Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 09/01/2004 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 4 September 1,2004 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1,2004 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL-BASEMENT MEETING RM 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 H. Sturdy Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington, Town Planner MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:10 PM 7:00 P.M. 20 BOW STREET, LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING, APP: HELEN &ETHAN ARNOLD, OWNER: KATHRYN&WILLIAM MORGAN, DATE: JULY 29, 2004. Clerk Ivimey read advertisement for public hearing. No abutters present. At its July 14,2004 meeting,the Planning Board reviewed the Special Permit Application filed with the ZBA for 20 Bow St. Planning Board determined that total dwelling size proposed was 4,800 sq.ft. exceeding the 3,500 sq.ft. threshold,therefore requiring a Large Home Review. Planning Board recommended that the ZBA suggest the applicant request to continue its ZBA hearing, file a Large Home Plan Review application with the Planning Board and return to the ZBA for the Special Permit hearing upon completion of the Large Home Review. The Large Home Plan Review Application was reviewed at today's meeting. Plans are to demolish existing 2500 sq.ft. structure and build new,2 floor,wood frame,4300 sq.ft. living area(4800 sq.ft. with garage). Lot coverage is below 20%. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend to the ZBA that the Special Permit Application for 20 Bow St.be approved with the conditions that two outstanding Large Home Plan Review checklist items be completed and two copies of the new plans showing completion of these items be filed with the Planning Board prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. Outstanding conditions to be completed are: 1. Two survey monuments are to be shown on plan and located on the site 2. Abutters names and property lines are to be shown on the plan SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED 7:30 P.M. 231-235 HULL STREET,DINERO'S RESTAURANT, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION, APP: KIM-RICH REALTY TRUST, OWNER: KIM-RICH REALTY TRUST, DATE: JULY 6,2004. Attorney Sullivan,Dave Mackwell,Frank Amonte,Dave Sorgman, and Mr. Plotner present to represent DiNero's. Attorney Sullivan reviewed John Modzelewski's 8/31/04 comments and felt submissions are complete and adequate and requested approval with conditions. John Modzelewski highlighted points he felt should be considered including: DEP requires more sound testing to cover time when equipment will be operating and therefore suggested a condition of more testing or sound barriers; No Parking/Standing signs to be posted along the ramp on Hull St.; condition that lighting shall not cast light into off-site residential areas; irrigation on front landscaping(applicant indicated that irrigation is intended); stamped plans; the inability of CDI to comment of the safety of the stone wall behind DeNiro's and cannot certify if the wall was built as planned(applicant will submit affidavit from constructing company certifying that it was built to conformity)although he commented that if the building department is satisfied,the Planning Board can probably also be satisfied;that the Town gave DiNero's a revocable license not an easement for front ramp and he suggested that it could be removed and relocated to the back of the building(applicant Planning Board Meeting 2 of 4 September 1,2004 states that cost to remove would be prohibitive,that it is never used for loading, only for emergency egress,that even if ramp was removed, emergency egress stairs would still be required in that spot and that there is actually foundation under the ramp). Member Pratt stated that the ramp results in parking on the sidewalk and that signage would help to which Attorney Sullivan stated that DiNero's has a license to have ramp but does not have the right to police state property. Member Moore did not see signage as an enforcement issue but rather as deterrent and thought the Selectmen should deal with it if it becomes a problem as it is not in the purview of the Planning Board. Mr. Plower and Mgr. of DeNiro's stated that parking in front of the ramp is generally quick stop/pick-up parking for other businesses such as Victoria's. Member Ivimey felt that this is appropriate time to remove ramp and for the town to get its land back. Members Moore and Pratt stated that if this was anything but a handicapped egress, it would be in the public's best interest to remove it. Member Moore stated that site plan review with older building renovations is not cut and dry and must be viewed as a rebuild that has evolved. Member Westcott felt the ramp was not as imposing as he first thought. Further discussion centered around: the retaining wall—Member Ivimey noted that there seems to be sinkholes on the ridge above the wall and debris at the bottom of the wall and questioned if it was eroding and reiterated the safety issue concerns and the need for the Planning Board to have a level of comfort with the wall construction. John Modzelewski noted that he has not seen evidence of geotextiles to reduce leaching etc. Mr. Amonte noted that the chainlink fence, guardrail and final landscaping selected with abutter Fairchild will not only benefit safety issues but will also retain soil and reduce leaching. He further noted that all work was stopped while site plan was reviewed and that is why the debris has not been removed and that Cape Cod berms and stone on fabric could be added to disperse/guide water runoff away from the wall. Member Moore felt Planning Board should not design the wall but should be reviewed by John Modzelewski(who added that he would want to know the architect's background so he knows they are qualified). Regarding HVAC noise,Mr. Sorgman noted that Mr. Fairchild is the only resident nearby and he does not have a problem with the current noise (ambient noise is greater than the unit noise),that new units will be quieter and that the new roof wall will contain the noise and work better than barriers which may be an unnecessary redundancy although they will look at them. Member Pratt asked John Modzelewski to work with Bob Egan and applicant to determine if louvers can be installed. Mr. Amonte noted that too many barriers could prohibit proper operation of the units and could actually increase noise as units struggle to intake air. Attorney Sullivan suggested a condition of reviewing noise 6 months after work is completed to evaluate level—Member Moore agreed. Regarding sidewall sprinklers, Member Pratt noted that statement from Captain Trask could be added as a condition. Attorney Sullivan replied that after discussion with Building Inspector, applicant feels the onus to add sidewall sprinklers should be on Mr. Montefusco who built new structure,not on DiNero's. Abutter Fairchild stated that noise is not an issue, that he would like louver enclosures on lights to decrease light spillage from lower wash lights on wall and that he does not think planned plantings and chain link fence are adequate buffers—he would like to see a solid 6' fence Mr. Plotner noted that chain link fence was selected as it requires less maintenance and because wind would not knock down a solid fence. Abutter Reichardt, 3 Grace Dr. agreed that a solid fence would improve aesthetics and offer more protection for his young children who could easily climb over a chain link fence. Attorney Sullivan pointed out that$9,000 has been spent on the chain link fence and a proposed$10,000 in plantings and he does not think Planning Board should ask for it to be removed. Member Moore noted that the Planning Board did not ask for chain link fence. Member Pratt added that too much work should not have been done before going before the Planning Board. Attorney Sullivan replied that it was done in the interest of safety and requested that the Planning Board be reasonable and take into consideration all that the applicant has already done,leave fence alone and reevaluate in a year when all the plantings have taken hold. Mr.Amonte further added that Building Inspector requested a fence when ledge was removed and he suggested a chain link fence. Regarding the wooden guardrail,Member Ivimey felt the Board should receive certified documentation that the guardrail is adequate and serves its purpose. Hearing opened to public comment-No additional comments received. MOTION: by Member Pratt to close the Public Hearing of DiNero's property at 231/234 Hull St. SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED All members of the Board commended applicant on quality of application and on his interest in upgrading/maintaining the property. Member Moore felt the application should be approved with some conditions: revisiting the issues of noise and of the fence and how it will be dealt with. Member Pratt agreed with approval with conditions regarding fence, screeningibuffering, a guarantee that wall is engineered to a Planning Board Meeting 3 of 4 September 1,2004 standard the Board can be comfortable with and questioned if Town Counsel should confirm that all issues with Keno license are resolved. Member Westcott agreed that question about wall construction and drainage issues should be certified and reviewed by John Modzelewski. Member Ivimey wants sound barriers, certification about wall construction,water drainage onto abutters' property dealt with, side wall sprinklers,removal of front ramp while retaining handicapped egress, control of lights around property including consideration of shutdown of lights after business hours and,limit on hours when dumpster can be emptied so as not to disturb abutters. Member Moore polled members of the Board on issues they feel should be conditioned. Comments included: • Chain link fence replaced by solid fence • Revisit noise levels after construction(Member Ivimey would still like to see baffles) • Dumpster handling not to occur before 8 AM • Low level lighting to wash lower'/2 of wall John Modzelewski requested log of wall inspections and engineering based on modern, accepted standards. MOTION: by Member Pratt to conditionally approve the DiNero's site plan review subject to the conditions presented by Town Planner Harrington and reviewed by Town Engineer Modzelewski. SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED Town Planner Harrington to draft decision incorporating conditions discussed above and will copy Applicant and Town Engineer for review. Discussion with Applicant will continue at 09/15/04 Planning Board Meeting. Applicant agrees to provide written extension to 09/22/04 if process goes beyond the 75 day, 09/08/04 time limit. Outstanding conditions will be listed on the cover of the plans. Board must be satisfied that all conditions have been met before Building Permit is issued. 10:30 P.M. PLANNING BOARD ADMINISTRATION • King Jewelers Site Plan Review—Update J. Modzelewski still talking with N. Murphy to obtain further information about drainage and other missing items so package is complete prior to issuance of building permit. Town Planner Harrington will reiterate with B. Egan that building permit should not be issued until outstanding items are complete. (See Civil Designs 9/2/04 memo highlighting 5 outstanding items). • Highland Estates/Nader Subdivision filing -Status of J. Modzelewski reviewed filing, determined it is not complete as it did not contain impact statement, suggested the Board reject the submission as incomplete. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept the statement that the Planning Board reject the submission based on review of Town Engineer Modzelewski and to have Town Planner Harrington send a letter to the applicant detailing missing information and the incomplete submission according to the Town Engineer. SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • Ox Pasture Lane Subdivision contains 7 lots, (4 released, 2 occupied, 2 under construction). Owners Topol and Vierra wrote to Planning Board, Selectmen and Conservation Commission highlighting unacceptable condition of the subdivision. Member Moore pointed out that buyers have to expect some disruption early on in a subdivision but Member Ivimey pointed out that NO progress is being made to clean up the area at all. Member Moore suggested that it might be time to exercise surety,not release more lots etc. Town Planner Harrington suggested that it has to be determined what is not happening and what requirements are not being met. She will try to schedule a walk through of the area with Building Inspector Egan, Town Engineer Modzelewski,Board of Health Agent Joe Godzik. She will also contact the Baytarians and ask them to come before the Planning Board at its 09/15/04 meeting for a discussion about the state of the subdivision. • Vote to accept minutes MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept minutes from 08/04/04 with the three changes suggested by Town Planner Harrington to more clearly identify statements regarding the 792 Jerusalem Rd. Form A— ANR application as made by Mr. Campbell. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED Planning Board Meeting 4 of 4 September 1,2004 • 82 Border Street Building Permit Application, dated August 17,2004. Informal discussion regarding this building permit. Town Planner Harrington will reiterated with Building Inspector Egan that he needs more detail to confirm that this is new, separate and distinct from the March,2004 Mill River filing that was rejected by the Planning Board before a building permit can be issued. 10:45 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS • 44 Stockbridge St., Special Permit App.,APP: Elizabeth McLoughlin,Date: 8/16/04 Applicant seeks to add a 256 sq.ft.porch in the floodplain(based on their calculation for coverage,the max. they would be allowed to add is 437 sq.ft.)on 5 sonotube post footings to minimize impact on the floodplain. It meets side setback requirements and does not increase a non-conforming front setback. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this special permit. SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • 124 King St., Appeal App.,APP: Jonathan Livingston Realty Corp.,Date: 8/16/04.Applicant seeks to appeal building inspector's denial of a sign permit application and would like to add 2ad sign in front of the Christopher Gallery. Bob Egan provided historical information from when this first appeared before the Planning Board in 1993. At its September 1, 1993 meeting,the Planning Board informed the building inspector that entire site was treated as one parcel and is entitled to only one sign. He suggested that perhaps the existing sign could be reconstructed. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA uphold the Building Inspector's denial of this sign permit application. SECOND: by Member Pratt VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • 56 Summer St., Special Permit App.,APP: Kelly Stanislawzyk,Date: 8/12/04. Applicant seeks a Special Permit for addition with 193 sq.ft. footprint in floodplain,meeting all dimensional requirements. MOTION: by Member Westcott to recommend that the ZBA approve this special permit application. SECOND: by Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED • 55 So.Main St., Special Permit App.,APP: Tedeschi Food Shops,Date: 8/16/04. Applicant seeks Special Permit to change use of the gas station to convenience store/donut shop drive thru/gasoline sales location. The Planning Board felt it is clear that this application requires a site plan review. MOTION: by Member Pratt to recommend that the ZBA suggest that the applicant file a Site Plan Review Application with the Planning Board so plans can be thoroughly reviewed and meaningful recommendations made to the ZBA. SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn. SECOND: by Member Westcott VOTE: 4-0 MOTION APPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 11:10 PM NEXT MEETING: September 15, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: