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: