Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/14/2004 Wednesday,January 14, 2004 1 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 14,2004 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL-BASEMENT MEETING RM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S.Moore,Chairman William J. Good,Vice Chairman C. Christopher Ford Peter J.Pratt Robert H. Sturdy Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Town Planner Present: Elizabeth B.Harrington MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:00 PM 7:05 P.M. ZONING DISCUSSION—ANNUAL TOWN MEETING 2004 Member Moore presents need to establish sponsorship of articles. e.g."Political Sign"by-law should be submitted by Selectman,"Demolition of Historically Significant Buildings"by-law should be submitted by Cohasset Historical Society.Member Ford would like Planning Board to sponsor redefinition of Sunset Provision under Senior Overlay District.Member Moore suggests ground rules be established: Substantial changes need to be completed by time of hearing so that if substantial rewrites occur once hearing date is set, Planning Board can move for indefinite postponement to allow adequate time to prepare for hearing.Member Sturdy carries one step further: once public hearing takes place,scope of the article is set. If there is anything that is substantially different,even if it is within the scope,board needs to start again. Member Moore requests that text be in near final form by advertising deadline.Board could advertise Zoning Hearing Meeting for 2/18 with an advertising deadline 2/3. Planning Board would meet on the 1/28 to discuss the articles so there is time to make changes. Three zoning changes coming from Growth&Development.Planning Board will sponsor the "Sunset"Provision on the Senior Overlay. Selectmen will sponsor"Political Signs". Historical Commission will sponsor"Demolition of Historically Significant Buildings." 7:15 P.M. GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE—FINAL DRAFT PRESENTATION Final Version of Town's Master Plan was presented.Unanimous vote for Master Plan from Growth& Development Committee.Additional copies will be made and available for minimal fee. Electronic version also exists.Growth&Development Committee voted to dissolve the Committee.GIS System—will provide Demo to the Planning Board. Still trying to pull together some files and install.Implementation Committee should be established to help push through some of the recommendations.Planning Board needs to have hearing and vote to adopt/endorse Master Plan. Member Moore suggests that Planning Board needs to allocate 1 hour at end of each meeting to review Master Plan.Planning Board offers thanks and congratulations on a job well done to Growth&Development. Member Pratt suggests all boards require electronic submittal to maintain GIS operations.Need to examine rules and regulations and update with the electronic media/updates and perhaps other fees as well. Review fee schedule and miscellaneous costs with Town Treasurer to determine budget for GIS updates. 7:30 PM CEDARMERE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL PERMIT- DELIBERATION Wednesday,January 14, 2004 2 Member Moore—point of clarification for those in attendance.At last meeting Planning Board closed public hearing. Did not mean this was a private hearing but that public discussion ended.This meeting is not a time for people to be recognized to make comments. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to grant the special permit to Cedarmere based on a draft decision that has been accumulating over many months and represents the consensus of the Planning Board. There are specific changes. Member Ford questions sewer—condition&section#37—time frame of 18 months—will this preclude another applicant from being approved? If another application is submitted before these are constructed,we are not locked into those numbers. If this permit was final,all appeals resolved,and construction commenced within a certain time period the units would be committed. Member Pratt shares same concern now that Board has another application under the same bylaw,Town Meeting wants Cook Estate to come forward etc.Member Moore states this would not affect another applicant from coming in.Units would still be available which enables more applicants to come in.Member Ford asks if applicants are somewhat at risk if others can get in the door and the cap is met,then they've lost their place in line? Member Pratt thinks that if applicant has provided enough information in that part of Section 16 of bylaws,they do go into high level of risk. It's really a question of where Cedarmere's point is in this line as they wait. If Beach St. came ahead and satisfied all requirements could they start getting their count in ahead of existing applicants? Member Moore feels they probably could. Member Sturdy agrees but feels there is reasonable data submitted by the applicant to go ahead with the permit at this time. Member Ford would like the record to show that the applicant is going forward at their own risk as other applications can continue to come in and Board is not constrained to giving permits to others until the cap is met.Member Sturdy states Sullivan's comments on Condition#28 are noted. Planning Board Decision will have to reflect Conservation Commission changes to design and two Boards will have to come to a resolution before project can be built.Member Sturdy comments on noise analysis concern by neighbors.Board will require sound study to measure nighttime ambient sound. Detailed study has to be done before AC is permitted. Final landscape plans have to be presented showing natural and landscaping buffers.Member Pratt raises issues of construction management,surety,blasting regulations and future drainage impacts. Members Moore and Sturdy explain that blasting is purview of Fire Department.Construction management plans will be reviewed during meetings open to the public.A covenant will govern the release of units to hold applicant to these conditions.Natural or manmade acts in the future cannot be the responsibility of the applicant. A homeowners' association will have some degree of accountability in that area. Member Pratt notes that T-intersection is not technically on applicant's property. They can design it and may be willing to help with it but they would need someone's approval. Suggests putting in a"not to exceed cost"(15K)to protect the applicant. If it's minimal design and cost,applicant may be willing to design it and to construct it as long as they are permitted to do more landscaping if necessary.Fire Department requested remotely controlled traffic signals be installed at applicant's expense.Trade-off was installing sprinklers in all the units. AMENDED MOTION: By Member Sturdy to include the following five changes to the draft special permit based upon discussion: p. 7 add sentence at end of#10 but before Letter a. p. 8 Condition#1 to read: "This approval authorizes only those activities shown on the final endorsed plans and the application of King Taylor,LLC approved by this special permit. Any change,extension or modification in those activities is not authorized." #6: include Town Engineer in pre-construction meeting p. 10 #21 start sentence with"During construction" p. 11 #36 in first sentence,add"are"after construction p. 14 #58 "If approved by the Selectmen,the westerly intersection of Norman Todd Road and Beechwood Street shall be redesigned by and constructed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the board, cost not to exceed$15,000. Wednesday,January 14, 2004 3 SECOND: By Member Good VOTE: 5-0 MOTION APPROVED 9:00 P.M. GREAT NEXT RESIDENCES SENIOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT, BEACH STREET,COHASSET PELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW—SPECIAL PERMIT FILING Zolton Juhasz,Engineer for applicant,explains the SMROD application. Land is 11.8 acres,adjacent to Town Hall,bounded by Highland Ave.(westerly)and Beach St.(northerly). Access to Mohawk Trail on easterly part of parcel and direct access to Highland Ave. Proposal includes construction of 61, 1 &2 bed units in 3 separate Georgian style buildings.Large building with 37 units in easterly portion of site and two 12 unit buildings in central portion of site. Access off Beach St.on proposed new 24'wide paved access road that will narrow to 20'with turnaround in front of building.Parking to side in couple of areas and in front of each building.Garage space on basement level of each building with units on upper levels.Buildings will comply with Cohasset height regulations—3 story high.Proposed access will involve crossing wetland areas and will require filling of wetland areas.Combined impact will be<5,000 sq. ft. and wetlands will be replicated on site.Most of site comprised of steep,ledge outcrop areas not suitable for sewage disposal. Small portion of site has excellent soil as far as percolation.Area has been tested several times in past 10 yrs.and will be able to support development of this size. Anticipated sewage flow is about 12,000 gpd.Will be able to design sewage treatment facility that can handle the flow and safely dispose of it on site.Stormwater drainage—ledge, shallow soils,rate of runoff already high—any increase in rate of runoff in proposed areas that is generated will be treated and mitigated with use of 2 retention facilities. Design is preliminary but numbers support the size of these facilities. Have done preliminary calculations and believe this project can meet all DEP Stormwater Management Regulations and local regulations.There is public water available on Beach St. and water main will be brought in from Beach St. Telephone,electricity,cable are available on Beach St.and will be brought into each of these buildings.Traffic impact study has been performed by Vanasse&Associates No anticipated impact to traffic on Beach St.Landscaping—considered to lessen any or neighbors or sensitive areas to avoid any major impact to the neighborhood.Ellen Morrissey,applicant, indicates that John Modzelewski's comments have been received and studied,but are not ready to address them. Questions from public: June Hubbard, 144 Beach St. Q:Parking is underground for large building,where is it for smaller buildings? A:Under building and 1st level of building.Will be garage level with access at grade and units will be 2 stories above the parking level. Member Moore Q: How many cars per unit plan on parking? A: Ratio of.6 per unit. Todd Marshman,Beach St. Q: Is it customary for boards in Cohasset to start a process on a property that is in foreclosure or where tax payer hasn't paid taxes in 10 years? A: Member Moore-For this Board,that wouldn't stand in way of opening a hearing at this preliminary stage. Member Sturdy-At any point in time,there is an owner of land who may be subject to lawsuits,foreclosure etc.but any point in time,the owner can come before the Board and the Board is required to act on it. If what is being said is incorrect,the whole thing may change and there may be a new owner. Hearings may continue with substitution of new owner. Board is legally required to process any application that properly comes before us. Attorney Richard Henderson,representing Mr.Bruce Herzfelder&Ellen Roy Herzfelder Q: This project has come up numerous times over past ten years. Plans are not in proper form and there will be need to trespass on property such as DiGiacomo property just to get the construction built. Neighbors are routinely called out to public meetings for plans that do not comply with regulations and are not in proper form. A: Member Sturdy explains that these are preliminary plans and Planning Board does go through checklist to see if procedures were followed. If not,applicant is given list of items to go back to and correct. Preliminary plans are not usually in complete form.This is part of the process.Member Moore states this is very 1It evening this project has been reviewed. Planning Board will not labor for a long time until the list of deficiencies is dealt with.Town Planner Liz Harrington explains that this preliminary plan must be acted upon within the time period specified in the by- law. As of 12/16,clock started ticking for conducting Public Hearing within 65 Days.Member Sturdy states if applicant doesn't comply with changes,Planning Board cannot let clock run out so that proposal is automatically approved,Planning Board will have to reject application. Member Moore urges applicant to confer with John Modzelewski to see how many of items can be resolved before next meeting. Member Sturdy states that issue of ownership and indication of owner must be resolved before next meeting or this process could terminate. Robin Lawrence, 15 Beach St. Q:Access Road is 24'wide at Beach St. and narrows down to 20'.What is the grade of road going to be?A: Zolton Juhasz details 8-9%at entrance and that is the steepest point. From that point on grade is 6-8%then flattens out around the largest building Q:How many turns are in the street up to Wednesday,January 14, 2004 4 the turnaround? A: Two major curves. Q:Are you comfortable that public can safely make those turns in inclement weather at those grades? A: Zoltan Juhasz replies yes,6-8%grade is very common. Q: Can we expect that the Fire Department will certify that their trucks can make that grade? A: We do have memo from the Police Department that they do have concerns about it and we are going to work with them—perhaps widen road,redesign turn around.At this point,I don't think the Fire Department has reviewed it.Member Moore states that Planning Board has held opinion that grade of roads is rather critical,but has occasionally allowed a waiver.Planning Board is particularly concerned where road comes out and T's with another road.At that point if there is anything more than a 1-2%grade,Board becomes concerned particularly in the last 100' in the winter. Zolton Juhasz explains the 8%does not start right at Beach St.Grade is actually going to dip a little at Beach St. R.Henderson Q: How much ledge will you be removing from the site? A:Zolton Juhasz-At this point,we do not have any idea but it will be substantial.Q: Will you be removing it from the site? A:We will be using the material as much as we can for fill. R.Lawrence,Beach St. Q: Can we review the traffic study?A: It has been submitted and is in the booklet.Q: How many automobiles did you suggest per unit? A: 2.6 parking spaces per unit. T.Marshman,Beach St.—Q:Why not place buildings closer to septic area? A: Applicant proposes deeding some 5 acres contiguous to Town Hall lot to Town.Member Pratt questions access for maintenance. Highland Ave.access is discussed. Louis Eaton 30 Beach St.—Longtime resident offers opinion that houses do not belong on the ledge and neighbors are opposed. Mary Granville, 100 Beach St. Q:What happens if town rejects this land? Member Sturdy suggests that ultimately the homeowners association would still be responsibility for paying taxes on this portion of lot. Richard Alemian 131 Beach St.—States concern about blasting. A:Board can require preconstruction survey. This is a typical practice. Member Pratt, Q:Estimate of cubic yardage of ledge to be removed? A:At this point we don't. Q:Am I correct in assuming that blasting would be for building locations as well as access road? A:Yes. R.Alemian: Previous estimates were 44,000 cubic yards of ledge removal would be necessary up to only 1 building. Judith Jute,46 Beach St. At one time the Highland Ave.access road was determined not wide enough to use, has that changed? A: Member Moore explains that it is not wide enough access to a dwelling,but to the extent that it is owned by applicant,it might be able to be used for their own private purposes,possibly maintenance. R.Lawrence, 15 Beach St. Q:What impact will uprooting of trees and construction have on surface water run- off down to Beach SO A: Design addresses quality and quantity of run-off. Lawrence states that there is one detention pond on Beach St. side for run-off along the entire length of that side of the property and that he'd like to see some more work on that. June Hubbard, 144 Beach St.—The Mohawk is a fragile piece of land that feeds into Little Harbor and cannot take anymore fresh water pouring into it.John Modzelewski explains that the Mohawk is a salt water meadow and that fresh water will change the vegetation.Any plan will have to be sensitive to that and keep the volume of water going to that area the same. John Modzelewski—Q:What are the buffer zone requirements? A: Zolton Juhasz expects the walls to be 3 story reinforced concrete. Member Sturdy wants to see access by fire apparatus to all sides of the building for evacuation purposes. R.Henderson: questions the unit cap of SMROD. Member Pratt suggests the need to adjust the sunset triggering within section 16 of the bylaws. Member Sturdy suggests meeting on January 28 as advertising date is Feb.2 for Feb. 18 meeting.Burden is on applicant to file very high level of detail in short period of time.To be clear,to meet on the 281,we need definitive filing within 1 week to accommodate advertising deadline and conduct hearing within 65 days. Ellen Morrissey,applicant,asks if Town would be receptive to discussion of"swapping"Town owned land on Beach St. R.Henderson notes that he has four clients on a waiting list to purchase property. MOTION: Member Sturdy moves to continue to next meeting on January 28,2004. SECOND: Member Good MEETING ADJOURNED: MINUTES APPROVED: DATE: