HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2007 (29) Planning Board Meeting 1 of 7
October 2,2007
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: WEDNESDAY,OCTOBER 2,2007
TIME: 6:30 PM
PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— BASEMENT MEETING ROOM
41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025
Board Members Present: Alfred Moore,Chairman
William Good,Vice Chair
Stuart Ivimey,Clerk
Robert Sturdy
Mike Westcott
Board Members Absent:
Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M.Pilczak
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 6:35 P.M.
6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- SPECIAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLE—
ZONING BYLAW—VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT Town Counsel Richard Hucksam and Angus
Jennings,Concord Square Development in attendance.Member Ivimey read public hearing
advertisement. Westcott and Jennings gave overview of project. Meeting review followed the order of
the article as submitted with the Town Clerk on September 18,2007:
1. Page 1: To amend Section 2.1 Definitions-Definition of Apartment: final determination: OK
Peter Brown,EDC and 38 Atlantic Ave: asked where 700 SF gross floor area figure came from.
Jennings noted from State guidelines
Paul Carlson, 18 Old Coach Rd:asked how high end measure of 1500 SF was determined.Jennings-
board had interest in units being moderately priced-thought 1500 SF was reasonable high end measure
Member Sturdy: asked whether occupancy maximum for square footage was considered so occupancy
can be limited to avoid problems(which may come in future when train begins to run)with students and
migrant workers overcrowding apartments and sewer capacity.Town Counsel suggested that BOH
guidelines for maximum occupancy based on sanitation codes should be reviewed to determine if this is
reasonable strategy. Member Moore thought this was not concern as it could equally be said of homes.
2.Page 1:To further add a new definition-Floor Area Ratio: final determination: stay with
"gross"floor area,adiustina and to not include attics,basements and underground garages.See
page 4 for additional motion regarding definition. limits total gross floor area of a building as function
of total lot size.Gives indication to Town that there would be no greater than"X"amount of
development.
Wayne Sawchuk,432 Beechwood St.: what is"gross"floor area? Jennings-already defined in bylaw to
include basement,attic areas.Member Sturdy-in past has included basements,attics without headroom.
Charles Humphreys,24 Atlantic Ave: this really impacts parking.Jennings-going to"net'floor area
makes buildout calculation projections more difficult but does not endanger height/setback measures
Peter Brown:since Concord Square has adjusted ratio for"gross"measure,that gross measure should be
kept and is more logical for mixed use.
Woody Chittick,ZBA: changing definition for Village changes it for all other districts as well which has
far reaching impact on other sections of the bylaw and other zoning districts. Suggests sticking with
gross,choosing one definition,adjust ratio accordingly.
Planning Board Meeting 2 of 7
October 2,2007
3. Page 1: To Amend Section 4.2-Table of Use Regulations: final determination: SPGA not fully
resolved at this meeting.Basic effect is that special permits within the Village Business District for the
named uses—conversion of buildings to residential use whether for not more than two families and for
two or more families,any dwelling permitted in combination with other uses,and to fast food restaurant—
would go through the Planning Board rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals as an"SPP"(special
permit planning).
Member Westcott: This keeps Planning Board doing what it does best—reviewing design guidelines—
and,eliminates need for applicants to go before two review boards unless there is need for zoning relief.
Woody Chittick,ZBA: asked if proposal is to change all downtown uses from"SP"to"SPP"or,just
those uses that are earmarked because there are many uses in the downtown that require a special permit.
Westcott noted that the intent is to make the Planning Board the special permit granting authority for any
commercial use and development in the Village. ZBA feels that zoning matters are best left to the Zoning
Board and are particularly concerned with the residential districts that abut the village and to have one
board judging the compatibility and harmony of mixed uses as they may impact an abutting piece of
property within an RA or RB district does not eliminate another stop at another Board and does create
problems in terns of appeals etc. ZBA thinks this creates more overlap.
Member Sturdy: its not a question of things falling through the cracks,it's a question of applicants being
ping ponged between two boards—the idea is to have a process that works by having plans and use
reviewed by one board so all conditions of use and configuration of the building etc.can be dealt with in
one pass through one board. Most of these issues are issues the Planning Board deals with all the time
and should be the granting authority in this case.
Ben Lacy,ZBA: this does not eliminate the need to go before two boards—every property in the village
was built before zoning—anyone of them that wants to do something that alters their dimensions will
have to go before the ZBA according to Section 8.7 so the use maybe switched to the Planning Board,but
the changes in structure will still have to go before ZBA. A Board with the purpose of encouraging and
increasing business activity in this area is not the proper board to be making judgments that impact the
residents that live all around this area. It is not proper for the board that is conceptually interested in
promoting business,not in preserving a fair balance between rights of residents and the rights of business.
Westcott took exception—Planning Board represents town as a whole,not business over residential.
Angus Jennings: 13 lots don't meet 5000 SF minimum lot size and a number that do not meet minimum
frontage requirements and,many lots where the lot coverage exceeds the maximum set in the bylaw—so,
a fair number would have to go before the ZBA if they were proposing renovation to an existing building.
Any kind of zoning variance would still have to go before the ZBA.
Charlie Humphrey there is a difference between the way the ZBA and Planning Board look at
something.Anytime there is a change,there is an effect on a neighborhood and it is usually a negative
effect.ZBA considers itself the protector of the zoning bylaw and the status quo and change comes very
slowly and very slightly. This is a substantial change that could result in conflicting decisions.
Angus Jennings: reviewed that handout for special permit uses and it is identical in every respect but one
—the downtown business and the village business so it is substantially accurate with the exception that the
use allowing dwellings for more than one family is now a SP use,not a by right use.
Member Sturdy: took exception with the statement that the Planning Board has not been concerned
overall with the town and its relationship with what has been developed in the Town.
4. Page 1-2: Amend section 4.2 Table of Use Regulations,allowable use for"Auto service stations
and automotive repair garages from"SP"to"NO"in the VB District: final determination: OK
Auto service stations&auto repair from"SP"to"NO"in the VB district for new construction—it would
be a prohibited use.Existing would be grandfathered and become a pre-existing non-conforming use,
unless existing shuts operation for>two years,they lose the"by right". All other recommendations OK.
Planning Board Meeting 3 of 7
October 2,2007
5. Page 2: Amend the allowable use designation for"Detached one-family dwelling"from"SP"to
"NO"in the VB District: final determination: delete and keep as"SP"
Charlie Humphreys: favors keeping as"SP"as having it"NO"will devalue property,guarantee that
buildings such as his will be torn down and,will change the character of the unique,historic building in
the village.Member Sturdy agreed—some properties are worth more as a single family dwelling than as a
business and goal is not to be detrimental and provide economic harm to anyone.
Tom Callahan: zoning should be to encourage mixed use—single family dwellings should not be allowed
in the VB district—the purpose of this process was to encourage a modern,mixed-use district
MOTION: by Member Sturdy to delete from the bottom of page 1 to the top of page 2"and to
amend the allowable use...in the VB district."
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 4—1 MOTION CARRIES
6. Page 2: To amend Section 4.3,Sub-Section 6.a(7)-Open display of goods etc.on public
sidewalks in the VB District: final determination:OK,but delete"not to exceed 30 consecutive days.
Allows displaying goods on sidewalks,but must be taken in at night and,not obstruct traffic on sidewalk.
MOTION: by Member Sturdy to strike"not to exceed 30 consecutive days"
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
7. Page 2: Sub-section 14 of Section 4.3: final determination:not fully resolved at this meeting
As drafted,proposal would exempt residential development within the VB District from the provisions of
the inclusionary zoning which requires that 10%of the units above 5 or more units be affordable.
Member Westcott noted that Housing Partnership is in process of rethinking the inclusionary bylaw and
this amendment is considered a temporary fix until the Housing Partnership has recommendations.
Tom Callahan,Chair Housing Partnership Partnership is not happy—thinks affordable housing has been
short shrifted. Housing Partnership will not support this unless other changes are made.
Angus Jennings: size of the units in the Village would put burden on someone trying to develop
commercial on lower floor.Board's compromised position was to put size limitations on the size of the
units such that there would be a market mechanism to ensure that the units would be,if not affordable
under the state guidelines,would be more modestly priced and broaden the range of housing in the town.
Westcott also noted incentives through FAR.Callahan suggested that density bonus might be totally
meaningless if no one can achieve it.
Member Sturdy: trying to make business more affordable by adding housing to help defray the costs and
to add an affordable component that must be subsidized defeats this. It is a large town and to require
affordable housing in the downtown is very negative.
Tom Callahan:limiting apartment size is a tool to provide affordable housing in a market sense(albeit
they won't be counted as affordable by the State)and,the village is an ideal spot to try to provide
affordable. Would also like to squeeze out some countable affordable units. Would like changes to the
density bonus—right now it is impossible to achieve. Still strongly advocating for an all housing option
west of the MBTA tracks.ZBA does not plan to support any mixed use west of the MBTA tracks. If
affordable is not in this part of the town,where will it be? Housing Partnership feels they are not getting
anything towards affordable housing,even though encouraging affordable housing in the village was one
of the major goals that came out of Master Plan Committee in 1999 has fallen by the wayside.
Mike Westcott: It is still being encouraged to the extent that it is viable in order to meet the other
objectives of keeping the village vital while maintaining its character.
Angus Jennings: Is the current inclusionary zoning effective—has it produced any affordable units?
Tom Callahan:It has not produced any affordable because certain boards choose not to apply it on the
Cook Estate. Member Moore noted this as an incorrect statement as the Cook Estate was,according to
Town Counsel,exempted from inclusionary zoning,not that the Planning Board chose not to apply it.
Planning Board Meeting 4 of 7
October 2,2007
Peter Brown: Most of the sites in the village cannot develop 10 units and if 10 units cannot be developed,
to say that the 10%rule to apply and develop'/2 units is not practical.
Angus Jennings: The way the inclusionary bylaw is drafted,it does specify that in the event the 10%rule
results in a fraction,it is rounded up.So,the practical effect is that a 5 unit development would have to
provide 1 affordable unit(which is 20%).
Jump ahead to proposed Section 18 of the proposed bylaw which is on page 7 of the handout:
Angus Jennings:Carr,Lynch&Sandell recommended FAR 1.5 gross and their drawings also included 1
parking space per unit on site—the bylaw would not require that. If parking is not provided on site, 1.5
FAR is achievable.Thinks the 1.5 is a meaningful density bonus.
Tom Callahan:concerned that 1.5 FAR might represent maximum build out and that no one will be able
to exercise the density bonus whether it be for housing,open space or green building.Callahan asks for
absolute property examples that it can be utilized by people who want to use it.If it cannot be utilized by
people who would like to,he asks that the threshold at which the density bonus kicks in(suggests 1.25
FAR)or,allow,in the appropriate case,that the dimensional requirements of setbacks,mainly height,be
waivable through a special permit process—that there be flexibility.
Angus Jennings:with provision of on-site parking, 1.5 is the highest FAR of the four studied parcels.
When parking requirement is taken away,that goes up. Gas station had.7 FAR(8,400 SF of total
residential floor area or,about 6-8 housing units)with parking spaces. If on-site parking is waived,it is
opened up considerably.
Sawchuk: noted that the buildings have to have either basement,crawl space or slab and if there is
basement or crawl space,it counts and,one floor is lost.
Jennings,Westcott: there is significant opportunity through design elements to increase square footage.
Member Moore: FAR is currently 1.5 and the question is whether that number should be higher or lower.
Jennings thought that if basements are taken into account,the FAR should be increased. Egan noted that
basement(more than half of it above grade and therefore habitable)should count but a cellar(more than
half below grade and therefore not inhabitable)should not.
Sawchuk: thinks the real FAR number is not really known and,does not work in the downtown.The
existing properties in the village that cover their entire lots are hurt as they cannot add second floors,
attics for HVAC and pitched roof.
Member Sturdy: eliminate entire FAR concept. In 5.3.1 Table of Area Regulations, eliminate entire line
in District DB and be governed by 35'height and 80%coverage—let them buildup to 35'. FAR applies
in some cases and not at all in others. Constraints by parking requirements,height limitations,structural
coverage and impervious coverage—that is enough constraint to tie things down. Member Ivimey
reiterated that the FAR gives predictability as to potential build out. Peter Brown agreed.
James Marathas,MSC Development: problem arises with basements,attics and underground parking—
developer who puts in underground parking is punished.Smaller units—which are affordable-often
require storage areas in basement—if developer provides storage area,he is punished.Eliminating
consideration of basements,attics and underground parking becomes critical or projects become
economically unfeasible.Have to encourage parking—if no parking,units are not rented/sold.
Go back to page 1 definition of"Floor Area Ratio":
MOTION: by Member Westcott to amend FAR gross definition to exclude basements,cellars,
underground parking,garages and attics under 7'in height
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 3-2 MOTION CARRIES
Back to page 7: Angus Jennings: 1.Change dwelling units to apartments(18. l.a.ii) and strike 18.b
and 2. Define low and moderate to be consistent with the inclusionary bylaw as a precedent. Callahan
has not defined with reference to appropriate statutes and language yet. Member Sturdy does not think
we should try to define at this point—just take the State level(125%of average area income). ZBA
suggested rather than"excluding"change to"such as"to imply that there are additional public benefits
Planning Board Meeting 5 of 7
October 2,2007
that could be considered by the permit granting authority to construe more broadly what kind of public
benefits would justify the density bonus. Callahan-the public benefits must be clearly defined and
specific.Callahan-some developers would opt for buyout option to affordable and have money go into
fund for the affordable housing to be developed elsewhere. Town Counsel opines that rather than having
strict either/or language of"either providing X%of affordable or,pay a certain amount into this fund"
that this is more like getting a bonus if you do this and,is more likely to be upheld because an individual
is not forced to do it and agrees with Jennings that it would be more solid if there was some kind of
analysis that supported the figure so best to remove last sentence of Callahan Oct.2,2007 memo.
MOTION: by Member Westcott to adopt Tom Callahan's language to Section 18.1.a.iii as
contained on page 1,point 3 to top of page 2 of the Housing Partnership October 2,2007 memo,
deleting the last sentence.
SECOND: Member Ivimey
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
Janes Marathas,MSC Development:(Regarding Section 8 Di ees with having commercial rice uired Formatted:Font:Weissach,Font color:Auto
instead of being able to have all residential in a building that is behind a building that already has
commercial or,is on a street that is not considered a main street.Not allowing Board to have the
flexibility to consider that in some circumstances is going to create some problems for the Board going
forward. In the case of a parcel that would have one building in front with commercial on the first floor
and a building behind it where commercial is not viable—the back building could be all residential.In the
case of a parcel west of the MBTA tracks,where you had a building on a side street,it would make more
sense to allow that building to be all residential. In the case of a lot behind another lot,you would be hard
pressed to find a commercial tenant to rent that space and would make complete sense to allow that to be
a completely residential building. In the case where a building that was strictly residential and does not
front on a main street or,was behind another building to leave this Board flexibility that in that case,that
person would be required to have 10%affordability in that project. Member Moore—regarding the other
side of the tracks—cannot really go into this bylaw at this late date and make those changes at this time
and,regarding a building behind a building—Moore cannot think of examples in the village that fall into
that situation.
Tom Callahan:urges Planning Board to consider point 4 of his October 2,2007 memo to encourage
residential housing only option west of the MBTA tracks—commercial is not really viable there and,it
would be comforting to those residents to know that there could be the option of only residential on the
west side of the MBTA tracks and,he does not think it is too late to make such changes. Callahan
provided draft language taken from the Stoughton bylaw to apply just to the west side of the MBTA
tracks.He thinks this change can be made without setting up a separate district.Not an all residential
option,but allows for more residential than can be done under the mixed use provisions that govern the
village as a whole.It can be more problematic to have more residential than commercial in the village,but
west of the tracks,it would be nice to have more flexibility if a separate zoning district is not going to be
created. Member Ivimey thinks Callahan is conceptually correct and wonders if there is a way to get this
thought into an action for this town meeting. Town Counsel has problem with identifying an area within
a district that will be treated differently—if it was something that applied district wide that criteria would
have to be applied to,he would not have a problem with it. Jennings thought that there is potential
concern that adding this type of provision which allows stand alone multi-family which is not in the
advertised bylaw,could be problem in the Attorney General's review(he sees worse case being that the
AG strikes this language,not the whole bylaw). Also has process concern as the concept of single stand
alone residential has been discussed at every meeting and in every case,the answer has been"no"and,
people could object to it being on the floor of town meeting. This is substantial enough so it should be a
stand alone question for the public to address. Westcott-this is probably the best solution he has seen so
far to achieving his objectives of enabling flexibility while maintaining commercial viability on the
Parkway side as well as the Main St.side. Jennings thinks that the third point is somewhat subjective,
Planning Board Meeting 6 of 7
October 2,2007
could be exploited,cannot comment on whether there could be unintended consequences and thinks the
language is seriously flawed putting burden of proof on Board rather than on applicant.Jennings is also
concerned that the three points are followed by"or"rather than"and". Town Counsel agreed with
Jennings. W.Sawchuk and G.Roukounakis think it should be considered. Ivimey concerned that
someone could say that they have commercial on first floor of their building on Main Street,therefore
don't have to have commercial on first floor of same building on side facing Parkingway,but can have
residential. Jennings,Town Counsel to draft proper language to reflect the concern about giving the
Board the option to allow a first floor dwelling in the event that it was not fronting on a main street,etc.
Continue this discussion to October 17,2007 at 6:30 PM
9. Page 3: 5.3.1 Table of Area Regulations: final determination: OK
Right now there are 2 sets of standards—one that applies to mixed use and one that applies to everything
else. This amendment would consolidate existing standards that apply to everything else to also apply to
mixed use and would bring 40,000 SF down to 5,000 SF
10.Page 3:Section 5.4 subsection 1:final determination: Jennings to redraft as per as per motion.
Member Sturdy would like Board to be able to approve setbacks that are less than the minimums set so
applicant does not have to go to two major boards to get special permit. Also,many of lots in village are
not square and require flexibility of setbacks.
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to delete"side"in line 4 before"yard"and,change"ten feet"in line
5 to"minimums set in Table 5.4". Angus Jennings to redraft.
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
11.Page 3: To strike the text of Sub-section 6 of Section 5.4 in its entirety: final determination:OK
12. Page 3: To add a new Sub-section 15 of Section 5.4: final determination: strike entirely
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to strike entirely as Site Plan Review already covers
SECOND: Member Sturdy
VOTE: 4—1 MOTION CARRIES
13. Page 4: To add a new sub-section 16 of Section 5.4 which allows the Parkingway to serve as
frontage: final determination:OK with edit of 16 to 15
Basically,for lots that abut town owned parking,the town owned parking can serve as a street only for the
purpose of providing frontage provided they have an adequate length of adjacency equal to the frontage
requirement of the bylaw.
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to change Sub-section"16"to"15"since previous amendment was
stricken
SECOND: Member Sturdy
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
14. Page 4: Section 7.1 Subsection K (Housekeeping): final determination: OK
Amends existing exemption on parking in VB to those uses permitted pursuant of this bylaw,and
identified those parcels by assessor's map designation.Also,identify parcels of municipal parking lots
and town owned parcel on west side of MBTA tracks by assessors'map and parcel number.
15.Page 4: To amend Section 7.2,Sub-section 3: final determination: Strike
Reduces 1000'to 750'. Angus Jennings thought this could be stricken without consequence.
MOTION: by Member Westcott to strike this completely
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
Planning Board Meeting 7 of 7
October 2,2007
16. Pa¢e 4: To amend Sub-section 14 of Section 7.2: OK with one phrase stricken as per motion
Accessory parking spaces that are maintained in existence within the district shall be presumed to be
maintained in connection with an existing use and therefore have to comply with that provision(requires
maintaining parking unless use changes)
MOTION: by Member Sturdy to move with"be presumed to"stricken
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
MOTION: by Member Sturdy to accept remaining pages 5-8 as of Village Bylaw Article as filed
with the Town Clerk on September 18,2007 and as presented
SECOND: Member Westcott
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES(Member Ivimey left prior to this motion)
MOTION: by Member Sturdy to continue this public hearing to October 17,2007 at 6:30 PM
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES
MOTION: by Member Sturdy to adjourn at 10:40 PM
SECOND: Member Good
VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY,OCTOBER 3,2007 AT 7:00 PM (REGULAR MEETING)
MINUTES APPROVED: STUART IVIMEY,CLERK
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2007