Members Present: Mrs. Donna Chisholm, Vice Chairman, Mr. Robert Vogel, Mr. William Limbacher, Mr. Mark Fenton, Mrs. Pat Brennan Finnie

Members Absent: Mr. Donald Walter
Others Present: Ms. Laura Harbottle, Town Planner

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

Mrs. Chisholm called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Ms. Harbottle asked that an informal discussion for property located at 4 Cushing Road be added to the agenda. Mr. Fenton moved to accept the amended agenda. Mrs. Brennan Finnie seconded the Motion and the vote was unanimous.

Old Business, New Business, Correspondence, Administrative Items, Updates

Mr. Fenton updated the Board about the meeting with the Board of Selectmen regarding the Housing Plan. He said he was able to attend the meeting where consultant, Karen Sunnarborg delivered a PowerPoint presentation. The Selectmen were receptive to the plan and voted to accept it noting that the hard part will be the implementation of the plan.

Ms. Harbottle said that she has done some research on density bonus incentives for affordable housing. What they have done in Marshfield, is instead of saying you can get 10% extra they did it in reverse by dividing the total that you could get by 90% so it looks more palatable in the way it’s worded. Another avenue is to look at changes to the zoning districts. By making the whole A-2 zoning district 30,000sf instead of 20,000sf with the incentive of allowing 20,000sf if you are doing affordable housing.

Mr. Limbacher arrived at 7:43.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion duly moved to approve the minutes of 8/28/08 by Mr. Vogel, Seconded by Mr. Fenton, and the vote was unanimous.
Motion duly moved to approve the minutes of 9/11/08 by Mr. Vogel, Seconded by Mr. Limbacher, and the vote was unanimous.
Motion duly moved to approve the minutes of 9/25/08 by Mr. Fenton, Seconded by Mrs. Chisholm, and the vote was unanimous.

ACCOUNTING: Motion duly moved by Mr. Vogel, Seconded by Mr. Limbacher, and voted unanimously to pay the following:
1. Gatehouse Media – Subscription to Mariner - $30.68
2. CEI – The Glen - $225.00

Mr. Limbacher updated the Board on the DRC and the Commission on Disabilities meeting with the Hamilton Co. concerning the Welch Co. building. He said there are 19 different levels in the building. The company has done a good job in the layout for accessibility. The only other reason they will need to come before the Planning Board will be if they have a change of use or changes with the parking. Mr. Limbacher pointed out that the parking is a condo arrangement. Ms. Harbottle said she received a call from Jeff DeLisi regarding the condo arrangement in the parking lot. He said that when they setup the condo, 50 spaces went to the marina and the Mill Wharf of which the Welch Co. has no right to. They can all use the remaining 140 spaces. Mr. Limbacher agreed and said they were going to re-stripe the parking lot but that would require the condo association approval. At this time, the only thing they will be changing is the ramp on the left of the building.

Mrs. Chisholm questioned whether the Marine Park building has come in for their permit yet or do they already have it. Ms. Harbottle replied that after speaking with Neil Duggan, they have already received the permits required and they did come back and meet with the DRC at the request of the Planning Board. Mrs. Chisholm asked if they would be doing the things they discussed with them. Ms. Harbottle responded that some of the items could not be done due to the cost such as the eyebrow window. Mrs. Chisholm asked if they are designing the building as they go along. Ms. Harbottle replied that this is a difficult project because they are working with the technical school. Mr. Vogel stated that he understands the difficulty in doing such a project working with a school. Mr. Limbacher said that another issue is the contributions from lumber companies, plumbing suppliers etc. These contributions are helping to drive the changes that have been made. Mrs. Chisholm asked if we have a new picture of the building. Ms. Harbottle said we did and the building is a little different. Mr. Limbacher told the Board if they have to make any other substantial changes they will come back to the DRC.

Accessory Dwelling Special Permit: 7 (10) Rocky Hill Circle
Applicant/Owner: Claire M. Dalco Assessor’s Map 30-1-33A

Mrs. Dalco addressed the Board. She said she is applying for an Accessory Dwelling Permit. She explained they constructed a legally permitted in-law apartment 30 years ago and would like to make it an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Fenton asked Mrs. Dalco to confirm that the drawing she is presenting reflects the existing apartment that is there now. Mrs. Dalco responded that it does. Mr. Fenton asked if she lived in the house. Mrs. Dalco responded that she doesn’t at this time. She is trying to sell the house. Mr. Vogel asked how you access the apartment. Mrs. Dalco replied there is a staircase to the right of the garage. Mr. Fenton explained that an Accessory Dwelling requires that one side is owner occupied. Mr. Limbacher asked who lives there now. Mrs. Dalco stated that she has a caretaker living there now and the other side is currently vacant. She said she is trying to sell the house and wants to be sure the in-law area is legal. Mr. Fenton and Ms. Harbottle explained that one side of the house must be owner occupied and she cannot rent out both sides. Mrs. Dalco replied that she understood. Mrs. Chisholm informed Mrs. Dalco that the Water Dept. commented that she would need a new water service. Mrs. Dalco asked why she would need to do this since the apartment already existed. The Planning Board explained that it is not up to them and that Mrs. Dalco would have to see the Water Dept. about this issue. Ms. Harbottle told Mrs. Dalco that DPW is asking that the house number be changed from 7 to 10. At some point, the house number was recorded on the deed as 7 and the town shows it as 10. They are requesting that she has the number on the deed be changed to match the town number and 911 services. Ms. Harbottle also informed the applicant that the Fire Dept. is stating that she will have to meet all codes regarding smoke detectors etc.

Mrs. Chisholm asked for public comment. There was none.

MOTION: After discussion regarding conditions, Mr. Limbacher moved to approve the Accessory Dwelling with the following conditions. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.

1. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and approvals from the Building Commissioner, Board of Health and other town agencies including the Water Commissioners and Fire Chief. The applicant shall install hard-wired smoke and heat detectors as required by the Fire Chief. Any upgrade of water service shall be at the applicant's expense and must be approved by the Department of Public Works.

2. The applicant shall rectify the house number to the number desired by the DPW and Town of Scituate emergency services.

3. The dwelling unit above the garage has transitioned from an in-law apartment to an accessory dwelling, with the understanding that the home containing the accessory dwelling is required to be owner-occupied.

4. The property at 10 Rocky Hill Circle shall contain a maximum of two dwelling units, the existing dwelling and the accessory dwelling as proposed.

5. Except for any changes necessary to meet these conditions, all construction shall conform to the plans submitted with this application. The accessory dwelling shall not be expanded in square footage without prior approval by the Planning Board.

6. There shall be no overnight on-street parking by residents of the accessory dwelling.

7. This Special Permit shall be void if it is not recorded at the Registry of Deeds within 90 days of the date of filing with the Town Clerk. The owner shall provide proof of this recording to the Planning Board.

Informal Discussion: Common Driveway, 4 Cushing Road, Assessor’s Map #44-2-13
Applicant: Kendall Village Cohasset Builders Owner: GMAC Mortgage, LLC

Steve Bjorklund representing Kendall Village Cohasset Builders addressed the Board. He stated he is an associate member of the Conservation Commission and there are no wetlands that would be involved in this particular application. Drainage would be an issue and the Planning Board would be involved with that if the plan should go forward. Mr. Bjorklund told the Board there is a home for sale on Cushing Road, which has a little over 3 acres of land. The home is in disrepair and would need about $300,000.00 worth of work. There is currently one driveway access. We would like to put in a 106’ long, 16’ wide common driveway for 3 lots. The water service that comes up the road is a 11/2” PVC water line. There is a separate water line that comes from Neal Gate St. to this property but after talking to the water dept., we would probably install a new 6” line up Cushing Road and work with the neighbors to tie them in. We would also bring in a hydrant and probably locate it at the end of the driveway, which would service not only the 3 lots but also the entire neighborhood. Mr. Bjorklund stated he was before the Board tonight to discuss a Form A plan as well as a Common Driveway Special Permit. Mr. Bjorklund pointed out to the Board that in 1986, all the homes on the west side of the road were endorsed under a Form A plan. At that time, the Board went through the scrutiny of deciding whether the road was adequate enough for emergency vehicles. The road currently measures from 18 to 19’ wide. Mr. Bjorklund said he did speak with some of the neighbors that are in attendance at the meeting tonight and understands they have concerns about construction vehicles damaging the road as well as other concerns. He would like them to understand that the Board would be able to condition a Common Driveway Special Permit so that these issues will be addressed. Mr. Bjorklund pointed out that this is a perfect example of why the common driveway should be used to avoid having three separate entrances off a road. He further addressed the abutters stating that he has been developing in Scituate for 25 years and has done a lot of subdivisions. We don’t do a sloppy job we usually do 110% rather than 80% and would hope that the members of the Board that have been here for a while would stand behind that.

Mr. Bjorklund concluded by saying he was before the Board for clarification on the Common Driveway by-law. In 1999 there was a provision put in the by-law regarding a common driveway at the end of a cul-de-sac to extend the roadway through. I realize you cannot do this, however we have had discussions regarding a common driveway coming off the side of a road. Mr. Bjorklund stated he interprets the by-law to mean that you can’t extend a roadway at the end of a cul-de-sac with common driveways. He discussed this interpretation with Neil Duggan and he agrees that the by-law is speaking about the round end or dead end portion of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Bjorklund stated he would like an opinion from the Planning Board on this matter.

Ms. Harbottle explained that what a common driveway does is allow the side lots to have their lot width measured the length of the lot as opposed to across the lot. These lots don’t quite have the width so they would have to do a common driveway to get this to work. This area is a very unique and beautiful area of town. There is a road leading up to the tomb with stone pillars and an enormous tree in the center of the road. In the 1970’s, the Historical Society gave this road and property with the tomb to the State. Ms. Harbottle said she spoke with a representative from the State and he was not very happy at what happened in the 80’s regarding the building of the other homes up there. There had been wear and tear to the road etc. He also is concerned that care be taken to the pillars and trees with trucks going in there. The tomb is very close to this property line and if we could obtain a buffer to the tomb that would be wonderful.

Mr. Bjorklund stated that the pillar on the left coming into the park appears to have had a memorial plaque that is missing. He said we would be willing to work with the neighborhood and replace the plaque. We should be able to play with some of the lot lines and would be willing to give about 13,000sf of area to buffer the tomb. We are willing to speak with the neighbors to the east to see if they would be willing to grant easements as well to protect the tomb. Mr. Bjorklund stated that the layout of the road actually goes through to Judge Cushing way as a right of way on paper. Mrs. Brennan Finnie said she agrees that this road is not a cul-de-sac but is a road that goes all the way through on paper.

Mr. Limbacher addressed the abutters explaining that the applicant can come in and build two houses without any issues at all. He would like to get three lots so he will need a Common Driveway Special Permit. Mr. Fenton added that the applicant would be able to build two homes on a Form A without any control from the Board. If we allow the common driveway, then the applicant will be able to get three lots but the Board will be able to condition that permit and be sure the job is done well.

The discussion was open to the public for comment. Jeff Carle, 9 Cushing Park Road, stated that the road currently can handle the people that live on it right now. I don’t think it can handle 3 more houses with 6 more cars never mind the environmental impact of changing the whole look of the road. Mr. Vogel said he wanted to be sure they understood the difference would be between 2 and 3 houses not 0 and 3. Mr. Carle responded that even two would be better than 3. Jeff Nicolo, 3 Cushing Park Road, asked the Board to explain the differences in the applications between the 2 and 3 lots and what an ANR is. Mr. Fenton replied that an ANR is the same as a Form A. He also explained that the ANR would give the applicant two lots where a Common Driveway would be a Special Permit with conditions allowing them 3 lots. Mr. Bjorklund stated that if the issue is just about the amount of families and traffic, he wanted to inform them that the property could be divided into one house lot and a two acre lot that he could put a duplex on still getting three families on the property. Mr. Nicolo asked if once the Special Permit is approved, does the Board have any control over the type of building that can be built. Mr. Fenton explained that the Board would not have control over this because there is not a design review process for individual single-family homes. Mr. Bjorklund said that they do put covenants on their properties. He stated they would be willing to listen if the neighbors would like to see specific covenants. Mr. Nicolo asked Mr. Bjorklund if he had done other work in the area. Mr. Bjorklund replied half of the subdivisions in town. Mrs. Brennan Finnie commented that she wanted to make it clear that the Planning Board does not recommend or prefer one developer over another or state whether they do a good job or not. She feels that this was alluded to during the discussion and didn’t want anyone to leave the meeting thinking that was what he or she heard. The Board reviews each plan and use the by-laws etc. that are available to them to make judgment and then they vote accordingly.

Mrs. Chisholm asked the Board if they had any further discussion. Mr. Limbacher asked what the house sizes would be. Mr. Bjorklund replied that they had not thought about it yet. Mr. Vogel asked what were the sizes of the houses depicted on the plan being presented. Mr. Bjorklund responded that the plan presented was merely a sketch for demonstration purposes; however, they are 30 x 80, which includes a garage. Mrs. Chisholm asked if they would be four bedrooms. Mr. Bjorklund responded that they would probably be four bedrooms but all of these decisions would be based on the Form A’s, drainage etc. Mr. Limbacher asked who owned the property at the end of the cul- de-sac. Mr. Bjorklund responded he believes that part of it is Cushing Park and a homeowner owns part. Merle Alexander, 7A Cushing Park Road stated that they had looked into having the road re-paved and were told the town could not do a thing; they were a subdivision of Wamputuck.

Mr. Limbacher said he would rather see two houses given the sensitivity of the area but by giving the third the Board has more control. Mr. Vogel agreed with Mr. Limbacher and would like the Board to maintain control over the development. Mr. Fenton said he is sensitive to the abutters concerns of the number of structures and the character of the roadway but understands the concern of control and is sensitive to that too. Mrs. Brennan Finnie stated that from past experience, she is not confident that having control of the project would necessarily allow a better project so she would be in favor of only two lots to help maintain the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Chisholm said she is not familiar with the neighborhood but she feels that the density with three homes would be too much for this area and would prefer the two lots. Mr. Bjorklund stated he is here tonight to only ask if the frontage is adequate and whether a common driveway could be constructed off the side of the road.

Mr. Nicolo asked the Board to confirm that if there are only two lots allowed could it be a single home and a duplex and does the Board have any say over that. Ms. Harbottle replied that the Planning Board wouldn’t have any control over that. If zoning allows, it would be up to the developer and driven by the market.

Motion to Adjourn: Motion duly Moved by Mr. Limbacher. Seconded by Mr. Fenton and voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:18 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Maureen Galvin
Secretary, Planning Board

Robert Vogel, Clerk

Date Approved: