HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 11/02/2016 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 6
November 2,2016
AMENDED COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2016
TIME: 7:00 PM
PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING ROOM
41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025
Board Members Present: Clark H. Brewer, Chair (CB)
David Drinan,Vice Chair (DD)
Brian Frazier, Clerk (BF)
Michael Dickey,Liaison to CPC (MD)
Erik Potter,Associate Member(EP)
Board Members Absent: Charles A. Samuelson(CS)
Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak
CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:03 P.M.
7: 03 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
- VOTE TO APPROVE OCTOBER 19,2016 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: By Member Frazier to approve the October 19,2016 meeting minutes.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 3-0 MOTION CARRIES (MD and EP had not yet arrived)
- VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 30, 2016
MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve the payroll for period ending October 30,2016
SECOND: Member Frazier
VOTE: 3-0 MOTION CARRIES (MD and EP had not yet arrived)
- VOTE TO RATIFY C.BREWER SIGNATURE ON INVOICES: No invoices to ratify.
7:04 P.M. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER UPDATES—
(DD)—Is on committee reviewing applicants for Mgr. of Town Hall Renovation.References have been checked.
Five interviews are scheduled over the next week.
7:06 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINUTES MAXIMUM) - None
7:06 P.M. TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED BY THE CHAIR 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
THE MEETING- None
7:10 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS
• 26A ATLANTIC AVE. — SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
In attendance to represent agenda item: Heidi Condon, HC Design; Owners: James Kearns and Breda O'Sullivan.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office):
• ZBA Special Permit Application, date stamped: 10/11/16
• Plot Plan for 26A Atlantic Ave., Prepared by Ross Engineering Co., Inc., dated: 09/14/16
• Architecturals Al-1, Al-2, A2-1, EXl-1, EX2-1 prepared by HC Design, dated: 10/06/16
• Letter of support from abutter David Burnham, 30 Atlantic Ave., date stamped: 11/02/16
• Map/Chart of neighboring homes and square footage of each, date stamped: 11/02/16
• Color photos of existing residence, date stamped: 11/02/16
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 6
November 2,2016
Proposal is to add a 2nd floor addition to this pre-existing,non-conforming 1,573 sq.ft. ranch style residence which
will result in an increase to 3,002 sq.ft. Lot is also pre-existing, non-conforming. No increase to footprint is
proposed. Abutters were contacted regarding the proposal—one abutter responded via a letter of support. Condon
distributed a chart showing neighboring homes and sq.ft. of each. Current structure is the smallest in terms of
square footage and,will still be within the smallest three after construction of the addition.
MOTION: By Member Frazier to recommend the ZBA issue the Special Permit for this proposal.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES
7:20 P.M. SCITUATE HILL CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
In attendance to represent agenda item:
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office)
• Schwandt 10/04/16 letter re: Tri-Party Agreement, date stamped: 10/05/16,with Application#1 attached
• Schwandt 10/18/16 letter re: Tri-Party Agreement, date stamped: 10/18/16,with Application#2 attached
• CDI 10-25-16 review/comment memo re: Scituate Hill Minor Modifications
• Schwandt 10/04/16 letter re: Tri-Party Agreement, date stamped: 10/05/16, with Application #1 attached,
revised: 10/18/16, date stamped: 10/31/16
• CDI 10/28/16 memo re: Application 1 dated: 10/18/16
Regarding traffic study: VHB will have new traffic counts by Thanksgiving—will then revisit MassDOT Group
to get feedback based on new traffic counts as to whether they should reapply or recount at a later date.
MOTION: By Member Drinan to continue this public hearing to January 4,2017 at 7:10 P.M.
SECOND: Member Frazier
VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES
Regarding Tri-Party Agreement: Scituate Hill had 180 days to build road (not including topcoat). If not done,
SSG could assume doing it—in which case it had to be completed in 210 days. If not done within that time period,
the Town had the right to finish the roadway. Status:
• Still need to do drainage in roadway—contractor indicates this will be before the deadline
• Still need to lower Sunrise Septic Line—contractor indicates this will be before the deadline
• Tie-in to parking at Medical Building needs a little more grading—will not be done by deadline
• Drain line across SSG property—will not be done by deadline
Town Counsel advised that if developer is working in good faith effort to get the work done it is reasonable to
modify the agreement to extend the deadline.
MOTION: By Member Frazier to extend the deadline agreement by 60 days.
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES
Follow-up Discussion to be continued to January 4,2016 at 7:20 PM
MOTION: By Member Frazier to extend the deadline by 60 days
SECOND: Member Drinan
VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES
Regarding requisition#1:
Modzelewski recommended Requisition#1 dated October 18, 2016 in the amount of$133,397
be accepted(see CDI memo dated 10/28/16)
MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve and accept Requisition Application 1, dated October 18, 2016
in the amount of$133,397
SECOND: Member Frazier
VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES
7:40 P.M 81-91 CEDAR ST. —CEDAR STREET LANDFILL SOLAR PROJECT SITE PLAN
REVIEW CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: COHSOLAR LLC. OWNER: TOWN OF COHASSET.
In attendance to represent agenda item: Scott Kaplan, CohSolar and Palmer Capital; Zachary Thomas,Project
Manager,Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., Gordon Deane,President, Palmer Capital.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office
• Atlantic Design Engineers,Inc. Response to CDI's Comments, dated 10/19/16, date stamped: 10/20/16
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 6
November 2,2016
• Copy of DEP Application for Post-Closure Use Permit,date stamped: 10/20/16
• Asst. Fire Chief Dockray 10/27/16 letter to Brewer,re: Fire Department Access to Solar Panel Array
• DEP 10/31/16 letter re: Post Closure Application is administratively complete.
• Civil Designs 10/31/16 review and comment memo, date stamped: 11/0l/16
• DPW 11/01/16 email re: approval of new site dated 10-28-16
• 10/11/16 Extreme Participation Tables, date stamped: 11/02/16
• Drainage Diagram for 2818.02 Post—R2,prepared by Atlantic Design Enterprises, date stamped: 11/021/6
• Proposed Site Plans 1-5,prepared by Atlantic Design Enterprises, dated: 08/24/16,revision date: 11/02/16
(Alternate Member Potter to participate as voting member for this hearing in CS absence)
Marie Caristi, AEC member asked if Planning Board must follow recommendations of their consulting engineer or
are there exceptions if there is a significant time issue? (CB)Board will look at the options to meet the deadline for
this Town project and deal with the salient points our engineer has brought up. Kaplan stated preference for
having approval by end of this month. To gain incentives, they would have to be mechanically complete by
01/08/17 but can be extended to 05/08/17 if they are mechanically complete and if they incur 50%of EPC costs.
Modzelewski reviewed his 10/31/16 memo (which see)—much was covered by phone conversation earlier today.
Major points:
1. Need for Geotech peer review: Consultant has been lined up—cost estimate is $3200.00 - will take 2-3 weeks.
Consultant will not conduct new Geotech study but will review the applicant's study and conclusions and give the
Board a comfort level re: Section 12.6. Board felt a Geotech Peer review makes sense—gave Modzelewski the go
ahead to hire the consultant but asked that it be sped up to be completed in 1.5—2 weeks.
2. PB Policies and Procedures for this submission relative to Section 12.6: Town Counsel advised that there are
several references in the Solar Bylaw Section 21 that refer to Section 12.6 — Site Plan Review so 12.6 does apply
except where it is in conflict with the Solar Bylaw. Board cannot deny it but can condition it.
3. Drainage Issues, Monitoring Plan: Scituate monitors every six months. DEP often asks for monitoring once
per month for the first 12 months. Board could decide which they feel is more
4. Haul Road: issue is slope and distance of road surface to liner. Asst. Chief Dockray spoke with applicant—dry
standpipe is acceptable alternative meaning they will stop equipment at the base and not drive on the road. Kaplan
- DEP requires monitoring once/month for first year then quarterly monitoring thereafter. DEP would send these
reports to the Town.
Rest of memo was discussed point by point.
Perimeter Fencing: Modzelewski pointed out that Board has right to require fencing so trespassers don't get hurt.
Could consider just securing the transformer area with posts set into existing concrete pad.
Steve Wenner, AEC Co- Chair, 195 Hull St: Solar Array Panels are bonded to ground so are deemed safe—more
likely to get hurt walking down the street. Perimeter fencing is overkill. Not like an electric substation. Equipment
is meant to switch off if it gets hit.
Harvey Dickstein, BOH and 393 Beechwood St.: BOH is concerned about the cap — requested copy of pressure
calculations and integrity of the liner.
Tanya Bodell, 80 So. Main St.: questioned if peer review is nice to have or needed to have. Alternative proposals
based on peer review may have to be resubmitted to DEP — could jeopardize time lines. (Peer review is not a
separate analysis but rather a review of the report already submitted).
Eric Seuss, AEC, 43 Mill Lane: Town was involved in closure permit and post closure permit every step of the
way. Encouraged Board to look at the financials involved. (CB) expressed his understanding of this but noted that
the Board has things they want reviewed.
For next meeting.
• Geotech peer review report
• Security measures
• Lease Obligations and requirements(Lease agreement has been forwarded/reviewed to Town Counsel)
Board encourage applicant to continue working through issues with Modzelewski before next meeting.
MOTION: By Member Drinan to continue this public hearing to November 16,2016 at 7:30 P.M.
SECOND: Member Frazier
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 6
November 2,2016
8:45 P.M. 8 JAMES LANE—CONTINUED DISCUSSION—MINOR MODIFICATIONS, DRIVEWAYS
In attendance to represent agenda item: Michael Roberts,Paul Sullivan, John Waldstein.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office):
• Revised plans C3 and C5,revision date: 10/24/16
• Revised Landscape Plan. Dated: 10/27/16
• Asst. Fire Chief Dockray 10/25/16 letter re: moving parking spaces
• Egan 10/25/16 letter to M. Roberts re: attics and basements
• Roberts' 10/26/16 letter to R. Egan and C. Brewer, re: attics and basements
• Square footage calculations, date stamped: 10/26/16
• 10/31/16 zoning opinion from Developer's Attorney, Matthew Gaines, date stamped: 10/31/16
• CDI 11/02/16 review and comment memo
• As-Built plot plan, revision: 10/31/16, date stamped: 11/02/16
(CB) minor modification requests will be put on hold until recent square footage issue is resolved. Board
received invitation to ribbon cutting which cited units as being 2,250 sq.ft. when 2011 Special Permit allowed
1,600 sq.ft. max. with construction only on first and second floors (unfinished attic and basement). Board wants
project to be successful, but see the square footage issue as an over reach and in direct conflict with the Special
Permit. Intent of the bylaw was to limit square footage to 1,500 sq.ft. Seeing the attics being built-out and
knowing they count towards the square footage could produce conflict with buyers who think that is a viable part of
the project. He would like to see resolution of the square footage of the units as quickly as possible.
(DD) - discussion about apartment vs not apartment is irrelevant because of terms of Special Permit. Needs clarity
as to what parts of the Special Permit they are operating under and what Special Permit allows them to do. They
were already granted leeway to 1,600 sq.ft. There are conditions in the Special Permit that clearly state that
modifications must be brought to the Planning Board. Needs clarity as to what parts of the Special Permit they are
in violation of. What are the Building Commissioner's options if there is a violation of the Special Permit? Bring
into conformance or seek relief from appropriate authority to proceed? (CB) noted that he did review the
architectural plans that were included with the Special Permit and those plans did not include finished attics and
basements and, any changes in those plans should have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. Also,
a building permit has not been pulled for attic and basement areas. (DD) saw the ad from the brokerage citing
2,250 sq.ft. and was taken aback — that conflicts with the 1,598 cited in the plans. Assumption he was making
going into this was that attic was not to be habitable space, but storage space. There is a big difference between
what beliefs are about the Special Permit and what is going on in the attic space in particular.
Town Counsel—Developer's Attorney's letter is irrelevant. Project is subject to the Special Permit(which was not
appealed). If someone has an issue with something in Special Permit, remedy is to appeal. If not appealed during
appeal period, project is subject to what is in the Special Permit - what may or may not have been in the Zoning
Bylaw at that time is irrelevant.
(CB) — Board wants to make some sort of recommendation to Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement
Officer relative to the project. Most effective message might be some sort of stop work order until this is resolved.
There is a disconnect between useable sq. footage calculations and special permit. Best thing for Developer is for
Board vote a stop work order for basement and attic areas instead of a full stop work order for whole project.
Developer Michael Roberts: Village Development Partners was not around in 2012 when this permit was
granted. We purchased the property and read the permit. Our 2014 permitting was entirely different permitting
process with our attorney's theory about common areas in the basement. As purchaser of the property, the only
thing a developer can do is read the permit and the law and make economic decisions about what permit says and
law says. When we read the permit with regard to the 1,600 sq.ft. limitation, it was clear to us that the 1,600 sq.ft.
limitation applied only to the 3-unit building since that is the only building that could be considered as having
"apartments". The Zoning Law was clear that the 1,500 sq.ft. limitation applied to apartments. (CB) — The
architectural plans by Noseworthy that contained square footage calculation and that accompanied the special
permit did not have any finished attic or basement finished space and was approx. 1,500 sq.ft.
(MD): In 2014, the Board spent enormous time on the 1,600 sq.ft. issue. Irrespective of how positive the
Developer was about what the 2012 permit allowed, it have been prudent to consult with the Board. Where is the
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 6
November 2,2016
good faith in not discussing or consulting with the Board about the finished attic and sq.footage? Given the
confusion, in his view, someone who was working in good faith, would have come back to the Board — someone
acting in good faith would have raised their hand given the confusion that he said existed.
Where is the common sense? He is personally insulted.
(BF): Agrees—Board spent a lot of time on this—all the 2014 plans showed unfinished basement and attics.
(CB): based on the Special Permit,there is a lot of risk in what was done in the attics and in marketing what should
have been 1,500 sq.ft. as 2,250 sq.ft.
Michael Roberts: 2014 Board had a lot of questions about the meaning of 1,500 sq.ft. Each member had a
different interpretation of the measurement. Board was confused as to how to interpret the calculation of square
footage under the bylaw — we never got to the discussion about apartments. This confusion and ambiguity
ultimately went to Town Meeting for a change to the bylaw. We did what, in our interpretation, the special permit
allowed us to do under our rights as the purchaser of the property.
(CB) was a member of the 2012 Board — there was some confusion, but the Board all understood that the
measurement was 1,500 sq.ft. in the Noseworthy plans. You had a set of plans that were part of the Special Permit
and you build something different — whatever is in the Zoning Bylaw now or in 2012 doesn't matter — there is a
Special Permit with certain conditions that say if you change anything, the Planning Board has to review and
approve it - you could have come back to the Board to discuss finished space in the attic etc. —but you did not.
This Board should not review the minor modifications you were presenting today — the Board should make a
recommendation to the Building Official relative to finished space in attic and basement. It is reasonable to allow
what the Board expected to see - the first and second floor construction - continue, but not work that is
unpermitted by either Special Permit or Building Permit. (BF)agrees.
(DD)—was supportive of this project from the beginning - he does not like the place he is in right now because he
feels we should not be here. Units look great but when he saw the ad, his first reaction was that broker should get a
call right away so someone does not buy a unit that is perhaps unsellable because they are in violation of the
permit. Original permit had the bonus of the 1,600 sq.ft. waiver. Why the Developer came to the Board to move a
driveway 6 inches but did not come to the Board about finishing third floor space and windows is beyond him. He
wants to see an initiative from the Developer to pull back what has been done, in a variety of ways— remove the
bath, or submit condo docs which show that all buyers and residents understand those spaces are not for living
space but are for storage space only.
Michael Roberts: Project is not economically viable without the sq. footage. Project will not get built—units will
not recover the infrastructure costs without the sq. footage. They have a reasonable and persuasive interpretation of
the bylaw which this Board could adopt.
MOTION: By Member Dickey to shut the whole thing down—stop order on all construction.
Not seconded.
(BF) has always sensed a bait and switch was coming and that there was some fudging going on with the plans and
here it is. He wants to second this motion and shut them down but he wants to see a successful project at the site
for the Developer and for the current and future residents of this Town - he would prefer to see a stop order on all
work that is not permitted and what they do next is up to them. (EP) agrees. Developer has put the Board's back
up against the wall — decisions were made and plans submitted that need to be followed —you can't just decide
what you want to do after a decision has been made. He sympathizes with the economics, but there are procedures
and bylaws in effect that must be followed. Board cannot set a precedent of allowing you to go ahead and do this.
(CB) message Board is conveying is -this is a serious issue and Board wants Developer to take responsibility and
work through to resolve it.
MOTION: By Member Drinan that all work cease in the areas that are not strictly permitted by the
Special Permit —basements and attics—until the Board gets further resolution from the Developer as to how
he will proceed with these units anticipating some kind of modification of the Special Permit.
SECOND: Member Frazier
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
John Waldstein(minority Partner): how do we go about discussing this with Board? (CB)have conversation among
yourselves, come up with a plan and come back to Board for clarification or to try to get a modification, or not.
(DD) - the legal argument Developer has come up with to justify this is irrelevant to the issue at hand about what
Special Permit allowed. Special Permit is the definition of what is doable and what is undoable. To go forward
smoothly, you need to come to terms with that. If you come back with a modification that is minor, you can move
along, but if it is a major modification, you are subject to a new public hearing which could open up other issues
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 6
November 2,2016
that could slow things down. Even though (DD) understands their points about the economics of projects, it is
irrelevant to what is permitted and what is allowed. Developer has to make the decision as to whether it is a project
he wants to buy. Board cannot change the nature of the project in order to make it more economically attractive to
developer. (CB) Board is not concerned with the economics—it has to assume Developer has already done that.
MOTION: By Member Drinan to adjourn at 9:30 P.M.
SECOND: Member Frazier
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT MEETINGS: SPECIAL MASTER PLAN MTG. WEDNESDAY,NOV. 9,2016 AT 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING-WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2016 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: BRIAN FRAZIER,CLERK
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2016