News & Announcements/Meeting Minutes

Printer Friendly Layout

News/Events - Meeting Minutes

Scituate Planning Board, February 25, 2010
TOWN OF SCITUATE MASSACHUSETTS

SCITUATE PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

February 25, 2010

Members Present: Mrs. Donna Chisholm, Chairman, Mr. William Limbacher, Vice Chairman, Mr. Donald Walter, and Mr. Robert Vogel.

Members Absent: Dr. Nico Afanasenko, Associate Member seat vacant

Others Present: Ms. Laura Harbottle, Town Planner

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

Location of meeting: Selectmen’s Hearing Room, Town Hall

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

ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Mr. Walter moved to accept the amended agenda. Mr. Limbacher seconded the Motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.

Request to extend the time period for a modification on a Flexible Open Space Development Special Permit and Common Driveway Special Permit for property located at 530 Chief Justice Cushing Highway. The Applicant is requesting an extension from March 3, 2010 to March 12, 2012.

Attorney Eugene Blanchard addressed the Board representing the owner and applicant. He stated two Special Permits, Flexible Open Space Development and Common Driveway Special Permit were granted in March 2008 that will expire in March 2010. The owner of the property at the time was Sonja Busi who has since passed away. There has been an ongoing dispute over the will of Ms. Busi that ties into the trust bringing everything to a standstill. The trust has entered into a new purchase agreement with McSharry Bros. who would like to move forward if the permits can be extended.

Ms. Harbottle said she feels with the state of the economy as well as the circumstances involved regarding someone passing away an extension request seems reasonable.

MOTION: Mr. Limbacher moved to extend the Flexible Open Space Development and Common Driveway Special Permits to 3/3/12 for the reasons referenced in the letter dated 1/12/10 by Attorney Blanchard (please see file). Mr. Walter seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.

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

Accounting

MOTION: Mr. Vogel moved to approve the following purchase orders. Mr. Limbacher seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.

1. Nobles Camera Shop (copies) - $183.00
2. Laura Harbottle - $71.25
Ms. Harbottle showed the Board a parking lot plan from the Hamilton Group. They are all in a condominium agreement now and plan to re-stripe the parking lot, which will add some parking spaces.

Form A Plan – 18 Lincoln Ave. Assessor’s Map 64-7-9
Applicants: Alice and Richard Bell

Ms. Harbottle stated the applicant would like to move the lot line to be sure 18 Lincoln Ave. has the setbacks they should have. Mr. Limbacher stated that they are making Lot A conform.

MOTION: Mr. Walter moved to endorse. Mr. Vogel seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.

Public Hearing – Revision of Zoning Bylaws
Vote Town Meeting Recommendations on Zoning Articles

Mrs. Chisholm opened the Public Hearing. She said she would like the consulting Attorney to make comments then the Town Planner and finish up with comments from the public.

Attorney Saint Andre introduced herself, gave a brief synopsis of the process used to revise the Zoning Bylaws and read through the summary of changes (please see file).

Ms. Harbottle stated she feels there are 3 different categories of changes. They are housing, environmental and streamlining permitting. Ms. Harbottle briefing explained the changes in each category. She said she feels they are all very positive changes.

Mr. Limbacher stated that as a result of the workshop held on 2/11/10, there were some changes made. One change was the decision to leave the verbiage regarding tributary exactly the way it was.

Mrs. Chisholm asked the public for comments.

Ms. Mary Chase, Surfside Road, asked to have the changes on the Accessory Dwelling Special Permit explained. Attorney Saint Andre replied there are 2 primary changes. The first is that the primary structure can be non-conforming. The second is you can now have the accessory dwelling in a detached structure on the property.

Ms. Chase asked what areas are considered in the Flood Plain and is Surfside Road one of them. She asked what was the point of streamlining the Flood Plain Special Permit to be heard by only one Board. Attorney Saint Andre replied most dwellings that need Flood Plain Special Permits from the Planning Board are non-conforming; therefore, they also need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for basically the same thing. The change in the bylaw means the Zoning Board of Appeals will now handle the Flood Plain Special Permit so the applicants won’t have to go to two Boards. Ms. Chase asked if it wouldn’t be better to have two different Boards look at it to offer two different opinions. Attorney Saint Andre replied that the Flood Plain and Watershed Protection District is a pretty strict zone in terms of criteria. The applicant would have to meet the criteria leaving no reason to have to go to two Boards. Ms. Harbottle added you cannot build a new house in this zone unless you show the lot is not subject to flooding meaning it got in that district by mistake.

Ms. Chase asked if there is a Public Hearing and an abutter did not know about it do you have any recourse. Attorney Saint Andre responded that all abutters have to be notified, if they are not, they may appeal.

Mr. Steve Bjorklund, 15 Capt Daniel Litchfield Lane, stated he went through the latest draft and said when the change was made on how to measure the rear yard setback on a corner lot it was changed in the Residential 1, 2 & 3 Districts but not in the Business District. He said he is not sure if Mr. Duggan wanted this change to apply to the Business District or if it is just an oversight. He thought he should call it to the Board’s attention. Mr. Limbacher said he would check with Mr. Duggan.

Mr. Michael Collins, 24 Martha’s Lane, stated he is on the Housing Authority. Mr. Collins asked if the changes to the Planned Development District were intended to have home ownership more appeasing to the abutters than the current zoning which is basically rental. Attorney Saint Andre stated it was for a couple of reasons one being to give more options. It is unusual to limit to only rentals. There was further discussion on who would maintain the properties and preference given to Scituate residents.

Ms. Chase asked if the change to accessory dwelling meant that before the change, the accessory dwelling had to be connected and is there a size restriction. Ms. Harbottle explained that the new bylaw would allow the accessory dwelling to be detached and there is a size limit. Ms. Chase stated she is speaking about a property recently constructed on Surfside Road and wanted to know how they could have received a permit for an accessory dwelling. The Board replied that they did not issue an Accessory Dwelling Special Permit for that property and it did not come before the Planning Board. The Board suggested she speak with Mr. Duggan.

Mr. Mark Fenton, 25 Crescent Ave., understands the current changes being proposed are fairly low-key as Ms. Harbottle stated. The problem is it doesn’t reach into the more challenging areas, which we only hear about after something horrible like the situation presented by Ms. Chase happens and the resident is stuck with the outcome. Mr. Fenton wanted it on the record that the issue of Floor to Area Ratio and Lot Size and Shape need to be addressed. Mr. Fenton said these could only be treated when the town is doing what they are doing right now with this bylaw revision. Mr. Fenton stated it is unfortunate that Inclusionary Zoning did not make it into this revision. He said this will always be a controversial issue but feels we must deal with it. With the changes being made to the accessory dwelling, Mr. Fenton feels it serves as a disincentive to create an affordable accessory dwelling. Mr. Fenton complimented the Board on a good job.

Mr. Limbacher responded that the Committee had a draft bylaw for Inclusionary Zoning. The concern of the Committee was that is was important the proposed changes be made to the current bylaws. The Committee did not want to jeopardize these changes with the complexity of FAR or Inclusionary. Mr. Limbacher said they are not leaving those issues behind they will be working on them going forward.

Mr. Fenton asked what the thought process was to the changes with the accessory dwelling bylaw. He said he feels that the changes lower the incentives for affordable accessory dwellings. Attorney Saint Andre said the thought was that there are a lot of properties excluded from the accessory dwelling bylaw so that it was not being used as much. The Committee thought they would like to see more properties able to use the bylaw. Mr. Vogel stated that by definition of the size limitation, you would have a unit that is relatively affordable. Mr. Fenton said that he is a fan of accessory dwellings but he thinks the affordability option is now out the window. He suggested that at the very least, the water hook-up fee could be cut in half to give back a little incentive to build an affordable accessory dwelling. The Board responded that they have tried but were told that the town was not interested in that recommendation.

Mr. Bjorklund pointed out that 63 accessory dwellings have been permitted in the 20 years of the bylaw and only 2 were affordable accessory dwellings. Ms. Harbottle stated that the State has regulations regarding whom you can rent to that also make affordable accessory dwellings difficult.

MaryEllen Schloss, 50 Mann Lot Road, told the Board she found a typo on page 50 under 520.5-A-4 it should read any surface or sub-surface rather than any surface of sub-surface. Regarding the Flexible Open Space density bonus, Mrs. Schloss asked if it had ever been used before? Mr. Limbacher replied that the majority of subdivisions are flexible.

Mr. Limbacher suggested the Board write a memo to the Board of Selectmen stating that the Planning Board held a Public Hearing and there were no substantial changes to the proposed bylaw review. The Board should also add that the Zoning Bylaw Revision Committee acknowledges the amount of work that has been done but recognizes there are additional areas that they would like to see addressed in the future specifically Inclusionary Zoning and Floor to Area Ratio.

MOTION: Mr. Limbacher moved the Planning Board recommend that Annual Town Meeting approve the final draft of the Zoning Revision by the Special Bylaw Review Committee dated 2/9/10. Mr. Walter seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.