Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/19/2005 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 7 January 19,2005 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19,2005 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred Moore, Chairman Peter J. Pratt,Vice Chairman Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Mike Westcott Robert H. Sturdy Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:00 PM 7:00 P.M. FORMA -APPLICATIONS • 114 BEECHWOOD ST. &49 NORMAN TODD ROAD & APP: McKAY CONST.,OWNER: SAME, date stamped: 01/05/05 (21 DAYS=02/07/05). Lot 3A by itself is not a buildable lot and is to be combined with and become part of Lot 1 thus having a total lot area of 13,786 S.F. Lot 313 by itself is not a buildable lot and is to be combined with and become part of Lot I thus having a total lot area of 5,964 S.F. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to approve this Form A Application once"is to be"is corrected to "is hereby" and to endorse the plans when a corrected set is presented to the Planning Board. SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED Town Planner Harrington asked Att. Sullivan to withdraw the 49 Norman Todd Road application as applications for both properties are not needed. Att. Sullivan agrees to submit this request to withdraw in writing. Member Moore will sign mylar once corrected version is submitted to Planning Board Office. • 724 JERUSALEM RD. APP: STEVEN CIFRINO, OWNER: JAMES & ANNE CIFRINO, date stamped: 01/05/05 (21 DAYS=02/07/05). Cifrino property was before the Planning Board as a Form A in August,2004. Current Form A- Lots 2A and 2B are a division of Lot 2 as shown on the plan. Lot 2B by itself is not a buildable lot and is to be combined with and become part of Lot 1 thus having a total lot area of 5.08 acres. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to approve this Form A Application once"is to be" (item 7)is corrected to "is hereby" and to endorse the plans when a corrected set is presented to the Planning Board. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED Member Moore will sign mylar once corrected version is submitted to Planning Board Office. 7:10 P.M. CEDARAMERE—UPDATE (not on agenda) Dave Calhoun requested a few minutes to address the Board. He conveyed that the Selectmen reviewed the Planning Board memo dated: 01/11/05 re: Cedarmere &LIP Application and plan to consult with Town Counsel as to their role in the process. He further explained that Selectman Ronnie McMorris stated that the problem is that Cedarmere had done things backwards—they had gotten their approval and had then gone to the Selectmen. Member Sturdy pointed out that the Selectmen wanted to do a total review of the plans as the Planning Board does,one year ago. Calhoun handed out original letter sent to the Selectmen on 03/05/03. He further noted that he requested a meeting with the Selectmen and was told to come back after they had their approvals. Haddad advised Calhoun that it was important enough to Planning Board Meeting 2 of 7 January 19,2005 make the request again which he did and was told on three separate occasions to come before the Selectmen and were then cancelled twice. On the third occasion,he invited the Selectmen to a site visit and they cancelled again(although Koed did show up and did receive a site visit). Calhoun handed out an email document which memorializes the dates to show that Cedarmere did not proceed through the process backwards and that they did everything possible to seek out the Selectmen's advise, cooperation etc. and never received it. Member Sturdy pointed out that this is not an adversarial 40B situation, it is a LIP application and that all Town Boards that have input have agreed and given approval. Member Ivimey noted that the Selectmen should have unanimously voted to delegated this responsibility to the Planning Board. Calhoun stated that is was unfair and not accurate for the Selectmen to publicly state that King Taylor had not done things correctly when documents show that they had done things absolutely correctly and had actually gone beyond the call of duty and had even completed an application in Oct. 2003, submitted it to the HCD for review,receiving two letters back from the HCD requesting signatures so the units could be counted. Member Moore suggested that the Selectmen did not vote not to do anything and that it appears that they were just seeking more advice and that the Planning Board should just wait a few weeks for them to get the advice. If not activity is seen in a few weeks, the Planning Board should keep the pressure on them. Member Pratt feels it is important for the ZBA to understand that the Town should be in compliance with 40B today. Further he feels it is a continuing outrage and not in the interest of the Town for the Selectmen to continue to concentrate on the bidding of Avalon rather than registering these units. Calhoun noted that regardless,the Cedarmere project will go forward,the Town will just not get 40B credit for the eligible units. Members Pratt and Ivimey will go before the Selectmen with the support of the rest of the Planning Board to express the concern that the Selectmen are not acting in the interest of the Town by acting to have these units counted in compliance with 40B. MOTION: by Member Ivimey that the Planning Board pass a resolution encouraging Selectmen to certify the Cedarmere project under local initiative program and designating Member Pratt as spokesperson for the Planning Board at the Selectmen's meeting. SECOND: by Member Sturdy VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED Member Sturdy would like the Planning Board to commend Steve Bobo for his having taken a stand on wastewater treatment. Member Ivimey cautioned that a letter to this effect should not be written until the Planning Board has had the opportunity to review the memo distributed by Calhoun regarding this. Cedarmere will be put on February 2,2005 Planning Board agenda for signoffs so they can obtain building permit. 7:25 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES—VOTE TO ACCEPT 11/10/04, 12/15/04, 01/05/05 MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept minutes for 11/10/04, 12/15/04 and 01/05/05 SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 5—0 MOTION APPROVED • ZONING ARTICLES FOR 04/02/05 TOWN MEETING—4 Zoning Articles (Citizen Petitions) were received and distributed to Planning Board. Member Moore noted that because they are Citizens' Petitions and did not come out of Zoning or from the Planning Board,the Planning Board is only responsible for scheduling a public hearing- it is not for Planning Board to argue for them,negotiate the legality of them, or spend Town money on them—if they are right,they are right, if they are wrong,they are wrong. He requested that we schedule the public hearing for February 16,2005. Member Moore also questioned if these are to be considered repetitive petitions? Town Planner Harrington will look into. • MASTER PLAN—Put on 02/02/05 Planning Board Meeting agenda for one hour. 7:30 P.M 150 NORTH MAIN ST., LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING, APP: KENDALL VILLAGE COHASSET BUILDERS,LLC, OWNER: SAME, date stamped: 12/21/04, (public hearing deadline: 01/24/05) Member Ivimey read Public Hearing Advertisement. Stephen Bjorklund and Mark Winchester in attendance to represent the application. Attorney Richard Henderson,made a procedural comment for the record. He first acknowledged that the applicants are before the Planning Board for a Large Home Site Plan Review because the ZBA told the Planning Board Meeting 3 of 7 January 19,2005 applicants to go before the Planning Board first. He noted that under the Large Home Site Plan Review,there are criteria,but there are also conditions and the last condition, Section 5.5.4 states that among other things that the applicant shall seek all variances from the ZBA first and then seek review and that the granting of one or more variances does not mandate approval of the Large Home Site Review. Henderson noted that this is mandatory,not discretionary. Long discussion ensued regarding this and it appeared that the copy of the bylaw cited by Henderson was not the final version voted on at Town Meeting. Applicant Bjorklund noted that they are not in front of the ZBA for a variance nor will they ever be before the ZBA for a variance on this application and they should proceed with the hearing. Member Sturdy noted that the Large Home Review provides a forum for the public to find out what is going on and to become informed—this hearing will take care of that. The Planning Board can only recommend or not recommend that a building permit be issued and that the only basis of doing so is whether or not on thorough review what is being proposed meets the zoning bylaw allowing for a more thorough review of potential zoning problems that the building inspector has time to do when someone applies for a building permit. Member Sturdy felt the abutters should be allowed to give their opinion at this hearing and if a permit is issued any aggrieved party can appeal to the ZBA. Stephen Bjorklund stated this is a Section 6 Special Permit and they do not need a variance nor will they be applying for a variance. A permitted 4 family apartment building exists—goal is to convert into 4 condos. Average grade around dwelling to the center point between the plate and the peak of the roof is 23'11.25",not the 48' stated in letters by neighbors. Highest rafter measure is 27'. Back of bldg. grading drops off for parking under—most of grading around front and side is at existing grade level(22'3"). The overall height of bldg. from lowest point in back of building to highest point on roof peak is 40'3". Bldg.is under the height requirement for the area. Asphalt roof,Anderson windows, clapboard or shingle exterior. Some parking has been moved away from McGowan residence. 4 exterior parking spots and 4 interior parking spots. Driveway remains where it was last year. Easterly side of property is 22.64' from side of property,meeting 20' setback. On McGowan's side there is 35.8' at the closest point. Bldg. will be approx. 8' closer to them than what currently exists. Present setback is .50',rear setback is>72' and 150' from Greco house, and,250' from Henderson house. Screening around parking area. Structural coverage is 18%. Member Moore asks for actual numbers to be provided. On 3 sides of property,bldg. exceeds setback requirements. Bjorklund says this is not a new construction or a new conversion to a multifamily so Table 5.3.1 does not apply. Planning Board members stated that the Planning Board will hold to this being new construction. Open to Public: Member Moore asked those in favor of project to be recognized—no one in favor. Moved on to those opposed: Richard Henderson, 129 No. Main St., asked Board to consider some of the Bylaw criteria: 1). Consideration of historic aspect of site—only 5 houses are post-1900 and all are single family; 2). Consideration of prominent on- lot automobile impact— 12 parking spaces is prominent auto impact; 3).Avoidance of steep slopes, flood plain etc.—people residents behind this building will be facing a 4 car underground garage which is inconsistent with the neighborhood. These are appropriate basis for saying this is not an appropriate site for this planned building. Dave Whipple, 119 No. Main St.—has lived at this address for 47 years and feels strongly that a 4 unit condo building destroys the family value of the neighborhood. Jacqueline Whipple, 119 No. Main St. is opposed for many reasons: traffic in and out of condo will significantly add to the traffic and increase the danger of the traffic;this section contains many historic homes including 150 No. Main St. which was built in 1757. The Whipple home is 4 houses away and has been recommended for the National Register of Historic Homes—condos would change the character of the neighborhood; geographical interest—left side of bldg. is a large glacial kettle hole. Pat Gallager, 40 Jerusalem Rd., -asked for clarification of Planning Board power with LHR under section 5.5.2—addressed by Town Planner Harrington. Rita Kuolas, 140 N. Main St., commented that existing house fits snugly on that property and cannot accommodate any more. Member Moore noted that if it meets setbacks and is within zoning,the Planning Board cannot alter that. Bob Egan agreed that it is within zoning setbacks. Richard Henderson, 129 No. Main St.,mentions that bylaw criteria mentions open space and questions how this structure impacts open space. Member Pratt asked applicant to clearly outline the figures: existing footprint is 1,700 SF, proposed footprint is f3,600 SF, lot is 27,000 SF so the%coverage is 18%(+ 11%for impervious driveway). Bjorklund mentioned that they tried to meet new construction standards even though they do not think they apply as they do not consider this new construction. Member Pratt questioned total residential gross floor area: 6425 SF (approx. 9,000 SF including garages,basement). Frank Kelley, 6 Planning Board Meeting 4 of 7 January 19,2005 Jerusalem Rd., stated concerned that the applicant's high point is his low point and that he will be looking at and touching car bumpers and will impact the value of his home and will be impacted by run-off and septic system. Bjorklund noted that septic system is near kettle hole and on the lowest point of their lot which will accumulate any excess run-off and contain on their site and that roof run-off will drain to downspouts into ground. Member Pratt noted that the BOH has indicated that the septic system tank and distribution box would have to be relocated and asked Bjorklund where he would move it to. Bjorklund replied that leeching field is OK and that tank will be moved 10' from foundation. Jim French, Jerusalem Rd., Questioned how the knoll can support this expansion and, stated simply that this project"is not the right thing to do"in this neighborhood. Roger Crafts, 156 No. Main St., stated that he is horrified that he will see a wall of home when he looks out his windows. Chris McGowan, 154 No. Main St.reiterated concerns over increased noise,runoff, lighting. Kimberly McGowan, 154 No. Main St. submitted photos taken by Roger Crafts of the view from her windows, superimposing a sketch of proposed structure to convey how imposing the structure will be within feet of her home. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to continue this public hearing to the 02/02/05 Planning Board Meeting SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION 8:45 P.M. 154/156 KING ST. Member Moore recuses self as he had done in Fall proceedings. Michael Tack, Michael Kent,Attorney Henderson and John Cavanaro present. J. Cavanaro indicates that they are down to one point which is the cooperative agreement with rear abutters to have a minimum 4-5' berm along the back of the property, landscaping along sides, fence along top of berm on back and sides.Member Ivimey confirmed that all considerations that Sturinos and Harzichs were looking for were on the landscape plan. Attorney Henderson will write an agreement based upon the signed plans and recorded. John Modzelewski noted that ZBA has written slightly different condition asking that John Modzelewski certify traffic issues and safety of intersection between Avalon and 154/156 King St. He has forwarded to his consultant and will put in writing what he can. Member Ivimey noted that this peer review should not hinder Planning Board signing plans tonight. John Modzelewski stated that it is his opinion that everything that was necessary for endorsement has been done. Member Sturdy requested that the planting selections be beefed up. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to endorse plans as presented and approved by Engineer Modzelewski. SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED Plans were signed and when copies are forwarded to Planning Board they will be distributed to Building Dept. Town Planner Harrington will work out the ZBA coordination issue. 9:15 P.M. HIGHLAND ESTATES—CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING—(Decision deadline extended to January 31,2005) Attorney Sullivan,Neil Murphy,Attorney Ayoub and Mr.Nader present. J. Modzelewski write 01/06/05 letter which contains conditions that he would recommend to take care of some of the outstanding issue which are pretty straight forward. • Detention pond nearest Beechwood St. is in a FEMA floodplain Zone A which is a 100 yr. floodplain zone. Suggests conditioning approval such that they move small portion in floodplain zone out of this zone. Town Planner Harrington has included generic condition to incorporate all J. Modzelewski outstanding items and/or suggested conditions of approval. • Street trees—Board should discuss how many trees they want to replace (N. Murphy tree count is 56 trees of 12"caliper lost due to roadway construction). J. Modzelewski suggests condition of 1 tree on each side of road at 50' intervals,just outside the roadway layout(if inside the layout,the Town has to care for them if the road is taken by the Town). Member Sturdy wants maintenance of street trees to be part of Homeowners' Association Agreement since it is unlikely the Town will ever accept this roadway. Member Sturdy would also like to add that the Homeowners' Association SHALL NOT ASK THE TOWN to accept this roadway as a public way as was done with the Wheelwright Farm so that drainage etc. is locked in, because the cost to the Town to plow,maintain etc. is very high and labor intensive and because he does not want to see the road be able to be used as frontage for access to another subdivision. Planning Board Meeting 5 of 7 January 19,2005 • Suggest condition to try to make sure grading and drainage is tied into what was presented at the Planning Board hearings and there was a specific plan that was submitted with the drainage report that shows the drainage areas and is amenable to having parameters put on it that would indicate the%impervious,the runoff characteristics etc. that would tie down drainage patterns without shackling the developer in terms of siting a house etc. He would like the condition to state that the"plan contained in the drainage report shall be modified by the addition of certain parameters: the curb number,the concentration area, drainage area and a condition shall be placed on these plans regarding roof run-off etc. and this design shall be adhered to during the construction of the subdivision. Any deviation shall be endorsed by the design engineer and brought to the Board for approval and this plan shall be part of the recorded subdivision set and we recommend that adherence to this modified plan be a condition of approval of the subdivision(property?)". The plan should be prepared by a professional engineer and is a document that gets recorded so there is public notice to any purchaser. Neil Murphy can incorporate this. • Civil Design never received any indication of what the water flow and pressure is to the subdivision and put some suggested conditions to the Board—for example,the Board could vote to deny approval until these items(item 40,page 2)are received. Neil Murphy tried to get this information but has not been able to get permission to flow the hydrants from the Superintendent of the Water Dept. He says the information is available from existing records. It is a 10"cast iron main and pressure and supply should be fine,but data to prove this should be supplied. N. Murphy thinks it should be conditioned until data is supplied. • Ponding on the corner behind Kenney lot, Baxter lot and Nader lot that is depressed and ponds. The ponding has been exacerbated by the roadway that was cut to do the exploratory test pits. The depression is not going to go away as the plans are now. J. Modzelewski suggests that the only way to get rid of the ponding is to get grading done on the Kenney lot(although it probably will not get worse). Att. Sullivan indicates that they have an easement to do the regrading that Modzelewski suggests. Attorney Sullivan notes that: • All areas requiring easements have been reduced to recordable easements. All easements mentioned by Modzelewski are in hand and that all land is registered and recorded land. • Was discovered that Form 4 -Application for Approval of Definitive Plan that was filed on 09/15/04 lists Highland Estates LLC and Anthony Nader as applicants but should be amended to list 3 applicants: Highland Estates LLC(developer),Anthony Nader(owner)and Helaine Nader(owner). • Will shift detention basin if possible,but N. Murphy has looked at many ways of doing so and thinks it will be very difficult to do. They are prepared to apply to ZBA and Con Comm accordingly to maintain small portion of detention basin in flood plain if necessary. • Agree to planting trees every 50' but would like to add"approx. every 50' "to accommodate driveways etc. • Looping to Locust Road—there isn't anyway to loop to Locust Road as they have a Con Comm restriction area. There is no way to get across the roadway to Locust Road. • Request for waivers—really don't need the first requested waiver that has to do with road radii because of easement. Peak rate run-off waiver—John Modzelewski suggests saying no to that waiver until it is known what the MBTA is going to do. Feels requests for waivers is consistent with Civil Design and N. Murphy work. Member Westcott stated a big concern with overall site in terms of drainage and run-off as it is a fairly sensitive site in terms of ponding etc. He is concerned with the number of drainage related waivers that are being requested, the level of density,the slope and nature of the site and the amount of run-off that will be created. He is concerned that it will be a problem in the future. Member Sturdy suggested it is very important that everything that is on this plan is adhered to under the Homeowners' Agreement—if too much is waived going in it might lessen the value of what is put in the Homeowners' Agreement. Att. Sullivan felt the bulk of the waivers do not have to do with drainage. Modzelewski wants the drainage plan incorporated into the subdivision set so as to lock in how the development is to be maintained. Modzelewski noted that roofs will be infiltrating water into the ground and that some driveways will be shedding water into detention ponds but he has looked at the drainage and is comfortable that flows match what they were beforehand. Member Westcott is still concerned with the density of the houses and the impact along the pond and Beechwood St. Member Moore feels that if John Modzelewski is comfortable Planning Board Meeting 6 of 7 January 19,2005 with it that the Board can be comfortable that it is a good plan. Member Sturdy is only concerned that it stays as planned and that changes are not made that will change the drainage. Regarding the detention pond, N. Murphy would like to go before Con Comm first, get their endorsement and return to the Planning Board. Attorney Sullivan stated that drainage can be addressed in the Homeowners Association Agreement with provision that tennis courts and pools will require a review to show that there will be no impact(as opposed to just prohibiting them). • Attorney Ayoub noted that there is a strong preference to have the road as a public road in the future from a marketing and maintenance point of view,noting that they would have to go before Planning Board to have the roadway become access to abutting land and it is clear that would not happen. Member Sturdy noted how it could happen. Member Moore noted stated in our lifetime,this will not be a public way—80% of Cohasset roads are private ways (even if it were petitioned to become a public roadway, it would be so far down on the list, it may never be gotten to). MOTION: by Member Pratt to amend application document to reflect the additional names of the developers and land owners as applicants as requested by Applicant's Counsel SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION: by Member Pratt to approve under the Subdivision Control Law the application submitted to the Planning Board for so-called Highland Estates off Beechwood Street,Cohasset and that the Planning Board approve as submitted with conditions outlined in the Town Planner's memo and in John Modzelewski's several memos on the subject and additional comments from the Board and with the condition that the Planning Board will review all outstanding conditions and documents at its next meeting with the goal of signing the plans at that time. SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 4- 1 Town Planner Harrington will circulate a draft decision for review and comment. Highland Estates will be added to the 02/02/05 agenda. 10:20 P.M. 100 WHITEHEAD ROAD, LARGE HOME REVIEW CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APP: JAY GRAHAM, OWNER: WHITEHEAD ROAD LIMITED, date stamped: 12/15/04. Jay Graham,John Cavanaro,Jeanne Vanecko,Dan Solien present to represent application. John Cavanaro explained that public viewing of property on 01/08/05 was well attended and gave abutters the opportunity to view the property in entirety. Mrs. Thayer also hosted a meeting at her home on 01/15/05 for abutters and applicant's team to address issues around construction, construction schedule,hours of operation, types of construction vehicles,traffic protocol,deliveries etc. This meeting will be encapsulated in a document which will be agreed to, signed and submitted to the Planning Board for the record. Jay Graham addressed the possibility of using a barge for debris removal and materials delivery, explaining that, after much examination, it appears this is not a feasible option: topography and access via water is too difficult; dock would have to be built; concern that full barge would ground out; extreme labor required to load and offload trucks and barges; tide variations,potential for NE storm causing huge problems for barge; -all result in very cost prohibitive and potentially negative environmental situation. Road will be accessed and repaired to point needed for construction and restored to original condition or better post-construction. J. Cavanaro spoke to Capt. Trask (PFD)about bridge and access to and around property. Trask seemed satisfied with those items but,would like to see fire suppression&alarm system installed. Jeanne Vanecko indicated both are being installed. Cavanaro indicated that only a few points remain to be worked out between applicant and abutters' counsels regarding bridge. Member Moore noted that he does not think anyone had this type of site in mind for Large Home Review but that it did give everyone the opportunity to see what was planned for the property-which is the intent of the Large Home Review Bylaw. Charles Higginson, 159 Atlantic Ave. noted that the Water Dept. is planning to redo the water line. Michael Puzo, Cross St.,Hingham and Attorney for the Thayer Family noted that the issues have been memorialized in a document to be submitted for the record which includes construction protocols. He noted that requested issues have been attended to by the applicant's representatives. Abutters are Planning Board Meeting 7 of 7 January 19,2005 very satisfied with the Large Home Review process and outcome, feeling the applicant has walked the extra mile. He further noted that 100 Whitehead Road could be used as model for successful Large Home Review. Further,he suggested that the agreed upon protocols be incorporated into the recommendation to the Building Inspector. Member Ivimey thinks this is reasonable as long as there is no representation that the Planning Board or the Building Inspector are undertaking any responsibility to enforce the items included in said document. MOTION: by Member Westcott to recommend that the Building Inspector issue a building permit for 100 Whitehead Road with the protocols attached. SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 11:00 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS • 44 BEACH ST., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APP: PAUL OGINBENE, dated stamped: O1/18/05. Applicant seeks to construct deck in the flood plain. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this application SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 5-0 MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 11:20 P.M. NEXT MEETING: February 2,2005 at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: