HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2007 (26) Planning Board Meeting 1 of 4
September 5,2007
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: WEDNESDAY,SEPTEMBER 5,2007
TIME: 7:00 PM
PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— SELECTMEN'S OFFICE
41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025
Board Members Present: Alfred Moore, Chairman
William Good,Vice Chair
Stuart Ivimey, Clerk
Mike Westcott
Board Members Absent: Robert Sturdy
Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M.Pilczak
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
• APPROVE AUGUST 22,2007 MINUTES
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve the August 22,2007 Planning Board minutes
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 3 -0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Westcott had not arrived for this vote)
• WIND TURBINE BYLAW—Planning Board administrator to sent memo to BOS requesting they refer to
Planning Board for advertising of public hearing
• TRAINING PROGRAMS IN 06/07?—Member Ivimey-"Land Use&Development"Law Seminar,May,
2006.
7:05 P.M. 230 SOHIER STREET (FORMER COOK ESTATE)RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPLICATION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APPL: ABBOTT
DEVELOPMENT, date stamped: March 7,2007.
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue to September 19,2007 at 7:00 PM
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 3-0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Westcott had not arrived for this vote)
7:20 P.M. 18 LITTLE HARBOR ROAD,LARGE HOME REVIEW CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING,
APPL: OCEANSIDE BLDRS., OWNER: DOUGLAS&KARA KARO, date stamped: 08/06/07 Member
Westcott arrived at the start of this hearing. Applicant Doug Karo and Engineer Paul Mirabito, and Greg Tansey
Ross Engineering in attendance to represent application. Mirabito reviewed details of application. Mirabito
addressed concerns from last meeting: regarding square footage: Mirabito compared proposed 3347 SF foundation
to SF of surrounding homes—2200, 2600,2300, 3000, 2000 SF. Footprint of proposed home is not much larger
than existing homes in neighborhood. Regarding drainage: Storm drainage calculations were submitted. Mirabito
also noted that existing drain system was not properly engineering to adequately deal with water from uphill and
that catch basin is packed and water is not getting into it. System of infiltrators will be installed on downhill side
of house that will store the volume of water running off roof. Soil test pits can be dug if conditioned. Regarding
height of house: provided average grade of house to midpoint of roof elevations which show height at 32.7' which
is less that the maximum 35' allowed. Proposed coverage for the lot is 14% (20%allowed). Blasting is not needed
for foundation as they are using same foundation as previous home,but, some ledge is being removed by hole ram
and rock splitter and will continue for 1-2 more days.
Adele Janssens, 20 Little Harbor Rd.: concerned about how domineering the home will look from the rear and that
while the footprint is not that much larger than surrounding homes,the total SF is larger. Karo noted that the
proposed home(4464 SF)is 300 SF smaller than the average home constructed in Cohasset in the last 5 years.
Planning Board Meeting 2 of 4
September 5,2007
Heather Palmer, 9 Little Harbor Road: asked if applicant looked at SF of other homes on street,not just 2 abutters
as she feels the proposed home looks much larger from the street than the other houses on the street.Applicant
noted that they have tried to make the house fit in with the"surrounding"houses which are the houses on either
side and,behind.
Kathy Sherbrooke, 10 Little Harbor Rd.: asked for height of the house(in feet) above the other houses as opposed
to the height of the house in terms of height above the lawn, so abutters can get a sense of height in terms of how
high it will stand above the other houses. Building Inspector Egan explained how height is measured in the zoning
bylaws and that the proposed house height measurement does fall within the bylaws.
Robert DiTullio,24 Little Harbor Rd.: concerned about impact on the nature of the neighborhood.
Nathaniel Palmer, 9 Little Harbor Rd: asked if architects had ever been to the site. (NO) He felt that the home is
designed to look bigger than it is and that it is too ostentatious for the neighborhood.
Member Moore explained for the record that the major issue with this filing seems to be drainage concerns and that
the design, as long as it meets zoning bylaw requirements, is not within the scope of the large home review.
Attorney Charles Humphreys (representing Mr. Slanetz of 14 Nichols Road)noted proposed grade of 92 but topo
shows elevation of 85 on southerly side and asked whether elevation is taken as proposed grade,take it as you find
it, or build it up to where you want it? Building Commissioner Egan answered that he has always taken it as
existing grade which would have the effect on the surrounding properties. Humphreys also noted that septic
system failed in the old house and a minor upgrade was implemented anticipating connection to the sewer system.
He questioned whether system with a minor upgrade can support 5 bedroom home until sewer hookup can happen.
John Chessia,representing Slanetz: addressed his 09/05/07 comment memo. Noted that if existing drainage
system fails, it will flood Slanetz home. He had concerns about ledge actually touching the Cultec system and
questioned what the fall back will be if the Cultec system doesn't work. He also noted that the driveway is not
shown on the plans and recommends a condition for pervious material on the driveway(applicant noted it will be
pervious pavers).
Patricia Dean,207 Jerusalem Rd.: most concerned about drainage. She had to install a gravity drain which
connects into Nichols Rd. catch basin. Concerned that her pipe could back up and flood her home if the impact
from the proposed house is too great and system cannot handle the drainage. She urged Board to consider existing
homes. Applicant noted that drainage calcs. indicate post construction drainage will be less than pre-construction.
Eileen Craven, 6 Nichols Rd.: asked what recourse people have when someone else's drainage problem becomes
yours? Att. Humphreys noted that one cannot cause the unnatural increase in flow of water on one's neighbor.
Adele Janssen: noted that lot has been clear cut and asked if relandscaping could be a condition. Applicant noted
that land will be loamed, seeded and will retain more water than the overgrowth that previously existed. Trees will
also be planted.
No swimming pool will be added to back of house.
Greg Tansey addressed Cultec System: same principal as drywell except spreads more laterally and is shallower
than dry wells. Encased in fresh stone to increase storage capacity and infiltration. Two 4' wide x 21' long
systems to be installed about 4' deep,with approx. 141 cu.ft. of storage capacity. Designed to mitigate roof runoff
by holding water and gradually letting it seep into ground. Tansey feels design is conservative and more than
adequate. Member Ivimey asked if lots 13 and 4 will be impacted if the Cultec System fails. It was noted that both
of those lots flow into this property,not the reverse. Humphreys asked if Cultec System will function when ground
freezes since it is so shallow. Tansey noted that heavy rainfall during frost conditions is rare. Chessia noted that
temporary measures might need to be implemented while system is under construction.
Michele Skolnick,26 Heather Drive: asked if it is possible to have elevations drawn to show proposed dwelling in
relation to other houses on the street.
Humphreys: asked if applicants can plant a few trees in the back to soften the height a little. Applicant indicated
that this is a$2.5 million home and will be appropriately landscaped.
MOTION: by Member Moore to continue to September 19,2007 when applicant can provide a soil
analysis and confirm/resolve the height measurements with Building Inspector.
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES
8:40 P.M. MANOR WAY MODIFICATION OF PLANNING BOARD DIVISION PUBLIC
HEARING, APPLICANT: KING TAYLOR COHASSET LLC, date stamped: August 20,2007—Applicant
Dave Calhoun and Attorney Walter Sullivan in attendance to represent application for modification.Attorney Bruce
Planning Board Meeting 3 of 4
September 5,2007
Issadore in attendance to represent Plaintiff in appeal. Member Ivimey read public hearing advertisement. Attorney
Sullivan gave an overview of the subdivision filing, appeal and remand orders to provide Member Good with
background information. Original subdivision decision allowed limited use of Castle Road with 1 abutter
(Deligiannidis)having deeded right to travel from his home at 211 Castle Road to So. Main St.with restraints on
further development using Castle Road. Applicant feels the only way to address Mr. Deligiannidis' traffic concerns
is to close Castle Road which is what current modification plan will do-Calhoun is proposing that,rather than
Castle Road being available for ultimate conveyance to the Homeowners' Association,the use of Castle Road be
limited to Deligiannidis until such time that the Planning Board, in the future and by way of application,may
determine Castle Road has been improved and adequate for further use. Also propose that the decision be modified
to eliminate Castle Road as a separate and distinct entity and add it lot 6 with signs indicating that Castle Road is
available only for the limited purpose of gaining access to the Deligiannidis' home from So. Main St. The owner of
Lot 6 will actually own Castle Road,but will not be able to use it(access will be blocked by chain)—Lot 6 will
only be able to use Manor Way-chain put across the top of Land Court Lot A-5 and the beginning of Land Court
Lot A-1. Calhoun also submitted 3 amended plans: Sheet 1 which is the overall picture, Sheet lA which is the list
of conditions and sheet 3 which shows the six lots, includes lot 6 which includes all of Castle Road and the portions
of Lot A-1 which are registered so lots 4 and 5 (which will be made somewhat smaller)will just be recorded. Also
submitted: Amendments to existing decision which will be required; Sullivan transferred suggested revisions into
redlined copies of a list of waivers, adding a waiver#6, a revised form 5 covenant; a modification to the conditions
of the Planning Board approval to take into account the modifications to Lot 6; and, a redlined copy of the
Homeowners' Assoc. which has been modified to reflect the fact that the homeowners will no longer be responsible
for owning, controlling or maintaining Castle Road. Will work out plan for Fire Dept. to get through the chain if
they need to and,will meet with and cooperate with the Water Dept. regarding requests for easements. Calhoun will
also consider Capt. Trask request to consider sprinklering all homes. John Modzelewski noted that since Lot 6 is
the hardest to access,perhaps it should be sprinklered. All Civil Design Comments in 09/04/07 memo were
addressed and implemented in plans submitted at meeting.
Attorney Issadore(attorney for Deligiannidis)noted that if Castle Road was improved to point where emergency
vehicles,pedestrians etc could safely access,the use may not have to be limited to one lot—if they just made Castle
Road safe and accessible as is required for subdivisions. Calhoun stated that Deligiannidis is not being cooperative
in responding to changes that have been made to address his demands/requests.
Issadore stated that the modification is an improvement over the decision that currently exists,but if Calhoun is
going to the alternative of closing the road,Issadore asks Board to look at what should be imposed and how it
should be imposed in a manner that accomplishes that objective:
• If Calhoun is giving up Castle Road now,it has to be made clear that some improvements have to be made
to width,paving etc. if they come back in the future to apply for use of it
• Lot 6 has to use that portion of Castle Road which is in the Manor Way subdivision and Lots 1-5 should not
be granted any easements to use Castle Road at any time in the future.
• Deed restrictions in favor or Deligiannidis so they are not returning to the Planning Board all the time
(wants finality in regards to this issue)
• A standard about improvement to the road before there is a further modification about use
• The right for Deligiannidis to install a more substantial gate as well(and be responsibility to remove it in
future if Planning Board approves changes in future)and, signage making it clear that access is to 211 So.
Main St. (Deligiannidis residence)only.
• Some standard on the"just cause"clause that King Taylor represented that it would ask the Board to
impose this new condition in a way which would make clear that the condition would remain in place until
later modified by the Board for a"good cause shown"(as in remand order)and that good cause would at
lease require the road to be improved
Issadore is happy to have the case go to trial and let a judge make the decisions. The issue is a safety issue.
Member Moore noted that there is an underlying issue that no one wants to talk about-that someone wants the road
brought up to standards so they can do future development.
Member Ivimey would like time to review all documents with Town Counsel.
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to close the public hearing
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES
Planning Board Meeting 4 of 4
September 5,2007
MOTION: by Member Moore to continue to September 19,2007.
SECOND: Member Westcott
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn at 9:45 PM
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19,2007 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: STUART IVIMEY, CLERK
DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2007