Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 04/07/2004 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 4 April 7,2004 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 7,2004 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL-BASEMENT MEETING RM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S. Moore, Chairman Peter J. Pratt Robert H. Sturdy Stuart Ivimey Michael Westcott Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:05 PM 7:05 PM WHITE WOODS TRUST LOT,FORM A—APPLICATION,APP: WILLIAM J. MORGAN AND KATHRYN E.MORGAN,DATE: 04-07-04. Frank H. White and Donald White have agreed to give William J. Morgan and Kathryn E. Morgan two small pieces of land for setback and for septic to comply with zoning and allow them to build a house on their lot. They have 50' of frontage. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve this Form A-Application as presented. SECOND: By Member Moore VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED 7:10 PM 724 JERUSALEM RD. JAMES CIFRINO,REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD HENDERSON,DISCUSS POTENTIAL FOR FORM A—SUBDIVISION. Attorney Henderson reviewed public records and private plans. Hyde Way is shown on 1951 plans prior to zoning and adoption of subdivision. 1969 Zoning Act which was readopted in 1976 both show Hyde Lane and Frederick Cunningham Road(aka Cemetery Road)as ways. Both also appear on 1955 maps and on current zoning maps. Citing 81L, Attorney Henderson contends it has been clearly shown privately,publicly and on plans endorsed by the Planning Board in the past since the adoption and prior to the adoption of subdivision and zoning. He argues that the Cifrino's can actually choose between both streets for a single family lot and use the way as frontage. The Cifrino's prefer access off Hyde Lane. Member Sturdy contends that there is not issue of frontage whatsoever and that the mere fact that something is shown on a drawing where it is immaterial to what was done on the drawing doesn't make any sense. Attorney Henderson contends that this situation meets two criteria: a way shown on a plan that was previously endorsed and,a way shown on a plan that existed before 1955. Therefore, a finding can be made that it is suitable in width and grade for the addition of one house. Member Sturdy is concerned that this could open a pandora's box of any private way that happened to be shown on a plan even though it was immaterial to the plan could become in effect,the same as a private way and that if its signed, and a mistake is made, it could not be appealed. Attorney Henderson will write a brief to submit to Town Counsel. 7:30 PM REORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD Member Moore noted that the Planning Board must be reformed now that elections are over. MOTION: By Member Sturdy to appoint Al Moore as Chairman,Peter Pratt as Vice Chairman and Stuart Ivimey as Clerk. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED Planning Board Meeting 2 of 4 April 7,2004 7:35 PM GRAHAM WASTE/CROCKER II REALTY TRUST—PUBLIC HEARING—SITE PLAN REVIEW. APP: CROCKER II REALTY TRUST,DATE: MARCH 17,2004. Member Pratt reads Public Hearing Advertisement. John Cavanaro, CE, John Cavanaro Consulting, introduces information about the project. Crocker Lane is the final piece to revitalize the area. Parcel is an oddly shaped lot that encompasses most of Crocker Lane as it is a private way. The limited parking on the site is taking advantage of a bylaw that allows adjacent property under common ownership within 500' of a development to be used for a shared parking arrangement. The Medical Office building requires 190+/- spaces and has 220. The 4,400 square foot Graham Waste office building will have its additional parking spaces behind the Medical Building. Also sharing the existing septic system now used by Cohasset Collision and other neighboring businesses. Member Pratt asks about the curb cut on 3A and whether elimination of the cut was considered directing all traffic to Crocker Lane. Cavanaro said this was considered but the Crocker Lane intersection is tightly constrained. A long term idea is to route the Medical Office building and other potential development adjacent to Sunrise to a T-intersection with King Street, effectively sending one half of the developed area/traffic to a signalized intersection. Modzelewski points out that must have 150' from an intersection to a driveway. As this is an existing condition it is not clear how this is to be enforced. Cavanaro indicates that the building is proposed to be in line with the orientation of other buildings in the stretch. Given odd configuration of lot and existing pump house to rear,this is why parking is located in front and is much closer to 3A than other proximate developments. Modzelewski suggests moving the parking around a bit to see if it can be moved back off 3A. The landscape plan has not been submitted. Elevations need to be submitted and Modzelewski asks for updated drainage calculations. Member Moore asks for comments from public. Hearing none,he opens the floor up to Member questions. Member Ivimey asks if the handicap spot will function well for backing out, etc. Cavanaro responds that a 24' aisle width is standard design. Member Sturdy asks Modzelewski to check the width of the traveled lanes at Route 3A in this vicinity as often shoulders are used for passing on right. Modzelewski asks that pump station be looked at more carefully. Can it be incorporated into the building with potential for second floor space above? Makes for more of an L-shaped building with more flexibility on the parking configuration. Cavanaro will take a look at this. Public hearing is continued until April 21, 2004 with time to be determined. 8:15 PM GREAT NECK RESIDENCES—PUBLIC HEARING—SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION. APP: ELLEN M.MORRISSEY AND CHARLES TRINGALE. Member Pratt reads the hearing advertisement. Member Moore asks if anyone is present for the applicant. The applicant is not present for the hearing. Member Moore recounts the reasons for the Boards disapproval of the Preliminary Plan at the February 18,2004 meeting. The applicant has not supplied any additional information to bring the filing to the required definitive plan level. Planner Harrington asked to draft a decision with the input of Town Counsel. MOTION: By Member Sturdy to close the public hearing. SECOND: By Member Ivimey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED MOTION: By Member Sturdy to deny the Special Permit for reasons cited on February 18, 2004 and further for the failure to submit definitive level plans and information. