Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 06/08/2005 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 5 June 8,2005 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8,2005 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred Moore, Chairman Peter J. Pratt,Vice Chairman Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Board Members Absent: Robert H. Sturdy Mike Westcott Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:15 P.M. 7:15 P.M. FORM A'S • 99 POND ST., APP/OWNER: ROBERT RAFFA& VINCENT LONGO, date stamped: 05/25/05(21 day decision deadline: 06/14/05). Applicant is splitting vacant lot among 4 abutters—no new lots created. MOTION: by Member Pratt to approve this Form A. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 3 -0 MOTION APPROVED L76 PLEASANT ST., APP/OWNER: PAUL&LAURA HUMPHREY,date stamped: 05/31/05, (21 decision deadline: 06/20/05). Applicant temporarily withdrew this Form A-Application in writing. • 393 SO.MAIN ST., MIKE BORGIN, INFORMAL DISCUSSION - Mr. Borgin was not in attendance at this meeting—item was not discussed. • 139/145 BORDER STREET, APPROVED AT 05/26/05 PLANNING BOARD MEETING— CORRECTED MYLARS TO BE SIGNED. It was noted after this Form A was approved at the 05/25/05 Planning Board Meeting that a typographical error in a SF dimension existed. The error was corrected and Attorney Henderson presented the new, corrected mylar for signing. The incorrect mylar was turned in to the Planning Board Office to be destroyed. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve the correction and sign the corrected mylars. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3 -0 MOTION APPROVED 7:30 P.M. 247 FOREST AVE, LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING, APP:WILMARC CHARLES, OWNER: RENATA KLUZA, date stamped: 05110105. (35 DAY DEADLINE FOR START OF PUBLIC HEARING=06/13/05). Clerk Ivimey read public hearing advertisement. Abutters/Public signed in at Public Hearing: Paul Buckley, 245 Forest Avenue; Al Buckley,243 Forest Avenue; Attorney Richard Henderson to represent Buckley Family; Richard Abbadessa, 36 Old Coach Rd.; Pat Metcalf, address not known; and,two others whose names could not be read on sign-in sheet. Applicant Wilmarc Charles, Owner Renata Kluza and Professional Land Surveyor Doug Aaberg in attendance to represent the application. The following points were noted in Town Planner Harrington's review of the application and plans: 1. The existing property is to have a 2nd floor addition constructed and a two-car garage under,resulting in an approximately 4,700 SF residence on roughly the existing footprint. 2. The property is existing,non-conforming. 3. The applicant has also seeking a special permit from the ZBA(to expand a non-conforming structure) for the first 7 ft. on the W side of the house(bordering Forest Ave.)which is being increased in height and is already within the setback, and, for the garage he proposes to build on the south side of the house which will also be within the setbacks. The additions triggered the need for a Large Home Review. The Planning Board had recommended Planning Board Meeting 2 of 5 June 8,2005 that the ZBA not issue any special permits until the Large Home Review had been conducted by the Planning Board. The ZBA continued their review to July/August until the Large Home Review was completed. Building Inspector Egan noted that there are several issues: First,the original permit was for 3 dormers, some skylights,re-roofing and a new front door—none of which required any zoning relief. The plan has evolved beyond the original permit application. Second, it was determined that a special permit was needed for the first 7 ft. of the 2nd floor addition on the W side of the structure. Third,the garage issue is a question between a special permit and a variance,which is a large issue. He noted that the applicant is not currently working on the portion of the structure which is in question of requiring a special permit vs. a variance. There is an unresolved issue regarding the fact that there was an existing one car garage that was torn down in August,2002. The applicant contends that the proposed construction of the two-car garage falls within the three year time frame for rebuilding. If that is not the case,the applicant may have to apply for a variance to place the two-car garage too close to the property line. The applicant presented an affidavit from the previous owner confirming the date of the tear down. Representing the Buckley family,Attorney Henderson stated the opinion that the previous garage is irrelevant, noting that Section 8.9 gives four criteria for rebuilding(within 3 years for residential) a removed structure: a. it must be build in the same place b. the new structure cannot be any higher vertically c. it must be for the same use d. the new structure cannot be anymore non-conforming(having any more mass within the setback). In