HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 11/30/2016 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 5
November 30,2016
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 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)
Charles A. Samuelson(CS)
Erik Potter,Associate Member(EP)
Board Members Absent:
Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak
CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:07 P.M.
7:07 P.M. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER UPDATES
• (DD) - Town Hall Bldg. Renovation Committee—goal is to have new Town Hall constructed before Cohasset's
250th Anniversary - mtg. next week to review draft RFQ for architects to submit their qualifications —then mtg.
schedule will be set up — plan to review past Town Hall need studies — many ideas have been floated for what
portions(if any)of existing Town Hall to keep—have selected OPM for project and Shane Nolan.
• (CB) — sat in on Affordable Housing meeting last week — gave primer on what was done with Affordable
Housing Committee that was disbanded in 2008 — tried to provide clarity on Avalon affordable housing count —
count is tied in with census.
7:15 P.M. SUBDIVISION RULES ®ULATIONS UPDATE PUBLIC HEARING
Other update participants in attendance: Town Counsel Hucksam; John Modzelewski, CDI.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office):
;BF)
Draft Subdivision Rules &Regulations Update as filed with Town Clerk
read Notice of Public Hearing
Administrator explained that update (more a refresh of 1989 version) did not include substantive information—it
was update: of State agency or regulation(s) names or references; updates to applications to include such items as
email addresses; updated versions of Figures etc.; redundancy was eliminated; some sections were moved to
more appropriate sections of the document; and, global changes will be made to, for example, capitalize Planning
Board throughout, so as to standardize those types of references in the document. Modzelewski did make note of
the fact the substance of the 1989 version has served Cohasset well (Town Counsel agreed) and he does not see
much need for substantive amendments at this point. However, once this document is completed, substantive
changes, if needed, can be further amended in the future. Board members did not have further comments or edits.
Wayne Sawchuk, 432 Beechwood St.,: asked if there were changes to subdivision roadway specs(A. —expanded
gravel base specs with caveat that any materials containing recycled pavement materials are not allowed under
porous pavement areas), sidewalks, curbs and if State Specs come into play with subdivision roads(A. —NO).
MOTION: By Member Dickey to close the public hearing.
SECOND: Member Samuelson
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
MOTION: By Member Drinan to amend the Subdivision Rules & Regulations in accordance with the
modifications reflected in the document entitled "Subdivision Rules & Regulations Update — 2016"
reviewed at this November 30,2016 Public Hearing amended as of today's date.
SECOND: Member Frazier
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 5
November 30,2016
7:35 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
- VOTE TO APPROVE NOVEMBER 16, 2016 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve the November 16,2016 meeting minutes.
SECOND: Member Frazier
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
- VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING NOVEMBER 27, 2016
MOTION: By Member Frazier to approve the payroll for period ending November 27,2016
SECOND: Member Dickey
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
- VOTE TO RATIFY C.BREWER SIGNATURE ON INVOICES: No invoices.
- CHAPTER 91 WATERWAYS LICENSING NOTIFICATION—70 BORDER ST.
MOTION: By Member Frazier to acknowledge receipt of the Chapter 91 Waterways Licensing
SECOND: Member Dickey
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
7:45 P.M. 8 JAMES LANE INFORMAL DISCUSSION—ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
In attendance to represent agenda item: Developer M. Roberts; Project Mgr. P. Sullivan, Limited Partner J.
Waldstein,Architect C. D'Orsay.
Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office
• 11/22/16 letter from Michael Roberts to the Planning Board re: Letter of November 3,2016 Cease&Desist
• 11/21/16 letter from Paul Sullivan to Building Commissioner Bob Egan re: response to Egan 10/24/16 letter
• Copy of Building Permit application for Plots 1 & 2, with Plans: SK - 3rd Floor Proposed Correction; First
& Second Floor area; and, 3rd Floor Overlay attached.
• Plans A1, A2,A3,A4 and A5 revision date 03/04/16
• Plans A1, A2,A3,A4 and A5 dated: 01/25/16
• Landscape Plan, dated: 11/07/16
• Plans SK6,reprint date: 11/18/16, date stamped: 11/30/16 (Submitted at meeting)
• Plan page 01.5,printed on 11/28/16, date stamped: 11/30/16 (Submitted at meeting)
• 11/29/16 Caldwell Banker letter, date stamped: 11/30/16 (Submitted at meeting)
Purpose of discussion is to review the attic space in Unit 22 which includes a fully finished space with a full
bathroom resulting in 2,250 sq.ft. of finished space. Board considers this a violation of the special permit and,
Building Commissioner noted that the building permit application and plans did not include finished space in the
attic so there is a violation against the building permit also.
Roberts apologized— confusion over dwelling size — Caldwell Banker publication was sq.ft. number that was not
well thought out—wanted people to see that the units were big but they got over zealous and not well thought out
in terms of the sensitivity to this issue - got overzealous in attic—eliminated wall that was in building permit—that
wall was important because it made difference in meeting and not meeting the square foot requirements. Wanted to
be on record to state his apologies for that happening and wants to correct that at this meeting.
Summary of Developer's points/arguments:
1. Board went to town meeting because they did not think it was clear as to which definition to use —there was
conflicting/confusing information.
2. Bylaw says "or portions of floors" -"portions" means there are some floors where you do not count the entire
gross floor area which is consistent with Architect's calculations
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 5
November 30,2016
3. 2012 Noseworthy plans(approved plans)were concept plans,not finished plans—those plans are place holders.
4. Any reasonable person would know that you would not put in Anderson windows in a space unless something
was going to be done with that space - There was clearly an intent demonstrated to this Board that Developer
going to do something to the attic.
5. Developer took on new costs for this project(looping,chipping) and those new costs had to be paid for.
6. Need to separate basement from 1600 sq.ft. measure. Section 18.1.a which is FAR which they meet and the
FAR does not include cellars or basements and then there is RGFA which does not include below grade, so for
moment,we can separate basement space from the 1600 sf.
7. SP conditions about 1600 sf(33A) Section 18.Lb is waived to allow 1600 sq. ft. max. for single apartment —
the intent of the space limitation — PB clearly wanted residential dwelling project on this site to tie into the
James Lane neighborhood. Developer would suggest that if that was the intent it is unfair to the penalize the
developer for adding nice architecture (dormers, windows) features that make it blend in to the neighborhood.
Using FAR, in attic you do not count floor area in spaces where the ceiling height is <7 ft. It is reasonable
given other 7 ft. measures that the 7 ft. ceiling height is used. Developer's architect thinks FAR is the
appropriate method of measurement. So the number is 1600 sq.ft. with the wall (forget basement — that is a
separate discussion).
8. Unit 22 is totally finished with bathroom added - the other 3 units are already divided up in this same manner
so it is not as easy as one might think to change —would have to do demolition to change the attic spaces.
9. Developer is in a pickle —anyone who buys here is really buying a home - Developer does not want to hand
over their rights via a Homeowners' Association restriction about finishing the attic and basement — people
ought to be able to use their home in an way they want to and any restriction is as if the Town is looking in
their window telling them what they can and can't do within the box—this is bad public policy.
10. Developer is also in a pickle with the Cease & Desist — they have people who want to buy, but not with a
Cease&Desist on project—problem they have is to represent future owners of the property.
11. Developer will agree tonight to not build anything in the basement without approval of the Board if the matter
of the basement can be left open so they can come back at a later date to discuss it and, perhaps file a
modification-they will do everything else in the attic as discussed.
12. Omissions in the building permit are explained in Robert's letter — August, 2015. When they submitted
application, they submitted construction plans. In submitting Building Permit plans it was a "miss" and they
need to submit those plans to Planning Board to bring them in sync with Building Permit submission.
13. Developer thinks the Board has the discretion to decide not to count the floor area under ceilings less than 7 ft.
14. Reality is that the next 7 units are not going to be built unless they are building a product that people will buy.
Nobody is going to buy a product that looks like that(unfinished attics,basements).
15. Caldwell Banker 11/19/16 letter estimates price will have to be lowered by $60,000 in the event the town
homes have to be sold with only two floors of living space(Excluding attics and basements).
Summary of PlanningBoard oard points/arguments:
1. Town Counsel reiterated that the#1 principle is that the existing permit and the plans that accompany it rule.
2. The Developer's options were to stick with the 2012 permit or go with their 2014 filing (which they withdrew
after the bylaw had been amended in 2015). So,the Developer has to stick to the 2012 permit and plans.
3. Two things are at play—Precedent and Process. Allowing Developer to exceed the approved 1,600 sq.ft. would
set a precedent that would effect power of the Board and other Boards. There is process that has to be
followed to modify plans.
4. Bylaw also says the floor area of the unit SHALL be not less than 700 and not more than 1500 — the word
"shall"takes away any discretion from the Board—Board is bound by the bylaw.
5. Board's recollection is that they were presented with plans on which basements and attics were unfinished areas
for boilers and storage and,that is what the Board expected to see built.
6. Board does not need to look at the bylaws—the bylaws have nothing to do with the issue at this point —it is
the 2012 special permit decision — Developer either goes with approved decision and plans or files for a
modification
7. According to the plan, even with the unfinished, unheated space behind the wall in attic, the measure is still a
couple of hundred feet beyond the allowed 1,600 sq.ft.because measurement does not end at the slope.
8. According to the Building Commissioner, - the plans submitted with building permit application are not the
March 2016 plans handed out tonight —the plans submitted with building permit application show unfinished
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 5
November 30,2016
basement and attic—and that is what the he and the Board expected to see—unfinished attic and basement.
9. Board gave an extra 100 ft. (waiver) in the 2012 decision to increase measure to 1,600 sq.ft. based on the plans
submitted with the 2011,2012 application. Board did not expect to see any buildout in basement or attic.
10. Since the last meeting, the Board did not expect a complex analysis of the zoning bylaw tonight, but were
expecting to hear how the Developer planned to get the units to conform to the special permit decision.
11. In terms of square footage,what the Developer built is far in excess of what is allowed in the bylaw and in the
Special Permit. Finished basement areas were also not part of the basement area in the SP
12. Regarding the letter from Caldwell Banker- it is dangerous for the Board to consider what market forces might
be—the Board has to look at the special permit and what is in the special permit—the additional costs that were
agreed to by the developer is not a logical argument for the Board.
13. On the 01/23/15 diagrams, it looks like there is potential shown for expansion into the basement where it is all
framed out for bonus rooms etc. If you add that, these are 3000 sq.ft. units which is double what is in the
bylaw and in the special permit. Given that those areas were not submitted as part of the building permit —the
developer is at risk at this point.
14. The waiver to 1600 sq.ft. was for TGFA since that was the measure that existing in the 2012 SP.
15. The argument that the basement is not counted because of the FAR calculation, that the FAR somehow effects
this is an argument Town Counsel vehemently rejects-FAR is a separate calculation not relevant to this issue.
16. One Board member does remember seeing the Campbell-Smith plans when Board was approving
modifications — and he remembers thinking that they were probably going to finish the attics and basements,
but the plans said "unfinished" so he went along with the approval. As long as it was what was on the
approved plans with the attic wall off-center of the windows, concrete walls in the basement unfinished,
mechanical stuff—he is onboard with a compromise. He thinks a HO R&R restriction is a good idea.
17. One Board member likes idea of keeping the sq.ft. under 1600 sq.ft. (even if it includes the small finished area
in the attic) and he would not consider it a major modification if they agree to not finish the basements at this
time. He does not think an in perpetuity restriction on finishing the basement is fair to the future homeowners.
18. The problem in having to deem modifications as major or minor goes away if there is no finished areas in the
basement or attic. Board already gave an additional 100 sq.ft. to the permitted plans (Noseworthy) and did not
expect to see finished space in attic or basement. Reopening public hearing has a risk after the press, the
public, abutters and,other boards get involved. Board may be more conservative. If major modification,have
to reopen public hearing and rule by what the bylaws are today. May require amendment to bylaws which
would require going to Town Meeting again—could take a year to accomplish.
19. One Board member feels that if the Board accepts a modification the Board would still want the area to be
under 1600 s£ He can go along with some finished space in the attic as long as it does not exceed 1600
between first, second and attic levels. Otherwise,he just cannot justify allowing some space in the attic.
20. One Board member does not like the fact that the building permit set submitted to the Building Commissioner
does not show what is on some later iteration(s) — finished areas in the attic and basement — he would have
preferred that if that is how the Developer wanted to proceed had come before the Board and asked for a
modification rather than have the Board saying — when did this happen? On the one hand he does not feel
strongly about below grade space—he is more concerned about the attic space and, he would like to have some
sense of consonance with what was applied for and what has been built.
21. The Board understands the definition of habitable space in the Mass Bldg. Codes but, the Board is using
Cohasset's regulations. If this is the finished area in the attic,it puts sq.ft. over that 1,600 sf.
22. Board is not interested in shutting the project down,but is interested in the project being consistent with what
they believe the zoning bylaws to be, and, would like a process followed. If the Developer wants a
modification,he should submit plans and come back to the Board.
23. Developer is trying to make a rationale explanation in drawing somewhere from the bylaw but Town Counsel
has said it is irrelevant. The developer is actually asking for an additional modification from 1600 to 1700 to
allow a grand office in the attic.
24. definition of RGFA — the sum of RGFA is the sum of the total floor area gross as defined herein — that goes
back to what is between the four walls —there is nothing in here that says RGFA excludes GFA that has less
than 7 ft. high ceiling — it just doesn't. He understands the pickle developer is in and, that is regrettable
perhaps, but to say that is not clear is wrong —it is very clear and anyone who read can see that those are the
defmitions and that is the rule book the Board has to build around. The 7 ft. issue has nothing to do with
RGFA. He can live with the compromise if it complies with the 1600 sq.ft. limit. The Developer is asking to
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 5
November 30,2016
pick and choose — to take the 1600 sq.ft. (2015 permit) but they get the benefit of the 2015 for calculating
which is more favorable but in addition to getting the best of both worlds there, they want to further go outside
the bounds of the RGFA definition to say that they do not have to count anything that has less than 7 ft. foot
headroom- he does not think they are allowed to go that further step.
25. Town Counsel advised that—there is a basic concept in the Zoning Act that if you have a special permit that is
granted before the first notice of the public hearing on a proposed zoning amendment, that zoning amendment
DOES NOT apply to that existing special permit.
26. Town Counsel advised that if modifications were deemed major,then it is like filing for a whole new permit—
public hearings held etc. and there would be good argument that the Board could then apply the bylaw as
amended in 2015.
27. Total gross area (TGFA) is the definition that applies and that includes the basement and any finished area in
the attic.
28. Decision says 1,600 sq.ft. max. —Board doesn't care if you have 1,400 sq.ft. or if you get to 1,600 sq.ft. —it
might not be a major modification—that is for the Board to determine once you submit something.
29. Whether any finished space in attic is a major or minor modification to the permit cannot be determined at this
meeting. Regroup and submit something you think will fly and the board will decide if it is major or
minor modification. Board will want to see a week ahead of the hearing.
30. Compromise: gLny living space in the attic is probably a major modification. Definitions in the bylaw may
not be perfect, but the project has a special permit decision. Board does not want to make exceptions to the
decision and, does not want to negotiate the resolution of this matter as a contingency on changes to the zoning
bylaw. So, there is a proposal on the table - if you can live with 140 sq.ft. in the attic, give the Board a
rational explanation as to why it conforms to the special permit (730 on first+ 730 on second and what is left
over is in attic) is fine and to cease work in the basements so they can get along with the project. Opening up
major modification public hearing could take months.
MOTION: By Member Drinan to adjourn at 9:25 P.M.
SECOND: Member Frazier
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT MEETINGS: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2016 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: CLARK H.BREWER, CHAIR
DATE: DECEMBER 14,2016