| Home | About Scituate | Town Hall | Calendar |
Printer Friendly Layout News/Events - Meeting Minutes
Scituate Planning Board, February 14, 2008 SCITUATE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2008 DISCUSS HOUSING SUMMIT MEETING AND HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN WITH CONSULTANT KAREN SUNNARBORG [Note: A copy of Ms. Sunnarborg’s slide presentation will be attached to these Minutes for reference.] Ms. Sunnarborg did a power point presentation on housing issues. Ms. Sonnarborg read aloud most of the information on the slides. Please see this document for details. Copies of a document entitled ‘Scituate Affordable Housing Plan’ was distributed at the meeting and can be found in the file. Ms. Sonnarborg said that the document was a draft at this point. Selectman, John Danehey, asked about affordable units and if they would remain affordable in perpetuity. Ms. Sunnarborg said that would depend on how the developments were financed. There was a discussion about Ch. 40B in general. Mr. Limbacher pointed out that the affordability aspect of Kent Village is up in 2013 (54 units) and he suggested that item should be addressed in the Housing Production Plan. Mr. Walter asked if there was some way to continue the affordability at Kent Village. Ms. Sunnarborg said she could talk to the state about how to make sure that those units don’t go away. Mr. G. Trafton, 107 Tilden Road, said that many of the timeframes were set by the state and he wondered if a town could override the state. He suggested that it was very important to educate people about affordable housing and Ms. Sunnarborg agreed. She said that many people have no concept of what affordable housing really is. Mr. Trafton pointed out that should Scituate lose Kent Village the percent of affordability in Scituate will decline. Ms. Sunnarborg spoke about deed restrictions in general. Mr. Trafton said it was his understanding that Scituate has to develop seventy-five affordable houses per year to get to the 10% requirement. He asked if it was possible for the town itself to dictate in a bylaw approved by Town Meeting that any multiunit project would have to have 25% affordability. Ms. Sunnarborg said Scituate should consider inclusionary zoning. In order to get a developer to do a subdivision with inclusionary zoning the town would have to offer something in return such as a density bonus. In order for a town to get 25% they would have to give a lot in return (usually the inclusionary zoning part is no more than 10%). Mr. Trafton asked if Scituate’s elderly housing developments classified as low income. Ms. Sunnaroborg said that some may be 80% and some lower. Mrs. Pat Butler of the Housing Authority described the Housing Authority’s developments e.g. Lincoln Park, Central Park. Ms. Sunnarborg said that of Scituate’s 6,869 year-round housing units, 311 units or 4.53% were considered affordable by the state. Scituate needs 376 affordable units to meet the state’s 10% criteria. Ms. Sunnarborg said that Scituate must have a Housing Production Plan in place and the plan must include housing production goals. Currently the number required is 52 per year but that number may be reduced to 34. The state is currently working on changes to Ch. 40B which will have an impact on cities and towns. Ms. Sunnarborg explained that if a town gets a Housing Production Plan approved the town has a twelve month moratorium from Ch. 40B projects. Mr. Limbacher doubted that there was any way that Scituate could meet the figures, either 52 or 34, unless there is a very large Ch. 40B development approved e.g. Stockbridge Woods. Mr. Walter asked, “Does it matter how you achieve those affordable units?” Ms. Sunnarborg said it did not. Mr. Tafton said, “We have many people in town that own their own home and are low income. Could they be classified as affordable?” Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “Yes, if they would enter into affordable agreements but they would have to give up some equity – maybe for 15 years.” Mr. Fenton said, “That is interesting – it may be a way to get some numbers but it would be small units.” Mr. Walter asked, “What is the incentive to the home owner?” Ms. Sunnarborg said, “If you want to stay in your home but with rising costs you can’t stay there then you might consider putting a deed restriction in exchange for some money to keep you in the house.” Mr. Limbacher said, “Like a reverse mortgage.” Ms. Sunnarborg said, “You would have to get state approval for that kind of program.” Ms. Sunnarborg spoke about priority housing needs. She said that Scituate, like other affluent communities, still have a certain percentage of people who are poor. Those people find it very difficult to find affordable housing. The average rent is about $2,000, and land and housing is very expensive. Scituate needs more first time homeowner opportunities. There is definitely an affordability gap in Scituate. Ms. Sunnarborg pointed out that there should be support for those people with special needs e.g. handicapped adaptable/accessible units in new developments. There should also be resources to help people make improvements to their property since about three quarters of Scituate’s housing stock was built prior to 1970. Ms. Sunnarborg then noted various obstacles to development: infrastructure, zoning, environmental concerns, transportation, schools, availability of subsidies (state subsidies are very competitive) and community perceptions (educate the townspeople). She suggested the use of CPC funds to assist with affordable housing. Ms. Sunnarborg said that the next step was to hold a Housing Summit meeting to discuss strategies and then draft the final housing plan including production strategies. She explained that both the Housing Authority and the Selectmen must approve the Housing Production Plan and then the state has ninety days to approve it. If new changes are made by the state, approvals must also come from the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission too. PUBLIC HEARING: FLOOD PLAIN AND WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT 156 FIRST PARISH ROAD. OWNER/APPLICANT: 156 FIRST PARISH ROAD, LLC At 8:00 P.M. the Board took a break from the discussion on housing to take action on the Flood Plain Permit for 156 First Parish Road. The Board had received a letter from Atty. W. Ohrenberger asking, on behalf of the applicant, to immediately continue the Public Hearing given that one of the Planning Board members would not be present at this meeting. MOTION: Move to immediately continue the Flood Plain & Watershed Protection District Special Permit for 156 First Parish Rd. to March 13, 2008 at 8:45 P.M. Applicant: 156 First Parish Road, LLC. [This action was taken in accordance with the Feb. 14th letter received from Atty. W. Ohrenberger and the discussion at the Feb. 14th meeting.] Motion duly Moved by Mr. Limbacher, Seconded by Mr. Fenton, and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Meeting. RETURN TO THE DISCUSSION ON HOUSING ISSUES Mr. Limbacher spoke about the CPC and the Housing Trust (funded with CPC funds) which will be considered at the March Annual Town Meeting . Mrs. Pat Butler of the Housing Authority said, “We know about it. The Housing Authority can’t buy houses but if the town sets up the Housing Trust we can work through that. Once the Housing Trust is set up it is not necessary to bring every project to Town Meeting each year.” Ms. Sunnarborg thought the proposed Housing Trust was a very good idea. Ms. Sunnarborg said, “The second thing is zoning. You can tweak some of your existing bylaws. The third pile is housing production – where can it be? Example: on town-owned land. Another idea is converting existing housing into long term affordability. The fourth is housing preservation – monitoring the affordable housing that you have so you don’t lose it. South Shore Housing has programs for rehab loans. There are some special programs. You should get the word out about what programs are available in the region. Perhaps you should consider hiring staff to oversee the implementation of the Housing Plan. CPC money is eligible for that. When we get to the Summit we can discuss these things. If someone the Planning Board wants to facilitate the discussion that would be great.” Ms. Sunnarborg continued, “With each strategy I gave a lot of information e.g. how to get it implemented; what resources will be required; what is the timeframe (two years or five years etc.). Sometimes we used a summary of housing terms to help people understand about affordable housing.” Mr. Walter asked the Board if there was someone who wanted to take the lead on the housing plan. Mr. Fenton said, “I am happy to be actively involved. I can do the Summit because I do facilitate workshops like that all the time.” Ms. Sunnarborg said, “I would like as much participation as possible. It is your plan and not mine. In the first form I do the power point, but during the discussion someone else could do it. I will be there to answer any questions. With the second one – actions and strategies – the more participation the better.” Mr. Walter said, “one or two of us can take on a role.” Mr. Fenton asked, “Do you want to break out into groups like we did with the Master Plan visioning?” Mrs. Chisholm said, “Most people have an attitude about affordable housing. That is what we run into.” Ms Sunnarborg replied, “Most people will not say that they are against affordable housing. We need to give them something that they are willing to support.” Mr. Fenton and Ms. Sunnarborg discussed how to best facilitate the Housing Summit meeting. The Board discussed when would be the best time to hold the Summit e.g. week nights, weekend days, where it should be held, what time should it begin, if should food be served. It was suggested that the Summit should be advertised in the newspapers and have some sort of notice available at Town Meeting. The Board thought that the Summit should be held on a week night soon after Town Meeting e.g. Wednesday, April 16th or Thursday, April 17th. Ms. Harbottle will find a suitable location. The Chair thanked Ms. Sunnarborg and everyone else for coming to this meeting. CONTINUATION OF SITE PLAN SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 5 OLD COUNTRY WAY Ms. Sara Trezise, the applicant, was present. She presented the plan to the Board. Mr. Walter said, “Some of the items I had were: building square footage, handicap access, gravel parking, parking in the Water Resource Protection District.” Ms. Harbottle said that the Design Review Committee (DRC) would like to have another discussion regarding this proposal. Ms. Trezise said, “Neil Duggan checked the measurements of the house on his own time. It is 2,616 sq. ft. The Assessor’s card had what is on the second floor mirrored on the first floor and that is not the case. Neil also looked at the fireplaces. They are massive 6’ deep and 12’ long. That is not considered floor area. So with our floor space we need 9 parking spaces and we have 10. You got an amended plan that shows 8 spaces out of the buffer. The 9th one is here (handicap space) and the 10th one is in the garage. We talked to Chick (Fagan) and John (Hallin) about their curb cuts and we talked about the best place for a cross walk so we have added a crosswalk. I met with the Commission on Disabilities last night. They were encouraging and supportive. When we get to building it they will come in and take a look to make sure it is constructed properly. I got a letter from Samantha Woods about the use of pervious surfaces rather than impervious surface and we are trying to do that sort of thing.” Ms. Harbottle said the Board had not seen that letter from Ms. Woods and Ms. Trezise gave her a copy. Mr. Fenton questioned whether gravel for parking spaces was permitted in the Water Resource Protection District. Ms. Harbottle read aloud sections of the Water Resource Protection District Bylaw. Mr. Fenton said, “It does not say don’t pave it. It says if you pave you have to deal with it. We can say that we like gravel better because it lets the water go right into the ground.” Mr. Walter said, “Gross sq. ft. – I see what Neil is saying. I will accept what he says if he certifies it but I disagree. [Mr. Walter read aloud the definition of gross square footage.] I don’t agree with him but if he certifies that this is the square footage then okay. I would not put my stamp on it.” There was a long discussion regarding the measurements of the building itself, and the square footage of each floor and how those measurements impacted the number of parking spaces that are required. Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, and Mr. Fenton all spent time doing the mathematics related to the square footage and the number of parking spaces. Questions were raised about the garage being available for parking and Mr. Limbacher said the Board had allowed garage parking to count when considering accessory dwelling applications. The Board discussed the property line/street line and the location of parking spaces. The criteria of the Water Resource Protection District (150’ buffer) was noted given that there is an apparent tributary to the Reservoir crossing the property. The Greenbush Streetscape Project along Country Way was discussed. Ms. Harbottle said she was not sure about the sidewalks that would be built under that project. Mr. Fenton stressed the importance of having sidewalks in the area so that people can walk to the train, e.g. from Pin Oak Drive. Mr. Fenton also pointed out areas where there should be crosswalks. There was a discussion about how this project would blend in with John Hallin’s project and with Mr. Fagan’s project which are located in the adjacent area. Mr. Limbacher said the Board must look at each project on their own. Mr. Walter asked the members if they were comfortable with have parking spaces in the garage. Mr. Limbacher replied, “I can say there are 10 spaces based on the perimeter and no deduction was made for the chimney. I can live with 10 spaces if we put in the 185 sq. ft. (chimneys and eaves).” Mr. Fenton agreed. Mr. Walter asked the Board if they agreed with the location of the handicap space and with the idea of having two separate entrances. The Commission on Disabilities apparently agreed with those issues. Ms. Trezise said that the Comm. on Disabilities was satisfied with the second entrance. She said that she asked the Commission about having two separate accesses with one designated as handicapped access and the Commission indicated that the main access did not have to be the handicap access. The Board suggested that Ms. Trezise continue to work with the Commission and they said that her plan must comply with CMR 521 and any other applicable handicap regulations. Ms. Trezise said she would have to comply with all the handicap regulations or she would not be given a building permit. Mr. Walter said it would be helpful to have a letter from the Commission indicating that they agreed with the plan. Mrs. Chisholm said, “This is a good use of the building. Ms. Trezise said, “We will make sure that we comply with ADA.” Mr. Limbacher said, “We have to do due diligence with this application because one of the applicant is a Selectmen.” Mr. Fenton added, “There should be a Condition regarding the handicap issues.” Ms. Harbottle said, “You could come up with the Findings of Fact now and approve the plan with Conditions. They should be straightforward – gravel parking, cross walk with neighbors’ property, make sure the entrance complies with CMR 521, ten parking spaces. Mr. Walter said, “It does say ‘an’ accessible public entrance.” Ms. Harbottle wondered why the Commission on Disabilities seemed to have a different opinion about the handicap access to the Nail Place. Mr. Walter said, “It will be up to the applicant to comply.” Ms. Trezise said, “Yes. The second floor will have to be restricted. There will be private office space there which will not be open to the public because of lack of access for the handicapped. We can’t afford to do an elevator.” Mr. Walter added, “The language in CMR 521 protects us, and the handicapped. The Building Commissioner will make sure that it complies. Ms. Trezise said, “We have extra conference rooms on the first floor and the Commission approved that.” Mr. Doug Smith, Chairman of the Scituate Historical Commission, said that this property is very important historically and he showed the Board a book which listed significant 18th century homes. This house is the birthplace of Charles Turner Torrey, a white abolitionist, who was active with the Underground Railroad. Mr. Smith said that he applauded the applicants for what they are doing with the property and he said that the proposed project was great for Greenbush. Mr. Limbacher said, “We could have a Condition requesting that the applicant work with the Historical Commission to inst all a plaque and investigate obtaining a listing on the National Register of Historic Places.” Ms. Trezise said, “The house has historical significance. This is an historic house that will be available to the community. There are not a lot of homes that are open to the public that are supported by private funding. I hope to have a big party on the 4th of July. We want to have historic articles available there. We want to celebrate the house. We are really committed to the historical significance of the house. The house is known as the Joseph Soper house and it was built in 1729.” The Board discussed the sewer issue. Ms. Trezise said the property will be hooked up to sewer. Mr. Limbacher said there should be a Condition that the applicant must obtain all necessary approvals for the use of the sewer. Ms. Harbottle said, “The new use (change from residential to office) should have a smaller flow.” Ms. Trezise agreed and said, “Yes, it will be less. We are taking out the kitchen and the washer and dryer. Mr. Limbacher said, “I don’t know what the numbers are but I think we should have a Condition about the sewer and there should be language about the change from residential to office use.” Ms. Trezise said, “The McDonalds can hook up today. Once it is on town sewer it is on town sewer.” Mr. Fenton listed some items that the Board must address in their Decision. They are: number of parking spaces (10), gravel surface, square footage (2800 sq. ft. ) of the building, acknowledge streetscape design, do a crosswalk connection with the development across the street, handicap requirements under CMR 521, that the second floor is private, have a final dialogue with DRC, good faith effort to work with the Historical Commission. MOTION: Mr. Limbacher Moved to close the Site Plan Special Permit Public Hearing for 5 Old Country Way. Mrs. Chisholm Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. FINDINGS OF FACT: Ms. Harbottle listed some possible Findings of Fact. The Board discussed them and then the following Motion was duly made by Mr. Fenton. MOTION: Mr. Fenton Moved the followings Findings of Fact. Mrs. Chisholm Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion. 1. The building at 5 Old Country Way has a gross square foot area of 2,800 sq. ft. OLD BUSINESS, NEW BUSINESS, ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES: Motion duly made by Mr. Limbacher, Seconded by Mr. Fenton, and voted unanimously to pay the following: 1. W.B. Mason ($98.04) for supplies. 2. Reimburse Ms. Harbottle for mapping supplies re Humarock zoning ($50.99) 3. Patriot Ledger ($570.88) for cost of legal advertisement re Wind Energy zoning for public hearing. 4. Patriot Ledger ($334.50) for legal advertisement re 5 Old Country Way Public Hearing. 5. Patriot Ledger (#303.28) for legal advertisement re Scituate Marine Park Public Hearing. 6. Laura Harbottle ($186.48) for mileage costs. 7. CEI ($145.00) for consulting services re 6 Old Country Way. 8. CEI ($3411.23) for consulting services re Deer Common. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Motion duly Moved, Seconded, and voted unanimously to adjourn at 10:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Merrilyn R. O’Brien, Secretary Mary Patricia Brennan, Clerk
|
| Scituate Town Hall—600 Chief Justice Cushing Highway, Scituate, Massachusetts 02066 - webmaster@town.scituate.ma.us |