Henderson's opinion,the proposed two-car garage fails on all four points clearly indicating, as a matter of law, that a variance is required. In addition,Attorney Henderson noted that the new structure must be substantially completed by the Yd anniversary—this proposed two car garage is not even permitted yet. While there is an easement allowing Mr. Charles' property to have access,to maintain and use what is there, and to repair the septic systems and piping,the applicant does not have the right to construct a new septic system in the right of way or to obstruct the area. For that reason,the Buckleys do not want to have a septic system or parking in that right of way. The Buckleys also stated concern about the massing of the proposed house and onsite parking. Their concern is that if the unimproved land is massed with the structure as proposed,including a two car garage,there will not be any unimproved land to deal with future septic and parking issues.Member Pratt stated great concern about the level of massing on the relatively small,non-conforming,20,000 SF lot. Member Ivimey agreed further stating that this will be a massive structure unacceptably close to the road. Member Moore summarized that there are two very significant ZBA issues—a special permit and a potential variance. In light of this he felt the Planning Board should not make any Large Home recommendations to the Building Inspector until the ZBA resolves the two zoning issues as it is conceivable that a Large Home Review will not even be required if a variance is denied. Member Moore also stated concern over the lack of sophistication and detail in the architecturals to the point that it is very difficult to accurately evaluate the siting of the structure. Based upon the siting of the garage and the increased non- conformity, it was the Planning Board's opinion that this application will require a special permit and a variance and that the Planning Board cannot move further until that is resolved. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA deny a variance for the garage and deny a special permit for the 2°d floor addition. The Planning Board would welcome the applicant to return to the Planning Board without prejudice if the ZBA decision results in further review by the Planning Board. Should the applicant come before the Planning Board for further review, the Planning Board will require more detailed and more complete sets of plans and architecturals. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3 -0 MOTION APPROVED 8:25 P.M 6 DEEP RUN, LARGE HOME REVIEW CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING, APP/OWNER: MICHAEL & KRISTYN STEVENS, date stamped: 05/03/05. (35 DAY DEADLINE FOR START OF PUBLIC HEARING=06/06/05). Abutters/Public signed in: Beverly Koswick, 25 Deep Run; Ed Lappen, 18 Deep Run; Janice Crowley, 392 Jerusalem Rd.; Michelle Onwood Laney, 32 Red Gate Lane; Malcolm Onwood, 404 Jerusalem Rd.; Margaret Charles, 85 Linden Dr; Anne Montague, 26 Deep Run;Margaret Recliner,401 Jerusalem Rd.;Robert&Karen Leggat,21 Deep Run; Debbie Sheldon, 32 Deep Run; Elizabeth McQuade, 11 Deep Run; Rodney Hobson, 31 Deep Run;Dick Stevens, 86 Beach St. Michael&Kristyn Stevens; Bill Buckley, Bay Colony Group; Ken Smith,Atlantic Blasting Co.; Henry Arnaudo,HPA Design; in attendance to represent application. Planning Board Meeting 3 of 5 June 8,2005 Major concerns addressed by abutters at the public hearing were: Blasting: Blasting will be required under the home from the center point to the back(The front of the home will be crawlspace)to a depth of 4' at the highest point. Blasting is required for a basement not for apron around the structure)to accommodate mechanicals. The foundation will be pinned to ledge.Amount of ledge to be removed will be determined once the existing home is removed. Ken Smith,Atlantic Blasting Co.,noted that shock waves will be reduced by controlling the size, intensity of the charges and that this was a comfortable,not overly complicated job,noting that blasting is done next to existing homes and swimming pools all the time without damage. John Modzelewski suggested comparing seismic charts from blasting conducted at Roy property to get a feel for the charges used,the distance the blasting shocks may travel etc. Smith noted that vibration can be controlled by controlling the size and intensity of the charges. Chief Lincoln explained that seismic records are on file in the Fire Dept., that the preblast survey area has been changed to 250' distance,that there is a provision for blast plan and analysis,that the Mass. Blasting Law is designed to protect everyone involved in the blasting and that he can hold up a blasting project if he is concerned about it. Abutter Ed Lappen, 18 Deep Run, (owner of neighboring swimming pool) asked if conditions regarding starting and ending times for blasting,number of blasts per day etc. can be placed on the blasting. Chief Lincoln noted that there are conditions placed by Law—blasting cannot be done between sunset and sunrise and on Sundays. However,the applicant agreed to work out conditions for blasting with Chief Lincoln to accommodate the neighbors' concerns. Ken Smith explained that ledge is very hard and solid and does not respond to feather and wedging and that blasting is much quicker. It was further noted by Member Moore that blasting is a concern but not a major focus of the Large Home Review as the applicant would not need to go before the Planning Board if he was only blasting on his property. Abutters further noted that even those beyond the 250' preblast survey experienced property damage from the blasting done on the Roy property. Mr. Stevens, applicant, agreed to include all the neighbors in the pre-blasting survey even if they are beyond the 250' requirement. Marilyn Hobson, 21 Deep Run,wanted assurance that she will be protected from blasting damage. Applicant agreed to include her in the preblast survey. Anne Montague, 26 Deep Run pointed out that the proposed blasting is for a 2,400 SF basement which, if finished off in the future,will result in a 7,000 SF house. She questioned whether that much area is necessary for mechanicals and proposed that the blasting could be reduced if the proposed basement area was reduced. Beverly Koswick,25 Deep Run questioned whether mechanicals could be placed on first floor thereby eliminating the need for a basement,blasting and, lowering the height of the house. Applicant Stevens indicated he does not plan to make any changes to the plans. Member Moore stated that the Planning Board cannot say that blasting cannot occur,that this is a large home review and not a blasting review. In disagreement,Member Pratt noted that under 5.5 of the Zoning Bylaws,the Planning Board should look at the total picture of a proposal and legitimately ask if the level of imposition on the neighborhood is necessary or if there are alternatives that could reduce the level of imposition. Member Ivimey asked if there is a provision in the Codes that allows the denial of a building permit for a project that meets all zoning but is still hazardous and injurious to the neighborhood to which Inspector Egan answered that there is not.Abutter Elizabeth McQuade, 11 Deep Run felt there were no other issues beyond blasting. Ed Lappen, 18 Deep Run agreed again stating that he would like conditions drawn up to protect the neighbors during the blasting. Applicant agreed. Massing: Abutters voiced strong concern that the massing of the home is not-harmonious with the existing neighborhood. Anne Montague, 26 Deep Run,presented the Board with a sketch of the houses in the neighborhood which included the SF of each residence,to illustrate the original design concept of the neighborhood which was smaller homes at the entrance of the neighborhood with homes gradually increasing in size deeper into the neighborhood. Karen Leggat, 21 Deep Run, expressed concern that a structure as large as the proposed house will change the character of the neighborhood and,will block some of the ocean views that motivated them to buy in this neighborhood. Michelle Onwood Laney, 32 Red Gate Lane, commented that all they will see if this residence is constructed is the breadth of the building and that they would like the applicant to lower the size so as not to obliterate some views and reduce others. Dick Stevens, 86 Beach St., (applicant's father)noted that he was concerned by this meeting stating that his son has gone to great lengths to be harmonious with the neighbors and that he is being put through a commercial site plan review which is not the intent of the bylaw. He further stated that the Planning Board had no other alternative but to approve this Large Home Review. Member Pratt stated that this is the most important Large Home Review yet conducted by the Planning Board as the proposed large home is in the first major subdivision in theTown that fits into the characteristics that define the Town of Cohasset. He strongly urged the Board to continue this public hearing to discuss the"harmonious"nature of the bylaw. Applicant Stevens asked the Board to vote at this meeting so he can move forward. Member Moore Planning Board Meeting 4 of 5 June 8,2005 asked for a motion to forward a recommendation to the Building Inspector recommending the issuance of building permits noting that blasting is critical and recommending a review of the blasting records on file with the Fire Department to work out a blasting schedule etc. with the abutters. Building Inspector Egan stated that he would not go against a recommendation by the Planning Board to not issue building permits. Member Pratt made a motion to continue the public hearing. The motion was not seconded. Member Ivimey asked the applicant if there is anything the abutters can say or recommend that would influence him to change his building plans. The applicant stated there is not. Robert Leggat, 21 Deep Run stated that he bought his house knowing that the 6 Deep Run site would eventually be bought and built up but thinks it unfortunate that the proposed Large Home is going so high and so wide. Member Ivimey stated his concern with safety regarding the blasting. Ken Smith suggested devising a blasting plan to be reviewed by an expert and John Modzelewski to increase confidence and comfort level with the blasting. Member Pratt again made a motion to continue the public hearing which was not seconded. Janice Crowley, 392 Jerusalem Rd., asked if the insurance policy can be made available as public record.Answer—Yes. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend to Building Inspector Egan that building permits for the construction of this approximately 4,400 SF residence on property located at 6 Deep Run be issued to Michael&Kristyn Stevens subject to: 1. peer review of a blasting plan satisfactory to the Planning Board which indicates that the surrounding neighborhood properties will be protected against damage from the blasting explosions to the greatest extent possible and in excess of the State code 2. the submission of a document which clearly outlines blasting protocols discussed with neighbors and agreed to by the applicant 3. the blasting survey encompassing 11 surrounding homes,a list of which will be submitted to the Planning Board by the applicant SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 2—1 Motion Approved (Member Pratt voted NO) 10:30 P.M. 150 NO.MAIN ST., SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITION Applicant Steve Bjorklund,Neil Murphy,Abutters Christopher and Kimberly McGowan and, Town Engineer John Modzelewski in attendance. Discussion centered around swale on the edge of the property next to 150 No.Main. Plans are to accentuate the swale and pave it with bituminous concrete. Downspout at corner of house can be exited into swale. Engineer John Modzelewski asked for more formal drawings of the swale to review with the abutters. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept this preliminary plan subject to drawings to be reviewed by John Modzelewski and the McGowans. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3 -0 MOTION APPROVED 10:35 P.M. OX PASTURE LANE, UPDATE Applicant Peter Baytarian,Engineer John Modzelewski in attendance. This is the last meeting before the June 15, 2005 deadline. John Modzelewski noted that there is a lot still to be done(partially due to the recent long run of inclement weather) stating that it could be completed within the next 10 days but will be difficult to accomplish. John Modzelewski gave a run-down of status of the punchlist items. He also requested that he be called to examine the gravel base when it is being installed. It was noted that the cul-de-sac radius is 43-44' not the 50' required in the regs. Chief Lincoln stated that it is driveable. Member Moore requested a letter from Chief Lincoln. Planning Board Administrator will contact Lincoln. Engineer John Queen(designed the bridge)will be on site 06/09/05 and will write report. Baytarian stated that the 06/15/05 deadline will be tight but he is still making every effort to reach the deadline. Baytarian also noted that the realtor's sign at the driveway entrance is temporary. JOSEPH'S HARDWARE, SITE PLAN REVIEW,INFORMAL DISCUSSION Applicant withdrew this agenda item. 11:05 P.M. POND STREET, RICHARD HENDERSON, INFORMAL DISCUSSION Attorney Richard Henderson in attendance. He explained that he wants to use the old subdivision standards that existed when the Pond St. cluster was first under construction so there is only one subdivision bylaw relating to the cluster and so the new construction is consistent with the existing construction and that a formal request to amend 100 Pond will be Planning Board Meeting 5 of 5 June 8,2005 based on this. The Planning Board agreed to support amending as long as the condo association and the owners agree and as long as it is legal. Henderson noted that the owners will have architectural control. RED LION INN EXPANSION, INFORMAL DISCUSSION Applicant withdrew this agenda item. 11:15 P.M. WAYNE SAWCHUK,COHASSET VILLAGE PROJECT,INFORMAL DISCUSSION Wayne Sawchuk presented his plans for the village project,highlighting changes and reasons for the changes since his last informal discussion with the Board. He noted that he will file this Site Plan Review within a month or so. 11:45 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO ACCEPT 05/25/05 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve 05/25/05 minutes. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3-0 MOTION APPROVED MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 11:50 P.M. NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, June 29,2005 at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: