HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 04/08/2015 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 7
April 8,2015
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: APRIL 8, 2015
TIME: 7:00 PM
PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING ROOM
41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025
Board Members Present: Clark H. Brewer, Chair
Charles A. Samuelson, Clerk
Michael Dickey
David Drinan
Brian Frazier,Associate Member
Stuart W. Ivimey
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. 19 HOBART LANE—LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING -APPL./OWNER:
PAUL TEDESCHI—For full transparency, Samuelson disclosed that he purchased his home about 15 years ago
from the Tedeschi's.
In attendance for discussion: Can Tiryaki,Tiryaki Architectural Design; Owners Paul&Jill Tedeschi.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office):
• ZBA Special Permit application, date stamped: 03/17/15
• Site Plan ZBA, prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated: 03/12/15
• Architecturals A0.0, AE1.1, AE1.2, AE2.1, AE2.2, ALL, A1.2, A1.3, A2.1,A2.2, A2.3,A2.4, prepared by
Tiryaki Architectural Design, dated: 03/12/15
Existing house is approximately 5,200 sq.ft. Proposal is to demo an existing wing on left half of the residence and
build new addition which results in reduction to 4,994 sq.ft. Existing house is non-conforming on 3 sides. Proposal
reduces footprint on both sides. New tower element will not likely block anyone's views —tower is still under the
35 ft. height limit. Overall, proposal is less non-conforming in setback but more non-conforming in height(tower)
although still less than the 35 ft. height limit. Proposal has already been before ZBA and is awaiting ZBA decision.
Planning Board reviewed ZBA special permit application and had recommended the ZBA issue the special permit.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to recommend the Building Inspector not issue the Building Permit for
this project until such time as the applicant has received the special permit for the height non-conformity of
the tower - in all other respects the Board feels this project complies with zoning and should be issued a
Building Permit with the standard Large Home Review conditions of approval.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
7:12 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
- VOTE TO APPROVE MARCH 25,2015 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the March 25,2015 minutes
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
- VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING APRIL 5,2015
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the payroll for period ending April 5,2015.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 7
April 8,2015
- VOTE TO RATIFY C.BREWER SIGNATURE ON INVOICES
- CDI INV. #368 1-3 BROOK ST. $1782.50
CDI INV. #369 MANOR WAY CIRCLE $155.00
MOTION: By Member Brewer to ratify C.Brewer signature on above cited invoices
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
7:15 P.M. ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLE 19 CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING:
GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATIONS OVERLAY DISTRICT
In attendance to represent article: AEC Chair Shaun Selha.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office
• Version 10 04/06/15 as forwarded by Shaun Selha
• Town Counsel Red Lined Version 04/06/15
Town Counsel noted that the changes were not substitive — more organizational and some things that are not
appropriate for inclusion in a zoning bylaw were deleted. Selha passed the current draft by Dept. of Energy
Resources who said it complies with the as-of-right siting requirements for Green Communities.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to recommend approval
SECOND: Member Samuelson
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
7:30 P.M. 71, 83 AND 85 SO. MAIN ST., RED LION INN — VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT
SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: CARR, LYNCH
& SANDELL. Member Samuelson recused self for unstated reasons (Town Counsel gave opinion that a Board
member does no have to give reason for recusal). Humphreys disagreed with recusal without explanation.
Brewer acknowledged Member Frazier as the full voting member due to Samuelson's recusal.
In attendance to represent agenda item: Att. Charles Humphreys; Jeff Hassett, Morse Engineering: Colleen
Mederios, McMahon Transportation Engineers; Brion Koning, Cavanaugh Tocci Assoc.; Owner: G. Ordleheide.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office):
• Plans C1 —C7,prepared by Morse Engineering Co. Inc., revision date: 03/25/15
• Architecturals ALL, A1.2, A1.3, AIA, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2 prepared by Carr, Lynch and Sandell, Inc,
revision date: 03/24/15
• Coverage page,prepared by Morse Engineering Co. Inc., revision date: 03/25/15
• 03/18/15 Humphreys letter re: request to amend application to specifically include the Applicants request
under the SSP to hold and conduct outside weddings.
• McMahon Transportation Engineers 03/24/15 Report re: Additional Parking Data
• Morse Engineering 03/25/15 Response to Planning Board Comments
• Stormwater Report&Calculations, revision date 03/25/15
• Red Lion Inn Annexes FAR calculations, dated 03/24/15
• John Hoadley& Sons, 03/17/15 Flow Test Report
• Ordelheide 03/27/15 letter re: demand to close public hearing and vote
• 03/25/15 submission from Jeanne Healey-Dippold — C14A 03/25/15 Engineering Review and Opinion
Regarding Roadway Slope.
• Sewer Commission, 03/24/14, 09/10/14
• Charles Samuelson 03/30/15 email recusing himself from participating in review of this application.
• Civil Designs 04/07/15 email re: provision of verbal comments at 04/08/15 meeting.
• Chart of 2015 weddings booked requesting outside ceremony, dates, time,no. of guests. Submitted at April 8,
2015 meeting.
Brewer wanted to discuss two letters received:
1. Humphreys 03/18/15 letter formally requesting to amend application to allow outside wedding ceremonies
stating that this is implicit in the Special Permit and plans show temporary screening for this outside use—
ceremonies in his opinion are an allowed use— Ordleheide has filed appeal to Superior Court of Egan's decision
that outside ceremonies are not allowed(which ZBA upheld). Brewer and Dickey thought this would
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 7
April 8,2015
complicate an already complicated filing. Ivimey,Drinan and Frazier felt that if this has to be addressed at some
point anyway, it is advantageous to address now.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey that pursuant to Humphreys' 03/18/15 letter the Board will allow the
application to be amended to include the relief to hold wedding ceremonies outside.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 4- 1 MOTION CARRIES (Dickey—opposed)
2. Ordelheide 03/27/15 letter to demand that public hearing be closed&the matter decided. Humphreys confirmed
this is the team's position—client has spent over$30K in fees and they want this to stop.
Brewer noted that Board has to final review of new materials submitted and Modzelewski was not authorized to
start review until 6 days before hearing because of outstanding fees—so Board will not be able to close tonight.
Hassett: Reviewed his 03/25/13 letter (which see) with responses to all comments from Civil Designs, Capt.
Trask, David Spritz,Jeanne-Healey Dippold and Planning Board 02/11/15 public hearing discussion.
Medeiros: Reviewed points in her 03/24/15 Report re: Additional Parking Data (which see). Basically concluded
that there is adequate shared parking to accommodate the Red Lion Inn and its functions. No crashes have occurred
at access points to municipal lot according to police reports. Plan has been modified to 40 traditional hotel rooms
which will only be rented out to wedding patrons on the day of a wedding — so there are no parking impacts
associated with the proposed project. The 40 underground parking spaces will accommodate the new hotel rooms
and replace the existing 40 theoretical gravel lot parking spaces.
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 7
April 8,2015
KonjM reviewed environmental sound levels evaluation and recommendations as outlined in his 01/23/15 report
(which see)—basically concluded that the sound levels will comply with MDEP criteria(which was not disputed by
peer reviewer). Recommends building a sound wall to remain in place until winter of 2016 to block acoustical line
of sight—lodge will replace function of the sound wall once lodge is constructed. Also stated that the buildings do
not create a sound problems, they solve them. Mansard roof will provide 4 sided sound barrier for HVAC noise —
studies were based on actual equipment they will use as provided by team engineer.Unamplified voice has not been
regulated — a party in the parking lot, is a police matter, not an MDEP matter. Applicant proactively addressed
sound (temporary sound wall) in response to neighbors' complaints although it is not legally required.
Fundamentally,the peer review report is in agreement with his report.
Humphreys: on matter of Special Permit: Last year there were 20 scheduled outside ceremonies over 7 mos.
although due to weather conditions, there were not necessarily 20. This year there are 17 requested outside
ceremonies from May— Sept. (handed out chart of requested ceremonies). Humphreys played DVD of a couple of
outdoor wedding ceremonies as example of the noise. (copy of DVD to be submitted).
John Modzelewski: Interim Report:
1. Acentech review of sound consultant's report—noted sound level predictions were based on the building being
in place—Board is now being asked to allow outdoor ceremonies before the building is in place. There were no
attempts to quantify noise levels at abutter houses before structures were built. Sound levels on page 2 were
based on 35 people—increasing number of people will increase sound level db—is 35 people a good measure
for a 150 guest wedding? Koning- there is not enough room to accommodate that many people.
2. Parking requirement: Modzelewski is confused — parking calculation refers to requirement of 1 spot/unit in
hotel—does not mention the 14 units in the existing Inn—why were the 14 existing not included as requiring
parking? Humphreys based on 2000 decision which says it is the same number of units as before -they were
pre-existing and that the 22 upper spaces should be reserved for future parking. 7.11 states they can use
municipal lot and parking requirement is none for an increased intensity. Modzelewski asked why then does
plan states"required parking—40"? Humphreys—because hotel says 1 space/hotel unit.
Modzelewski to take look at the summary and the provisions of the bylaw as part of his report.
3. Driveway slope: looked at towns—for subdivisions, no other town would allow anything>8% slope. Although
this is not a subdivision, one can look at it in terms of intensity of use —Hingham talks about minor use —40
unit hotel complex could be as intense or more intense than other town's basis.
4. James Lane width: James Lane is 16.5 ft. width. From proposed drive to So. Main St. —it is unclear who has
rights in the portion of the road that spills over onto the gas station private property. If that land is sold and
developed, the width of James Lane could be decreased. Would be helpful to know sight lines of cars as they
exit onto So.Main S.—might have to mitigate
5. End of driveway: the proposed sidewalk ends about 60 ft. from James Lane — when it ends, where are the
pedestrians supposed to go?
Board comments:
Dickey: confused by sound test using 35 people — Sheet handed out shows 150 guests and more. Humphreys:
cannot put that many people outside —would have to stand or go inside. Koning: if the sound source doubles, the
sound goes up by 3 db—if sound source triples, sound goes up by a total of 4.77 db—it increases incrementally.
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 7
April 8,2015
Drinan: it is Humphreys contention that under the description of VBD parking requirements, there are no required
spaces and they are taking what had been existing and increasing that to 40 spaces.
Brewer: building elevations are pretty awful—looks like unbroken stone—architect could do better.
Public Comment:
Rena Karp, 97 So. Main St.: original special permit condition requires employees to park off street but not in
municipal lot
Gabe Crocker, CHA Consulting (did submit letter—which see) consultant for abutter Jeanne Healy-Dippod:
1. Existing conditions plan shows land broken into 2 parcels—hotel is on separate property than main bldg. Does
this make sense—property line between them creates non-conformity because building runs through the middle
of it? Original, approved application shows it as one parcel. Ivimey- they are in common ownership.
2. Asked if traffic report in accordance with best management practices was submitted? Modzelewski noted that
a parking report was submitted. His consultant wrote comment letter prior to latest report and commented on
a number of things that were not addressed.
3. 15-16% slope is too steep and unsafe. 12.8% is still too steep. In his opinion, slope of no more than 8.3% is
acceptable.
4. Questioned what improvements are being done to existing inadequate conveyance system and to overall parcel
to bring in compliance with Mass Stormwater Regs.?
5. ADA route is public corridor through existing building to access new buildings - existing corridors, elevators
etc may not be sufficient. Brewer—not outside Planning Board realm but usually addressed as part of Building
Code.
Jeffrey Tocchio,Attorney representing abutter Jeanne Healy-Dippold:
1. Re: Items in original 2000 permit that were not completed/constructed (landscaping, handicapped spaces,
valet parking)—can applicant go forward without complying with requirements of earlier special permit?
Much of what is in that 2000 decision effects the "future lodge" such as -until they show that the 22 spaces
are sufficient to handle all the employees etc. that shall be considered reserved area for future parking —ZBA
was looking at that as a swing alternative that this is going to require additional parking in addition to the 22.
What is there today and not constructed is a huge deal. Modzelewski and Town Counsel to look at that
decision and see if there is anything missing that should have been part of this overall master plan. Town
Counsel did opine that 2000 ZBA addressed expanding or altering a prior non-conforming, grandfathered
existing use which is basically what allows them to do what they are doing now — they are here now for a
Site Plan Review and VBD Special Permit for a proposed use and Board should be looking at the proposed
and looking at the bylaw for granting or not granting that Special Permit and Site Plan Approval—the old
decision was really for what is happening there now —they have not sought to alter or extend additionally
their prior non-conforming use andlor structure — and while Planning Board has the authority to do that,
that is not what they are here now for—the old decision is for something very different. The old decision is
there and authorizes them to do what they are doing now and the new proposal is a separate application for
new use and structure. Whether they are complying with their current permit is a matter for the Zoning
Enforcement Officer, not the Planning Board. Tocchio added that it does matter if you apply it to the next
level in that the new proposal adds 40 rooms and 40 spaces, 22 of those spaces are already attributed to 15
rooms existing in the Inn and new application has to be viewed as a layer on top of old decision.
2. RE: slope: waiver of nothing more than 6% has to be based on a finding of considerable injury to the aesthetic
value of the site due to extensive cut or fill — from the perspective of the residential neighbors, this is huge,
massive and is close to where they live. The applicant has not shown why the slope should be chopped down
more — they are not even alleging significant injury to the value. Under any standard, the road is too damn
steep—this also operates as a fire lane for the function hall as well as access for first responders and vehicular
access. That slope is also used for the back of the barn and the back of the Red Lion Inn and the Lilac House —
there are a multitude of firefighting angles that are all served by that slope.
3. RE: compatibility & harmony with neighboring homes: abutting neighbors are two residential homes that are
very close and in different zones — massing of the two proposed buildings is not harmonious with residential
neighborhood along So. Main St.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to continue this public hearing to May 6, 2015 at 7:30 P.M.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5- 1 MOTION CARRIES
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6of 7
April 8,2015
Modzelewski: Section 7.LK it would be helpful to get an interpretation of Section K—permitted by special
permit or permitted as of right? Will collaborate with Town Counsel.
9:15 P.M. 1 -3 BROOK ST. VBD SITE PLAN REVIEW& SPECIAL PERMITCONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING.APPL: SHAWN RICHARD,EAMES CONSTRUCTION INC.
In attendance to represent article: John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting; Can Tiryaki, Tiryaki Architectural Design;
Att. Richard Henderson; Sean Papich,Landscape Architect; Appl. Shawn Richard; Owner: Andrew Groman.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office):
• 03/25/15 Letter from Cavanaro Consulting re: Revised Site Plan Review and Special Permit
• Stormwater Report, revision date: 03/25/15, date stamped: 03/25/15
• Peter Goedecke,ZBA, 03/18/15 response to Carr/Bodell 03/17/15 email
• ECON Plan,prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated: 03/23/15
• Site Plan prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, revision date: 03/25/15
• Building Area/Program Diagram, prepared by Tiryaki Architectural Design, dated: 03/23/15
• Architecturals A0.0, A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, AIA, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3 prepared by Tiryaki Architectural Design,
revision date: 03/23/15
• Landscape Plan prepared by Sean Papich Landscape Architect, dated 03/25/15
• 03/25/15 Cavanaro Consulting letter re: Revised materials
• Civil Designs review and comment memo dated 04/03/15
• Cavanaro Consulting 04/08/15 response to Civil Designs 04/03/15 Review Comments.
• Revised Site Plan SP,prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, revision date: 04/08/15
• Plan TSD—Sight Distance and Turning Radious Sketch, prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated: 04/08/15
Cavanaro: recapped existing and what was originally proposed and the major issue centering around retaining wall
and abutter.Reviewed changes as outlined in 04/08/15 (which see) highlights included:
• By right, took average setback of buildings on either side and moved building footprint further west to those
setbacks so building will be setback 7 ft. from Brook St. — eliminates a lot of vertical issues: Eliminated steep
transition at corner of property; will not disrupt street trees; fully accessible access points on Brook St. side;
eliminated almost all of retaining wall on back of property with exception of about a 30"wall that feathers to grade;
further reduces impervious surface on site; non-conforming lot coverage becomes conforming; no relief is needed
for parking and setbacks; created more green space on back; existing trees will remain untouched; reducing overall
flows from site because impervious has decreased; occupants can back out of parking spaces without backing into
parking area of Masonic building; 3 spaces required for units —provided 5 —Modzelewski wants to know which
section of bylaw they were following regarding parking. Electric lines will go from pole,underground to building.
