Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 06/21/2005 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 4 June 21,2005 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: TUESDAY, DUNE 21,2005 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—MEETING ROOM 2B 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred Moore, Chairman Peter J. Pratt,Vice Chairman Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Robert H. Sturdy Mike Westcott Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:05 P.M. Member Moore noted that comments/questions will not be taken from the floor during this meeting as the purpose of the meeting is to discuss internal administrative and procedural procedures and policy. Member Pratt disagreed with this feeling it would be valuable to receive audience input for findings and facts. Member Moore stated this would be fine. 7:10 P.M. ADMINISTRATION Town Counsel Richard Hucksam in attendance. • DISCUSSION—TELEVISING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS Member Pratt introduced topic of televising meetings as he felt meetings have gotten sloppy and that bylaws are not being interpreted correctly. Member Moore does not like televising meetings but agreed to poll the members and abide by their opinions. PROS of televising: Member Pratt feels that the number of large home proposals and the very busy nature of the Board at present time require the Board to allow the public to observe televised meetings and see their elected Boards perform. Member Ivimey agreed that televising meetings allows people a greater access to and greater opportunity to see their town government in action. CONS of televising: Member Moore is not comfortable with televising, feeling he does not need the exposure and does not see the value of seeing people huddled around plans but, could be convinced to televise public hearings. Member Sturdy felt it defeats the concept of"open meeting"in that people will sit at home rather than attend meetings,then take pot shots at the members. He thinks it would be more valuable for the public to attend and participate in the meeting rather than sit at home and call individual members later. Final Polling of Members : Televise Meetings: Members Pratt, Ivimey, Westcott Do Not Televise Meetings: Members Moore, Sturdy Planning Board Administrator will contact Town Manager B.Griffin to determine if Planning Board meetings can be held in Selectmen's Office during summer until Basement Meeting Room ventilation issues can be addressed. • DISCUSSION—LARGE HOME REVIEW BYLAW AND PROCEDURES Member Moore explained that the major issue seems to be the authority of the Planning Board relative to the zoning bylaw. Town Counsel Hucksam in attendance to present his opinion. Hucksam explained the two most significant parts: 1. 5.5.2, 2nd sentence: "The Planning Board shall review and discuss the Large Home Plan with the applicant and abutters, toward the objective of making the proposed plan "harmonious with, and not harmful, injurious or objectionable"to existing uses in the area"Hucksam's interpretation is that the goal is to get the applicant and the abutters together to discuss any issues that the large house may create particularly for the abutters and to let the abutters know that something is happening in their neighborhood 2. 5.5.4(d), last part: "within 21 days after the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Board shall inform the Building Inspector that the hearing has been completed and furnish the Building Inspector, in writing, with any recommendations, which are relevant to the issuance of the building permit."Hucksam's interpretation is that the Planning Board does not impose requirements as they do by law with Site Plans. Planning Board Meeting 2 of 4 June 21,2005 Member Sturdy stated that the only thing mandated is that the applicant apply for a public hearing and that the hearing take place but that there doesn't even need to be a recommendation. Member Pratt questioned whether this means the Planning Board is wasting everyone's time by making recommendations. Member Sturdy also stated that the Planning Board has absolutely no authority under the law about blasting(referring to 6 Deep Run)—that is under the authority of the State Fire Marshall and Fire Chief—Hucksam agreed. Member Moore stated that the Planning Board responsibility is to make sure all zoning is met and to hold a discussion but beyond that the Board does not have any authority to make them do anything. Hucksam thought"not harmonious"is a very broad and opens up many other issues that are outside the Planning Board jurisdiction—the purpose is to get people together to talk(not to determine conditions)about concerns to which the applicant might agree to modify plans to accommodate those concerns. Member Ivimey stated that the Planning Board has a duty under 5.5.2 to review "harmful and injurious"to raise issues of concern to protect the neighbors. Member Pratt stated that the Planning Board introduction to its hearings explaining that the Large Home Review is just a"discussion among neighbors" dilutes the ability of the Board. Member Moore thinks it is misleading to the public to have them think otherwise. Town Planner Harrington