Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2008 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2008 (11) Planning Board Meeting 1 of 5 February 25,2008 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: MONDAY,FEBRUARY 25,2008 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 Mike Westcott Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. JAMES ISLAND COMMON DRIVEWAY APPL, ATT.RICHARD HENDERSON Attorney Henderson,Paul Mirabito, Ross Eng. in attendance to represent application. Plan meets all requirements of common driveway. Form A(#899) approved for this property in June, 2007. Three lots exist Lot 1,Lot 2 and Lot A: Lot A is to be combined with Lot 2 to result in two lots. Two dwellings and two outbuildings already exist so in sense,it is already a common driveway. Proposal is to install a common driveway with an easement to meet regulations. Driveway will be paved, 16'wide with cape cod berm on each side. 450'long from Atlantic Ave. to end. One end may be extended in the future to service a proposed home. Plan does incorporate new gas,water and sewer line which will come into property. Water will flow from top of hill, down driveway towards street into existing tidal waters and small basin. 1%grade from Atlantic Ave. to '/2 way up driveway,then up hill at about 8% and then up to existing house. Henderson to file covenant with respect to common maintenance of driveway. MOTION: by Member Good to approve this common driveway application SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Westcott had not arrived for this agenda item). 7:10 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE 02/04/08 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Good to approve the 02/04/08 minutes SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES • BEGIN MARCH 3 MEETING AT 6:45 P.M.? MOTION: by Member Ivimey to begin March 3,2008 meeting at 6:45 PM SECOND: Member Good VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES • SET APRIL MEETING DATES- April 14 and April 28 7.15 P.M. 449 JERUSALEM RD., LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING,APP: TIM PAPPAS, filed on 01/24/08 Member Ivimey read public hearing advertisement. In attendance to represent application: Appl. Tim Pappas; Architect- Greg Saldana,Project Manager; Steve Comstock,Landscape Architect;Dave Crispin, Civil Eng.; Tom Calves,Project Manager. Site is characterized as natural and manmade terraced property, sloping towards the ocean. Proposed house is within existing footprint. Existing 6,477 SF structure to be razed, new 6,086 SF to be built. Appears as 2- story structure on street side due to site drop off. Proposed house will be Leeds certified based on energy calculations and improvements being made to site—using less energy,building is well insulated, exceeds the US UBC requirements, site management of water to capture, filter and distribute it for irrigation use.Average of mean grade with 10' diameter at each corner of house—average grade is 37.98. Average proposed ridge height is 25 below that. Member Sturdy believes they have to go before ZBA even though they are not increasing the non-conformity by staying within the existing footprint, the non-conformity is not just the Planning Board Meeting 2 of 5 February 25,2008 setback, it's the height-they are increasing the non-conformity if they exceed the height at ggy point,not just the average height. Attorney Charles Humphreys representing the abutters—The Roys - agreed with Member Sturdy that the key point has always been the volumetric increase of the building over the encroaching area between the setback and the existing building and that no credit is given under law if one goes below the existing,but if one increases the existing anywhere, it is considered a volumetric change in that particular area of encroachment and that is absolutely a need for a special permit. If the applicant can push back 4" and eliminate the non-conformity, it makes more sense to avoid the issue. Chittick did not comment that they need to go before the ZBA. Steve Comstock: Goal was to achieve the highest LEED grading as possible and leave the site in a more sustainable condition than currently exists. To have minimal impact on site, all existing site walls,terracing etc. will be left intact. One large site alteration is wall on Jerusalem Rd. side where 2 site walls are proposed to increase site's ability to process storm water coming off Jerusalem into site or over driveway area by catching water in infiltration basins to hold excess storm water. On front,pitching slope back towards the second wall swale to catch storm water and let it infiltrate back into site. Third swale exists on bottom terrace to capture small quantities of excess storm water that were not captured by native vegetation. Roof drains will catch water and channel into storage basin that has not yet been located. Goal is to capture as much water as possible and reuse in irrigation eg. Water will be flowing away from Jerusalem Rd.No blasting or chipping on the site. Barbara Chase,457 Jerusalem Rd.: direct abutter, concerned about catch basin overflow into her leaching field. Answer: large amount of storm water will be held in basin,then piped to metal structure. Plantings are on Pappas property. Member Moore thought that if footprint is not changing,there shouldn't be an appreciable difference in drainage. Applicant indicated they are trying to decrease drainage with landscaping to retain, cleanse and reuse rainwater and reject any excess in more controlled manner than it is now. Member Ivimey thought that because this is all ledge,the rainwater is not going to leach into the ground—will drain onto Chase property instead. Member Sturdy agrees and would like topography of the underlying ledge. Board requested specific information from applicant: • Beyond general principals—provide rationale for what they plan to do and why it is not going to have a negative impact—for example, provide reasons why putting water into the Atlantic Ocean is not good • Provide elevation lines,more accurate topographic information • Consider reducing the existing by 4"to 20' setback to make it conforming—goal is always to eliminate non-conforming if possible why do something non-conforming if you are only 4"from conformity • Confirm with Building Inspector that ZBA special permit is not required relative to the height non- conformity • Provide specific information of drainage issues on this difficult site and potential impact on abutter MOTION: by Member Sturdy to continue to March 10,2008 meeting SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 8:05 P.M. 29 CEDAR ST./FOREST AVENUE DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING, APP: DAVID DRINAN, filed on 01/22/08 Member Ivimey read public hearing advertisement. In attendance to represent application: Attorney Stephan Follansbee;Applicant: David Drinan;Neil Murphy and Scott Arnold, Neil Murphy Assoc. Lot is unusual—has 70' of frontage on Forest Ave. not off Cedar St. as owner originally thought,because his access is off Cedar St. No frontage off Cedar St. for new lot—only way to get frontage for new lot is to build street to the one lot from Forest Ave.—only way this can be done is to file for subdivision control law roadway similar to what was done on Powers Lane. Driveway comes off Forest at 6% slope,runs downhill, crosses wetlands(about 120'wide)and then goes back uphill to turnaround.New lot would be on left of roadway. Drainage is at foot of hill to detention basin on upland which will drain into wetland.No increase in runoff on the site or,onto Forest Ave.properties—all water will flow towards the old landfill location. Will ask for several waivers—want 16'road with berms on both sides rather than the 20'requirement and, a hammerhead turnaround at end—not for use by another home in the future,but to allow room for vehicles to back up,turn and exit. Existing house will retain access off Cedar St. Will provide whatever necessary restrictions are required to guarantee that there will only be one lot with no future subdivision. Biggest issue facing this filing is Conservation's review of crossing the wetlands. Centerline of road is staked all the way to the end. 2 test holes have been dug to 5'. Maybe a vernal pool—(to be determined in the spring)which,under State law, can be replicated. May build bridge across wetlands. John Modzelewski asked Murphy to look at the drainage reports with the Cornell method as well and base detention ponds from whichever is most critical.Modzelewski asked why Planning Board Meeting 3 of 5 February 25,2008 they can't build a driveway instead of a road to service the one house—Sturdy noted that because they need to create frontage,they need to create, as a matter of record, a mini-subdivision with a subdivision road,not a driveway—although the Board could grant waivers on the road. Open to Public comments: Wayne Halverson, 54 Forest Ave.: wanted to note on record that he submitted a letter to the Board stating his concerns and opinions. Tricia Morse, 78 Forest Ave.: her property is in the wetlands and she is concerned about water runoff from the road potentially flooding her basement. Her back door is 20'from the high water mark. She noted that the area is wet all year long. Also concerned about the runoff from car and road materials and the effect on the vibrant life woodland,wetland area. Murphy stated that no drainage will go into wetlands—all will go into detention basins. Tony Sledesky,23 Cedar St: feels dangerous precedent will be set in granting easements that will result in a domino effect. Member Moore noted that there aren't any rules being broken and he explained the concept of ANR's and subdivision roads creating frontage and,that there are no regulations against subdivision size—a subdivision can be one home. Moore also pointed out that there aren't any easements being created and that subdivision rules&regs can be modified based upon the local conditions and size of a subdivision. Gary Cohen,27 Cedar St.: when these houses were built 5-6 yrs. ago,houses and lots were more expensive but if frontage doesn't exist,why would the Board grant it?Moore explained that the frontage does exist and the Planning Board cannot deny just because they don't like it—it will go to court. Attorney Humphreys,representing Savola: this house bases its legal existence on frontage on No. Main St. There is only enough frontage for one house. Planning Board is allowing him to trade off his frontage for a subdivision road,but not require his lot use it as legal frontage. Planning Board is basically saying that the applicant cannot put two lots on that frontage,but the Board will show them a way—by applying for a subdivision, with waivers to let them build a common driveway—what is the purpose of the subdivision control laws then?Humphreys contends that granting waivers this far from the subdivision standards and is arbitrary and capricious as the purpose of subdivision control law is to make sure that every road build under the subdivision control law is acceptable and appropriate for becoming a municipal road. This proposed road is so far below standards it could never be accepted as a municipal road.Under the subdivision control law,roads cannot be created that are incapable of acceptance as public ways. Planning Board is downgrading what would be a public way. Humphreys contends that the Board is using the subdivision control law to allow the applicant to avoid requiring frontage. Also, Cohasset requires 2 or 3:1 replication which will modify this drainage plan. Last, Cohasset and the State does not allow the augmentation of wetlands by drainage. So, it does not make sense for Planning Board to approve this plan if it does not make sense in terms of what is allowed for the replication of wetlands. Member Ivimey noted that ConComm will send it back if they do not approve it. Member Ivimey's concern is that they not dump water on someone else's land. Humphreys does not have issue with how close the roadway is to the corner of the Savola property. Another abutter commented that this is forest land and would not want to see it arbitrarily stripped—Member Sturdy noted much of this area is protected by the wetlands and the buffer—trees within 100'buffer cannot be cut down. Murphy also noted that the owner is willing to convey what he doesn't need to conservation. Wayne Halverson: wanted to know if the applicant would have to return to the Planning Board with plans for a bridge if a bridge is going to be build? YES. Anthony Sledesky: Predicts that approving this will result in many applications for 1 home subdivisions. Member Moore countered that, due to expense, that is unlikely unless there is a very compelling reason. Humphreys: oted that if the subdivision road is put in,the applicant will have the right to as many subdivision lots as they are allowed. Member Moore restated that the applicant has offered to put restrictions(as will be in the conditions of approval)that it cannot be further subdivided. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to continue to March 10,2008 meeting and request that the applicant have conversation with Conservation Commission SECOND: Member Good VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 9:00 P.M 209&217 NO.MAIN ST.DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING,APP: ROBERT&MARIA WILLIAMS, filed on 02/04/08 Member Ivimey read public hearing advertisement. In attendance to represent application: John Cavanaro,Brendan Sullivan, Cavanaro Consulting; Attorney Richard Henderson; Robert,Maria Williams,Applicants. The applicant's property is entirely within the Residence A(RA) district. The proposed subdivision will be comprised of three existing parcels of property: Planning Board Meeting 4 of 5 February 25,2008 209 No. Main Street— 1.56+acres—one existing dwelling on the parcel 217 No. Main Street- 3.83+acres—one existing dwelling on the parcel 219 No. Main Street- .07 acres- one existing dwelling on the parcel The three existing parcels of property are to be combined into one, seven(7) lot subdivision. All proposed lots exceed minimum frontage and area requirements. The existing dwelling at 209 No. Main Street, owned and occupied by the Brodericks,will remain on one lot of the proposed newly created seven lots. Access to the Broderick lot will be moved from a current driveway off No. Main St. to a driveway off the new subdivision road. The existing dwellings at 217 and 219 No. Main St. are to be razed and six(6)new, approx. 3,000 SF dwellings will be constructed on the six(6)remaining newly created lots. The Williams and relatives will own and occupy four of the new dwellings,the Brodericks will own two of the dwellings and remaining lot will be sold. Property will be serviced by a shared system with two leaching fields—has already been approved by BOH as proposed. Property is not encumbered by any wetlands,but does consist of poor soil material. Lot slopes towards railroad. All seven lots will be accessed by one 400'road ending in a cul-de-sac turnaround. Undulating low areas around the property will be maintained to preserve the natural aspects of the property. Homes will be located on existing knobs of land to enhance ability to utilize existing drainage patterns which flow S/SE. Plan is to maintain existing drainage concept that exists today and will eventually be captured in a storm water detention pond and leach into the wetland on adjacent property. Extensive drainage calculations were submitted to Civil Designs,Inc. Center line of road has been staked out. Soil information and environmental impact statement have been provided. Cornell method was applied to drainage calculations were used. Issues that have been addressed based on the Preliminary Subdivision Filing: • Abutting properties have been shown on the plan • Street name has been changed to Quonahassit Trail and approved by Assessor • Buffer planting, green belt has been added near Prendergast property • 2,280 SF parcel that had been used as access to Broderick property will no longer be used and will be assimilated somehow • Site distances at intersection with No. Main St. have been checked and do exceed 250' • Detention Basins and sensitivity of James Brook Detention area have been dealt with • Vertical curve on roadway has been flattened • Radii of cul-de-sac does meet PFD templates to provide enough maneuverability of fire trucks. Undulations of land and, ledge outcroppings house water after rain. Determination of Applicability was filed with ConComm and approved in 2002. Two wetland areas had been identified in 2002. Greenbush work eliminated a small wetland pocket adjacent to Greenbush tracks. Largest area that contains water is adjacent to Prendergast and Karp properties. Water from this area flows towards railroad, goes into ground,gets picked up by an underdrain and discharged into wetland. Grading will be done to create channels that allow water to flow in same direction it currently does, adding larger detention basin that will allow deeper and increased storage. No impact on Jacob's Meadow. Will be matching rates that exist today. Will be requesting waivers to decrease road width to 18'. Cul- de-sac will be 30' width. Water Dept. has agreed to an 8"dead end to hydrant. Gas service on street. 2 catch basins on North Main St. and 2 catch basins on the 425'long cul-de-sac. Underground utilities off nearest pole. Infiltration trench adjacent to Higgin's property to intercept any flow. J. Modzelewski noted that drainage pipes will need to be inspected and maintained.Attorney Henderson indicated he will be submitting maintenance plan& covenants. Shared septic system maintenance will be in the Homeowners' Assoc. also. Member Sturdy wants Homeowners' Assoc. to be responsible for the small 2,280 SF parcel that Brodericks own until such time as it is conveyed. Mr. Broderick indicates he will maintain it until he no longer owns it and that obligation will run with the land. Mr. Broderick indicated that his intent is to somehow get rid of it from his property but the method for doing so has not yet been determined. Henderson will make it a covenant that runs with the Broderick land— cannot make the other owners of the subdivision responsible for land they do not own. Construction vehicles will not use this strip either. Pam Prendergast concerned that driveway will dam the water and cause backup. Tom Wilton,207 No. Main St: speaking for abutter Mrs. Higgins who is out of state: she does use the Broderick strip of land to access her shed as does Mr. Wilton and,would like to remain open and useable to them,but not open to the public or to the subdivision in back. Member Sturdy suggested they both buy it. Mrs. Higgins also concerned about drainage onto her property from the roadway. Cavanaro pointed out that the driveway will be 3' lower than her property and will actually decrease the existing flow onto her property as the road will capture the Planning Board Meeting 5 of 5 February 25,2008 flow. Also,noted the infiltration trench at the back of her property. Last, street trees and screening will be along the back of Higgin's property which will screen Higgin's property. John Zimmer, Soil Scientist: did not find hydrosoils on site. Regarding the cul-de-sac turning radius,Member Sturdy believes the Board should require the 50'radius to accommodate future,potentially larger, engine sizes. Capt. Trask also noted that in winter, snow can reduce the real radius available for turning and,he cautioned against decreasing the radius. Cavanaro noted that the same size cul-de-sac was approved at Highland Estates and that 50' is a lot more pavement than they would like to see. Modzelewski suggested keeping the radius at 50',but making the center grass area larger to reduce the paving. MOTION: by Member Good to continue to April 14,2008 meeting SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 9:55 P.M. 62 WHITEHEAD ROAD, FORM A- APPLICATION, APP: ROBERT & JACQUELINE RALSTON, filed: February 21,2008. Attorney Henderson represented this application. Currently one parcel. Want to create another lot from it. White Head is a private way,but is used as public way, and, is used for utilities. Own to centerline of the right-of-way. Member Sturdy stated that the road does not meet any minimum standards as a public road—it is only a one lane road. Henderson said it is the same situation as Joy Place,Newtonville Road,Rice Island—all of which have had new lots. Henderson said the criteria is: • That the road must be a way shown on a plan which existed at the time subdivision was adopted as per Ch. 41 81L • Or, is a private way which serves as a street,meaning, it is commonly used • A way that has utilities This road meets all those criteria. Henderson will bring opinion letter. MOTION: by Member Westcott to continue to March 10,2008 meeting SECOND: Member Good VOTE: 5 -0 MOTION CARRIES Attorney Henderson will file extension letter tomorrow so we don't violate time restrictions. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn at 10:05 PM SECOND: Member Good VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008 AT 6:45 PM REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APPROVED: STUART IVIMEY, CLERK DATE: MARCH 3,2008