Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 09/07/2005 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 5 September 7,2005 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7,2005 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—SELECTMEN'S 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: 7:05 PM 7:05 P.M. LEDGEWOOD FARM DRIVE Member Moore explained that this is not a public hearing and that there is not a filing before the Planning Board so Planning Board opinions cannot be offered and the Planning Board has no role in this dispute until a filing is presented. This agenda item is an opportunity for him to bring Planning Board members up-to-date regarding the current dispute with the MBTA over Collins access to property— specifically, about ownership and rights of way. These roads have not been accepted and anyone who wanted to add a house would have to come before the Planning Board and reopen this filing. The land in dispute is near Gannet Pasture Lane in Scituate. MBTA seems to be rethinking the whole matter as neither Cohasset nor Scituate has wanted road open through to both towns. Building Commissioner Egan issued a cease&desist. Member Pratt stated that a public right of way cannot be extended across a county bound without an act of legislature. 7:10 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS (ZBA Rees were begun at 7:10 PM and addressed until 7:30 PM when the Haystack Lane public hearing was started. ZBA recs were then continued from 8:30 to 9:15 PM) • 26 STANTON RD., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APP: ANDREW&REGINA CHURCH, date stamped: 08/30/05. Building Inspector Egan explained that the plan is for a large addition sideways to the house. Meets most setback requirements but requests relief in an arc from the front setback that runs through the garage for the second floor. Egan also mentioned that it may need a large home review(approx. 4700 SF?). Member Moore felt he would be more comfortable making a recommendation on the setback issue after the Planning Board has reviewed architectural plans,massing etc.via a complete Large Home Plan Review. MOTION: by Member Pratt to recommend that the applicants request a continuance,without prejudice, from the ZBA while filing for a Large Home Review with the Planning Board. SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • 44 BEACH ST., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION, APP: PAUL OGNIBENE, date stamped: 08/30/05. Building Inspector Egan noted that ZBA gave applicant all the relief requested but needed more information on flood plain. Application is for 3 telephone poles to be placed in the flood plain for construction of a deck. Egan and Town Planner Harrington noted that this is an acceptable approach done all the time. Harrington also noted that the plans do not have a revision date on them. MOTION: by Member Pratt to recommend that the ZBA approve this Special Permit Application. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • 21 BOW ST., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION, APP: STEVEN&DIANE DUTTON, date stamped: 08/30/05. Building Commissioner Egan noted that this was a tear down situation which is essentially trading one non-conformity for another that will not be any worse than the original one. He noted that the lot is small and has some conservation restrictions which would prevent the applicant from a design which would bring it Planning Board Meeting 2 of 5 September 7,2005 into compliance. He also noted that this may also require a Large Home Review and that he is waiting for a letter from the architect with a SF calculation so he can determine this definitively. Member Moore felt that it is difficult to make a recommendation because the submitted material is inadequate for the Board to fully evaluate details and understand the plot plan. MOTION: by Member Westcott that the Planning Board not make a recommendation to the ZBA until the Planning Board can evaluate more detailed information (in the context a Large Home Review if Egan determines that a Large Home Review is required)provided by the applicant. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • 2 SMITH PLACE, SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APP: RICHARD BROWN, date stamped: 08/30/05 Peter Pratt recused. Building Inspector Egan noted that this application was a continuation of the Site Plan Review process. He explained that some of the property is in the old flood plan map (on the back of the old zoning map which everyone agrees in inaccurate and outdated and should probably be deleted from the bylaw) but is OK by the Federal map. Egan feels it meets the criteria for a special permit. Member Ivimey views this as an application for zoning relief for setbacks that do not conform with a residential area (part of property is in RA District and part in DB). Member Westcott disagreed stating that this qualifies as DB as the majority of it is in DB. MOTION: by Member Moore to recommend that the ZBA approve this Special Permit since the maps are out of date and construction has been routinely allowed under these circumstances. SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 2- 1 MOTION APPROVED • 19 ATLANTIC AVENUE, SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APP: JANET&JEFF BARKER, date stamped: 08/30/05. Building Commissioner explained that the original house on this lot burned down about 30 years ago and was not rebuilt. Lot is non-conforming and was laid out and recorded prior to zoning. The house will conform to current setback requirements except that there is no frontage so it will be non-conforming. The question is whether the right to rebuild a non-conforming house is lost after 3 years has passed. Planning Board members were not confident about their ability to address the legal questions raised. MOTION: by Member Westcott to not make a recommendation to the ZBA feeling that there are legal issues to be resolved which the Planning Board is not qualified to decide. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • 7 PARKER AVENUE, SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APP: JOHN &KATHLEEN NAPLES, date stamped: 08/30/05 Building Inspector Egan explained that this is a good sized expansion with nonconforming issues and setback issues on one side. Applicant wants to push garage over—this one storage garage will need 10' setback. Rear will have a 2nd story. Proposed chimney gets the building closer than existing (7.24') and would require variance which would be difficult to justify. Footprint is 22%of lot area but ZBA will allow special permit for smaller lots. Member Westcott was concerned about massing on this small lot(7867 SF). MOTION: by Member Westcott to recommend that the applicant consider an alternate design and build within the required setback rather than increase the non-conformity. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • 380 CJCH, VARIANCE APPLICATION,APP: FENS SHUI RESTAURANT,date stamped: 08/30/05. Building Inspector Egan explained that the end unit of the Mall faces two directions—the parking lot and Rt. 3A Past two tenants requested and,were allowed a second sign, one for each direction. This new tenant is also requesting a second sign. Member Westcott was in favor of this since it has been approved for other tenants and,he felt it was a way of welcoming, encouraging, supporting commerce. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this variance application. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED 7:30 P.M. 15 HAYSTACK LANE, 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) App. Mark Petrocelli,Attorney Walter Sullivan,Neil Murphy,Engineer and Richard Vaisey,Architect,present to represent application. Member Ivimey read public hearing advertisement. Planning Board Meeting 3 of 5 September 7,2005 08/30/05 submission from Richard Vaisey addressed concerns raised by Town Planner Harrington. Vaisey explained that original house was torn down and application is for reconstruction of a 2-1/2 story contemporary colonial house with turret,unfinished attic and separate, adjacent 3 car garage that can be accessed from basement, with patio between garage and main house. Meets all zoning height and setback requirements. Lot is 26,257 SSF. RB zoned. Original structure was conforming when built. Proposed grade is(average between front and rear)is 62.5'. Garage as separate structure requires 20' setback(as connected structure, setback is 15')and is being held at 20'. Previous heights were house-20' and garage-11'. Proposed house- 35' high. Elevation to peak of turret is 42'. Member Westcott questioned the average grade and is concerned about massing from the steep slope. Ledge will not need blasting but may need some chipping for rear garage wall. Member Moore pointed out that smaller homes,by virtue of the scope of the construction, do not require the degree of scrutiny that the larger homes do and that the Planning Board would to be fully informed about blasting and chipping before it happened so that protocols and conditions can be determined. The applicant explained that the former home sat on a slab that sat lower and that the basement of the proposed home will actually fit into the existing pit so only 1 corner or about 300 SF will need to be chipped for corner of basement—most of basement will be crawl space. Member Westcott would like to know how much ledge needs to be removed and whether chipping will do it or will blasting be needed. Applicant stated he will obtain letter from engineer with parameters of how many yards need to be removed, removal technique and an estimate of how many days will be required to remove. Member Westcott also believes the garage is part of the structure and must be included in average grade calculations which will affect the height calculations— he believes there is a 5' difference. Vaisey thinks the only thing in violation is the turret. Town Planner Harrington suggests the Planning Board visit the site as it is a unique situation. Open to public: Anne Montague,26 Deep Run, commented that Deep Run has had too many surprises over the past 3 months,blasting,jack hammering on Saturdays and Sundays beginning at 7 AM without notice etc. This is the 4th large home within 300' of her home. Her house was the furthest house from the 6 Deep Run blasting to have a seismograph placed on her property,yet had the highest readings. Montague was very complimentary however about Atlantic Blasting Co. She noted that basement at 6 Deep Run is full of water after the blasting. She noted that Deep Run residents are looking at 1-1/2 years of large home construction without relief and would like full research of proposed applications so"sins of omission"don't occur. John&Virginia Riley, 17 Haystack Lane, stated that the covenant restrictions define that the height of new homes cannot exceed the average height of existing homes and that this home is more massive than any other home in the neighborhood and takes up 60-65% of lot and that they are concerned about where the drainage will go. Neil Murphy answered that the pervious and impervious of the original and proposed are nearly the same. Member Pratt would like to see the restrictive covenants to clarify the height restrictions. Applicant stated that he met with the Covenant Assoc. and seemed to have their approval of the design and aesthetics. Rileys stated that they never saw any plans. Applicant will provide Board with copy of Covenant Restrictions. MOTION: by Member Westcott to continue the public hearing to 09/21/05,time to be determined,so that: 1. the covenant restrictions can be submitted and reviewed 2. written comments or outcomes of meetings that were conducted can be submitted and reviewed 3. the overall elevation including the garage as a connected structure can be examined further which may impact and result in a lowering of the peak of the turret 4. drainage calculations can be examined 5. blasting information can be submitted for review and possible protocols/conditions can be determined SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED 9:15 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO ACCEPT 08/10/05 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept 08/10/05 minutes. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • INTERNALLY LIT SIGN AN NEW DUNKIN DONUTS AT 154/156 KING ST. Member Pratt pointed that the new Dunkin Donuts' sign at 154/156 King St. is internally lit and asked if that was permitted. Building Inspector Egan noted that it is a by right 25 SF sign and nothing says it cannot be internally lit and that it is not a zoning issue. PLANNING BOARD STAFF TO CHECK DECISION REGARDING SIGNAGE Planning Board Meeting 4 of 5 September 7,2005 • CITIZENS BANK ATM AT NEW ACAPULCO RESTAURANT AT 154/156 KING ST. ATM added to front of Dunkin Donuts bldg. Planning Board had hoped to reduce attractiveness of parking in the front area and are concerned that ATM might make front parking more attractive and increase pedestrian traffic. Member Pratt questioned why the ATM was not on plans at the Site Plan Review. Member Westcott thinks ATM is an added convenience for patrons who are at Dunkin Donuts but that people are not going to stop there just to use ATM. Members Moore,Westcott and Town Planner Harrington do not view this as a big issue. Members Ivimey,Pratt do. • ITEMS OF INTEREST TO PLANNING BOARD ON SELECTMENS' 09/20/05 MTG. Commonwealth Capital and Master Plan related initiative for bike access along Jerusalem Rd. to Beach St. • POWERS LANE UPDATE— To be completed by 09/30/05 • SMROD UPDATED BEGS.—Town Planner Harrington asked for permission to advertise SMROD updated Rules and Regulations Public Hearing for 10/05/05 MOTION: by Member Pratt to approve advertising. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • UPCOMING TRAINING PROGRAMS—Town Planner Harrington noted Stormwater Management Design and Drainage issues on 09/27/05 and 10/04/05 and, Smart Growth Conference on 09/16/05 if any PB members were interested in registering. • UPDATE ABOUT MEMBER MOORE &MEMBER PRATT PLANNING BOARD FINANCES DISCUSSION WITH TOWN MANAGER BILL GRIFFIN—Major points included: possibility that criteria for Lg. Home Review may have to be rethought; PB Office is running hard just to stay even; errors made by Board can be very costly in litigation; PB often goes into meeting without benefit of counsel; doesn't make sense to look at PB as an individual entity—should look at the whole when reviewing finances;possibility of increasing fees/charges to applicant on a sliding scale based on the size of a project. Member Pratt also noted that Police should be asked to enforce restrictions/conditions imposed that are being violated. 9:30 P.M. WAYNE SAWCHUK, COHASSET VILLAGE PROJECT & ZONING BYLAWS Sawchuk believes that the intent of Article 17 on 11/17/03 zoning amendment article cannot be utilized by anyone because of 3 items: the parking requirements,the area requirements and the minimum yard requirements. He proposed some very simple changes that could assist the Planning Board-not giving special consideration to any one project—by giving them some latitude on some atypical situations. First: p. 22 Section 5.4 Table of Area Regulation Notes: suggestion is to eliminate the"DB"and rewrite to state: "In the WB district,the required side yard setback shall be 10' ...". The problem is it is either on the line or 10, away with nothing in between and in many cases in the DB district,there may be a desire to maintain an alley or, the property line (or bldg) may be at an angle,meaning the bldg. cannot be either on the lot line or 10' away as required by the requirements. This all or nothing does not work for the DB. Also add note#15: "In the DB district,upon granting of a Special Permit,the Planning Board may waive the requirements of the minimum yards and coverage during the Site Plan Approval process". This would give the Planning Board the special permit granting authority to do what is right for the unique lot they may be dealing with. Building Commissioner Egan has never understood the setback of 0 or 10—he thinks the 10 should be eliminated and just make it a 0 setback. Sawchuk noted that none of the downtown lots are the same and the 0 or 10' doesn't work for each lot and may, in fact,preclude doing anything with some lots. Town Planner Harrington noted that it is a non-special permit site plan process. Planning Board could be permit granting authority for this item but would require a change in the Zoning Bylaws. Timelines etc.would have to be worked out. Would want to avoid having to go to ZBA and PB for a special permit. Member Ivimey thinks the Board should be cognizant of the residential abutters so residential abutter does not have to worry that commercial development may be allowed right up to the residential lot line. Second: pp. 20,21 Section 5.3.1 Table of Area Regulations: There are no lots in the DB District over 40,000 SF, so this really does not apply to the DB district—Sawchuk recommends removing it. Sawchuk suggests removing" except dwelling for occupancy by more than one family"and leave it"any permitted structure or principal use, including occupancy for more than one family when in conjunction with a business use within the same building". Third: Section 7.2 General Parking and Loading Regulations: Sawchuk suggests adding a note#14"In the DB District,upon the granting of a Special Permit during the Site Plan Approval process,the Planning Board may waive all parking requirements for a mixed use business and residential building". This would allow the PB to Planning Board Meeting 5 of 5 September 7,2005 waive the requirement of 1.5 spaces per residential unit in the DB district. Member Pratt wonders if too much demand could be placed on the town parking lot. Sawchuk would like to see the MBTA remove a little more ledge so the parcel from the garage back could be used for more parking. He feels there are some options for parking expansion that should be explored. Town Planner Harrington agreed that everyone needs to be creative with parking behind the garage(adjacent to Red Lion Inn) and about solving the parking problems before parking is an issue and that the goal should be not to make things uncomfortable/unworkable for commercial because the Town cannot afford to lose the commercial presence. Fees could be charged to developers for parking spaces that could go into a fund to create more parking. Member Moore likes the idea of making these situations special permits as it gives the Planning Board the flexibility to tailor the relief to the individual site without opening the floodgates to everything and anything as a matter or right. Discussion to be continued at next meeting. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn. SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 10:45 P.M. NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, September 21,2005, 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: