Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 07/09/2014 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of s July 9,2014 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 9,2014 TIME: 6:30 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—SELECTMEN'S OFFICE 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Stuart W. Ivimey, Chairman Clark H. Brewer,Vice Chairman Charles A. Samuelson, Clerk Michael Dickey David Drinan Brian Frazier,Associate Member Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Planning Board Administrator Meeting called to order at: 6:30 P.M. 6:30 P.M. MANOR WAY CIRCLE - RCDD APPLICATION TO MODIFY EXISTING DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO A RCDD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: MATTHEW SHANLEY&RHONDA KALLMAN In attendance to represent application: Attorney Richard Henderson; Applicant Matthew Shanley; Mark Flaherty, Flaherty& Stefan. In attendance to represent Planning: Town Counsel Saillant; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs,Inc. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office PLAN DATE SCALE REVISION Pre-Construction Drainage Area Plan 04/11/14 1"=40' Cover Sheet&Locus Map 04/11/14 1"=200' 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 1 -Existing Conditions Plan 04/11/14 1"=40' 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 2—Subdivision Index Plan 04/11/14 V=60' 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 3—Subdivision Plan 04/11/14 1"=40' 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 4—Site Plan"Layout Plan" 04/11/14 1"=40' 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 5—Grading Plan 04/11/14 1"=40' 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 5A—Roadway Plan&Profile 04/11/15 As Noted 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 6—Utilities Plan 04/11/14 1"=40' 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 7- Landscape Development Plan 04/11/14 1"=40' 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 8—Erosion&Sedimentation Control Plan 04/11/14 1"=40' 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 9- Detail Sheet 04/11/14 NTS 06/04/14,06/25/14 Sheet 10- Detail Sheet 04/11/14 NTS 06/04/14,06/25/14 Approved Subdivision Plan(8/10/07)Amended Sheet 3 08/10/07 V=50' 09/04/07, 09/14/07, 11/09/07 • Draft Covenant,prepared by Att. Richard Henderson, date stamped: 06/25/14 • Draft Declaration of Easements,Restrictions, and Covenants Running With the Land, prepared by Att. Richard Henderson, date stamped: 06/25/14. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of s July 9,2014 • Draft Conservation Restriction,prepared by Att. Richard Henderson, date stamped: 06/25/14 • Copy of existing recorded Easement Agreement,date stamped by Norfolk County Land Court: 04/15/05. • Capt.Mark Trask, Cohasset Fire Dept., date stamped: 07/08/14 • Civil Designs review and comment letter on revised plans, date stamped 07/08/14 • Fire Truck Turning Templates, date stamped: 07/09/14 • Example of Unit#4, date stamped: 07/09/14 • Example of Unit#5, date stamped: 07/09/14 Flahe : explained that project is 15 acres, 10 acres of which is upland. 34%of the 15 acres is wetlands—bylaw allows only 25%wetlands. Applicant could take a parcel out of the 15 acres which would then not exceed the 25% allowed. Modzelewski does not have an issue with the 15 acres and agrees that removing the 5 acres does not make sense. Applicant will be requesting waiver for the 35%wetlands. Henderson: They do not need a demonstration plan for a conventional subdivision as it is has already been approved as a conventional 6 lot subdivision. Modzelewski just wants to be sure that nothing has been done with the bylaw that would introduce a problem on the demonstration plan. Samuelson: the reason for this waiver should be specifically described in decision so a precedent is not set. Flaherty: handed out architecturals for two of the units—plan shows the footprint. Plan shows accommodation for 16 vehicles (5 ft. outside the right of way) for the 5 homes . Plans now show a 20 ft.width pavement plus 12 in. cape cod berms on each side for a total pavement width of 22 ft. No sidewalks are shown. At end of pavement is hammerhead turnaround. Pavement is tapered down from the Walnut Hill width of 24 ft. to 20 ft. on Manor Way. Discussion about hammerheads: Fire Dept.: does not like hammerhead turnarounds. Capt. Trask explained that they have allowed only one hammerhead—at Sunrise Assisted Living—because of topographical issues. Hammerheads become used for parking, dumpsters,etc and become unuseable by the Fire Dept. Issue is not if Fire Dept. can get to a house at location of hammerhead. Issue is being able to turnaround and exit quickly in the event of another emergency call. Henderson: anticipation of problems is not a reason to denial—there is case law to that effect—could condition it with restrictions on its use and,post"no parking". This is a small, 5 cottage style home subdivision on a short street. The residential cluster bylaw promotes open space and minimization of interference with green development. Issue has not been raised before tonight and, comments were not received within the 45 days required by statute. Shanlev: there is an approved hammerhead on Walnut Hill Lane right next to this subdivision and,the existing 2011 approved modification plan has a hammerhead for 3 houses. His driveway is at 122 and hammerhead is at 108 -he would have to build a 12 ft. high wall in his front yard to construct a cul-de-sac because of the height difference and,it would impinge on his driveway. The existing gentle slope would be gone. Brewer: "no parking"will never be enforced although, cars will park around a cul-de-sacs also. But this particular hammerhead has an overlap into private parking areas(driveways). Questions if cul-de-sac might really be an improvement to the neighborhood. Fire Dept. convenience is important—seconds count in an emergency. Does not like the hammerhead - shares Capt. Trask's concerns. From a designer's perspective he does not have a problem with a hammerhead,but when safety officer expresses concern, he would defer to safety concern and require a cul-de-sac if there is a reasonable way to do it. Which is easier to plow—hammerhead or cul-de-sac and is this going to be plowed by the Town? Shanley—homeowners' association is going to plow it. Ivimey: agrees with Brewer very uncomfortable with approving hammerhead knowing the Fire Dept.'s concerns. Drinan: whatever is allowed has to work and be adequate. Cul-de-sac will reduce green space. Modzelewski: Although this is not a common driveway situation, common driveways have procedures and standards that allow hammerheads. Samuelson: agrees with Ivimey—feels Board has to defer to Fire Dept. - Fire Dept. is responsible for the safety of the Town. Toll Bros' hammerhead does not have houses on it as Shanley's plan does. Shanley's plan shows parts of hammerhead as driveways to homes. —not ready to concede that it is impossible to find an alternative—would like to see other possibilities. Wonders what can be done to open the site up. Shanlev: Does not have room or elevations for a cul-de-sac -if one is required, he can simply revert back to the 2011 approved modification that includes a hammerhead, build 2 ugly 5-6,000 sq.ft. monstrosities and compete with Toll Bros. for sales. Henderson: if the issue is that the cul-de-sac will provide faster turnaround than a hammerhead, he would like to see statistics to support that. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 8 July 9,2014 Ivimev: that is the job of the applicant to convince the Board that his proposal will work—the Board does not think the applicant's plans shows an approach the Board is comfortable with and does not think the AutoTurn template shows the plan will work. Drinan: Board should make every effort to be as consistent as possible whenever possible—Board should be deciding on what is norm for hammerhead to provide successful turnaround. Board approved a turnaround for Toll Bros and for the 2011 Manor Way modification. Ivimev: The distinction is that Toll Bros hammerhead stands alone—not part of a driveway that can be used by traffic. Shanley's plan has 2 houses taking access on the hammerhead—hammerhead is a useable part of the street. Ivimey asked for straw vote: • Require a cul-de-sac: Ivimey, Samuelson,Dickey,Frazier(if there is not an alternative,then cul-de-sac). • Do not require a cul-de-sac: Drinan. • Brewer would like to see a plan to show if cul-de-sac works or not. Frazier: Board owes it to the Fire Dept. to look at other alternatives to a hammerhead. Chief Silvia: Fire Dept. is against hammerheads—if possible,they would like to see a cul-de-sac. These are large vehicles with poor visibility that should not have to be backed up. Drinan: Hammerhead is not forbidden under the bylaws,but safety officials are not happy with it which is something that has to be listened to. Needs to be case by case determination unless bylaw is changed to prohibit hammerheads. Applicant should show the Board that a cul-de-sac is unworkable. Ivimev gave example of his own street which is narrow and dead end without cul-de-sac—every time emergency vehicle comes onto the street(short street that is about 3-4 houses long), someone has to get out of truck and stand behind it, directing it as it backs down the street to exit—it is very difficult, cumbersome and time consuming to negotiate the narrow street in reverse. Samuelson: Would sprinklers mitigate Fire Dept. concerns? Chief Silvia: They are a Fire and Rescue Dept.—it is more than response to a fire and, it is not so much getting there, it is getting out of there. Shanley to have plan prepared to show inclusion of a cul-de-sac for Board to review. Discussion about sidewalks: Modelewski: still pushing for pedestrian separation from traffic. Plan he reviewed had a paved roadway which was 2 ft. narrower than what is now proposed and gave a little more play. The gravel path that is now shown on the plans will never be used in the winter when there is snow on the ground—he wants Board to consider pedestrian- vehicular interplay. He acknowledges that cars will be going very slow. It is not unusual for Town to have street without pedestrian sidewalk,but it is a safety concern. Brewer: people should be able to walk continuously from one subdivision to another (Toll Bros. sidewalk is on left). Sidewalk on one side of street should be absolute requirement. People should not have to walk on street. Flaherty: Sidewalk on left of Shanley's property would mean they would have to cut slope back. Shanley: this will be posted as private for residents and invited guests only,with a slow speed limit,not a public thoroughfare Ivimev: agrees with Brewer sidewalks should be required. Samuelson: concerned that Board may make the project impractical to develop. He is struggling with compromise. Frazier: sidewalks are good for public—if it can be done, it should be done. Drinan: no strong feeling about sidewalks. Modzelewski: sidewalk cost is minimal but there is also the expense of digging out hill. Board could make some compromise with required slopes that might help with the work required to install sidewalks. To work well with the Toll Bros' sidewalk, it has to be on the high side of the slope. He believes there should be a sidewalk. Dickey: no strong feeling about sidewalks, but sidewalk should be on house side of street or not at all as it will not be used. Shanley: He is building on a hill and his plan tries to make the subdivision as harmonious with the landscape as possible and mitigate interruption to the landscape. Ivimev: Poll Board on sidewalks: • Brewer: require sidewalks with option of either side. • Dickey,Drinan: do not require sidewalks • Samuelson, Ivimey: desired but not required Modzelewski: Remainder of his comments are technical and can be worked out with engineer. Modzelewski: wants to know the minimum distance of the houses to the lotline. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 8 July 9,2014 Henderson: Board approved an ugly, 6 house subdivision about 7 years ago. A modification to that subdivision— with a hammerhead and only 2 houses—was approved in 2011. This current RCD plan only adds 2 more houses. What is so different that now causes the hammerhead to be undesirable? Cars parking in the hammerhead is an enforcement issue,not a Planning Board decision. Post"no parking"signs and ticket and people won't park there. That is the alternative to redesigning with a cul-de-sac. Redesigning at this point is not feasible. If they can show the Board a truly justified reason for the hammerhead,will the Board reconsider? For next meeting: 1. Fix up details Z Address hammerhead by providing cul-de-sac plan 3. Modzelewski will review drainage,but most likely will agree with the drainage specs submitted. MOTION: By Member Brewer to continue the public hearing to July 23, 2014 at 7:30 PM with all new documents submitted by as soon as possible. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 8:00 P.M. INFORMAL DISCUSSION — RICHARD HENDERSON — HOLLY LANE POTENTIAL FORM A - Attorney Henderson asked that this discussion be postponed to a later date. 8:00 P.M. 8 JAMES LANE, VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APPL: JAMES LANE PARTNERS,LLC In attendance to represent application: Attorney Charles Humphreys; Applicant Michael Roberts; Project Consultant Paul Sullivan; Architect Chris DeOrsay; Scott Henderson, McKenzie Engineering. hi attendance to represent Planning Board: Town Counsel Saillant; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs, Inc. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office): PLAN DATE SCALE REVISION DATE C-1: Layout Plan 04/09/14 1"=20' 04/28/14,05/14/14,06/23/14 C-2: Grading&Utility Plan 04/09/14 1"=20' 04/28/14,05/14/14,06/23/14 CD-1: Construction Details 04/09/14 Not to Scale 04/28/14,05/14/14,06/23/14 CD-2: Construction Details 04/09/14 Not to Scale 04/28/14,05/14/14,06/23/14 CD-3: Construction Details 04/09/14 Not to Scale 04/28/14,05/14/14,06/23/14 Existing Conditions 06/15/09 1"=20' 08/05/09 D1: Plan&Front Elevation 04/09/14 As Noted D2: Side Elevation&Second Floor Plan&Area 04/09/14 As Noted D3: Basement&Attic Floor Plans,Rear Elevation 04/09/14 As Noted D4: Landscape Plan 04/09/14 As Noted Landscape Plan 1 of 1 03/21/14 1"=20' 05/14/14, 06/23/14 Arch. 1: Roof Height Calcs 05/14/14 1/8"= 1.0' Arch.2: Roof Calculation 05/14/14 1/8"= 1.0' Arch. 3: Floor Area 05/14/14 3/32"= 1.0' Arch.4: STC Wall Assembly 05/09/14 1-1/2"= 1.0' Arch. 5: Fire Separation 05/13/14 1/16"= 1.0' Arch.6: Plan&Front Elevation 05/14/14 As Noted Arch.7: Plan&Side Elevation 05/14/14 As Noted Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 8 July 9,2014 Arch. 8: Color Schematic, Side Color Schematic 05/14/14 As Noted Arch. 1 Of 2 Floor Area 06/11/14 3/32" = 1.0' 06/12/14 Arch.2 Of 2 Proposed Attic 06/11/14 As Noted 06/12/14 Vehicle Maneuvering Plans 1 - 13 rO6/23/14 1"=40' • Drainage Calculations and Stormwater Management Plan,revision dated 04/29/14 • Drainage Calculations and Stormwater Management Plan,revision dated 06/23/14 • June 24,2014 letter to Stuart Ivimey, Chair Planning Board re: Homes at Cohasset Village/8 James Lane SPA &VBD-SP from Michael Roberts,Managing Partner, James Lane Partners LLC(JLP). • 07/02/14 Email from Michael Roberts to Planning Board with attachments: o Ditch the car? Dying suburbs revived by walking. o The Economics of Walkabilit. o From Sprawlvilles to Sustainable Suburbs: Ideas to Attract Private-Sector Investment in Suburban Improvement Proiects in an Era of Reduced Public Support. o Densi . o The comeback ofAmerica's Cities &growing walkable suburbs. • Civil Designs 07/08/14 review/comments of revised plans • Project/Application comparison, date stamped 07/09/14 Henderson reviewed changes since last meeting: • Access from James Lane into site: Increased radius to 18 ft. and width of driveway to 20 ft. in its entirety. • Difficulty in backing out of garage spaces in two front buildings: Shifted RF building so that there is 30 ft. from garage space to garage space. Also submitted vehicle maneuvering figures that were produced using Autoturn program. Used 19 ft. long passenger vehicle which is larger than will be found on site most of the time—average car is 15.5 ft. long. • Adjusted outdoor parking: all spaces are zoning compliant and none are within 5 ft. of property line. Provided 6 additional spaces in addition to garage spaces • Blasting: Applicant prefers to blast because it is quicker. Met with Water Dept.who raised issues they felt were important to the town wells—have engaged a hydrogeologist—work with hydrogeologist is in due diligence research phase —will keep working with Water Dept. • Fire Truck Access into site: access will be from Cushing Rd. Received ladder truck specs from Fire Dept. and used those in the radius calculations. • Updated Drainage: submitted to Modzelewski. Did receive comments from Modzelewski with some minutia details about utilities and drainage which can be addressed via revised plans. • James Lane is a paper street on this 1 parcel so it can be extinguished by the oner of that parcel—only 8 James Lane owner has the easement right to use it. D'Orsay addressed architecture: • Concern about massing& sq. footage: attic level rear dormers removed which affects RGFA of attic. Since both RGFA and GFA definitions are in the bylaw—applicant felt it appropriate to use RGFA not GFA to calculate square footage cited in bylaw feeling RGFA should be applied since this is a residential project. Will be requesting waiver for added area in attic. • In using RGFA, they did not include garage space,unfinished attic space or any other space that was less then 7 ft. in height. First 2 floors are 1380 sq.ft. and 120 sq.ft. in attic for 1500 sq.ft.total. Area of unfinished attic floor is 759, but space starts at 0 ft. and goes up to 8 ft.in height and nothing under 7 ft. is included because it cannot be inhabited space by Code. Garage is 288 sq.ft. Basement sq, ft. is approx. 620 sq.ft. Ivimey pointed out that"Residential" GFA does not appear anywhere in this Section 18 of the bylaw whereas GFA is specifically applied in Section 18. Humphreys -it is totally appropriate to use RGFA for this project's habitable area and that Board can apply special permit discretion to use this interpretation of the bylaw. Ivimey interpreted this as meaning Humphreys believes Planning board can simply change the Bylaw. • Possibility of commercial space in basement of LF unit with walkout. • Have architectural drawings with dimensions. • Modzelewski: Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of s July 9,2014 — Bldg. LF(egress was from first floor in first set of plans) shows rear basement egress— Bldg. is close to property line—Board has discretion regarding setbacks, but everything needs to be shown on plan. Henderson- egress steps in setback are allowed as long as steps do not exceed 30 sq.ft. There is no further first floor egress on rear. — Maior Issues• — Sq.footage of building has decreased but footprint has not decreased. — Parking maneuvering is tight even without 19 ft.long vehicles. Is it possible to slide buildings on right down even if it means sacrificing footprint?Applicant has gone to 20 ft. driveway,but there is mingling of pedestrian and vehicle traffic—generally like to keep them separated. People have to step into drive area to access buildings.Perhaps area could be painted to highlight walk area for pedestrians—still not an ideal. — Other technical issues are not game stoppers—can be worked out with engineer. Frazier: On turning radius drawings,building RF is in setback but not shown in setback on Plan C1 —which is in correct spot—building or setback? Henderson—there was an interpretation change that apparently did not make it to all sheets—building is in the correct spot—drawing to be corrected. Brewer: rotating building on right might give more site room. Henderson—makes pulling into garage more difficult and gets too close to 50 ft.no disturb to wetland. Drinan: AutoTurn page 7 of 13 —no cars shown in 2 parking spaces across from where car is pulling out—appears to be minimal space to back out if cars are in those spaces. Henderson—the consideration is that two cars are in those spaces even if not shown on the plan. Modzelewski: crushed stone parking area—a lot of crushed stone and, creates a conflict with the entry drive and turn suggested removing this visitor parking and having visitors use town lot. This would take away a couple of parking spaces,but the tradeoff should be made. Bylaw says 8 parking spaces are need. Ivimey: — more parking is needed for this project and Board has discretionary right to require more. Humphreys —visitors can be required to park in Town lot via Homeowners' Association. Ivimey—visitors are going to want to park on site—they won't park in Town lot and walk. Henderson—bylaw is to encourage walking in the Village to revitalize it,so to say walking from Town lot won't work is counterintuitive. Ivimey disagrees—it is not counterintuitive—reality is,people are going to want to park on the site,not in the Town lot. — The parking diagrams are ridiculous—the parking doesn't work and is reason to deny this project -the applicant's own analysis has shown how ridiculous it is and gives reason for denial—it doesn't work. (Henderson disagrees that diagrams are ridiculous—professional program was used to create them and stated that the vehicles do not back into houses—only the large truck bumpers would need to hang over the curb to execute the turn Ivimey- Board is not going to allow that). — Thought Board had made it clear that this project is trying to put 10 pounds of potatoes into a 2 pound bag and is violating the bylaws. — Board wanted to see some major changes and applicant came back with a few shaved off issues and it doesn't work. (Humphreys—Board approved a plan a few years ago that was not as convenient, practical and as safe as this plan. It is torturous to have the Board say that a better plan doesn't work). — Buildings are too big. Buildings RR and RF are not behind a qualifying business. Applicant's plans blatantly violate the bylaw—asking the Board to ignore the bylaw (Roberts—their interpretation is that as long as their project is behind a commercial use, they comply with the bylaw, but he is agreeable to putting in a commercial office at grade level if Board insists. Roberts does not think the commercial use has to be on the property owned by the applicant.Ivimey disagrees because that would mean the owner would not have control over the continued existence of the required commercial use.). Roberts again stated that he has a plan with a commercial use on their property to which Ivimey responded that they should then submit that plan — Ivimey pleaded with Humphreys to strongly encourage his client to do something else—what is presented in this application is fundamentally unsafe and he does not want Board to have to reject it. Roberts also pointed out that his team saw a difficult lot—it is a risky project -units have only 1 garage—it backs up to a railroad track-site has a lot of ledge that is very expensive to clear—project like this has never been done in Cohasset before—the reason they bought the property was because 11 units had been approved Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7 of s July 9,2014 before. He has been able to increase parking per unit from 1.3 to 1.7 and garage parking—that is avast improvement over the past project approved in 2012. OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Capt. Trask: he is comfortable with the access issue—now by Cushing Road. Has not yet heard anything about the looped water main. Lenore Jenkins(Water Commission): — Applicant has ignored the loop that was required by Water Dept.—loop is for water quality. Looping has been ignored in the past which now means that Town has to pay for looping in developments because water quality in some developments(dead-ends) is so poor. This is a constant problem for the Town. It is the Town's responsibility to make sure this happens even if developer do not agree. Henderson—they did not show a loop because previously approved plan did not show a loop—they are now considering running a line down James Lane and looping it right back adjacent to create a T-valve system to make sure water is always running. — Drainage is extremely important for this area—applicant is talking about taking drainage away from the wellfields. Wellfields need drainage for recharging. The wells are and on ledge so they require drainage for the recharging. These wellfields are 30% of the Town's water supply. She is not confident that this applicant will look out for the Town and asks Planning Board to keep these things in mind as very sensitive to the Town interests when they are deliberating. Humphreys replied that the applicant is responsible for water work on his site,they are not responsible for the Town's public works. Henderson responded that there is a 50150 split of runoff from the site—generally it is not practice to send drainage to abutting property but Water Dept. wanted the runoff to the wellfield—he redesigned so that 1/3 of site area drains to wetlands. Modzelewski added that he looked at the drainage calcs to wellfields—they show a doubling of water to wellfields than currently exists. Lee Jenkins: asked who owns land under James Lane right of way? Ans.:8 James Lane owns land and right of way. Joseph Rosano, 48 Howe Rd., owner 2 Pleasant St.: was involved in first application that was approved. Original approved plan was a combination of 8 James Lane and 2 Pleasant St. lots with 15 parking spaces. Current application is a totally different filing. This plan on just the 8 James Lane site is too tight,too small and won't work. Would be a disgrace to approve. It is not the right project for this particular spot. Capt. Trask: has not seen fire flow figures yet. Looping mains has other ramifications other than the water quality —looping provides 2 sources of water traveling in from Cushing&James Lane, not just 1 source and allows flow of water from 2 directions—effectively doubling what is available. Pressure is meaningless—gallons per/minute is what is important. Applicant to submit flow test results to Fire Dept. Dickey: agrees with consensus that the site is too tight. Frazier: Very tight. Grades were clarified but circulation is still very tight. Brewer: There are changes that can be considered: Applicant could tighten a few setbacks where it can be done; Rotate southerly units a little to open back of site for turning radius and parking; Reduce unit count; Reduce size of some of the units; Vary size of units to be more unique design. Previously approved project was very different than this one. There is a missing commercial component on this property(as required by the bylaw)which also makes it very different from the previously approved project. Roberts: would Board be receptive to have one unit changed to a single family home with smaller footprint? Brewer understands the need to look at economics, but this filing has taken one double unit building and multiplied it four times and this site seems to be calling for a different approach. Changing one unit to a single family home would still mean a commercial component is missing. Drinan: It is feasible to have engineer show vehicle maneuvering might work,but still requires incredible accuracy to maneuver—chances of that happening every day are slim—shows how tight the site is. Roberts: If the Board thinks this is tight, the previous application should have been denied because it was worse— this is a superior plan This is a village and villages are enclosed and tight. This is tight and is supposed to be tight and that creates the kind of units today's buyers want. The maneuverability of these spaces is better than what is found in most villages and in most spots other than backing out of a suburban driveway. Sullivan: the site is tight—thinks they can go back to engineer and look for ways to make it less so. Samuelson: would like to get away from comparisons to previously approved plan—it was a very different plan than what is before the Board now. It is tight—this is a neighborhood although it is zoned VBD—which may not be the correct zoning. Advised applicant to try to rework it. Cynthia McCleave, 9 James Lane: previous owner backed into her house—is concerned about it happening again. Living next to a railroad is not pleasant—noise,vibration—this could be a project that doesn't sell units. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES s of s July 9,2014 David Bigley, 25 James Lane: picture of the lot as it exists is obvious to all who walk by the site -would like to see applicant cleanup the site for benefit of neighbors Would also like to see a traffic impact study for James Lane. Roberts: actually,the house on the site is in such disrepair, the vegetation is probably covering the eyesore. Judy Nowak, 12 Pleasant St.: only 1 car can pass on James Lane at a time. She already has trouble getting out of her driveway—added traffic will make it even harder. Also suggested putting 1 house with a couple of condos as was done on North Main St. (referring to 150 No. Main St.). Henderson: James Lane will be increased to 18 ft.wide+ 1 ft. cape cod berm and sidewalk—existing pavement line on James Lane will be maintained. Modzelewski wants recorded plan that shows boundaries and evidence that drainage improvement work can be done on abutting Rosano property. MOTION: By Member Brewer to continue the public hearing to August 13,2014 at 7:15 PM with all new documents submitted by July 30,2014. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 9:45 P.M. ADMINISTRATION - VOTE TO APPROVE JUNE 4, 2014 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the June 4,2014 minutes SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIODS ENDING JUNE 15 AND 29, 2014 MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the payroll for period ending June 15 and 29, 2014 SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO RATIFY S.IVIMEY SIGNATURE ON INVOICES: - CDI INV.#8A - SUBDIVISION RULES&REGS. $ 725 - CDI INV.#340 - COOK ESTATE $1305 - CDI INV.#339 - ESTATES AT COHASSET $ 870 - CDI INV.#338 - 8 JAMES LANE $1015 - CDI INV.#341 - MANOR WAY CIRCLE $3190 - CDI INV.#342 - ESTATES AT COHASSET $2,867.50 - CDI INV.#344 - 8 JAMES LANE $310 - CDI INV.#343 - MANOR WAY CIRCLE $310 MOTION: By Member Brewer to ratify Ivimey'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 Drinan to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, July 23, 2014 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON. CLERK DATE: JULY 23,2014