension filed, signed by 4-5 of the lot owners (not including owner of lot 12)as original developer no longer owns any lots in the subdivision. Member Ivimey asked public if anyone had any sense as to why this Board should enforce a private agreement. Virginia Riley, 17 Haystack Lane indicated that the developer,Irwin Golden, is alive and does still own 3 lots and has rights to enforce the agreement. Sullivan stated that the agreement passes on to the residents. Member Ivimey questions if the Planning Board can become involved in enforcing an agreement that the Town is not a party to. Member Pratt agreed that the Town would be hard pressed to enforce a civil matter between private land owners but in light of section 5.5.2 of the Large Home Review, (harmful and injurious to neighborhood),the Planning Board is charged with looking at harmonious aspects under 5.5.2 and can look at the protective restrictions. Sullivan stated that there is nothing in the records to indicate that Cohasset Estates Inc. continues to own land in the subdivision or continues to be a valid standard for enforcing the covenant and that another reviewing/enforcing entity was not designated. Edwin Tebbetts, 9 Jerusalem Road Drive,has owned abutting land—lot 9 - for 45 years which has been subject to restrictions. The restrictions applied for 50 years and were renewed in 01/01/00. He read from p. 2 of the extension of the covenant: "in the event of a violation or attempt to violate any of the covenant restrictions contained in said agreement ... may be enforced by any person or persons owning real property situated in this tract ... ". He further noted that twelve property owners signed the extension which was also notarized. Sullivan noted that the restriction is 2-1/2 stories and that the applicant is not planning a violation. Planning Board Meeting 4 of 5 September 21,2005 Heght: Member Moore thinks the drawing is>2-1/2 stories. Sullivan noted that the definition of a'/2 story is"at a height of 4' above the floor shall not exceed 2/3 of the floor area of the story immediately below". Member Moore thinks the proposed building is 3 stories. Building Inspector Egan pointed out that the definition of story is different than the more conservative State Code definition which may mean the plans meet the covenant definition while not meeting the State definition. Member Pratt felt the plans do not make an effort to fit the house into this plot of land and seem intrusive on and not compatible with the neighborhood and that this is a huge mass on a small lot. Member Moore noted that this is a very steep lot and that from the base of the driveway to the top of the turret is approx. 70'. Member Westcott felt this is height is absurd and not compatible or harmonious with the neighborhood and that the design could be modified(e.g. remove %2 story and the turrets)to reduce the massing without impacting the SF of the house. Sulllivan pointed out that the calculations were done by the bylaw which does not address or control severe slope. Member Ivimey noted that the public has indicated they will litigate so he questioned why the applicant would not want to redesign and avoid litigation. Member Moore thought the Board cannot address the issue without covenant clarification and without advice from Town Counsel. Abutter Nancy O'Toole, 13 Haystack Lane (lot#13)noted that 10' off her lot line will be a 40' long,4' high retaining wall to accommodate septic. Member Moore noted this is not on the site plan submitted to the Planning Board. Member Pratt would like to see the BOH septic plan submittal on the Planning Board site plan. Blasting_Blasting report was submitted. Atlantic Blasting Co.will handle blasting. Blasting is a 6' cut area, approx. 551 cubic yds. of ledge to be removed. 1-2 days of blasting. Member Pratt noted that a preblast survey will be required for this site as was required for 6 Deep Run. Surface Water Runoff: Plan was submitted by Neil Murphy of impervious run-off. Murphy stated that there will be no increase in runoff. Runoff will drain towards O'Toole's as it does now. Plans are to install roof drains and downspouts at 5 points so water drains into soil, resulting in less water drain off post development. Member Pratt stated that he is still concerned they will find surface water&pooling. John Riley, 17 Haystack Lane, stated that the plan says coverage is 29%but looks more like 50%. Charles Hurd, 18 Jerusalem Road Drive,resides at the lowest point and noted that rainwater collects on his land—he is concerned that his situation will be made worse. Murphy explained that the added drywells store water temporarily to slow down the release of the water to where it has always gone. Further he noted that Haystack Lane has always had a water problem,that these plans do not make the existing problem worse and in fact decrease the severity of the problem somewhat. Member Pratt would like Town Engineer John Modzelewski to review the submitted drainage calculations. Member Moore felt the drainage seems to have been dealt with but he is still concerned about the architectural design and massing. Kevin Mirise,40 Jerusalem Road Drive,noted again that the covenant clearly defines what the neighbors consider a violation of what is considered harmonious. John Riley, 17 Haystack Lane, commented that everyone who has bought property has been well aware of the covenant restrictions and that residents have the enforcement rights of a corporation to maintain conformity and harmony of external design with existing structures through review and approval of plans and that the applicant must present bldg. and site plans for residents to approve or reject. The applicant acknowledged his obligation to present plans to covenant design/review committee and stated that he did communicate with and present pictures to Sean Cunning which Mr. Cunning acknowledge to Attorney Sullivan. Member Westcott reiterated the massing issues and that redesign could lower the height while maintaining the square footage of living space and that the public hearing could be continued until the applicant is ready with new plans. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue the public hearing to October 19,2005 at time to be determined. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED 9:45 P.M. ADMINISTRATION (CONT'D) • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Member Moore pointed out the need to reestablish the Design Review Committee. Town Planner Harrington will contact Bill Good to confirm his interest in serving on this committee and will determine whether Planning Board or Board of Selectmen should reestablish. • VOTE TO ACCEPT MASTER PLAN FINAL EXEC. SUMMARY Major changes up to and including 06/09/05 meeting included: p.4: strike out of net annual impact of the commercial growth scenario in bullet#2 under scenario analysis - p.5: comments from Town Counsel re: creation of Municipal Harbor plan due by end of week - p. 6: Creative Land Development model from Lincoln,MA added Planning Board Meeting 5 of 5 September 21,2005 - p. 6: updated median price of single family home to $774,000. - p. 7: specific mention made of coordinating Municipal Harbor Plan with Econ. Development Committee - p. 10: point e: same as comment on p. 7 above - p. 10:point 8a: added"particularly in relation to Greenbush Commuter Rail stations and related facilities. Points still outstanding are: - still need clarification about#of school age children factored in the scenario analysis—Member Pratt to address - changes within the full body of the document - clarification of when Planning Board wants to forward Executive Summary to BOS for comment Action to be taken by Town Planner Harrington: • Scenario Analysis,p.4,bullet#1 —delete sentence 2 and 3 from bullet#1 and let the BOS know that comment is needed on Scenario Analysis section. • reword Ft sentence of bullet#3 under Scenario Analysis,p. 4. • stamp every page"draft"before forwarding to BOS • as a courtesy, send Executive Summary to the BOS for review and final comment with the indication that although very close the Planning Board has not yet voted final approval yet and clearly point out that the entire body of the Master Plan has not been approved yet • have a clear end date for comments • ECONOMIC REVIEW COMMITTEE Mike Westcott to represent Planning Board. Planning Board Administrator to send memo to Town Manager indicating this. • 154/156 KING STREET Permanent"No Left Turn"sign not installed yet. Left Turns are occurring and causing some traffic issues. Officer will be stationed there temporarily to enforce no left turns. 10:10 P.M. WAYNE SAWCHUK, COHASSET VILLAGE PROJECT & ZONING BYLAWS Board agrees with changes suggested by Sawchuk at 09/07/05 meeting. Sawchuk will draft zoning articles. Planning Board will sponsor for Town Meeting. Town Planner Harrington, Sawchuk,Building Inspector Egan and Engineer Don Sprigetti will meet on 09/28/05 to work on the articles. If this is going to be a Special Permit it should very clearly reference Special Permit rules used by the ZBA. Will send to Town Counsel for review. Planning Board Administrator to send memo to Town Manger advising him that these zoning bylaws are to be expected. Sawchuk also asked if the Planning Board will support a group of business people that would like to put brick into sidewalks at their own expense. Cost to do this is<Waterfield quote and will be approx. $22,500 split 5/6 ways. Sawchuk will be making same request of BOS. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to support local businesses installing brick sidewalks at their own expense. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED Sawchuk will draft letter of support for Planning Board to review, sign. Member Pratt suggested declaring the downtown to be an incremental financing tax district so a %age of the new tax levy could be taken and put towards a project that could be a municipal garage. He will circulate information. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn. SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 10:25 P.M. NEXT MEETING: Wednesday,October 5,2005, 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: