MINUTES

MARCH 9, 2006

Members Present: Mr. Limbacher. Mr. Fenton, Mr. Fagan, Mr. Walter, Mrs. Brennan, Mrs. Chisholm (Alternate Member)

Others Present: Atty. W. Ohrenberger, Mr. S. Mooney, Mr. P. Mirabito; Mr. & Mrs. F. Mazzola, Mr. M. Lesberg; Atty. J. DeLisi, Ohrenberger Assocs.

See Sign-in List for names of others present at this meeting.

ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Mr. Fenton Moved to accept the Agenda. Mr. Fagan Seconded the Motion and the vote on the Motion was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

TWO FORM A 149 OLD OAKEN BUCKET ROAD: ONE PLAN SHOWING 5 LOTS AND ONE SHOWING 6 LOTS. OWNER/APPLICANT: POPES POND CRANBERRY COMPANY, INC.

The applicant, Steven Mooney of Popes Pond Cranberry Company, was present along with his attorney, William Ohrenberger, and his engineer, Paul Mirabito.

The Board discussed both plans simultaneously.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “There was a plan that was withdrawn (See Minutes February 23, 2006). The only concern was with Lot 6. I think that Laura reviewed these plans and said that they could be endorsed.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I was up there today with a car and I know that you have access.”

Mr. Fenton asked, “Do we need a note on the plan that Lot 8 is not a buildable lot? It is essentially the bog.” Mr. Limbacher replied, “We stamp it that it does not comply with zoning.”

Mrs. Brennan asked about the abutting land owned by Lisa Lewis. Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “She actually does have frontage off that other cul-de-sac, that other road there. She went to ZBA.I don’t know if the plan was withdrawn.” Mr. Limbacher explained, “She wanted a variance from the ZBA.. I think she withdrew the plan. There was no way that the Zoning Board would grant a variance.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “Is there some way to work things out with Lisa Lewis?”

Mr. Mirabito explained why it could not be done.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “So you have two versions of the plan before us this evening.” Atty. Ohrenberger explained, “Yes. Lots 1 and 7 - Lot 1 is the same as on the ANR plan. It is there more informationally. Lot 7 is more or less like the old Lot 6 but a little different. So we left that on there. We combined Lot 1 and Lot 7 with Lot 8 so it is all one big lot.”

Mr. Fenton said, “So we can endorse both plans.” Mrs. Brennan asked, “Which plan will you actually work from?”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “My client is trying to work with the town to see if the town can purchase some or all of this land for water purposes. That is the worst kept secret in North America.”

Motion: Mr. Fenton Moved to Endorse as approval under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required the following two ANR Plans located in the Town of Scituate at 149 Old Oaken Bucket Road:

· Plan showing 5 Lots at 149 Old Oaken Bucket Road

· Plan showing 6 Lots at 149 Old Oaken Bucket Road

Both Plans prepared by Ross Engineering Company for Owner/Applicant: Popes Pond Cranberry Co., Inc. Both Plans dated February 28, 2006. Motion Seconded by Mr. Fagan and the vote on the Motion was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Atty. Ohrenberger and Paul Mirabito of Ross Engineering represented the applicant.

Atty. Ohrenberger explained, “You have already endorsed a plan for this and the ZBA has issued a Decision. There was a note that was supposed to be on the plan. See the last note on the plan. The plan is back to you because of this note.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “They were here before for a Form A and then they went to the ZBA.”

Mr. Fenton asked for clarification. Atty. Ohrenberger said, “There is a right-of- way that pre existed zoning. We own the fee in that. We own the whole thing.” Mr. Fenton said, “So what will happen is that this house on Lot 2 will come up that same drive.” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “That’s right.”

MOTION: Mr. Fenton Moved to Endorse as Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required a plan of land in the Town of Scituate located at 80 Brook Street. Plan prepared by Ross Engineering Company for Owner/Applicant: Barbara D. & Lawrence M. Buckley, Jr. Plan dated August 25, 2005.” Motion Seconded by Mr. Fagan and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

1. ENSR ($465.27) for consulting services Rte. 3A common driveways.

Mr. Fenton said, “We have clearly established the bylaw. It doesn’t have to be identical. It could just be modified slightly for Humarock. Is there a clear zone down there?”.

Mr. Fagan replied, “Yes, there is a Business Zone in Humarock.” Mr. Fenton said, “The density will likely be lower than in Greenbush.

CONTINUATION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 3 MURPHY’S LANE. OWNER/APPLICANT: FRANCIS G. & GERALDINE B. MAZZONA

Mr. & Mrs. Mazzola and his architect, Michael Lesburg, AIA, were present. See sign-in list for names of others present for this hearing.

Mr. Lesburg said, “I am representing Mr. Mazzola. This plan is essentially for an apartment in an existing residence owned by the Mazzolas. It is a rather unusual case with perhaps extenuating circumstances. Technically Mr. & Mrs. Mazzola do not live in the residence at 3 Murphy’s Lane. Their family has lived in Scituate since 1924 and the Mazzolas have owned property here since 1968. . The Mazzolas have had a permanent residence in Scituate since 1999. They have seven children. Among the seven is one who currently lives at Murphys Lane. He is challenged. His parents bought this house to set him up in the house . It is a 3 bedroom, split level house. He uses one bedroom as a bedroom. He uses one of the bedrooms as an office/music room and there is and one extra bedroom. In the lower level of the house there are two finished rooms and two unfinished rooms. The Mazzolas are trying to enable their children to live near them so they can assist them with their lives while living as independently as possible. There was a time previously when one of their other children for a period of about eighteen months lived there in order to make it easier for their son. That child was a daughter but that did not quite work out. There is another child that has muscular disease which is in remission that they would like to allow to live in the house but she has to live independently from her brother. In order to let that happen we need to create an accessory apartment in the lower level with a separate entrance to it. They can communicate but they don’t have to communicate if they don’t want to. The lower level apartment will be the 750 S.F. and will have a bedroom, kitchen, living area. It would be a modest apartment. That is the plan. That would enable the Mazzola children to live near them and live as independently as possible. Technically speaking, Mr. & Mrs. Mazzola do not live it that house. They do own the house, they do pay the bills, and they maintain it.”

Mr. Lesburg continued, “The house is allowed to be a 3-bedroom house as far as Board of Health is concerned. It has a septic system on site. We asked Ross Engineering if the system could be upgraded to comply with Title 5 to allow for an additional bedroom for the accessory unit. The answer is, according to Ross Engineering, that there is not enough land to accommodate a Title 5 system. Curiously in 1997 at 8 Tichnor Place, which is property that backs up to 3 Murphy’s Lane, there was an easement granted by 3 Murphy’s Lane to allow a sewer line to run across an easement at the property at 3 Murphy’s Lane onto Beaver Dam Road and then down to a sewer manhole near Hazel Avenue. We inquired of Ross Engineer if the town allowed it if a connection could be made to that private line. The answer was no. I spoke to Mr. Rowland at the Sewer Department and he said it might be allowed if the Selectmen approved. At this point we are going along with the assumption that we don’t have enough land to get a Title 5 system for more than three bedrooms. So three bedrooms is the maximum allowed. The house is currently occupied by one person who can’t drive. He is not allowed to drive. The plan was to allow for his sister to live in the accessory apartment. She drives so there could be one car there. That would allow them to live there as independently as they can with assistance from their parents.”

Mr. Fenton asked, “Have we received comments from the Board of Health? Are you acknowledging that you are going up to four bedrooms thus exceeding the three bedroom house? Help me understand that.” Mr. Lesburg replied, “The house currently has three bedrooms. We are proposing an additional bedroom. Of the three existing bedrooms one is not used as a bedroom. It can’t be used as a bedroom. In actuality we are asking for the fourth bedroom but only three can be used as a bedrooms. There is only one person living in the house and there will be only one person living in the apartment so there could only be two people in the house.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Title 5 is not related to the numbers of people living in the house.”

Mr. Mazzola said, “If someone else moved in there they might have kids and may be more of a drag on the town and on the system. He does not want anyone in the space. Our daughter tried to live there but it did not work. That is why we want the Accessory Dwelling. We are in the 70’s so we want something in place when we are not here.”

Mr. Fenton said, “It looks like there are three bedrooms upstairs and as many as two downstairs. Are you reading it the right way? I will ask my fellow Board members” Mr. Limbacher replied, “I think you are reading it the right way but the septic system is not an issue before this Board.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I just want to divide the piles.” Mr. Limbacher said, “We need to

determine residency first.”

Mr. Walter said, “The bedroom count upstairs could be resolved by taking out the door and making it a 6’ opening.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Let me tell you what I hear – what you have done is that you have created your own hardships – the two residents are incompatible to live together in the house as it is currently configured. So you want to put up a wall or some kind of barrier between these two people. Whether you have done that intentionally or not you have created your own hardship because you need to put that wall between them. Once you define that as a hardship you come looking for relief to the hardship.”

Mr. Mazzola replied, “That could be one way to look at it. Every child is different. They are not kids. One is 39 and one is 37. They have some medical problems. Those are the two that we are trying to help.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “Could one of the children be added to the deed?” Mr. Mazzola replied, “No, because it would effect the benefits that they get.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “The dilemma that I have is the basic gut level issue and that is that the Accessory Dwelling ‘must be owner occupied’. We have supported Accessory Dwellings.”

Mr. Mazzola said, “Because we do live on the shore and most of us living in Scituate recognize the problems because of coastal storms - we would have a place to go if there was a storm. Two or three times a winter we have to get out of where we live (Inner Harbor Road).”

Mr. Lesburg said, “It is sort of an extension of the owner living in the house. You should try to let the family live to its fullest extent.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I understand that but the problem that we have is that we have a Bylaw that says what the rules are. You have to meet all of the rules. I don’t understand why you can’t just have the two kids living together in the house.” Mr. Mazzola said, “It is an issue of privacy. They both want their own space.”

Mr. Walter asked, “Is this an issue about creating kitchens?” Mr. Fenton said, “Do they would need an Accessory Dwelling Special Permit from us in order to put in a second kitchen. What triggers that? That is a decision made by the Building Commissioner.”

Mr. Limbacher asked Mr. Mazzola if he had spoken with the Building Commissioner. Mr. Mazzola replied, “Yes, before I bought the house. He said it was okay and now we are hearing that it is not. We are not putting in the second bathroom.”

Mr. Fenton said, “You can make modifications to the home if you are truly not going to rent it out as a separate unit and that it will be just for your family. We are very cautious about owner occupancy. The question is what happens if this changes hands. We must consider what will happen in the future.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I can’t speak for the whole Board but the first hurdle is that it must be owner occupied and you can’t get over that. There are a series of definitions that says what this thing has to be. Perhaps you can do something different. I am not sure what you can do but I think it is inappropriate to come to this Board looking for an Accessory Dwelling when you know that you don’t meet the criteria in the Bylaw.”

Mr. Lesburg replied, “I am not arguing that. We are asking you to expand the traditional definitions. The owners are willing to record all the requirements e.g. that the house can be occupied by only two people, there will be only two rooms used as bedrooms etc. I agree that we can’t pass the first hurdle. Perhaps if a stove is removed from a kitchen it is no longer a legal kitchen. Maybe that would help along the way.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “ I thought that Mr. Fenton had suggested that instead of putting in an Accessory Dwelling you just renovate the existing house.” Mr. Lesburg said, “We would have to make one kitchen area not a legal kitchen.” Mr. Fenton said, “I think you should check on the kitchen issue. That may be the way to go. We have an obligation to make sure you meet the Bylaw. This is not a reflection on you in any way but we have an obligation to meet. Once an Accessory Dwelling is in place it is there no matter who owns the property.”

Mr. Lesburg said, “We could record something at the Registry that only these people only could have the accessory use.” Mrs. Brennan asked, “What would happen if another one of your children wants to live there?” Mr. Mazzola replied, “It should say ‘family’. We do bring Paul some of his meals.” Mrs. Brennan said, “Perhaps if there is just a microwave it is not considered to be a kitchen. You could check with Neil Duggan.” Mr. Mazzola said, “I know my son. That would be an emotional crisis for him. He is a good guy.”

Mrs. Corrine Higgins, 17 Murphy’s Lane, said, “I think this is a zoning issue. What is being created is a two-family house on a sub-standard lot. I think this belongs before the ZBA.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “We are required to operate under this Bylaw. We can’t change the Bylaw as much as we might like to emotionally. We cannot change it even if we wanted. To change it would require a variance and that would be before the ZBA.”

Mrs. Michele Belson, 12 Murphy’s Lane, “My concern is with the Mr. Mazzola’s attorney’s opening statement – you said that he should not be living alone and he has been doing that for two years. You will have two people not taking care of each other. Is your daughter there to assist Paul? Why is she there? If Paul shouldn’t live alone then he has been doing that for two years.” Mr. Lesburg said, “Paul is living by himself but he needs some help periodically and that is being provided by his family. To the extent that family is in the Accessory Dwelling they can help him. They want their privacy. They are entitled to their privacy.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “There are some issues being discussed but they are not before this Board. It comes down to the fact that you can’t meet the owner occupied hurdle.

I would suggest that you withdraw the application without prejudice and then you can look hard at what can be done within the house. I am a firm believer in Accessory Dwellings and I understand your situation. I did spend a fair amount of time looking at how you could do this but unfortunately you can’t get over the first hurdle.”

Mr. Lesburg said, “If I understand this correctly the ownership issue can’t be overcome and it can’t be made into two-family so we should look architecturally at what can be done within the house.” Mr. Fenton said, “It is easy to create an archway and do away with a bedroom.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “You should talk to Neil Duggan (Building Commissioner/ZEO) and Jennifer Sullivan (Health Agent).

Mr. Mark McCabe, 6 Murphy’s Lane, said, “We don’t want a two family house there.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Neil Duggan will not allow it to become a two-family house.” Mr. McCabe said, “My house before I moved in – all the neighbors told me that the prior owner rented out apartments in the house. I made it back to a single family house. That is why I am concerned about what will happen here.” Mr. Limbacher said, “I am not suggesting that this house be made into a two-family house. I am suggesting that he should check on what he can do within the confines of the existing house.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Let me suggest this. We can allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice his application. Is that agreeable to you?” Mr. Mazzola replied, “Yes.”

Motion: Mr. Fenton Moved to accept the request of the Applicant, Francis G. and Geraldine B. Mazzola, to withdraw without prejudice the Accessory Dwelling Special Permit Application for 3 Murphy’s Lane. Mr. Fagan Seconded the Motion and the vote on the Motion was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.

Mr. Fenton thanked Mr. Mazzola for being forthright with the Board.

Atty. W. Ohrenberger and Atty. J. DeLisi of Ohrenberger Associates, and Mr. P. Mirabito of Ross Engineering were present representing the Applicant. See Sign-in list for names of others present for this hearing.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “Mr. Harrington is still out of the country. Since the last meeting we had Paul and Jeff met with Bill and Donald to see what we could come up with in an effort to have one driveway coming in. I will let Paul speak to that now.”

Mr. Mirabito gave the Board copies of two pages of colored sketches and he explained them in detail. He said, “The application we had filed originally with the Board, and which is still in front of the Board, had three entrances coming into the site. . [Mr. Mirabito showed the locations of the three proposed common driveways.] At the last meeting the Board asked us to revisit the project to see what we could do to have one entrance drive coming in off Rte. 3A and do more detail to explain what is happening with the septic system which is located here. We prepared a plan for discussion purposes that shows one driveway coming in here. What would happen is that vehicles would enter the driveway here and go straight back to these units here and then come in here for these units and over here for these units. [See file for a copy of the plan as discussed by Mr. Mirabito.] The advantage to that is that there will be one entrance off of Rte. 3A as opposed to three.”

Mr. Mirabito continued, “Relative to the septic system, what I have done is to show how we propose to treat this area here. The soils in this area have relatively high groundwater. Under Title 5 we are required to mound the systems. There is a septic system on this lot and there is one being constructed on this lot here. You can see how the ground is elevated above the existing grade to conform to Title 5 requirements. [Mr. Mirabito described various Title 5 requirements.] This septic system that you see in blue is the leaching area for all of the proposed homes. We do what is called a common system. It will have a treatment system which cleans the water to a very good degree. We send the water over the entire blue area. The advantage is that there is more treatment. The water does not come over the system all at once. It comes in over a period of four to five hours. Because it is mounded we have to elevate the ground. The ground will be approximately five or six feet over what is there now. If you stand here you will see an elevated mound about five to six feet above grade. This red line represents a concrete wall that is shown in a cross-section. The blue area is the leaching area. The yellow over here is the property line. From the property line to the wall is 26’. We are proposing to put this wall in (reinforced concrete wall) and then we would have a swale between the wall and a row of trees which would hide this wall in perpetuity. Having the swale here any water that wants to keep coming down the hill would simply flow in the channel which is very shallow. It will be directed over land here to the basin. By having the swale here and because of the way we graded the site no water will go to the abutters property. By law we can’t put water on your property . Again, by putting these trees (6 to 8 feet tall when we install them initially) in here they will not see this wall.. Again, this wall will be 26’ away from the property line. We show a dotted line along here to show that the homes, if not a cluster-type development, could be as close as 30’ to the rear property line. That is the same for any house lot in the zone.”

Mr. Mirabito said, “The other thing I would like to point out is that your engineer, David Nyman, reviewed this site. The Planning Board has their engineer review our application. We did have three or four meetings with him and we made changes that were recommended by him. It was a very extensive and very thorough review. Those changes were made and he sent a memo to the Board the end of January that he agreed with all the revisions we made and he said he was in full concurrence with the design and that we meet all the Rules & Regulations. The only outstanding issue was that they wanted their traffic engineer to check the sight distance from this driveway up to the top of the hill. Our traffic engineer shows that we clearly meet that. That is being reviewed by the town’s engineer as well.”

Mr. Mirabito stated, “The purpose of the meeting tonight is to show how we would construct this project if it was in the form of what we call a Flexible Open Space Development. This is what it would look like. These houses are in the same location as what you saw before. The reason we placed them in this area here - we spent a lot of time coming up with land development schemes for this property - the layout that we have here going with the two-family homes will have the least impact on land clearing. Because we are in the Water Resource Protection District and because we filed for Common Driveway Special Permits we have to have a stormwater basin (located here). The other thing is that when you do grading, other than along the roadway, you have to have a 4:1 slope. Normally you would have a 3:1 slope and in some cases a 2:1 slope but we can’t do that. If we were to take these buildings and start to turn them against the grade what happens is that people driving along Rte. 3A as well as the abutters along the back would see more of the buildings. Once you turn them you need to do more grading and more green area starts to go away. Green area is what we think will remain as wooded or open space after all the construction activities are completed. The areas shown in white around the buildings are areas that we anticipate that will be lawn area for the homes. The building structures will be similar to what you see across the street at Doctor’s Hill (2-family homes). From one end to the other it shows them to be approximately 120 feet in length. That means that this building would be 60 feet wide. Most single family homes in Scituate being built today are any where from 60 to 90 or maybe 100 feet. Because these are duplexes and they are only three bedroom units they will be smaller than many of the new homes you see being built today. This stormwater basin is designed to take all the runoff from the roofs, the ground area around the buildings, the driveways. It will all be collected in the storm drain system with pipes and catch basins and it will all enter into a pipe system here and go into the basin and will eventually outlet here. There is only small piece of wetlands located at this end of the property. The wetlands have been confirmed by the Conservation Commission. The site was thoroughly walked by the Conservation Commission and their engineer. They determined that this whole site is considered to be uplands. On Rte. 3A no buildings can be constructed within 100 feet of the property line of the road and this plan does honor that. Another thing is that there is a non disturbance area within 50’ of the roadway so these trees will remain in place other than for the driveway entrance. All these trees here will stay in place. If you are driving down Rte. 3A all you would see are end of the buildings here.”

.

Mr. Mirabito described the second plan sheet. He said, “The second page shows the homes on Stearns Road. These homes were taken off the Assessor’s maps. We superimposed them on our plan to show the relationship between those homes and the proposed homes. [Mr. Mirabito described various distances between the proposed homes and homes on Stearns Road.] This gives you an idea of how far these homes would be from homes on Stearns Road. Earlier I showed you the 30’ setback line. Any homes on this property would have to be at least 30’ off of the property line. Theoretically homes could be as close as 60’ together. The side property lines are only 15’ so the side setbacks could be as close as 30’ together. By placing these homes in the area that we have shown we have maximized the distance and at the same time we create much open space. We are placing the homes on the natural grade of the land so we don’t have to do as much clearing as we normally would. [Mr. Mirabito described various buffer areas and how they would block the vision of the proposed homes.] I will end my presentation and I will answer any questions.”

Mr. Fagan asked Mr. Mirabito to explain the grades associated with the septic system. Mr. Mirabito replied, “The finished grade of the septic system will be 112 feet and at the bottom it will be 102’. There is a 10’ drop in elevation from the top of the blue area to the bottom. The existing ground elevation right here is 107’. By placing the wall here it gives us room to get the swale away from these yards and we will plant a row of trees in here to hide the wall and there will still be room between the trees and the property lines. It will be a concrete wall.”

Mr. Walter asked, “Is that 4’ to the center point?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “What I am saying is that the wall is approximately 4 ½ feet above grade.” Mr. Walter asked, “Is the wall sloping with the grade?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “The wall follows the slope of the land. Just so you know, we have not filed with the Board of Health the design but they do have test pit information.”

Mrs. Brennan asked for clarification about the green space that will remain. Mr. Mirabito described the areas that would remain and he said, “We will put the water main here and loop it around the homes and then out to the street here. So there will be area where we will have to go through the woods and clear a path probably 20’ wide and put in a trench which will be back filled. Nothing will be placed in that easement area. Then the trees will be allowed to grow up in the easement areas. Here are the landscaped areas around the homes. Other than that when the project is done – the area for the water loop will be allowed to grow back – it will not be used for any buildings or for any accessory buildings or anything of that nature. Sometimes people want to go out and widen and clear easement areas but that is not going to happen here. There will be restrictions placed on all the open area so that it will remain in place. These will be sold as condominiums so that is something that will show on the condo plan as common areas and it will say who can use them, what they can be used for, and how they must be maintained. The bottom line is that they will never be used for any building or any clearing purposes. What we find with a project like this is that the owners will tend to be over 50 and they will not want big lawn areas. This is similar to what you see over at Doctor’s Hill.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “So you will maintain the trees behind the septic system.” Mr. Mirabito replied, “Yes, there will be a condo association and there will be a fund set up to maintain the system on an annual basis. The association will also have to maintain the trees in the open space.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “Pat - the Board has indicated that this is preferable. There are basically three things here. These are ANR existing lots with basically eight curb cuts. We could build on them without green space and without drainage control. That is not what anyone wants to do here. What is before the Board formally right now is the three common driveways. We have now presented this Flexible. If this is something that is desirable what will happen is that instead of the three Common Driveway Special Permits we will apply for a Flexible Open Space Development Special Permit. So this is preferable because there will be one entrance off on Rte.3A. It will also have more green space near Rte. 3A. With the Flexible Open Space Development what would happen with the Decision is that there would be open space areas set forth and restrictions on maintaining the vegetation in certain sites. I hope that answers your question, Pat.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “Paul – what is the percentage of green space that will not be disturbed?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “Probably 80% of the green area will not be disturbed.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “I want to make sure that the water loop area would remain open.” Atty. Ohrenberger said, “You can make that a condition of your Decision.”

Mrs. Chisholm asked, “So is this new plan a Flexible Open Space Development?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “Yes, but we have not filed it with the Board yet. We would like to hear from the Board and neighbors. This has only one driveway.” Mrs. Chisholm asked, “How is it different from the other plan?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “The other one has three driveways.” [Atty. Ohrenberger showed Mrs. Chisholm the areas that would be cut using the three common driveway plan and the areas that would be cut using the Flexible Open Space Development plan.]

Mrs. Chisholm said, “This looks so uniform to me. The last one was so randomly placed.” Atty. Ohrenberger said, “The point is that we want to have one driveway. I would ask – how do you do that from a legal standpoint and the answer is that the best way to deal with this is with a Flexible Open Space Development.”

Mr. Walter said, “What happens is because of the orientation of the buildings and the fact that they have buffers between them it helps to preserve that open space.”

Mr. Fenton said, “Philosophically I am much more interested in this than the other one. Just for a transportation safety thing. Going down to one entrance is good thing for residents and for abutters too. Every additional curb cut on Rte. 3A is hazardous. This is a win from that standpoint. I agree with what Donna said about the layout but I understand there are limitations on that. The two things I see when I look at this now are - the size of the basin it is massive. Have you considered something else for that? I understand that that has been standard practice for years but those kind of big basins are becoming less appealing. They become problems for the Homeowner’s Association and they can be a safety hazard when they are full and things like that. Have you explored this from an environment standpoint? Have you considered a discussion about a more distributed system? I know that it may be more expensive, but I am not convinced that it has to be as massive as it is.”

Mr. Mirabito said, “We did look at that. Because we are in the Water Resource Protection District we have to be 3’ above the ground water at the bottom of the basin. If you look at the elevation of the land where that basin it at the bottom of the hill, where that basin is the land starts to flatten out. Once you start going up hill from there the slope of the land gets steeper. This side of the basin is 3’ above the groundwater but because the basin is relatively flat – that is about a 4’ drop in elevation here. When you get over here the bottom of the basin is 4’ above the existing grade. The problem is if you look at the slope here this is a 4:1 slope. Normally it is 2:1 or 3:1. This is where the land is relatively flat. It is really dropping from elevation 52 to elevation 46. It is only dropping 6’. Here is the bottom of the basin and the basin is 4’ high so you are 8’ above the ground already then you have to slope down. [Mr. Mirabito offered some ideas of what the problems would be if there was a change in the size of location of the basin.] What would happen is that you would have to change the slope of the roads to get the water back into the basin.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I get it. That is a good explanation. What about having rain gardens? We had a presentation on those kind of practices.” Mr. Mirabito replied, “This is a sizeable area and rain gardens would not work because they really don’t absorb that much water. One of the things that Dave Nyman made us do was to design the drain pipes for the 100-year storm which we normally don’t do. We had to design it to get the water down here and that is all because of the slopes. We don’t have a rain garden but if you look at the green areas we have a large part of this property that will remain undeveloped. You could put in walking trails through the trees if you wanted.”

Mr. Walter said, “Talk to me about the characteristics of the basin when it is not full of water. What will it look like?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “The basin will be loomed and seeded. There will be an Operation & Maintenance Plan for that. A landscape company will be hired by the Condo Assoc. to maintain it.” Mr. Walter asked, “Could it be buffered?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “Yes, some of the side slopes could have some low vegetation.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “Is there any infiltration?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “There is some - a small percentage. Again, the lower part of the basin is above existing grade.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “Will it be completely dry at times?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “Yes. It is a detention basin so it will detain water for a certain number of hours.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “I need to understand. – explain to me the difference in the height between buildings. What is the relative height of the buildings? What do I see from Stearns Road?” Mr. Mirabito responded, “I don’t have architectural plans but to the peak of the roof it will be 34’ to 36’ from average finished grade.” Mr. Limbacher asked, “Is the relative peak of the houses being proposed below the level of the peak of the houses on Stearns Road?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “It depends where you are.” [Mr. Mirabito gave some examples to answer Mr. Limbacher. He mentioned various grades and elevations of some of the proposed houses and some of the houses on Stearns Road.] Mr. Limbacher said, “So it might be slightly different as you go down the hill.” Mr. Mirabito replied, “Yes. There would be 70 feet of trees here.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “On the other side of the property what is down there?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “There is an existing dwelling at 349 Chief Justice Cushing Highway.

That home is about 15’ off property line. This is the bottom of the berm . The berm starts at EL:46 and rises up to EL:52. The bottom of the basin is at EL:49. The bottom of the basin is roughly 74’ to that house. The basin will catch the water coming off that property now.”

Mrs. Brennan asked, “So are you saying that the basin will actually improve the flooding situation for that abutter?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “Yes, if this house gets flooded now from the runoff from the site. The basin will intercept that. It will lessen it.”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “In a 10-year storm what is the time frame and what is the expectation for that basin? How long will there be standing water?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “It would be hours as opposed to days. The basin can take the 100-year storm. There will be some infiltration. The reason for that is that the bottom of the basin is at EL:49. The existing grade out there underneath the basin is at EL:48.”

Mr. Fenton said, “Talk to me about roadway widths.” Mr. Mirabito said, “Sixteen feet. We designed it to keep the pavement to a minimum and have as little runoff as possible. Your Zoning Bylaw has design standards and we incorporated those into this.” Mr. Fenton asked, “Would you be receptive to stonedust or gravel paths to get people out to the entrance? There could be a low impact through the woods.” Mr. Mirabito replied, “ Mr. Mirabito replied, “Yes, we would be receptive to that.”

Atty. Ohrenberger agreed with Mr. Mirabito and he said, “One member asked for changes to the road here. What we have done is for minimum disturbance. We could change the road but there would be more disturbance.” Mr. Fenton replied, “Perhaps you could soften the lower edge a bit. It could curve a bit.” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “Yes, we could do that.”

The Chair called for public comments.

Mr. Robert Chessia, 9 Stearns Road, said, “I am a long time residence of Scituate. My family goes back to when Scituate was incorporated. Are we here for common driveways or for a Flexible Open Space Development?” Mr. Limbacher replied, “What we are looking at is an alternative to the common driveway proposal. This is just for discussion purposes tonight so we could look at it as an alternative..”

Mr. Chessia said, “Scituate has historically tried to protect Chief Justice Cushing Highway from development – no mini-malls, no shopping centers etc. This will be a blight on our highway. You will have a huge area for the retention basin and then you have all these buildings. It will not be pretty. I took a drive today to refresh my memory of what it looks like. Now Rte. 3A is a beautiful road. This will not help it. As far as the common driveways, I think they want common driveways so they can get by the 175’ width. With a common driveway they are allowed to measure the width of the buildings the opposite way instead of what usually you would think of as the width. I think the Board should first look at setting density without allowing common driveways.. This is a Special Permit. We have had meetings postponed and postponed. The pond gets bigger and now they want one road. It should be a subdivision. If there are kids there where will they play? There are a lot of sharp turns. This is not a good plan. Don’t give everything away. I think that if you try to reduce the density you could make that pond smaller and maybe that wall smaller. Maybe that retaining wall could go away. Look at the Laurelwood Subdivision. When I saw the plan I was upset and I still am. I just don’t think this makes sense for the Town of Scituate. This is just a ploy. They say that there is an ANR 8 lots, but some of those lots will not satisfy the 175’. Also, I called Mass Highway and they need 150’ between driveways. This is just not going to work. This is the first time I have seen this plan. This is new to me and I would like to look at it.”

Mr. Limbacher said, “One of the things that I am concerned about is that I have not seen the plan. Since you are already here this evening I think that this is an opportunity to have a discussion on the plan. It also gives the applicant an opportunity to hear what the abutters have to say. Bob has handed us a letter. It came in too late to be put in the packets. We will make copies of the letter from Bob Chessia for the members. It does make reference to the retaining wall at Laurelwood.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “Whether something is done under Subdivision Control or by Special Permit you will have more control when there is a Special Permit. The second thing – to get the duplexes that are here we do have the lot width. If you don’t like the plan we are talking about tonight – we don’t have to do it. It is just conceptual. If you want some place for kids to play, sure we could do that but then we could have to cut down more vegetation. If you want a green project then we would want to keep as much green space as we can. That could be an option and we could look at it. We don’t have to do this plan. We think this is a good thing but if you want us to do the common driveways we could do that, or we could do the ANR.”

Mr. Chessia asked, “Is it possible to see the ANR plan so that we can see what that looks like?” Mr. Limbacher replied, “Yes, we have a copy of that. It does not have the houses on it and the septic systems on an ANR plan. It just shows the lot lines. All the ANR Plan does is to divide the lots.”

Mr. Chessia said, “But it does not mean that it could be built under the ANR.” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “The Planning Board signed the ANR and then their job is done.”

Mr. Chessia said, “To build it is a different story.” Atty. Ohrenberger said, “Yes, the Building Inspector and the Board of Health would be involved.” Mr. Chessia continued, “ My problem is the density. This is just too much. This was brought for $26,000 at public option. Give us a break - they will get a huge windfall. They will make a ton of money. They should show some concern for the town. We have heard people say that they anticipate that they won’t cut down trees down. Maybe they said that at Doctor’s Hill and they cut them down there. What is to prevent that from happening here? The town should make sure that when they promise something that they get it in writing. What is to prevent the Homeowner’s Association from saying…’we are going to change that now’. Everything should be in writing.” Mr. Limbacher said, “That will be in the deed restrictions.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “Contrary to Doctor’s Hill, as a Condition of the permit it will say what must remain as open space. From a legal standpoint, if you violate the Special Permit the house is not legal. If someone violates the Special Permit the town can enforce the law, issue damages, and order restoration etc.”

Mr. H. Szklut, 15 Stearns Road said, “The neighborhood got together to do some research on this project. I just put together a letter expressing some of our concerns. [He gave the Board a copy of the letter from the neighborhood.] The plan is different than the last time. One of our first concerns is the safety on Rte. 3A. We have not seen the traffic study. [Mr. Limbacher said that the Board has requested that a traffic study be done.] We should determine where that first common driveway can go in to the lot. According to Mass Highway there has to be 150’ between driveways. I am not convinced that he can get more than two common driveways which by itself would reduce the size of the project. With this new plan – you eliminate the common driveways but the Board should not give up on what the density of the project should be just because they are reducing the number of driveways. My second concern that a number of people have expressed is with the water runoff. A moment ago he mentioned that the detention pond would help the homeowner at the bottom, but if the flooding there is resolved it will just go to someone’s property. Does this plan take that into consideration? The third concern is with the density. One of the homeowners has looked at the wetlands. I understand that the wetlands have already been filed but there has been some new wetland plant life identified. There may be vernal pools on the property. One abutter had a plan that shows a brook in there. This needs to be looked at much closer to see what really is capable of being put on there. We have not had a chance to have a hydrologist look at it. We have not seen perk test/soil test results. We would like to see that information and have a specialist analyze it. I think at the very least the Board should say ‘stop’ until some of these questions have been answered. I am saying this for the people living along Stearns and Old Forge Roads.”

Mr. Bob Ryan, 142 Old Forge Road, “I have a plan dated December 6/02 prepared by Ross Engineering for our septic system. It appears that there is a discrepancy between the wetland line on that plan and the plan done for Harrington Trust. I would also request that you look at that closer. Relative to our land back there there are various ferns. You can see that the soil is very dark and organic in nature. We also have quite a bit of wood products on our property. We would ask that these plans be looked into a lot more closely as it relates to wetlands.”

Mrs. M. Ryan, 142 Old Forge Road, said, “The way the land slopes down – I have water that runs from the development area to our yard. Our property is here.. You said that the water will run down and come this way. Is that true?” Mr. Mirabito showed Mrs. Ryan how the water flows on the property. Mrs. Ryan continued, “I have water that runs this way. I am very concerned. Am I going to get more water coming onto my property? I have a ton of water there now. Here is the Herring Brook. Isn’t there a 200’ buffer from the Herring Brook.” Mr. Mirabito replied, “We are outside of that zone. The Conservation Commission looked at the wetlands. They hired an outside botanist and hydrologist and he looked at the plan. It cost a lot of money to have that done.”

Mrs. Ryan said, “There are wetland markers here. Our wetland lines were done in 2002 and they are good for 2005. Is that correct? You came along and did one in 2004.” Mr. Mirabito said, “Mr. Harrington hired a wetland scientist to establish the line and then that line was reviewed by the Conservation Commission.”

Mrs. Ryan showed Mr. Mirabito the plan of her land and the location of the wetland line done in 2002. She asked Mr. Mirabito if he changed the line in 2004. Mr. Mirabito explained the wetland lines to Mrs. Ryan. Mrs. Ryan asked, “Can we ask for a delay to check my wetland lines?” Mr. Limbacher replied, “The hearing will be continued anyway. We really don’t have the new plan before us.”

Mrs. Ryan, Mr. Mirabito, and Mr. Fenton examined Mrs. Ryan’s plan and discussed her property in relationship to the Harrington property, the location of First Herring Brook, the wetlands, and various buffer areas.

Mrs. Pat Butler, 439 Old Oaken Bucket Road, said, “I live in the house at the bottom near the detention basin. Are these houses going to have basements? The water table there is high. How big are the lots?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “All of these lots you see here with the exception of Lot 1 have at least 80,000 S.F. of upland. Again, the whole site is upland except for a very small piece at the end. This goes to why we have two-family homes. You have to remember that before we start this project or any kind of land development project we are clearly aware of all the Rules & Regulations. So when someone approaches us we will sit down and advise them of what they can or cannot do. Before we can give them a final answer we have to go out and do several things. One is to look at whether there are any wetlands on the site. The applicant hired a wetland scientist and he prepared a thorough report and the Conservation Commission hired their own consultant. They walked the entire site and they said that it is all uplands except for that small piece at the very end. Once we knew that that enabled us to go in and create this. It is the Zoning Bylaw that says what we can build. It says that in Scituate if you have the required frontage and at least two acres of upland you can build a two-family house. When Mr. Harrington bought it there was a plan on file at the Registry with eight house lots on it showing eight two-family house lots. We advised him not to build the houses in the location shown because of the shape of lots. They were way back in here and if he were to build it in that manner it would mean much more land clearing and most of the trees would have to come out. The benefit of doing that would be that we would not be in front of this board, or in front of Conservation, and we would not have to do any storm water management They would be ANR lots and that would be a slam dunk. We would come in and ask to have the plan approved and Board would have to sign the ANR We would have a septic system on the lot and a driveway coming off of Rte. 3A and we would not have to go to any other board except the Planning Board and that would just be for the ANR. We could do that as a matter of right. We could do that tomorrow if we wanted to. I advised my client that that was not a good way to develop his property. At the first hearing before the Board we presented an ANR plan showing that we could create eight lots with 175’ of lot width parallel to Rte. 3A and we could build a two-family house on each lot. Again, it meets all the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Bylaw, complies with the density requirements of the Zoning Bylaw, and meets all other applicable Rules & Regulations. The gentleman at #15 Stearns Road mentioned that the Board should wait and analyze where is the septic and the wetlands. That all has to be done before we get to this process. The Planning Board has professional engineers that review all of this and so does the Conservation Commission. It is really a double review process. We prepare the plans in according with all the Rules & Regulations and there are a lot of them. We are also trying to come up with a plan with the least impact on the property. This is the best development you can hope to see on this property. It is all being done in accordance with the Rules & Regulations in Scituate. The only reason we filed that common driveway plan was because the Zoning Bylaw says that you can service up to three house lots with one common driveway. [Mr. Mirabito showed the location of the three proposed common driveways.] The only difference between the Flexible Open Space Development Plan and the Common Driveway Plan is the number of driveways. With this plan we have taken out this driveway and this driveway. The advantage of going through this process is that there is a very thorough review. The town will make sure that everything is going to work. The Board of Health has witnessed the perk tests. When we file for the final design plan they will review it again. This can’t be approved unless we meet all the Rules & Regulations. We will have a treatment system in here that is not required. I convinced my client that it will be money well spent. It will be a much better system. Again, the wall here will be completely blocked from view from any of the abutters. He does not have to do that but we are offering to do that.”

There was a brief discussion about the placement of the houses on the lot. Mr. Mirabito said that with the new plan the 175’ through the house can still be met.

Mr. Chessia asked, “I know you can show me a plan but can you actually build it? How many perks are there? I am a skeptic. When someone tells me that something is good for me I tend to question it. When I first saw this plan I was upset and I still am. This is way too much.”

A gentleman from the audience said he did not understand why the owner would not just go forward with the ANR approach. Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “We can do that, but we don’t think it is the best utilization of the land.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “That was what was proposed and we asked for the common driveway plan. We have asked for changes to make it more palatable. There is no way we can tell them that they can’t develop the land.”

Mr. Dan Hoffman, 34 Stearns Road, said, “With the ANR lots – do they need 150’ feet between driveways?” Mr. Chessia said, “The State said there has to be 150’ between driveways.” Mr. Limbacher replied, “The State will either grant or not grant the permits for curb cuts.. I think there are three on the property now.” Mr. Hoffman said, “There is not room enough for eight driveways.” Mr. Limbacher said, “If they have to be 150’ apart then I think they probably are.” Mr. Mirabito added, “We can get that.”

Questions were raised about the sight lines, especially coming down the hill and about septic systems. Mr. Limbacher discussed the ANR configuration and he offered some suggestions as to how lots could be reconfigured if needed and how rattails could be used to meet septic requirements. Mr. Chessia said that he would like to see a plan that shows what could actually be built.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “We were asked to look at something conceptually. We did that. I am relying on our engineers to show what is we can do.. I don’t want to do more exercises.”

A gentleman said, “I would like to see him do it. How can the 150’ separation be met and what about the sight lines. You as a Board need to look at it. You need to set the density.”

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “If we go with the Flexible Open Space Development the litmus test is that the developer has to first do a conventional density sketch. That shows what can be built under conventional zoning (the number of units). That is the first step. The board has to take a vote on the conventional density plan first. You can not build more units with a Flexible than you can with a conventional subdivision.” Mr. Limbacher described the process with the conventional density plan. Example: if 5 units can be built under a conventional subdivision then no more than 5 units can be built under the Flexible Open Space Development.

Atty. Ohrenberger said, “If the answer is, from the Board, that the Flexible Open Space Development is desirable, then we will get authorization from Mr. Harrington and we will file the Flexible Open Space Development plan with a conventional density plan.

We will ask that the Public Hearings for the common driveways be continued. In the meantime we will submit the Flexible Open Space Development plans if the Board indicates that is what they would like us to do.”

Mrs. Patricia Butler said, “I have a question about water. I have water but not out back. [Mrs. Butler described her property, the location of the Reservoir, and how the water presently flows on her property.] Will the water come up on the side of my yard?”

Mr. Limbacher asked, “How do you keep from making her house an island?” Mr. Mirabito discussed the various levels of groundwater existing on the site today and he said, “This system will collect the rainwater that hits the roof, the roadways, the wooded area. It will come in this direction because the water flows down hill. This system acts as a dam. Before all this water gets to you it will be collected in the catch basins, the yards, the roads and it will all flow to this basin. Right now the water if flowing straight down the hill to your property and flows along your property here. With this system you will not get the amount of water that you are getting now. This is a storm detention basin. We can’t let water leave this site any faster than it does before we develop the site. Now it is all woods. When the water hits the woods some of it seeps into the ground and some of it runs along the upper part of the surface. That water close to the surface comes onto your property. This water is coming off at a certain rate. The water that now hits the ground here may take two or three days to reach this point now but it may take hours to get there once we put in the roofs and pavement. The purpose of the storm detention basin is to detain the water and release it at the rate that the water would normally leave the site if nothing is here. It slows the water down so that the rate that the water leaves the site is equal to or less than the rate it leaves the site prior to this development. [Mr. Mirabito described the various contour lines and he explained the direction of the water flow.] You will see a net benefit. The groundwater will not change. This will not aggravate it or make it any worse. The groundwater is high in here.”

Mr. Brian Healey, Old Forge Road, “Won’t the houses displace the groundwater so you will be creating a higher water table.” Mr. Mirabito said, “No, the groundwater elevations are constant. We can’t stop it from coming up but we can control it from coming into your basements. As I said earlier, the purpose of the detention basin is to release the water at the same rate or at a slower rate than before the development. This is all in the state regulations. The town has regulations as well. This was reviewed by the Board’s consultant. We have had three meetings with him. This is designed for the 100-year storm. That is the worst storm event that you get (7” of rain in 24 hours). We are showing all this and it is going to be built. If we just had ANR lots that we talked about earlier we would not have to do any of this. Once we bring in this kind of an application it is subjected to a very thorough review. It will cost more but it is the best way to do it.”

A gentleman asked, “Where is all that foundation water going to go? We all have water in our basements. What are you going to do with the basements. You are talking about groundwater or surface water?” Mr. Mirabito explained, “In Scituate you can build your house on your land and put in a cellar drain underneath your house and you can tie that into the catch basin out on the street. This is a private system, it is not a town system. The groundwater is anywhere from 1 to 3’ below the surface. If we were to put a house 6’ into the ground we would have water in the basement. So the builder will put in a cellar drain and put a pipe from the foundation down to a lower elevation of the land. The difference is that it will be a properly designed cellar system and the water will get into our system. This is also a treatment system. It will be treated under what we call Best Management Practices – state regulations that came out a number of years ago.

Not only are you required to treat the septic water but you are required to treat the rain water that hits the ground and flows down hill. This system is designed to do that. There is a monitoring program. There is an Operation & Maintenance Plan. They will all go into effect and they are funded by the Homeowner’s Association. That has also been looked at by the consultant for the town. None of this would be in there if we did ANR/Form A lots. Again, I can’t emphasize enough -- we spent a lot of time analyzing this property with different layouts and different scenarios. This is the one with the least impact and it has the most green space. This will all be controlled with deed restrictions if we go with the Flexible Open Space Development.”

Mr. Rich Mullin, 26 Old Forge Road, said, “I don’t abut this. I think we have a responsibility to look at this piece of land and recognize the relative issues with respect to the Reservoir. I appreciate all the green spacing. As you drive up Rte. 3a now you can see the houses on Searns Road. I would hold out to you that putting 17 units on a 17-acre piece you will see every single one of those houses whether they are sideways or wherever they are located. You will also see the back yards of the houses on Stearns Road. You can portray it as being great cover but it is not great cover. The people on Stearns Road will be able to see all those houses all the way through to Rte. 3a. You will open that whole place up. There will be considerable noise factor. You should take a look at that. It will be very different from what you are proposing. I know that you have a right to develop that land and what your proposing does mitigate some concerns, but given that there are some discrepancies in the planning maps I think it is our responsibility to assure that everyone is in agreement as to what the actual impact is to that particular watershed area. It seems to me that there has been some testimony here that contradicts some of the proposed plans and the Conservation findings. It is a very, very, delicate piece of land.”

Mr. Hoffman asked about the wetlands and Mr. Mirabito showed him where the small wetland area was located and he described the wetland buffer areas. Mr. Hoffman asked, “So by putting that basin in you are stopping all the water from going into the wetlands. You are depriving the wetlands from getting the water.” Mr. Mirabito replied, “No, the main source of water for the wetlands is the hydro-soils and the groundwater that supports the wetlands at lease five months of the year. As I mentioned two or three times tonight, the groundwater is very high and that is why the wetlands are so well maintained. The surface water does not contribute to wetlands. It is groundwater is the primary source along with the soils.”

Mr. Hoffman asked, “So what percentage of whole property will be cleared?” Mr. Mirabito replied, “The green area is what will remain open. Take into account the land area that will be used for the looping of the water main. I am guessing that 2 ½ to 3 acres cleared for the basin.” Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Mirabito discussed the acreage of the whole property and what would be cleared. Mr. Hoffman indicated that he disagreed with Mr. Mirabito and said, “I think you are I think you are cutting down 50 to 60% of the property.

Mrs. Tricia Duffy, Barrington Way said, ‘I am not an abutter to this project but I live in the Old Forge area. Is it a 55+ condominium development? If not when do you discuss where to put all the school children? Where will they go to school? When can I ask that question?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “I don’t know who goes to which school.”

Mrs. Duffy continued, “When does this committee talk to other committees? Will you be discussing the walk to school program? I would also like to appeal to this builder for a sidewalk built when he is developing these residences. I would like to see a sidewalk built from one end of his property to the other end. I don’t know if this is the time to discuss that. We don’t have a way for our kids to get to Cushing School now. We don’t have any sidewalks. I was told that this is the time to bring this up. Or perhaps some kind of nice walkway for the benefit for the Old Forge Road residents could be proposed so we could benefit from this project.”

Mrs. Brennan said, “I am the Planning Board liaison to the School Committee. When there are discussions about school population this would come up.” Mrs. Duffy asked, “Will it be posted somewhere that the School Committee will be discussing this development. How would be know?” Mr. Fenton explained, “When they are discussing redistricting they ask the Planning Board what developments are coming down the pipe.”

Mr. Limbacher added, “We have provided the School Committee with a projection of what the maximum buildout will be. It is done by a maximum buildout and not subdivision by subdivision.

Mrs. Duffy said, “My concern is with the overcrowding in the schools. When does School Committee say that there can be no more building and developing?”

Mrs. Brennan replied, “They can’t say that.”

Mr. Fenton said, “In general the rule of thumb is -- you will never earn in taxes from residential development what it costs for fire, police, schools, etc. One way to curb development is to protect open space.”

A gentleman asked, “You discussed height and compared it to the houses on Stearns Road. What is their relative height compared to the actual contours now compared to what it is after it is all built out? So it is not really relative to the same height that is out there. What is sticking out of the ground could be 45’.”

There was a brief discussion between the members and the public regarding the grades and height of the houses. Mr. Fenton explained the height as allowed by the bylaws.

Some of the public raised concerns that the height would exceed what is allowed.

Another gentleman said, “So eight two-family houses could be built there either way. The people who live at Doctor’s Hill come over and run on our land. So there could be people in these 16 units could also be running on our land.”

Mrs. Butler said, “I would like it on record that there will be no water at my house. Also, would the owner consider selling the property to the Town of Scituate for preservation?” Atty. Ohrenberger replied, “I don’t know. I have never asked him. I would be happy to ask him.”

Mr. Brian Healy said, “I am confused with the statement – ‘ by right he can put in eight two-family houses there. Can you clarified that?. I don’t think he can get 175’ across the dwellings.” Atty. Ohrenberger explained the 100’ frontage measurement and the 175’ through the house measurement to Mr. Healy. Mr. Fenton added, “He can likely get all the driveways. The real question is whether the state will let him put all the curb cuts on Rte. 3A.”

Mr. Limbacher described what the applicant can do under the ANR process, the common driveway application proces, and with the Flexible Open Space Development application process. Under the Flexible Open Space Development the applicant must first show the Board how many lots he could get in accordance with current zoning.

Mr. John Chessia discussed the septic system. Mr. Limbacher said, “He could run a rat tail up to the septic system.” Mr. Fenton asked Mr. Chessia if he was developing this property would do it in the same manner. Mr. Chessia replied, “Yes, but you need to be convinced that the rattails really work..”

Mr. Limbacher said, “Are there any other questions from the audience?” [There were none at this point.] Mr. Limbacher continued, “The Board has to make a decision whether we want to proceed with a Flexible as opposed to the three common driveways.”

Mr. Fenton said, “I heard plenty of very reasonable questions and testimony from the audience about what density really will fly, but I did not hear anyone say that they would prefer them to go back to the three common driveways or the eight driveways with the ANR alignment. Something is going to be developed here. I think it should be the Flexible. I would urge them to continue down that path.”

Mr. Walter said, “I would agree. The Flexible will ultimately become a better plan.” Mr. Fagan, Mrs. Brennan, Mr. Limbacher, and Mrs. Chisholm all indicated that they agreed with Mr. Fenton and Mr. Walter.

There was a discussion between Atty. Ohrenberger and the Board regarding the need to continue the three Common Driveway Special Permit Public Hearings. Mr. Limbacher asked, “At what point will you be filing for the Flexible Open Space?” Atty. Ohrenberger said, “I have to talk to my client and tell him what is happening. We should file it probably within two weeks.” The Secretary explained that the Flexible Open Space Development application will have to be legally advertised so enough time must be set aside to advertise the new hearing (14 days prior to the hearing). After the discussion about having the continuance to April 13th, April 27th was chosen in order to give time for filing the Flexible plans.

MOTION: Move to continue the three (3) Common Driveway Special Permit Public Hearings for property located on Chief Justice Cushing Highway as shown on Assessor’s Map as follows:

1. Lots 1,2,3 Chief Justice Cushing Highway. Assessor’s Map 47-2-26A-26H
2. Lots 4, 5 Chief Justice Cushing Highway. Assessor’s Map 47-2-26A-26H
3. Lots 6, 7, 8 Chief Justice Cushing Highway. Assessor’s Map 47-2-26A-26H

to April 27, 2006 (8:00 P.M.). [This action was taken in accordance with the discussion at the March 9, 2006 Planning Board meeting between the Board and the applicant’s representative, Atty. William Ohrenberger, and in accordance with the letter signed by Atty. Ohrenberger at the March 9th meeting.] Owner/Applicant: William Harrington, Tr. Seven H. Trust.

Motion duly Moved by Mr. Fenton, Seconded by Mr. Fagan, and voted favorably with a unanimous vote of the members present.

MOTION TO ADJOURN: Motion duly made, seconded, and voted unanimously to adjourn at 10:20 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Merrilyn O’Brien, Secretary

Mary Patricia Brennan, Clerk

Date Approved