HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 06/05/2015 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 9
May 6,2015
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: MAY 6, 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
Stuart W. Ivimey
Board Members Absent: Brian Frazier,Associate Member
Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Planning Board Administrator
Meeting called to order at: 7:02 P.M.
7:02 P.M. 417 JERUSALEM RD.,REVISED LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING.APPL:
ATTORNEY JEFFREY A. TOCCHIO ON BEHALF OF OWNERS PAUL&LISA ROGERS
In attendance to represent agenda item: Attorney Jeffrey Tocchio; Robert Parris,Parris Associates.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office):
• 04/15/15 letter from Att. Jeffrey Tocchio with Form 11 —Application for Large Home Review, Cohasset
Planning Board Statement of Litigation Policy and copy of certified abutters list attached.
• Plans C-2.0,A.1, A2, A3,A4 prepared by MBL Land Development, dated 04/14/15
• Chessia Consulting Services LLC 04/27/15 review of filing on behalf of abutters Wetherald and Recliner
• MBL Land Development 05/04/15 response to Chessia 04/27/15 review comments
Member Samuelson read notice of public hearing.
Since the previous filing: the structure has been reduced by approx. 30% in both width and depth; Infinity pool has
been removed; covered front porch has been reduced to 28 sq.ft.; the largest overhand is now 2 ft. off the base of
the foundation; all overhangs fit outside the setback lines; the footprint is 60+% reduced; and, structure is now
4,711 sq.ft. not including the garage. All measures conform with zoning. Roof deck and 2nd floor balcony will be
pervious(all calculations were based on pervious deck and balcony).
Mr. Parris reviewed MBL Land Development 05/04/15 responses to Chessia Consulting Services LLC 04/24/15
comment letter. The current plans go before the Conservation Commission on May 7,2015.
Attorney Henderson representing abutters Wetheralds, Recliners and Laney (representing 404 Jerusalem Rd.)
acknowledged that there have been improvements made to the recent plans. However, the abutters have been and
will continue to be anxious as this project moves along because the plans have lacked clear and essential
information at times so it has been difficult to determine what was actually happening on the site and, in some
cases, the information was not as accurate as it could be which has precipitated a lot of neighborhood intervention
—Henderson reiterated that while the current plan is an improvement, there is still a lot of anxiety about how they
proceed based upon how long it took to get this specific dimensional information.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to recommend the Building Inspector issue building permits to Paul and
Lisa Rogers for the construction of a new 4,711 sq.ft. (residential gross floor area) residence on property
located at 417 Jerusalem Rd. as per plans presented at this meeting, subject to the standard Large Home
Review conditions, adding the condition that the final plans for this project MUST INCLUDE WORDING
INDICATING THAT THE DECKS AND BALCONY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO CLEARLY BE
PERVIOUS.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 9
May 6,2015
7:20 P.M. MANOR WAY CIRCLE
In attendance to represent agenda item: Richard Henderson
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office
• Civil Designs 05/01/15 email memo re: FRSP review and comment
• Declaration of Easements,Restrictions and Covenants Running with the Land, date stamped: 05/05/15
• Covenant, date stamped: 05/05/15
• Easement Agreement, Date stamped: 05/05/15
Henderson explained that there were two issues:
1. Modzelewski had to speak with Flaherty& Stefan
2. Town Counsel edits to preliminary covenant and homeowners' association— have been dealt with.
Former Cedarmere house has been moved to site and is sitting on what will be roadway to Development— Shanley
wants building permit to put in foundation to move house, once, out of way as it could be viewed as a safety
hazard. However, applicant has not completed conditions of approval that must be completed prior to any activity.
Modzelewski -plans are all set as a Final Revised Plan Set but other conditions have not been met—house is in
middle of where road is supposed to go- it does make sense to move building only once, directly to a foundation.
Town Counsel: Chap. 41 §81U states that a lot cannot be built upon or conveyed until roadway and utilities to
that house are in place. Also noted that performance guarantee from covenant to a deposit after getting estimate of
cost to built roadway.
Brewer: there are too many outstanding conditions that were required to be completed prior to any work on site
and Board wants to follow requirements as much as possible. Ivimev agreed- applicant has had plenty of time to
get things done since date of approval and hasn't.
Modzelewski-a narrative and construction schedule is not asking a lot of applicant.
Brewer suggested the applicant complete the prerequisite conditions of approval and then come back.
7:40 P.M. ERIK POTTER - MEET & GREET — Erik Potter would like to be appointed as Associate
Member of the Board if the May 2 elections create a vacancy. Erik is a real estate attorney - does not anticipate
conflicts with clients as he does not practice Land Use law but would recuse himself should such a conflict arise.
7:45 P.M. 71, 83 AND 85 SO.MAIN ST., RED LION INN—VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT
SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: CARR,
LYNCH& SANDELL. Member Samuelson recused.
In attendance to represent agenda item: Att. Charles Humphreys; Jeff Hassett, Morse Engineering: Jim Sandell,
Carr Lynch& Sandell.; Owner: G. Ordleheide.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office):
Red Lion Inn—East Annex Floor Plans 04/15/15 1/8"= V0"
Red Lion Inn—West Elevation Floor Plans 04/15/15 1/8"= V0"
Red Lion Inn—East Annex Elevations 04/15/15 1/8" = 1'0"
Red Lion Inn—West Annex Elevatons 04/15/15 1/8" = F0"
• Two DVDs submitted 04/13/15 by Att. Humphreys — DVDs of 09/14/14 and 04/14/14 outdoor wedding
ceremonies played at the 04/08/15 Planning Board meeting.
• Ordelheide 04/13/15 letter to Planning Board re: where he stands today towards project
• Ordelheide 04/28/15 letter re: response to Karp 04/24/15 letter
• Civil Designs 04/07/15 email re: provision of verbal comments at 04/08/15 meeting.
• Civil Designs 05/03/15 review and comment re: 03/25/15 Red Lion submissions and, Civil Designs consultant
reports
o David Spitz,Land Use Planner review sent to John Modzelewski, date stamped: 04/29/15
o Stephen F. Mitchell review of revised plans, sent to John Modzelewski,dated 02/14/15
o ACENTECH 04/28/15 response to Board Meeting Minutes and other questions, sent to John Modzelewski,
dated 04/28/15
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 9
May 6,2015
• Copy of 08/06/00 approved landscape site plan signed by Alfred S. Moore on 08/16/00 — submitted by Rena
Karp, date stamped 04/14/15
• Copy of 04/17/02 As-Built Plan prepared by Neil J. Murphy—submitted by Rena Karp, date stamped 04/14/15
• Thumb drive submitted by Rena Karp on 04/13/15 containing:
0 04/19/14 outdoor ceremony with 125-140 chairs-picture
0 04/09/14 outdoor ceremony with 141 chairs -picture
0 04/9/15 fence maintenance picture
0 04/10/15 Red Lion Inn approved special permit plan
0 04/10/15 Red Lion Inn MAPC
0 10/02/14 loading zone picture
o Videos of 08/29/14 and 08/28/14 outdoor ceremonies, 10/02/14 party in parking lot, 01/19/14 guests
mingling
• Abutter Dippold April 22, 2015 letter re: Outdoor Weddings — Special Permit Requested by the Red Lion Inn,
date stamped: 04/23/15
• Abutter Dippold April 22, 2015 letter re: Special Permit Requested by Sarro Realty Trust dba Red Lion Inn,
dated stamped: 04/23/15,with attachments:
o Photo#2 and#3 view, date stamped: 04/23/15
o Village Business District Design Guidelines(09/22/08), date stamped: 04/23/15
o CHA 03/25/15 letter: re: Red Lion Inn — Special Permit Application: Engineering Review and Opinion
Regarding a Roadway Slope.
• Karp 04/27/15 letter re: Red Lion Inn Special Permit
• Humphreys 04/30/15 letter to Planning Board re: response to Jean Healey Dippold and Alexander Dippold
04/22/15 letter
• Civil Designs 05/04/15 memo re: Review of ZBA Special Permit#99-11-18
• Ordelheide 05/03/15 Letter re: Civil Designs Consultants
• Photo of RLI from bank, submitted by Carr Lynch Sandell, 05/04/15
• RLI view from bank, submitted by Carr Lynch Sandell, 05/04/15
Humphrey commented that this application needs to be brought to a close somehow
1) CHA representaton of abutter buildings superimposed onto pictures is a misstatement, exaggeration and
does not properly show the proposed buildings. Sandell presented and reviewed renderings of the same prepared
by applicant's engineers to show CHA renderings are inaccurate. Sandell engineer's renderings show the street
view and sight line, not St. Stephen's Church view as presented by abutter. Sandell commented that while the
abutter renderings might be realistic from St. Stephen's Church view, they would not be what people would see
from street level. Sandell also showed perspective view from abutter Dippold's house.
2) Balconies taken off side facing abutters - windows will be double pane thermal to reduce heat loss with
added benefit of reducing sound transmission coefficient. Modzelewski asked his Acentech consultant what can be
done for hotels - was told that storm windows give some added sound attenuation - Brewer noted that twindows
still have to open so storm windows may not add any sound values and,might add complexity to construction.
Modzelewski: Reviewed the new comments contained in his 05/03/15 comment letter(which see)
• #40: Motel entry slope is still excessive — would be a better project if slope of road (and therefore slope of
sidewalk)were lowered.
• #41: Sidewalk next to motel entry is still extremely steep and difficult to navigate in inclement weather
• #42: Motel entry road intersection needs further refinement. Sidewalk ends and pedestrian and vehicular traffic
will intermingle. Area to So. Main St. should be looked at so pedestrians have route to So.Main.
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 9
May 6,2015
• #43: McMahon 03/24/15 traffic letter:
o Conclusions&predictions are based on not renting to non-wedding guests on wedding days
o No photos after event beginning were provided—should have been a series of photos to be persuasive
o Do not know if bus service was provided during events
o MAPC draft study provides little information about what happens downtown in the evening
o Parking counts professionally counted would have been more valuable
• #45 Interplay between 7.1C, 7.1K, 7.2.8 and 7.2.14. Appears that new design extinguishes the 22-40 parking
spaces that existed at the time VBD bylaw went into effect—Board has to ask applicant for statement about
those spaces make finding that it is OK for those spaces to disappear.
• #46: Review of ZBA Special Permit outline in Civil Designs 05/04/15 memo(which see):
o Neither decision part nor conclusion part, really references a plan. A 10/10/99 plan was referenced but
project was not built in accordance with that plan so he suspects that plan was changed during application
hearings. On that plan, the"Barn"was skewed differently, parking area had a cul-de-sac on the back—so it
did not seem logical that this was plan being considered at hearing. He therefore made assumption that ZBA
decision was based on another plan.
o Comparing current conditions with November 27, 1999 Murphy site plan which had the same title as the
plan cited in the decision:
■ Parking existing on the site at this time is not laid out in conformance with this plan — parking area
extends further south
■ Parking not demarcated as shown on that plan—22 spaces were proposed but about are 40 provided
■ Slope of drive(15%) is steeper than 12%proposed on the plan
■ Utilities appear to have been laid out differently than originally proposed
■ ZBA conditions of approval required:
• Cond. #3 Parking area lighting conform to 7.3.Ld(he has not checked yet)
• Cond. #4 Deciduous shrubbery along lot line not installed (to block headlights) but there is a
stockade for 4-6 ft. that blocks some light
• Modzelewski read Mitchell 04/24/15 letter (which see). Applicant's consultant did not follow standard
engineering practice. Shortcomings highlighted. Basic data necessary to undertake a proper analysis following
standard engineering procedures has not been provided so he is unable to make a positive recommendation
regarding this operation. Even though garage elevation has been modified to improve the grade on the drive, it
continues to be excessive. Four other issues also noted by not addressed.
• Summarized Acentech 04/28/15 sound report (which see): MADEP regulations were started for HVAC, not
necessarily for noise generated by human beings. Over 3 dB clapping can be heard— after that noise quotient
goes up. Bylaw requires Board make decision that there will be no excessive noise at property line —reports
were based at existing abutter residences so noise can be expected to be marginally higher at property line.
• Spitz, Land Use Planner 04/28/15 letter (which see): parking that existed on site during the adoption of the
VBD bylaw is something the Board has to grapple with and make a finding for.
• Number of people who could be seated and clapping can be 70 or more in the proposed circular area —
Humphreys said 100 could fit — he also asked Board to review the tapes he provided of typical clapping —
typically 13-17 seconds over 20 weddings which is about 6 minutes/yr.
• Modzelewski satisfied with drainage plans. Hassett - they are tying drainage to manhole instead of catch basin.
Also adding an additional 12"pipe. Have created depression for catch basin so water flows into it.
Humphreys: Bylaw was passed to invigorate the Village. These two lodging buildings are a responsible use of the
land bringing people and vitality to the Village. MAPC study did include traffic studies—this provided fair opinion
that co-use of parking area works. Requiring more studies/reports is not necessary—Brewer noted that it is fair
and important for the Board, that consultants review and make comments regarding engineering practice and
industry standard. RLI has been operating at present and proposed capacity for 20 years.
Further outlined closing summary:
• Buildings were reduced from 3 stories to 2 stories at request of abutter.
• Proposed lodges meet all dimensional requirements
• Entitled to uses allowed in the VB district which are not reduced if abutting residential district, nor can
residential abutters claim legal harm by applicant doing legal activities within his district—applicant is entitled
to use his property within the lawful uses permitted within his district and that does not create harm to anyone.
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 9
May 6,2015
• Access way—Hassett summarized why they consider this project an improvement:
o Not asking for variance or waive with respect to driveway—subdivision regulations do not apply to it—this
way is totally on private property—will never be public—cannot impose subdivision control standards to it.
o It is existing driveway approx. 15-16% slope
o Fire Dept. did not have issues during trial drive up and down driveway
o Other roads in Town are the same or greater slope
o The driveway slope has been reduced to 12.8% -same slope original"Barn"building was approved with
o Drive is also being widened to 20 ft., adding curbing, drainage is being improved, sidewalk is being added
• Parking:
o There were 22 spaces in 2000 to facilitate use of entire premises - this application adds 40 rooms for
guests who are already there rather than coming in by bus from other hotels—more convenient for guests—
have taken 22 spaces and put 40 spaces in their place — applicant should get credit for every one of those
spaces
o Wedding size is going down
o Never design for worst case scenario — Brewer noted: based on ZBL, 1 space/sleeping room is required.
This means 40 spaces for the proposed lodges and 15 spaces for the existing rooms in the Inn for a total of
55 require spaces so there is still a deficit of 15 spaces for the existing rooms in the Inn. Humphreys
rebutted that Brewer is ignoring 7.Lk of the bylaw—crucial part of the bylaw for this property—all lawful
uses permitted in the VB District do not have a parking requirement provided the legal walking distance
from the main entrance to the nearest designated parking space in the municipal lot does not exceed 500 ft.
o Proposal includes adding sidewalk on access drive which doesn't connect to anything right now — they
propose adding a crosswalk so pedestrians can cross and access the brick area at the entrance to main bldg.
o Also propose directional signs for pedestrians pointing out accessible routes.
OPEN TO PUBLIC FOR COMMENT:
Jeanne Healey-Dippold, 93 So. Main St.: confident in her engineer's rendering of what buildings will look like
from her house. Applicant has burden to bring evidence so Board can certify compliance — in her letters, she
outlined all parts of 12.4 that are insufficient for the Board to certify compliance. Permit runs with land — these
buildings may not be run the same by a subsequent owner. Combined existing facilities can fit 460 people — it is
not being operated at the capacity today, but it could be based on existing permit—current capacity plus proposed
has not been accounted for in the parking. Not wise for the Town to hem themselves in in terms of parking —that
would prohibit future smart growth planning (a second Main St.). People partying, open windows - a lot for
abutters to deal with every weekend from April to November. Screening mitigation has not been proposed—that is
applicant's burden under 12.4, not the Board's. Humphrey's comment that abutters are not suffering legal harm—
she is confident Land Court will find she has standing.
Rena Karp, 91 So. Main St.: showed videos examples of functions they listen to Thurs. — Sundays. Parking lot
was for guests of Inn, not for general function parking. Ivimey -proposed buildings will supposedly buffer noise.
Karp also cited page 3, last paragraph of Acentech 02/09/15 letter, — "if noise from wedding receptions or other
loud indoor events ...warranted". Karp requested that the Board do that.
Attorney Mark Bourbeau (representing abutters KaML Humphreys stated that applicant has "right" to do this —
there is not a "right" to do this, they need a special permit. Applicant has been persistently doing things "not"
within their right for a long time. Applicant does not have a very good track record for doing what they say they
will do and what Boards condition them to do. Modzelewski stated earlier that a number of things have not been
done according to existing permit—Barn is larger than was permitted. How can applicant be trusted to do what he
is required to do? There is harm— sound impacts, insufficient parking straining the neighborhood—they have not
supplied sufficient data that parking will work. Board has independent consultants stating that there is insufficient
data to be able to decide that this proposal will be OK. Disingenuous statements about sound and clapping —
reports were based on 35 clapping guests but weddings exceed 35 guests. Proposal does not have adequate
safeguards in place to protect neighboring houses and district and Village District itself— there is a reason why
ZBA Special Permit states that functions cannot be held outside — applicant is asking this Board to overrule that.
Proposed"amphitheater"may in fact amplify sound and has not been studied by sound engineers.
Ivimey: the only area he remembers the applicant saying"trust me" is the statement that only wedding guests will
be occupying these rooms on a wedding night— does anyone remember any other circumstance—the rest of it is
just mathematics and engineering? Healey-Dippold: "trust me, we are not going to use this during the day for a
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 9
May 6,2015
corporate retreat" its only a wedding use, its only during specific times,its only during certain months,only during
weekends, not for business meetings, rotary club ... there are many "trust me's". Ivimey: understands and is
thinking the current owner will not be the owner in five years and a new owner will try to take full advantage of the
facilities. Brewer: Board does not want to make decision on fear based perspective.
Drinan: his understanding is that compliance issues with prior ZBA Special Permit are not under purview of
Planning Board and that Planning Board is not making decision about compliance with that prior ZBA permit.
Attorney. Jeffrey Tocchio on behalf of abutter Dippolds: traffic study is insufficient— does not meet any standards
for basic studies that are routinely done for commercial ventures. No one is aiming at "worst case" — aiming at
"peak events"—that is what the standard is—the applicant's informal study is not sufficient. Regarding 7.Lk—also
look at 7.2.14 which states that existing spaces cannot be extinguished. Contrary to statement that everything is
the same — there is clearly an additional amount of traffic — the 40 guests that would arrive in cars to stay at the
hotel, would have arrived via bus without the proposed hotel rooms and traffic reviewers would have counted the
increase and treated it as such. Regarding slope — the public that will be using the access drive will be the first
responders that have to use it and will be forced up into a cul-de-sac with no outlet. There was testimony that the
fire truck was driven up there, but there are questions —was it driven up in winter with snow? was it with a full
load? — of course it wasn't. Chief said that, from a public safety perspective —James Lane is a "horror show" —
under 12.4, Board cannot make finding that James Lane is sufficient based upon that statement. Any use is by right
without harm to abutters — 12.4b cites harmony with surrounding neighbors — developer knows there are two
abutting families who are entitled to protection and the right to live a quiet life. Buildings are massive and in close
proximity to abutting houses- screening for abutters is needed. Applicant has been talking about 150 person
weddings, but there has been testimony at earlier hearings that weddings are up to 300 people. Introducing 40
more occupied rooms at the top of that hill is too much, too dangerous for too small an area for public safety -the
lack of other access and egress makes it too risky.
Asst. Chief Dockray.
• Under new Fire Code AFPA1, angle of approach and departure has been changed from 12.8% to 10% grade.
Access to proposed buildings is best via this access road—two tough buildings to access. Fire Dept. wants the
10% grade held and will request that under the new fire code. International Fire Code also cites 10%grade.
• RE: James Lane- it is tough for Fire Dept. to navigate through—traffic on James Lane hampers their access to
all the locations in the area
• RE: self evacuation balconies—access to second floor would be tough for Fire Dept.—40 units/80 guests would
be very difficult for a small 4-5 person Fire Dept. to access and remove guests. Rooms facing residential
abutters have had balconies removed from plans (as concession to abutters) but eliminates quick rescue access.
Michael Karp, 91 So. Main St.: Has resided at this location for 31 yrs. —longer than Red Lion Inn function areas.
First 15 yrs., had buffer zone, woods and orchard. Noise from weddings is underplayed—Karps can hear indoor
weddings and cannot escape setup, tear down, pre&post ceremony and ceremony noise — its 1.5 hours/event, not
just 15 seconds of clapping. Its Thursday,Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights—it is constant.
Wayne Sawchuk, owner 35-39 and 45 R So. Main St.: should put sidewalk on RLI side of James Lane with a
drive on curb for Fire Dept. and ask gas station owner if some of guardrails can be removed and replaced with
mountable curbs—this would provide a little more width when needed.
BOARD COMMENTS:
Dickey: tough for him to vote against a Fore Dept. recommendation.Not as concerned about traffic and parking.
Thinks buildings will act as ceremony noise barriers -not so sure parties in rooms afterwards won't offset that.
Ivimey: agrees with Dickey about Fire Dept. comments. Has problems with the parking— study is inadequate and
flawed — not taking full complex into the count — only took a rosy scenario. Not comfortable with the slope of
access way and sidewalk. Less troubled with weddings — could condition no recordings for outdoor ceremonies.
Troubled with balconies on back of buildings for neighbors. Too big,too much for the area—needs discussion.
Drinan: slope is the#1 issue—would support Fire Dept. opinion. Courtyard and buildings should dampen noise but
added screening/mitigation around entire property is needed. VBD guidelines have no requirement for parking so
he gives applicant credit for creating 40 guest spaces. Doesn't know how to get around James Lane problems but
there are a number of ways to tweek project to maximize safety and curbing. Other mitigation measures? Dockray
—big issue is smoke and subsequent lack of visibility and orientation—balconies help with that.
Brewer: proposal generally fits with spirit of bylaw. Disappointed in pursuit of options to mitigate several issues
that were brought up -open space in back, lack of sound wall, sound fencing, aggressive planting for abutters.
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7 of 9
May 6,2015
APPLICANT/OTHER FINAL COMMENTS:
Humphreys: when they started, they thought grade/slope was permitted but new codes have been presented and are
public safety regulations and could be retroactive—they could drop elevation but it would mean more site work at
the building sites and very careful excavation next to existing foundations —they could accept a condition of that.
Could also accept condition attaching covenant to property that rooms shall be reserved for wedding guest use only.
Sandall: has been to events at the Barn when owner has allowed groups to use the Barn for 1 evening fundraisers —
this is a great thing for the Town if there were other events at the Barn.
Ordelheide(Applicant): All 15 rooms in the Inn are empty during the week—the proposed rooms will be also.
Brewer: Was 20 minutes late to 02/11/15 meeting- will sign affidavit that he reviewed minutes and docs.
Alternate not in attendance tonight so if hearing were closed, approval vote would require a unanimous vote of
four members tonight (Ivimey's last meeting—did not seek re-election). Discussion about whether to close hearing
and continue deliberation to another date or, close hearing and deliberate tonight. In absence of knowing exact
status of Alternate Member's attendance and subsequent ability to vote,Board decided to forge ahead tonight.
Ivimey: Questioned if that portion of James Lane is accepted public way or private way. Tocchio — registered in
Land Court as private way subject to easement to inhabitants of Cohasset—is only 16.5 ft. edge to edge. Does have
a public element to it when the Town took it by easement.
BOARD,APPLICANT,PUBLIC: Nothing more to submit.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to close the public hearing
SECOND: Member Dickey
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES
Town Counsel: fundamental issue for Board to consider is if criteria for granting the special permit and site plan
approval have been satisfied so best thing is too look at those criteria and see if they are satisfied.
Counsel also added that, in his opinion on the parking issue, he strongly disagrees with Humphreys regarding
7.Lk in that he does not believe that is what applies. He believes 7.2.14 which requires maintenance of parking
spaces existing at time of adoption of Section 18applies unless Planning Board makes finding in 7.2.14 that the
maintenance of the spaces is not necessary for public safety or that adequate provision for parking has otherwise
been proposed—so, in his opinion,they have an obligation to maintain spaces that were in existence at the relevant
time and, IN ADDITION TO THAT, provide spaces for new units. Wanted to make that clear before Board
deliberates.
Brewer asked Ivimey to lead the deliberation by running through the pertinent sections of the bylaw:
Section 18:
18.1.a - FAR is well under 1.3
18.1.a.i -n/a
18.1.a.ii - n/a
18.La.iii—n/a
18.1.b - not apartments or condos n/a
18.1.c - Board has draft guidelines
18.Ld—give Board authority to condition design
18.1.e - n/a
18.2 .a - n/a
18.2.b -n/a
18.3 - see 12.6 and 12.4
Section 12.4:
12.4.1.a - satisfied
12.4.1.b - Board, with Town Counsel opinion, considered "adjoining" properties including Karp & Dippold even
though they are in different district.
12.4.1.b.1 — making James Lane one-way might help. There is a dedicated walkway proposed which is an
improvement. Could condition no parking signs on access road. Dickey— traffic could increase, but might also
decrease as guests will be arriving and departing at staggered times. Could require 10% slope. Adequate provision
for parking (7.2.14) has not been proposed and 7.1.0 requires 1 spot/hotel room. Dickey — 7.1.0 trumps T LK
because it is more specific to this use than the more general 7.14.K. Ivimey would find it difficult to ignore
previous spaces — thinks its bad business to reduce required spots and there was not a compelling argument that
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES s of 9
May 6,2015
additional spaces are not needed. Could condition that they need 62 spaces (22 existing + 40 proposed). Dickey
thought an argument could be made for not requiring all 22 existing but could not take them all away.
12.4.1.b.2 - Modzelewski cannot advise as to proposed manhole as he does not have the data. Could condition
performance.
12.4.Lb.3 — Modzelewski — exterior lighting was specified on plans —no catalog cuts provided—could condition
dark sky feature or cutoff fixture and no light cast off site. Noise applies to this application. ZBA used the term
"NO" noise at the lot line, not "excessive"- Could condition: outside ceremonies limited to courtyard, limit
music to acoustic with identified limited number of musicians; limit number of guests at outside ceremonies.
Dickey sees the after wedding parties as the bigger noise problem. Could require wall,fencing and planting to
mitigate noise and security guard for post wedding parties —the combination might be an effective mitigation —
but applicant had not proposed plantings on their plan and sound wall is not on plans — was a suggestion by
sound consultant. Hassett does not think 6 ft. wall on property line would be effective. Could require sound
barrier that would be replaced by constructed buildings. Ultimately, this would be the applicant's responsibility
to figure out. Could also require sound wall off property line with mature plantings on both sides. Modzelewski
— there was an interim sound barrier proposed for the construction period but there is no sound barrier on the
final design - there are still two issues: a request before the Board to allow outdoor ceremonies before the
building are constructed—the proposed sound barrier was for this issue only; and, the request to allow outdoor
weddings after the buildings are constructed — have to deal with both issues separately. Could condition NO
outside ceremonies until after buildings are constructed — Town Counsel gave opinion that this is perfectly
within the authority of the Board based upon the application. Ivimey - Could then condition mitigation for the
sound that is coming out of the buildings — right now he is not seeing a lot of mitigation there on their plans.
Sandell did point out proposed cypress planting there but Brewer noted that it is not well defined in their plans.
At this point, Ivimey questioned if the Board was imposing reasonable conditions on the project or is the Board
debating fundamental parts of the application and doing what should have been presented as part of the project.
If it is the later, Ivimey did not think the Board should be doing that - what was the point of closing the public
hearing if the applicant would be bringing in new plans that the Board would have to review and weigh in on —
all of that should have been done before. Brewer agreed.
12.4.1.b.4 -not an issue
12.4.Lb.5 - see discussion above
12.4.Lb.6 -not an issue
12.4.l.b.7—has positive economic impact on Village, scale is in harmony with the rest of the Red Lion Inn campus
but not with adjacent properties in the residential district and not enough detail mitigation has been presented.
12.4.Lb.8 - see above
12.4.1.b.9 - n/a
12.4.Lb.10—Satisfied administration
12.4.2—Satisfied administration
12.4.3—Satisfied administration
12.4.4 - Administration
Section 12.6:
12.6.2.a- this one of the major considerations and findings the Board has to make
12.6.2.b- most likely will never be the case
12.6.2.c - Modzelewski reviewed—would comment that the interaction of the plans he reviewed and commented
on and the slope of the roadway will be complex and, if something happens with the slope of the roadway, the
drainage will change. The hope is that the Board can condition it so that everything is covered. ConComm will be
reviewing also.
12.6.2.d- a question of that doghouse
12.6.2.e - Modzelewski—rest of project is engineered with good engineering practice
12.6.2.f- has been discussed to death during hearings
Ivimey: still not comfortable with traffic, grade, mitigation, and what hasn't been in the project engineer plans —
wondering about too much and wondering about what the project should be —project not where it needs to be —
lots of leaps of faith.
Brewer: Aside from the grade to get to them, the buildings seem like good buildings and not out of scale with rest
of the campus but are too much for abutting neighbors—if adequate mitigation was more detailed, it would make a
difference — access way slope is critical issue — example of Oak St. as a steep slope comparison ... just because
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 9 of 9
May 6,2015
something is wrong on Oak St. , does not mean Board should allow something to be wrong here. Could condition
the slope but if slope were change, drainage, building height etc. could change and require new review by
Modzelewski.
Drinan: tonight was first time he heard about the 10% slope the Fire Dept. wants enforced — important issue to
change that will have positive implications all around even if it means that the final review is subject to
Modzelewski's signing off on the revised stormwater plan.
Ivimey: would the Board have approved this project in its current configuration even if it did not have the Fire
Dept. input?
Dickev: questions at what point do the conditions go from being a kind of final tweek to the finished product to
being not what was presented but rather a project the Board would have approved if it had been presented?Board is
adding on condition after condition, and, there are some major ones,and if we are ladling on conditions when there
is a history of conditions not being complied with, that can be problematic. This may be philosophical,but what he
is hearing is the Board might have approved something,but it is not what was presented.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to deny the Special Permit and Site Plan Approval for failure to satisfy the
criteria of 12.4, 12.6 and 18 of the Cohasset Zoning Bylaws.
SECOND: Member Dickey
VOTE: 3—1 (Drinan opposed) MOTION CARRIES
11:40 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
- VOTE TO APPROVE APRIL 29,2015 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the April 29,2015 minutes
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES
- VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING MAY 3, 2015
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the payroll for period ending May 3,2015.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES
- VOTE TO RATIFY C.BREWER SIGNATURE ON INVOICES:
o CDI INV.#369 Red Lion Inn $7,215.75
o CDI INV.#370 1-3 Brook St. $2,015.00
o CDI INV.#371 Manor Way Circle $1,007.50
o CDI INV.#372 8 James Lane $ 387.50
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to ratify Brewer's signature on above cited invoices
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
• PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINUTES MAXIMUM) -none
• TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED BY THE CHAIR 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE
MEETING -none
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to adjourn at 11:45 P.M.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON
DATE: MAY 20,2015