Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 02/18/2004 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 7 Wednesday, February 18,2004 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 18,2004 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL-BASEMENT MEETING RM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S. Moore, Chairman William J. Good,Vice Chairman Peter J. Pratt, Clerk Robert H. Sturdy Board Members Absent: C. Christopher Ford Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:00 PM 7:00 PM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FORM-A APPLICATION: 271 &275 JERUSALEM ROAD.OWN: Stephen Brown. APP: William Saltonstall. DATE: 02-05-04. Two triangles of land to be conveyed from Brown to Saltonstall as approved by Board of Appeals dated Jan., 2004. Both lots have proper frontage and area. MOTION: by Member Sturdy that the Planning Board approve this Form-A Application SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED 7:05 PM ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIAL PERMIT: 49 Elm Court. APP: Travis&Ann Quigley. Date: 01-28-04. Applicants seeking Special Permit to construct an addition of a non-conforming dwelling at 49 Elm Court. Applicants not present. Existing house is already closer to lot line than allowed. To continue house line requires special permit. Member Sturdy comments that lot has never been measured other than on mortgage plan. Town Planner Harrington notes that aerial photography does not always line up with assessor map data so structures can look closer to lot line in aerial photo. MOTION: by Member Pratt that the Planning Board, in principal, does not have any objection to the applicants' request but that the Board would suggest that the ZBA look into the actual survey data before the special permit is granted. SECOND: by Member Good VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT: 224 South Main St. APP: Robert G.&Joyce L. Sturdy. Date: 01-27-04. Applicants seeking Special Permit to construct addition of non conforming dwelling at 224 South Main St. One plot was originally divided into 3 lots with equal width frontage. All houses close to northerly border with driveway on southerly border and are now non-compliant.Applicants want to obtain small parcels to put in septic so house can be built. Proposing to have house with barn/garage structure in rear. Garage is non-compliant,will be eliminated. Member Moore states that plan is an improvement, creating more village appeal and is not different than dozens approved in past. MOTION: by Member Good to support the plans as presented. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED (Member Sturdy abstains from vote) Planning Board Meeting 2 of 7 Wednesday, February 18,2004 7:20 PM TOWN PLANNER REPORT Form-A Procedures: Point#1: Procedures currently require six(6)copies of the plan in addition to the mylar copy. If Board would like to receive, in advance, copies of Form-As filed, the number of copies required should be increased to eight(8)copies. MOTION: by Member Moore to change procedures on Form-A to require eight(8) sets of plans instead of six. SECOND: by Member Good VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED 7:25 PM DRAFT—"LOCAL INITIATAIVE PROGRAM APPLICATION" Tabled—to be addressed at end of meeting,time permitting. Board reviews new materials in meeting packet. Discussion re: memo from Town Counsel dated 2/18/04 regarding Great Neck Residences buffer zone around easement. Member Pratt clarifies that there are two written opinions from Town Counsel relative to the Morrissey SMRD—one is a supplement to the other. There is also another correspondence from the applicant addressing the issue of litigation with abutter over ownership, control and development rights. Members have not had time to review correspondence from Town Counsel. Town Planner Harrington wrote a synopsis of Town Counsel opinions which is included. 01/14/04 Draft minutes included in packet for review and comment. Member Moore requests that draft minutes be sent to members in meeting packet for review prior to meeting of possible. 7:30 ZONING PUBLIC HEARINGS Warrant Art.#14: Senior Multi-family Residence Development(SMRD). Member Pratt reads draft bylaw text.Member Pratt explains that reconfiguration in Senior Overlay District part of zoning code will reconfigure downward the Sunset Provision from 20%of total housing units in Town to 15%. Planning Board realized they were over counting the number of units as"multifamily". Board of Assessors and Town Counsel have directed Planning Board to state that there are currently 250 existing multi-family units in Cohasset. Planning Board feels there is a moral obligation to correct that figure down to 15%. Member Sturdy feels 40B cannot be brought into it and that in the first line and a half, changing 20%to 15%needs to be into put into Section 16 while all the rest needs to be included in the definition of multi-family in the 2.1 definition section. Town Counsel does not have any problem with the change if it is just a matter of drafting and where to place the information. Member Moore expresses concern about the effect on projects currently in the pipeline if this change is made and that if this goes through,Town has already sunsetted. Member Sturdy expresses concern that if we are already at 15%and if Cedarmere did not get built we would end up with 0 additional low/moderate/elderly housing and that it is not the Town's desire. Wayne Sawchuk stated concern about the ability to put in other combinations of apartments/businesses under the definition of special permit and the 15% or 20%category. Member Pratt restates Member Sturdy's concern that 15% excludes too much. Member Sturdy feels it is too late to increase the number and that the best thing to do right now is to not take it down to 15%and we may have to ask the town to raise it at a subsequent Town Meeting. The objective is to truly have a certain number of multifamily housing. Member Pratt explains that his concept of the legislative intent of this item 15 mos. ago was that 40B's and SMOD's would count. Member Moore reiterates that the best we can do at this point is not recommend the article and that something new should be submitted sooner rather than later but it is too late at this point because it has already been advertised. MOTION: By Member Sturdy that the Board not recommend this article. SECOND: By Member Good VOTE: 3—1 (MEMBER PRATT OPPOSED) MOTION APPROVED Warrant Art. 10: Earth Removal,Land Clearing&Land Alteration. Member Pratt reads draft bylaw text. The article is designed to replace the earth removal bylaw and to replace it with a new set of Planning Board Meeting 3 of 7 Wednesday, February 18,2004 regulations regarding not only earth removal but issues with ledge, grading and filling. Motivation behind this bylaw is to put people on notice as to what is going on next door to them—to regulate,not to prevent— and to put new construction through a process. It's just another step of the permitting process that can occur simultaneously. Building Commissioner Bob Egan asks Town Counsel Hucksam if litigation can be carried on for years if special permit is appealed?Town Counsel Hucksam confirms. Member Sturdy feels this bylaw is taking away a lot owner's rights to build on a previously defined buildable lot if an abutter appeals and delays it for years in court. Wayne Sawchuk asks how this bylaw amendment will affect something like the Cook property or whether it will be exempted because there is already a house on it. Member Pratt explains that the SMOD is an overlay district which has its own set of conditions that supercede for that developer.Wayne Sawchuk questions that it can be less restrictive than the general bylaw. Town Planner Harrington clarifies that if there is discretion to wave some of the requirements that are specifically in the overlay bylaw that can be done otherwise the underlying zoning has to be upheld. Dave Calhoun,2 Sheldon Road, expresses the opinion that a Planning Board and rules and regulations already exist, and that another layer of appeal is not necessary. Mark DeGiacomo, 59 Beach Street, sees this article as more likely to decrease appeals as it promotes conversation among neighbors early in the process. Charlie Higginson, 159 Atlantic Ave., states that it is very difficult to comment on an article that has undergone tremendous changes and would like to see it postponed indefinitely. Selectman Sullivan feels this article adds appeal potential as it gives neighbors the impression that they have legitimate control over the direction and course of what can occur on a piece of abutting property. Member Sturdy cites the ZBA ruling that this article is too intrusive and should be withdrawn. Member Pratt fully supports the concept but feels a better vehicle is needed. Member Moore feels this bylaw is horribly intrusive. MOTION: by Member Sturdy that the Board recommend indefinite postponement of this article. SECOND: by Member Good VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED Warrant Art.#11: Non-Conforming Uses & Structures &Lots. Member Pratt reads summary of draft bylaw text. Selectman Callahan explains that this adds a set of definitions and the purpose is to provide specific definitions of construction scenarios to make it clear what portion of section 8 of the bylaw apply to those scenarios to avoid the battles of interpretation that can go on. Member Sturdy feels this section does not need to be addressed as it follows the state law almost word for word. John Whealler, 619 Jerusalem Road asks for explanation about 150%being substantially more detrimental and adds that the words"cubic area"make no mathematical sense at all and are difficult for the people who have to enforce them to interpret this and states that the words in the paragraph do not express that intent. Selectman Sullivan believes this is significantly more intrusive to people that have rights of ownership,that site and lot restrictions already exist and that this gives neighbors the implied impression that they have control over their neighbor's property. Selectman Callahan states that if the house is conforming or is going to be built to be conforming,it will pass through this process—it is not going to be restricted. Building Commissioner Bob Egan states that people are always looking for the finite,definable zoning controls and information and if tightening up will help,he thinks it's the better way to go. Member Moore references Woody Chittick's comments(p.4 02/13/04 memo)that"this is a step in the wrong direction because it eliminates "of right" construction in cases where conforming alterations(etc) are made to a house on a conforming lot. That would seem to be illegal per 40 A, Section 6. ..." Town Counsel explains that he believes he is referring to the"second accept"clause in Chapter 40 A Section 6 which says that if you are dealing with a single or two family residential structure and there's an alteration to it that does not increase the non-conforming nature of the structure than you can do it. This is a matter of state law in 40A Section 6 and there could be a conflict if this is interpreted as abrogating that. MOTION: by Member Sturdy that the Board recommend indefinite postponement of this article be indefinitely postponed. SECOND: by Member Good VOTE: 3—1 (Member Pratt votes nay) MOTION APPROVED. Warrant Art.#9: Large Home Site Plan Review. Member Pratt reads draft bylaw text. Planning Board Meeting 4 of 7 Wednesday, February 18,2004 Selectman Callahan explains that this version adds a series of guidelines taken from the Weston and Lexington versions which were passed to act as a public notice process and an airing out process to deal with the issue of mansionization. Member Moore reads the overall comment by the ZBA—"this is a fine concept, and we endorse limiting over-sized homes to help preserve the special character of our Town.Unfortunately, this concept seems to have"morphed"into a"Visual Compatibility"(e.g. landscaping)bylaw which extends far beyond house size. Also, in its present form the article is badly flawed: it contains conflicts with other sections of the Bylaws,has a number of loopholes. Further, it may conflict with Chapter 40A, Section 3. An extensive re-write is called for at the very least; it probably should be withdrawn for now." Selectman Sullivan states this is very intrusive,restrictive, subjective, and implies to a neighbor that they have the right to control landscaping on a neighbor's property. Mark DeGiacomo,Beach Street states that a case was lost in the Massachusetts Appeals Court which demonstrated that, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts law, aesthetics and views matter in determination of"detrimental"standards. John Whealler, 619 Jerusalem Road, asks if window replacement,would require this site plan review, and asks if that is that the intended consequence of this? Selectman Sullivan explains that this article is a huge departure from the article in Weston which is strictly for new construction and does not get involved with alterations. Charles Sturdy states that mansions are a fundamental characteristic of this town which has always had large mansion and that this approach demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the character of Cohasset is in the first place. Dave Calhoun, 2 Shelton Road, suggests that a simpler process to make neighbors aware of what is going is for all building permits to require that a certified letter go to the abutters to give them the heads up that something is happening. Member Sturdy states that there is no such thing as making neighbors happy,that this is just an attempt to control and that this cumbersome level of rules,regulations, special permits and appeals that are not necessary. Member Pratt states that people are not as concerned about the construction of new mansions as they were constructed in the 19th century,but rather about the so called mansionization which is the over massing of reconstructed homes on existing smaller lots. Planner Harrington thinks the Zoning Board comments on this article are excellent and workable and wonders if they can be worked into this draft with a continuation on this article before town meeting. Member Moore does not agree with this article on principle feeling it is excessive regulation. MOTION: by Member Sturdy that the Board recommend indefinite postponement of this article. SECOND: by Member Good VOTE: 3—1 (Member Pratt votes nay) MOTION APPROVED Warrant Art.#13: Political Signs. Member Pratt reads the summary of draft bylaw text. Member Moore explains that this is to bring us in compliance with state law and is really a matter of housekeeping. Wayne Sawchuk,Beechwood Street thinks the issue of political signs having to come down should be addressed or can they be put on the front lawn to make a statement forever? He would like it to be more clear that we are going to allow this,but we're going to recommend that you remove signs at the appropriate time. Member Moore says we just have to hope that people know what to do,what the gentleman's agreement is—that the signs should be removed. MOTION: by Member Sturdy that the Board recommend approval of this article SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 4—0 unanimous MOTION APPROVED 9:45 GREAT NECK RESIDENCES—CONTINUED PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION Member Moore recaps: at last meeting there were significant omissions in the plan and, legal issues that Town Counsel Rick Hucksam could address: 1. Ownership and Site Control: The questions relate to establishing who is the owner of the property and who is the applicant for the permit;whether the applicant for the permit is properly authorized; and whether documents submitted are proper evidence of that. A letter has been submitted that addresses an agreement between the owner of the Mohawk Realty Trust and the applicant. The agreement itself has not been presented. In Town Counsel's opinion,the actual agreement should be provided to the board and has not been. Planning Board Meeting 5 of 7 Wednesday, February 18,2004 2. Litigation regarding the property in a prior P& S Agreement: In Town Counsel's opinion, further information(at a minimum,the Lower Court Decision) should be provided to the Board about the litigation. Planner Harrington explains the documents arrived very late today. Copy of P&S and letter discussing two successful determinations from the Lower Court given to Town Counsel. 3. Use of the Easement for Access to the property: In Town Counsel's opinion,the easement should be provided so the Board can determine if the easements are adequate to provide access to the project as it is proposed. Has not yet been submitted. 4. Regarding unpaid Real Estate Taxes: In Town Counsel's opinion this is like other liens on the property and does not affect the board's ability to act on the application. 5. Member Sturdy: (regarding the 50' wide perimeter buffer between the SMRD and the abutting properties and the application to either side of an easement to get to other sections of the property)asks whether the easement would have to be the two 50"buffers as well as the way itself?Town Counsel has not had time to consider this but his unofficial response was that he doesn't think so. He thinks that refers to the property that is held with the ownership. But he will check that. John Modzelewski summarized the outstanding issues as summarized in his 2/7 letter to the Board. In that letter,he"did not recommend approval of the preliminary submission at this time because of the outstanding items yet to be resolved including but not limited to the following:" 1. Lack of architectural information: Architectural submission to date has always been labeled"not to scale."Only one elevation has been received. John could not figure out the unit plans in relation to the overall plan of the structure which he had asked for but has not been received. 2. Lack of pedestrian circulation information: Bylaw refers to the development acting as a whole with pedestrian circulation back and forth between buildings. To date, applicant has stated willingness to work with the Board about the pedestrian circulation but this information has yet to be presented so the Board can respond to it. It is not the Board's obligation to design the pedestrian situation. 3. Apparent work in the SMOD buffer zone: At this point much of the roadway is within this 30' and 50' buffer zone around the property.An argument can be made that in the front of the property,the road crosses the buffer zone and on other parts of the property,the road hugs the line. Suggested that the Board decide if they agree with this and if they think this can even be done well enough so it does not impact the neighborhood in accordance with the bylaws. 4. Apparent impossibility of constructing retaining walls as shown: The retaining walls have always been on the line and solution presented has always had them on the line. In downtown Boston,buildings can be put right next to other buildings so you could probably put sheet piling in and go to other measures so as not to disturb someone else's land. As a practical matter,that's not the case here and is not going to be the case and it does impacts the neighborhood. 5. The difficulty of fire access and egress: There should be a 50' radii cul-de-sac at the main building and a 50' radii turn around at the other 5 units. Its another 600-650` for the fire truck to go down and is presently 3 point turns or more for a fire truck to get out of the furthest unit. A turnaround should be provided which is going to be difficult to do on that lot. 6. Volume calculations on ledge to be removed were requested and still have not been forthcoming. 7. Other points in the letter have been partially responded to and some have been fully responded to. Town Planner outlines submissions that have just been received—the site control and ownership legal documents.Applicant points out that: legal document has been presented tonight from Rackemann, Sawyer &Brewster's opinion of the law case: the P&S agreement also provided tonight; some work had been done on modifying the site plans to deal with some of the encroachments into the buffer zone and also the potential movement on the access road to try to address the property line issues although it has not yet been seen. Information regarding Modzelewski's two letters also provided tonight and have applicants have reduced 24 units to 5. Cover letter states that the volume of material for blasting and pedestrian walkways (they do have little bit of a sketch which they have in the car but did not bring in)have been relevant to their reducing the building sites. Member Moore suggests the applicant doesn't understand where this substantial application stands: 1. Board needs plans and architectural drawings,not sketches. 2. Application has been substantially incomplete with a great deal of missing information since the original meeting and continues to be so. No substantial progress has been made. Planning Board Meeting 6 of 7 Wednesday, February 18,2004 3. March 3 meeting has been rescheduled to March 10 due to schedule conflicts. By March 3,Board must have every document in hand,not sketches. If documents aren't received,Board will have to vote to deny this application. 4. Board cannot design this project at every meeting. Member Sturdy voices disagreement with continuing discussion to another meeting. MOTION: by Member Sturdy that the Board reject this submission without prejudice and that whatever expenses have been incurred have to be paid for but other than reinstating the deposits the Board will allow a new application to be made on the old permit fee with the restoration of deposits (whatever is left of the deposits will be returned). Member Sturdy would request that if a new application was made that it be complete at the very beginning to avoid continuance after continuance with little or no progress between continuances. SECOND: by Member Pratt Applicant is recognized and states she would like to have spoken before the vote. She was corrected that no vote was taken yet. Applicant states that: 1. Macro issues such as pedestrian walkways, ownership, information on the Mohawk and Great Neck Realty relationship,the wins in Dedham regarding frivolous lawsuits have been addressed and applicant is not looking for this Board to design this project. 2. She was told to follow the guidelines of a 40B, submitted that completed application a year ago and this is a continuation of that submission. Member Moore corrects her that this has nothing to do with 40B and that the Board never gave her those guidelines. She stated that Town Planner told her to follow the 40B guidelines. 3. Applicant insists some plans are to scale (Modzelewski points out that the plans say"NTS"). Applicant says some of the original architecturals reference those floor plans by the layout. 4. Applicant feels that if they can continue, she has a wealth of information that will allow her to move ahead with the project but needs guidance and interpretation of Planning Board. Modzelewski quotes and reiterates the points he stated in his 01/09/04 letter: "Except for the architectural drawing this submission substantially meets the requirements for a preliminary plan as we understand them. It is enough to begin discussion of the project and what we consider the formidable obstacles to its completion. Discussion of the architectural aspects of the development will be very difficult with the currently submitted architectural plans." He maintains this is still the situation. 5. Applicant requests that she be allowed to return to the Board and go through every single issue item by item. For example,there are issues about the volume of blasting, and applicant now has idea of exactly what is being proposed and can supply that information. Member Good states that he does not like the situation that the Board is faced with tonight: 1. Applicant has been deficient all along 2. Board has been uncomfortable with the progress of this application all along 3. Information continues to come to the Board at the last minute and it is inappropriate to expect Board Members and engineer to follow and evaluate plans/information that arrive just before the start of the meeting. 4. Board has given applicant repeated options and opportunities to present detailed information. 5. Applicant has not presented Board with indication of adequate resources (engineers, architects, landscape etc.) and wherewithal for this project to be extended. 6. If there is a willingness on the part of the Board to allow applicant to submit more information by March 3 for the March 10 meeting,Member Good will agree will the Board decision. If however, information is not received the March 3, he feels the application must be over. Member Sturdy does not want to amend his motion. Member Moore feels this could ultimately be designed to be a decent project,but doesn't seem ready now, does not seem to be coming together and that in its current state,there is probably very little chance of approval. Member Pratt states agreement that the Board is not serving the applicant's or the town's interest by giving essentially another extension inside the 60 days. He feels Member Sturdy's motion is very precise—without prejudice—by waiving future application fees, the board is being very forgiving to the state of this application. Applicant would like to go one more round. MOTION: clarified and restated by Member Sturdy that the Board reject the preliminary application for this project without prejudice. The applicant may reapply without a new application fee,and the legal and Planning Board Meeting 7 of 7 Wednesday, February 18,2004 engineering charges that have been incurred to date will be charged against the legal and engineering fees provided. In reapplying,these two sums of money will have to be brought up to their full amount, and the unused portions of the legal and engineering fees will be returned to the applicant as soon as possible. Town Planner Harrington asks if the rejection is based on the issues as outline in John Modzelewski's letter of 02/07/04 and the issues discussed this evening. Member Sturdy confirms this and further cites the basic lack of completeness and the lack of progress. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 4—0 Unanimous MOTION APPROVED 10:40 LIP APPLICATION PROCESS Town Planner Harrington explains her interpretation of how she sees this working most efficiently as: 1. This process needs at different levels, in different ways and under different jurisdictions, approval from both boards. There is special permit approval and LIP Program approval which Selectmen must approve. 2. It puts burden on both Boards to resolve outstanding issues that exist which hinder approval 3. It is important to have Selectmen's process going on parallel to and in same time frame as the Planning Board's process as it is more fair to the applicant Member Moore takes issue with page 1,paragraph 4 re: "decision from the Board of Selectmen must be issued ..."feeling the Selectmen are taking control of this process. Member Moore looks at the LIP Application as putting the burden on the applicant to provide an acceptable project. Member Sturdy disagrees feeling the Selectmen are not one of the bodies that has to approve a project but are the transmittal agency saying in effect that this has cleared the Town and any implication that there is a right of refusal or review by the Board of Selectmen is inappropriate. Member Pratt agrees that language should be removed/modified because, effectively, it does give another board that doesn't have legal jurisdiction in this area, a veto power over Planning Board action. Ideally,there would be cooperation between the two boards. Town Planner Harrington explains the selectmen do have a process they have to follow under the LIP application because the LIP can apply to other projects that are not senior overlay projects. Town Planner Harrington thinks it is important to have the selectmen's decision on the LIP application favorable or unfavorable and it doesn't prevent the Planning Board from issuing a special permit if the Selectmen decide unfavorably. Member Moore feels the language hold the Planning Board hearing hostage to their approval. Harrington's bottom line is that it is important to have that transmittal accomplished before the public hearing is closed. Member Moore feels the applicant should be informed early on that they have to do that. In the event that the Selectmen don't act on this in a timely fashion the Planning Board hearing could be affected. Harrington clarifies that the Planning Board"suggests"that the selectmen make best efforts to act on the LIP application within the time frame of the public hearing. Member Pratt states that there is a need to work quickly with Town Counsel to amend regulations as to what counts as being in the pipeline for multi-family and that we respond publicly to the concern that we could have 7-800 units of multi-family housing here by judicial order,rather than by town meeting and the work of town boards. It was no one's intention,but realistically, this could happen. Member Moore requests Town Planner Harrington work on redrafting this. MOTION: by Member Pratt to end tonight's Open Meeting and enter into Executive Session to discuss current litigation involving the Planning Board,that being an appeal against the Planning Board's issue of a Special Permit for the Cedarmere development. SECOND: by Member Good ROLL CALL VOTE: AM,BS,BG,PP EACH VOTE AYE OPEN MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: