Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 02/02/2005 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 3 February 2,2005 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2,2005 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 Mike Westcott Board Members Absent: Robert H. Sturdy Recording Secretary Present: Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:00 PM 7:00 P.M. CEDARAMERE - COORDINATE SPECIAL MEETING TO SIGN PLANS Special meeting scheduled for Tuesday,February 8, 2005 at 6:00 P.M. in Planning Board Office to sign plans. 7:10 P.M. HIGHLAND ESTATES (not on agenda) Abutter Stephanie Thieleman addressed Board about her request for right of way from her property to Highland Estates roadway. Public Hearing has closed. A member of the Planning Board will set up a meeting with her next week. 7:25 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES—VOTE TO ACCEPT 01/08/05 AND 01/19/05 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept minutes for 01/08/05 and 01/19/05 SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED • SUBDIVISION RULES &REGULATIONS—DISCUSSION OF—Amendments suggested by Town Planner Harrington were discussed. Overall Board agrees with them. Board wants a public hearing scheduled in about a month after the proposed amendments have been reviewed by Town Counsel and after comment is received from Member Sturdy who was absent from this meeting. • ZONING ARTICLES FOR 04/02/05 TOWN MEETING—Brief discussion about articles. Board asked that copy of advertisement and proposed articles be sent to Wayne Sawchuk for his review and input. Planning Board Secretary will forward copies to him. • NEW CONSTRUCTION ON OTIS AVENUE—Town Planner Harrington will talk to Bob Egan. • RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS—Member Pratt would like to see a more detailed review of residential protection in the future. 8:30 P.M 150 NORTH MAIN ST., LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING, APP: KENDALL VILLAGE COHASSET BUILDERS,LLC, OWNER: SAME, date stamped: 12/21/04, (public hearing deadline: 01/24/05) Stephen Bjorklund and Mark Winchester in attendance to represent the application. Kimberly McGowan, 154 No. Main St., distributed colored in copies of plot plan with existing&proposed dwellings on it. She comments on size of her residence compared to exisiting&proposed at 150 No. Main St. and on location of her residence directly on lot line. As closest abutter she commented that the proposed changes are not harmonious and are indeed harmful,injurious and objectionable to the surrounding area,the Planning Board Meeting 2 of 3 February 2,2005 abutters and the neighbors in terms of noise,traffic issues,privacy and property value. Major concerns include: scale of proposed structure is out of proportion with neighborhood and with Cohasset in general; proposed building is essentially 4 attached condo units which are out of character with single family neighborhool; proposed high density use is not harmonious and would be injurious to neighborhood; already objectionable noise will increase; additional parking approved last year has already increased objectionable noise and pollution—further increase will exacerbate this;proposed gravel(as opposed to paved) driveway next to McGowan property only increases the noise; increased size of structure will only cause noise to reverberate more than it already does;rear of structure(with guest parking)becomes, in reality,one large parking lot which will also increase traffic and noise; Section 7.2.10 of bylaws—general parking and loading regulations stipulate that Planning Board has jurisdiction to reserve some parking as green space(Member Moore points out that this applies to commercial);residents fear guest parking on street, straddling sidewalk(Member Pratt cites 7.2.8— stating that it is fully legitimate to examine applicability here for propensity to generate on street parking for guests; driveway for 150 No. Main is at heavily trafficked intersection for ball fields,town pool, library, childrens' museum etc. and will be dangerously impacted by the increased traffic; increased parking will negatively impact neighborhood by increasing runoff of both chemicals and water; 7.3.c addresses drainage and she wants to know how Planning Board ensures this;high density use, out of scale size and practically commercial grade parking, as well as grade of materials that might be used, will decrease property value of all abutters; she invited Planning Board members to view the existing and proposed site and the impact of the proposal on their property from her kitchen window(Member Moore points out for the record that it is not the applicant's fault that the McGowan house is on the lot line and does not diminish the applicant's right to do something with his property and if was not on the lot line,the impact of this proposal on their property would be less. Further he noted that it is one thing for a neighborhood to be impacted,but another thing for one house right on the lot line to be impacted.); she asked for height of building from the front of the building(Applicant points out that from ground level to the highest point on the peak is 32'9" or 9' taller than existing building, and which, is not the way the Building Inspector measures). Applicant notes that on the back of the building,the worst possible extreme from the worst point to the highest point on the peak is 40'3". Member Moore pointed that from a zoning standpoint,it is clearly with zoning,whereas from a neighborhood impact standpoint,it may not be in keeping with the neighborhood. Member Ivimey wants the record to reflect that the Planning Board is concerned about the height in regards to the neighborhood. McGowan asks for clarification of the real measurement of the stake to her home on the lot line(Applicant noted that what is on the plot plan is the measurement). McGowan asks if the 6,450 SF listed on the application includes the 4th floor and the living space on the garage level of the rear townhouse (Applicant stated that there is no 4th floor so there is no living space on a 4th floor and does include the 1 room on the garage level,that they did not include the one room on the existing 3rd floor because the assessor's office did not include it as living space in the assessment, and that the windows are on the 3rd floor strictly for decorative purposes). Member Moore noted that for the record,the zoning requirements make no reference to the interior SF, only to the footprint SF. McGowan asks for lighting plans for the garage level—Applicant indicates they do not have them at this time although the plan is for decorative lighting shining away from abutters.Member Moore asks for a full lighting plan. McGowan asks what is the plan for the existing 50'pine tree in front of building(Applicant answers it will remain). McGowan asks about septic system plans—Member Moore tells her that is expertise of BOH and should be addressed to them. McGowan states that Section 5.3 Table of Area Regulations clearly states in the RB district,the lot minimum is 35,000SF the applicant needs a 64,000SF lot to convert to a 4 family without a variance and that the special permit from 2003 is invalid and that the rights that went along with this special permit no longer apply. Member Moore noted that this should be addressed with the ZBA. Richard Henderson, noted that last year's decision was based on an existing house and that cannot be proven as a non-conforming use prior to zoning(as is required by law) even though the applicant thinks it is. The non-conforming use is not based on the number of families residing,there must be evidence of rent. This was a family homestead into the 80's as the Piepenbrink family were the only occupants and this was long after zoning so it is not possible to prove this is a non- conforming use as is required to prove back to the day zoning was started. This was not a legal 3 family, so the Applicant can not make it a 4 family without a variance. Further,he noted that the Large Home Bylaw was meant to deal with single family home reconstruction not in cases where zoning must be determined. Henderson Planning Board Meeting 3 of 3 February 2,2005 requests that the Planning Board diligently include in their recommendation to the Building Inspector the point that serious zoning issues have been raised by the community that is objecting to it and that the Planning Board is obligated to point out in their recommendation that they find a project injurious to and not harmonious with a neighborhood. Member Westcott told the public that the Planning Board welcomes,while the hearing is still open,written submissions that be included with the recommendation. Gina Leahy, 178 Mo. Main St., commented that everything that has been discussed is clearly not harmonious with the neighborhood. Roger Crafts, 156 No. Main St., asks what constitutes a renovation vs a reconstruction? Member Ivimey cites Section 8.7.1 to show that this proposal needs an 48,000 SF+ 8,000 SF+ 8,000 SF lot. Applicant states that if had a vacant lot or a single family building that he was converting to a 4 family,he would agree to those numbers— HOWEVER,he contends he has a non-conforming building that he is altering and that he does not have to comply with 5.3.1 but rather he falls under section 2 which says that if does not meet 5.3.1,the ZBA has the power to grant a special permit on the two findings a and b. Member Ivimey noted that the last word before the comma at the end of paragraph 1 is"AND"not"OR". Henderson noted that it is a fundamental concept that you must meet the stature in its entirety. Member Westcott asked for Henderson's argument in writing. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue this public hearing to the 03/02/05 Planning Board Meeting due to Member Moore's absence at the February 16,2005 meeting. SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 10:30 P.M. NEXT MEETING: February 8,2005 at 6:00 P.M. (Special Meeting) Next regular meeting: February 16,2005 at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: