Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 02/23/2005 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 3 February 23,2005 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23,2005 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 Robert H. Sturdy Mike Westcott Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:30 PM 7:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATION N/A 7:30 P.M. HIGHLAND ESTATES—FINAL WAIVERS Not on agenda Waivers(dated 02/16/05)were recommended in Civil Designs memo dated 02/22/05. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to accept waivers SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED Member Pratt signed the final Highland Estates Subdivision approval based upon Board's vote at last meeting. 7:35 P.M. WARRANT ARTICLES PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: by Member Pratt to reopen public hearing SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED Tom Callahan,Hillside Drive, represents articles—he requested Board begin with Scenic Roads. Scenic Roads: Town Counsel review has been received since last meeting. Callahan noted that the people who can initiate a scenic road designation is limited to the Historic Commission, Conservation Commission and the Planning Board(Board of Selectmen and citizens to be removed). Citizens would have to initiate indirectly through one of the three mentioned. Maximum time had to be changed also. Town Counsel opinion was also that this did not have to be a zoning article so Callahan will be withdrawing this as a zoning article. Hingham does not have scenic bylaw but designates roads by operating off state statute which allows bylaw to be passed and, if fine is to be included, a local bylaw is required. This model bylaw has more flushing out of details of procedures and criteria for decision making. Callahan questions whether even a general bylaw is needed or statute. Either would require commitment from one of three Boards to begin designating roads. Process: one Board would come forward with a designation in the form of an article to go to Town Meeting(which could be indirectly initiated by a citizen),Planning Board would conduct hearing, and Planning Board would have findings and recommendation. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to accept applicant's withdrawal of this article as a zoning article. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 5-0 MOTION APPROVED Callahan would still like Board's opinion as to whether they would like to do this as Hingham does or whether they would like to have a local bylaw that flushes out a few more details and imposes a fine. Stephen Bjorklund, Planning Board Meeting 2 of 3 February 23,2005 Scituate, notes that this is more a mitigation than a denial process in that it gives a review opportunity and requires that stones from stonewalls and trees be replaced to keep a scenic road looking scenic and that Scituate's is a simple 1-2 page explanation in the Planning Board bylaws. Member Moore noted that the Board may not have a firm answer for Callahan yet. Member Westcott wanted to raise issue of moving guidelines like this to rules and regs. so there is a means to address issues like this. Town Planner Harrington will pull information together for scenic roads to be added to rules and regs and will target the end of April for a public hearing on this. Section 8: Purpose of changes to Section 8 is to avoid a repeat of 3 Jerusalem Lane by adding clarity for new construction(Section 8.3),rebuilding the exact same thing(Section 8.9), or voluntary enlargement of a building by adding an addition or by teardown and reconstruction(Section 8.7). Callahan noted that the version dated O1/18/05 to have some new changes to be explained. Member Sturdy vehemently opposed to reviewing new draft of articles presented at this meeting with changes not heretofore seen by the Board before this meeting, feeling that this is a repeat of many years of churning of important articles at the last minute. Woody Chittick is on board with the concept. Attorney Walter Sullivan Sr. noted that a single or two family house can be altered as long as there is a finding that it does not increase the non-conformity and that this scenario is not a special permit and that this article does not allow for that concept and felt that it should be added to the bylaw to avoid confusion. Member Pratt expresses concern that target may be missed, landing too heavily on people who do not fall into the 3 Jerusalem Lane category. Wayne Sawchuk,432 Beechwood St., stated that this is saying that if someone wants to do something to an existing house on a nonconforming lot has to go through the process of getting a special permit and that it is not right and should not even go before the Town. Member Moore not comfortable with it. Callahan summarized by the vote to be on the 02/21/05 version going back to 01/18/05 definition of full and partial demolition(ignoring change on 02/21/05 sheet). Member Pratt asks again if this injures those who are not like 3 Jerusalem Lane or should the Planning Board ask the ZBA to amend their regs so this is not a burden to those not like 3 Jerusalem Lane. Callahan agrees with Pratt. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend approval with changes 1 and 3 as presented in handout distributed at the meeting by proponent(date stamped 02/23/05"Changes to"Section 8 Amendments" Article per Woody Chittick's comments & agreed to by proponents). SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 3 -2 MOTION APPROVED (Members Sturdy,Moore opposed) Section 11-Land clearing, alteration and removal: Callahan explains that current earth removal bylaw states that removal of earth doesn't deal with other alterations to land and comes from past efforts to have ledge protection. This incorporates ledge protection and tries to bring in all forms of land alteration including grading, filling and removal which are not regulated at this time. Mansionization at times dictates changes to the site in order to get the large house built. This is attempt to set objective guidelines/limitations on land alteration by setting land alteration criteria, geared at development activities,not at the existing house and landowner who wants to put on addition. Variance process would be required to get around the guidelines. Version dated 02/22/05 has 3 changes: ZBA is the permit granting authority rather than Planning Board; change in standards to reiterate that it does not apply to existing home that is seeking to do expansion; and,to close loophole where developer can buy and clear land, do nothing and then comeback a year later with the building project. Woody Chittick suggests changes that tie the accelerated time lines into the normal variance procedures timelines where ZBA meets only once per month. Wayne Sawchuk,432 Beechwood St., (commenting on 11.3.B.2)noted that currently, in downtown business area,it is allowable to build on 80%of the lot and questions why, if you are allowed to build on 80%of the lot,you are restricted to clearing only 40%of the lot. He feels this is creating more problems and that requiring a variance vs. a special permit is a burden. Member Sturdy stated that this is a process that says nobody can do anything with their property because all it takes is one person to appeal a variance and all progress is held up for years. Member Moore felt these regulations will require a huge staff to evaluate and monitor, and that this bylaw assumes that all lot owners are idiots who will buy an expensive lot and then go in with bulldozers and wreck it intentionally. Attorney Walter Sullivan, Sr., in attendance representing a client who feels this bylaw is focused on thwarting his efforts to develop a property as many of the signatories of this bylaw are the same people who are opposed to his development efforts. Applicant: W. Chittick felt definition could be removed. Planning Board Meeting 3 of 3 February 23,2005 Best Management Practices: W. Chittick questioned concept of what BMP's are. Town Planner suggested that "as per DEP Stormwater Management Policy" should be clear enough. Excavating: "removal"means off-site. Dave Calhoun, 12 Sheldon Rd.,noted that the 10 cu.yd. limit will stop putting in foundations and will stop all subdivisions. Further,he believes this will turn all developers away from senior zoning overlays and special permits and just go for a 40B. Member Pratt feels this bylaw can plug the holes that occurred at 3 Jerusalem Lane where earth etc.was removed without anything more than a building permit,however,he agrees with W. Sawchuk that this does not require zoning relief via a variance but would be better served requiring a special permit. Member Ivimey noted that some builders refer to Cohasset as an easy town because Cohasset doesn't have tough bylaws and restrictions and they can easily build and make a lot of money. He thinks it is the Board's responsibility to protect the character of the Town that the existing residents say they want protected, not to protect potential developers,buyers etc. Callahan is not opposed to making this a special permit rather than a variance and will strike reference to commercial and agricultural. Dave Calhoun would like to see 11.3.C.6 stricken as an exemption and would like to see 10 cubic yards removed as it will prohibit even pools from being added. Member Moore feels this is a situation of"if isn't broken,don't fix it"and should not be approved. He does not see need to tell people they cannot do something with their property because of fear that they will do something stupid with it. Member Pratt feels the special permit should be under the jurisdiction of Planning Board rather than with ZBA. Callahan would like to have vote so he can go before Selectmen on 3/l/05. Member Moore does not want to have a vote on something in such loose form in terms of all changes discussed but would rather poll the Board so Callahan can take poll information to Selectmen. Poll: Member Ivimey-In favor as amended. Member Westcott—Somewhat in favor but feels it is not ready for public. Member Sturdy—Very unfavorable. Member Moore—Not in favor of it. Member Pratt—In favor as amended to change variance to special permit and to remove the flexibility of commercial districts and agriculture. Summary: Board appears to be in a 3-2 position at this time. For the record, and in response to Attorney Sullivan's concern, Mark DeGiacomo, 59 Beach St. states that he has no idea where Mr. David Walsh is with his project,he has not been a party to any of the appeals in regard to Mr. Walsh's project and he is not an abutter of Mr. Walsh's property. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue public hearing to 03/02/05 Planning Board Meeting. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 5-0 MOTION: by Member Pratt to adjourn SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 10:30 P.M. NEXT MEETING: March 2, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: