Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 08/10/2005 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 5 August 10,2005 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY,AUGUST 10,2005 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—SELECTMEN'S MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred Moore, Chairman Peter J. Pratt,Vice Chairman Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Mike Westcott Board Members Absent: Robert Sturdy Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:02 PM 7:02 P.M. DeNIRO'S RESTAURANT(not on agenda) Frank Amonte,Bay Planning; John Fairchild, Abutter, in attendance. Mr. Amonte recalled for Board that decreasing fencing by approx. 25' was approved. Fence would be between chainlink fence on Fairchild property and existing wood guardrail. Mr. Fairchild would like 5 arborvitae planted which Amonte agrees to.Amonte also noted that the plan was to also plant 2 blue spruce aside Fairchild's garage area. Mr. Fairchild also asked for one Austrian pine so the area is green all year. Mr. Amonte pointed out that Austrian Pine grows to 60' high and 40' wide which the soil/ledge in that area will not support. Instead,Mr. Amonte suggested shallow root Japanese Black Scotch Pine.Mr.Amonte pointed out that the applicant will not be maintaining the property—only planting. Mr. Fairchild stated understanding. Mr. Amonte further noted that the applicant is ready to begin clearing and planting but asks relief from the Planning Board in that Mr. Fairchild's property has not been cared for or maintained in at least a year and the 7' high growth during that time has gotten out of control. He asked that Mr. Fairchild share responsibility for the clearing work. MOTION: by Member Ivimey that the Planning Board not amend the previous decision and that the applicant is responsibility to clear the land as stated in the earlier decision. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 3-0 MOTION APPROVED (Member Westcott had not arrived at this time) For the record,Mr.Amonte wanted it noted that they will clear the area but will not be liable for any damage incurred to existing vegetation because of the clearing of the excessive overgrowth on Mr. Fairchild's property.Mr. Fairchild noted that only 1 blue spruce is to remain, all the rest if the growth is to be removed. Refrigeration unit concern: 8' x 10' walk-in refrigeration unit not on plan. Does not encroach on footprint or setbacks. Compressor is quieter than all others. Fully gasketed so it is very quiet when doors are shut. Trees will block view of it. Building Commissioner Egan is satisfied with it. Egan suggested that Planning Board visit site to look at it. Will leave as open item until next meeting until Planning Board visits. Lighting concern: Amonte states they are in complete compliance with condition of no lighting spill off-site. One light above kitchen door is dusk to dawn by photocell for security purposes. All other lights are on timers to turn off 30 min. after the close of business (12:30 AM). 7:25 P.M. 2 SMITH PLACE, SITE PLAN REVIEW CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APP: RICHARD BROWN, OWNER: 2 SMITH PLACE REALTY TRUST,date stamped: 06/21/05. (EXTENSION TO 08/24/05) Member Pratt recused self. Richard Brown; Attorney Richard Henderson;Herb Keundig,Architect; Terry McGovern and Brian Taylor, Stenbeck&Taylor attendance. Keundig explained new architecturals and design is a hip roof wood building with cupola to look more like old barn or train station/depot design. Semi low roof with a 7 pitch. Main building is 175' long(2 10' with 10' mechanical bathroom off one end and smaller bay off other end). Each bay is 25' x 50'. To be used sporadically at end of day Planning Board Meeting 2 of 5 August 10,2005 by contractors. Designed to be user and neighbor friendly. Exterior treatment: 30 yr. fiberglass, architectural type roof shingles; clapboard front and vertical barn board on sides; colors in beige,grey and earth tones;high windows on backside, facing RR tracks; 6 panel,metal/fiberglass doors,not electrically operated; down facing light on side of each bay door or above door; gutters, downspouts; only a small plague on each bay door,no sign outside bldg. Member Ivimey would like to see catalog cuts of light fixtures. Taylor noted all changes requested by Board at last meeting were implemented including: detail about existing and proposed utilities; grass paved system for overflow parking if needed as well as parking inside each bay; added guardrail on top of retaining wall;white pines to be planted every 10' along residential abutter property to provide heavy density screening; Cultec drainage system added to back of bldg. to recharge drainage off roof, highlighted high point of bldg; added detail about recharge system. Public comment: Chris Allen,21 Pleasant St., commented asked whether Board Members had any personal relationship with Mr. Brown(Concerned about"we'll get this done"comment by Member Moore at last meeting). Member Moore explained that Board has always tried to be fair to applicants as well as abutters and again explained the constraints of site plan review. Susan Keckemety, 7 Cushing Rd., asked about dimensions of lot and if they conform with zoning and if footprint is the same as presented in previous plans(yes). Can Tiryaki, 17 Pleasant St., asked if 7-8' trees can screen a 23' high bldg. Taylor answered that the trees are buffering low trucks and low level lighting directed at the structure not at the parking lot and,will screen. Tiryaki also commented that he had his own survey done and feels the property line is incorrect and the ditch is on his property. Taylor is confident his survey is accurate but will check. Tiryaki also concerned about use and time bldg. can be used,and requested that it not be used before 7 AM and not after 8 PM. Attorney Henderson noted that the Planning Board can regulate hours but that generally hours are based on what the business is and there is no statute about regulating hours and that in order to restrict hours,the nature of the business must lend itself to restriction and require protection and that in this case,there is no outside storage or equipment. Further,he noted that uses and abuses are dealt with by the courts not by site plan review. Chris Allen, 21 Pleasant,noted that a huge factor is that Smith Place will be shut off so the only access is through multiple residential streets and the Board should keep that foremost in their mind and err on the side of caution. Elsa Miller, 60 Reservoir Rd., : asked if the site partially in commercial and partially in residential(yes)and has concerns with that; asked if this has gone before Conservation (yes)and has been approved(yes)and notes that she does not see wetlands delineation on the map; does not see the Rivers Act or stormwater run-off considered; questions the impact on James Brook during and after construction; asks about the town owned parcel on Pleasant St. as possible access (Member Moore noted the town agreement with the MBTA about parking and Town not wanting to cede any parking spaces); asked if the Town is going to ask for a Clean Site Report(already done); asked if the intended use is for storage(No. Member Moore noted that the it can be sued for anything allowed by zoning and if someone does something not allowed by zoning that the Zoning Officer addresses); asked if the Planning Board has seen wetlands delineation information to which Member Moore noted that the Planning Board relies on the expertise of ConComm to evaluate it. Can Tiryaki, 17 Pleasant St.,noted that if the use could change in the future and is more reason to limit hours to protect abutters and,that the accuracy of the property lines will effect the size of the bldg. and should be resolved. Member Moore noted that the Planning Board has to rely on stamped/certified plans and that if plans are in error,they have to be corrected. Steve Hadfield, 8 Cushing Rd.,noted that contractors can be called out at all hours of night for emergencies and asked about restricting hours. Member Moore noted that Board can restrict hours but must be a reasonable accommodation. Member Westcott thought the access issue should be looked into and that the Planning Board should help accelerate that process and incorporated as a follow-up condition. Mr. Brown is not averse to exploring other access. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to close the public hearing. SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 3-0 MOTION APPROVED Member Ivimey asked Modzelewski if he felt all the items in his memo had been addressed. Referencing Stenbeck &Taylor 08/10/05 letter,Modzelewski noted: - would like cuts and fills on an whole number elevation basis (8,9,10,11) - need net fill prior to signing - p. 3 #7 clarify inverts—should be on plans prior to signing - p. 4#3 gas lines should be on plans before signing - p. 5 #11 irrigation system—Planning Board should decide if they will require one Planning Board Meeting 3 of 5 August 10,2005 - p. 5 #13 lighting catalog cuts should be submitted before signing and condition that no light shall be cast off site - p. 5 #14 screening must have good growth on bottom or be supplemented with low bushes. - p. 5 #17 grading on RR side will work—2 %slope generally needed to prevent puddling/ponding - p. 5 #18 on abutter side—berm&detention pond—slopes away from abutters' properties toward applicant's property—needs Swale—add before plan signing. - should have stakes shown to resolve property line issue/discrepancies Building Commissioner Egan has no additional input. Member Moore stated that Modzelewski analysis is thorough; comment should be attached to urge connection to town lot if possible;property line needs to be researched and resolved; hours of operation restriction(Egan stated that 7AM is customary—should avoid deliveries but should not restrict someone going quietly to their place of business. Member Westcott agrees with 7 AM—9 PM as restriction for hours of operation; feels design issues have been resolved and is more harmonious; lot coverage and parking have been resolved;would like to aggressively address access via town parcel; feels use will police itself over time. Member Ivimey agrees with Moore and Westcott in that design has improved but still does not believe it is harmonious and non-injurious to neighbors and thins Board should be more concerned with and aware of the abutters. Ivimey feels residents should be primary concern and that there will be"significant"detriment to neighborhood and traditional qualities of the Town and that one cannot build this building on this lot and meet the charge of the Board. Further,Ivimey noted that as much as the concept of "use"is not within the purview of the Planning Board, the real use of this application is storage and warehousing and is not allowed and would like to add a statement that the Planning Board believes the intended use is storage/warehousing and is prohibited(p. 15 of bylaws). Attorney Henderson noted that it is beyond the Planning Board charge to express this arbitrary and capricious opinion. Building Commissioner Egan noted that the use issue would be resolved by the ZBA. Member Westcott noted that the Town erred by closing Smith Place and cutting off this site from the rest of the commercial district and should now correct that mistake and help reconnect this to the rest of the commercial district with use of the town parcel as an access. Town Planner noted that the applicant must be willing to assume some of the legwork with the Selectmen, legal assistance, site plan etc. regarding access through the town parcel to be used for a Town Meeting Warrant. MOTION: by Member Moore to approve this Site Plan contingent upon: • the applicant completing and implementing all comments made by Engineer John Modzelewski • hours of operation relative to delivery/loading be restricted to no earlier than 7 AM and no later than 9PM • the property line survey issue being resolved • an ongoing reasonable effort being made by the applicant,with the assistance of the Planning Board,to seek alternative access through the town owned parcel in an effort to reconnect his commercial property with the rest of the commercial district(via participating in the public process, going to Selectmens meeting, helping with plans). SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 2—1 MOTION APPROVED Planning Board Members agreed this decision can be filed without being reviewed at another meeting. 9:00 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS • 39 HILL STREET, SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APP: VAUGHN&JILL LITTLEJOHN, date stamped: 08/09/05. Building Commissioner Egan explained that neither the architect nor the homeowner realized there was a zoning issue until they planned to moved out of the home for work to take place. The architect was not familiar with Cohasset zoning and a series of honest mistakes occurred. This is a typical non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot situation. Back of the house is 4"too close to the lot line and front is 18"too close to the lot line (lot line and house are not quite parallel). Increase in height would extend non-conformity requiring decision from ZBA. Footprint does not change. MOTION: by Member Westcott to recommend that the ZBA approve this special permit application. SECOND: Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED Planning Board Meeting 4 of 5 August 10,2005 9:10 P.M. CEDARMERE—REVIEW STATUS OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Jim Smalanskas, Leggat McCall and Neil Murphy in attendance. Cleared area for: road all the way to Rt. 3A;Westerly House and the retention ponds adjacent to the Westerly House; and, some brush/undergrowth in area where first section of houses to be built so buffer zone area could be seen(have not gone into 50' buffer zone). Tonight, Smalanskas would like to discuss: roughing in road to Rt. 3A as this will be primary truck route rather than Beechwood St.; confirm what they can and cannot do in buffer zone; and, discuss proceeding with additional phase of clearing. Member Moore asked about parking spots in buffer zone that were discovered at last meeting. Smalanskas noted that the building in buffer zone can be moved forward and away from the buffer and the parking shown in the 30' buffer can be eliminated in that corner of the site and there is still more than adequate parking. 50' buffer would require elimination of 9 spaces while 30' buffer would require elimination of 3 spaces. Murphy asked for 30' buffer and thereby eliminate only 3 spaces. Member Pratt would not like to set this precedent. Member Moore stated that if there is still enough parking with the elimination of 9 spaces, the buffer will remain at 50'. Member Pratt asked if there is anything that can be done to protect more vegetation so it doesn't look so clear cut. John Modzelewski replied that the reality is the roadways have been clear and that in the other areas,the understory has been removed but that the trees still remain and that in reality, a lot of trees will be removed to build 110 units. However,he noted that once grading is complete,they will have a count of how many trees >8" have been lost and that the Board can ask to have them replaced in landscaping. Member Ivimey stated that the thought the buffer area should be sacrosanct and that intrusion should be allowed only when the need is overwhelming. Member Moore thought the Board's intention was that the buffer might have to be disturbed during construction but would then be repaired and that the bigger concern is that patios etc. not be in the buffer. Modzelewski noted that in some areas of the buffer,much if the growth is not deciduous and could be improved. Smalanskas thinks there is a need for some flexibility in the buffer zone area. Member Pratt asked Modzelewski if he was concerned about the 7%grade for 80' in the area of the Westerly Building(an within the watershed protection district that limit salt conditions). Modzelewski replied that he is not worried as cars will be going slowly in that area for the intersection. Smalanskas would like to proceed and begin clearing the area to the left of Carriage House Way. Member Moore stated that the Board would rely John Modzelewski's expertise -when he is comfortable with it,he can give the go ahead. Modzelewski noted that the Board has given the go ahead for Phase I and no buffer zone and would like to visit the site on a regular basis—probably Wednesdays-to examine grading and determine when areas beyond that can be started. Smalanskas pointed out that Leggat McCall has meetings on site every Tuesday. Member Moore asked that Harrington email the dates of site visits to Board members. Town Planner Harrington flagged specific conditions that she thought need a vote or an update: #12: Re_ug latoryAgreement: In process—(was to have been dealt with prior to the start of any activity). Right now, Cohasset Town Counsel comments are being reviewed by Leggat McCall counsel. Once those comments are received,they will be incorporated and sent back to Cohasset Town Counsel for review. #20: Submission of Construction Narrative for review and approval prior to the start of any activity. Has been submitted and reviewed by Harrington and Modzelewski. Both feel it meets everything in the special permit. Construction schedule was to start in July,2005 and has been bumped up to August,2005 and has been updated to reflect new dates. Smalanskas explained that mitigation plan,construction narrative and schedule, and phasing plan —single and double units to be done first, Westerly House &Manor House in next wave of activity and other side of Manor House to be last wave of activity. These documents are on file in PB Office should public care to review. Approval and vote by Board required after they review. #23 Traffic Mitigation Plan: Reviewed by Modzelewski and Harrington. Plan is the way Modzelewski envisioned it would be. Member Pratt and Ivimey thought all points covered in hearings were taken to heart and implemented and that Board should honor it and amend it if problems arise. Member Pratt asked if neighbors were aware of schedule and if single point of contact number can be made available to public so they can call with concerns. Smalanskas noted that monthly meetings will be scheduled with abutters to keep them apprised of upcoming clearing,blasting and construction events and that contact number—(781-383-4030)—will also be distributed as part of public information release. Approval and vote to be done at later date. #53 Forest Management Plan: Accepted at last meeting. Satisfied and implemented in phases with Modzelewski as arbiter as to when next phases can be started. #57 Left Hand Lane question: still outstanding—Harrington has not heard from ConComm yet. Smalanskas will let Harrington know if he hears anything from ConComm. Planning Board Meeting 5 of 5 August 10,2005 #60 Draft of legal covenant restricting further subdivision of site: Still in process- document has been submitted and is being reviewed by Town Counsel. Member Pratt will draft language to send to Town Counsel to address the fact that there are no future rights to access anything but current, existing homes as well as the senior overlay etc. #61 Redesign at Norman Todd Rd.and Beechwood St. : Still outstanding-technically has been done and submitted but still needs to be accepted by Board of Selectmen. Harrington will discuss with Town Manager Griffin. #62 Location and specifications on exterior air conditioners: Still outstanding. Cited as done on Smalanskas's 08/05/05 status report—not done. #67 Plans on barn,house, &waste water treatment plant to be reviewed 90 days prior to construction: Architects are currently working on plans. Harrington issued reminder that review must happen 90 days prior to construction. TOM POWERS, POWERS LANE Mr. Powers notified Planning Board Office on the afternoon of this meeting, that he had just returned from vacation and learned of the meeting. He indicated that he was not able to attend this meeting,but that he has contacted a contractor and that paving should be completed within 30 days. 10:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO ACCEPT 07/27/05 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept 07/27/05 minutes SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • MILL RIVER BOATYARD—Member Moore will ask Building Commissioner Egan to have applicant come before the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review • SCITUATE HILL PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION DECISION—Must be filed by 08/20/05. Civil Designs to provide input about traffic. Town Planner Harrington will circulate draft one more time. Will need feedback by 08/17/05. • PLANNING BOARD OFFICE—Members Moore and Pratt to meet with Town Manager Griffin and Michael Buckley to discuss staffing and logistics in Planning Board Office. 10:15 P.M. PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 5 MINUTE BREAK,RECONVENING IN PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TO VIEW JIM SHIPSKY SLIDE TAPE. 10:20 P.M. JIM SHIPSKY, SLIDE TAPE ON ALTERNATIVE GREEN DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES RELATIVE TO THE COOK ESTATE Jim Shipsky showed slide tape on"green" development feeling there was still time to address"green"development relative to Cook Estate to help lower energy use and costs from a conservation design/development standpoint during Planning Board reviews. Planning Board members thought the ideas were very worthwhile. Member Pratt suggested investigating obtaining state monies to help defray implementation costs. Member Moore suggested that as soon as announcement is made regarding group selected to develop the Cook Estate, a select group be invited to a meeting to introduce the"green" concept and encourage them to incorporate"green"concepts into their design and development. MOTION: by Member Pratt to adjourn. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 11:00 P.M. NEXT MEETING: Wednesday,September 7,2005, 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: