Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2008 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2008 (9) Planning Board Meeting 1 of 3 January23,2008 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 23,2008 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred Moore, Chairman William Good,Vice Chair Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Robert Sturdy Board Members Absent: Mike Westcott Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. RICHARD HENDERSON—INFORMAL DISCUSSION—COMMON DRIVEWAY Form A for the property in question has already been signed but a common driveway was not included at that time. The Board determined that this should be filed without a fee as it was paid at the time of the Form A and that a common drive maintenance plan should be included and, easements should be on the plans. 7:10 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE 01/09/08 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve 01/09/08 minutes SECOND: Member Good VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • DISCUSSION—CHANGE MEETING NIGHTS TO MONDAYS -Member Westcott has had a change of jobs which will have him living out of state from Tuesday through Thursday. For indefinite future,he will not be able to attend Wednesday night meetings and requests that the Board consider moving meetings to Mondays. Westcott would like to continue to contribute to the Board. Board recognizes his contributions. If meetings cannot be moved to Mondays,the reality is that Member Westcott would be forced to resign his position which would result in three open seats on the Planning Board. Discussion centered around conflicts with the BOS meetings, administrative challenges of Monday night meetings,logistical difficulty for newspapers to cover the BOS and Planning Board meetings on the same night. In the end,the Board decided to try Mondays with the caveat that if it is not working,the Board would return to Wednesday night meetings. • MOTION: by Member Ivimey to change meetings to Monday nights • SECOND: Member Good • VOTE: 3 - 1 MOTION CARRIES Meetings to be scheduled for February 4 and 25; March 3, 10 and 24 • IDENTIFY ZONING ARTICLE PUBLIC HEARING DATES - Monday,March 3,2008 • VOTE TO AMEND ZBA APPLICATION PACKET PLANNING BOARD REVIEW, RECOMMENDATION NOTICE - Hold discussion to next meeting 7:30 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDTIONS • 10 BEACH ST. SPECIAL PERMIT APPL. ,APP: HEIDI CONDON ASSOC. Heidi Condon was in attendance. Condon explained that owners have been renovating the main house and would like to turn the existing unfinished space above the garage into a yoga room. The plans involve adding a shed dormer to the rear of existing non-conforming garage which will make the garage more non-conforming. From the front and the sides,the shed dormer will not be seen from the street. The footprint will not be change,but the 15' garage height will be increased by .3 feet. Condon calculated the average height as the average of all four sides of the building. Member Sturdy felt there was an issue with building height because the garage was not 100' back and, Planning Board Meeting 2 of 3 January23,2008 noted that plans done by a registered professional engineer should have been submitted rather than superimposed drawings on a surveyor's drawing. Three years ago, a special permit was granted to rebuild the then existing garage(which was 2' from the property line) at a 6' distance from the property line which made the garage less non-conforming. This proposed shed dormer addition was not proposed by the former owners at that time. Overall the Planning Board considered this a minor alteration. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend approval of this special permit, as the shed dormer will be on the back of the home,stepped in 4' on either side and will not be seen from the street. SECOND: Member Good VOTE: 3-0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Sturdy abstained) 20-22 LAMBERT'S LANE,MULLIN APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION NOT TO RESCIND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO OWNERS OF 20-22 LAMBERT'S LANE -Mr. Mullin and his attorney,Richard Henderson were in attendance. Inadvertently,the owners of 20-22 Lamberts Lane were not notified of this agenda item and were therefore not in attendance. The owner's of 20-22 Lambert's Lane received a building permit to raze an existing, non-conforming two family house in a single family neighborhood and reconstruct a new two family house on a different spot of their lot (after adding a small parcel of land to their lot). Mr. Mullin is opposing construction of the new two family home in this single family dwelling district. Attorney Henderson, for Mr. Mullin, contends that the non-conformity applies to the structure that existed and that once the original two family structure was razed and the lot was changed and the proposed home relocated, that the new construction must comply with current zoning which does not allow a two family home, meaning they could build a new single family home on the lot, but not a two family. Mr. Mullin requested that the building permit be rescinded and, subsequently appealed the building inspector's decision not to rescind the building permit. Member Moore felt that this is a very complicated legal exercise. Member Sturdy felt there was not enough information but that knocking a building down and not rebuilding on the same footprint has not been allowed in the past. Member Ivimey felt this issue was extremely complicated and that the Planning Board should not offer a recommendation. Henderson cited the Piepenbrink house which the ZBA allowed to be converted from a three to a four family house arguing that the conversion language did not apply because it was non- conforming but they also ruled that the house, footprint etc. had to remain exactly with same without any structural changes. Henderson stated that the Piepenbrink case and the 20-22 Lambert's Lane case are similar situations, but the decisions are inconsistent with one another. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to recommend that,for the reasons cited by Attorney Henderson and, particularly in light of the Piepenbrink decision cited by Henderson, the ZBA uphold the appeal striking the Building Inspector's decision to not rescind the building permit for 20-22 Lambert's Lane. SECOND: Member Good VOTE: 3—1 MOTION CARRIES POSTSCRIPT. In light of the fact that the owners of 20-22 Lambert's Lane were not in attendance to represent their case, it was determined by Chairman Moore the day after this meeting, that a recommendation would not be immediately issued to the ZBA and that this will be revisited at the February 4,2008 Planning Board meeting when the owners of 20-22 Lambert's Lane as well as Mr.Mullin can be in attendance to represent their respective sides of the issuance of the building permit and the subsequent appeal. 7:45 P.M. DICK AVERY—WEIR RIVER ESTUARY Avery is the Cohasset Representative for the Weir River Estuary Park Committee. Work of the Weir River Estuary Committee is very similar to the work and goals of an open space committee. The whole estuary plan covers 587 acres— 12 of which are in Cohasset. Avery explained that a movement that is underway to protect this land by using the Estuary as a park. The estuary covers 17 miles of shoreline from Sunset Point in Hull,through Hingham and to Rocky Beach in Cohasset . Approx. 386 acres have been protected to date. Cohasset encompasses 3%of the of the Area of Critical Concern. Avery wanted to introduce the Board Members to this information as this should be added to the open space plan when it is updated. Avery was not sure which committee or board oversees the open space plan but will be seeking input from the Planning Board,BOS and, ConComm. Copies of the Weir River Estuary Land Protection Plan were given to all members of the Board and a copy is on file in the Planning Board Office. MOTION: by Member Good to support the Weir River Estuary plan as part of the new open space plan. Planning Board Meeting 3 of 3 January23,2008 SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 8:00 P.M. T. CALLAHAN—HOUSING PARTNERSHIP INCLUSIONARY ZONING ARTICLES)— DISCUSSION Callahan explained that the Housing Partnership Consultant did not get an article written for the warrant, so the Housing Partnership wrote an article at the last minute and submit it to the BOS. Callahan explained that the purpose of inclusionary zoning is to keep towns at the 10% (40B)threshold once it is met. The proposed articles would repeal both existing sections and replace them with a more comprehensive, state of the art bylaw. Cohasset current count is 76 affordable housing units that fall under the definition—the state has the town at a slightly higher number as their numbers are outdated. Cohasset median income is $96,000 and the affordable criteria is 80%of the median income. The asking price for an affordable for sale unit for a family of four would have to be $191,000.00 and there is nothing for sale at that price in Cohasset and there has not been for years. There are no affordable units for people to use as"starter"homes or to downsize to. Callahan noted that there are many Cohasset town employees who cannot afford to live in the town they work in. Two versions of the article were submitted to the BOS —one version was taken modeled after Wellesley while the other version was modeled after Duxbury. Both versions make inclusionary zoning mandatory and,both apply to single family as well as multifamily residences. Wellesley's version also applies to commercial mixed-use in commercial zones where funds can be applied to a housing trust for affordable housing. Callahan asked for the Planning Board opinion on: Density bonus or not? Commercial inclusion or not? Two bylaws alternatives or one bylaw?Board suggested one bylaw—two alternatives would be too confusing. Public hearing to be held on March 3, 2008. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to adjourn at 9:00 PM SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4,2008 AT 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APPROVED: STUART IVIMEY, CLERK DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2008