Papich: reviewed landscape plans: Brook St: brick paving with granite slabs, street trees with tree grates. So.
Main St.: short retaining wall; adding 3rd tree; low plantings in 10 ft. between walk and building. Driveway: low
plantings with low evergreen shrubs. Rear: planting up green space with hearty evergreens, holly, rhodis; some
lawn areas; leaving existing trees; screening to abutter so parking will be screened. Irrigation: no plans for
irrigation—temporary irrigation on timer with landscape maintenance company.
Ti 3L& reviewed changes to building. Building and top of rail are just under 34 ft. No catalog cuts yet for
mechanicals—specific mechanicals not yet chosen—Modzelewski to consider screening for sound Each unit is
just under 1500 sq.ft. Measured areas from outside of exterior walls to centerline of interior demising lines.
Modzelewski: reviewed the outstanding concerns as detailed in his 04/08/15 letter(which see):
• Point 11: hydrant flow tests submitted
• Point 12: taken care of
• Point 14: sidewalk on Brook St. and trees on public way—BOS decision
• Point 19: sconce light fixtures on building, low bollard lighting on back- Modzelewski wants cut sheets
• Point 22: recommends making best effort to get stop sign on Brook St./So.Main St. intersection
• Point 23: special report not needed since wall is only 30"high
• Point 24: provided
• Point 25: resolved
• Point 27: addressed
• Point 28: ends at retaining wall—could consider extending—more an aesthetic issue
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7of 7
April 8,2015
• Point 29: no exception taken
• Point 30: Board should just be aware of—Modzelewski agrees with applicant's assessment
• Point 31: Plan is to have trash inside building. Outside dumpster might be necessity for retail space.
• Point 32: provided for right turn out of driveway—could mitigate so cars don't have to swing out so far.
Board comments:
Frazier: continue brick along So. Main if possible. Detail for tree wells. Brick specifications. Consider larger trees.
Ivimey,DickeX: No comments
Drinan: enormous improvement over existing
Samuelson: thinks 1500 sq.ft. calc is off—suggests doing floor plan with calcs in color code
Other comments:
Asst. Chief Dockray:
• wants copy of flow test
• wants exact width ofpassage way between Masonic building and proposed building
Ted Carr, 88 So. Main St.: will submit letter
• concerned about mechanicals and lighting
• if restaurant is tenant—would like Board to condition where outside restaurant would need to be located
• only 3 parking spaces should be allowed in back—Board should condition only 3 spaces allowed
• concerned about cars parked blocking outdoor garbage
• Should have discussion with Fire Dept. about car/trash fire and potentially blocked dumpster
• Retaining wall to"be built by others" -wants ownership of who will build wall
• Is 14.5 ft.retaining wall at sea level? Heard 30"tonight—wants clarification of exact height
• Wants someone to take responsibility for engineering of the wall prior to determination of special permit
Realizes that Planning Board is the Special Permit Granting Authority for the VBD but wants Planning Board to
understand that there are other expert Boards that the Planning Board can consult with for variances if the Planning
Board feels they cannot answer questions about stormwater and variances- many of which exist on this proposal-
Henderson noted that applicant is not seeking any variances from ZBA for this project and will be filing
appropriate applications with Conservation Commission following final approval from the Planning Board.
• In general, an improvement,but needs to see a lot more detail before he is comfortable with it -there is a long
way to go on this project before he can support it.
• Consider giving more time for public comment(Chair corrected Mr. Carr that the 5 min. max. is cited for the
general public comment agenda item as detailed on the agenda)
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to continue this public hearing to April 29,2015 at 8:45 P.M.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED 48 HRS.IN ADVANCE OF MEETING-none
PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINUTES MAXIMUM) -none
MOTION: By Member Drinan to adjourn at 10:30 P.M.
SECOND: Member Ivimey
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON,CLERK
DATE: APRIL 29,2015