PLANNING BOARD
March 10, 2010
MINUTES
Members Present: Don Andersen, Michael Cole, Dan Coppelman, Leslie-Ann Morse, Craig Nightingale, Howard Sandler
Members Absent: Tom Johnson, John Knox (alternate)
Staff Present: Sarah Raposa - Town Planner
Chairman Michael Cole opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. and explained hearing protocols.
Case No. PB 2010-07
James and Marcia Sexton of South Wellfleet & Devette Russo and Robert Pfeifer of Hopkinton, MA & Ryder & Wilcox, Orleans, MA, seek endorsement of Approval Not Required Plan for property located at 295 & 305 Corliss Way, Map 21 Parcels 43A & 43B.
Philip Scholomiti of Ryder & Wilcox, Orleans, MA presented site plan prepared for James H. Sexton and Marcia L. Sexton Living Trust combining Lots 43C and 43D on Corliss Way. Michael Cole stated that the ANR filing was a condition of approval of Case No. PB2010-03.
MOTION by Leslie-Ann Morse to endorse Approval Not Required Plan for Case No. PB2010-07, Seconded by Don Andersen.
The Vote: 6-0 In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Morse, Nightingale, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Case No. PB2009-17
(Continued from 02/18/10) – First Horizon Home Loans of Fairfax, VA & East Cape Engineering, Orleans, MA seeks a Special Permit under Eastham Zoning Bylaws Section XIII (Site Plan Approval) to build a 27 bedroom, 14 unit condominium (ref. PB2006-14) with changes to the structures as required by the MA Building Code at property located at 2470 State Hwy, Map 15 Parcel 065.
Attorney Ben Zehnder, Tim Brady of East Cape Engineering, Nick Volpe and Rob Hainey of First Horizon were present. Atty. Zehnder addressed the Board as to the validity of the previous Site Plan Review Approval taking into consideration that construction had stopped on the project and the original approval had not been recorded at the registry of deeds. Atty. Zehnder inquired as to whether the board considered the previous approval to still be valid or whether the board would hear a new Site Plan Review application. Atty. Zehnder stated that he was aware of the requirement to file for a Special Permit as to Change of Use with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Leslie-Ann Morse stated that 40A Section XI requires that a Special Permit must be registered in order for it to be valid. Mike Cole stated that the
board did not considered the previous approval to be valid.
Atty. Zehnder asked the Board to hear the Site Plan Approval request for this project. Mike Cole questioned the Board members and determined that they would hear the request but would not make a decision until the Zoning Board Appeals had ruled on the application for a Special Permit.
Mike Cole referred to the Findings of Fact and Conditions from the previous approval. It was determined that there were no significant changes to the construction plans of the Condos. Dan Coppelman referred to the original conditions of approval and noted that the following 3 conditions had not been met:
1. Installation of a no left turn sign onto Route 6
2. More detailed renderings be submitted to the Board
3. Detailed lighting plan to be submitted to the Board within 60 days.
Leslie-Ann Morse stated that the original plans were of poor quality and Dan Coppelman stated that he was not a member of the Board when the original hearing was held and would like a complete packet to be submitted. Don Andersen noted that when exiting the property the trees along the left blocked vision and should be addressed.
Rob Hainey requested clarification of the exterior renderings and the Board agreed that one-dimensional plans/elevations with more detail will be acceptable.
Atty. Zehnder requested a 60 day extension to allow for Zoning Board of Appeals approval.
A MOTION to continue Case No. PB2009-17 to May 12, 2010 was made by Leslie-Ann Morse and Seconded by Craig Nightingale.
The Vote: 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Morse, Nightingale, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Case No. PB2009-13
(Continued from 2/10/10) - Robert Magnacca of Eastham, MA seeks Residential Site Plan Approval in relief of Town of Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section IX.D.2 & XIV, for a new garage with 2nd floor office space (site coverage exceeding 3,000 sq. ft.) located at 15 Martha Avenue, Map 10 Parcel 200.
Michael McCarthy, representing Mr. Magnacca, addressed previous issues including:
labeling the plan - roof dropped down 2 feet and labeled storage only - back deck, door and stairs removed - and the revised Site Plan. Mr. McCarthy said they proposed to make the existing parking area smaller and described landscaping plans for adding vegetation. Howard Sandler inquired about the septic line and asked if it would be removed. Mr. McCarthy said it would be removed if required.
Ms. Sue Williamson Klein representing the Williamson family (10 Martha Ave) took the floor and outlined her concerns related to the size and mass of the building and felt it should be lowered even more than 2 feet, and asked if the shrubs on the side of the building could remain.
Craig Nightingale referred to a photo of the property and was concerned with the number of cars parked on the property and asked what measures could be taken to prevent this happening again. Mr. McCarthy stated that the landscaping could be extended to cover a larger area.
Findings of Fact
1. Project is not detrimental to the neighborhood
2. Proposed driveway width has been reduced to the point of allowing for the two new garage doors and a 15-foot wide maximum driveway along the side of the garage towards the existing house, therefore lessening the amount of parking area on the lot.
3. The second floor bathroom, deck, french doors and the outside staircase have all been removed which lessens the impact on the neighborhood.
4. Shrubbery is being added in an effort to control parking on the rest of the property.
5. The basic roof line has been changed by bringing it down 2' and the dormer is eliminated.
6. The front of the building has been shortened by 2' 2" to comply with the front setback.
7. The site coverage is 19.5%, which is an increase of 3.26%
8. Discussion pertains to an existing partially completed structure.
A MOTION made by Howard Sandler to approve the Findings of Fact as stated, Seconded by Leslie- Ann Morse.
The Vote: 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Morse, Nightingale, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Conditions
1. Complete removal of the existing sewer line service from the structure to where it begins.
2. Second floor to remain unheated, unfinished, and for storage only.
3. Continue the proposed landscaping along the frontage of Martha Avenue to the southerly property line and use decorative stone to impede parking along Martha Avenue.
4. The existing landscaping between the existing garage and the northerly property line will remain in its present state (noted as "existing shrub/tree line on plan").
5. The landscape trees on the north side should maintained at a distance of 18" from the face surface of the building to the vegetation.
6. All lighting to be fully shielded, downward facing and contained on the property.
7. $5,000 Landscaping Bond for placement and maintenance of shrubbery and to insure the landscaping plan is adhered to and survives. To be reviewed by the Planning Board at their regularly scheduled meting in September 2011 and September 2012.
8. $5,000 Landscaping Bond to be submitted to the Town Treasurer to be placed in an escrow account prior to the removal of the Stop Work Order.
9. Residential Site Plan Approval to lapse one (1) year from the date of issue unless substantial completion under said approval has commenced.
10. Board member will be chosen to monitor compliance to these conditions.
A MOTION to grant Residential Site Plan Approval to Case No. PB2009-13 subject to the conditions previously stated was made by Leslie-Ann Morse and Seconded by Craig Nightingale.
The Vote: 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Morse, Nightingale, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Leslie-Ann Morse was chosen to monitor compliance to these conditions.
Case No. PB2010-04
(Continued from 03/10/10, 3:30 pm site visit) – Charles & Eileen Miller, Eastham & JC Ellis Design, Brewster, seek Site Plan Approval – Special Permit in relief of Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section XIII.B.1.B., for addition of retail and office space (no increase in footprint) to existing buildings located at 35 Brittany's Way, Map 5 Parcel 129.
Charlie Miller, owner of the property, discussed his proposal and the previous approval given by the Board.
Dan Coppelman gave a synopsis of today's on-site visit, comparing items previously approved and proposed. He found:
1. The original site plan approval had landscaping proposed around the northern building which is now office/retail, and it basically ran along the westerly elevation, northerly elevation and easterly elevation, it was landscaping around the building. Secondly, the B Building, Warehouse Building, there was landscaping proposed around the northern facade. None of that landscaping is in.
2. The original approved plan called for a completely paved parking lot. The parking lot is paved on the north of the retail/office use and in front of the garage/warehouse area it is a gravel driveway and parking area.
3. The existing exterior lighting for the benefit of the office/retail building was originally proposed to be spotlights on the side of the building, there were to be 3 of them, and now, presently, there is a pole light system at the northerly property line that shines back in a southerly direction towards the retail/office building.
4. There was landscaping proposed on the easterly property line consisting of a complete row of plantings to screen the property to the east, and that was not completed.
5. Originally proposed 5 catch basins, 2 are in which relate to the paved portion in the front and since the rear, Building B area is gravel, there are 3 catch basins that were not put in. In addition, along the westerly property line there was a notation that the existing vegetation would remain in its present state, which is true, except for a portion opposite the northern Building A, in lieu of the landscaping, there is a stockade fence that is installed for the portion that faces the building, so what is there is existing vegetation transforming into a stockade fence with an open lawn area and transforming back to existing vegetation running to the south.
6. The existing decks on Building A, northerly building, and there are some additional structures, the first one is a handicapped ramp that runs from the parking lot area to the existing covered porch. In addition, there is a portico area along the eastern facade of the building for the front half of the building which was not on the original site plan approval.
7. There is a small shed roof attached on the northerly elevation of Building B which is a small little enclosed area that is partially completed at this time.
8. The original Site Plan Approval called for 16 parking spaces, the new plan calls for 26 parking spaces, and that relates to the change of use and the different parking requirements as we change from warehousing to retail, and the applicant is proposing an office in the basement.
Discussion on paving area in front of retail bays, number of retail spaces, parking space delineation and landscaping. Dan Coppelman suggested plantings on either side of ramp, Building A, and talk out retail spaces 2 and 3.
Findings of Fact
1. Site Plan submitted with application reflects the actual conditions of the site.
2. Change of use of 300 sq. ft. from storage to retail in Building B has minimal impact.
3. Applicant is willing to pave in front of the retail space.
4. Applicant is willing to add landscaping.
5. Remaining gravel surface is approved (as per Zoning Bylaw Section 10.C).
6. Existing drainage is sufficient.
7. The proposed basement office in Building A has no significant impact to the overall project on the site.
8. Applicant will modify site plan:
• Show paving of spaces 8, 9 and 10 and demarkation of spaces
• Building A Plantings: 3 Junipers to the left of stairs and 6 more on eastern end of front building
• Building B Plantings: 6 shade tolerant pants at the gable end of garage
• Show fence on plan
• Revised Site Plan to be signed off by Planning Board Chair prior to issuance of building permit.
9. Proposed retail space will be removed from Building B, Units 2 and 3.
10. Existing pole lamp situated on the northern property line, being that it is directed into the site and does not send light on the adjoining properties, is appropriate.
A MOTION by Craig Nightingale to approve Findings of Fact as stated, seconded by Leslie-Ann Morse.
The Vote: 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Morse, Nightingale, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Conditions
1. Original application is modified to only allow retail in Bay 1 of Building B for a total of 300 sq. ft.
2. Parking spaces noted on the site plan as numbers 8, 9 and 10 will be paved from the standpoint of 20 feet back from the projection of the sidewalk for the space between the end of the front of the parking space and the existing sidewalk area, 20 feet plus 4 feet, or 24 feet from the apron.
3. The applicant will submit a revised Site Plan subject to the approval of the Chairman.
For Case No. PB2010-04 a MOTION by Leslie-Ann Morse for Site Plan Approval - Special Permit with conditions, seconded by Don Andersen.
The Vote: 6-0
In Favor of Motion as created: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Morse, Nightingale, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Request for Full Covenant Release
Case No. PB2004-37 Good Luck Cottages Nominee Trust, 5755 State Highway, Nauset Oaks Lane
Applicant sent an email and has requested a continuance to the April 14, 2010 meeting.
A MOTION by Leslie-Ann Morse to continue Case No. PB2004-37 to April 14, 2010, seconded by Craig Nightingale.
The Vote: 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Morse, Nightingale, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Leslie-Ann Morse left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Discussion - Letter from Louise Kane re: Harris Subdivision Case No. PB2008-19
Ms Kane voiced her concerns about the Harris property stating that there was an agreement between the Town and the Harris's to allow the public to use the beach. This beach has been called the Dog Beach for many years and the Harris's knew this. Now that they have gotten their subdivision, they have posted signs along the path stating No Trespassing, Private Beach, Public Beach to the left, etc., which are very intimidating, and wants the Town to enforce the agreement allowing use of the beach.
Mr. Cole stated that the Planning Board, under their purview, considers subdivision approval based on all kinds of criteria including Town By-Laws. Mr. Harris has the right to subdivide his land because he complied with all of the laws. In Massachusetts, the property owner owns down to the mean low water mark.
Mr. Cole walked the path today and noted that all of the signs mentioned were on the right side, northerly side, of the split rail fence and then the snow fence. All signs are posted on private property. Signs were to guide people from taking a short cut across his property. This is a public relations issue.
Howard Sandler felt that the signs were used for intimidation. Public use of the beach was granted for a 15' strip seaward of the high tide mark.
Ms Kane asked whether the Town could erect signs stating beach could be used. It was suggested that she approach the Board of Selectmen for a sign on town-owned property. Aimee Eckman, Selectman, stated that the town planned to add signage there in regard to the dog beach issue.
Mr. Harry Terkanian, representing the Harris family, stated that the agreement was made in good faith and the public has abused the privilege. Nowhere does it state for walking your dog, or your elephant. Before this subdivision was suggested, the Harris's tried to have the town buy the land for open space, but in this economy that wasn't feasible for the town. Three acres were set aside as a box turtle habitat and this agreement was made. When the other beaches are closed to dogs for the summer, they bring their dogs here. It is an abuse of the privilege.
Mr. Cole stated that he has to be convinced that this is a Planning Board issue. He is trying to figure out what the thinking was when the subdivision was approved, vis a vis dogs. Craig Nightingale stated that dogs were not mentioned at that time.
Aimee Eckman stated that the privilege to have dogs at Dyer Prince Beach has been abused. The regulation was put in ten years ago and it specifically stated that dogs were to be leashed. In regard to parking, people from out of town have been coming and using the beach. At their meeting last week the selectmen voted to enforce the current regulation for Dyer Prince Beach. The town is hiring 2 extra parking attendants to cover 14 hours this year. It is going to be hard to enforce, but if it fails this privilege could be taken away.
Mr. Cole stated that if the issue of dogs had come up during the subdivision approval process, Mr. Harris would not have approved of it, and he didn't have to. Craig Nightingale stated that the board didn't have a lot of leverage to negotiate this contract and we were lucky to get what we got.
It was suggested that Ms. Kane take this issue up with the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Cole said that the board would discuss the April 5th meeting and carry over approval of the minutes of 2/10/10 and 2/18/10 at the meeting tomorrow night.
A MOTION by Howard Sandler to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Craig Nightingale.
The Vote: 5-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Nightingale, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
as prepared by Madelynanne Magill
Craig Nightingale, Clerk
Eastham Planning Board
| 
