MINUTES

MAY 23, 2002

Members Present: Mr. Warner, Mr. Limbacher, Mrs. Foley, Mrs. Brandow, Mrs. Burbine

Others Present: Ms. Harbottle, Town Planner; Mr. H. Garcia, Atty. R. Henderson, Mr. R. Drew, Mr. W. Brown (DRC), Mr. J. McMillen (DRC); Mr. John Tedeschi, Atty. W. Ohrenberger; Mr. & Mrs. Guiney, Mr. H. Kuendig

See sign-in list for names of others present at this meeting

ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES:

Motion: Mr. Limbacher Moved to accept the Minutes of April 11th, and April 30th as submitted. Mrs. Burbine Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Motion: Mrs. Brandow Moved to accept the Minutes of March 14, 2002. Motion Seconded by Mrs. Foley and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Motion: Motion duly Moved by Mrs. Burbine, Seconded by Mrs. Foley, and voted unanimously to pay the following:

1. W. B. Mason ($76.34) for office supplies.
2. Herb Heidt ($100.00) for printing zoning maps.
3. Laura Harbottle ($105.25) hotel costs for conference of Mass. Assoc. of Planning Directors. Conference in Worcester.

The applicant, Mr. H. Garcia, was present along with his attorney, Atty. R. Henderson. Mr. Bill Brown and Mr. Jim McMillen from the Design Review Committee (DRC) were also present. See sign-in list for names of others present for this Agenda item.

Atty. Henderson said, "I want to thank the Board for convening 7:00 P.M. as opposed to normal times so that we can get through this hopefully because we are under an enormous amount of pressure to resolve what we have to resolve. The issues that were raised at the last meeting were: 1) you wanted plans that more accurately depicted the profiles of the building (cross sections on all 4 sides). Architectural plans have been filed and the DRC has commented. Ms. Harbottle has spoken with the Applicant, the architect, and the DRC and they have come up with some solutions. I am going to let them discuss that. The second issue was the parking study and we have submitted that. You have that. We will answer your questions."

Mr. Warner said, "I would like to go through the plans. Do you have comments, Laura?"

Ms. Harbottle said, "We did get 3 alternatives from the architect. They are in your package. I know that some people may not have seen them. They are all fairly similar. {Ms. Harbottle described the differences between the 3 plans.} The DRC saw all the those alternatives and they worked out a new alternative combining some of the different elements of the three plans."

Mr. Warner asked, "Has that been a cooperative effort between the Applicant and the DRC? Has the Applicant worked with the DRC on the fourth alternative?" Ms. Harbottle replied, "They have seen it. Their architect is out of town."

Mr. Warner asked Mr. Garcia what he thought of the fourth alternative. Mr. Garcia replied, "I like the alternative that the DRC came up with. I like it very much." Mr. Warner asked, "So you and the DRC agree on it? That is the preferred alternative from your point of view and also the preferred alternative from the DRC?"

Atty. Henderson said, "I was not involved in the negotiating process but I am aware of the willingness of Mr. Garcia to accept the recommendations that are acceptable to the DRC." Mr. Warner said the Board appreciates that.

Mr. McMillen of the DRC said, "We took the 3 schemes that were in his presentation By the way Mr. Garcia responded very well to all our concerns. We had other concerns about the refrigerator in the back and the air conditioning unit and where they would go, and there were some writing and drafting errors and they have all been addressed. The only problem we had was somewhat aesthetic. We looked at the 3 solutions and said we should put #A and #B together and then we came up with this scheme here. We thought that that fulfilled the spirit of the job. It improves the scale. We had a couple of other comments that we wanted to add. The swing of the door adjacent to the drive swings in the direction of traffic so when you open the door it blinds you to the traffic that is coming. We would like to turn the door the other way (service door in the back). We think that the handling of the air conditioning and the freezer in the back is as good as it can be. That is about it for major concerns. We have a few outstanding questions."

Mrs. Foley had some questions about the changes to the door mentioned above and Mr. Limbacher explained what the problem was and how it would be fixed.

Atty. Henderson said, "We will do whatever DRC wants."

Mrs. Brandow joined the meeting at this point (7:15 P.M.)

Mr. Jim McMillan explained the elevations to the Board. He said that the building would look like a 19th C train station which is very nice.

Mr. Brown asked, "The issue of drive through window - there is only one drive through window. Is there going to be a squawk box and does it show on plan anywhere?" Mr. Garcia replied, "Yes. It is located behind the refrigerator." Mr. Garcia showed the DRC the location of the squawk box and the freezer. Mr. Brown said, "I am satisfied with that."

Mr. Warner asked the Board if they had any questions regarding the revised plan. Board - any questions on revised plan. Mr. Warner said he was interested in hearing the details regarding the signage.

Ms. Harbottle explained that she had been working on this issue and had talked to some other towns such as Norwell and Yarmouth about how they deal with signs. Ms. Harbottle said, "Most of the towns want to control the road signs (free standing signs). We have ended up with a pretty good compromise. The road sign will be the same size as the Whistle Shop sign now. It won't include the two small signs that are now part of the larger sign." The Board examined the plans to see the details of the signage. Ms. Harbottle continued, "What we have for that is 24 S.F. which isn't tiny but you have to remember that we are dealing with a Bylaw that allows 100 S.F. of sign space. We had a lot of discussion about this after the plans came in and Mr. Garcia was willing to reduce the size." Mr. Garcia said that the sign would be a wooden sign.

The Board discussed lighting of the signs. Ms. Harbottle said, "He did want to put up lighting. I know that the Board is concerned that that be directed towards the sign.

The sign on the building - we got that one down to 20 S.F. which is considerably less than what is allowed under the Bylaw. The existing sign is 32 S.F." Mr. Garcia said, "That is a wood sign with light coming from the top of the overhang. It will be carved." Mr. Warner asked, "The sign for fast food drive up - where is that on the plan and what does it look like?" Mr. Garcia said, "It is here - right behind the building."

There were no further questions from the Board at this point. The Chair asked for questions from the public.

Ms. Denise Jacobson, 40 Damon Road, said, "I just wanted to express my opposition. This takes away from local business and obviously it will change the character of the town. There is not much nutritional value of food served there. I just wanted to know whether the Board is really thinking long term about what kinds of business you want to bring into Scituate. My view is shared by a lot of people. In terms of the Master Plan is this an issue you are talking about?"

Mrs. Brandow replied, "Our charge is to consider - is he legally allowed to bring in a Dunkin' Donuts? Does the gentleman who owns the property have the right to sell to this gentleman? Is this legal? Yes it is legal. You are asking us to have more power than we are charged with."

Ms. Jacobson asked, "Are there ways to alter the Master Plan in terms of what type of businesses can come in in terms of how they come in and how you design the town?"

Mrs. Brandow said, "You need to know if you are inhibiting the rights of another person. e.g. are you inhibiting the rights of the gentleman to sell his property at the best possible price by putting restrictions on it? I would think you are. That is not what we are charged with. We interpret what our charge is and this is allowed. You are adding more to our powers than we have." Ms. Jacobson said, "I just wanted to be clear about what your powers are and how to design the town."

Mr. Warner said, "It is a reasonable question. We are required to follow the current zoning on the property. This is a permitted use so we cannot deny it. We have reviewed it carefully and the applicant has been very willing to work with us on the aesthetics of the building. He has worked with our DRC. I think we have a pretty good solution to this particular project. As far as the long term for the area, yes we are doing a Master Plan and that does have an economic development section and a land use section. Those sections of the Master Plan will look at the Greenbush area because of the train We will look at design guidelines We will look at that area to understand the aesthetics and future use of that area. That is something that we will talk about in the Master Plan process. When we have a public meeting you are welcome to come and we would welcome your comments."

Mr. Frank Kilduff, 126 Rte. 3A, said, "I spoke last time. I just wanted to express my appreciation for your deliberations and for the sincerity in what you are doing."

Mr. Warner said, "So we are done with the design review, site plan, and elevations of the building. We did receive the traffic study. Are there any questions from the Board on the traffic study?"

Mr. Limbacher replied, "I think it is straightforward. I have no questions." Mr. Warner added, "Thank you for doing the study."

Mr. Warner referred to the traffic study noting some of the various figures regarding vehicle trips e.g. morning vehicle trips. See file for details found in the traffic study. Mrs. Foley said, "It just seems like a big increase from existing to proposed. I am not exactly sure what I am looking at." Mrs. Foley also read aloud various figures found in the study. Mr. Limbacher said, "You have to be careful when you look at what he has done. Look at the three conditions that he has. The first is a high turn over sit down restaurant which is a little different than what we currently have. We basically have - you come in, have your breakfast and it is a leisurely activity (existing). The proposed is basically a fast food restaurant with a drive-through window. That is more like a McDonald's or Wendy's than a Dunkin' Donuts. Then the third is a comparison with sites that appear to have the same traffic flow. I think that was listed on the last page." Mr. Warner said, "So the third is the more representative of this project."

Mr. Limbacher added, "That traffic is already there." Mrs. Burbine said, "Yes, it is there. People will drive in a grab a cup of coffee instead of sitting down and having a leisurely breakfast."

Atty. Henderson said, "This will not increase the traffic on the Driftway. More people that are there now will stop for coffee but you will not be bringing more traffic to the Driftway. The change in the Driftway will occur with the train station. It will not come from Dunkin' Donuts."

Mr. Warner noted that there was a Condition that says that the Applicant is willing to work on future traffic problems. Mr. Warner said that Condition would address his concerns about traffic. Mrs. Foley questioned what Mr. Garcia could actually do about traffic problems if the traffic problem was connected with the train.

Mr. Garcia explained what he did to mitigate a problem with back-up of traffic onto the street at his Hanson store e.g. he changed the location of the drive-through line.

Mrs. Brandow suggested that the location of the squawk box at the Scituate store may have to be changed if there is a problem with back-up onto the Driftway. Mr. Garcia said he would address that if needed and he showed Mrs. Brandow where the box could be moved to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Warner said, "The concern I have with respect to traffic (and maybe we can put it into the Conditions somehow) - my concern is with the proximity of your entrance and that you may get a lane of traffic (when the train comes in) that will extend out into the street. There is another shopping center that is very close. I would not want the entrance to Herring Brook Mall blocked under any circumstances." Mr. Garcia again explained what he could do to stop lane from forming e.g. move squawk box further back.

Ms. Harbottle asked, "Are you serving hot food from the drive-through? They don't do that on the Cape." Mrs. Brandow said, "At Morning Glories if there is a line you can only get coffee and a role but not a sandwich. That is their business decision." Ms. Harbottle suggested, "Maybe when the train comes this needs to be evaluated."

Mr. Limbacher read Condition #7 (traffic problems) aloud and said that that Condition addresses the situation.

MOTION: Mrs. Burbine Moved that the Site Plan Waiver Public Hearing for Dunkin' Donuts/Baskin Robbins, 32 New Driftway, be CLOSED. Mr. Limbacher seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

MOTION: Mrs. Burbine Moved that the Planning Board vote to APPROVE the Site Plan Waiver for Dunkin' Donuts/Baskin Robbins, 32 New Driftway, with Conditions of Approval as discussed and amended at this May 23rd meeting Mrs. Foley Seconded the Motion.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION: Mrs. Burbine read the Conditions aloud. See list of proposed Conditions in the file for details.
1. Date of the recommendations of the DRC (May 23rd) should be included.
2. The words 'and any other requirements for the parking and driveways' shall be added.
3. The words 'Board of Health' were deleted.
4.& 5. No changes.
6. The last two sentences were deleted (re: baking on site).
7. The words 'The Planning Board may require modification of the plan to mitigate these problems.' were added as a last sentence.
8, 9, 10, 11, 12. No changes to these Conditions.
13. Reference to Condition #4 should read Condition #7.
14. No changes.
15. The Board, the Applicant, and the DRC discussed lighting. After the discussion the wording of this Condition was changed to read: 'Lighting used on this site shall be baffled or otherwise directed so as not to spill light onto adjacent properties. Light poles shall not exceed 12' in height.
16 & 17. No changes.

VOTE: The vote on the Motion was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

MOTION: Mr. Warner moved that the Agenda be amended to discuss Walden Woods. Motion Seconded by Mrs. Foley and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Ms. Harbottle reminded the Board that they had sent their comments on the Ch. 40B application to the ZBA. Mrs. Brandow thought that the Board had agreed to discuss the issue further before sending in the comments to ZBA. Ms. Harbottle said it was necessary to get the Board's comments into the ZBA in time for the ZBA hearing on Walden Woods.

Mr. Limbacher said that the hearing would not open and close on one night so he was sure there would be on-going discussions about the drainage for some time to come. The Board had concerns about the condition of Stenbeck Place including drainage. Mr. Warner said he would be attending the hearings as a concerned neighbor and he said that, if the Board agreed, he could also express the Planning Board's concerns.

Mr. Warner said that, as the ZBA hearing progresses, the Planning Board may want to send in additional comments to the ZBA.
See further discussion on this subject starting on Page 10.
MASTER PLAN - BEGIN REVIEW OF NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT.

Mr. Limbacher suggested the Board send a memo to Anthony Antoniello about the fact that he has not completed the Infrastructure Element as promised. A copy of this memo should go to the Town Administrator and Selectmen. Ms. Harbottle will write the memo.

Ms. Harbottle asked the members to review her 5/18/02 memo regarding the Master Plan Progress. See file for this memo. There was a brief discussion on getting the maps prepared for the Master Plan. Ms. Harbottle said, in her memo, that Ralph Wilmer will work on developing the maps as an analytical tool, not just to present information.

Ms. Harbottle said that in the Natural Resource section the maps would have to be quite a bit more analytical and she gave examples of what she meant by that. She described various levels of sensitivity e.g. extreme sensitivity where there should be absolutely no development; areas where there could only be very limited development; and then plain sensitive areas where some development can be allowed. Information about flood plain areas, vernal pools, etc. can be used.

Mrs. Foley asked, 'What are you going to say about Humarock - that there should be no development because it is a barrier beach?" Mr. Warner replied, "We should have a map that identifies the resources and states how those resources limit development. All of those different zones have their own restrictions. Will natural resources be used as a tool to limit development?" Ms. Harbottle replied, "Often they are." Mrs. Foley described the 9 barrier beaches in Scituate. Mrs. Burbine and Mrs. Foley discussed barrier beaches and the issue of sewer hook-ups e.g. Town Way.

Mr. Warner said, "So isn't the objective to identify what resources are important and then have a map that identifies that and have a way to preserve those resources. There will be an overlay of some of the resources."

Mrs. Foley spoke about vernal pools noting that some are not regulated. She described the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction re vernal pools. She wondered, "Are we planning to regulate every vernal pool in town? A vernal pool is not a resource standing by itself. There are only 5 certified vernal pools in Scituate. Now is the time to identify them - in the Spring." Ms. Harbottle added, "You should at least identify them on the map."

Mrs. Brandow said, "We should say what is important and then prioritize them e.g. flood plain, vernal pools, area around the reservoir, recharge areas for the wells. That is what the maps should show."

Ms. Harbottle said, "There are some efforts going on to map wildlife habitat. [She showed a map to the Board and explained it.] Mrs. Foley said that the piping plover areas are important.

Mrs. Burbine asked, "What about storm water runoff? I went to the last South Shore Coalition and there is mapping of all of the outfall pipes along the coast going on. Scituate is included. Most of pollution isn't from oil spills, from companies. It is from runoff from our cars and there is nothing in the catch basins (no infiltration) to address this." Mr. Warner said, "That is an important point. We should mention it in the Master Plan ."

Mrs. Foley said, "The fact of the matter is that pretty much of all the discharge pipes, road drains, end up in the wetlands. We need to go back and clean them up. They will all need some kind of treatment for them e.g. before they go into the Harbor. Anthony Antoniello is studying it as part of his master drainage plan.

Ms. Harbottle said that septic and storm water impacts are written into the Natural Resources Element (see page 11). The Board had a general discussion on septic systems and stormwater issues. Mr. Warner asked if in-ground sewer systems had a life of 30 years and Mrs. Foley said that they did if they were looked after properly. Mrs. Foley knew there is funding available to do work on intercepting stormwater going into drains and to marsh, rivers, etc.

The Board then discussed barrier beaches e.g. Humarock, development on barrier beaches and other coastal areas, storm damage and flood insurance. It was noted that larger homes are being built on the same small existing footprints found in the beach areas. Mrs. Foley discussed the Flood Insurance Program in detail and gave various examples of how it was applied to Scituate and she said that the Flood Insurance program is still self supporting because it is a nation wide program. Mr. Limbacher said, "It is not up to us to stop the building of the big houses." Mr. Warner said, " The thing is that the land along the water is worth 2-3 times more than land inland. Economics will drive that whole area. We should be talking about preserving the value of the area. We need to look at the big picture especially if there are environmental issues. Good planning is to protect values."

Mrs. Brandow said there must be a balance between the rights of property owners and zoning regulations.

The members indicated that they were concerned because of the fact that such large homes are being built along the coast where there used to be small cottages. Mr. Limbacher pointed out that if the existing small house has a 5' setback a larger house can be built on the same footprint as long as that 5' setback is maintained. The property owner can build his new house as high as the Zoning Bylaw permits.

Ms. Harbottle said that there are 2 things the Board could look at - the effects on the environment and the aesthetics. She explained that some towns are trying to attack the McMansions that are now being built.

Mrs. Burbine discussed the rebuild after the Storm of 1978. She said there was nothing in place to prevent the rebuilding of bigger homes to replace the small cottages destroyed by the Storm.

Mr. Warner said, "Humarock Beach is an extremely good resource. If you envision a full buildout what natural resource of the beach will be threatened and what should we do about it?" Mrs. Foley replied, "The vegetation. It is all being threatened. Conservation is suppose to be requiring re-vegetation with rebuilding projects. It is not just Humarock. There are 6 other barrier beaches. There is also damage due to erosion."

Mr. Warner pointed out that Peggotty Beach is disappearing. Mrs. Foley described how the sand from Minot could end up in Humarock because of a storm. Mrs. Brandow described beach re-nourishment programs used in New Jersey.

Mrs. Foley said, "There are certain things that the State allows that cause a problem e.g. the armoring of the Cliffs. [Mrs. Foley described sediment transport along the coast.] You have to be careful about the about natural transport of sand. Plus you have to deal with all these policies - state, federal, and local. If the house is within the same footprint and if it is on a barrier beach it must have an open foundation to allow for the transport of sediment. An open foundation is an improvement over a full foundation so with a rebuild on a house you will usually get a new and better foundation." Mr. Warner asked, "But if they are rebuilding a house shouldn't we be saying that they must replenish the dune in front of their house?" Mrs. Foley stressed the importance of planting beach grass to hold the sediment in one spot.

Ms. Harbottle said it was important for the Board to continue with their review of the Natural Resources Element and she asked that they review it and be prepared to discuss it again on June 4th.

The Board discussed the CEI review of the Natural Resources Element. Mr. Warner wondered if CEI would be adding things to the draft e.g groundwater information. Ms. Harbottle said, "As I understand it, it is not going to be substantive but more background information (a better explanation of what Anthony is doing). It should take 3 or 4 weeks for CEI to do their review."

Mr. Warner asked, "What maps do you have?" Ms. Harbottle replied, "I have habitat, water resources, and another map that relates to water resources."

Mrs. Foley asked, "Have you talked to Conservation? They have certain restrictions on certain resource areas that help to protect the resources. There are 9 protectable interests e.g. fisheries, shellfish, etc. You should talk to Conservation about regulations for dune replacement." Ms. Harbottle said, "Our recommendations should parallel whatever Conservation is doing. I will make sure that either I or Ralph talks with Conservation.

Mrs. Foley said there should be restrictions on the use of underground sprinklers.

The Chair agreed that the Board should review this Element and be prepared to discuss it on June 4th.

The Board had received a letter dated May 23, 2002 from the Applicant's attorney, Richard Nylen, requesting that the public hearing be continued to June 13th.

MOTION: Mrs. Burbine Moved that the Planning Board vote to continue the Public Hearing regarding the Beech Tree Farm Definitive SUBDIVISION to June 13, 2002 (8:30 P.M.). This action was taken in accordance with the request stated in the May 23rd letter from the Applicant's representative, Atty. R. Nylen, to the Planning Board

Mrs. Foley Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Ms. Harbottle said there was no need to extend the date to file because the date is presently June 20th.

Subdivision Regulations: Ms. Harbottle stressed the importance of having the Subdivision Regulations amended quickly so they would be in place to deal with developments that may be submitted in the near future. She asked the members to continue their review of the proposed changes to the Regulations so that a hearing date can be scheduled. The Board agreed.

Village Marketplace: Ms. Harbottle said she was very concerned about the landscape work going on at the Marketplace. She was particularly concerned about the size of the islands because she said they were not large enough to support the root system of the trees. She said that she had spoken with the manager of the Marketplace, Mr. McGinnis, his contractor, and Brian Curtis, the property owner. Mr. Curtis has agreed to address the problem by chipping out the pavement to make more room for the trees. The Board agreed to give Mr. Curtis some time to fix the problem. If Mr. Curtis does not respond in a timely fashion the Board will request his presence at a Planning Board meeting. In the meantime a letter will be sent to Mr. Curtis asking him to bring his project into conformance with the approved plan.

Mrs. Foley said she had concerns about Stenbeck Place itself e.g. what should be done about the drainage, how the road should be upgraded, the width of the road for emergency vehicles. Mrs. Foley said she was also concerned about the parking along the inside roads of the project given the width of the road. She expressed her concerns about the lack of facilities for handicap people both to live there and visit. Disabled people need affordable housing.

Mr. Limbacher said that the Scituate Housing Authority will administer the lottery.

Mrs. Brandow asked about the ownership of Stenbeck Place - who owns it, who has rights in it. Mrs. Brandow also questioned there should be a prohibition on using Stenbeck Place because it is a sub-standard road. She said that the issue of parking on Stenbeck Place needs to be factored in because of the width of the road.

The discussion continued about Stenbeck Place as to who owns the fee in the road. Stenbeck Place is a private road. Mrs. Foley said it and the new roads in the project should be designated as a no-salt zone because of their location near the wetlands.

Mrs. Brandow said she had asked the question at a meeting about Walden Woods about the ownership of the road and it was never answered. She thought that the ZBA should be aware of that. Mrs. Brandow said, "It is private but we don't know who owns it."

Mr. Warner said that the Board should ask questions about the deeded right of access.

Mrs. Burbine referred to the Modification of the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Stenbeck Place (August 4, 2000) and she read aloud various Conditions regarding the ownership. See file for this information.

The Board discussed some issues in the traffic study. Mr. Warner pointed out that the sight distance on Hazel Avenue does not comply with regulations. He said the ZBA should be informed about that. The Board discussed the access on the Tilden Road side and Ms. Harbottle said there was nothing there now and it appeared that it would not be wide enough to meet the regulations. Mr. Warner also said there were problems with the curb radius at the intersection of Tilden Road.

Mrs. Foley suggested that the Board compile their additional comments/concerns and give them to Mr. Limbacher to bring to the ZBA. Mr. Limbacher agreed to do that and he suggested that the comments be in writing and he said he would submit them to the ZBA as the Planning Board's liaison. The members agreed.

Mrs. Burbine referred to the earlier subdivision approvals (1996 and 2000) for the Stenbeck Place subdivision and she had questions about the legality of the Walden Woods project given the Conditions placed on the subdivision plans at that time. Many of the Conditions have not been met by the developer. See file for these Decisions.

Mrs. Foley said that the ZBA should speak with Town Counsel about this. Mr. Limbacher said, "I have already brought that to the ZBA Chairman. Town Counsel will be involved. Thinking out lout - if he (R. Walden, the developer) had not started the subdivision he would not have been bound by those Conditions, but he did start the subdivision so is bound by the prior approvals."

Ms. Harbottle asked if the members had concerns about the cul-de-sac that was built at the end of Stenbeck Place under a prior approval. Board indicated that they had concerns about that. Mrs. Burbine indicated that she was very upset that the Conditions placed on the prior Stenbeck Place subdivision were being ignored. Mr. Warner agreed that Town Counsel should be asked about this issue.

Concerns were raised about a pipe that apparently exists but the DPW and the Applicant's engineer have no knowledge of where it begins, ends, or its capacity. Minutes of prior meetings on the Stenbeck Place subdivision show discussion on this issue but no answers were given to the outstanding questions regarding this pipe. Mr. Warner said the Board must have that information on the pipe because it will effect the drainage going off the site.

Mr. Warner asked the Board to work with Ms. Harbottle on preparing a list of additional comments which will be sent, via Mr. Limbacher, to the ZBA. Mr. Limbacher said he would submit the Board's comments to the ZBA as part of their formal correspondence.

The Applicant, John Tedeschi, was present along with his attorney, William Ohrenberger. See sign-in list for names of others present for this Hearing.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, "John has acquired a 30' strip along 4 lots of the westerly side . We did a Form A Plan for this which was approved (April 25, 2002). These plans incorporate that to make larger lots. This gives him a little more room to move the house into a better position. We had an informal discussion with you on this just to get the Board's input. This moves the existing 20' green-space buffer from the rear of the old lot line to the rear of the new lot line and it will increase that from 20' to 25'."

Ms. Harbottle said, "This seems like a straightforward way to increase size of the lot." Mr. Limbacher said, "The only way to do it is with this modification process."

The Chair called for public comment. There was none. There were no further questions/comments from the Board.

MOTION: Mrs. Burbine Moved that the Planning Board vote to CLOSE the two Public Hearings regarding the Northey Estates Subdivision [Public Hearing regarding the Modification of the Northey Estates Subdivision Plan; Public hearing regarding the Modification of the Northey Estates Flexible Open Space Development Special Permit Plan.] Mr. Limbacher Seconded the Motion and the vote on the Motion was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

MOTION: Mrs. Burbine Moved that the Planning Board vote to APPROVE the two plan modifications regarding the Northey Estates Subdivision.
1. Modification to the Northey Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan [Plan entitled 'Modified Definitive Subdivision Plan. A Flexible Open Space Development in the Town of Scituate, Massachusetts, Northey Farm Estates'. Plan prepared for Owner/Applicant, John Tedeschi, by Aaberg Associates, Inc. and dated April 25, 2002.
2. Modification to the Flexible Open Space Development Special Permit Plan [Plan entitled 'Modification Plan for the Amendment to the Flexible Open Space Development Special Permit in the Town of Scituate, Massachusetts, Northey Farm Estates'. Plan prepared for Owner/Applicant, John Tedeschi, by Aaberg Associates, Inc. and dated April 25, 2002.
Mrs. Foley Seconded the Motion and the vote on the Motion was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Mr. Limbacher said he would recuse himself for taking part in the review of this application because he would be reviewing it, as a ZBA member, when it came before the ZBA. Mr. Limbacher left the meeting at this point.

The Applicant, Mr. & Mrs. Guiney, were present along with their architect, Herbert Kuendig.

Mr. Kuendig explained the project to the Board noting that the Applicant wishes to raze the existing dwelling and construct a new one on the site. Mr. Kuendig showed the Board the following information: the outline of the existing house; the porch and deck areas; the area of the existing and proposed parking; the one-car garage.

Mr. Warner said, "So there will be a one-car garage and two cars on the side." Mr. Kuendig said, "Two to four depending on how close they park." Ms. Harbottle said there was enough parking spaces to meet Bylaw requirements.

Ms. Harbottle said, "The house was built before 1972. I don't see any significant issues. I would recommend standard conditions."

Mr. Warner asked, "What about the dimensional requirements? Does it meet all the zoning setback requirements?" Ms. Harbottle replied, "That is why they are going to the ZBA - for non-conforming setbacks."

Mr. Kuendig said, "We are going to the ZBA because we need their approval to tear it down and build a new house. Once the house is down it becomes a vacant lot. It will be less non-conforming with new one. We meet the side setbacks and the rear setbacks. It is the front setback that we don't meet but neither does anyone else along Lighthouse Road. The existing was 3.6 and now it will be 3.85. It is just at the corner of the house. It is not the whole front of the house."

Mrs. Foley asked about the porch area and Mr. Kuendig explained it to her noting the existing and proposed porch areas.

Mrs. Foley asked, "Is there a CH.. 91 permit existing on this?" Mr. Kuendig said he did not know. Mrs. Foley asked, "Are you in Ch. 91 historic tidelands?" Mr. Kuendig replied, "They get some minor overflow but it is not flooding in there." Mrs. Foley continued, "I am not asking about flooding. I am asking if they in Ch. 91 historic tidelands. It probably was filled. Was there a Ch. 91 permit for the filling? This should be straightened out." Mr. Kuendig said, "There was a December 10, 1913 license granted for the filling of that area." He showed Mrs. Foley this information noting the filled portion.

The discussion continued for some time on the Ch. 91 issues (filling done on the site). Maps and plans were examined. Mrs. Foley said, "I want to know if any of this construction is going to falls into the area that was filled (filled tidelands)." Ms. Harbottle described the filled area. She said, "The filled area is about 40' back from the 100' end of the lot line." Mrs. Foley said, "I am trying to determine if the deck is in the tidelands."

The discussion centered on the foundation. Mrs. Foley said there should be a stamped foundation plan. Mr. Kuendig said, "That is going to be given to the Conservation Commission. It is in the works right now." Mr. Kuendig described the proposed foundation construction (poured in place concrete foundation with break-out panels). That is allowed in the A2 zone. I have talked to the Commission and I was told to go ahead with poured in place concrete foundation. It is not a barrier beach. It is in the A2 zone. It is a poured in place concrete foundation now which will be ripped out. The break-out panels are according to the codes. We are actually exceeding what is required under the codes."

Mrs. Foley asked, "You will have stamped plans? This Board will want a copy of those." Mr. Kuendig promised to give the Board a copy of the stamped plans.

In response to questions from the Board Mr. Kuendig described the floor plans for the house. He said, "There will be two stories of living space, then there is an attic, and a roof deck. The ceiling in the attic will be 7 ft. 2". It will be flat underneath the roof top deck. The roof top deck will be a flat area 10 x 20 feet long. When we are finished the ceiling will be under 7' 2", which by State Building Code makes it not a habitable space. 7'2" is the cut off for habitable space in the State Building Code and health regulations."

Mrs. Brandow asked for clarification about the views from the house e.g. side view.

Mr. Kuendig said, "That is abutting the neighbors garage."

Mrs. Burbine asked, "How high is the house?" Mr. Kuendig replied, "It is under the required height by the Town Bylaw and State Building Code. In this town they are the same which is 35 feet. By Town Bylaw the height of this house is 29 feet 7 ¼ inches."

Mrs. Burbine asked, "How does that compare to house on either side of this one?"

Mr. Kuendig described the height of some of the abutting homes. He noted the location of one house that has a roof top deck (widow's walk) and the Guiney house would be at the same height as this house. Mrs. Burbine said, "So basically this new dwelling will be similar in size to its next door neighbor?" Mr. Kuendig said, "It will look a bit larger because we have a full second floor but it is within the State Building Code and the Town Bylaw Regulations."

Mrs. Burbine said, "Even though the third floor is theoretically unhabitable - it could be at some point in time habitable. It has a walk out to a deck." Mr. Kuendig replied, "It has a walk out to a stairway that takes you up to the roof." Mrs. Burbine continued, "It has a bank of windows that overlook the Harbor." Mr. Kuendig replied, "Conceivably yes, it could be considered….. but under State Building Codes it can never be considered a bedroom." Mrs. Burbine said, "I understand that, but once it is all said and done …." Mr. Kuendig interjected, "Once it is all said and done, who knows. It could be finished off but right now it is not the Guineys' plans to do that."

Mrs. Burbine said, "I know this is not a reason to deny - but it looks massive." Mr. Kuendig said, "On the plans it does look massive but because of the indents and the roof lines it will not look as massive." Mrs. Burbine said, "While I realize there is not much we can do about this, but we are loosing a segment of housing. The small cottages are turning into McMansions."

Mrs. Foley asked, "Does that roof top deck have to be included in the height?" Mr. Kuendig explained, "No, it is recessed down into the roof so it is not above the height requirements. You will see a little rail at the top."

Mr. Warner asked about the square footage of the house and Mr. Kuendig said, "The new house will be 1000 S.F. more than the existing. The basement will not be occupied. There will be nothing there. The attic will hold the mechanicals - heat, air conditioning, and storage. The existing house is tied to sewer now."

Mrs. Foley said, "On the sheet that Laura filled out there seems to be a lot of information that is not provided. There is no locus, bar scale, etc. How much of the lot is in that A3 zone?" Mr. Kuendig replied, "It is A2 EL 10. There will be no access to the basement other than through breakout panels. There is no access through the house. The top of foundation will be at 11.5."

Ms. Harbottle told Mr. Kuendig what information was missing from the plan and Mr. Kuendig promised to provide it including a stamped foundation plan and 2 more copies of the larger plan drawn to scale which Mr. Kuendig had previously submitted.

The Board discussed the time to continue the Public Hearing. June 13th was chosen. The Board thought they could take final action on that date.

MOTION: Mrs. Burbine Moved that the Planning Board vote to continue the Flood Plain & Watershed Protection District Special Permit for 54 Lighthouse Road to June 13th at 8:15 P.M. Applicant: Bridget Guiney. Mrs. Foley Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. {Mr. Limbacher did not participate in this action.}

MOTION TO ADJOURN: Motion duly made, Seconded, and voted unanimously to adjourn at 10: 25 P.M.

Respectfully submitted

Merrilyn O'Brien, Secretary

William Limbacher, Clerk

Date Approved