Rye Planning Board_. Saturday, April 17, 2010 MINUTES OF THE SITE WALK

Transcription

1 Rye Planning Board_ Saturday, April 17, 2010 MINUTES OF THE SITE WALK Members Present: Chairman, Jaci Grote; Vice-Chair, Donald Cavallaro, Clerk, Martin Zivic; Mel Low; Selectmen s Rep. Priscilla Jenness; and Patricia Weathersby. Also Present: Kimberly Reed Absent: Mark Galvin. The second site walk began at 10:00 a.m. to review the Moorings at Rye Harbor: Preliminary Major Subdivision Application for The Moorings at Rye Harbor located at 160 and 175 Harbor Road, Tax Map 9.2, Lots 20 an d 22 in the Single Residence and Coastal Overlay (Lot 20) Business and Coastal Overlay (lot 22). The applicant proposed to demo the existing restaurant and related infrastructure. Construction of a 4-lot subdivision with municipal water supply and on-site septic systems. File No.: Present for the Moorings at Rye Harbor: Eric Weinrieb, Peter Loughlin and Jim Nadeau. Abutters present: John Heisey, Toby Heisey and Phil Winslow. Eric Weinrieb had a reduced set of plans for discussion while reviewing and walking the site. The Site walk began at the bridge looking at the site facing the property site. Mr. Weinrieb convened the meeting at the bridge points out Town of Rye land, public access area into the Harbor, look towards beach and restaurant. Member Weathersby asks where the property line is and wonders if it is at the telephone pole. Mr. Weinrieb states property line is in the corner of the existing pavement. Some of their pavement is in the Town s ROW. A lot of the parking and landscaping is and with this project we will be remediating the encroachments. He points beyond the containers and dumpsters that encroach. They will be correcting this with green space in the public ROW. There was a discussion about the property lines and high tide mark. 1

2 Mr. Weinrieb points to the property lines and that it runs under the guide wire and that the parking lot is actually on the Town property in the corner facing Harbor Rd as well as shrubs and the planters. Sheet C-1, pointed the area out to the dock for access easement for the 4 homes not a public easement. They discussed the use of the dock is for the homes. The lot owner will be providing a walking easement. Member Weathersby asked Mr. Weinrieb to find out what the dock is approved for and present that to the board at the next meeting. Member Cavallaro asks about if the site where the current parking for Saunders is if that lot could withstand a septic. Mr. Weinrieb states that due to the setbacks of the Marsh and high water and the Town s zoning, that no, it could not. Member Cavallaro asks more about the same topic. Mr. Weinrieb talks about the soils and they are not natural because of the pavement and that they have to be at least 75 ft away. Mrs. Jenness asked about drainage. Mr. Weinrieb explained where it runs and points to the drain and explains the structure is undersized, plugs and they are planning on fixing that by pulling the cover up and natural depressed area for better drainage for the roadway and a treatment system so in case a big rain, flooding in the depressed area versus road way so we will be improving the drainage in the public ROW. The two homes will have impervious will be a dramatic increase as to what is there now (referring to the entire pavement for the parking of the restaurant). Mr. Nadeau walks to building envelope area to get a visual for the board the size of the building envelope of the first home situated in the current parking lot of Saunders. Mrs. Jenness asks if the houses will be on slabs. She is concerned due to the sensitive nature of the area. Mr. Weinrieb says slab or crawl space. Mrs. Reed asked if they would be bringing in fill. Mr. Weinrieb says some to re-grade after removing the pavement, export site and the other site remove the septic and export and bring in new material; overall exporting more than importing. Mrs. Heisey asks about quantity and if changing grade. 2

3 Mr. Weinrieb explains process and points to slopes and plans to indicate grading. Mr. Cavallaro asks if level. Mr. Nadeau explains average existing grade and they will work with the Building Inspector. He also stated he spoke with Jennifer Gilbert from FEMA to follow basement guidelines. Mrs. Jenness is concerned about flooding these days. Chairman Grote goes back to house envelope and asks questions of size. They point to areas on the map and the site to indicate size of the building envelopes and what will be open and what will be access easement. Attorney Loughlin states that based on the ZBA approvals they are limiting the size of the buildings. The building envelope does not represent the building area. There were side conversations and hard to hear at this point. Member Cavallaro asks a question about mean high water table and his concerns about septic and he talked about another site and wondered what can be done on this site, he stated, that is the Question. Chairman Grote asked What is the question? Ask it. The group walks to back of the parking lot where there will be lot line of the two lots. He talked about light level pollution since there are a lot of lights for the parking and reducing that and better for the environment. The onsite poles and lights will be removed, not the street poles. Mr. Weinrieb talked about pavement and no protection of the resource here and have high water mark, rip rap then pavement and the rip rap area will become vegetated with Rosa Ragusa and protection 50ft set back but on this project, because of the environmental benefits and merits overall they are endorsing us to be closer than the 50ft. No nitrate fertilizers. Mrs. Jenness asked how that is enforced. It is a disturbing question. Who enforces the non-use of fertilizers that is a cause of some of our problems writing it in and not enforcing it? Mr. Weinrieb agrees, it is a problem and that you can make requirements but until the communities put the money in place for enforcement not just building issues but people running around looking in the catch basins and on the lawns it is the responsibility of the abutters. Mr. Nadeau talked about the stipulation in the BOA and also documents it in the homeowners association and the homeowner would be responsible. There was a discussion on testing and disagreements by the applicant and abutters. The applicant did not want to lose site of that the vast amount of parking lot and the heat pollution 3

4 and the leaking of oils and contaminants those 2 homes will be a vast improvement. The temperature increase of the marsh due to the run off during a flash rain in the hot summer is more damaging to the ecosystem than a home with nitrates and that is why there is so much phragmities. Some of the discussions were in small groups and missed a few of the comments. The group walked to the back deck of Saunders which will be the second house lot and the deck will all be removed and they walk to the ends to show the building envelope. This is depicted on Sheet C-1. Member Mel Low leaves the Site Walk. There was discussion about prohibitions about putting in a second dock but there was no clear answer to that process, it would be with the State not the Town. A whole set of approvals from the PDA, wetlands bureau. The process is at the State level, PDA requirements that they would go through. Mrs. Reed asks about a black pipe that leads from the restaurant into the Harbor. Attorney Loughlin stated that they used to dump sewer into the Harbor but that has been discontinued. The group walks to the green grass along the property line and it is agreed that the tree will stay and the shed that is along the property line and falling apart will be removed. The property line is between the falling down shed and the garage. Honoring the zoning set back which is 20 feet. The whole area, little changes because it is the landscape part of the site and protect the tree, shed goes away. Mr. Weinrieb states drip edge is the best way to have LID (low impact development). The group walks along the edge of Saunders between the falling down shed and there are dumpsters and trash between the two properties and parking spaces where there are limbs and stuff inside the parking spaces along the shed. Mr. Weinrieb points out the property line, shed and the building is standing in a parking space that is in the public ROW while the spaces are part of the public ROW. It is where employees tend to park and neighbor sometimes uses the spaces. They group looks at Harbor Road and the back of the properties and Mr. Weinrieb states they will be improving the travel way and provide wider road way, it will become landscaped and green space and pushed back and not have cars parking or backing up into the street. Chairman Grote asked if they could provide an overlay of Future over existing. That makes your point easier. 4

5 Mr. Weinrieb generated composite of everything provided for the BOA and can easily go back and see it. Chairman Grote it will be better to have the overlay to show how much smaller. Member Cavallaro said we had it on the last site walk, google earth with phantom lines over the development which is pretty easy to follow. Member Cavallaro then asked what the abutters against the Saunders property do for septic and if they are non-conforming. Mr. Nadeau stated it was to the right of the house. Mr. Weinrieb stated the island is in the ROW. He wants them to go look at the drainage. Member Cavallaro stated he brought it up because they are stating it is impossible to put one over here and if it is impossible that is why he brought it up. Mr. Weinrieb hears Mr. Caballero s concerns and states that they cannot take someone s house away from them. If their septic was to fail, the state would allow them to do a redesign and it would probably be a clean solutions system septic system which is same type of technology they are proposing. Member Cavallaro stated one of the issues that he is getting at is that the septic systems were not on the property and if you put the house over there (he points to a location) if there is mean high water and you can get the septic on this side, then potentially you could have 3 buildings each with its own septic and then everyone has their own septic.but state allowed 4 units over here in previous plan end up each having access to their own septic it that out of the box. Mr. Weinrieb tries to answer and says from an environmental standpoint, why would he want to site a septic so close to resource when they have the opportunity to meet all state design criteria and stick it over on this side (South Side) all four of them and it does not make good environmental sense. He points to the abutter next to Saunders and says that they are with what they have and they are different than John Heisey and he has a house and if septic were to fail, the state would allow him to re-design and put a new septic in. The same thing just a everyone else on the Harbor they don t have the ability to have a lot that is..as DES says Linked forever because (he points to the Saunders properties) this is the same lot according to DES just separated by a ROW. Mr. Weinrieb answers Mr. Zivic s question about Clean Solutions and who they are and what they do to make it cleaner. There was a full discussion and clarity for Mr. Zivic and possible discussion that he would like to see more about the sytem. Mrs. Reed asked Member Cavallaro if his question that he asked answered before the group moved on. She asked if he had clarity or okay to move on. 5

6 Member Cavallaro replied not here. Mr. Weinrieb points to the catch basin and the phragmities and they will replace the catch basin and replace the culvert and part of the drainage easement.treatment as well as (hard to hear). Sheet S2, points to catch basin now and push back. Mrs. Jenness asks if it is a Town Catch Basin. Mr. Weinrieb stated he has an agreement and signature by Bud Jordan. Mrs. Jenness stated he did not say anything about this and she was not aware. Member Weathersby stated she learned all about rain gardens this morning and asked if a rain garden be better in this site versus a catch basin. Mr. Weinrieb stated what they are doing are rain gardens on this side and points to cross culvert their rain gardens due to challenging soils and work closely with DES on the site and they do not have the same separation, use yard drains.yes, they are using rain gardens. Mrs. Jenness asked that the plans show the numbers and types of plants they will be using. Chairman Grote asked how tall the flag pole was and in addition to the overlay from the top could they have an overlay, a photograph of the flag pole and the restaurant and point out where 28 feet would be. The houses will be relatively shorter than the flag pole, for a visual. Member Cavallaro asked if the restaurant was on a slab and goes on to say an opportunity to bring in better fill quality. Before they go to the other side, the only additional thing that Mr. Weinrieb wanted to point out the Rye Water District s water line and they will be providing an easement to the Rye Water District and cleaning up that water line. The group then walks towards the overflow parking across the road to the other 2 lot sites and points out that all the pavement is currently one way and it will all be removed and they were all standing in the 100ft buffer of the tidal marsh and site area will re-vegetated and Conservation easement. They point to the stone-wall in the bushes and look at the tidal marsh and the conservation easement is pointed to on the site plans. The group walks towards Mill Lane and looks at the white pipes and reviews the site, view and property and Jim walks the proposed building envelopes for a visual for the board and abutters. The line between the two parcels 20ft side setback and points out the boundaries and building envelopes outside the 100ft buffer. There is a discussion of creating a swale with a slight depression to move the water around Mill Lane and drag the water back this way. As the group stands on Mill Lane, they look at the pavement and Mr. Weinrieb explains the driveway location and the need for the waiver. The advantage is existing condition, reducing it 6

7 to one house and will be used just for their driveway. The other driveway will be a 100 ft down close to the DeChamps driveway on Harbor Rd. It is a waiver from the regulations because we can t have a driveway 100ft from a street intersection. Reason for the waiver, it is already paved, not adding pavement but fixing it and if they moved it 100ft, they would be within 50ft of poorly drained soils. The board looked at possibilities of moving the driveway and reviewed the site and other locations and the problems with putting it anywhere else but there will be other challenges. The Board of Adjustment stated it is corner lot and the Zoning says if it is a corner lot the driveway must be on the lesser traveled road and Mill Rd is the lesser traveled road than Harbor Rd and that is stated with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Nadeau stated 2 residents stated they preferred the driveway on Mill Rd. Chairman Grote stated it seems to make sense to her. Member Weathersby questioned the drive and the closeness to their home and if they wanted to move the driveway they would need a variance. Mr. Weinrieb agreed that if they moved the driveway anywhere else they would need a variance and he also pointed out the view and in his opinion which way he would face the garage. Member Cavallaro questioned detached shed, boat houses and he wondered about accessory buildings. He wanted to know if there was anything they could do to control that. Mr. Heisey asked what would stop a person from going to the BOA and getting a variance. He went on to say everyone knows how it goes that that people want and push issue and get lawyers and before you know they have huge garages next to their houses then double floor space etc. There was a discussion that the board and applicant cannot look into the future of what the Board of Adjustment in the future would approve and there is no crystal ball and that is why there are restrictions in the BOA approvals that they are agreeing to. There are stipulations to the gross living area and the concern for future ZBA members disregarding the stipulations and allowing future waivers. Member Weathersby asks if they are empowered to put in a restriction that says no accessory buildings that exceed this size Mrs. Reed reminded the Board members that Shed and accessory buildings require a Building Permit and the building inspector would look at the shed and/or accessory building and its location and the percentage of coverage and setbacks. If someone was to buy a shed at SHED s USA they have to get a building permit. Can only do our best with what is before the board. Some of the board members stated they did not know that. 7

8 The board walks along Mill Lane the edge of the property towards Mr. Heisey s house. Mr. Heisey s grandfather s house is close to the property line and there are tall pines along the edge of the property. There was a pile of brush on the corner of the property line and it ran along the trees in the back. Some of the trees in the back are on the Heisey lot, some on the Saunders lot. Mrs. Heisey stated her concern of the added 18inches and edge of the hill will impact the property concerns for erosion. Mr. Weinrieb explains the leachfield process and the fill and slope and cutting into the slope and direct run off and he would direct it with a swale and how it will be different than the leachfield today. He had the 4 leachfields marked off with sticks and flags and showed how the new systems will be much smaller with 4 of them than the one that exists today. He also stated that they have a better technology so that they will not have the ugly white pipes sticking up for venting. The group looks at the old concrete chambers that were left there the last time they updated the septic and those would be removed. They discussed the slope and the natural grade and smooth transition and it will not look like a huge mound and they looked at the view of the Harbor and how little it would be impacted. They discussed the impact of the 18inches and the houses to be built and they need to be built to current grade, the swale and it would be natural and able to be mowed. Attorney Loughlin stated they should talk about Mrs. Heisey concerns of her view and she points to her house and her windows and states her concerns about visual impact. The abutters and applicant walk to the corner of Mrs. Heisey s property line and she explains what window s rooms are and what the structures that is there currently. Mr. Weinreib points to the tree that exists and the view does not really change even with the 18 inches, the ground floor and because of the DeChamps hedge row it is a limited view and a house is not going to impact the view. Mr. Heisey and Mr. Weinrieb talk about hedges and negotiate some language between them on landscaping and stipulate no landscaping higher than 36inches in this area. Note on the plans, the trees along the Heisey s, Marsh and Saunders property will remain. The group then walked the edge of the property to the marsh and along the back of the property between the Heisey s, Saunders and the marsh then continue on along the Conservation Easement and finish up walking around and ending back at the overflow parking lot and complete the site walk. Respectfully Submitted, Kimberly Reed, Planning Administrator 8