Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 08/13/2014 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 6 August 13,2014 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2014 TIME: 7:00 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: 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. RE-ENDORSE 729, 735 JERUSALEM RD.FORM A(ORIGINALLY ENDORSED 06/04/14) WITH LAND COURT INFORMATION ADDED. In attendance to represent application: John Cavanaro,Cavanaro Consulting. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office): • Plan LC,prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated 07/18/14 This is the exact same plan as endorsed by the Board on June 4, 2014. Only changes are the addition of all Land Court required annotations. MOTION: By Member Brewer to re-endorse this Form A as presented with Land Court annotations SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:02 P.M. 589 JERUSALEM RD. - LARGE HOME REVIEW—APPL: MATTHEW SHANNON Member Samuelson read notice of public hearing. In attendance to represent application: John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting; Attorney Richard Henderson; Whitney Malone,Tiryaki Associates. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office • Large Home Review Application Form 11 with signed Statement of Litigation Policy, date stamped: 07/14/14 • Site Plan LHR prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, dated 07/09/14 • Architectural Plans A1.0,AL I, A1.2,A1.3, A2.1, A2.2 prepared by Tiryaki Design, dated: 06/13/14 • Comments from: Water Dept. dated 07/31/14; Sewer Commission, dated 07/15/14; Conservation Commission, dated: 07/16/14; BOH, dated: 07/15/14;ZBA, dated 08/11/14 The application is for the demolition of the existing 10,363 sq.ft. dilapidated apartment building. The existing structure has contained apartments since the 1950's, most currently consisting of 13 legal apartments with sewer connections for 13 apartments. The proposal is to raze the existing structure and construct a new 7,370 sq.ft. residential structure consisting of 3 townhouse condominiums which will result in a less intense use of the property. The subject lot is approx. 54,100 sq.ft., approx.. half of which is below mean high water mark. The proposed structure will be further back on the lot than the existing, making the proposed structure more conforming than the existing. Parking will be provided under the structure with a couple of guest spots on the side. A substantial landscape plan consisting of over 1,000 plants has been designed. A view corridor from the street to Straits Pond on either side of the structure will be maintained. Overall: the proposed architectural design will be Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 6 August 13,2014 more consistent and symmetrical than the existing; the proposal will create a less intense use of the property than the existing; and, there will be an overall decrease in the impervious pavement on the property. The proposal has already received both ZBA approval and, an Order of Conditions has been applied for with the Conservation Commission. MOTION: By Member Brewer to recommend the Building Inspector issue permits for this proposal at 589 Jerusalem Rd. with standard Planning Board conditions of approval. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:20 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; Project Consultant Paul Sullivan; Architect Chris DeOrsay; Scott Henderson, McKenzie Engineering. In attendance to represent Planning Board: Town Counsel Hucksam; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs,Inc. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office • Any docs submitted and utilized at past meetings and on file in Planning Board Office • New submissions: • Project narrative dated 07/30/14 • Plan C-1: Layout Plan,revision date: 07/30/14 • Vehicle Maneuvering Plans 1-12, 3 Bldg. version, dated: 07/30/14 • Plans D1,D2,D3,D4, 3 Bldg.version dated: 07/30/14 • Civil Designs 08/12/14 memo re: review and comment on 07/31/14 revisions • 08/13/14 email from David Cingari, 10 Norfolk Road with 16 photos • Copy of recorded plan, dated 11/13/59 (submitted at meeting) Henderson,DeOrsay: outlined changes in 07/31/14 submission: • LF unit reduced to 1 residential unit with handicapped accessible commercial on ground floor level with access to commercial from James Lane • Connected LF and LR buildings with breezeway so as not to be considered a single family unit and, to provide break between buildings for windows etc. - believe the 3 units would have to be sprinklered • Increased setback between LF and RF—two rear bldgs. are 3 ft. further apart • 1 car garage+ 1 exterior space per residential unit(14 total) on site with parking in front of garages to be deeded to each unit. No parking for commercial unit provided—will use municipal lot • No vehicles cross curb lines during vehicle maneuvering • Sidewalk turned into site • Pedestrian sidewalks will be demarcated with different pavers • Looped water main on James Lane (plan has not been run by Water Dept.yet) • No blasting—will hammer ledge • Drainage to James Brook Easement • Will provide drainage calcs after feedback from Board • Addressed some CDI comments in 08/12/14 comment memo • Hydrant flow test witnessed by Town— 1400 gpm • Roadway increased by 6-7 ft. • Modzelewski wants dimensions on plans • Footprint has decreased • Reduced FAR by about 15%in terms of footprint area • Will be going before ConComm with NOI Modzelewski: • a conflict point at two driveways has been created—generally single family residences generate very little traffic -would like traffic counts between 6-9 AM and in PM, To get an idea of the increase in traffic Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 