Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 09/10/2014 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 7 September 10,2014 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 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: 7:01 P.M. Chair Ivimey arrived at 7:45 PM. Until that time, Vice Chair Brewer chaired the meeting. 7:00 P.M. 96-98 HOWARD GLEASON 2011 ENDORSED FORM A - RE-ENDORSE FORM A MYLAR WITH LAND COURT CHANGES TO LOT NUMBERS— CAVANARO CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT/OWNER ADELAIDE MOORS PRATT—Att. Humphreys -all benchmarks etc. are the same as the plan recently endorsed—this current plan has all final instructions from the Land Court. MOTION: By Member Drinan to endorse updated plan as presented with Land Court final instructions. SECOND: Member Dickey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES 7:01 P.M. 49 RIPLEY RD., LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING, APPL/OWNER: ALAN& MADLYN PETTIE Member Samuelson read the Notice of Public Hearing. In attendance to represent this agenda item: Can Tiryaki, Tiryaki Architectural Design; Owner/Appl. Alan Pettie. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting(On file in Planning Board Office): • Form 11 —Large Home Review Application with signed Planning Board Litigation Policy Statement attached, date stamped 08/18/14 • Plans A0.0, A0.1, AE1.1, AE1.2, A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A2.1, A2.2 prepared by Tiryaki Architectural Design, dated 07/15/14 • Plan to Accompany Stormwater Permit Application, prepared by Morse Engineering, dated 08/06/14 • BOH comments, dated 08/26/14 • ConComm comments, dated 08/19/14 • Sewer Commission comments, date stamped 09/10/14 The existing 2,956 sf structure is a two family residence, the front portion of which is an historic house with a newer wing added to the rear. The proposal is for a new addition on the rear and a 2-car attached garage with apartment space above. The existing building height is 35 ft. — the proposal is less than 35 ft. in height. The garage setback is 32 ft. from the front lot line. Both the house and parcel are pre-existing, non-conforming. Proposed changes result in a 4,642 sf structure. Zoning relief and special permits are not being sought. MOTION: By Member Drinan to recommend the Building Inspector issue permits for this proposal as presented, with standard Planning Board conditions. SECOND: Member Dickey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 7 September 10,2014 7:16 P.M. JASON FEDERICO — AMEND 04/30/11 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ARTICLE 19: HB DISTRICT AREA EAST OF CJC HWY AND NORTHWEST OF COHASSET AND SCITUAE TOWN LINE BY CORRECTING COORDINATES In attendance to represent this agenda item: Jason Federico Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting(On file in Planning Board Office): • Jason Federico's 08/12/14 email explaining the correction needed • Copy of the 2011 Warrant article as approved by the AG • Copy of the zoning map which accompanied the article when filed with the Town Clerk • Copy of Jason Federico's"Assumed Error" • Copy of the error • Copy of the corrected measurement • Draft of the zoning article for the Special Town meeting warrant • Copy of the portion of the zoning map that is affected by the article and, • Copy of the area with the new measurement prepared by Jason Federico Federico explained that in the process of updating the zoning map, he found that one dimension of the polygon described in the April 30, 2011 Annual Town Meeting Article 19 does not create a closed polygon as was pictured on the figure associated with the article. Federico provided the correct dimension(correct 261.26'to 177.46')which creates a polygon that matches the figure associated with the article. Planning Board Administrator presented a draft article for the November,2014 Special Town Meeting which Federico notes will correct the error. MOTION: By Member Drinan to submit the draft article to the BOS for inclusion in the November,2014 Special Town Meeting Warrant SECOND: Member Dickey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:20 P.M. SEAN RICHARDS, INFORMAL DISCUSSION, 1-3 BROOK STREET In attendance: Att. Richard Henderson; Can Tiryaki,Tiryaki Architectural Design; Sean Richards;Andrew Broman. Tiryaki explained that (new owner) Richards' plan is demo the existing building at 1-3 Brook Street and rebuild to the character of the Village and Town with retail on the first floor and residential on the second and third floors. Plans are for two,2-story condominium units on second and third floors. Henderson addressed legal issue: VBD bylaw refers to apartments and does not mention condos at all. Bylaw also sets a 1,500 SF maximum size which Henderson believes ties more closely to low or moderate income housing whereas proposal is for 1,800—2,000 sf condos which will not be in the low or moderate income level of housing. Brewer suggested they could put 3 smaller units in but also stated that he is on the fence about the 1500 sf issue. Dicke—thinks the bylaw does not give the Board wiggle room regarding this issue. Member Frazier agreed. Samuelson: bylaw clearly says: "shall not be less than 700 square feet nor more than 1,500 square feet". Henderson: asked if a variance from this is the purview of the Planning Board or ZBA. Henderson does not think Planning Board has any authority to grant variances, he believes that falls to the ZBA. Hucksam: with a special permit, which he would call "relief' instead of "variance" that authority would have to be granted within they bylaw to the Special Permit Granting Authority and, there are some places where that is granted but, you have to look specifically at how and where that authority is granted. Generally, the ZBA has the authority to grant variances but there are places within the Village Business District bylaw where the Planning Board, as SPGA, is granted the authority to give relief from some of the dimensional requirements. BUT, he does not think the 1,500 sf is one of those dimensions. He believes a variance could be sought from the ZBA. Henderson to research further. 7:40 P.M. ADMINISTRATION - VOTE TO APPROVE AUGUST 13, 2014 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve the August 13,2014 minutes SECOND: Member Dickey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING AUGUST 24 AND SEPTEMBER 7, 2014 MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve the payroll for period ending August 24 and September 7,2014 SECOND: Member Dickey Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 7 September 10,2014 VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO RATIFY S.IVIMEY SIGNATURE ON INVOICES: -CDI INV.#351 8 JAMES LANE $1860.00 -CDI INV.#349 TOLL BROS. $4284.75 -CDI INV.#350 COOK ESTATE $2945.00 MOTION: By Member Drinan to ratify Ivimey signatures on the above cited invoices SECOND: Member Dickey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES Member Ivimey arrived at meeting at 7:45 P.M. 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 In attendance to represent Planning Board: Town Counsel R. Hucksam; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc. In attendance to represent application: Attorney Charles Humphreys; Jim Sandell, Carr Lynch& Sandell; Jeff Hassett,Morse Engineering; Heinrich Lutjens, Red Lion Inn. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting(On file in Planning Board Office): • Stormwater Report&Calculations prepared by Morse Engineering, dated 08/22/14 • Copy of application& signed Planning Board Statement of Litigation Policy originally date stamped 02/18/14 • Copy of Project Description prepared by Carr Lynch and Sandell,Inc, originally dated: 02/14/14 • Revised Plans A0.0, EX1.0, L1.0, Cl, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, ALI, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.1, and A3.2, revision date: 08/25/14 • BOH, ConComm comments dated: 08/26/14 • Acting police Chief William Quigley, 02/25/14, 09/08/14 • ZBA comments, dated: 09/08/14 • Site Plan Review Checklist from Civil Designs, date stamped: 09/10/14 • Sewer Commission comments, date stamped: 09/10/14 Ivimey explained that tonight's meeting is more of an overview of the project —details about drainage, traffic etc. will be discussed in detail at subsequent meetings. Sandell: site distribution layout is basically the same as has been presented in the past. • 2 annexes—East and West • 3 story units with parking below grade • Will replicate size and shape of existing Inn • Capacity of barn is max. 200 guests • Primary driver of the plan is to provide accommodations for wedding guests • Based on feedback received in past about building massing, new plans remove top floor and reduces units from 36 to 24. Five 1-bedrm units per level and one 2-bedrm unit per level. First level 1-bedrm units are 782 sf. while 2-bedrm units are 1370 sf. Second level units are smaller since they are built into mansard roof shape. • Same distribution of two levels of units above sublevel parking • Sublevel parking should eliminate parking lot type noises • 40 parking spaces for 24 units • Units (hotel suite type units—not condo type units for long term living) to be sold as interval ownership which will be available for wedding guests - Primary driver of the plan is to provide accommodations for wedding guests beyond the 15 rooms that exist in the Inn—to become destination for weddings. Providing more lodging for guests will keep guests in Village—should economically benefit Village as well. Balconies are recessed. • Low point of elevation 32 and high point of elevation of 40—average of 36 elevation. • Roof was measured from top of ridge to plate at top floor and using the midpoint to give height of 309". Both buildings are the same—only difference is the relative positioning of where they sit in the crown. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 7 September 10,2014 • Site is not all ledge, it has been filled on both sides. Brewer noted that the height is lower than that allowed by zoning if in fact the building official agrees that the distance from the top plate to the ridge in a gambrel style roof would be the a reasonable calculation. Brewer would agree with it. • Tower elements are for staircases and elevators — tower measures 17.5' X 17.5'. Tower projects higher than roof to allow access to roof for maintenance and elevator works — roof has baffles to block sound of mechanicals and create visual barrier. Tower is 306 sf which is 3.8 % of the roof area which is less than the 5%allowed by zoning bylaw. Brewer noted that not everyone reads the bylaw the way this team has. Jeff Hassett: • Property has frontage on So. Main St. as well as access and frontage on James Lane. Abutted by town owned land and the MBTA and residential developed property. Three existing buildings on the property. • Small portion of property slopes towards MBTA, most slopes to James Lane, So Main St. and on to the James Lane culvert. • Soil testing showed primarily fill to ledge and there are ledge outcrops from 10 ft.to 1.5 ft. • Paved access road from James Lane to back of property is average of 20 ft.width but will be widened so it is 20 ft. width throughout and will add 5 ft. brick sidewalk • 42 ft. radius circular turnaround — landscaped island in center and outer 6 ft. will be pavers rest will be bituminous concrete • Will be disturbing existing landscaped area and will create new landscaped event area. • 15 ft. grass emergency access behind each annex • Maintaining same elevations for the access -ledge removal on the right will allow widening for the sidewalk. • Ideal elevation is 40-41 and that is elevation they are holding for the garage to allow cars to pull right in and, will allow stormwater to pull away from both garage doors. • All utilities will come off James Lane including gas, electric, drainage and sewer • Cutters and rainspouts on west annex drains to rain gardens • East annex drains to closed drainage system and into James Brook— slight increase in volume will not have adverse impact on salt marsh. • 6 inch water main to new hydrant and then domestic service to fire service for sprinklers • Existing lot coverage is 41.3% impervious—proposed is 63.7% impervious (max 80%is allowed) • Proposing 9 ft. parking spaces instead of required 9.5 ft. spaces (cited Traffic Engineering Handbook which recommends optimum stall width of 8.5 ft. and does not recommend widths that exceed 9.0 ft.) —they could have 9.5 ft. spaces resulting in a loss of 4 spaces but would still comply and, the team considers 8.5 ft. a safe design. Waive will be requested on parking space width. Since the parking is all enclosed, seasonal interferences such as snow banks do not come into play. Sandell showed pictures of municipal parking lot during a March wedding with the max. of 210 guests — pix showed many empty spaces in municipal lot. Humphreys: Required number of parking spaces is based on the hotel/motel requirement is one per unit or, 24 spaces. But, for this project, the calculation was more conservation— 1.5 spaces per unit which is 36 spaces and, they have 4 spaces beyond that. Whether calculating by hotel/motel or dwelling,they exceed either requirement. Drinan: the units are not going to be used as a hotel—they are going to be purchased by individuals, so the units and/or parking spaces may not be available for the wedding business guests if owners are choosing to use them. Humphreys - hotel will manage all the units and it will be the hotel's intention to preempt their use for weddings. Sandell: These should be considered interval ownership hotel suites. Anticipation is the owners may only use the suites once or twice during their 4 month interval ownership and the units will be rented out to wedding guests for the remainder of the time with owners receiving reimbursement for wedding rentals. Modzelewski: reviewed following site plan review checklist. Asked if application for special permit also. Humphreys: This is a plain site plan review, not a special permit. Town Counsel: That raises questions in his mind—asked if any zoning relief will be required—at one time there was a special permit for an extension of a non-conforming use. Humphreys: Proposed work does not increase non-conformity—earlier work did. He will review 2000 application for conditions of approval. Team will review John Modzelewski comments and respond accordingly. No discussion with Town yet regarding use of Town owned adjacent land as parking. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 7 September 10,2014 OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Rowena Karp, 91 So.Main St.: • Special permit required for the function hall requires the land the propose to build on to be held in reserve for 22 parking spaces -also a condition of the liquor license. Employees are supposed to park off street and not in municipal lot. Where are the 22 spaces they are supposed to have? • When original function hall was proposed and then built, it was built larger than approved—it could therefore hold more than the 200 people quoted earlier—they have advertised up to 340 person capacity. They were also supposed to put in screening, fence and never did. What they built was not what was on the approved plan • Original plan showed a future"lodge" which is why town conditioned reserved space for parking near her. • They also created an outdoor space and use it all the time—amplified music, string quartet. • People do not realize the amount of delivery truck traffic there is for the function hall—has negative impact on traffic flow on So. Main St. • Where will a staging area be located? • Only access is through municipal lot—it is not easy to get through the lot and compete with all other traffic. • Thinks a traffic study should be done Dr. Kerim Munir, 95 So. Main St.: • Plans show only 1 access route —what is escape route if something happens and access is blocked? • This is Cohasset and it is not owned by the Red Lion Inn — others enjoy the Village —Village is heart of the Town and more than weddings—this plan is like having a psychotic episode • Never anticipated something like this would come along when he moved to Cohasset —makes one think about selling one's property and moving out. • Why is there so much emphasis on accommodating Red Lion Inn's wedding needs over needs of residents? • This is a shameful plan and he appealed to the Board to do the right thing for the Town. • Can they do the property development closer to the parking lot and not near the abutters? • This is an historic town, not a wedding factory. Ted Carr, 88 So. Main St.: • Plans show an outdoor entertainment space — outdoor events have not been permitted under their permits — would conflict with existing licensing and there have been several problems with that licensing. • Concerned about grading and tower height and how it effects the Village skyline, which he feels should not have a skyline at all • Advises Board to look at recent Mass. Laws on outdoor casinos (which he will send) - there is specific language about creation of outdoor entertainment spaces. There is a carve out that relates to municipally owned venues etc.—broadly encompassing of the creation of new outdoor entertainment spaces. • Knows the neighbors well — all are reasonable people—there is a long track record of the operator of this Inn not doing what he says he will do—this transcends this design and goes all the way back to the original permit and the operation of the Inn- the public frustration is based on the track record of the operation of the Inn. Michael Karp, 91 So.Main St.: • Have already lost all peace and quiet with the functions now—this plan a nightmare for abutters —would have buildings and sliding glass doors facing them—would lose all privacy—could not go out and enjoy backyards. • At a past hearing,Board told them to eliminate doors and windows on abutter side and they have not. • Does not believe they will fill all these rooms for all these weddings —this will be a white elephant—if this is built it is going to be like fraternity row during the wedding season. Mrs. Soizick Munir, 95 So. Main St.: • Concerned about noise, height of buildings, skyline — did not come to Cohasset to have these high buildings looking at her. • Coverage looks like more than 63%-she does not see any room for any kind of landscaping Kathy Devaney, 7 Spring St.: • Has lived here for 10 yrs. - Red Lion Inn has a history of irresponsibility—they are not fair to neighbors or townspeople—cannot assume the Red Lion Inn will do what they are supposed to do to respect neighborhood. • If these are time shares—people get married in warmer months which will conflict with preferred owner use— the purpose directly conflicts with the timeshare concept. Does not want to see a big building constructed that will not serve the intended purpose. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 7 September 10,2014 • There are never parking spaces during weekdays — finds it hard to believe the municipal lot is as empty as depicted in the pictures shown(by Sandell). Parking will have a negative impact on local businesses. Katherine McCarthy, 103 So. Main St.: • Agrees with neighbors' concerns —the history of consistent management turnover would impact security and management of timeshare investment. Paul Healey,209 Main St.,Hingham-representing daughter and abutting owner Jeanne Healey Dippold: • Daughter's home is within 30 ft. of this proposed project so impacts on her will be tremendous —will there be opportunity to speak to specifics in the future? (Yes) Will there be mock ups provided? (Probably not but will be more renderings) Esther Healey,209 Main St.,Hingham-representing_daughter and abutting owner Jeanne Healey Dippold: • There is a fire hydrant at the top of the hill—are there arrangements to get water to the top of the hill? • Does not understand why tower is not considered in the height calcs(will be covered in future hearings) Jody Butman, 17 Spring St.: • Neighbors have a track record with Mr. Ordelheide • Traffic,noise,parking etc. are issues • Is this only expansion—hears rumors about expansion of Lilac House, Cave etc. (not part of this application) John Modzelwski: • would like a presentation on how noise will be addressed. Sandell responded that buildings will be a buffer of the outside areas that will create noise —indoor parking will mitigate car noises. Humphreys noted that the balconies encroach on the 30 ft. setback but can be dropped back to 4 ft. level within the wall lines which would make balcony 4 ft. wide which is enough for a table and two chairs—that is not a deck or porch that can support a revelry or party. • Building is very symmetrical—there is a noise receptor side and a less sensitive side • 50 ft.offset from MBTA spot • Lowest turnaround radius that he is aware of is 45 ft. for paved area —please document anything lower that they may have gotten from fire dept. • Would like site visit. • "Harmonious"issue is a big issue in his mind • Two things looming that he may have to supplement his expertise to address- traffic concerns and noise concerns—should he begin to find and line up consultants? Ivimey want to make sure configuration of buldings won't amplify noise and,parking will be a nightmare—Modzelewski should line up consultants now. Applicant should have sound study done and Modzelewski consultants will review it. Frazier: curious if any business owners have anything to say about how it affects their business. FOR NEXT MEETING: • ZONING ISSUES AND ALL VEHICL ULAR RELATED ISSUES • TOWN COUNSEL TO OPINE ON WHETHER THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN FILED APPROPRIATELY. MOTION: By Member Brewer to continue the public hearing to October 22,2014 at 7:30 P.M. 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 -Michael Robert, applicant for 8 James Lane filing requested that his team be given an extension for submission of revised docs for Sept. 24t1i Planning Board meeting— submission was to have been 2 weeks prior to the Sept. 24th hearing or, Sept. loth—they cannot meet that deadline. Ivimey noted that Planning Board policy is that all docs need to be submitted two weeks prior to the hearing date to allow the Board and consultant engineer adequate time to review and comment. He suggested they request to continue to Oct. 8t1i meeting rather than be given an extension of one week to submit docs only one week before the Sept. 24th meeting. Roberts will put that request in writing. MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. SECOND: Member Drinan Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7 of 7 September 10,2014 VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON, CLERK DATE: SEPTEMBER 24,2014