Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2007 (27) Planning Board Meeting 1 of 2 September 6,2007 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 6,2007 TIME: 11:00 AM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— LOWER LEVEL MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred Moore, Chairman William Good,Vice Chair Stuart Ivimey, Clerk Mike Westcott Board Members Absent: Robert Sturdy Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M.Pilczak MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 11:20 AM VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT BYLAW DISCUSSION In attendance: Angus Jennings(Concord Square Development)Bill Griffin,Bob Egan, Town Counsel Richard Hucksam,Woody Chittick,Mike Milanoski,Jim Shipsky, Tom Callahan,Joseph Rosano,Paul Cleary,John Tedeschi, Charles Humphreys Jennings distributed memo dated 09/06/07 with updated draft of bylaw and issues to be discussed and resolved. Westcott explained that the objectives of the study were to: • maintain the character of the village • encourage the right kind of retail and residential development • encourage open space • enable affordable housing to whatever extent possible and,to minimize changes to the existing bylaw while meeting the above objectives. Upcoming goals are to: FAX advertisement for public hearing on September 13,2007; file bylaw with Town Clerk on September 18,2007 and open public hearing on October 2, 2007. Woody Chittick stated that he thought the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) should be included in review. Member Moore disagreed noting that the ZAC was established to review zoning bylaw amendments submitted by citizens. Chittick also felt that Conservation, sewer Commission, Stormwater Committee should be included. Following comments on pp. 1-3 of Jennings' 09/06/07 memo: • 2.1 —Definitions: had been dealt with—add new definition for"apartment" • 4.2 - Dwellings: comments included: o allowing residential on westerly side of MBTA tracks would require separate zoning district and that would be difficult to do at this time o there is tremendous interest in single family properties o should not leave open the possibility of letting residential creep into the village o the current trend is to minimize the distinction between residence and business—many individuals are doing both in their one space o create two separate districts—VB 1 and V132—one mixed use only and one either mixed use or residential o maintain commercial with X%residential SF allowed on 1St floor o make special permit with very rigorous performance standards/criteria Planning Board Meeting 2 of 2 September 6,2007 o Jennings wanted to go conservative route and keep as "NO"(not permitted) in VB MOTION: by Member Westcott keep as"SPP" and work on drafting rigorous guidelines that reflect higher bar for change SECOND: Member Good VOTE: 2—2 MOTION DOES NOT CARRY o Mike Milanoski noted that there are national standards for"live&use"facilities for properties that have a feel of commercial on first floor front with residential in the rest of the building. . 4.3.6.a(7): wares displayed outside for 30 consecutive days, only during business hours and not to impede public safety —can reapply after 30 days—building inspector to have discretion re:public safety& passage. • 4.3.12: leave as is in existing bylaws. Use apartment,not dwelling unit. Create new paragraph making it specific to VB • Affordability: Town Counsel would like to review a there are some issues with legality of some criteria listed. T. Callahan mentioned density bonus not build it: limits on SF of units to promote affordability; minimum and maximum unit size. Jennings mentioned this could be dealt with by defining apartments in terms of size,no. of bedrooms, ownership/rental. Jennings also suggested exempting VB from inclusionary and limit size of apartments as interim solution. Town Counsel has standards for studio & 1 bedroom as affordable. Board wants to use SF range,not no. of bedrooms. Town Counsel stated that density bonus is clearly legal way to approach this. • 5.3.1: looking to maintain 50' frontage(only 4 premises don't have the 50' frontage) State calls buildable lot 5,000 SF with 50' frontage. • 5.3.1: leave at 20% • 5.4.1: Intent is to allow planning board to issue permit for side year somewhere between 0' and 10'. Need criteria to be clear. Jennings and Town Counsel to discuss • 7. Parking: do not address at this point in time, cannot be addressed at Fall STM—handle comprehensively at later time. • 7.1.K: to be resolved with Woody Chittick • 7.2.3: to be resolved with Woody Chittick • 12.4.9: to be resolved with Woody Chittick • 12.4.10: to be resolved with Woody Chittick • 12.4.3: housekeeping—change to "the close of the public hearing" • 12.4.4: to be reviewed with Town Counsel • 19.1.a: set maximum FAR at 1.5 with increase allowed(ZBA variance?) • 19.Lb: delete • 19.1.d: qualitative dealing with design should be struck • 19.1.f. Need to add absolute date(to deal with historical buildings) • 19.2: to be reviewed with Town Counsel Woody Chittick and Mike Westcott to set up ZAC meeting. MOTION: by Member Westcott to adjourn at 2:00 PM SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19,2007 AT 7:00 P.M. (REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING) MINUTES APPROVED: STUART IVIMEY, CLERK DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2007