Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (10) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 5 March 24,2010 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24,2010 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S. Moore,Jr.—Chairman Jean Healey-Dippold, Clerk Charles A. Samuelson Clark H. Brewer Board Members Absent: Stuart W. Ivimey,Vice Chair Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak,Planning Board Administrator Meeting called to order at: 7:02 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 390 JERUSALEM ROAD-LARGE HOME REVIEW-APPL: RAYMOND TEHRANIAN, OWNER: SCOTT&ALLISON WILSON, Filed on 03/03/10 In attendance to represent application: Applicant (representing owners, Scott and Allison Wilson)Raymond Tehranian; Attorneys Steven Guard,Mark Green. Abutters/Public signed in at the Public Hearing: Paula Mello, 187 So. Main St.; Capt. Trask, Cohasset Fire Dept.; Debra Bowen, 11 Jerusalem Rd. Dr.; Bruce McKinnon, 384 Jerusalem Rd.; Janice Crowley, 392 Jerusalem Rd.; Kim Revoir, 13 Haystack Lane; Stephanie Reid(?); Chartis&Ned Tebbitts, 9 Jerusalem Rd. Dr.; Don&Pat Ranney, 378 Jerusalem Rd.; Bill Hannon, 79 Linden Dr.; Paul Kearney, 561 CJC Hwy. Member Healey Dippold read public hearing advertisement. Tehranian summarized plans: currently is site of an existing approx. 2,500 sq.ft.ranch house. Applicant is proposing to demolish ranch house and replace it with a new,two-story, shingle style,4601 sq. ft. single family residence with 3-bay garage. Existing structure is pre-existing,non—conforming in that it is within 10, of the lot line and therefore does not meet side setbacks. Proposed structure does not invade side setbacks and, does meet all setbacks and height requirements. There is currently an access and utility easement on the west side of the property serving as access for the existing residence and for the residence at 392 Jerusalem Rd. The applicant proposes cutting a new driveway access(to the proposed 3-bay garage) on east side of the property to service proposed residence at 390 Jerusalem Rd. Overall,property is fairly flat—building height is 32'2-3/8" from mean level of existing grade(calculated by surveyor who staked entire foundation and measured 10' out from foundation, calculating the mean level of the existing grade). Measure to roof ridge will be about 37-38'. Building Inspector Egan was comfortable with height calculation(which was done three ways: from existing, from proposed and from a 1954 plan showing virgin ground—all of which show height calculations meet zoning). Egan has no other concerns. There will be some blasting or hammering even though the proposed house has been situated between existing ledge to minimize blasting as much as possible. They plan to take an approach with least amount of impact. Board's experience has been that, from neighbors' point of view,hammering is least desirable approach. Open to Public for Comment: Ned Tebbetts, 9 Jerusalem Rd. Dr.: original estate was laid out with 6 relatively small approx. 20,000 sq.ft. lots facing Jerusalem Rd. Existing structure was described in Notice of Public hearing as a 2,497 sq.ft. of living space— existing house has a good deal less than 2,400 sq.ft. of living space. Tehranian stated that house has finished basement—Tebbetts and Crowley(392 Jerusalem Rd.)contend basement is not finished. Member Moore noted that this argument is not relevant to this filing—the Board's concern is: what they are allowed to build on the site by zoning,not what exists there now; lot coverage of all impervious surfaces; and, whether proposal meets zoning. Building Inspector Egan noted that according to information submitted by the applicant, the proposed structure is within the allowed lot coverage. Crowley added that the field card lists the existing structure as 1,764 sq.ft. and that going from 2,500 sq. ft. to 4,600 sq. ft. does not look like as large an increase as going from 1,764 to 4,600 sq.ft. Bruce McKinnon, 384 Jerusalem Rd: asked for clarification of existing and proposed setbacks. It was explained that zoning requires 20' setback from the side lot line. Existing structure is within 10'of the side lot lines whereas the proposed is 20'4" from the west side lot lines and 21'4" from the east side lot line, and therefore complies with zoning. Driveway must be at least 5'from the lot line and can be paved unless the paving puts the lot coverage over Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 5 March 24,2010 the 10%allowed. The driveway setback is somewhat unclear on the plan,but applicant states that the proposed driveway is 5'from the lot line and will not be paved. The Planning Board would like Building Inspector Egan to confirm this setback. Janice Crowley, 392 Jerusalem: concerned about: accuracy of information submitted;Notice of Public Hearing stated that plans would be available for review in Town Clerk's Office,but plans did not have height calculations. Height calculations were just submitted today- abutters did not have time to review them prior to the meeting; agrees that applicants have right to build whatever kind of house they want,but this non-conforming lot cannot handle a 4,600 sq.ft. structure—applicants need to find a lot that can accommodate a house this size(Member Moore explained that the size of the house relative to those in neighborhood is not the relevant issue— Planning Board has to review criteria based upon zoning requirements); and, asked if application would have to go to ZBA for a special permit—Egan indicated that it would go to the ZBA only if the building permit were appealed. Member Moore addressed the issue of the non-conforming lot which is an issue that is currently under discussion (8.7.1) and is an issue for the ZBA. Egan further explained that of the two cases he has been involved in—this case is much closer to the limits. In the other case,the abutter appealed the building permit and the ZBA concluded the applicant needed a special permit but then,because it met the requirements of the bylaw,the ZBA issued the special permit. Egan doesn't know if they would rule the same in this case,but consistently, if a proposal met the requirements of the zoning bylaw—exclusive of lot size—a building permit was issued and was upheld. Member Brewer: felt some aspects of plans not well thought out: windows—no materials are called out, sills meet roof which is not good design, randomness of window locations, sizing and scale is awkward,naive, unsophisticated; details of house are awkward and could benefit from another design review process—Brewer recommends meeting with Design Review Board to gain inexpensive, expertise; goal is to be a good neighbor visually to fit massing wise and assuage some of the neighbors' problems; plans show 2X4 exterior wall framing —very hard to meet energy code with 2X4s—2X6 is used now. Chartis Tebbetts, 9 Jerusalem Rd. Dr: there were covenants attached to this neighborhood that resulted in 20 relatively small homes—covenants have now expired. She is concerned that larger homes will become a snowballing effect resulting in more teardown and reconstruction of larger homes and, a loss of the neighborhood feel. She encouraged the new owners to think about Brewer's comments and consider reducing size of this house (which is significantly larger than what would have been allowed under the covenant)to be more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Right now,the McKinnon's (direct abutters to the east)house overlooks the existing lower house and has a view of the water but, if this proposed house is built,they will see only a 3 bay garage. Ned Tebbetts, 9 Jerusalem Rd. Dr.: there was a very unpleasant lawsuit with the owner of lot#1 which had to do with covenants—which may or may not have legally expired. Covenant had height restrictions on several houses to preserve neighbors' views. Ruling was against the neighbors but they had the right to appeal. There is a possibility that if things don't work out with this current filing,there could be another lawsuit. Member Moore indicated that the neighbors can make that decision but that it has no bearing on the action of the Planning Board. Janice Crowley, 392 Jerusalem: original plans show a covered porch on driveway side of proposed house? Tehranian answered that no porch is proposed—there is a 2' overhand which is not within the 20' setback. Crowley also asked who did their survey as she only saw one additional pin beyond what was put in when she had a survey done. Survey was done by Keith Associates and the lot size was the same number of square feet—20,234 sq. ft.—as in the 1954 survey and plot plan. Tehranian indicated that they found a rebar in the correct location so they did not add another rebar. Planning Board only requires two survey monuments and there were two already on the site so they did not add a pin to the east side—the proposed location of the driveway. Egan indicated that finding this corner and this line will be important in order to do the as-built for the foundation. Egan also indicated that when they go to set the forms before the actually pour the concrete for the foundation, Egan requires that the engineer come back to the site to make sure the forms are set in the right places. Member Healey Dippold: addressing Mr. McKinnon's concern about driveway and landscaping—McKinnon noted that currently,there is no landscaping—just grass—and he would prefer that it remain that way so as not to obstruct his view. Healey Dippold pointed out to Tehranian that he might keep this landscaping consideration in mind as an example of an easy mitigation (and there may be others)that would make the neighbors happy. Tehranian agreed to meet with the McKinnons to discuss although he noted that it is the homeowner's decision to make changes. Mark Green,Attorney and Architectural Engineer for the Applicant: Wilsons are sensitive and accommodating and have been thinking about landscape design. Green did meet with Crowley to go over plans,although the plans did not have dimensions that Crowley could review. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 5 March 24,2010 Janice Crowley, 392 Jerusalem: noted on the plans where the stakes were placed based upon the survey she had done. For clarification, she asked if Tehranian did the exact same survey only not putting in rebars?Tehranian indicated they followed survey procedures—found original markers and verified that they are correct. Egan will make sure corner of the property is surveyed before the foundation is poured and confirm 5'driveway setbacks. Deb Bowen, 11 Jerusalem Rd. Dr.: was before the Planning Board for a Large Home Review at 11 Jerusalem Rd. Dr. Asked if the dormers were included in the height calculations for this proposal—answer: they were not. Bowen noted that she was required to include the dormers in the total height calculations,which they did and had to make adjustments to her plans. She questions why this home, in the same neighborhood is not being held to the same requirements. Egan corrected her—it was the ZBA who made that requirement,not the Planning Board. Tehranian indicated that even if dormers were included in the height calculations,house would still conform. Member Moore: consider continuing the public hearing to allow for the applicant to meet with the Design Review Board and with neighbors? Attorney Guard: owners are scheduled to close on property at the end of month—continuing public hearing could be very costly to them. Guard contends that the house meets criteria of LHR with the suggestion that the applicant meet with the Design review Board. Asked Board to approve the LHR with condition that applicant meet with Design Review Board(although not bound to incorporate their suggestions). Bruce McKinnon, 384 Jerusalem Rd: asked the Board to keep the landscape and topography discussion in consideration in their vote to inject a sense of urgency in those discussions. Member Moore: application meets zoning requirements; appearance, landscape issues are getting subjective; and, the Board cannot impose its will on subjective comments. Hoping neighbors can work these issues out. Board could close hearing and condition recommendation on Member Healey Dippold's suggestions. MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to close hearing and recommend issuance of permits for this filing on the condition that the applicant meet with the Design Review Board and reasonably take their input into consideration as well as meeting with the neighbors and reasonably taking their input into consideration. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 8:25 P.M. 380/400 CJC HWY. (STOP & SHOP PLAZA) SITE PLAN REVIEW- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: COHASSET ASSOCIATES. Filed on December 22,2009 VOTE TO POSTPONE AND CONTINUE TO APRIL 21, 2010 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST. MOTION: By Member Samuelson to postpone public hearing and continue to April 21,2010 at 7:30 P.M. SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 8:26 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATION • 75 OX PASTURE LANE (OWNER: KIRWAN)AND 17 OX PASTURE LANE (OWNER: COVENEY)— SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE APPLICATION—filed on: 02/22/10. —Kevin Grady, Grady Consulting LLC in attendance to represent this application. The Planning Board addressed this special permit and variance application at length with Kevin Grady of Grady Consulting. The Planning Board understands that: • due to the usual shape of the 17 Ox Pasture Lane lot, owned by the Coveneys, the topography and the amount of wetlands on the lot, the applicant is seeking relief to construct the proposed pool and pool house partially on the property at 75 Ox Pasture Lane owned by the Kirwans. The Coveney's proposed pool and the pool house would therefore be located partially on the neighboring property owned by the Kirwans. • the portion of the Kirwan's property at 75 Ox Pasture Lane upon which the proposed pool and pool house would be partially located is actually an"exclusive use and septic easement"which provides the required access and 50' of frontage for 75 Ox Pasture Lane • a land swap between the Coveneys and the Kirwans to accommodate the Coveney's proposed pool and pool house is not possible because the land to be utilized provides the required access and 50' frontage for the Kirwan's property • the owners of 75 Ox Pasture Lane,the Kirwans, have given their approval for the project to be constructed as shown on plans Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 5 March 24,2010 • extensive landscaping and plantings are planned to provide a buffer for neighboring properties and to significantly improve the property and which will seek to remove invasive plants and replace them with native plantings • the only abutters, the Roebucks, 312 Beechwood St.,have considerable concerns including, among other things, the infringement into the 50' buffer (created by the subdivision developers) between their property and the 75 Ox Pasture Lane property upon which the proposed pool and pool house would be constructed. • an approved plan does exist which sites a pool at 17 Ox Pasture Lane closer to the Coveney's residential structure and is completely within the lot lines of 17 Ox Pasture Lane In general terms,the Planning Board thought this proposal: is a legal issue rather than a planning issue; is, from a legal standpoint, potentially very complicated; if granted relief,potentially sets a very bad precedent of allowing structures to be built on easements that have the specific purpose of providing frontage and access; can be reconfigured so a variance is not required(see existing approved plan). MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to not offer an opinion or recommendation to the ZBA, but cautions the ZBA to look at the legality of constructing an accessory building within an easement on another property where that land is used to provide access and frontage for the burdened property. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 9:05 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE MARCH 3,2010 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the March 3,2010 meeting minutes SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • LEED FOR NEIGBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT WEBINAR—DISCUSSION Discussion postponed to April 7,2010 meeting • DISCUSSION&ACTION ON THE CLEAN AIR GRANT PROGRAM—Member Brewer met with BOS to review potential sidewalk from Cohasset line to No. Scituate commuter rail station and the request to waive weekend parking fees in the Cohasset commuter rail parking lot and,to allow overnight parking in a designated section of the lot. These actions fall under the Clean Air and Mobility Program. BOS voted to support. Brewer asked Planning Board to write letter of support. MOTION: By Member Moore to endorse the letters of support to be drafted by Member Brewer with Planning Board Administrator. SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES Brewer also informed the Board that: • the preliminary design plan for the No. Main St. sidewalk to the commuter rail station is not ready yet. But So. Shore Greenway project might be ready for the application,but there is still quite a bit of coordination with other towns. Brewer recommends a Sidewalk and Mobility Subcommittee of the Planning Board to take a look at the sidewalk issue and other issues relative to mobility on an ongoing basis because there are opportunities continuously coming up—for example: Avalon giving $200,000 towards some sidewalk improvement somewhere, not necessarily related to their project - during discussion with BOS, issue of site lines and connections with sidewalks came to light—there are locations where bushes etc. block the site lines. These are opportunities the Planning Board could address during review of filings such as the 380/400 CJC filing and make these improvements conditions of these filings that would enhance safety and increase pedestrian mobility. Member Healey Dippold thinks the Sidewalk and Mobility Subcommittee of the Planning Board is a good idea and she would be happy to join this subcommittee . When she was campaigning, she heard repeated comments about the need to enhance sidewalk safety. Member Moore suggested that this include the entire Planning Board and it could become part of our regular meetings. Brewer mentioned that there are many funding opportunities that come along with very short notice and if the Board is addressing this on an ongoing basis,they would be in better shape to address the funding on short notice. Healey Dippold suggest having a prioritized list of where the Board would like to see sidewalks, so as developers come before the Board, the prioritized list could be referenced. Samuelson added that before the Board spends too much time addressing more sidewalks,that the Police Dept. address ways in Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 5 March 24,2010 which they can get the residents to utilize the sidewalks we already have. Brewer suggested this can be looked at as part of the Sidewalk and Mobility Issue. • OPEN SPACE &RECREATION PLAN UPDATE—Administrator to send electronic version of Sections 6-9 for Board to review for the April 7, 2010 meeting. Will be discussed at that meeting with goal of voting to send a letter of endorsement. • EXCEL WORKSHOP MOTION: By Member to Brewer to allow Planning Board Administrator to spend up to $175 to attend and Excel training program SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • STATUS OF AEC REVIEW OF WIND TURBINE BYLAW—Planning Board Administrator to invite AEC to upcoming Planning Board meeting to discuss the status of their review of the bylaw and what they see as their intentions regarding this bylaw. MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2010 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD DATE: APRIL 7, 2010