asked if the recommendations are non-binding and if it is within the purview of the Planning Board to have more stringent rules and regs (reasonable within the residential context)that bring this close to Site Plan Review?In Hucksam's opinion, it is within the discretion of the Building Inspector to determine whether to impose recommendations relative to the issuance of the building permit. Member Pratt asked if it is proper for the Planning Board to reach for a"non-harmonious or injurious"recommendation if something stands out? Hucksam indicated that a recommendation could be made but that it is up to the Building Inspector to decide whether to impose it. Building Inspector indicated that if he received a recommendation from the Planning Board that even though all zoning is met, a project was harmonious or injurious,he would not issue the building permits. The question is,where does everyone go from there? Hucksam stated that this is most analogous to non-special permit site plan review where the general rule is that there is not much ability by the Planning Board to deny unless there is a zoning violation or a failure by the applicant to supply necessary or valid information(although there is some language that if something is so very bad the Planning Board is justified in denying site plan). Hucksam again reiterated that 5.5.2 is about discussion and 5.5.4 is about recommendations but not beyond the requirements of the zoning bylaws. Town Planner Harrington suggested reasonable"modifications"as opposed to denials to which Hucksam pointed out that the Site Plan Review is not to deny but to come up with"modifications"and the Large Home Review is still less than that. Building Commissioner Egan stated that if the Planning Board picked up a zoning violation in a large home application,he would pass it on to the ZBA to review but if all zoning was met and the Planning Board noted a"non-harmonious"issue,he would still not issue a building permit. Hucksam stated that the first scenario would be an appeal that would be lost while the second scenario would win an appeal by the applicant under 40A, Section 17. Egan asked if there is a way to write the Large Home Review bylaw so the Planning Board would have the authority and discretion to recommend denial even if all zoning is met. Hucksam indicated that a bylaw could be drafted to impose criteria as requirements although there are times when regulations can actually exceed the authority. Tom Callahan, original author of the bylaw,noted that this language was taken from the Weston bylaw(already passed by Attorney General's Office) to regulate interior floor space rather than reinvent the wheel and that at the April Town Meeting,the debate was to put the large home review into the Special Permit process to make it stronger. He further noted that the main intent of the bylaw is to bring in the concept of "substantially detrimental to the neighborhood"and to allow discussion of a large home being potentially detrimental to a neighborhood or changing the character of the Town because of its size or mass even if it meets zoning and that the introduction given at the start of the large home review public hearings by the Planning Board limits the intended discussion and narrows the intention of the bylaw. Callahan also added that the bylaw needs to be reworked to give it some teeth so recommendations can be made beyond zoning compliance. Member Sturdy cited the last part of 5.5.4—"which are relevant to the issuance of a building permit"—stating that the only thing "relevant"is that it meets the requirements of the zoning bylaw or it does not and the reasons why. Town Counsel Hucksam compared language of Large Home and Site Plan to show that Large Home is a discussion issue ("towards the objective") whereas Site Plan(12.6.6) is a requirement issue —"only in conformity with any conditions ..."). Member Pratt stated that: the Planning Board did not adequately address"non-harmonious" regarding 6 Deep Run;that this was a mistake on the Planning Board's part; that the Planning Board should have been more disciplined in reviewing it and perhaps issuing recommendations based on that review; and,that the Board needs to establish objective standards for review. Member Westcott would like guidelines for review and discussion and asked if a j of the bylaw had been written into rules and regs. Town Planner Harrington indicated Planning Board Meeting 3 of 4 June 21,2005 that they had been added in our procedures and checklist but questioned if,based on tonight's discussion,these go beyond the authority of the Board to adopt such specific criteria. Town Counsel Hucksam would review any regulations the Planning Board would like to add. Dave Calhoun,2 Sheldon Road,requested that, from the public view, the Planning Board only enforce what is in the regulations,not personal preferences and that they not ignore the word"use"at the end of 5.5.2—he feels a large home does not jeopardize"use"of abutters' property. Member Pratt questioned a large home blocking an abutter's ocean view to which Calhoun stated that it's the owner's property and he can do what he wants unless there are deed restrictions. Member Moore stated the concern that if the Planning Board becomes too onerous in enforcement,the person who tries to beat the system will be rewarded while the person who comes forward with cards face up will be penalized. Anne Montague, 26 Deep Run, stated that the way the Large Home is presented at the start of the public hearing does a disservice to the public and pits neighbors against one another. Member Moore explained that the he presents it this way so as not to present false hope to the neighbors if the proposal complies with zoning. Member Westcott suggested that it be introduced as a "substantive discussion"to make sure the resulting project is to the applicant's benefit without negatively impacting the neighbors. Member Sturdy replied that Site Plan Review works because the applicant can either compromise or be held up in court for 2 years and that this should not be done to individual homeowners. Town Counsel Hucksam noted that the authority of the Board to impose conditions is very narrow but the opportunity for"discussion"is very broad. Town Planner Harrington questioned the value of discussing issues with no ability to condition or enforce. Member Ivimey agreed stating concern about enforcement—applicant could agree to several points and then not do them—Ivimey does not want applicants laughing at the Board and at the bylaw. Member Pratt pointed out Leggat, 21 Deep Run Large Home Review suggestion that the applicant work with the abutters to make every effort to preserve privacy and,that this apparently was not done yet building permit has been issued. Building Inspector Egan suggested that the wording was too vague"talking"as opposed to specific—"plant 6 bushes"and that this makes enforcement difficult. He suggested more specific and concrete wording. Egan stated that he will send a letter to Leggats telling them inspections will be stopped until they speak with abutters re: privacy issues/actions. Member Ivimey questioned that if the spirit of the bylaw is to promote discussion/interaction/good neighbors, could concern with enforcement discourage participation by the applicant?Member Pratt further pointed out that Town Planner Harrington comments about missing information on the Leggat plans were disregarded. Member Ivimey suggests that perhaps public hearings could remain open and that recommendation not be issued to Egan until Planning Board suggestions are met. Member Westcott summed up that Planning Board needs to better ID issues,properly document them,keep the public hearing open and meet with applicant again to see if the issues were addressed and then issue recommendation to Building Inspector. Member Pratt stated that the Bylaw would need to be amended to incorporate 12.6. Tom Callahan,original bylaw author, asked if the Board would really support changes since some members did not really support the bylaw to begin with which frames the way discussion presently goes. Member Westcott feels it is a good bylaw that needs some work. Member Moore suggested that perhaps the zoning requirements need to be changed to prevent over massing- i.e.perhaps reduce height requirements from 35' to 25' and make it a special permit to exceed those numbers. Member Pratt commended Bob Egan for stating that he would not issue building permits against Planning Board recommendation. Member Moore noted that this is a volunteer Board and their private lives to do not allow the luxury of hours to devote to public hearings. Member Sturdy stated that public hearings cannot continue forever as it abbreviates the rights of the applicant and would like to limit them to one hearing and would like abutter comments in writing to speed the process. Member Pratt vehemently disagreed with preset limit of one meeting and Member Ivimey wants MORE public participation and thinks it an unreasonable public burden to limit citizen participation. Specific next steps agreed to based upon tonight's discussion: 1. Proceed to suggest 5.5.2 a j as regulations to be adopted 2. Attend a Large Home hearing in the Town of Weston 3. Meet with Weston Planning Board to discuss their bylaw 4. Format a new public hearing opening introduction to the Large Home Review Town Planner Harrington will arrange a Weston meeting and review a copy of their Large Home Review outcome. • DISCUSSION OF MAINTAINING FILE OF PLANNING BOARD EMAILS Dave Calhoun,2 Sheldon Road, as a member of the public,asked the Planning Board to establish a file of emails between Planning Board members that public can review. It was noted that the Planning Board rarely communicates via email beyond scheduling meetings,distributing meeting agendas and other such administrative items. Town Counsel Hucksam Planning Board Meeting 4 of 4 June 21,2005 suggested that this be taken under advisement as not all emails are public information. He noted that he would prepare an opinion if approved by Town Manager(approved -Town Counsel taking this under advisement— opinion should be forthcoming). MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 5—0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 9:40 P.M. NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, June 29,2005 at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: (MINUTES ACCEPTED AT JULY 11,2005 PLANNING BOARD MEETING)