Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 05/19/2004 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 6 Wednesday, May 19,2004 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 19,2004 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,Vice Chairman Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Robert H. Sturdy Michael Westcott Board Members Absent: Elizabeth B. Harrington, Town Planner Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:25 PM FORM A—APPLICATIONS : No Form A—Applications were filed for review at this meeting. 7:25 P.M INFORMAL DISCUSSION, CJC HIGHWAY,LOTS 9-11,CROCKER II REALTY. John Cavanaro,P.E., Cavanaro Consulting and APP: Rob Schwandt were in attendance. Existing 12 acre tract of land with three Form-A lots between Sunrise Assisted Living and Brass Kettle Medical Bldg. on Rt. 3A. Building will be 20,000 sq.ft. One local party is interested in moving a local operation to the site. Goal is to create a single intersection and connect the existing Brass Kettle and Medical Bldg. lots to a connector road eliminating curb cut at Brass Kettle. Challenging tract of land with soil, slope, drainage. John Cavanaro points out that the problem is getting grades to work to get the most out of the site and have a smaller road that just runs up while balancing cuts and fills without unduly tearing the area apart. Constraints are slope, fixed intersection, Sunrise detention basin, existing septic with excess capacity. Have formulated a drainage concept that may work while trying to deal with slope. Member Pratt points out that the Fire Department will not be happy with the steep slope as it will hinder emergency response equipment getting up and negotiating the slope. Member Moore points out that approval with these slopes would require some sort of covenant to include tight guidelines for maintaining the road and that if the applicant will cover the expense for John Modzelewski to review the plans, it might lessen the investment in the long run. John Cavanaro will contact John Modzelewski. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING, SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION,812 CJC HIGHWAY,APP: VALERIE KING,KING JEWELERS, DATE: APRIL 23,2004. Valerie King,Vicki King,Neil Murphy, Attorney Bill Ohrenberger,Property Owner Bob Mullin in attendance. Clerk Ivimey read Public Hearing Ad. Two existing buildings,one to be razed. King Jewelers will occupy middle building with tenants on either side. Total area for the three units is 5,100 sq.ft.with a net of 4,961 sq.ft. Grading remains the same across the front. Reorienting building changes direction of flow so drainage is less. Currently, all drainage is on Rt. 3A in catch basins. Site distance is 900'N and 700' S. Reducing throats from current 40' and 35'to 24'. reduces the possibility of cars passing each other while entering/exiting the site which was viewed positively by the Mass. Highway Dept. Member Moore asked applicant to indicate where the openings are at the next meeting. With the exception of one small corner everything is within setback requirements.Main issue to be resolved is to determine the balance from the additional 4-5,000 sq. ft. of impervious solid material which will probably result in a small detention basin. Regarding John Modzelewski's May 17,2004 memo,Murphy pointed out that they have allowed for 2 handicapped spaces in the back of the building(as part of the 35 now planned)because of the height of the building and the ramp that walks in. Murphy commented that they should consider adding a third handicapped space in the front of the building to service the other two buildings at the same level. Existing greenbelt utilizes the Rt. 3A right of way and will remain the same except be increased as was done at Pilgrim Coop. Bank site. Area inside mainline will be paved,with T grass strips and T walkway. Member Pratt pointed out need to be aware of impact of lighting on residential abutters. Member Moore requested signage size and location, a letter from the Fire and Police Chiefs stating that they have seen the plans and calculations of impervious lot coverage percentage. Murphy pointed out Planning Board Meeting 2 of 6 Wednesday, May 19,2004 that they show 50 and are putting in 35 spaces and that they are allowed 60%and are only using 33%of coverage. Recently redone septic system fits requirements but tank will be moved because of the 300' turn. Hearing opened to Public Comment: Madeline G. Hargadon, 7 Margin Way,voiced support for this application as she feels it will improve the area. Letter submitted by J. Stephen Bjorklund, 15 Marion Way, also stating support. Member Sturdy would like to see detail about noise level and placement of AC compressors. Neil Murphy felt that the Planning Board parking requirements are too high and that this site could get by with 24 spaces. Member Moore explained that the Board is approving a commercial site,not a jewelry store and that parking must be able to accommodate any type of business change in the future. He also noted that landscape sprinklers will be asked for. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to continue the Public Hearing to June 2 at 8:30 PM. SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 5—0 MOTION APPROVED 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING,LARGE HOME REVIEW,740 JERUSALEM ROAD,APP: GEORGE MCGOLDRICK,DATE: APRIL 26,2004. George McGoldrick in attendance. Clerk Ivimey read Public Hearing Ad. 738 Jerusalem is on Plots 15,16. 740 Jerusalem will be built for the McGoldrick family. House is set back from the road as far as possible so as not to disrupt the existing rock wall or abutters' views. Set back is 20' on each side. Monument markers are set. Property line has been staked. Property is 34,000 sq.ft. so it is non-conforming. Driveway keeps Jerusalem Rd. view the same and does not bring the asphalt up. Has access through 738 and rear of 738 for driveway.New owner has agreed to access but applicant thinks it is better if he can move the access to the other side of property. Alternative is to use Hyde Lane with an easement from Mr. Cifrino. Open to Public: (only one abutter attended) Mark DeGiacomo, 59 Beach St., stated that the lack of abutters in attendance indicates that Mr. McGoldrick has communicated well with neighbors. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to recommend the issuance of a building permit. SECOND: by Member Ivimey. VOTE: 5—0 MOTION APPROVED 8:45 P.M. PLANNING BOARD ADMINISTRATION • Vote to accept minutes: Minutes to be voted on at June 2,2004 meeting. • Large Home Review Procedures—vote to accept : Member Pratt notes that applicant with simple additions and minimal level of architectural work may not require so many full size copies of plans etc. Member Moore points out that these procedures can be modified as more applications have been experienced. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to approve/accept Large Home Review procedures. SECOND: by Member Pratt. VOTE: 5—0 MOTION APPROVED • Senior Overlay Procedures—vote to accept: Board requested that this material be redistributed in their June 2, 2004 meeting packet. Member Sturdy recommends that the Planning Board approves it and if changes are necessary,they can be made after the packet is redistributed. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to approve the Senior Overlay Procedures. SECOND: by Member Pratt. VOTE: 5—0 MOTION APPROVED 9:00 P.M. MILL RIVER BOATYARD—CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING—SITE PLAN REVIEW. APP: MILL RIVER BOATYARD,L.L.C., DATE: March 18,2004. Vice Chairman Peter Pratt took over chair for this Public Hearing. It is noted that tonight's Public Hearing will end at 10:00 P.M. due to the full agenda for the evening and the need for some Planning Board members to leave at 10:00 P.M. Att. Charles Humphreys, Carlos Pena-CLE Engineering, George Morgan-Project Mgr. in attendance. New documents submitted today, included revised plans, site lighting schedule,new plan cover sheets with plan references as detailed in John Modzelewski's 05/01/04 letter and, a letter from Att. Humphreys regarding the proposed, intended uses of the Mill River Boatyard, dated 05/19/04 as requested by the Planning Board at last meeting. Carlos Pena highlighted changes made as requested in John Modzelewski's 05/01/04 letter: Planning Board Meeting 3 of 6 Wednesday, May 19,2004 • A.3: revised plans to include list of all plans on the title page • B.1: highlighted property line and designated mean low water line across mud flats as being the property line • B.7: revised plans with abutting lots on opposite side of street on Border Street as being designated • B.6: showed location of utility poles on Border St.with overhead wires running to existing metal shed,to winch house,Lobster Pound and the main building. • E.3: revised building height and the gabled areas on second floor of main house have been eliminated, equaling 342 sq.ft. thereby reducing the footprint for second floor from 1,535 sq.ft. to 1,193 sq. ft. • E.5: designated the 8' x 20' loading zone area in front of the lobster pound on the plan • F.Lb: existing 4"cast iron sewer connection from the main bldg. to the corner of the existing lobster pound and out to the street has been shown on plans and, 1"water service that exists to the lobster pound and the main bldg. has been added • FA: existing street lighting on Border Street has been shown on plan • F.5: deferred to later date • F.6.a: deferred to later date • I.3: location of gates and fences including designation of sidewalk adjacent to fence on Border St. George Morgan addressed lighting plan schedule: 1 floodlight will be located over deck, 1 over railway from main bldg. and 1 from the existing boat shed, all designated emergency use only, can only be turned on manually. Also, simple, low level carriage style lighting, discretely placed on the edge of railing,directed downward on deck. 3 recessed lights on small overhang,directed downward. Remainder are surface mounted lamps at doorways. John Modzelewski stated that there are still a couple of pickups on the plans and that the title sheet has to be coordinated so all the square footage is properly recorded on the plans and, if Board votes in the affirmative for this application,there should be a condition that if anything is omitted/ambiguous that the Planning Board has the final interpretation to protect the Planning Board/town in case contradictions exist. Would also like note on existing conditions plan stating that the Quonset but is the Quonset but foundation so it is clear in the future that there was a foundation there at the time of this hearing and not a building. Member Pratt noted that the applicant did what was requested at the 05/05/04 meeting. Further,he noted that the called out Lobster Pound loading zone on the town sidewalk was addressed by the applicant on the plan,but remains as an issue as it is on public property. Member Ivimey stated that he is not comfortable with a loading zone across a town sidewalk as it does not improve the area/situation and that there is another area where the applicant could relocate the loading zone off the public roadway although he prefers not to. Member Sturdy stated that there are some uses as a matter of right,but that as far as he is concerned they are not permitted as a matter of right without parking availability and he sees no provisions for parking in the plans. He is very concerned about building/rebuilding and the potential uses cited in Att. Humphreys' letter,without parking- parking remains his#1 concern as he sees a huge potential parking problem that doesn't exist with the very low level of use of the property today(with the exception of the loading zone area). He sees no effort being made to either alleviate the need for parking in these plans or to provide for parking. He further stated that parking on Border St. could become a public safety issue if there is not adequate two-way passage for emergency vehicles and for pedestrians. Member Ivimey noted the effort by the applicant to try to control lighting spillage although he would like to see the three"B"type lights scaled down. Member Sturdy addressed the electric plan and the direct service to the winch. George Morgan explained that the overhead service to the winch will be taken down and service will be supplied underground and that the transformer will service a subservice but will not service the winch building. Member Sturdy pointed out that this does not show on the plans. Member Sturdy also stated that this project is in the flood plain and non-conforming so even in rebuilding,non-conforming structures are being rebuilt. Attorney Humphreys read his 05/19/04 letter regarding potential use of the property. Member Sturdy stated that a number of uses defined in the letter are other than what is going on at the site now(active storage of boats,boat sales,retail sales)all of which can create a tremendous need for parking.Att. Humphreys replied that any facility which is located at street side is permitted to load from the street and patrons are entitled to park in the public spaces on the street. Further,the town has many loading zones on public ways,the Selectmen have the power to designate certain spaces as a loading zones, loading zones in practical places make sense and that if loading zones are not designated, chaos is created. He suggests that if the Planning Board does not want to acknowledge loading zones,perhaps the Selectmen should designate that area under their track of regulations. Regarding parking,Att. Humphreys stated that the applicant is before the Board to reconstruct 3 buildings for the purpose of a boatyard and that all the uses stated in his letter are not changed or enlarged uses,that they are within the boundaries of current uses and that unless character of use(business) changes,that"even a substantial increase in use does not constitute Planning Board Meeting 4 of 6 Wednesday, May 19,2004 an enlargement or an increase in use under zoning."His position is that"the reconstruction of these buildings with the exact same footprint serving substantially the same functions is not an increase in use." He stated that there are several things that require a special permit which they do not have. For example,the sale of marine petroleum products is permitted as a matter of right,but the above ground storage of fuel,while not a zoning issue,requires a special permit by the bylaw which they would have to get. Att. Humphreys further states that the parking problem is in the summer and that historically,people have informally parked in the yard when boats are in the water. Applicant could say they would do this,but it would not meet the zoning Bylaws. They could also valet the cars, but Att. Humphreys feels while this is a practical consideration, it is not legally required of them and that unless they change the character of the business,they do not have to provide parking. Member Sturdy did not agree that under the current Bylaw that they do not have to provide parking. Member Sturdy asked if the buildings are non- conforming to which Attorney Humphreys answered only the lobster pound because it does not have the required set-back. Member Sturdy stated that they are not rebuilding the same buildings because they are changing the vertical profile. Att. Humphreys stated that legally they are because the change is to meet a federal and insurance requirement and that the square footage is based on volume of the building and they have not increased the buildings' volume. Member Sturdy asked if the buildings are still in the flood plain to which Att. Humphreys replies in the affirmative that anything under elevation 11 is in the floodplain. Member Pratt asked if the applicant believes a full service boatyard(including hauling, launching, storage and repair of boats and marine equipment)is in operation at the site today. Att. Humphreys answered in the affirmative.Member Pratt stated that it could be said that in direct reconstruction,the applicant is only allowed to operate a lobster pound and only one boat can be worked on in one of the buildings with some ancillary storage. Att. Humphreys stated that this is true only if ignoring the law about what a use is and that an increase in business, even a substantial one does not change the character of the business. Member Pratt points out again that Town Counsel has stated that the Board must look particularly at those phrases in the bylaw that talk about the nature and extent of the uses and that Att. Humphreys' argument does not fully address the issue. Att. Humphreys stated that there are not gradations within being a boatyard or hauling or sale—that only a change in character would move into a different zoning classification or use within the meaning of the bylaw and,that the word"extent"means what is going to be done and how is it going to be done. Member Pratt disagrees in that the uses the applicant is proposing may all be permitted uses but feels that rack storage of boats is an extent within the permitted uses that is different/distinct from the uses that are conducted at the site today and in the past and that if there is going to be rack storage, it should be called out on the plan so the Board knows what kind of service the applicant plans especially since the impact on parking is such an important issue. Member Pratt agrees with Member Sturdy's statements that traffic and parking are the two most serious concerns and the main reasons the Board must know the intended uses. Member Sturdy asked if the applicant considers themselves grandfathered for every conceivable boatyard use. Att. Humphreys confirmed that they do and stated that the retail sale of marina petroleum products, fishing and boating gear, apparel,boats,trailers and supplies are permitted as a matter of right and do not need a special permit(p.14 of bylaws)whereas boatyard repair, open air sale and storage of boats need a special permit. Att. Humphreys confirms that the applicant will do whatever allowed by law or whatever they can obtain a special permit for. Member Ivimey stated that this is not currently considered a full service boatyard by most boaters and questions whether any of the decision should be impacted by the term"full-service"boatyard because that term does have an implied impact on use. Att. Humphreys stated that this term should not impact their decision because this site will never be a Marina Bay and added that the Board can put conditions that the applicant comply with zoning and the bylaws of other Boards. Member Pratt stated that he believes Att. Humphreys is avoiding the issue of the extent and nature of use and that this information is important to the Planning Board because it might trigger other conditions such as requiring a traffic study. Att. Humphreys stated that the Board's reasoning is flawed in that the Board cannot allow the applicant to rebuild and rejuvenate a site and then tell the applicant he cannot operate at any higher level than the lowest level it has operated at during its lowest point of deterioration. Member Ivimey observed that currently,this site has activities which include hauling, launching, storing boats and,repairing boats and marine equipment; wholesale and retail sale of seafood products and does not currently sell marine petroleum products,boats, fishing and boating supplies and equipment, dockage rental. He then asked if it was the applicant's position that implementing these latter activities on the site is not an increase in usage.Att. Humphreys stated that legally,these may not be a change in use. Member Pratt asked about dockage expansion. There is a current 91 license for a 108' pier that would extend near the railway with a 30-35' gangplank and a 40' x 20' float. Once the configuration is changed new approvals and special permits must be reobtained as the former permits have been abandoned. Member Sturdy notes that the timeline is at 63 of the 75 days and that a special hearing needs to be held to continue this discussion. Member Ivimey mentioned that it is possible to ask the applicant for an extension. Planning Board Meeting 5 of 6 Wednesday, May 19,2004 Meeting open to the public: Dick Karoff, 19 Border St., challenged Att. Humphreys contention that there is not extension of use and stated that the number of people who use the boatyard will include employees,tradesmen and the public and that this will impact the traffic,parking and sewer use. Sandy Manzella, 19 Border St., stated that the issue of parking was really never addressed by the applicant and that"grandfathering usage"should be carefully considered to make sure that grandfathered uses have not lapsed. Member Sturdy asked that 8.9 and 12.6.1 be addressed by Town Counsel. Bob Deutsch, 100 Elm St., current trustee of the Sailing Club,noted that in 2001 a proposal for condos at this site resulted in a petition by 175 concerned citizens about the spill over and impact on the Sailing Club operations. Mike McNabb,Damon Rd., Scituate stated that the applicant has not stated who will be running the boatyard and wondered if that was an issue the Board should address and,noted that the boatyard has a license to operate in public tide, land and water which may be more reason to know uses of this boatyard on public property and how it affects the community. John Modzelewski noted that the deck is being slightly reconfigured which may heighten the carrying capacity, impact the storage that goes there, and have an impact on"extent." Att. Humphreys replied that they proposed to build a wooden deck at minimum BOCA building codes of load per sq. ft. Member Pratt addressed the nature and continuing use of the lobster pound by asking if the statement that"wholesale and retail sale of seafood products"is something they may seek permits for. Humphreys replied it has a present use,that the sale of fishery products is probably permitted under they bylaw and it is probably one of the only true grandfathered uses at this site and with the rest permitted by right. MOTION: By Member sturdy to continue the public hearing to May 26 at 7:00 PM with Town Counsel present and the Mill River Boatyard as the only agenda item. SECOND: By Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION APPROVED Attorney Humphreys agreed that Town Counsel could contact him directly during the next week if necessary. Vice Chairman Pratt adjourned Public Hearing until Wednesday,May 26,2004 at 7:00 PM. 10:25 PM DAVID CALHOUN,CEDARMERE WASTEWATER UPDATE Permit was granted with condition of coming up with sewer solution. Lawsuit against sewer commission will remain in place. All settlement offers have fallen on deaf ears so they began to pursue a groundwater discharge system. DEP and DPT reviewed the groundwater discharge system and advised them that the Cook Estate failed, Avalon is struggling and advised King Taylor that they might want to rethink what they were doing. They have come up with a traditional water treatment plant similar to what Cohasset has downtown. State of the art technology pretreating effluent to a reuse standard to be used as irrigation on the property. Dave Ferris at DEP reviewed, sent them to Tom Parks, Emissions,who concluded that they were permit exempt as far as emissions were concerned. DEP has favorably embraced it with only a question as to whether they have the right to grant a permit because their charter is to review groundwater discharge over 10,000 gallons. King Taylor hopes to have approval within the next few weeks and move forward. Calhoun handed out: letter from Fay, Spofford,Thorndike stating that the process can safely, economically handle what has to be done; a copy of preliminary submission that went to the DEP; and,percolation data. Member Sturdy has read the percolation documents, indicating it is useable data and meets 16.3.2c requirements which requires percolation soil data or permit from the sewer commission. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to accept the submitted percolation packet of data as meeting the requirements of 16.3.2c and to remind the applicant that he needs to submit finalized plans showing the equipment that will be installed on the site. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 5-0 MOTION APPROVED Calhoun requested that the Board write a letter to Dave Ferris extending support of the zero discharge evaporation on-site system as a viable solution and asking that the DEP confirm the same or advise them the process is exempt and can proceed with construction. Calhoun drafted a letter the Board might consider. Member Ivimey stated concern that the Board is not knowledgeable enough to lend full endorsement and will redraft a portion of the letter. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to send a letter in general support of the proposed evaporation system SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 5-0 MOTION APPROVED Planning Board Meeting 6 of 6 Wednesday, May 19,2004 MOTION: by Member Westcott to adjourn. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 5-0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 10:50 PM NEXT MEETING: May 26, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: