Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 04/21/2004 Planning Board Meeting 1 of 6 Wednesday, April 21,2004 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 21,2004 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 Stuart Ivimey Board Members Absent: Robert H. Sturdy Michael Westcott Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B. Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:03 PM 7:03 P.M. BLACK ROCK RD. &FOREST AVE., FORM A—APPLICATION, APP: CHARLES STURDY,DATE: 04/21/04. Applicant seeks to combine Lot 3B with Lot 1 to produce buildable lot. Lot 1 already exists with proper frontage and area. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve this Form A-Application as presented. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED 7:04 P.M. 84 ELM ST., FORM A—APPLICATION, APP: MICHAEL SULLIVAN, DATE: 04/21/04. Applicant seeks subdivision of land. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve this Form A-Application as presented. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED 7:05 P.M. 100 POND STREET—PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION Attorney Richard Henderson represents applicants. When 100 Pond St. development was filed in 1981 and approved in 1982 it was governed by the 1976-1981 zoning bylaws. To have new buildings blend harmoniously with the existing buildings and to allow special permit to be amended,Attorney Henderson feels zoning bylaws in effect at the time of original construction should be applied. Henderson would also like to be allowed to do his amendment without having to bring in a site plan for all 39 units plus new ones. Member Ivimey would like to see it written somewhere that the Planning Board can disregard current zoning bylaws in favor of past bylaws so that precedent is not set. Member Moore states that in the past,when projects are reopened,the original bylaws in effect at the time have been applied to the reopening. Member Pratt stated support as long as Town Counsel gives iron clad opinion regarding applying bylaws of the time so precedent is not set. John Modzelewski asked Attorney Henderson to make sure all utilities are sized correctly. Attorney Henderson will: write letter asking Planning Board to seek Town Counsel opinion; return with preliminary plan based on zoning that existed at the time; and, get a letter from 100 Pond St. granting permission to amend. Member Moore points out that it is key to get agreement from everyone at 100 Pond. 7:20 P.M. COHASSET VILLAGE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS Draft minutes of April 14,2004 Planning Board Meeting were distributed to those in attendance. One correction to p.1 and p.2 suggested and made to file copy. No further comments about minutes. Dave Calhoun, Bob Sturdy, Ralph Dormitzer and Wayne Sawchuk feel the biggest concern is that the revitalization part that was originally under the Selectmen's control is truly just the streetscape but the bid documents that are out contain all kinds of additional work—waterline work etc. that will make potential headaches for the streetscape portion. It might be in everyone's best interest to rewrite the bid documents so the bids are strictly for the streetscape portion and have the utility work bid separately. If they must be in the same contract, they should be broken out separately so they can Planning Board Meeting 2 of 6 Wednesday, April 21,2004 be looked at separately. They also felt that the town voted the money and held a firm line not to spend anymore money than for concrete but that if something better could be gotten for the same money,the town would be happy. Ralph Dormitzer reads the relevant portion of the warrant and feels that while the warrant was pretty solidly worded for concrete, it did not say"poured concrete. Therefore,there may be options associated with concrete such as"concrete pavers",but that there may not be options associated with brick. Member Ivimey still interprets the intent as being dollars,not materials. Further,the James Brook Project may be a huge disruption to downtown and should be looked at separately. Wayne Sawchuk pointed out that the Water Department did in fact use Tutela Engineering to design the water work in the village area and presented that design to Waterfield to include in their bid package and should be handled by the Water Department. He further suggests that the water work should be done separately,patched and allowed to settle prior to the rest of the street work. Other utility work should be done at the same time. There may be a lot of money taken from the streetscape project to cover this other work that should not be which may ultimately be taking away from the quality of the job that could be done for the streetscape. Dave Calhoun also points out that what is underground is an unknown and that it is in the best interest of this project to have this underground work done first, as a separate project under a separate budget so the costs of this project are not driven up. Tom Hamilton reiterates the opinion that the Selectmen need to stop this project and restart doing it properly to avoid doing a disservice to the Town. Member Pratt conveys Utility Consultant Jeff Moren(initially retained by Dean Rizzo)opinion that laying empty conduit and pulling up pavers in the future to complete the underground utility work when there is more money available is absolutely the way to go and that there are many people available to do this. Selectman Dormitzer indicated that Dean Rizzo says that as long as a project is underway,grants can be extended, so June 30,2005 completion deadline probably could be extended if project is underway. Tom Hamilton wonders if a proper presentation can be prepared for the citizens at a special Town Meeting next Fall. Wayne Sawchuk feels that what is missing from the whole project is a simple"practical sense and approach"and that the project must be reengineered taking a practical approach. Member Moore states that the whole project has been overengineered and overspecified. Member Pratt wonders how Robert Spofford's concern about the cost to redesign should be addressed. David Calhoun feels the expense to redesign is not that great since CAD drawings exist that local engineers who are knowledgeable about the area can review. Neil Murphy is only concerned that James Brook is redone properly and to make sure that underground work is done properly before the streetscape is done. Dom Tutela, Tutela Engineering does not have new set of calculations but is willing to look at them for no charge—Ralph Dormitzer will ask them to do this. Member Pratt will draft a letter to Selectmen detailing recommendations the Selectmen should consider and will present this at the April 27,2004 Selectmen's Meeting. Neil Murphy will be added to the proposed"Construction Committee." 8:00 P.M. GRAHAM WASTE/CROCKER II REALTY TRUST—CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING—SITE PLAN REVIEW. APP: CROCKER II REALTY TRUST,DATE: MARCH 17,2004. John Cavanaro, John Cavanaro Consulting,represented the project. Two parking spaces were removed to give more separation to Crocker Lane allowing easier backup and 6'bump out.After parking lot corners were staked out, it was determined there was ±500' sight distance with candy store sign removed. John Modzelewski pointed out that if Rt. 3A is widened in the future, some parking spaces could be removed or made parallel(space behind building could be used for parking)to get further from Rt. 3A. Trees and shrubs are to be planted on sides and front to clean up/dress up building and to give more green and definition,but will not obstruct view. Pump building contains diesel fired pump which requires ventilation so it is difficult to move building back and put pump inside the main building.Also,PFD access requires that this building be independent. Fire Dept. connections on building will be moved to back of building and remain outside so PFD has easy access. Pump building is as far back into the septic system as possible and as far back as the setback allows. Pump building construction and location was dictated by zoning. Cost effectiveness of sprinklers is being examined although the building is under the footage requirements.No dumpsters on site.Underground electric added to plans. Sewage facilities left to Board of Health. Metal halide lights in front center of parking lot—the same lights the other buildings have. John Modzelewski suggests tightening up the height of lights. Walkway, egress added to back of building, and eliminated on side of building. John Modzelewski indicates that the checklist appears complete and will write report outlining points that were discussed. Town Planner Harrington will draft decision with reference to concern about additional curb cuts. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to close the Public Hearing. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED Planning Board Meeting 3 of 6 Wednesday, April 21,2004 MOTION: By Member Pratt to approve this commercial site plan as recently updated and contingent upon review and sign-off from John Modzelewski that drainage calculations are correct. SECOND: By Member Ivimey VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED 8:40 P.M. MILL RIVER BOATYARD—CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING—SITE PLAN REVIEW. APP: MILL RIVER BOATYARD,L.L.C., DATE: MARCH 18,2004. Attorney Charles Humphreys, Carlos Pena-CLE Engineering, George Morgan-Project Mgr. in attendance. Updated information was just received today—John Modzelewski has not had chance to review changes. Carlos Pena states that since location of buildings is over rocks and water,it is difficult to determine the mean level ground measurement(zoning bylaws specify a required measurement taken 10'outside the mean level ground.)He therefore chose the elevation of the existing first floor deck which was 9.2'relative to mean sea level. Based on that measurement,the height to the ridge of the main building was 335, 33.5' on the new building and 28.9' on the Eastwick building. Therefore, even though the buildings are raised 2.5'for the first floor,the dimension of the height of the buildings remains the same. Carlos Pena also points out that the proposed footprints are equal to or less than the existing footprints. George Morgan addresses architectural changes- Main building: no changes. Eastwick building: this is the only building that has a 3rd floor(there was a large open area above the 2nd floor which was not really a floor in and of itself), and the added on"A"dormers have been removed. Quonset Hut: the 3rd floor which had been shown on previous plans has been removed;the roof configuration has been changed to have a simple gable with a shed roof and, stairway which had been incorporated to join the two buildings on the second floor has been removed. Overall,there is no change to the cube of the buildings. Roof changes do not create any additional useable space. Height of buildings has 0 change. The net increase of square footage is 0. Public Hearing is opened to the public's questions: Comments focused on parking,use and jurisdiction.Wayne Sawchuk questions use and impact on parking and is told no additional parking is needed as square footage doesn't increase. Member Moore states that even though these buildings have sat underused for a long time,the land, site and zoning haven't changed. However, it would be a different issue if someone wanted to implement a different use. Member Moore believes the Planning Board doesn't have the right to intrude on an owner's rights of use. Member Pratt asks directly what uses the owner intends to put this facility to. Attorney Humphreys responds with no comment regarding the intended use and states that it is not a fair inquiry as it is an owner's right to do those things allowed by zoning and by special permit and that the intended use is not an issue before this board. Attorney Humphreys stated that the applicant does not know how he intends to use the site and new buildings. Member Ivimey believes it is not credible that an applicant would invest a great deal of money into a project without specific intentions for the use of the property and that if an applicant will not disclose the intended use of the property,the Town should dig deeper to make sure the worst possible use for the Town is not a possibility. Attorney Humphreys states that the applicant doesn't know what they will do with the property and that these questions are overreaching the authority of the Planning Board. Attorney Humphreys states that the property must be rebuilt and that is what the applicant plans to do,without regard for use in the future. Member Pratt questions directly if the Lobster Pound business or a business like that will continue at the rebuilt site. Attorney Humphreys answers that right now, it is unlikely that the Lobster Pound business go forward at the site. Member Pratt points out that when he asked that question during the Mill River Boatyard Informal Discussion at March 17,2004 Planning Board Meeting,the answer was"yes,the business will continue." Sandy Manzella, 19 Border Street questions the supposition that this property has to be rebuilt and states that it could be demolished or taken by eminent domain. She also expressed concern that site plan applications do not have to specify the use of the land and do not require that parking be specified on the plan. Member Moore explains that Planning Board the requirement is that the use must be what the property is zoned for and that as long as the size of a rebuilt building doesn't exceed the existing building the current parking does not have to change. He further states that it is beyond the bounds and function of the Planning Board to question economic feasibility of businesses/projects. Member Pratt disagrees. John Modzelewski cites Section 12.6a of Zoning Bylaws which states that the Planning Board can approve a site plan if the proposed development"is harmonious with and not harmful, injurious or objectionable to existing or future uses in the area" and section 12.6f regarding"the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the site and in relation to access streets will be safe and convenient"as the key points in the discussion of use. Attorney Humphreys states that the test is whether or not this reconstruction is substantially as harmonious with the neighborhood as what presently exists and that the Planning Board has to decide whether or not the buildings in these designs carefully Planning Board Meeting 4 of 6 Wednesday, April 21,2004 replicate and are as harmonious as possible with the neighborhood as what presently exists and that this is what puts this project in a unique position. Town Planner Harrington agrees that this is not a typical site plan where you have a new building and a new use. Wayne Sawchuk questions whether this project should be before the Planning Board for a site plan approval if the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over anything other than verifying that the project does not increase the existing structures by more than 200'. Town Planner Harrington points out that it is done because this is reconstruction. Quonset Hut has been down for less than two years so it falls under the category of reconstruction. Dick Karoff, 19 Border St.,commented that: even though there is no expansion in size,there is expansion in use; that this project is contrary to/does not enhance the goals for the harbor as stated in the Draft Master Plan; and that this project will lock fishermen out of the harbor by eliminating a place for the fishermen to unload their catch and to haul out boats in the event of an emergency. Member Pratt agrees that the loss of the Lobster Pound will have a huge negative impact on the viability of our commercial fishermen—the oldest industry in this Town and in allowing that to happen,the Planning Board will have failed in its planning function. Attorney Humphreys states that the property owner must be allowed to pick and choose the uses as permitted to make the project financially viable in their judgement. This project is an attempt to headoff a condemnation order of these buildings. It is far less costly to rebuild these buildings than to repair them. Paul Patterson stated that Quonset Hut was intended to be a temporary structure to house only flammable materials. Attorney Humphreys states that the flammable storage building was a paint shed that is no longer there. Sandy Manzella asks how the Planning Board can determine if a project is detrimental to a neighborhood if they don't know the proposed use? Member Moore explains that the zoning spells out what the permitted uses can be, so the uses are known and,in this case,the uses are very tight so what can be there is not a mystery. Michael McNabb states that in the past,there have been a myriad of applications for commercial,residential,various marine use etc.before the Board. If you increase the number of boats,particularly motorboats,there is a large amount of fuel being stored in a small area and the possibility of fuel spills is increased. Even if it is not a question for this Board, the intended use is a question for the Town—people at this meeting want this location to remain a marine use. Attorney Humphreys comments that past proposals were only discussed,not actually applied for. Member Moore states that the complicated issue is that if the site were not already built on,by no standards would this site be allowed to be built on today. The concern is that rebuilding this area will generate more traffic and concern about where that traffic will go. Member Pratt again cites 12.6a and states that the Planning Board has an oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth regarding these areas remaining a marine infrastructure. Having federally registered lobster boats also opens the access to getting federal navigation support for the harbor. Attorney Humphreys states that most lobster boats in Cohasset Harbor do not use Cohasset Lobster Pound but go to other locations. He also states that the applicants will pick and choose among the permitted uses and decide which they want to implement. There maybe gas facilities. All buildings are sprinklered which is an improvement over the existing conditions. Jay Michaud, Marblehead, commercial lobster fisherman and member of Port Fishing Industry Infrastructure Study and Needs Assessment which is conducting a Maine to Rhode Island Study and preparing a report on the impact of reduced catches and activity. Mr. Michaud's main points included: • The shore side infrastructure that supports Cohasset should be protected • This piece of property is restricted to marine use consistent with the fishing industry • Right now,the fishermen have a place to sell their catch and deal with repairs quickly. If marine related infrastructure as it applies to and supports commercial fishing is lost—the Lobster pound and the boatyard for example- fishermen catches will die if they cannot be off loaded quickly. • If marine uses are incompatible with the commercial fishing industry,the fishing fleet will suffer. • Cohasset could ask for grants/funds to take this property to protect the commercial fishing fleet • Something has to be done to save the harbor,the fleet and the heritage of the area. Consideration of this application should be tabled and town authorities should meet with the Fishermen's Partnership to investigate taking the harbor by eminent domain. Attorney Humphreys questions whether the town wants to take old, decrepit buildings or rebuilt building by eminent domain and whether the town wants to operate such an operation. Dick Karoff, 19 Border St., asks whether the merits of this project will be decided on the new or old Master Plan? He is told this is not a master plan issue, it will be decided on whether it meets zoning regulations. Member Ivimey states that some people are concerned that residential units will be put in. Attorney Humphreys states that the last date occupancy was at this location was perhaps 1985-1989 and that the three year protection statute is long over. Attorney Humphreys acknowledged that the applicant does not have the right to build residential units as a grandfathered use. Russell Planning Board Meeting 5 of 6 Wednesday, April 21,2004 DiNetti,Parker Ave.pointed out that the Selectmen showed their support of the fishermen four years ago when the Lobster Pound was at risk of eviction and the Selectmen were helping to identify other locations for it if the eviction happened. Tom Alioto,owner of the Lobster Pound noted for the record that he does buy from 31 of 32 boats registered in Cohasset most of the time. Michael McNabb, Scituate,points out that when lobster boats are hauled out, its for short time for repairs or painting and that railway allows access under the boat and that in fact, the majority of boats in the harbor have been on the railway or have desired to be on the railway in the past year. Bob Figueiredo,Pond St. expresses concern that at March 17, 2004 Informal Discussion, it was stated that the applicant intends to handle 22'-25'boats only and that this certainly excludes accommodating lobster boats. Member Ivimey asks if decks are new construction since they do not currently exist. Carlos Pena points out that under jurisdiction of Chapter 91 license, it's a trade off in pulling the Lobster Pound forward with a net 2.5% decrease of in area. Member Ivimey clarifies that part of the application is to rebuild that deck. Sandy Manzella, 19 Border St. asks who would oversee expansion of use. Town Planner Harrington explains that any change or expansion of use requires going before the Zoning Board. Member Pratt further states that the ZBA can grant other uses under a special permit. Member Moore restates that the reason this application is before the Planning Board is for a site plan review,not for an examination of use. Bob Egan,Building Commissioner,points out that this is now a very passive use and that if it becomes an active use with such things as rack storage, it is an expansion of an allowed use that would require a parking review which might preclude that expansion being allowed. Member Pratt states that the applicant has not provided adequate information to his satisfaction that would allow him to vote to the satisfaction of 12.6.2a that the"proposed development will be harmonious with and not harmful, injurious or objectionable to existing or future uses in the area." Member Pratt further requests more information to show that the applicant will in reality be maintaining the current uses that exist without and expansion in the quality and quantity of transactions such as rack storage. Attorney Humphreys answers that the main purpose of this project is to get this thing built and healthy and then enter the realm of uses that are possible. Some marine uses, such as rack storage, are not in the plans right now,but are a possibility in the future. John Modzelewski adds that the reason some boards get confused as to what to ask for is because they don't have jurisdiction in the first place and he does not understand why this applicant is before the Planning Board where this proposed project is actually reducing space. John Modzelewski will further review the plans. Town Planner Harrington will discuss application with Town Counsel. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to continue this public hearing to the May 5,2004 Planning board meeting at a time to be determined. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED 10:30 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS No applicants were present at this meeting. SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION: 11 Elm Court, APP: Desmond&Jennifer Havlicek, Date: March 25,2004.Applicant seeks to construct addition that exceeds lot coverage. The Planning Board reviewed this application and was unsure as to whether the applicants should be seeking a variance or a special permit because of the non-conforming nature of the house. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to leave this decision to the judgment and expertise of the ZBA. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION: 241 Jerusalem Rd., APP: Gregory&Laurie Ferreira, Date: April 7,2004. Applicant seeks to construct an addition closer to lot line than allowed. MOTION: By Member Pratt to recommend approval of this special permit. SECOND: By Member Ivimey VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION: 9 Margin Court, APP: Robert&Julia Rafferty, Date: April 14, 2004. Applicant seeks to construct addition that exceeds lot coverage. The Planning Board reviewed this application and was unsure as to whether the applicants should be seeking a variance or a special permit because of the non-conforming nature of the house Planning Board Meeting 6 of 6 Wednesday, April 21,2004 MOTION: By Member Ivimey to leave this decision to the judgment and expertise of the ZBA. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION: 828 CJCH, APP: Arthur Logan, Date: Feb. 27,2004. Applicant seeks to open dog day care center in main building on this property. The Planning Board determined that this application does not involve any planning issues at all. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to leave this decision to the judgment and expertise of the ZBA. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION: 40 Joy Place, APP: John E. Gilbert,III, Date: March 20, 2004. Applicant seeks to construct an addition. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to recommend approval of this special permit. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION: 21 Gammons Rd., APP: Thomas J. Durkin, Date: March 15,2004. Applicant seeks to construct a dock. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to recommend approval of this special permit. SECOND: By Member Pratt VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED No applicants were present at this meeting. 11:05 P.M. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Board was not prepared to approve and accept any minutes at this meeting. 11:06 P.M. PLANNING BOARD ADMINISTRATION MISCELLANEOUS • Town Planner Harrington distributed draft of Great Neck Residences Decision for review. • Town Planner Harrington distributed a draft of the review procedures for the Board to begin reviewing. Town Counsel recommends notification of abutters and advertising in paper according to 40A where this is part of zoning bylaw. Application fee set at $250.00. For simple, straight forward situations, review by John Modzelewski may not be necessary. All agree that it should be made as easy as possible for the applicant since this is only an advisory review by the Planning Board. Town Planner Harrington points out that it must be detailed enough so the information necessary to make an informed decision is at hand. Determined that if all aspects of zoning are minimal, there is little need for engineering deposit. Fees will be required if deemed necessary by staff. If the application is clearly more complicated, engineering fees will be necessary. Application will be sent to the same distribution as for Site Plan for review and comment. They can comment and respond as they feel appropriate. MOTION: By Member Pratt to adjourn. SECOND: By Member Ivimey VOTE: 3—0 MOTION APPROVED NEXT MEETING: Wednesday,May 5, 2004 at 7:00 PM MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:30 PM MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: