Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 04/29/2015 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 5 April 29,2015 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: APRIL 29, 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: 7:05 P.M. 7:05 P.M. ERIK POTTER, MEET& GREET - Mr. Potter could not attend tonight's meeting and is rescheduled for May 6th meeting. 7:05 P.M. ADMINISTRATION - VOTE TO APPROVE APRIL 8,2015 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the April 8,2015 minutes SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING APRIL 19,2015 MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the payroll for period ending April 19,2015. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO RATIFY C.BREWER SIGNATURE ON INVOICES: - D/W INV. #3 100 POND ST.MODIFICATION $78 -D/W INV. #4 100 POND ST.MODIFICATION $78 -D/W INV. #10 SO. SHORE AUTOWASH $195 -D/W INV. #2 1-3 BROOK ST. $1,032.75 -D/W INV. #3 1-3 BROOK ST. $390 MOTION: By Member Ivimey to ratify Brewer's signature on above cited invoices SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES - SET JULY, AUGUST AND SEPT. MEETING DATES: July 1 and 15; August 12; Sept. 2 and 23 7:12 PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINUTES MAXIMUM) -none 7:14 TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED 48 HRS.IN ADVANCE OF MEETING— Member Samuelson suggested that the Master Plan be put on future agendas for discussion since the old Master Plan survey results etc. are some 16 years old and out of date. He would like to see what the formal opinion of the Board is with respect to a Town Master Plan. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 5 April 29,2015 7:15 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATION - 1 JAMES ISLAND WAY, SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION. APPLICANT: CAVANARO CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF JOHN STEINMETZ In attendance to represent article: John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office): • 04/10/15 letter to S. Woodworth Chittick from Cavanaro Consulting with attachments: o ZBA Special Permit Application date stamped: 04/21/15 o Plan ZBA,prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated: 04/10/15 This was before Planning Board about 10 yrs. ago for a multi-lot subdivision and then before the Board for a common driveway and again subsequent to that to modify the common driveway after the Conservation Commission asked them to narrow down the road and make it a more conspicuous driveway at the request of the two home owners. This current application is the next step—have delineated all the wetlands around the island and have filed an ANRAD with Conservation. They are filing for a Special Permit to extend from the hammerhead turnaround to the end of the common driveway to the actual proposed dwelling site. The property is a single lot with the benefit of a sewer connection. Road is to be paved. No relief is being sought for the house. The floodplain is the only reason this is before the ZBA for a special permit. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to recommend the ZBA approve this special permit application SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:30 P.M. 8 JAMES LANE VBD SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW — REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING In attendance to represent article: Attorney Charles Humphreys; Michael Roberts, John Waldstein, Paul Sullivan, James Lane Partners LLC; Attorney Matthew Gaines,Marcus,Errico,Emmer&Brooks,P.C. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office): • 04/28/15 Attorney Matthew Gaines (Marcus,Errico,Emmer&Brooks, P.C.)letter to the Planning Board, hand delivered at the 04/29/15 meeting, date stamped: 04/29/15 • "The Homes at Cohasset Village" handout submitted by Paul Sullivan at the 04/29/15 meeting re: Economic Effect, General Compatibility and Harmony, date stamped: 04/29/15 • "8 James Lane Special Permit in the Village Business District" handout submitted by John Waldstein at the 04/29/15 meeting re: Apartment Size Method of Computation, date stamped: 04/29/15 Member Samuelson read notice of public hearing. Humphreys: summarized why applicant requested to reopen public hearing. Attorney Gaines: reviewed key points in his 04/28/15 letter (which see) regarding common area/limited common area/ exclusive use common area condominiums and measurement and why attics, garages and basements do not bump 8 James Lane application over the 1500 sq.ft. cited in the bylaw. Brewer: asked Town Counsel -when considering MGL 183A vs Local Zoning Bylaws - if one takes precedence over the other. Town Counsel replied that MGL 183A Condominium Law is not really relevant to the question here — the bylaw does not make any reference to the condominium law and these kind of units could be rental or ownership—it is really an interpretation of the terms of the bylaw—if 183A were referenced in a zoning bylaw, it might be relevant and,in his opinion this is not really a conflict and does not really relate to how the Cohasset Zoning bylaw is interpreted. Also, there is a basic zoning principle that, in most cases, form of ownership is not considered—for example,when referring to "multi-family" it could be by ownership or rental—the dwelling is not used any differently based on form of ownership. The MGL governs the creation and operation of condominiums so condominium associations would follow 183A. Dickey: asked Town Counsel if there is any MGL that he is aware of that says the definitions and 183A have to be incorporated by reference in order to trump a town's bylaws? Town Counsel:No. If there is a situation where there is ambiguity or lack of clarity in a definition one way to try to clarify that lack of clarity—once it is established that there really is any ambiguity or lack of clarity- is to look for definitions of the same or similar terms in other laws such as the MGL. Attorney Gaines: in his opinion, the State Laws trump local bylaws when they bump heads. Gaines also stated that when there is ambiguity in a town bylaw, one can look towards other sources to clarify. Since the current proposal Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 5 April 29,2015 is to build condominiums, you cannot ignore 183A and is critical to how you look at this proposed development. John Waldstein, 97 Millbrook, Milton, and, James Partners LLC: distributed and reviewed handout of method of computation of apartment size (which see). Added that the amendment going before Town Meeting is a clarification of the ambiguity in the bylaw. Dickey: As he understands it, the Gross Floor Area (GFA) definition contains ambiguity because it would require you to measure the total floor area of the whole building as opposed to the floor area of a given apartment. Where as Residential Gross Floor Area (RGFA) does not and yet, the definition of RGFA dos not use "apartment" or "dwelling unit" but uses "residential structure" — he would assume that an apartment building is a residential structure not the individual units in the structure so it would seem to him that the same ambiguity as to why GFA cannot be used because it would require measurement of the floor area within the structure and is also present in the definition of"Gross Floor Area, Residential" so he wonders why the Board should ignore the definition of GFA because it uses the word"building"and you cannot use that common sense application with respect to an apartment but we can ignore the residential structure term and take an apartment—he does not understand the logic there—it seems to him that they are picking and choosing. Waldstein: with the RGFA, you can measure a part of a floor rather than the entire floor and the bylaw talks about a residential portion which was his way of trying to understand how you measure an apartment in an apartment building. Drinan: thinks there is ambiguity in the bylaw — the conundrum before them right now is that the applicant must convince this Board under the existing bylaw, whether or not the measurement device of allowing the size presented to the Board is acceptable to the Board. He thinks using RGFA, excluding common areas is reasonable. Humphrey agrees with Drinan fundamental scenario — several members of Board think this is a tough question but help is coming at Town Meeting - applicant would prefer to come out of this permit process with Town's clear statement as to what it means-that will remove ambiguity and be relevant to the Board's decision making process. Requests to continue public hearing to a date after May 2, 2015 Town Meeting to see how Town Meeting vote on VBD amendment might impact their filing. Town Counsel: explained that CH 40A, S- 6 P-1 says that the zoning amendment will not apply if the special permit is granted before the first notice of the public hearing (in this case, reopening public hearing notice). Also pointed out that 90 day decision deadline will be continued accordingly with the continuation of the reopened public hearing and will be extended to 90 days after the now reopened public hearing closes. Humphreys agreed. Modzelewski: Make sure everyone has spoken to two issues: 1. Space was large and it is hard in basements or upper stories to define what is going to be the unit space — common areas, limited common areas—can an area be called a limited common area even if someone has to go through another person's unit to get to it? 2. How should GFA be defined as it was in Section 18? Humphreys: will be defined in Master Deed and reviewed by Town Counsel. Sullivan: passed out and reviewed General Compatibility and Harmony with Neighborhood(which see) comparing properties within 200 feet of James Lane which shows breakdown of commercial, FAR etc. — feels this shows proposed at 8 James Lane is compatible and in harmony with neighborhood. FAR of proposed construction is 0.47 (divided lot area by 7 units) while properties within 200 ft.radius range from 0.23 to 0.82 FAR. Cynthia McCleave, 9 James Lane: still believes they are trying to fit square peg into round hole -still has concerns about traffic and how cars are going to exit onto James Lane (will be right hand exit only turn allowed) and that roadway is being widened on the applicant's side of road,not abutters' side (Yes—on applicant's side) MOTION: By Member Ivimey to continue the public hearing to May 20,2015 at 7:30 P.M. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5- 0 MOTION CARRIES 8:45 P.M. 1-3 BROOK ST. VBD SITE PLAN REVIEW& SPECIAL PERMIT CONTINUED 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; Appl. Shawn Richard; Owner: Andrew Groman. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planniniz Board Office): • Can Tiryaki 04/14/15 response to Latest Review Comments as discussed at 04/08/15 Planning Board meeting, date stamped: 04/15/15 and including attachments: o KIM LIGHTING, VRB1 LED Round Bollard spec sheet, date stamped: 04/15/15 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 5 April 29,2015 o KIM LIGHTING, VRB1 LED Round Bollard, Standard and Optional Features spec sheet, date stamped: 04/15/15 o KIM LIGHTING, VRB1 LED Round Bollard Lumen Data spec sheet, date stamped: 04/15/15 o Sea Gull Lighting 8505891S-12: Small LED Wall Lantern spec sheet, date stamped: 04/15/15 0 52-DD Paver and Boston City Hall Paving Brick Spec Sheet, date stamped: 04/15/15 o IRONSMITH 7210 ADA Tree Grate spec sheet, date stamped: 04/15/15 o Plan Sheets ALL, A1.2, A1.3 with Area Breakdowns highlighted,date stamped: 04/15/15 • Civil Designs, review/comments on 04/15/15 submission, date stamped: 04/27/15 • Abutters Bodell/Carr 04/28/15 letter Tiryaki: reviewed the points contained in latest submission. Noted that full HVAC units have not yet been chosen but anticipates Modzelewski will impost dB limitations via conditions if approved. Also explained how he calculated square footage of each unit (eaves are reflected as common areas in condo does) —Board accepts explanation. Units are still under 1,500 sq.ft. Ivimev: suggest it might be better to extend brick walks up the hill on main St. Henderson reminded Board that walks and ways are under BoS jurisdiction and Board can only request that applicant make this request of the BoS. Modzelewski: reviewed his 04/27/15 review and comment memo of the 04/15/15 submissions (which see) noting that most items are no longer applicable or,have been met. • He noted that other items could be conditioned if Board would like: stop sign at Brook St.; irrigation system; extension of sidewalk; parking space in front of rear dumpster (have to be able to get to dumpster —applicant pointed out that there is an aisle/walkway way which will be used to roll dumpster out to driveway); flush curb both sides of drive at entrance would make entering and exiting site easier and sound specifications for HVAC (he selected Lenox AC —very quiet—he read a proposed condition if the Board wanted to condition). Further discussion about HVAC units —if the number of HVAC units is increased, the sound of each unit will have to be lower. Modzelewski did not have comment on the aesthetics of the lighting and recommends standard condition of"no light may be cast off site". No floodlights are proposed. • RE: Bodell/Carr letter (they not present at this point in the meeting)—Modzelewski wants clarification about their issue with retaining wall because it is clear to him that retaining wall is short but they keep bringing it up. • RE: Bodell/Carr letter (they were not present at this point in the meeting) — Modzelewski noted that the setbacks on the plan are correct. Henderson added that, with all due respect, their point has no merit — the statute could not be more clear that it is an exception - that they can take the average setback of buildings within 200 ft. AND, the buildings do not have to be on the same side as the proposed building, they only have to be the closest buildings within 200 ft. This is very clear in 5.4.3 and has been used by the ZBA as a standard and an exception for years. • Parking and Loading regulations: Needs to be addressed in decision. According to Section 7.2.14 the 3 front spaces that were in existence at the time the VBD bylaw went into effect are going away and that adequate provision for the parking has otherwise been proposed—will have to be added to findings. Henderson added that they are substituting conforming spaces for spaces that were very unsafe, non-conforming and that they otherwise comply with the bylaw because there are sufficient spaces to support the residences and the proposed commercial/retail qualifies to use spaces in the municipal lot. Asst. Chief Dockray: He is satisfied: they submitted fire flow data; the distance between the two buildings is satisfactory and the buildings are going to be sprinklered. He has no further comment. Carr, 88 So.Main St.: continue to be concerned about several issues—wants his letter submitted into public record. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to close the public hearing and move on to deliberation SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES Town Counsel: advised Board to consider whether the criteria for granting special permit have been satisfied. Ivimev: Read and led review/discussion of 12.4, 12.6 and Section 18: • 12.4 Para. 1,last sentence - Not detrimental ...environment"—satisfied • 12.4.1.a-satisfied • 12.4.Lb-not asking for any exceptions—applying for special permit because bylaw requires it • 12.4.Lb.1 -satisfied Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 5 April 29,2015 • 12.4.1.b.2 - water does not seem to be issue—sewer indicates there is adequate sewer capacity-satisfied • 12.4.1.b.3 - satisfied(condition getting other appropriate permits if blasting is required) • 12.4.1.bA—dumpster and recycling room -satisfied • 12.4.1.b.5 -satisfied • 12.4.1.b.6—none required- satisfied • 12.4.1.b.7 -satisfied • 12.4.1.b.8 - See section 18 discussion • 18.1.a - satisfied • 18.l.a.i—satisfied—FAR is slightly over 1.0 • 18.l.a.ii—not applicable • 18.l.a.iii—not applicable • 18.Lb—satisfied—units are just under 1,500 sq.ft. each(1499, 1498, 1493 sq.ft) • 18.Lc—not applicable • 18.l.d—satisfied • 18.Le—satisfied (built in the 1960's) • 18.2.a—not applicable • 18.2.b—not applicable • 18.3—See section 12.6 review • 12.6.2.a—satisfied • 12.6.2.b—satisfied • 12.6.2.c—satisfied • 12.6.2.d—satisfied • 12.6.2.e—satisfied • 12.6.2.f—satisfied—but will ask applicant to make good faith effort to gain approval from BoS for stop sign at Brook St. • 7.2.14 — current building does not require the amount of the existing parking and adequate provision for parking has been made by the current applicant MOTION: By Member Ivimey that this project as reviewed and will be conditioned satisfies the criteria required to grant a Special Permit and Site Plan Review approval subject to conditions discussed during deliberation. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 9:40 TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED 48 HRS.IN ADVANCE OF MEETING— Carr, 88 So. Main St.: asked how this decision by this Board as VBD Special Permit granting authority is appealed? Town Counsel indicated that a special permit is a state statute not local statute and that Ch. 40A, Sect. 17 sets out an appeal process. Richard Henderson : brought up issue of Manor Way Circle—applicant wants to put in foundation. To be discussed in detail at May 6t'meeting. MOTION: By Member Drinan to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 5- 0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON,CLERK DATE: MAY 6, 2015