6 August 13,2014 • in interest of safety it is always a good idea to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic by providing sidewalks but did question what responsibility lies with each individual developer to do that—inside of site does not have pedestrian/vehicular separation. Joseph Rosano, direct abutter—2 Pleasant St.: Still believes site is too crowded, dense and dangerous—just too much. Commercial component is just away to get around the bylaw—project still consists of 8 units. David Cingari, 10 Norfolk Rd.: submitted letter 08/13/14 with pictures. Spoke to the points in this letter about pedestrian traffic —kids, bikes, strollers — on James Lane because there are no safe sidewalks on Pleasant St. and, the need for sidewalks and pedestrian access to James Lane. Scope of project is too large. Whatever is dedicated to pedestrians has to be of wide berth perhaps with sidewalk separated from street by wooden rails. Lenore Jenkins: the wetlands to the right of James Lane could be a challenge for installing sidewalks. Henderson: the area is within the 50 ft. no disturb zone—would require a filing with ConComm. Brewer: suggested the "dog leg" to Cushing should be 1 way —would solve problems and be safer—but that is within the jurisdiction of the BOS. George McCleave, 9 James Lane: drives in both directions as he leaves his house depending on his destination— he does not run into cars travelling in the opposite direction that often but there is a lot of pedestrian traffic—groups of kids after school. Referred to James Lane as the"sidewalk for Pleasant St.". Judy Nowak, 12 Pleasant St.: her driveway goes into James Lane — it is difficult to see if dogs or kids are coming as she backs out—has vision of children or dogs getting killed. Sullivan: market for these units is 55+age —interested in walkability—should not increase traffic significantly. Humphreys: Board has reduced the size of roadways in subdivisions in the past so as not to cause an increase in speed. James Lane is not the kind of street that invites speed. Pedestrian traffic is a problem in general in this town. The abutting neighborhood is in the RA District - one of the most restrictive in Town —but subject property is zoned VBD and RA District rules cannot be applied to a lot that lies in another district. Humphreys would appreciate a straw vote to give the applicant an idea if the plan is acceptable so they can proceed with plan details. Ivimev: still thinks it is too big. Buildings are too big and traffic flow still does not work. Ivimey advised them to limit the size to 1,500 sq.ft. wall to wall — Gross Floor Area. Board should not bend bylaw to make something more marketable for the applicant's profit — bylaws were written the way they were written and voted on by the town for a reason and Board should not change bylaws for benefit of applicant.. 10 lbs. of potatoes in a 5 lb. sack. Drinan: developer has made a number of accommodations to address many issues. In terms of compliance with the zoning bylaws of the district, he thinks they are achieving that — Drinan look at similar neighborhoods in the surrounding towns - this is tight but based on what he has seen in other towns,it is not unmanageable. Dickey: the current plan is better than the previous plans applicant has presented — applicant has tried to make some accommodations to Planning Board concerns but it is still tight and parking patterns look tight. Would say it is 8 lbs. of potatoes in a 5 lb. sack. Brewer: tweeks have been done that loosen parking & turning — elimination of 1 residential unit made a big difference — commercial basement unit doesn't impact parking or turning in the residential portion— he has seen tighter sites in terms of parking, passing. Doesn't see access on the site as dangerous or difficult to navigate — widening James Lane& adding sidewalk would be good mitigation—architecturally it is not incompatible with the neighborhood. Applicant should ask for waivers as the basis for discussion. Humphreys: will request waivers in writing. Frazier: still too tight. Parking improved, driveway width improved—still 9.5 lbs. of potatoes in a 5 lb. sack. Samuelson: dense but agrees with Drinan—standard has to be: what variances are being asked for and what is the standard for what the applicant is being asked to do. There have been some improvements—he would have a hard time denying on basis that it is in gross violation of what is allowed in the VBD. Modzelewski: gross floor area will have impact on footprint and make building that would be more attractive to empty nesters. Sullivan: asked if having garaging of vehicles be a good reason for excluding the square footage of the garage in measurements? Ivimey replied that they were going to have garages anyway. MOTION: By Member Brewer to continue the public hearing to September 24, 2014 at 7:30 PM with all new documents submitted no later than September 10,2014. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 6 August 13,2014 9:05 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: Att. R.Henderson; Appl. M. Shanley; M. Flaherty, Flaherty& Stefan. In attendance to represent Planning Board: Town Counsel Hucksam; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs,Inc. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting(On file in Planning Board Office): • Any docs submitted and utilized at past meetings and on file in Planning Board Office • New submissions: — Revised Stormwater Report, prepared by Flaherty& Stefani,Inc. revision date: 07/30/14. — Plan Sheets 1 -10 prepared by Flaherty& Stefani, with revision date: 07/30/14 — Henderson 08/05/14 letter with amended"Exhibit B"to the Manor Way Declaration of Easements, restrictions and Covenants amending Section 25 (i) and(ii)to enforce the storage of any item on the proposed hammerhead. — Civil Designs 08/12/14 memo re: review and comment on latest submissions Henderson: prohibitions and penalties ($300/day mandatory imposition) for use of hammerhead have been written into HOA. HOA has been approved by Town Counsel with some revisions—Henderson agrees with those. Town Counsel is comfortable with having the hammerhead prohibitions and penalties written into the HOA but thinks they should also be included as a condition in the decision. Modzelewski: Board has the data before them where they can make decision. All can be conditioned. • Final drainage can be conditioned • Recommends side & rear minimums in a table—right now, the measurements are so precise, any change would require coming back to the Planning Board—can be conditioned. • Easements across lots—can be conditioned. Henderson will present easements that will go with the deed and HOA with utility easements deeded to the HOA. • Sheets 1,2,3 and 4—note claims only 2 lots -change reference to"2"lots to"6"lots • Note 8 on Cover Sheet needs to be clarified—too broad as it is now • Have 2 approval blocks -one for approval under subdivision control law and one for approval of special permit. • Land surveyor stamps and signatures on plans • Once binder course is down for hammerhead, fire dept. should be called in to test the turns • Hydrant flow test should be submitted— 1500 gpm required • Profile of drains for roads • Detention basin overflow to conform • Gutter mouths for curb inlets • Roof drains under roadways to be clarified for expected vehicle overloading-needs spec • Adjust grading plan to match roadway cross section MOTION: By Member Dickey to close the public hearing. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES Findings: the project as conditioned satisfies the requirements of the Residential Cluster Bylaw for granting the Special Permit under the Residential Cluster Bylaw and for the Definitive Subdivision approval as conditioned and with any waivers granted. Waiver: 20 ft. width of road with 2.5 ft. shoulder Conditions: • All engineering conditions mentioned in Modzelewski memos and cited above • Entrance gates to be ornamental and secured in such a way that they cannot be closed. • Conservation restriction, HOA, septic,utility&drainage easements subject to Town Counsel review, approval • Hammerhead restriction,penalty and enforcement • Location and number of all bounds shall be as approved by Planning Board. • Standard boiler plate conditions Rescind: previous 2 lot subdivision approval. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 6 August 13,2014 MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve the definitive subdivision and to grant the residential cluster development special permit subject to the findings and conditions discussed tonight and, to incorporate into the decision, the rescission of the previously approved 2 lot subdivision as will be requested in writing by Attorney Henderson. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5- 0 MOTION CARRIES 9:35 P.M. COOK ESTATE—RELEASE OF LOT 20 In attendance to represent application: Richard Henderson Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting_(On file in Planning Board Office): • Civil Designs 08/12/14 email re: 08/11/14 Site visit Work required to be completed prior to any further lot releases has not been completed— specifically point 3b in Modzelewski 08/12/14 memo. Henderson agreed. Closing scheduled for August 15, 2014 will have to be rescheduled. Henderson requested that the Board vote to sign the Lot Release Certificate and hold it until notified by John Modzelewski that all required work has been completed. MOTION: By Member Drinan to sign the Lot Release Certificate for Lot 20 but hold the Release Certificate in escrow and not release the Certificate until John Modzelewski inspects and certifies that the required work (installation of all remaining frames & grates as shown on plans and as cited as point 3b in Modzelewski's 08/12/14 memo) is satisfactorily completed. "Substantial completion" of these construction items shall be insufficient to meet the applicant's obligations for removal of the signed release from escrow. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 9:45 P.M. ADMINISTRATION - VOTE TO APPROVE JULY 23, 2014 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the July 23,2014 minutes SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIODS ENDING JULY 27 and August 10, 2014 MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the payroll for period ending July 27 and August 10,2014 SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES — VOTE TO RATIFY S.IVIMEY SIGNATURE ON INVOICES: - CDI INV.#345 - COOK ESTATE, $232.50 - CDI INV.#346 - 8 JAMES LANE, $2015.00 - CDI INV. #347 - MANOR WAY CIRCLE, 2092.50 - CDI INV.#348 - ESTATES AT COHASSET, 155.00 MOTION: By Member Brewer to ratify Ivimey signatures on the above cited invoices SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES - SET OCT.,NOV.,DEC. MEETING DATES. Oct. 8,22;Nov. 12, 19; Dec. 10 and 17(tentative) - ADVISE BOARD OF RECEIPT OF CHAPTER 91 LICENSE NOTIFICATION—31 OTIS AVE. - ADDRESS PILCZAK SUBDIVISION RULES & REGS QUESTIONS IN 08/05/14 EMAIL - 3 amendments addressed—OK'd by Planning Board. • PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINUTES MAXIMUM) - none • TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED BY THE CHAIR 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING- none MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 10:00 P.M. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 6 August 13,2014 NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON, CLERK DATE: SEPTEMBER 10,2014