Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2007 (2) Planning Board Meeting 1 of 3 November 7,2007 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2007 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: William Good,Vice Chair Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Mike Westcott Robert Sturdy Board Members Absent: Alfred Moore, Chairman Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:05 P.M. 7:05 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO ACCEPT OCTOBER 24,2007 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept October 24,2007 minutes SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • CORRECTION TO OCTOBER 17,2007 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Good to amend October 17,2007 minutes to change reference to Sub-section 15 of Section 5.4 (on page 2)to read "front and/or rear yard" SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • NADER-HERITAGE LANE UNDERGROUND/SIDEWALK DECISION—Board will wait for Nader to indicate his decision. No permits to be issued until he does. • SIGNATURES—MUTUAL RELEASE FROM K. SAILLANT—all members signed • MEMBER MOORE—STM—Not addressed 7:15 P.M. WATER DEPT.,BUILDING INSPECTOR,PLANNING BOARD—DISCUSSION ABOUT FILINGS PROCEDURES Glenn Pratt,John McNabb, Steve May, and Bob Egan. Water Dept. felt that their dept.,building and planning board are not always on same page about what water dept.wants developers to do in new construction projects and teardown/rebuild projects. Water Dept.wants to require developers to loop service in projects where water mains are going in to improve water quality and water distribution. For new services,they now require new 1" service to be installed to eliminate undersized services. They would like help from building and planning board in getting these changes accomplished. All agreed that we can: • Add water dept. conditions to application checklists • Add water dept. conditions to approval decisions • Have water dept.review building permit applications for new construction and for demo/rebuilds and issue conditions to building permits similar to the way ConComm does. Water Dept. to supply language and Planning Board and Building Dept. will implement. Building Inspector did question how water dept. can have requirements without enforcement mechanisms. 7:35 P.M. PROPOSED STM ZONING AMENDMENTS—PUBLIC HEARINGS • WATER RESOURCE DISTRICT BYLAW AMENDMENT—John McNabb,Water Commission This is the same bylaw the Planning Board voted to recommend at the Annual Town Meeting last spring,with the addition of one sentence in(1)—"The term"storage"as used ... household pets". The purpose of this article is to meet DEP requirements by Dec. 31,2007. This is a must do. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend approval of this bylaw amendment Planning Board Meeting 2 of 3 November 7,2007 SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • WATERFRONT BUSINESS DISTRICT BYLAW AMENDMENT—Attorney Charles Humphreys Humphreys explained that this is similar to the Village Bylaw. Purpose is to create change in the bylaws to allow residences in mixed-use buildings with commercial on the first floor—just as is proposed in the village. The waterfront area has only three buildings that would be affected: 1. Cohasset Harbor Inn—currently operating at 32-34%occupancy so income is not covering overhead. This bylaw would enable stabilization by allowing hotel on first floor with conversion to 16-18 condos on 2nd and 3rd floors. No expansion of size,height or volume is proposed—only minor exterior changes. Little effect on Town's infrastructure as condos would not be large enough for families. Would promote stabilization while creating$15 million valuation for tax revenue to Town. Inn FAR is 1.04 2. Boatyard—not economically viable as a boatyard without boat storage capability. As it is, it cannot support entire complex. In addition,marine related industries are just not moving in there. This bylaw would allow 3 condos on the 2nd floor. Boatyard FAR is .96. 3. Atlantica—won't do anything for Atlantica—is fine as is and its parking capacity would not allow for any changes anyway. OTHER KEY POINTS: • FAR could be set as low as 1.1 to give a comfort level that there will not be a huge buildout • This is designed to stabilize—not change—the harbor, so it does not fall into trend of deterioration PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dick Karoff, 19 Border St: it is not the responsibility of the town to make an individual's investment better economically. Does not want condos in the harbor,rezoning of space and the additional noise,parking problems, public access and traffic issues. Paul Patterson, 104 Elm St: original motel was a two story structure with an"A"lined roof. An additional story was added for A/C and storage,not for residences Paul Sullivan, 6 Stockbridge St: this is not Scituate where the downtown is sitting right on the harbor, Cohasset's harbor is mostly residential and should remain so. Suggests this could become a trend where people with large homes could decide to convert to condos so the whole harbor becomes condos rather than single family homes so this becomes another district—questions how this could be kept under control. Concerned about the effect on surrounding properties. Cannot create special legislation to appease one person(Mr. Roy). Humphreys replied that this is not being done to appease one person—it happens to be coincidence that one person —Mr. Roy—happens to own the commercial properties on the harbor—this is a plan to stabilize and save the harbor area from deterioration. Humphreys offered to indefinitely postpone this article on the floor of town meeting if the planning board will, in good faith, support having the same study process that was done for the village business district, also done for the waterfront business district. Member Westcott-Board will commit to get the process for funding etc. underway for the spring annual town meeting with the study to follow town meeting if it is passed. Member Ivimey cautioned that consultant's recommendations after a study might be to do nothing to the bylaws. MOTION: by Member Sturdy to recommend indefinite postponement of this article SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 8:30 P.M. ROBERT STURDY—DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGES TO VILLAGE BYLAW Angus Jennings in attendance. • Sturdy noted error in the warrant. Page 5, Section 5.3.1 Table of Area Regulations under"minimum yards" - should read 15** 10* 15**. Will have to be amended at Town Meeting as a scrivener's error. Further, ZBA is hanging its hat on the fact that they are the keeper of the yards. Sturdy wants to take yards out of play— as he motioned several meetings ago—to: remove ZBA from being involved in the permitting process as it is clear in the downtown area that there is no way of getting around that yards will be played with; and, second the language talked about diminishing yards,but it is possible that the Board would want to increase yards(on the residential side of a building). Probably holds that you could never achieve the 80%coverage with the yards as stated because too much is scratched away in the way of yards. 80%coverage as a matter of right and,FAR as a matter of right—they stand in conflict with the sides but then the sides also don't work unless the lot is a nice, clean rectangular shape. Yards have to be part and parcel of the whole design process. By dealing in yards, there is the perception that you are dealing on the sacred area of the ZBA. The ZBA had no involvement with Planning Board Meeting 3 of 3 November 7,2007 the Red Lion Inn—that was the developer working with the Planning Board and that is the way the village bylaw should go. It is important to get away from yards. This is the way he is willing to support it. Member Ivimey— have to be careful that primary focus is to craft a quality bylaw that does what it should do and not lose sight of the fact that the bylaw is the focus,not the SPGA. He also disputes Sturdy's point that the bylaw guarantees 80%lot coverage—the bylaw says you can build up to 80%coverage-the setback guidelines get trumped by the 80%. He is also concerned(from a legal perspective) about imposing yard setbacks which are not set forth in the bylaw itself,whereas,it is legal to waive requirements that are in the bylaw. Town Counsel—has problem with language handed out at this meeting as it does leave question as to what is required. Language as was originally written does contain criteria which Board can waive and the fundamental basis for the bylaws is to tell people criteria they are expected to follow. Jennings—there is a proposed section where a 30' setback is required from any RA or RB district and, by Section 12.4.1.b,it would be acceptable for the Board, in its findings,that within a permit proposal,that inclusive of reduced side yard setback,to say that a proposed plan meets this threshold-Member Westcott—original goal was to make as few changes as possible, eventualities have been covered,there is enough latitude built in and he thinks it should remain as was agreed to at the past meeting—keep dimensional requirements in,with the opportunity to waive on an as needed basis. Peter Brown, EDC—rather than burden this STM,perhaps it could be left as it and Sturdy's idea can be handled in the future if experience shows it is a problem - fix it if it presents problems. Town Counsel—would need a motion at town meeting to correct the scrivener's asterisk error—could be within the Board's initial motion when they propose the article that they propose it with this correction. Member Ivimey—Planning Board is allowing the ZBA to steer the debate—the debate should be stylized that this is a commercial site plan review at its essence—there is an element of the Planning Board leaning on the territory of the ZBA when it comes to setback, but 99% of what the Planning Board will be doing is commercial site plan review which is the function of the Planning Board. • BOS has raised issue of parking—they would like to see development with parking— 1 space/unit, giving SPGA discretion to waive if it is not possible- as they are concerned about strain on the town parking lot. Jennings handed out a motion to address this that creates under the Table of Parking a new use category called"Apartments permitted pursuant to this zoning bylaw in the VB District"and adds 1 space/unit unless the apartments are proposed within a structure existing on 01/05/55 or unless a reduced number is specifically authorized by the SPGA finding it not possible/necessary for public safety and convenience.Also, in bylaws now, in Table of Parking, sub-use b—Dwelling in Business District for Occupancy by More Than One Family -which requires 1.5 spaces/unit and this amendment would change that to read"Dwellings in business district other than the VB District ..." Town Counsel—there is potential issue with scope because this requirement was not in the advertised article—AG might strike the amendment if he views it as more restrictive. Adds another element of control. Selectmen Dormitzer suggested striking"and convenience"but Jennings suggested keeping it in so it is consistent with other references. Tom Callahan—a lot of the stress on village parking is caused by employee parking— should be policy that forces employee parking to west of the MBTA to free up municipal parking for customers. MOTION: by Member Westcott to move to adopt the amendment to Section 7.1 as proposed, changing in subparagraph L-"structure"to "building" and, adding the words "that portion of so the amendment to Section 7.1, Subparagraph L would read ... proposed within "that portion of a building" existing ... SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 3—Yea, 1—Abstain MOTION CARRIES Member Sturdy does not think it advisable to make this change at this point—it muddies the waters and,he is not keen on the idea of limiting the first floor retail space because half of it is taken up by parking. He would not reconsider and left meeting at this point. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn at 9:25 PM SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 3—0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Sturdy had left meeting prior to this motion) NEXT MEETING: TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 13,2007 AT 6:00 PM SPECIAL TOWN MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2007 AT 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APPROVED: STUART IVIMEY,CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2007