Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
July 14, 2010
July 14, 2010

Members Present:        Don Andersen, Michael Cole, Dan Coppelman, Tom Johnson, John Knox - Alternate, Lisa Panaccione, Howard Sandler
Members Absent: Leslie-Ann Morse
Staff Present:  Sarah Raposa - Town Planner

Chairman Michael Cole opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m., welcomed new member Lisa Panaccione and explained hearing protocols and new Open Meeting Law.

Case PB2009-17 - (continued from 6/9/10) – 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.

Mr. Cole explained that a Special Permit required a super majority of the Board which is 5 affirmative votes by members who have attended all previous hearings.

Mr. Ben Zehnder and Mr. Tim Brady were in attendance.  Mr. Zehnder suggested continuance or withdrawal without prejudice.

Mr. Coppelman requested neighborhood screening, a lighting pan and to check the line of sight at the entrance to Route 6.  Mr. Johnson mentioned fencing and screening of the upstairs.  Mr. Brady showed a photo of the existing vegetation buffer and suggested eliminating the 6' fence and allowing vegetation to remain.  Ms. Panaccione mentioned the height of the foundation and Mr. Brady said that will be addressed on the landscape plan.  Mr. Coppelman asked that the existing landscaping used for buffer be specified on the plan in terms of species and sizes.

Mr. Zehnder said he would submit a full application package.  Ms. Raposa stated that the next meeting date was August 11th and the application fee would be waived, but the abutter mailing fees would have to be paid.

A MOTION to grant withdrawal without prejudice on Case PB2009-17 by Dan Coppelman, seconded by Don Andersen.
The VOTE: 4-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed

Case PB2010-09 - (continued from 6/9/10) – Charles Cocce, of Hanover, MA, seeks a Site Plan Approval – Special Permit (§XIII) in relief of Eastham Zoning By-Laws Section VI.D.10.b. for a 5’6” x 11’0” addition on a pre-existing, nonconforming structure on a lot containing a total of three or more dwelling units at property located at 735A Campground Rd, Map 7 Parcel 324 (ref. ZBA2010-02).

Sitting Members: Don Andersen, Dan Coppelman, Michael Cole, Tom Johnson, Lisa Panaccione, Howard Sandler - Requires 5 votes in the affirmative to issue a Special Permit.

Mr. Charles Cocce presented project at 735A Campground Road.

Mr. Coppelman asked if a new application had been submitted noting changes.  Ms. Raposa said no, just the legal ad and thought that covered it because it was a continuation.  Mr. Coppelman also noted that there were four houses on the property and asked if signatures had been obtained from them.  Ms. Raposa stated that the rules and regulations had not gone into effect yet and the application has not been updated yet to reflect other owners.

Mr. Cole stated for the record that the application also needed a Special Permit from the ZBA and that was granted.

Mr. Johnson referred to correspondence received in opposition to the project.  Ms. Raposa said that the letter from May was on the old plan, but the letter dated July 2nd did come in recently, theoretically, relative to the new plan, however, there is no indication that the elements of the new plan impact the water quality as she has referred to.  Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Polloni was aware of the changes to the plan and Ms. Raposa said that abutters were sent new notices by return-receipt mail.  Mr. Cole stated that the only letter regarding this plan was the one from Coral Webber.

Mr. Cole opened the meeting to the audience.  

Mr. Lee Gustavson of 735E Campground Road is a member of the Baybreeze Condo Association and is happy with the plan and enhancements to the neighborhood.  Mr. Gustavson said Mr. Cocce has taken an abandoned property and enhanced not only the property, but the neighborhood, and two of the other owners would agree with Mr. Gustavson.

Ms. Panaccione referred to the shed on the property.  Mr. Cocce said the shed will be refinished in the fall and will remain storage.  The electrical panel and washer/dryer are in there.

Findings of Fact
am Zoning By-Laws Section IX.D.1. & XIV (site coverage exceeding 15% and percent expansion exceeds 2.5% on a lot under 20,000 sf) to demolish and replace a preexisting nonconforming cottage at property located at 6 Penny Lane, Map 10 Parcel 299 (ref ZBA2010-04).

Mr. Cole recused himself.  Voting on this hearing is Andersen, Coppelman, Johnson and Sandler

Mr. David Karam explained the changes in the plan, moved parking area on site plan, proposed driveway, also includes septic design, which is not relevant, except the patio layout. There are notes to access the attic from the pull down stair, hardline section and description of unfinished/unheated storage area.

Mr. Anderson noted that on section drawing the top of ridge to underside of finished ceiling is 10'.  Mr. Karam said yes, and the floor bay is 12".  Sheetrock will be on the living room/dining room side.

Mr. Coppelman said that on the landscaping plan, symbols are not labeled, walkway and patio do not specify materials and finds that the plan lacks information which is needed to review the plan  you are showing the quantity, but not the size and type of materials proposed.  Mr. Karam said that he was not aware that the plan had to be that detailed.  Mr. Coppelman said that it was a drainage issue, impervious or pervious materials.  Mr. Karam said there were no plans for gutters or drywells.

Ms. Raposa said that no storm water can leave the property as per Zoning By Laws Section XXII.
Mr. Karam said he will be submitting final construction documents and can include planting schedule and address how they will deal with potential runoff.

Mr. Johnson noted the 3 bedroom septic plan and Mr. Seliga said the plan for 3 bedrooms was approved in 1993 but it will remain 2 bedrooms.  The 3 bedroom plan was the old plan, the new plan is for 2 bedrooms.

Ms. Raposa stated that the ZBA continued their hearing until August 12th, and as the Planning Board meets on August 11th, they would have to continue the hearing until the September meeting.

In the meantime, Mr. Karam said that he would develop and landscape plan and include a schedule of plantings and materials and address runoff issues.

The Vice-Chair, Mr. Andersen, opened the hearing up to the members of the audience.

Mr. Don Wentworth showed existing and proposed plans to the Board and voiced his concerns about the project.
-       There is no scale on the plans
-       Why does the back porch have a 12' ceiling
-       why does it look like it has glass windows
-       does it have a foundation under it
-       Greek revival?
-       Why does it have a 25' cathedral ceiling when a normal cape cod style could have a cathedral ceiling.
-       Lowering the roof would be more in keeping with the neighborhood and could prevent any further expansion of the upstairs into a living space.
-       This is going to be a 56' long structure, is it still considered a Bungalow?
-       Parking is not adequate now
-       The new floor plan is unheated and unfinished, does that mean it could be finished.  Lowering the roof would prevent that from ever happening.
-       The character of the road will be destroyed
-       The size of the project is just too big for the neighborhood.

Mr. H. Edward Jans of 2 Fisher Road showed an aerial photo from 1974 and spoke in opposition of the project, stating that the house will look like a platoon barrack on an army base.  Mr. Jans would opt for taking the existing structure, moving it back, placing it on a foundation, add two feet to the house, put in a 12 over 12 -  45 degree roof and finish the upstairs, and you will get two nice bedrooms with a nice bath.   The proposed plan will not enhance the character of the neighborhood, Houghton Development.  

Mr. Seliga discussed parking and said that two cars could go end to end.  In addressing Mr. Wentworth’s concerns, Mr. Karam said that the porch did have glass windows and there would be a full foundation, which will be shown on the final plans.

Mr. Johnson said that the building was very high for a one-story building and try to cut down on massing.  Mr. Coppelman agreed that the building was tall and narrow and if you could pull the roof line down it would be helpful.  Mr. Coppelman said that on the plan Mr. Seliga was showing a bulkhead and might want to relocate that bulkhead because you cannot park two cars end to end without running over the bulkhead.

Mr. Seliga showed photographs to the Board that showed no single story houses.  Mr. Karam stated that Mr. Wentworth said that this project was a 2 isting structure and neighborhood properties.  No exterior lighting except for a minimum single down light at the proposed door/deck intersection.  Proposed addition does not increase septage flow.  Addition will have no impact on street traffic or parking.

David Lyttle explained the negative determination of applicability from Cons Com.  Mr. Coppelman noted the condition of adding a leaching dry well for the outside shower and stated that the Cons Com conditions should be included in the findings.  Mr. Coppelman brought up the screening issue, where there is a wall of glass and a second story deck, and wondered if the vegetation was appropriate in height and scope.  Mr. Lyttle said he had spoken to Mr. Seth Wilkinson who said the already established plantings can be moved and survive.  Mr. Lyttle showed a photo of vegetation in the neighborhood.

Mr. Johnson said it was a nice addition.  Ms. Panaccione was comfortable with proposed proportions.  Mr. Sandler referred to landscaping and Mr. Lyttle said that Eastern Red Cedars were recommended.

Chairman opened the hearing to the audience.

Mr. Keith Harrison, abutter - 37 Cranberry Lane spoke in opposition of the project.  Mr. Harrison has issued with Residential Site Plan Approval process criteria #2 and #3, and suggests that adding this additional space to the now largest house in the neighborhood is inappropriate and out of character. Mr. Harrison referred to a site map and used the net livable area for comparison, stating that the house at 2843 sq. ft. is currently 60% over the average of 1769 sq. ft. and with the addition it will be 73% over the average, adding to the mass by 1 1/3 story.  The protrusion of the sunroom 8' out is out of scale.  Also, there is a 3 bedroom deed restriction in place limiting the rental to 6 people.  There are sometimes three families there and the addition of more space will increase the number of people.

Marilyn Harrison, abutter to south - 37 Cranberry Lane spoke in opposition of the project.  Ms. Harrison described the views she enjoyed and said that previous expansion had doubled the size of the house.  The new addition will ruin her view.

Fred Levinson, abutter to back - 40 Cranberry Lane spoke in opposition of the project.  Feels the addition will be an eyesore and disturb local vegetation.  Land on the right of this property was donated to the Town by Fred Thomas and nothing can be built on it, but Mr. Lyttle wants to build on the left side close to the 25' setback. The road will buckle, he is building on a coastal dune and it will be disturbed, air flow will be changed, and it will increase noise levels. Mr. Levinson is surprised that Cons Com allowed this.  It is not to scale with the neighborhood.  

Carol Levinson - 40 Cranberry Lane spoke in opposition of the project.  Ms. Levinson is astonished that Cons Com allowed this, as they will be digging on a coastal dune and disturbing the bayberry and killing natural vegetation.

Mr. Cole asked if Cons Comm had held an advertised public hearing, and Mr. Lyttle said yes.

Mr. Larry Lewis of 15 Patrician Lane spoke in opposition to the project, stating that the house is too large for the lot and he is concerned that adding the sunroom will bring more renters.  Abutters claimed that they’re not notified and Mr. Lyttle said that Cons Com does not notify abutters for a Determination of Applicability, but the hearing is advertised in the paper.

Mr. Lyttle referred to the Google Map he submitted and said it shows all of the abutters houses.  In regard to the Harrison’s view, the addition will not extend any more westerly, toward the water, than the existing outdoor enclosed shower on the deck. The footprint is in line with what is there.

Mr. Smith addressed the scope of the house and stated that the additional coverage is less than 1%, so there is not a significant change in character.

Mr. Keith Harrison refuted Mr. Lyttle’s statement and said that the shower does not go out to the front of the deck and the addition will definitely have an impact.  Mr. Harrison also addressed the screening issue.  He showed a photo of the lots and said that due to the high winds in the that area, nothing will grow.

Mr. Lyttle corrected his previous statement about the shower.

Marilyn Harris said that the cubicle Mr. Smith said was going on the front of the house would match the back, but it doesn’t match anything on the house and only creates a great big glass cube. It is not a Cape Cod look and will be used for sleeping.  There are already multiple families renting.
Mr. Lyttle said that this was not the only house that was rented out.

The Chairman closed the hearing to the Board, and stated that the purpose of this hearing was Residential Site Plan Approval.  Mr. Cole explained the bylaw in regard to Residential Site Plan Approval and also its triggers.

Mr. Coppelman said his main concern was the glass wall and railing above directly facing an abutting neighbor and it must be screened.  Mr. Andersen mentioned the criteria and impact on the neighborhood and said it seems this house is creeping and starting to impact the neighborhood and the environment.  It is not much of an increase, but it is starting to stand out.  Mr. Johnson noted that the plan said 39 Cole Road and Mr. Smith said that was a typo and the plans dated 2/17/10 were the newest plans.  Ms. Panaccione appreciated that the abutters attended and voiced their concerns.  Ms. Panaccione is concerned with the amount of glass.

Mr. Sandler said this was a reasonably sized addition and it is the only thing the board is to address.  He sees nothing detrimental with this addition and doesn’t think it will interfere with the view toward Wellfleet.

Mr. Cole stated that he visited the property and it is hard to see this house.  Mr. Sandler agreed.  Mr. Cole said that there is no neighbor to the west or north the neighbor to the east can’t see the house.  It is the one neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Harrison that see this house and will see this addition. The addition is all glass, but should someone not be able to put up a sunroom if the neighbor can see it.  The bylaw addresses detrimental to the neighborhood and concern would be to try to mitigate the impact to the neighbors.  He also commended the abutters and the Harrisons’ for their articulate comments.

Ms. Panaccione suggested that maybe the amount of glass could be addressed.  Mr. Sandler said that the board did not have the right to tell people to use glass or not to use glass, or what type of shingles to use, and he feels the owners are entitled to have it.  Mr. Coppelman suggested the applicant, if he is willing, study the issue and come back with a proposal to address screening.  Mr. Coppelman has no problem with the size of the addition.  Mr. Lyttle said he spoke with Wilkenson Ecological Design and they said only small screen will survive.  It will take the Eastern Red Cedars a long time to grow.

Mr. Sandler said that screening is not going to work.  Mr. Coppelman said that he understood about the screening issue and that the board would ask for a program that ultimately would work.
Mr. Cole said the projection of the addition to the west blocks their view.  As screening grows it will start to block the windows.  We are going to look for significant screening and planting effort with the best survival rate. Mr. Smith said he would be willing to come back with a planting and screening program.  Mr. Cole said that if the board makes them come back, they have to give an indication of what the board is looking for.

Mr. Coppelman has no problem with windows if they do not affect the neighbor.  Might consider pulling back the corner and maybe bring wall of addition forward to match the sight line of the house. Mr. Coppelman has no objection to glass in the sunroom.  Mr. Sandler asked for a poll of the board as to the project as it stands with the proper screening.  Ms. Panaccione said that the existing house has no screening now.  Mr. Smith said that the addition will be one step down lower than the existing house.

A MOTION to close evidentiary portion of the hearing by Howard Sandler, seconded by Don Andersen.
The VOTE: 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous

Mr. Cole poled the board as to their thoughts.
Sandler - will be satisfied with a screening plan
Panaccione - will be satisfied with detailed functioning screening plan
Johnson - same
Andersen - same
Coppelman - same

Ms. Raposa said she is familiar with Wilkenson landscaping plans and knows what will be coming in.  Suggested the board might want to require a landscape bond as they have done with other cases.  The new plans will be due in her office on Wednesday, August 4th at noon for an August 11th hearing.

Mr. Cole explained continuance without a determination for a month.  A week before the meeting the plans will be submitted to the Planner and they will be available to the board and the public.  The abutters will not be notified, but the hearing will be posted.

A MOTION to continue PB2010-12 to August 11, 2010 by Don Andersen, seconded by Dan Coppelman.
The VOTE 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous

Other Business

Mr. Cole said Rules and Regulations would be discussed at the next work session which is Tuesday July 27, 2010 at 4 p.m. and will discuss reorganization at that time.  Mr. Cole said that the board is looking for one or two alternates.  

Mr. Johnson asked if the North Eastham Village Center could be discussed at that meeting prior to the joint meeting with the Selectmen.  

Mr. Cole said that he will have a discussion with new members and alternates about the Open Meeting Law and Conflict of Interest, Sign Code, Goal Setting and will prioritize issues.

Ms. Raposa spoke about upcoming seminars.


A MOTION to approve the Planning Board minutes of June 29, 2010 by Tom Johnson, seconded by Don Andersen
The VOTE: 4-0-2
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson
Opposed: None
Abstain: Panaccione, Sandler
Motion Passed

A MOTION to approve the Planning Board minutes of June 9, 2010 as printed by Tom Johnson, seconded by Don Andersen The VOTE: 4-0-2
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson
Opposed: None
Abstain: Panaccione, Sandler
Motion Passed

A MOTION to adjourn by Lisa Panaccione, seconded by Don Andersen
The VOTE: 6-0
In Favor: Andersen, Cole, Coppelman, Johnson, Panaccione, Sandler
Opposed: None
Motion Passed - Unanimous

Meeting Adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted
      as prepared by Madelynanne Magill

Michael Cole, Chairman
Eastham Planning Board