Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 02/25/2015 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 7 February 25,2015 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2015 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: 7:03 P.M. 7:03 P.M. ADMINISTRATION - VOTE TO APPROVE FEBRUARY 11,2015 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve the February 11,2015 minutes SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 3-0 MOTION CARRIES (Samuelson abstained Dickey arrived late) - VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 22,2015 MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the payroll for period ending February 22, 2015. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES (Dickey late) - VOTE TO RATIFY S.IVIMEY SIGNATURE ON -DW INV. #18 FOR 8 JAMES LANE $604.50 -DW INV. #20 FOR TOLL BROS. $390.00 -DW INV. #1 FOR 1-3 BROOK ST. $ 97.50 -DW INV. #12 FOR RED LION INN $195.00 MOTION: By Member Brewer to ratify Ivimey signatures on above cited invoices SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES (Dickey late) - SET APRIL,MAY,JUNE 2015 MEETING DATES: April 8,29; May 6 and 20; June 3 and 17 7:05 P.M. 417 JERUSALEM RD. LARGE HOME REVIEW CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING In attendance to represent application: Robert Parris,Parris Associates. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office - Form 11 with Statement of Litigation Policy attached, date stamped: 11/20/14 - Plans C-2.0, A.0 A.5,prepared by MBL Land Developing and Permitting Corp., dated: 10/02/14 and 11/12/14 - 02/18/15 letter from Attorney Adam Brodsky with Plans A.1 — A.5 and Plan C-2.0 revision date 02/12/15 attached. - Comments from: Water Dept.; ZBA; ConComm; BOH; Sewer Commission - Plans EXC 1.0; C-1.0, C-2.0, A.1 —AA used by Parris during meeting - Plan C-2.0 used by Carmen Hudson at meeting. The Board reviewed the plans presented by Mr. Parris at this meeting which were not the same plans the Board had earlier received(Mr. Parris' plans were collected for the record). The applicants propose to raze the existing single family residence and construct a new 6,186 single family residence. Much discussion ensued regarding setback Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 7 February 25,2015 encroachments by overhangs which violate front and side setbacks and lot coverage zoning violations. These potential violations were noted by Carmen Hudson, Cavanaro Consulting and, in her opinion would require variances. Mr. Parris indicated the plans could be simply modified to correct those violations. Bob Rechner,401 Jerusalem Rd.; wanted to make sure Board is completely informed as to the plans and sees that plans are compliant. Public has had to dig for information. He and others have spent a lot of money to make sure that what is being built is compliant—neighbors are counting on Board to make sure everything complies. Maryanne Wetherald, 419 Jerusalem Rd: location creates a great view vista on Jerusalem Rd.—abutting houses are about 2,000 sq.ft.—this proposal will change the landscape—concerned about ledge removal MOTION: By Member Samuelson to recommend that Building Commissioner Robert Egan not issue a building permit based upon plans before the Board at tonight's meeting. The Planning Board would like to see vertical lines added to the plans to more precisely show the height in relation to the grade and to more clearly show how high the building is. The Board has concerns that, as currently designed, the permitted projections violate the bylaw. Further, as regards potential lot coverage violations, Board suggests the Building Inspector carefully review the calculations to insure that lot coverage sections of the bylaw are met. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 8:05 P.M. 61 JOY PLACE, LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: HEIDI CONDON ON BEHALF OF OWNERS GARY AND PATRICIA ROSS Member Samuelson read notice of public hearing. Member Ivimey recused. In attendance to represent application: Heidi Condon and Alicia Jones of HC Design. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting(On file in Planning Board Office): - Form 11 with Statement of Litigation Policy attached, date stamped: 01/21/15 - Site Plan LHR prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated 01/09/15 - Architecturals Al-0, Al-1 , Al-2, Al-3, Al-4, A2-0, A2-1, A2-2, A2-3, A2-4, A2-5 prepared by HC Design, dated 01/20/15 - Comments from ConComm. BOH,ZBA, Sewer Dept, 2.5 acre lot is largest lot in neighborhood. Proposal is to raze existing single family residence and construct two structures - a 7,374 sq.ft. single family residence and a 1,378 sq.ft. living quarter above garage as a seasonal living space. Condon distributed Assessor's Maps of neighborhood with square footage of all neighboring homes marked — proposed home, while on largest lot, is not largest home in neighborhood. Lot coverage is being increased from 12.5 to 13.9; maximum coverage is being increased from 3.9 to 4.3; midpoint from average grade is 32.5 ft.; and, ridge height is 37.5 - all measures are all below allowed limits. Residence is completely outside wetlands. Have received NOI and SWP approvals from Conservation. There are no zoning issues. MOTION: By Member Samuelson to recommend Bldg.Inspector issue building permit for this proposal. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES 8:15 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS - 132 CJC HWY. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE.APPL: KEVIN DUGGAN Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office - ZBA Application, dated stamped 02/17/15 with attachments prepared by Metro Sign&Awning Building Commissioner Egan in attendance to introduce application for variance request. Old Colony Square owners would like a sign more appropriate for retail space, similar to signs at Shaw's and Curtis Liquors Plazas. Retail tenants do not feel current sign is attracting customers. Board thought proposal was a substantial change to existing sign and is pushing the size bounds of what they would like to see. MOTION: By Member Samuelson to recommend the ZBA deny the requested variance. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 7 February 25,2015 8:25 P.M. 8 JAMES LANE VBD SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW CONT. DELIBERATION In attendance to represent application: Attor. Humphreys;Appl. Michael Roberts; Paul Sullivan; John Waldstein. Humphreys: requested Board reopen public hearing for two reasons. First - the solution they attempted to offer in terms of what is unit area and what is common space —Humphreys contacted Town Counsel who advised that his advice is confidential—was never brought up again at public hearing. They obtained opinion from preeminent firm in condominium representation who offered cogent opinion as to why limited common areas should not be included in floor area calculation. Second, it would be important to have public hearing for final discussion about all these issues to see if they can conciliate the issues rather than end up in court. They are trying to get consensus on what this bylaw means. Happy to pay for re-notification and discussion can be limited to one hour and the Board can close and decide. Wants Board to have every opportunity to analyze the issues. Ivimey: remembers hours of discussion about units being too big and whether they comply with zoning. Seems applicant wants another opportunity to have another lawyer present same argument that has been presented several times, but out of a different mouth to convince Board that applicant is right and Board is wrong. What new information would applicant present other than opinion that Board's interpretation of bylaw is wrong—that has already been done. Humphrey applicant studied bylaw and 2011 decision and findings — in order to get into this game, Board required applicant to pay the $4400 unpaid fees of previous applicant because that application was relevant to what was going on. The minute this hearing started,you said it was too big,too tight, 10 pound in a 5 lb. sack. Ivimey: why didn't you bring in this opinion then? Humphreys: we hadn't gotten to that point in the hearing. Ivimey: but you knew it was an issue then. Humphreys: I did bring in as an issue. Ivimey: And you argued the issue and now you just want to bring in another suit to say you are right. Humphreys: but you did not discount the issue. Ivimey: I got tired of arguing with your client — it got down to a point where I would say to you and your client that my opinion is different than yours and you would say your opinion was different than mine — but I never said I surrender. You made these arguments and they were not persuasive. Samuelson: suggested they could withdraw without prejudice (Town Counsel —they could choose to do that but the Board does not have to allow a withdrawal). If Board denies the special permit,they cannot return for 2 years— either way, could cause significant delay. Humphreys: withdrawal without prejudice is not viable option. Roberts: each Board member has different theory about how to measure size of apartment — made it difficult to submit plans. Ivimey: but that's life—it's the same on the Supreme Court—burden is on the applicant to submit something that meets the bylaw—what I am hearing is that you don't think you met this one. Humphreys: It is less expensive and more effective to have a shot at presenting this info. to the Board and to buy time to see what happens at Town Meeting — applicant has spent a fortune on fees and on changing & modifying plans and are entitle to most highly informed decision without spending more money in court. Applicant meets the test and Board cannot find oversize by application of bylaw. Ivimey: I am not seeing any new fact—just same argument over and over on different letterhead. Humphreys: those opinions have been run by many people and confirm that the applicant is correct. Town Counsel: when considering reopening public hearing, Board should consider what it reasonably anticipates would be dealt with at reopened hearing. Normally it is a piece of new information that needs to be dealt with. Roberts: new piece of information is that—under the new opinion— space that could be counted in order to bring this over 1500 sq.ft. per unit cannot be classified, as a matter of Mass. Law, as part of a unit. Ivimey: You already made that argument—that is why you took the units that were too big and created this whole concept of basements, attics and garages as common areas. You would not have done that if we had not discussed and argued that. Roberts: We actually believed in good faith that ssue of size had been resolved or we would not have wanted to close public hearing -we never thought this issue would come up during deliberations—we would have brought in more evidence that supported claim that it is mathematically impossible to use the standard of measurement"Gross Floor Area". Ivimey: you already made that argument. Roberts: disagreed. There are 4 theories on the table and different Board members each share different opinions: LIP Theory—language got into bylaw because of housing requirements; theory where you would not say the gross floor area of a boat includes the dock—that this was never meant to refer to Gross Floor Area which runs to buildings, not apartments. There are many different arguments they could bring forward including that of their expert who says that if they exclude certain areas from the apartment, it cannot be part of the apartment—they never got a chance to pursue that with the Board. What they are Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 7 February 25,2015 looking for is something more equitable — they just want to work something out so they can build their project. Ivimey: but you are just suggesting bringing another suit in to tell us you are right and we are wrong. Roberts: we want to know what Board thinks and wants us to do. Could not understand what Board wanted in terms of method of calculation because Board did not have consensus among themselves. TwoBoard members like project, two can't figure out how to legally approve it,two do not like project. Ivimey to Town Counsel: Isn't it a fundamental of deliberations—to understand facts and apply law to the facts— Town Counsel would not disagree with that. And, isn't it also fundamental jurisprudence that if you can determine the meaning of the statute by reading meanings of its terms and language whether you agree with it or not, that you apply the statute based upon the plain meaning of the words and don't get into why the words were written—Town Counsel agreed that is generally the principal. Wahlstein: cannot just read words—have to look at harmonious whole—cannot just stop at Gross Floor Area and decide that means "Floor Area, Gross" and be done with it — question is not Gross Floor Area, it is Gross Floor Area of a single apartment— "shall" is "shall" and shall is that it "shall" be no less than 700 sq.ft. and no more than 1500 sq.ft. —you cannot separate "Gross Floor Area" from what you are trying to measure. You are trying to measure the Gross Floor Area of an apartment and you cannot take Floor Area, Gross and measure floor area of an apartment — they and it is impossible — you have to read whole concept and try to apply concept to a single apartment and, a single apartment is a portion of a building. Ivimey: so you want to reopen the public hearing to apply more legal analysis. Humphreys: more advantageous to have one more public hearing. Roberts: no one knew size would be a showstopper—merchants did not know either—this is important application for merchants—viability of their project is effected as is idea of people being treated fairly—we never had chance to bring public in who think they are being shut out of the process—save town a lawsuit and let public weigh in on issue. We can give the two members who are searching for legal basis to approve project the legal basis they are looking for. Samuelson: does not want to be in a big hurry and shut off a solution that would be good for everyone - may take a couple of shots at Town Meeting. Roberts: it gives them much more flexibility to reopen rather than closing down and voting"no" —its worth it for them to have opportunity to make their case because of cost to the Town—people he has spoken to who worked on this bylaw do not feel the way it is being interpreted is necessarily how it was intended. MOTION: By Member Drinan: there has been enormous confusion, grasping for clarity around definitions, looking for historical inconsistencies - if one more meeting would give Board opportunity for additional clarity, he would be in favor of that-if it means that other things may be clarified in meantime,that would help all the more. SECOND: By Member Dickey Samuelson: if Board votes to reopen public hearing and since it has to be noticed etc., if the hearing goes past the Town Meeting and, if Town Meeting were to pass a bylaw amendment, the Board still has to address this application against the current bylaw — correct? Town Counsel —this application would be considered under the current bylaw-period. VOTE: 4- 1 MOTION CARRIES Town Counsel: has to be renoticed just as it was at the beginning. Humphreys: formally requests that public hearing be reopened and agrees to eliminate requirement to issue a decision in conformity with prior closing of public meeting and to waive Board's obligation to render a decision based upon earlier closing and Board's time requirements are the same as if Applicant was just filing a new application (Town Counsel — or, as if the hearing never closed — statutory procedure will be followed as if the hearing never closed). MOTION: By Member Samuelson to reopen the public hearing on April 29,2015 SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 7 February 25,2015 10 MINUTE BREAK 9:25 P.M. ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ZONING ARTICLES PUBLIC HEARING. - ARTICLE X: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 18 — SPECIAL PERMITS IN THE VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT. Member Samuelson read notice of public hearing Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office): -Notice of Public Hearing with draft article attached, date stamped by Town Clerk: 02/12/15 MOTION: By Member Samuelson to continue this public hearing to March 11,2015 at 7:30 PM SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 9:30 P.M. 1-3 BROOK STREET VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: SHAWN RICHARD, EAMES CONSTRUCTION. In attendance to represent application: Attorney Richard Henderson; Applicants Shawn Richards and Owner Andrew Gorman; John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting; Can Tiryaki,Tiryaki Associates; Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office • Application packet and narrative, prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated: 0l/19/15 • Form 10—Application for Approval of A Site Plan, date stamped: 01/21/15 • Planning Board Statement of Litigation Policy signed by applicant and owner, date stamped: 01/21/15 • Comments from Jennifer Sullivan, Board of Health, date stamped: 01/22/15 • Comments from Paul Shea, Conservation Commission, date stamped: 01/29/15 • Comments from Diane Hindley, Sewer Commission, date stamped: 02/03/15 • Water Department, date stamped: 02/04/15 • Design Review Board 02/06/15 minutes from 02/05/15 meeting. • Civil Designs 02/11/15 comment letter • Response to CDI Review Comments dated 02/11/15, from Cavanaro Consulting, dated 02/23/15 • Stormwater Report Associated with Town of Cohasset Site Plan Review, Date stamped: 02/24/15 • Site Plan SP,prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, revision date: 02/23/15 • Abutters Bodell/Carr, 88 So. Main St., comment letter dated: 02/24/15 • Diane Hindley, Sewer Commission 02/25/15 clarification email. Record set of plans(the"Plans"): PLAN DATE SCALE REVISION DATE Plan SP—Site Plan 1-3 Brook St. 01/19/15 1"=20' A0.0 Cover&Exhibit List 01/20/15 n/a A1.0 Proposed Basement Floor Plan 01/20/15 1/4"= 1.0' ALL Proposed First Floor Plan 01/20/15 1/4"= 1.0' A1.2 Proposed Second Floor Plan 01/20/15 1/4"= 1.0' A1.3 Proposed Third Floor Plan 01/20/15 1/4"= 1.0' AI A Proposed Roof Plan 01/20/15 1/4"= 1.0' A2.1 Proposed Exterior Elevations 01/20/15 1/4"= 1.0' A2.2 Proposed Exterior Elevations 01/20/15 1/4"= 1.0' A2.3 Proposed Exterior Elevations&Window 01/20/15 1/4"= 1.0' Schedule A3.1 Building Sections and Details 01/20/15 As Noted A 3.2 Building Sections and Details 01/20/15 As Noted Tonight is a general overview of the project. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6of 7 February 25,2015 Cavanaro: Existing bldg. is approx.. 3,000 sq,ft. footprint; serviced by municipal sewer, gas and overhead electric; no stormwater management; has the 30 ft. required setback from residential; existing is setback deep into the lot( about 18 ft. setback from rear lot line) with parking in front of the building; proposed is about 54 ft. from rear setback—which brings retail access closer to street line on both sides and allows 5 parking spaces to be sited on the back and 1 space on front for a total of 6 spaces (3 spaces are required). Pavement surface is reduced by about 1700 sq.ft. Catchment structure added to low point on corner of lot. Proposing retaining wall along lot line that will peak at about 6 ft. elevation in height but majority of will be much less than that. Lot is about 8,600 sq.ft. Tiryaki: I" floor to be retail with store front windows; 2nd floor is start of residential area— 3 doors to 3 units — each unit is 2-story with dedicated, interior stairway. 3rd level is bedrooms with roof& dormers. From average grade of 12.5 to the midpoint,height is just under 30 ft. which is 5 ft. less than allowed. Hidden interior flat space on roof will be completely concealed with gabled roof. From exterior,upper residential levels are set back to give it separate identity from commercial/retail on first level. Each unit has small balcony. Public comments from the 10,000 sq.ft.view: Wayne Sawchuk: how was the square footage of the unit measured? Tiryaki: there are no interior parking spaces. Measured from outside of exterior wall to demising line of the units — did not include anything < 6 ft. in height (such as hidden eave spaces)—not showing access to areas with ductwork. Ted Carr, 88 So. Main St.: reviewed main points in letter he entered into record 02/24/15 (which see) which cites reason why special permit should be denied —went to great lengths to put this in writing and would like Board to review and consider all the points: • Section 8.7.2: grandfathering applies to building, not lot — application is in error Section 5.3: Proposed setbacks in this project are non-existent • Section 7.2—parking is right next to their home—great concern and sets precedent for non-conformities • Section 12.4.1 - Project is creating an urban alleyway and is not consistent with the downtown Village • Disagrees with height of the wall—neither engineer nor architect will take responsibility for the wall • Fence is appropriate if wall is created • Carr/Bodell will never support the creation of a retaining wall • Carr/Bodell will never give permission for anyone to entire onto their property • Trash collection concerns • Ground and surface water pollution • Concerned about 50 year old trees on his property • Disagree with aspects of runoff and drainage and erosion • Owner intends to build and sell—short term gain with long term effect on Village • Would like full set of plans about mechanical elevation,how elevators are configured etc. Modzelewski: • Elevator goes from 15t to 2nd level • Trees along backline should be located • Property line goes through planters and part of retaining wall • Front parking space needs to be address—Henderson to address in opinion letter • Landscape plans not provided yet • Can back parking spaces be twisted 90' and use access easement as backout area • What is practicable for drainage Henderson: has been abutter for 40+ years — existing property is most hideous in Cohasset — back is a dump — smells—every five years,he hires dumpster to clean out back area and is cleaning up from that property all the time —it is the single worst property in Cohasset Samuelson: This is another development that is maximizing everything — those have tended to be problematic trying to understand what can be done going up against these boundaries. Drinan: needs to understand how the parking works—Cavanaro demonstrated. Brewer: Interestingly,this is the kind of project that the ZBL anticipated compared to some of the others the Board has seen over the years — frontage on Main St. Would like to see: top &bottom of wall; multiple screening approaches; maybe some ADA issues at entries; wants to see clear square footage calculations; color coded plans would be useful; good attempt to mimic village evolution; stepping of elevator works; would be up to applicant to make the case for variance to setbacks. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7of 7 February 25,2015 Henderson: no variances are being requested for this project Dickey: looks tight—look closely at unit space— 1 parking spot near retaining wall looks sketchy Frazier: improvement over existing — concerned with meeting ADA requirements — retaining wall in back is a concern and how it impacts neighbor—look for ways to mitigate height. Ivimey: interesting ideas — access needs to be worked on — continue sidewalk trees uphill. Asked about height compared to Masonic Lodge next door—Tiryaki to provide at next meeting. Modzelewski: issues that need to be addressed: • Drainage is pretty straightforward • Retaining wall — can be done on owners lot without encroaching on someone else's lot but there may also be a way to eliminate the need for a retaining wall. • Zoning issue—using non-conformance on one side of lot and transferring it to a different neighbor • Why does the building stop 6 ft. from the sideline of So. Main St.? Other properties come right to the sideline— why not conform with this urban look? • Discuss what it would be like going in and out of driveway at Brook St. Henderson: Board cannot impose a condition that cannot be fulfilled because it involves property the applicant has no control over—however, they will look into that if the Board would like. Town Counsel to look at: • Question about moving non-conformity to another abutter. • Question about compliance with all setback requirements because building is being razed. (But, as a general matter, razing does not prevent expansion, alteration or replacement of a non-conforming structure as long as there is not an abandonment of the original non-conforming structure). TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED AT NEXT MEETING: • SITE PLAN, TRAFFIC PATTERN, SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS, ZONING ISSUES. MOTION: By Member Brewer to continue the public hearing to April 8, 2015 at 8:45 PM with new submittals no later than two weeks before April 8,2015. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED BY CHAIR 48 HRS.IN ADVANCE OF MTG. -none PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINUTES MAXIMUM) - none MOTION: By Member Drinan to adjourn at 10:35 P.M. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON DATE: MARCH 25, 2015