Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (18) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 8 July 7,2010 COHASSET TOWN MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— SELECTMEN'S OFFICE 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S. Moore,Jr.—Chairman Jean Healey-Dippold, Clerk Clark H. Brewer Charles A. Samuelson William Hannon,Associate Member Board Members Absent: Stuart W. Ivimey,Vice Chair Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Administrator Meeting called to order at: 7:05 P.M. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT • Rhonda Myers, 30 Cedar Lane: Myers are selling their property which consists of two parcels—one parcel does not have adequate frontage and is not buildable,but provides additional privacy—both lots are being sold together. Myers had a property survey done years ago (by Taylor). The prospective buyers have had a property survey done recently and there is a discrepancy between the two. In the new survey the outside boundary lines of the two combined lots are exactly the same but the inner lot line between the two parcels is at a slight diagonal on the new survey as opposed to straight as the original survey. In addition,there is a discrepancy between the total acreage in the two surveys—3.5 acres vs 3.8 acres. Myers' attorney told her the Planning Board has to sign off on the plan if the lot line is not straight as on the original survey. Others have told her she does not have to go to the Planning Board unless outside lot lines are changing. Member Moore noted that the discrepancy is between the Myers,the prospective buyers and the two surveyors and that the dimensional discrepancy is obviously an addition error on someone's part. He suggested that the surveyors should be able to resolve the issue and that they don't need to come to the Planning Board unless they are changing the lot in some way—for example, changing the lot line would require an ANR filing- Town Counsel confirmed. John Modzelewski happened to be at the meeting during the discussion and asked if both parcels are in the same name. If so, she should ask her attorney if the inner lot line between the two parcels may have disappeared anyway—Town Counsel did not agree that the line disappears but that for many purposes,they can be treated as one lot. Modzelewski added that if the surveys are not the same, they can record a"plan"and a"field"plan with a statement that none of the lot lines are being created—he suggested she check this with her attorney also. Final advice—unless creating a new lot or altering the lot in some way (such as in size), they do not need to come to Planning Board. 7:15 P.M. DAVE CALHOUN, MANOR WAY CIRCLE—Member Ivimey recused. Dave Calhoun in attendance for this agenda item. In attendance for Planning Board: Town Counsel Richard Hucksam; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs. At Member Moore's request, Town Counsel reiterated the opinion that lot releases must be done by the prescribed procedure that is always followed. Calhoun indicated that he is back before the Board to begin the process for lot releases as Town Counsel had indicated was a necessary procedure. Calhoun would like to amend covenant and change the language so that Manor Way is tied to"something" rather than being tied to "everything"or discuss what would be a reasonable bond to post. Calhoun stated that the work on his side of the property is minimal although he understands that the concern of the Board is what needs to be done at Cedarmere. To ease the Board's mind,he did get a proposal from Pilgrim Paving to pave the Manor Way Rd. to subdivision standards from Beechwood St. through the Cedarmere property to Manor Way Circle—he distributed a copy of the estimate which is about$60,000. If Cedarmere does not get the paving done prior to his request for occupancy permits, he would like to pave in something other than normal pavement form because that is private property that will never become a public way and,they would like to keep pavement to a minimum to maximize green space. Calhoun would like to amend the Manor Way Circle covenant in the same way the Cook Estate covenant was amended in November,2009 (see 11/04/09 minutes)which allowed building permits to be Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 8 July 7,2010 issued and construction to begin but not issue occupancy permits until all ways, all municipal services,landscaping and other improvements are complete. Calhoun wants to amend language so lots 2,4, 5 and 6 can be released as he claims his work is substantially complete. Member Moore noted that the Cook Estate is not the same thing—it is a cluster development not a subdivision with individual lots like Manor Way Circle and that when dealing with a subdivision,lots are not released until certain things are met. Member Moore noted that the Water Dept. sent the Board a draft letter(no one from the Water Dept. could attend the meeting to present the information they wanted the Board to have before making any decision about lot releases)which is to be signed and formally sent on July 9, 2010 after the July 8,2010 Water Commission Board meeting—letter stated that the Water Dept. does not have any record of any permits for water hookups and that they therefore do not recommend the release of any lots. Calhoun disagreed and said that permits for water hookups are not required until someone wants to actually install a water connection. Calhoun stated that water is on the site and that they added a hydrant. He takes offense to the Water Dept. comments noting that the Water Dept. wants them to loop an 8"water line through his property, to Pond St. and down and around which he states is not a requirement of his permit. Calhoun claims this to be extortion by the Water Dept. to hold his feet to the fire to build a water line to Pond St. to improve the water on Pond St. Calhoun stated that he is not required to have water to the individual lots until building permits are applied for and that they only need to bring the water to the lot. Member Brewer asked if each lot was stubbed up and connected fully to municipal water supply—Calhoun confirmed. At Member Moore's request, John Modzelewski outlined what needs to be done before he can advise regarding lot releases: 1. Need a"cost to complete"which is based on the subdivision that was approved by the Planning and amended on a couple of occasions,based upon a look at everything. If something is not there,he would report it is not there and what the cost is to complete it. He will look at what is on the plans,what is on Manor Way Circle and what is on Manor Way. He would break it out, determine how much the cost is to complete and the board would have to decide whether the cost was on Mr. Calhoun or on someone else. He also noted that we generally go to the point of the base course for the entire subdivision, and determine that everything else is in—electric, gas etc. 2. Look at the value of the remaining lots. Modzelewski also noted that the Rules&Regulations are very specific about partial completion and lot releases—the overall direction in the Planning Board Rules &Regs. (although modified by the Board on occasion)basically envisions a long cul-de-sac and a road that is 100% complete up to the lots that are getting released—not just base course—a completely finished road. Overtime, the Board has felt in some instances that there is enough value in the lots to hold off on the top 1-1/2"to finish the road and release some of the lots. But to do this,you need an estimate of the construction costs to finish and you need to know the collateral of what is remaining,which is they way being suggested. Member Moore thought the biggest single issue is the Manor Way road—that is the road by which frontage for the subdivision is taken and that has to be built to standards (John Modzelewski suggested that safe and convenient "access"is the word to be used rather than frontage) and that it would be one thing if Manor Way Circle were only lacking the topcoat for example, but in this case,the entire access road is not even built (other than the existing old and inadequate road and this has to happen before the Board goes forward with lot releases. Modzelewski also noted that the drainage etc. for that road envisioned a huge development being built and that there is some rationale for looking at that road and looking at the town standards for common driveways to see how may lots are to be served and perhaps getting variances to width etc. But looking at it right now,the cost must be based on what was approved and what was subsequently amended. The road serves a different function now(since Cedarmere is not constructed)but it is not Modzelewski's function to redesign the road for the current situation —only to look at it. Calhoun noted that, contained in the June 22 package he handed to the Board, McKenzie engineering provided a letter in 2008 regarding the compaction test on the Circle—so,his work is done and his security provision needs to be limited to what is his property. Moore again reiterated that Manor Way Rd. has to be built as a road to subdivision standards(such as the Ox Pasture Subdivision Road)and until the road is built—and the Board doesn't care who builds it,but someone needs to build it—and until that happens, lots cannot be released. Calhoun stated that the items being questioned right now are Cedarmere's security interest and that is covered under their obligations. Moore replied that the problem is that Calhoun's subdivision was approved based upon its taking a connection off Manor Way and it not up to the Planning Board to assure that this roadway happens—there were agreements between Calhoun and the owners of Cedarmere that if they did not build the road in a timely fashion, Calhoun could build it and bill it back to them. They are gone and they have no intention of building a road and, that roadway has to built before that subdivision can takes its frontage. Moore asked Town Counsel's opinion— Counsel agreed stating that the question is whether the requirements of the approval and the conditions of approval Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 8 July 7,2010 of this subdivision have been met and Modzelewski is correct in stating that there needs to be an evaluation as to whether the conditions of approval have been met and,to the extent that Manor Way being built out is one of those requirements,then this has to occur in order for the subdivision to be complete. Calhoun disagreed with Counsel in that when his subdivision was approved,the condition was that he had to show that if Leggat-McCall did not build Manor Way,he had the ability to go in and build it—they still contend they are going to and what he is looking to do is structure something that keeps that requirement in place to give them time to do it and if they don't do it,this will ensure the security is in place and he would have to do it before seeking occupancy permits. He is also looking for some flexibility—the existing old road originally serviced 4 homes,then the Flint House,the Hayes Estate and John Kennedy house and then Castle Road without any restrictions as to who could travel it. Now there are controls—Castle Road has been closed off so there is no uncontrolled flow on Castle Road and the only thing there now is the existing former Flint house,Kennedy's former house(now owned by XU Xwang) and one home over on Cedarmere which can never become anything more than possibly two estate lots. He feels the current road should be sufficient until some point in time and he should not be held up(he cannot sell a single lot)when work to be completed is not even worth a fraction of the value of one lot. He wants his covenant amended to reflect the incomplete work and he is even saying that he is amending it to reflect the guys next store which is already covered by security—I should not have to post double security on their obligation—so he is asking for the release of lots 2-5 with the condition that he will not get occupancy permits until the Planning Board is happy that the traveled way is sufficient. This gives the Planning Board the flexibility to look at a situation like—perhaps someone buys all the lots and only builds two houses—the Board could change the road requirements to those for a common driveway. Moore stated/asked that Calhoun is not agreeable to the Board having Modzelewski inspect and prepare a report because he does not feel that this is money that should be spent. Calhoun thought only a very limited amount of money should be spent on his side. He thought the $2100 sitting in his Planning Board Engineering Fee account should not be used to look at Cedarmere's side—that should come out of their engineering deposit,not his. Moore explained that procedure is that when someone requests lot release, the Board sends Modzelewski out to inspect, prepare report and advise the Board as to how many lots, if any, should be released. Then as work progresses,the details on the punch list of work to be completed becomes very fine in terms of what is done and what is not done. Calhoun thinks that what Modzelewski did in 2008 has already done this. Modzelewski disagrees—his 2008 letter only refers to a cul-de-sac, it does not refer to a subdivision which has many more aspects to it than just the cul-de- sac- he has to look at municipal services such as gas, water, electric. Calhoun stated that these are all in and that electric is on lots 1 and 2 and will not be brought to the others until it is determined that houses will be built there. Calhoun thinks the bulk of the estimate is on Cedarmere property. Modzelewski stated that he has not been out there for two years so he cannot say where the bulk of the work is. Modzelewski cited a letter from Sept. 2008 stating that he had to check the depth of gravel in the cul-de-sac and a few other things. Calhoun stated he had not received this memo,nor did he find it in the Planning Board files—Modzelewski will send it again. Modzelewski stated that the Planning Board also has to decide what plan is being built. There was a minor modification in May, 2008 which moved the cul-de-sac and when the Planning Board approved this, it came with a draft easement— Modzelewski is not sure if the real easement that shows the right of way has ever been received. The problem with this is that if Calhoun does not get this easement before he sells Lot#1 ,then the people theoretically have no right to use that portion until they buy the right from the owner of Lot#1. This needs to be solved—Calhoun said this is addressed in the Homeowners Association. Calhoun says there is a final recorded easement on file—Planning Board Administrator believes the Planning Board Office also does not have the final recorded easement, only the draft easement. Moore noted that the Board is not trying to give Calhoun a hard time,but that subdivisions usually move right from approval to construction and that since it has been two years since they have looked at this subdivision,they are all trying to re-envision what took place two years ago so they proceed correctly. Also,there two new Board members since this 2008 approval and a third member was just coming onto the Board as this was approved. Calhoun noted that the order of magnitude of the problem is probably<$100,000 including Cedarmere's work and asks if he can have the option of leaving just one lot or, leaving the building permits if they cannot post a bond for$100,000—he would like some direction this evening. When asked for opinion, Town Counsel opined that Modzelewski has clearly outlined that the Board procedures begin with an evaluation of remaining work and until that happens,the Board is just wondering if work has been done-there is a lack of clarity as to whether all the required work is complete—the fundamental question when it comes to lot releases is whether the work has been done—as outlined by the Board and, certainly the way it usually occurs,the Engineering Consultant(Modzelewski) needs to go to the property and evaluate the status of the work. Calhoun responded that he paid for the Town Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 8 July 7,2010 Engineer to inspect and sign off,he paid his lawyer to go through and confirm that all these things are in place and acceptable—he keeps paying—the whole cul-de-sac was $125,000 to construct and he is sitting with$2 million of security and under Mass. General Law,he is entitled to amend it to a reasonable amount which he says is $100,000. Town Counsel confirmed that under Ch. 41, Section 81U to change the form of security which is different than amending the covenant to cover different property—you can have part of a subdivision covered by a covenant and part of it the covered by another form of security-that is within the applicant's right and control, otherwise it is a release of the covenant. Member Samuelson noted that he keeps hearing that we are talking about a minimal amount of money—he wants to see an updated report from Modzelewski to confirm that amount. Calhoun said he does not have a problem with having Modzelewski do this for the $2000 he has in his engineering deposit account,but he does not think he should have to up the deposit to the required$6500. Administrator corrected the figure—after June, 2010 billing,the Calhoun's engineering deposit balance is $1000. Calhoun had no record of anything being charged to account and he did not authorize any money being spent over the last week (Modzelewski spent time over the past 1-1/2 week reviewing the file to refresh his memory as to where things stood 2 weeks ago and comparing his records to the status of conditions reported by Attorney Sullivan in his June 22, 2010 letter). Moore explained that the Board authorizes Modzelewski to spend time on a filing—(Modzelewski works for the Board) not an applicant. Samuelson wants to know what the Board is going to do about the road. Moore reiterated that the responsibility for the road is very clearly tied to Calhoun's lot—he has an agreement with Cedarmere to build the road. Moore suggested that he exercise his right to build the road—this has to happen before he gets lot releases. Calhoun does not think that is reasonable—he thinks people can see that there is a paved surface to get in which currently services 3 homes and can service more. Moore replied that the Board would never have approved Calhoun's subdivision with the existing road in the condition that it is now. Member Brewer suggested that rather than bring 8.5 X 11 documents to a Planning Board meeting asking for what he wants, without a chance for our engineer and counsel to look at the documents ahead of time, it would be much more helpful to let our engineer do a full review and come up with a solution for addressing the access problem and then everyone can move on. Calhoun referred to the minutes of past meetings where he asked the Board to force Cedarmere to build the road and that the Planning Board put the requirement that before Cedarmere get any permits to build,that all the security has to be in place and that there is no security in place. Member Healey Dippold stated that it is fundamentally a Cedarmere problem that the road has to be built and that Calhoun can build the road and obtain security in other ways such as via a lien against Cedarmere. She further stated that it has to be left as a Calhoun/Cedarmere problem and not a Calhoun/Town problem—she does not think Calhoun can shift the burden of the road construction on the Town for the benefit of his subdivision. Calhoun disagrees—the language in Cedarmere's requirements and what they had to do was clear and was addressed at great length by former Planning Board member Robert Sturdy—that if Cedarmere fails,the Board has to make sure they are sitting on a pot of gold to make sure that none of the neighbors are harmed and one part of that was a security interest that made sure they were protected and that Calhoun brought it to the Board's attention that the traditional method of holding lots did not apply because it was a single lot so the security measure had to be something you could put your arms around because the bank and the developer were one in the same. Continuing,he is now saying that he knows the road has to be built in order to get occupancy permits and he is looking for latitude—because it is a collective problem—and, a reasonable security measure such as not being able to get occupancy permits until the road is built gives everyone the opportunity to get their arms around it and determine with Town Counsel how to protect themselves. Calhoun feels he is standing at the end of the line and when his parcel was going through approvals, the Board thought it better to allow him to daisy chain off Manor Way rather than use the existing Castle Road for access(Board was concerned this would open the opportunity for Form A's off of Castle Road). Healey Dippold stated appreciation of this,but stated that Calhoun was in the best position to go against Cedarmere with his lawyer to protect his interests. Calhoun thought this is not money well spent. Member Samuelson stated that in his opinion, Calhoun assumed the risk of depending upon another entity to fulfill their commitment—and,now the other entity is gone. Calhoun stated they are not gone. Moore noted that if they had gotten further along in their permitting, Cedarmere would have had to build the road, but they stopped early in the process. Member Moore again reiterated that the solution is to for Calhoun to provide money for his engineering deposits which would allow Modzelewski do his job and follow the prescribed process advising that Modzelewski will be as frugal as he can with his time. Calhoun asked that one lot be held and the others released—he suggests he will leave Lot#6 which is the largest lot. Member Brewer replied that the Board will not agree to anything right now without review and input from Modzelewski noting,that Lot#6 is mostly wetlands. Modzelewski added that even Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 8 July 7,2010 if Calhoun is considering agreeing to his fees,he has to understand that he will be looking at the drainage that is shown on the plan, all the municipal services and,will be itemizing everything. Calhoun asserts that Modzelewski already established the status of the work. Modzelewski corrected him stating that this is the status of the work at the cul-de-sac. Calhoun stated that it would be more effective for him to ANR off of Castle Road than to pay a lawyer and an engineer and then he would have all his lots free and clear. Moore pointed out that Castle Road is not an accepted way. Calhoun replied that he would have to make the Sturdy argument. Moore replied that this might be a better way to do it and that the idea of daisy chaining off Manor Way was an idea conjured up by two members who are no longer on the Board that he never agreed with and is seems they are paying the price for it now. Calhoun again asked to amend security to a reasonable amount (less than$100,000). Member Samuelson agreed with Members Brewer and Healey Dippold -the Planning Board has to do due diligence and have Modzelewski go through the process required to verify that. Member Moore again reiterated that the whole thing could probably be resolved if Calhoun would provide the engineering fees so Modzelewski can do what needs to be done to review, comment and determine what is adequate security. Calhoun thinks he should be allowed to replace his lots with a bond which he believes is less than$100,000 and that no one has the means to prove him wrong. He feels that they key item and the thing that required most of the work, they already have covered by a guarantee on another project and while it might be flawed, it is already there and he is frustrated by this and does not understand why he is being penalized. Moore replied that the other project did not go forward and that if he wants access to his project, and since he has the agreement to recover from the owners of Cedarmere, he needs to build the road. Calhoun believes he has the right to come back to the Town's security—Town Counsel does not know why he would have the right to come back to the Town's security. Calhoun stated that he does have the right,but the security is not there and Town Hall blew it. Member Samuelson stated Cedarmere left everyone holding the bag and now Calhoun is saying that the Town messed it up the last time but is now asking the Board to do something that could mess things up again and that Calhoun's issue is with Cedarmere, not with the Town. Samuelson also pointed out that the security the Town thought they would have was to protect the Town's interest to clean up the property if Cedarmere failed. Calhoun thinks he is being held to a higher standard than other applicants. Member Healey Dippold asked Town Counsel how the Town would enforce the security requirement with Cedarmere—sue, go to court,be tied up in litigation. Town Counsel replied that he would have to look into this. Healey Dippold suggested that if the Town could try to get the security for Calhoun's benefit as he suggests, it would be a long, lengthy process and in the interim, he still will not have a road unless he builds it. Calhoun wants to sell lots. Moore again reiterated the Board cannot release lots until it can determine that what needed to be completed is in fact completed and, in Cedarmere's case, they packed bags and left town and,have recently told Moore that they have no intention of following through with this project—they are done with it. Moore also noted that the Board never asks for money,the ask for lots as security. Calhoun noted that ConComm also blew it and that the Building Inspector was supposed to enforce everything and not issue permits. Member Brewer intervened and noted that this would not be discussed without the presence of the Building Inspector to participate in the discussion. Calhoun again asked that lots 2-4 be released and that lots 5 and 6 be held until this is resolved. Moore again reiterated that the deposits are needed so there is money to pay Modzelewski so everyone can move forward and that no progress can be made until that happens. Brewer asked if the property was in foreclosure— Calhoun replied that it is. Member Samuelson stated that the Board would like to see 5 nice houses on these lots— they would like Calhoun to have success there but they have to proceed according to the prescribed process. Calhoun mentioned he would have to give consideration when he is told he has to pay$65.66 to see an insurance certificate for a gentleman who is going to go on his property then,he is told it is not here(07/07/10 Good Faith Estimate for this public docs request that included a number of other items, is on file in Planning Board Office). Argument ensued and Chair stated that the Board has offered the only solution they see as possible and gaveled the discussion to an end without agreement as to the Board's suggested resolution. Modzelewski noted that he has not been asked for the Insurance Certificate by this Board or any other Board but that he be happy to supply. 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—In attendance to represent this application: Attorney Charles Humphreys; Jack O'Leary,Merrill Associates. Humphreys explained that the Stormwater Review process is an expensive process and when two parallel processes are happening at the same time, it becomes more expensive as the applicant is going back and forth trying to meet two reviews. Referring to Modzelewski's June 17, 2010 letter,Humphreys explained they believe they can Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6of 8 July 7,2010 incorporate almost all of those comments into the final set of plans and that the Board has a set of plans that can be approved with conditions that all other required approvals need to be met. Humphreys believes this would separate the Planning Board hydrological studies from the Stormwater Review Process and, eliminate some of the back and forth, and redundancy that is holding up this project. Traffic questions were addressed by the traffic engineer. Jack O'Leary agrees that they can incorporate all of Modzelewski's comments except for a few(see checklist): 1. They do not agree that the zone line—Zone A water protection zone—(item B on sheet). Question is whether the Zone A section of the Watershed Protection district falls on the site. Modzelewski suggested it is the responsibility of the Zoning Enforcement Officer to decide. Modzelewski discussed with the Zoning Enforcement Officer Egan who agrees that it is Zone A,but questioned whether it matters (will it have any effect on anything),but would prefer that Egan speak for himself at a meeting. Humphreys noted that there are not any tributaries on the property and he does not believe it is Zone A. Modzelewski doesn't know if there will be any effect, but these things can have unintended consequences. Can be tabled until they get a decision from Zoning Enforcement Officer and, if need be, include it in the decision. 2.Water Main looping&hydrant flow test: met with Water Dept. and thought they had resolved the question of how the water service would be built and they apparently have data indicating they do not have any concerns about the water pressure. Modzelewski noted that right now they have three separate stubs into three separate bldgs., and it would be nice to have a looped line. The reason it is not proposed is regulatory - it is in a buffer zone and would have to go to ConComm. O'Leary noted that they met with the Water Dept. who wanted a full loop through the site but part of the area was ledge and not practical to bring a water main through so they are bringing in a water service to the proposed building,with a hydrant on the island in front of the building and a second hydrant—which would be done now, as part of this project and that in the future,the Water Dept. will work with them to bring in another service and connect to create the loop. They also anticipate that having to go to ConComm for NOI to go through a buffer zone within a paved area, a lot of other expense and restrictions will come up. Modzelewski suggested that a loop would be nice,but not a deal breaker. Regarding the hydrant flow test, O'Leary suggested that while this is necessary to do, it should be done as a condition of approval—fire flow test must be completed as condition of receiving building permits. Water Dept. did not have concerns about the size of the pipe that is there. Cannot build without sprinklers and can't do sprinklers without water flow test- so,they want to wait until they are ready to build. 3. Soil Absorption system in th30' buffer of the Cook Estate: They have a BOH permit with the system in place and,right now they do not plan to make changes. The area in questions is approx. 280 sq. ft. of 28,000 sq.ft. area. The Planning Board has Town Counsel opinion. Modzelewski noted that they have excess capacity on the site and that cutting that off won't have a great impact. Attorney Richard Henderson(for Cook Estate) has no comment,he is only at the meeting to listen. Member Healey Dippold maintains her opinion that "unused" means"unused" and she would like them to redesign. She believes this is special protection that protects residential from industrial which is what this area is. Member Brewer agrees. Everything else is agreeable and will be incorporated. O'Leary also noted the IsoLumen plan submitted on 07/07/10—shows lighting will remain on the property. Modzelewski noted: • Septic system was designed for the max.potential use which is a restaurant. O'Leary added that the traffic engineer was aware of this and took it into consideration when doing his traffic study. • With a Site Plan review, if there is a vote to approve,the Planning Board will be giving an implicit recommendation for a ZBA Special Permit filing as they have>40%coverage. • That he thinks there are more parking spaces than noted. O'Leary indicated that several people have counted and come up with different number of spaces,but that they stand by what is on the plan and, regardless,they still have over the required number. • Land Surveyor stamps must be added to the plans • Abutter frontage should be added. Humphreys would like public hearing closed. If closed tonight,Board might miss the 21 deadline to file decision. Humphreys would grant extension tonight. MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to continue the public hearing to August 4,2010 at 7:15 for the purpose of making sure all last minute information is in before the public hearing is closed. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7of 8 July 7,2010 9:15 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • GENERAL DISCUSSION WITH TOWN COUNSEL—FORM A FILINGS AND NEW OPEN MEETING LAW- Regarding the extent to which items addressed at a meeting have to be included on the notice of the meeting according to the new Open Meeting Law. New law states that items the chair"reasonably"expects will be dealt with at the meeting have to included in the notice(agenda). If something comes up after the notice is given—for example, an ANR application is received 24 hours after the notice is given for a meeting, and has a tight deadline — can the Board address that at the meeting. Hucksam noted that there is a lack of clarity about that in the Law—there is not specific statement that says boards cannot deal with items that are not listed on the notice however, it does say that matters that the chair reasonable expects will be dealt with at the meeting,will be listed. So,it becomes a judgment call—the more conservative approach would be to not deal with matters that are not listed on the notice. Member Moore noted that this is why we have added the 10 minute public comment period at the beginning of meetings—to handle brief,unexpected things that come up. • CALHOUN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS-Calhoun requested copy of water dept. letter referenced earlier in this meeting (signed letter is forthcoming—will provide once received) and copy of 09/20/08 letter he wrote. Also addressed public docs request—his understanding is that people can go to town hall, ask to inspect public file, and receive it immediately for review. Seems as though more and more, Town Hall requires filing of Freedom of Information requests,then receive good faith estimate,then asks town counsel if that is public records (this is in reference to Administrator asking town counsel to confirm that Calhoun's request for a list of documents was a public docs request requiring good faith estimate). He believes everything in Town Hall offices is public record and public should be able to inspect anything because town hall is there to act as record keeper of the documents. Hucksam explained that this has already been answered by Administrator—that files needed to be reviewed to search for and segregate the requested docs to produce a good faith estimate and, this is completely appropriate. Calhoun believes the keeper of the records is responsible for making sure the records are always in good order and that if something is in the records that should not be,the public is entitled to the doc and shame on the record keeper for having it in the file. Healey Dippold(works in Attorney general's Office) explained that the Attorney General's office properly responds with all related departments and, lawyers inspect records to make sure they are appropriate records. Calhoun responded that the lawyer looking through the docs first only makes sure that the files are filtered. If something was misfiled,they pull it out whereas the requesting citizen expects that whatever is in the file—even if misfiled—is public record. If someone misfiled—shame on them and the town will have to deal with it. Karen Quigley, Chair of BOS: Began with statement that she is not a lawyer. She has requested a lot of documents and has had to request documents through FOIA because she has been denied them under previous town managers. Her experience has been that the policy is that if someone wants to look at documents,they are allowed to do so. If there is a scheduling issue,the keeper of those records could ask the individual requesting the records to return at a scheduled time. Stating that she is out of line in her next statement—she felt that as an observer at this to meeting,there is clearly history going on between the applicant and board and it is unpleasant for someone observing. Quigley stated that she is not knowledgeable about the history nor does she want to know what it is,but she thinks it is unseemly. Member Moore noted that Mr. Calhoun's request was for a fair number of documents and that it was not to see the documents, it was a request for(copies of)the documents and that the Board is not withholding documents, it is trying to proceed as it is being advised. LCOMPREHENSIVE LAND USE REFORM AND PARTNERSHIP ACT (CLURPA)—FORWARDED KAREN QUIGLEY JULY 7,2010—Administrator forwarded to Board via email this afternoon. Member Moore noted that Board members might want to take a look at this document LVOTE TO APPROVE JUNE 23,2010 MEETING MINUTES OTION: By Member Healey Dippold to approve the June 23,2010 meeting minutes SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 8of 8 July 7,2010 • REVIEW OF STREET NAME LIST DISCLAIMER—Disclaimer was written by Town Counsel at the request of Member Ivimey. Member Ivimey not in attendance at this meeting for the review of the disclaimer so discussion to be postponed to another meeting when he is in attendance. • REVIEW OF MEMO FOR AUGUST 18 HARBOR DISCUSSION— Ivimey submitted comments on draft memo—due to his absence,Board was not able to discuss his comments—postpone to Aug.4 for brief discussion. • CEDARMERE FUTURE PLANS—Brief discussion inquiring about status of Cedarmere and their future plans. Administrator indicated Mahmood Malihi is on agenda to update Board at the August 18 meeting. MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to adjourn at 10:10 P.M. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD DATE: AUGUST 4, 2010