Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 12/10/2014 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 8 December 10,2014 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2014 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Stuart W. Ivimey, Chairman Clark H. Brewer,Vice Chairman Charles A. Samuelson, Clerk Michael Dickey David Drinan Brian Frazier,Associate Member Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Planning Board Administrator Meeting called to order at: 7: 00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. ATTORNEY JEFFREY DELISI&JOHN CAVANARO RE: JAMES ISLAND In attendance to represent agenda item: John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting; Attorney Jeffrey Delisi Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office): • "Modified Common Driveway 1 James Island Way"Plan prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated: 12/10/14 • 12/10/14 Request for Modification submitted by Cavanaro Consulting. James Island common driveway was approved by Planning Board but ConComm does not want Salt Marsh filled and will not allow them to build what was approved. Town built road larger than was on the plan and,road narrows to about 15 ft. then widens again. Proposal is to restore turnaround at 16 ft. as was approved, install fire service & increase width of crushed stone area at shoulders. Needs Planning Board approval that modification is not a substantial,material change. MOTION: By Member Dickey to accept the common driveway plan as modified with a decision that the modification is not a substantial change to the original plan. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:10 P.M. RICHARD HENDERSON—COOK ESTATE, LOT 3 RELEASE FROM COVENANT At Attorney Henderson's request this agenda item was not addressed. 7:10 P.M. ADMINISTRATION - VOTE TO APPROVE NOVEMBER 19, 2014 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Samuelson to approve the November 19,2014 minutes SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Brewer was out of room and did not vote) - VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING December 7 and 14, 2014 MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve the payroll for period ending December 7 and 14, 2014 SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 8 December 10,2014 - VOTE TO RATIFY S.IVIMEY SIGNATURE ON INVOICES: -CDI INV.#360 8 JAMES LANE - $930 -CDI INV.#361 RED LION INN - $1,240 Administrator added additional invoice for 2015 subscription renewel to Land Court Reporter- $230.00 MOTION: By Member Brewer to ratify Ivimey signature on above cited invoices, amended to include Land Court Reporter subscription for$230. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:20 P.M. 40 HOBART LANE — LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING, APPL: CATALANO ARCHITECTS. OWNERS: JEFFREY& LEIGH SCHWARZ Member Samuelson read Notice of Public Hearing. In attendance to represent agenda item: John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting; Elena Stancheva, Catalano Architects; Owner: Mr. Schwartz Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office • Form 11 —Application for Large Home Review with Statement of Litigation Policy, date stamped: 11/19/14 • Site Plan prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated 11/18/14 • Plans A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.0, A1.4, A1.5, A1.6, A1.7 prepared by Catalano Architects, dated l l/18/14 • Comments from BOH, ConComm, Sewer Dept.,ZBA, Water Dept. Existing home is older Mediterranean style structure consisting of many levels — not very functional. Existing structure is 7,930 sf while proposed is 8,717 sf. —a 10% increase in size. Lot is approx. 2.5 acres. Property has resource areas and buffer zones around entire perimeter. Flood plains come into property, but property sits high (elev. 32) so majority of property is above flood elevation. Have filed with ZBA for a special permit for work within flood plain and,part of existing structure is non-conforming, sitting close to lot line—proposal locates new structure further back, reducing that non-conformity. Relocating parking that currently sits within front yard setback to a more central location within lot. Serviced by municipal water and sewer. Have also filed for an Order of Conditions and a Stormwater Permit with Conservation. Currently, all drainage is to ocean and to Hobart Lane. Proposal adds substantial drainage to site with catchment areas to direct water flow to ocean and reduce flow to Hobart Lane to zero. Site has difficult typography with many levels and much ledge. New home will blend into site to reduce massing. Natural construction materials will be used to blend into the existing site. Driveway has been relocated to reduce impact on neighbors. Plans to avoid blasting if possible but won't know exact amount of ledge on site until digging begins. Plans include a substantial landscape improvement plan to restore salt meadow. MOTION: By Member Brewer to recommend, with standard conditions of approval, that Building Inspector Egan issue building permits for this project subject to the ZBA special permit approval. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 8 December 10,2014 7:30 P.M. MEETING BREAK 7:45 P.M. 8 JAMES LANE, VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW DELIBERATION. APPL: JAMES LANE PARTNERS, In attendance to represent agenda item: Michael Roberts, Paul Sullivan, John Wahlstein. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office): • Public hearing closed—no new documents submissions OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF BOARD MEMBERS: Dickey. • Applicant has made good faith effort to correct every issue raised • Parking is tight but better than originally proposed • Will rely on Counsel opinion about making common space to allow the residences to meet size requirements • Better than what is there—there is additional fine tuning but would like to get the project across the finish line Brewer: • This proposal is an improvement over the formerly submitted versions submitted by other applicants • Density to the site that still has suburban feel. This is a transition site that is still part of Village - the density between and around the buildings works —bringing the buildings together etc. was a good move. • Train presence is problematic—there is a risk of unsold units or having to have rentals instead of condos • Possible to tighten up sound transmission coefficient(STC)on the train side. • Using municipal parking lot is allowed for this site but onsite takes burden off municipal lot • Street improvements are beneficial mitigation to existing neighborhood • Does not see this development creating a lot of traffic Drinan: • Project has been re-tweaked throughout the hearing process and many requests have been accommodated • Developer would be wise to consider sound transmission — but, he questions conditioning it • Gross living area approach is a reasonable interpretation of a confusing bylaw • Anymore modification would make it this project infeasible • Better than the eyesore that is there now Samuelson: • Board has to evaluate proposal based on bylaw as written and has obligation to consider impact on neighborhood • This lot is mis-zoned but that cannot be changed • Is better than earlier proposals • Have to balance impact with positive benefits to the Town • There are issues that need to be talked about Frazier: • Current plan is an overdeveloped site even though there have been some improvements. Overdevelopment has been function of finances. • Parking—although still tight—has improved • Counter-intuitive to build nice residences and then cram them up against the train tracks • Proposal is working the whole site more than it should — can clearly see that the applicant is struggling to get everything in and get it to work and, could see things being fudged • Square footage of units is still hazy • Would like common areas to be more common, accessible areas to people • Suspect that, in 20 years, the units will be chopped up with attic and basement apartments etc. because it was not a financial success - Ivimey. • Site is too tight • Poor,unsafe traffic flow that causes safety problems • Units violate the zoning bylaw by being too big • Shouldn't consider it"more" appropriate than what was filed in past—it is either appropriate or not appropriate • If this were the first filing, Board would be sending it back Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 8 December 10,2014 • Does not meet the bylaw • It is not Board's job to insure that a project is financially feasible for applicant—it is Board's job to insure that zoning bylaws are enforced—certain things cannot be done on certain lots because of their size and character • It is a mistake for the Board to overlook problems to make a project financially viable for the applicant. Modzelewski: Does not have anything to add at this point DISCUSSION ABOUT SIZE OF UNITS: Ivimev: • believes bylaw is crystal clear that the units have to be between 700— 1500 sq.ft. • Does not buy "common area" concept for areas that are accessible only to owner of a unit—it is a fiction and should be viewed for what they are—stand alone units from top to bottom-every square foot should be counted and,the units exceed 1.500 sq.ft. —the rest of it is sophistry. Town Counsel: • comes down to the issue of how you interpret the bylaw and what a definition of floor area should be applied • In his opinion, most reasonable interpretation is that the Residential Gross Floor Area (RGFA) definition should be applied and that is the basis of his opinion about it and that excludes certain areas which, as he understands it, the applicant has said that under that definition, they do meet the 700-1500 sq.ft. limitation in the bylaw. Samuelson: This could go back to Town Meeting to change Gross Floor Area(GFA)to net floor area and then this would clearly be within the 700 -1500 sq.ft.—might be a better approach than trying to wordsmith the definition. Town Counsel: • The provision says the "Total Gross Floor Area of a single apartment in the VB District shall be not less than 700 sq.ft. nor more than 1500 sq.ft." so it is the issue of what GFA means and how that should be defined— it says GFA and there is a definition in Section 2.1 of Floor Area, Gross and then there is a definition of RGFA. It is a question of which is the more appropriate to use Dickey: • Board does not have that latitude—Board has to go with total gross floor area which is language used in bylaw • Rephrased it as: They clearly cannot qualify under a total GFA unless they take areas which common sense would imply are part of the GFA and call them"common" Town Counsel: clarified that, in response to Dickey's rephrasing, that is not what he is saying. • If the Board determines that the Floor Area, Gross definition should be applied, he is not advocating that the Board should then put some of the areas in"common area". Issue is how Board defines term—if Board defines the term as Floor Area, Gross rather than Floor Area,Residential the issue is settled. Drinan: Board is not looking to make things up, but when one sentence says one thing and another sentence says another thing, what is Board left to do in making a common sense approach to arriving at a decision point regarding that? Has a hard time just saying the garage and unfinished attic have to be included—he thinks that is completely unintended by notion of bylaw. Roberts: Concept of GFA requires measurement from outside walls - in some apartments, outside walls are inside walls. GFA cannot be used because apartments do not have outside walls —it is impossible to use so you are stuck with a situation of "what did town meeting mean"? Town Meeting wanted something built and they gave very specific density, parking etc. guidelines to Board as to what they wanted built. They left it to Board and Board cannot use GFA. Board is charged with allowing people to build with densities that this application is far under, and, is far under floor area ratios,has far more parking than was ever envisioned—everyone in world knows how to measure an apartment— it is the apartment, it does not include garage. Only measure that can be used is measure your Counsel just said you should use and is what you used in the last application—RGFA. To not do that makes Board look hypocritical - you cannot behave that way. Ivimey strongly objected to Board being called names. Dickey: disagreed—Board has to work within bylaw they have—Board cannot interpret and add new definitions. If Town Meeting made a mistake, they made a mistake but, Town Meeting voted the language they voted on and Board cannot go back in time and read their minds and decide they were not really voting on this language and the Board should therefore go back and retroactively correct their error—that is not a power the Board has. It is valid to say this was poorly drafted but the resolution is not for the Board to say they will unilaterally right the wrong. Samuelson: At best it's ambiguous and at worst it's prohibitive so maybe this is a Town Meeting issue to correct. Ivimev: Disagrees—does not think this is ambiguous at all - it clearly says GFA and GFA is a defined term—the defined term tells Board what it is. You use the plain meaning of the word to determine the import of the sentence and the plain meaning of the word is defined on p. 4 — for the Board to do anything else is an error because the Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 8 December 10,2014 Board would be taking the word "residential" and writing in it there and that is not what the statute says. The Board may want to do that and the applicant may want to do that but that would be changing the bylaw. Samuelson: the word"residential" does not appear anywhere in Section 18 —if the intent of the bylaw was for it to be RGFA, then the term "residential" should have been in the section of the bylaw that excludes it. Maybe the bylaw needs to be fixed(Ivimey responded that the Board has to judge based on what is before them at this point in time unless the applicant wants to withdraw). "Shall" does not leave interpretation or leeway. Town Counsel: No denying that term used is this provision is Total Gross Floor Area and the word"residential"is not there —there is no denying that most simple, direct reading of that provision would refer to the defined term "Floor Area, Gross". Ivimey: Because language is clear and not ambiguous, you do not even get to "what was intent of the authors"? You take the plain meaning of the words in their common use and apply them. If you can do that, analysis stops— you do not try to go onto greater analysis about what it should have been or might have been or,what intent was. Town Counsel: Agrees with Ivimey as a basic legal principle that before one gets into interpretation, you need to find an ambiguity—if ambiguity cannot be found,you cannot go on to second stage. Wahlstein: • Board used RGFA in prior owner's application and voted in favor of it • In the definition of RGFA it is not possible to take any measurements using GFA—RGFA allows you to take partial floor—which is why it is applied to townhouse or apartment to come up with the 1500 sq.ft. which,he believes, is why Counsel has said the appropriate measure to use is RGFA. Brewer: • During the VBD bylaw discussions, the anticipated building type was commercial on 1" floor and residential on upper levels — real mixed use with residential presence to support the commercial components. Town houses were not part of the discussion. This application is a hybrid between single family residential and commercial that has not been fully thought through as a possibility for this part of the Village. • Parking was not an issue as part of the bylaw review • This building type is a good transitional type between the village and the residential districts • A number of terms in the bylaw overlap—Board is getting stuck on some of the wording • He is not wedded to the concept of <1500 sq.ft. for a unit because of the other terms and, the special permit process allows the Board to use judgment where reasonable. There is latitude. • Parking,whether attached or detached would not be part of an apartment above commercial • These townhouses have basements — very different from what was being considered at time of discussion about the bylaw. Town Counsel: • Board cannot ignore a bylaw requirement unless bylaw specifically gives authority to do that. VBD bylaw only specifically grants Board authority regarding front, side and rear setback waivers. Otherwise, you are talking about a variance. Authority to grant variances is still with the ZBA Roberts: totally surprised by this discussion—thought issue of size was settled and put to rest. Would like to put aside this issue until Att. Humphreys is in attendance. Town Counsel agreed as long as everyone remembers public hearing is closed. Modzelewski: if this were a triple decker on this site,you would have exterior walls with units inside the exterior walls—it is possible that the people who crafted this bylaw were thinking of a building type that these buildings are not—does not think the use of Total Gross Floor Area term is out of line. SECTION 12.4.1.b.1 DISCUSSION ABOUT PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR ACCESS IN & AROUND PROPERTY: Frazier: • Has gotten better but is still not great • Tight site &visibility is difficult although he recognizes that traffic will be slow which is good • Owners will want to put their vehicles on site • Cramped site, no place to put snow, difficult to get around • Restricting size of vehicles in condo docs will help movement and visibility Brewer: • Overall site is tight but has become workable • Will be pleasant for occupants Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6of 8 December 10,2014 • Easy to use, enough room for kids to play Dickey: • Not enough units for there to be a lot of traffic at any given time • Not sure there will be a lot of kids on site. • No question that size is a concern but not sure that the reality of people entering and exiting is as problematic as the size issue Relative to Section 12.6.21 - "...movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the site and in relation to access streets will be safe and convenient." Does the Board consider it safe &convenient? Dickey: Yes Brewer: Yes—particularly with widening of the street Drinan: better than it was — will require vigilance on part of residents — there is adequate room for turning and maneuvering - traffic will be minimal Samuelson: tight but not as concerned due to small size of project—not optimal but within reason Any issues with vehicle size limitation (not over 16 ft. overnight on site)? Samuelson: has to be enforced internally by Condo Assoc. —not sure it will be enforceable Modzelewski: Exhibit`B"—says trust can change any of the above—should be a condition. Town Counsel: no question it should be condition of special permit so bldg. inspector can enforce as well as being in condo docs. Any issues with the one unit that has two designated parking spots(P4&P5 stacked) in their driveway? Brewer: non-issue. Stacked parking does not render it unsafe or inconvenient Modzelewski: Board could tell them to eliminate it and they would still have enough spaces to comply with bylaw OVERALL: SITE ACCESS, MOVEMENT&PARKING ARE AN ISSUE BUT NOT DISQUALIFYING REVIEW OF OTHER APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE BYLAW: SECTION 12.4.1.b.2: OK — has been met. Problem area drainage is going away from well fields. Engineer consultant does not have any issues here—can make this finding SECTION 12.4.1.b.3: Only issue is excessive noise & vibration and that is only during construction, not after— can make this finding SECTION 12.4.1.b.4: No problem—can make this finding SECTION 12.4.1.b.5: Most of Board does not have problem with the landscape plan but Frazier added —"good luck getting all those plants on this site"—can make this finding—how they meet it is applicant's problem SECTION 12.4.1.b.6: OK—it is what it is in terms of the district —can make this finding SECTION 12.4.1.b.7: Economic effect, compatibility&harmony with adjacent properties: Samuelson: Compatible with the adjoining VBD properties but not at all compatible with adjacent residential district—harmony with adjoining properties is an issue for him—this is not in harmony with adjacent properties in terms of this being multifamily with a huge density compared to the small, single family homes adjacent to it. Brewer: Seems compatible with other property in district. Bylaw anticipated more of a commercial component but, there is a commercial component. Economic effect — Increase in property value, tax base, and number of residents within 1000 ft. of Village. Board is stuck with a balance with terms and what they mean ("general" harmony). Sullivan: FAR is not significantly dissimilar to 9 James Lane or other homes in area. Roberts: it is a transition between commercial and residential - slightly less than the density of the Village and slightly more than that of the Residential district and,are substantially better than the bylaw in almost every area. Ivimey: Architecture is in harmony with neighborhood, massing is not. From a technical point of view, oher than a couple of setbacks -it complies with zoning. Does not see an adverse effect on neighborhood other than massing. Any approval or denial has to consider all points of bylaw. Except for concept of massing, he has hard time thinking how this would have an adverse effect on neighborhood. And, with the architecture being compatible with the area,he has a hard time seeing how there could be a problem with it. Dickey: Tough call—looking at just properties in the district and the intent of the bylaw requirements for the VBD there really is not an issue at all — it is actually a benefit. The problem becomes that when you don't look at adjacent properties in the district but you look at adjacent properties outside the district, a tie has to go in favor of the district, otherwise,you are saying you cannot build what complies with zoning for the district. Town Counsel: Interpreting phrase"harmony"is an area where the Board can exercise reasonable discretion. SECTION 12.4.1.b.8: Issue is Section 18.1.b—square footage requirement Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7of 8 December 10,2014 SECTION 18.2 a&b: OK—resolved with commercial component—can make this finding SECTION 18.3: Refers to Site Plan Review Section 12.6 SECTION 12.4.1.b.9: not applicable SECTION 12.4.1.b.10: not applicable SECTION 12.4.2 and 3 and 4: OK SECTION 12.6.2.a: OK SECTION 12.6.2.b: OK SECTION 12.6.2.c: OK SECTION 12.6.2.d: OK - covered by Consulting Engineer review SECTION 12.6.2.e: OK -covered by Consulting Engineer review SECTION 12.6.21: OK - reviewed extensively Ivimev: all applicable sections of bylaw have been reviewed and covered and, apparently met by the application— so it all comes down to the size issue and interpretation of size—show stopping issue is the issue of square footage. Samuelson: still has concern about definition of"harmonious" to adjacent properties —in a neighborhood of very small single family residences argument can be made that building a dense multi-family project on a small lot is not harmonious. There have been extensive comments by abutters indicating there is great concern that this project is not harmonious. Drinan-would this apply to any project being built in VBD that abuts residential? Samuelson- there is something unique about this triangle of land on the other side of the MBTA track which is surrounded by residential. Brewer-there are other commercial properties on that side of the tracks—it is not 100%residential. Roberts: If they had done all commercial, which they would be allowed by right, it would be much less harmonious than what they have proposed. Ivimev: It is not valid to say that this proposal is better than what could be proposed—the Board has to review and rule based on what is before them—it has to stand on its own. Roberts: for a project of this type, there is no evidence that this is not harmonious —no architect came forward to say it is not harmonious — some people have said it could be smaller. One Planning Board member drove by and commented that looks much nicer than what is there. Ivimev: Has heard a lot of people say the size of this project is ruining their neighborhood. Samuelson: with all due respect, he has not heard any evidence from abutting properties owners, including the direct abutter, that they think this is a good,harmonious project. Ivimev: what could be argued is that the plans and the proposed plantings look nice but, in reality, that is not what it is going to look like—you are not going to have the lush trees there—you are going to have an awful lot in a very confined area with buildings that are very out of proportion to what the lot is and what the neighborhood is. If this proposal were on a 5 acre site somewhere,no one would care. Roberts: The railroad is on one side,but conservation land on another side adds green space around it. Applicant's attorney will put in extension request in writing and will include statement that the applicant is amenable to subsequently extending the deadline for filing the decision if needed. Samuelson: suggested that Jan. 215Y might be late for the applicant to submit a bylaw change for Town Meeting — this might help Board deal with the conundrum of the wording in the bylaw as relates to measurement - Samuelson — any change to the bylaw should come from the applicant. Brewer and Ivimey suggested that the two cannot be tied together—that the Board must rule on this application based on the bylaw as it exists now. MOTION: By Member Brewer to continue deliberation to January 21,2015 at 7:30 PM SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 4 - 1 MOTION CARRIES (Samuelson voted nay) Roberts: It is terribly unfair given that there are minutes where the Board used RGFA and the Board voted 5-0 to use RGFA in the prior project decision. His team has incurred substantial expense — if this was an issue and the Board was unable to render a decision because of an ambiguity in the bylaw, in all fairness to his team, this is something that should have been raised before they expended the effort and time (and all the people who attended these meetings). If that was a show stopper, he had a right to know it was a show stopper before. They submitted a legal brief stating that they do not believe it was a show stopper, by your own vote you said it was not a show stopper. To, at this date in time, after almost every issue has been resolved, to raise that as a show stopper is terribly unfair and terrible for development in this town. It is a terrible precedent to ignore your own reading of the bylaw downstream. He would ask the Board to reconsider that —there are many ways to make a decision on this project. He thinks he has an excellent project and does not think there is any evidence on the record that says this Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 8of 8 December 10,2014 project merits a rejection and throwing away the money they have spent on this project. He is saying this to the Board as fellow human beings—to raise this issue at this point in time is terribly unfair. Ivimey: wanted to know if any Board member wanted to work on changing the bylaw right now. Brewer: it depends on who does it—ZAC meets frequently at the time when zoning bylaws are being discussed. Drinan: perhaps members of the Board could draft some proposed language that could be brought to the ZAC. Administrator to get Town Meeting submission deadlines from BOS. Samuelson: there are several upcoming projects that will violate the 700-1500 sq.ft. so it will come up again. • PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINUTES MAXIMUM) -none • TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED BY CHAIR 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MTG.—none MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 9:35 P.M. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7,2015 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON, CLERK DATE: JANUARY 7,2015