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED Member Ivimey clarifies for the record that holding the public hearing after the disapproval of the Preliminary Plan was provided to the applicant as on opportunity to improve her application and not to limit it. Residents Lou Eaton and Mark DeGiacomo voice their comments that the project has been in front of various boards in one form or another for the past 10 years and question whether the denial under the SMROD bylaw means that the applicant is not allowed to reapply, ever. Planner Harrington does not believe so,but will look into. Planning Board Meeting 3 of 4 April 7,2004 8:30 PM MILL RIVER BOATYARD—PUBLIC HEARING—SITE PLAN REVIEW. APP: MILL RIVER BOATYARD,L.L.C., DATE: MARCH 18,2004. Member Pratt reads the advertisement. Representing the applicant are George Morgan,Project Manager, Charles Humphreys,Attorney and Carlos Pena, Marine Engineer. The proposal is for the reconstruction of 3 dilapidated buildings. Buildings will be razed and rebuilt above the flood elevation. Quonset Hut is to be rebuilt as it fell down in a recent storm event. Hut will be moved up away from the water. Piers under the Eastwick and Main Buildings will be reconstructed. Member Moore comments that environmental concerns will be how demolition is conducted. Member Pratt asks if the deck will be changed. Yes, as required to bring all buildings above the flood elevation. Member Pratt asks about Ch 91 issues. Will changes considered trigger new licensing? Proposal remains within existing footprint and actually decreases the amount of tidal area affected by 2.5%with removal of some decking and the second Marine Railway. Is Railway removal in conflict with Ch. 91 asks Member Pratt. Attorney Humphreys replies that new more modern equipment will replace the function of the 2nd Railway. Member Sturdy asks if boat storage racks are planned. Humphreys says yes,but not as part of this development at this time. Member Sturdy asks what the height of the Eastwick bldg. is in relation to zoning. Height to the ridge is 35.5. Plan is not to increase height beyond needed to get above flood elevation. Member Moore asks for comments from the public. Jim Porter, South Main Streets, asks where the elevation is taken from—is it the floor joists? Will the building be raised 3 feet? Also what of the current beneath the structure? Are concrete support structures to be added? Dick Karoff,Border Street, asks if the buildings will be functioning differently once they are rebuilt. Will the same amount of space be existing? Does this trigger new parking requirements? Member Moore says we will need input into the parking situation if the site is suddenly to come back to life. Member Sturdy says that Board needs to know total area existing inside and outside the buildings and the uses to which will be put,understand what is grandfathered and how it applies to the permitting process. Priority to define the current envelope of space. Inspector Egan says that Waterfront Business uses are quite restricted to repair of boats. Member Ivimey cautions Board not to prematurely adopt opinion that this is simple reconstruction. Many complicated issues to work through and may be in Town's interest to find a solution to the parking situation. Mike McNabb,of Scituate, asks if one can heat, plaster etc. a space that was designed for storage(Eastwick Bldg.) and whether it has two functioning floors at present. Bob Figuerido,Pond Street, asks how traffic would move on Border Street during demolition activities. Member Pratt asks what the merits of removing one railway and the demand for marine repair services are. Won't it be hard to get this back once removed? More modern equipment is the way to go for the project. MOTION: By Member Sturdy to continue hearing to 4/21/04 time to be determined. SECOND: By Member Ivimey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION APPROVED Board will visit the site on 4/21/04 before the Board's regular meeting. 9:30 PM VILLAGE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS DISCUSSION Ralph Dormitzer announces that bids are due on April 30,2004 for this project. Parts of the design need a careful look. Need to identify the priority issues: concrete,parking, clock,moving two light poles, comments from John Modzelewski. Dormitzer feels that even though town meeting voted concrete there may be wiggle room for other treatment options. Parking space sizes are problem for merchants. High intensity lighting is unnecessary for the area. Let's try and generate specific,positive alternatives by April 30, 2004. Dave Calhoun, Sheldon Road,discusses Black Rock pavers (only bit more than concrete)and postponing the bid. Strategy about who best represents this to Selectmen? Group of credible professionals. Should Planning Board appoint a knowledgeable group? Short time to review plans and make specific recommendations. Member Moore comments that if money is an issue, just do a limited area and do it well. Other parts may be done later if town chooses. Selectmen will put on agenda for next week. Calhoun will call Jim Sandell and George McGoldrick. Board will invite Wayne Sawchuk. Dormitzer will invite the Selectmen. Member Pratt voices his concern that pavers make more sense if the town is able to lay conduit for undergrounding work, easier to dig up and replace the areas,than concrete. Discrepancy exists on the design/sizing of the James Brook drainage project between Tutela and Waterfeild Design, Selectmen should look into this. Planning Board Meeting 4 of 4 April 7,2004 10:30 PM RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR LARGE HOME REVIEW Member Sturdy asks that Planner Harrington set up rules and regulations for this new bylaw. Site must be surveyed and 2 permanent monuments have to be located on the plan prior to the public hearing with plans showing elevations and building heights to be approved by a certified inspector—could be Bob Egan—or may need engineering review. Fees will include engineering and legal deposit at Board's discretion. Harrington will work offline with Member Sturdy to complete this. 10:45 PM MINUTES ACCEPTANCE MOTION: By Member Pratt to accept minutes from meetings held 8/6/03, 8/13/03, 9/24/03, 9/30/03, 10/15/03, 10/22/03, 11/15/03, 11/12/03, 12/3/03. SECOND: By Member Westcott VOTE: 5-0 MOTION APPROVED NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:00 PM MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:00 PM MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: