Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 02/16/2005 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 4 February 16,2005 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16,2005 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Peter J. Pratt,Vice Chairman Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Robert H. Sturdy Mike Westcott Board Members Absent: Alfred Moore, Chairman Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:15 PM 7:15 P.M. FORM A -APPLICATIONS No Form A's were submitted. 7:15 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS • 131 NICHOLS RD., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APP: TRS. OF CARVAL COVE CONDO,TRUST, date stamped: 02/15/05. Applicant seeks to construct two, four-car garages. Application notes that site is not compliant with current zoning use and dimensional requirements(special permit is required because they are undersized for frontage)but that nonconformities are pre-existing. Application cites"two, four-car garages"but plan depicts two,22' x 22' buildings or,two two-car garages. Garages appear to be 6' off the property line and right on top of neighbor on this"pork chop"type lot. Member Sturdy noted that the intent of the bylaw was for houses to be on the main street with the garage in back and that this is a large property so garages could be located elsewhere. The Planning Board thought the proposed location had a very negative impact on the neighborhood. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to recommend that the ZBA not approve this special permit application. SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED • 828 CJCH, SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION—TO HEAR AND ACT UPON A REMAND REQUESTED BY THE NORFOLK SUPERIOR COURT,date stamped: 02/15/05. Applicant seeks to open a dog care and grooming business at 828 CJCH. At its 04/21/04 meeting,the Planning Board determined that this application does not involve planning issues and voted unanimously to leave this decision to the ZBA's judgment and expertise. On 04/23/04,the ZBA denied the special permit. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to table discussion of this new application to its 03/02/05 meeting until more information can be obtained from the ZBA that might help the Planning Board further recommendations to the ZBA. SECOND: by Member Sturdy VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED 7:22 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES—VOTE TO ACCEPT 02/02/05 AND 02/08/05 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept minutes for 02/02/05 AND 02/08/05 SECOND: by Member Sturdy VOTE: 3 — 0 MOTION APPROVED Planning Board Meeting 2 of 4 February 16,2005 • DISCUSSION OF 02/08/02 PATRIOT LEDGER ARTICLE Member Ivimey noted that Planning Board is very conscientious about using emails only for procedures and scheduling meetings and should continue to be very careful to not engage in substantive conversations and that this article is a good reminder about the Open Meeting Law. Member Pratt agreed. Town Planner Harrington noted that substantive emails relative to a matter before the Board are filed in the appropriate files. Otherwise,they are not kept. 7:30 P.M. WARRANT ARTICLES PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued as to why Demolition Delay Article was not advertised for public hearing. Article was originally filed by Tom Callahan as a General Bylaw Citizen's petition which was forwarded to the Planning Board but not advertised as the Planning Board does not conduct public hearings on general bylaws.Apparently,this article was withdrawn and a second demolition delay article(Article 29 in Draft Warrant)was filed by the Historic Commission as a Zoning Bylaw. This filing was not forwarded to the Planning Board,thus public hearing was not advertised. The public hearing will be advertised for Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:30 PM. Member Pratt noted that Town Counsel opinions have not been received and that public hearing might have to be kept open until such opinions are received. Town Planner Harrington noted that Chairperson Moore stated at the 01/19/05 meeting that Planning Board is only responsible for scheduling the public hearing- Planning Board does not argue articles,negotiate the legality of them, or spend town money on them. She noted that the Board therefore did not request comment from Town Counsel and that otherwise,the Board generally does push harder for comment. Scenic Roads (Article 33 in Draft Warrant): Clerk Ivimey read this portion of the Public Hearing advertisement. Proponent Tom Callahan present. Callahan noted that this was a direct Master Plan recommendation to preserve the character of the town by assuming that trees and stonewalls are a"community asset"that should be protected against alteration and that it regulates stonewalls and trees that are in the right-of-way and that it does not include view protection. He continued to explain that roads designated as"Scenic"would be protected against alteration in the town right-of-way and that this would apply to private citizens but that the town is exempt. Member Sturdy questioned how many stonewalls are on town property and whether this is really an issue nor did he think that a private citizen should have to bear the burden(pay for survey)of proving that a tree or stonewall is on their property. Member Ivimey wants to make sure this is not additional burden to landowner who wants to do something with his land. Steve Bjorklund, Scituate noted that scenic bylaws of other Towns could be reviewed and this bylaw could be reduced by 5-6 pages. Members Westcott and Pratt agreed and suggested reviewing other towns' scenic bylaws. Callahan does not want this to be too open ended so Planning Boards can add unreasonable restrictions. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to recommend that the article before the Planning Board on this date not be approved. SECOND: none MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue the public hearing on this article to March 2, 2005 SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 3—1 MOTION APPROVED (Member Sturdy opposed) Large Home Review(Article 31 in draft warrant). Large Home covered out of order from advertised order. Ivimey read this portion of the Public Hearing advertisement. Proponent Tom Callahan present. Callahan pointed out that this proposed bylaw amendment is an attempt to put the amendment back into its original version which had some teeth in the special permit process rather than the watered down"coffee klatch"version that was passed last year. Member Sturdy took issue with the current bylaw being a"coffee klatch"as this process is not only an opportunity for the neighbors to become informed but is also an opportunity for more thorough review of the zoning bylaw and zoning issues than the Building Commissioner can do by way of an application. Callahan further noted that in addition to giving neighbors the opportunity to become informed and to be heard, the purpose of this bylaw is also to address and control,by regulating square footage,tear down and mansionization with the added criteria of whether a new construction is more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. The proposed changes to 5.5 still allow the Planning Board to make recommendations to the Planning Board Meeting 3 of 4 February 16,2005 Building Inspector and to ensure that zoning compliance is reviewed. Member Sturdy noted that the crux of the debate focuses on subparagraph B which addresses a building being in harmony with the surrounding area. Wayne Sawchuk, 432 Beechwood St., felt the article that passed was the voice of Town Meeting and that the amendment currently before the Board is an attempt for those who did not like what was passed to try to get what they wanted. Town Planner Harrington noted that the criteria listed are what people are concerned about, that adding more criteria would only help the applicant be better prepared and that it would be a reach to try to make this a special permit. Steve Bjorklund, Scituate, stated that the entire bylaw is awful,that the applicant should not have to go before two Boards adding that if a situation involves a conforming lot that someone would like to build a huge house on, the neighbors should be given the opportunity to become informed,but if the situation involves a non-conforming lot and has to go before the ZBA, this bylaw should not apply at all—the ZBA should handle it and ask for Planning Board recommendations. Bjorklund felt that a statement should be added that"any application for zoning relief will exempt the application from this bylaw". Member Ivimey questioned if the existing bylaw is going too far and should be scaled back,to which Callahan noted that the existing bylaw has already been scaled back to the point where it has no teeth for enforcement. MOTION: by Member Westcott to consider adding a-k in the future within the current large home review process. Member Sturdy felt the zoning bylaw does not give the Planning Board the option to add these regulations. Town Planner Harrington felt it could be done and she also is more comfortable with Bjorklund's added statement. Member Pratt agreed with Member Westcott. Callahan proposed amending to-a large home on a conforming lot would need a special permit from the Planning Board and a large home on a non-conforming lot would need a special permit from the Zoning Board. SECOND: none MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve this bylaw with the amendment as proposed by Tom Callahan in the existing citizens' petition. SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: not taken MOTION: by Member Westcott to approve the amendment to the bylaw as presented in the citizens' petition,without further amendment, as it is before the Board. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 2 — 2 MOTION DID NOT PREVAIL Member Westcott agrees in principal but this represents a change to the bylaw as well as the guideline and he does not think both necessarily need to be changed as they were just voted by the Town. He feels the current process is working well and that criteria such as a-k could be worked into the existing bylaw. Member Ivimey stated that the current bylaw is working for what it is but that it is not much more than an invitation to have a discussion without teeth. MOTION: by Member Westcott that the Planning Board take steps to implement guidelines a-k into the regs in whatever manner is appropriate according to Town Counsel input. SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 3—1 MOTION APPROVED Member Ivimey read rest of advertisement for all remaining articles. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to continue public hearing on Item 1—Scenic Roads, Item 2—Earth Removal, Item 3—Section 8 to a special meeting to be held on February 23,2005 at 7:00 PM. SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED (Member Sturdy abstained from vote for continuance) This vote supercedes previous motion to continue to 03/02/05—all 3 articles will be continued to 02/23/05. 9:40 P.M. HIGHLAND ESTATES—DISCUSS DRAFT DECISION (EXTENSION TO 02/18/05) Attorneys Ayoub and W. Sullivan, Jr.,Neil Murphy in attendance to represent Mr.Nader. Review of 02/16/05 draft decision covered page by page incorporating comments from applicant's agents, Planning Board, Town Planning Board Meeting 4 of 4 February 16,2005 Planner and Town Engineer John Modzelewski. Surety was discussed. Attorney Ayoub indicated that tripartide agreement may not be a possibility as the project maybe privately funded. All understood that form of surety is applicant's decision. Town Planner Harrington will redraft decision, incorporating tonight's discussions. Goal is to file decision on 02/24/05. Attorney Ayoub agreed to request an extension, in writing,to 02/25/05. MOTION: by Member Westeott to adjourn SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 10:40 P.M. NEXT MEETING: February 23,2005 at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: