Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 03/11/2015 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 5 March 11,2015 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: MARCH 11, 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: 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. REVIEW AND VOTE TO APPROVE/ACCEPT FINAL DOCUMENTS FOR 100 POND ST. 2011 SPECIAL PERMIT MODIFICATION In attendance to represent application: Attorney Richard Henderson Town Counsel reviewed condominium docs and advised Board that they look fine —Board will accept them as fulfilling condition of approval A.10. As-Built plans (condition of approval E.2)that were submitted did not have engineer's certification on them so Modzelewski would not accept them — rather than produce another mylar, Henderson requested Board's approval for submission of an engineer's affidavit from M. Flaherty. Board will accept engineer's affidavit. Henderson will put it on the record. 7:05 P.M. ADMINISTRATION - VOTE TO APPROVE FEBRUARY 25,2015 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the February 25,2015 minutes SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING MARCH 8,2015 MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the payroll for period ending March 8,2015. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO RATIFY S.IVIMEY SIGNATURE ON - CDI INV.365 8 JAMES LANE -- $542.50 - CDI INV. 367 1-3 BROOK ST. - $2480 MOTION: By Member Brewer to ratify Ivimey signatures on above cited invoices SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:07 P.M. UPDATE ON PROGRESS OF SOUTH SHORE CARWASH WITH TARGET COMPLETION DATES FOR INCOMPLETE ITEMS. In attendance for discussion: Attor. Jeffrey DeLisi; Paul Mirabito,Ross Eng. Appl. Mathew Murmes. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office • Attorney DeLisi 03/10/15 letter re: project status • 03/11/15 letter from Greg Tansey, Morse Engineering Co.,INC Would like temp. cert. of occupancy (C. of O.) to open auto wash despite fact that they have not completed all conditions of approval (see Delisi 03/10/15 letter). Applicant guarantees completion by 06/30/15 with understanding that if everything is not completed by that date, Building Inspector will void temp C. of O. They Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 5 March 11,2015 will be ready for the temp. C. of O. by March 14 to open on that day. Mound of snow prohibits installation of sound barrier—but abutter Bjorklund is OK with no sound barrier for the temp. time. Mirabito represented Tansey 03/11/15 letter (which see) which states that work abutter Staszko did on his property will not affect this site and, will actually make the drainage systems work even better. Mirabito also certified that everything on the site was built according to approved plans. Applicant will put stripping and cones on base coat as temporary directional indicators and will have staff directing traffic until top coat is installed upon which directional stripping and signage will be permanently added. Delisi also added two holding tanks pumped once/year were reduced to one holding tank pumped twice/year and shown on As-Built plan. This is under jurisdiction of conservation commission. MOTION: By Member Drinan to allow autowash to open with a temp. cert. of occupancy that will expire on 06/30/15 and meeting the conditions deadline of 06/30/15 as set forth in Delisi's March 10,2015 letter. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:20 P.M. JULIA LISINSKI, FRESH FEAST, 105 RIPLEY RD., INFORMAL DISCUSSION (PRE- PURCHASE)RE: EXPANSION OF BUILDING Lisinski signed P&S agreement today. Would like to improve building which is a free standing part of condo association for properties along that corner of Ripley Rd. Wants to expand back towards train tracks to install a walk-in, and a 2nd floor office above and expand kitchen sideways over deck area. Expansion is minimal and will require working out details with condo assoc. Brewer—will need to be handicapped accessible and have unisex toilet. Samuelson—would like to see plans that contain all her planned changes and, site plan before she invests a lot of money. Signage will have to confirm with zoning and, condo association may have restrictions on signage. 7:30 P.M. ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ZONING ARTICLES PUBLIC HEARING. - ART. 19: GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATIONS OVERLAY DIST In attendance to represent application: AEC Co-Chair Marie Caristi-MacDonald; several AEC members; Gordon Deane,Palmer Capital. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office): • Article 19 as filed with the Town Clerk, date stamped: February 18,2015 • Comments from Gordon Dean • 03/10/15 Email from Shaun Selha re: Mariner article • Old Landfill drawing forwarded by AEC Co-Chair Marie Caristi-MacDonald,date stamped: 03/11/15 • AEC power point presentation, date stamped: 03/11/15 Samuelson read notice of public hearing. Caristi-MacDonald provided extensive background information regarding the bylaw. Town Counsel-this is an as of right use subject to Site Plan Review. Town will get benefit of reduced cost. Panels reach max. efficiency at the 10 yr. mark. Company is responsible for removal of panels. AEC determined that leasing is better than purchasing. Solar incentives still existence. Bylaw satisfies As-of-Right so Town can access Green Community Funds. Modeled after State's model bylaw and other Town bylaws. All parcels are at Cedar St. Landfill as an overlay district (Town Counsel — overlay satisfies requirement that this is not spot zoning). Deane: goal is to cover as much of top of the landfill as possible—panels are angled to face south—should not be visible—most of surrounding area is wooded. Board concern/comments: • there is nothing in language governing max. height — should be some height bounds even though they are mounted on the ground—Town Counsel noted that the current bylaw height limits would apply but it would be a REALLY good idea to clarify that these structures will comply with any applicable height restrictions. • Does PFD need special equipment and training in case of emergency with the panels? Only need to know where the shutoff is—vendor has these responsibilities. Deane—those considerations are in the bylaw. • Section 21.1.1: there will be some people at Town Meeting wo will take issue with this • Section 21.13: recommend surety provision similar to the Wind Turbine bylaw to protect the Town. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 5 March 11,2015 • There is no specification for efficiency so amount of discounted electricity generated may not be as much as anticipated— should be some expectation that panels will be maintained at a certain level to guarantee a max. level of power. • Tie application to applicable Site Plan Review regulations with statement such as: "Submission must comply with Site Plan Review Application Requirements as outlined in the Site Plan Review Application Packet" — Planning Board Administrator to do. • Martha Gjesteby, Board of Selectmen: How much of the Town usage the panels will offset? Off-hand, AEC did not know—suggested that this is information Town Meeting will want to know. Board of Selectmen are requiring submission of final wording by March 17,2015. MOTION: By Member Brewer to continue the public hearing to March 25,2015 at 7:30 P.M. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 10 MINUTE BREAK 9:15 P.M. ARTICLE X: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 18 — SPECIAL PERMITS IN THE VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office): • Article"W" as filed with Town Clerk, date stamped: February 12,2015. vim Iev: asked Board what problem Board is trying to address—is the bylaw vague and unclear? Does that require adding a word change or a new definition? That is where he thought the Board was going, but the past discussion seemed to have morphed into a discussion of whether the Board should increase the size of permissible units. Frazier: Gross Floor Area(GFA) definition makes sense to him—doesn't want to see units bigger than 1500 sq.ft.— doesn't think bylaw needs to be changed in concept — maybe clarify — capitalize "Total Gross Floor Area" or "Apartment"or qualifier as to how to measure multiple unit buildings. Samuelson: would like to clarify that this should apply universally, regardless of number of units, to any residential dwelling unit in VBD regardless of single, double, multi-family or no. of units. 700-1500 sq.ft. is fine, but would like to see "gross" changed to "net" so attics, basements and garage spaces are not included —prefers "residential gross floor area"or"net" floor area rather than gross and capitalize"Net Floor Area" - keep"shall" Drinan: prefers "dwelling"to "apartment" so all living arrangement possibilities are covered —reasonable amount of space is "net" not "gross" — there is the question of what is a reasonable amount of space — historical discussions about VBD bylaw: concept of garage was not even anticipated; goal was to create more affordable units; discussion about area west of tracks being a different area that should perhaps be a different district or sub- district; 700 to 1500 sq.ft. is a reasonable standard as a"net" Dickee : concerned about lower case "apartment" because it had ambiguity as to whether it applied to owner occupied units or just rental units as well as if you capitalize "apartment"the size restriction would only apply if it was in a structure that had 4 or more units but would not apply if only one apartment were built. Did not like gross floor area because in a tradition "apartment" things like HVAC would be outside the living space and would discriminate against other arrangements such as owner occupied that would have their own HVAC which would eat into available living space—not as wedded to idea of small units in VBD. Brewer: IKEA has 2 models- 1 bedroom(317 sq.ft) and studio (220 sq.ft.). Micro units are uncomfortably small - 700 sq. ft. could be a small 2 bedroom and 1500 sq.ft. could be a reasonable 3 bedroom unit—but really talking about net sq.ft. when talking about these numbers—change"gross"to"net"—cover all variants of units. Ivimev: in agreement with Frazier — idea behind bylaw was to encourage smaller, lower price point units which meets a need the Town should promote — it is good for VBD to have smaller units — landowners can figure out a way to do it—the only thing that is questionably crafted is use of word"apartment" -capitalize "gross floor area"— change"apartments"to"residential dwelling unit" and meet need identified in the study: to have dwelling units on a lower scale—driving motivator should be to encourage smaller units. Changes should be exceedingly moderate. Wayne Sawchuck,432 Beechwood St.: Board members are all saying the same thing in a different way—all would agree that space you cannot live in should not be included (Frazier reiterated that he thinks those areas should be included) -what Board is not considering is,using the definition of gross floor area, how to measure the sq.ft. of a single apartment in a building of apartments with a garage. (Frazier — you identify common areas and then measure within defined walls of the living unit) —whereas the definition of residential gross floor area is exactly Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 5 March 11,2015 what everyone wants. Can control unit size via condo docs. Also, definition says "owner occupied" whereas these units should be able to be sold or rented.A person buys square footage and the right to use the stairway etc. Town Counsel: Section 18.b. makes reference to the total gross floor area of "a single apartment"—that has some relevance — if it was in an apartment building — a building with numerous apartments - that language seems to focus on what is within that single apartment. Likes changing"apartment" to"Residential Dwelling Unit" Waldstein, involved with 8 James Lane: Have to be able to measure a single apartment — definition of"Floor Area, Gross" is common global commercial term—the total floor area within a building envelope — everything in the building envelope. A single apartment by definition, is a part or portion of the building — it is not mathematically possible to apply definition of Floor Area, Gross to a single apartment. Ivimey - 3 applicants have already done it and have been approved. Roberts, applicant& owner of 8 James Lane: Floor Area, Gross includes by definition an entire building—there is only one mathematical answer that can result when you apply Floor Area, Gross —the total building. There are 2 issues on the table—substitive issues where people don't like the bylaw for a variety of reasons including it lets you build big things. In 2007, in order to deal with those sorts of issues, a consultant was hired to deal with the complexity of what should be the size of the units—what works and what doesn't work—those things were vetted— what we are talking about here is a bylaw that was passed in 2007 and as of the beginning of this year, a question was raised that had never been raised since 2007 about the interpretation of the bylaw—the question that was raised was how is the size of an apartment measured in the VBD - some Board members took the position that attics, basements and garages should be included in the calculation — this had never been done before and was never envisioned in the history of the bylaw—the history of the bylaw is that the 700 — 1500 sq.ft. came in as a result of the LIP requirements. Ivimey stopped Mr. Roberts here stating that he was advocating for his project—he insisted that Mr. Roberts make a point relative to the bylaw,not his project. Tedeschi, 1 Jerico Lane, Scituate: the intent of the bylaw was certainly to have units between 700-1500 sq.ft. but have low income or non-luxury apartments was never the intent—that would bring transient tenants and if the goal was to revitalize the VBD, transient tenants will not do that—apartments are not good for the village. The owner of an apartment building will not maintain the building the way the condo association would. His recollection is that the 700-1500 sq.ft. did not include the attic,garage or common areas. Dickey: You are saying that whoever drafted the bylaw made an error by using Gross Floor Area instead of Residential Gross Floor Area. Tedeschi confirmed. Sullivan read an email from Consultant Angus Jennings (who drafted the bylaw) to confirm this. Ivimey asked the Board what they wanted to do: Brewer: craft some language that would be a reasonable modification to what is in place. Ivimey: should we come up with a new term so we don't use Residential Dwelling Unit which would do away with need to have to do research on who they are potentially impacting. Dickev: queried as to whether Board should also come up with a new definition as to how to measure apartments. Samuelson: we do not want large single family homes in the VBD - 700 - 1500 sq.ft. is exactly what we want—it applies to all residential units (any number within a building from one to infinity) and, each unit is measured by its gross residential area, not all the unusable space—put that in the bylaw and developers know exactly what is being measured and what they can build to. Changes to be made by Town Counsel. using Dickey version as filed with the Town Clerk and used at tonight's public hearing. 1. Change "apartment units" to "Dwelling Unit" (on p. 86 also) and change "Gross Floor Area" to "Residential Gross Floor Area" 2. Change Gross Floor Area to Residential Gross Floor Area (in caps) 3. Keep 700—1500 sq.ft. as allowed limits of RGFA Town Counsel to research any unintended consequences. MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve as just dictated to go to final print. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES MOTION: By Member Samuelson to recommend Town Meeting approval SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 5 March 11,2015 MOTION: By Member Drinan to close the Article W public hearing SECOND: Member Brewer 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 10:45 P.M. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2015 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON,CLERK DATE: MARCH 25,2015