Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2008 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2008 (5) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 6 December 1, 2008 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 1,2008 TIME: 6:45 P.M. PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— AUDITORIUM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S. Moore,Jr. - Chairman Stuart W. Ivimey,Vice Chair Charles A. Samuelson,Clerk Clark H. Brewer Board Members Absent: Michael R. Westcott Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M.Pilczak Meeting called to order at: 6:45 P.M. 6:45 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS • 90 WHITEHEAD RD.,SPECIAL PERMIT APPL., APPL: CAVANARO CONSULTING (for Jay Graham) John Cavanaro represented application. Applicant seeking to replace existing garage and build a new, expanded garage. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this special permit application SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • 124 ATLANTIC AVE., SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION, APPL: PAUL &MICHELE ANTICO John Studebaker,Axiom Architects represented application. Applicants seeking to build a garage,multi-use room. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this special permit application SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: MOTION CARRIES 6:55 P.M ADMINISTRATION(moved to earlier in aizenda to fill time until 7:15 PM continued public hearing) • VOTE TO ACCEPT NOVEMBER 10,2008 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to accept the November 10,2008 minutes SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • SET DATES FOR JANUARY,2009 MEETINGS - January 12 and 26 • COMMENTS—STORMWATER FILING—20 PARKINGWAY,POMPEO MOTION: by Member Ivimey to note that during the Site Plan Review conducted by the Planning Board, the Board noted that the existing lot is entirely pave and 100% impervious. The applicant's plans will decrease the % of impervious surface,improving existing conditions. Therefore,the Planning Board would recommend approval of this application in a timely,cost effective manner so applicant can begin his project. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • COMMENTS—STORMWATER FILING—26 DEEP RUN,BRADY-WILSON MOTION: by Member Ivimey to note that the Planning Board relies on the expertise of Civil Designs Inc., for review, comment and recommendations regarding stormwater,drainage etc. Obtaining Civil Designs' review and comment for this Stormwater Application would increase expenses for the applicant.Therefore, the Planning Board defers to the Stormwater Agent and has no comment. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 6 December 1, 2008 • PDF DOCUMENTS—Planning Board Administrator pointed out that submission of PDF documents has raised some questions regarding the use of those documents to fulfill public records requests,whether requestors should be charged etc. In brief discussion with Town Counsel, Counsel noted that one must be absolutely sure that the PDF document is the same as the hard copy submitted. Board noted that they would like to use electronic documents as much as possible and agree that Town Counsel opinion and guidance should be sought. 7:20 P.M. 215 CJC HWY, WIND TURBINE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APPL: JAMES SWEENEY, CCI ENERGY; OWNER: PAUL BARRY Town Counsel Hucksam and John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc. in attendance for Town. Applicant James Sweeney, CCI Energy; Jayson Uppal and Jesse Gossett, Emergent Energy, in attendance for applicant. Town Counsel was asked by the Chair to address two issues: 1. Town Counsel explained the relationship between the Wind Energy Special Permit bylaw and the Town's Site Plan Review Bylaw-the Wind Energy bylaw provides the basis for the Planning Board to either grant a special permit to allow a project with conditions or to deny a project. Whereas the Site Plan Bylaw is designed to primarily condition a use,presuming it is an allowed use under the zoning bylaw. It is difficult to deny a project as part of a site plan review because it is designed to condition a project that has been established to be an allowed use and therefore permissible under the zoning bylaw. 2. Regarding the Public Records Law, Town Counsel explained that even though documents are related to a proceeding,public records requests are processed separately, according to the Public Records Law which has many rules about how those records must be addressed. Right now,the Planning Board and other Town offices are addressing those requests in compliance with the Public Records Law. Chair explained that the topics to be discussed at this meeting would be: balloons to illustrate height of turbine; wildlife; lighting; and, flicker effect. Comments should be kept to those topics for this meeting. Sweeney gave a 5 minute review of the proposal and showed the relocation of the second turbine. BALLOONS John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc. Had asked Sweeney to provide visual aid at the site to illustrate the height of the nacelle and top of blades and the scale of the project. Sweeney agreed to raise two balloons simultaneously— one at each of the exact locations of each turbine- according to the Board's wishes. Board would like: • 4 days planned—a Friday, Saturday, Sunday and, a Monday(as a rain date if necessary)to make the visual available to as many interested residents as possible. Sweeney explained that the two balloons will be table sized (8' x 3.5')helium weather balloons. December 12-15. Balloons will be two different colors. Modzelewski would like balloon to be size of the nacelle. Sweeney indicated that the nacelle is about 20' long but he will get the largest weather balloons possible • Will advertise in paper if time permits and,notice will be send to all registered residents by Town's Emergency Notification system if Town Manager agrees (PB Administrator to check) • Balloons will be raised from approx. 8:30 AM to sunset each day • Pictures will be taken from various vantage points around town John Bryant,251 Forest Ave.: asked if a Toyota type balloon with fins could be used for dynamic lift—Sweeney not sure where this could be obtained,but gave assurances that he would get the biggest balloons possible. Jeffrey Patterson, 20 Sanctuary Pond Rd: concerned about how far nacelle flashing light will spread from turbine and wondered if a flashing light can be added to the balloons and have them left up at night so light shed can be observed. Sweeney thought balloon movement would not make this realistic from an engineering standpoint and also noted that nacelle light shines upward,not downward. He suggested that light can be evaluated by going to the Hull turbine at night and observing its light. Modzelewski agreed that we have a good example in Hull and also mentioned that he will be recommending a red LED light—light will be discussed later in the meeting. Melissa Schorr, 27 Cedar St: Asked if balloons can be labeled"Wind Turbine"so people know what they are and asked that the balloons visual not be done during the holidays as people may be away. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 6 December 1, 2008 Paul Appleton(? King St. (Not signed in at public hearing): asked if this can be done Thursday—Sunday instead and asked if simulated noise can be done at same time. Craig Bleicken, 351 No. Main St.: Can homes that will be visually impacted be tallied- Modzelewski did not think so as this is first and foremost for the Board to get an idea of the scale of the project and secondly for the public to be able to view. Lori Langenhagen, 24 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: would like developer to make a to-scale model including the surrounding area and terrain. Moore suggested that this might be done in the future,but for now,the balloon visual is the first step. Modzelewski did not think scale models were appropriate for this project as it is not the vantage point people would be looking at the turbines from—observers look at scale models from above and do not give the effect people will expect. Suggests getting at least 80%of the size dimension. Doug Bryan, 20 Sanctuary Pond: Asked if balloons could be true to the diameter of the turbines and if they could be kept up at sunset so observers can see what the sun is like behind them. Sweeney reiterated that he will get the largest balloons he can. Paul Antico, 124 Atlantic Avenue: stressed that the balloons should be as close to realistic size as possible or questions will not be answered. Thinks a scale model is the only other way to illustrate the size. Kevin O'Brien,28 Sanctuary Pond: asked if balloon will be at center of propeller(nacelle)height or at the peak of the height. Sweeney indicated it will be both—one at the nacelle and one at the top of the highest point of the blade. O'Brien also prefers a scale model. Chris Herman, 21 Ledhewood Farm Dr.: asked if the lines can be flagged so the full length of the line can be seen WILDLIFE Modzelewski noted that the two towers are to be located in already disturbed areas so the habitat has already been disturbed. He does not see wildlife as an issue or as problematic at this point. No endangered bat species in this area of the state. Modzelewski went to the Hull turbine and did not see evidence of bird kill. Hull reports no problems with bird kill.Modzelewski does not think there are issues with birds or bats and believes this is a closed issue. He read the reports submitted by the consultants but has not had them reviewed by another consultant because of the huge expense(although he will if the board directs him to do so). Name not given: suggested that Hull is not the same habitat and that this proposal is in the middle of a area surrounded by Whitney Woods and Turkey Hill-wildlife refuges—and,not comparable to Hull. Conrad Lan eg nhagen,24 Sanctuary Pond: also noted that directly across the street is a bird sanctuary Name not given: there are guidelines by the US Wildlife and Fishery Service on line about not locating turbines near bird sanctuaries. Jesse Gossett, Emergent Energy: US Bird&Wildlife granted a certificate to this project indicating there was no danger to birds or wildlife. Sweeney also read letter from Trustees of Reservations stating they have no objection to the turbines on this site. Member Brewer: noted that<1%of all bird kills are attributed to turbines,but asked if there was a problem,what remediation steps could be taken?Sweeney indicated that he will look into this,but noted that if he thought there was a problem,he would not consider installing turbines. Also noted that lattice used to be installed on the bottom of turbines provided nesting spots for birds which contributed to problems with birds but this is no longer done. Conrad Lan eg nhagen, 24 Sanctuary Pond: blades are actually turning at over 150 mph. Should give more thought to the bird sanctuary next door. Also finds it interesting that the Trustees recognize that the turbine is going to have an impact on the environment. Reiterated that one of the charges in the Zoning bylaws is that there be no impact on the environment. Member Moore did not think the Zoning Bylaw indicates no impact on the environment. LIGHTING Modzelewski asked Sweeney for hard copy of documents submitted with signatures. Regarding lighting, Modzelewski believes this is a matter of degree. White strobe lights can be an annoyance,particularly in moisture and foggy conditions when the light is dispersed more by the mist—Modzelewski recommends a red LED light at the top of the nacelle and avoid the white strobe light completely if that can be approved by the FAA. Modzelewski recommends observing the Hull turbine at night. Sweeney explained that this is a red light that shines on and off and that the light actually shines upward—not downward at all. He explained that the light is mounted on the very top of the nacelle and that there are no lights on the blades and,no other exterior lighting(there are interior lights for maintenance). The lighting on this proposed turbine will be different than the Hull turbine in that Hull also has white light and this turbine will have only red light and,will be similar to the turbine lighting that will Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 6 December 1, 2008 be on the Portsmouth,Rhode Island turbine to be installed later this month.Member Ivimey prefers a more gentle on & off rather than the strobe light effect. Sweeney will look into. Kevin O'Brien,28 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: asked for clarification of which Hull turbine Sweeney refers to. Sweeney clarified that he is speaking about the Hull 2 turbine lighting and clarified that the proposed Cohasset turbine is higher than Hull,but that the blade and nacelle width are the same as Hull 2. Sweeney also added that the higher the turbine,the less light will actually reach the ground. John Mullaly,23 Cedar St.: asked if the flickering light illuminates the blades at night so they are clearly visible for a second. Sweeney responded that when he looked at Hull 2 at night,the blades were not visible and explained that the FAA requires the lights to indicate to pilots that there is something above the light—the light is not designed to light the blades. Andrew Willard,AEC and 37 Stockbridge St.: asked where the Rhode Island turbine is? Sweeney noted it is a town project in Portsmouth,Rhode Island scheduled to be completed the week of December 20th. The lighting is by the same manufacturer as the lighting Sweeney is proposing for Cohasset. Alex? (name not understood): asked for clarification of height and elevation of the land compared to Hull. Sweeney used large scale diagram to explain height to nacelle,top of blades. Jeff Patterson, 10 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: compared the 462' turbine to International Place Towers in Boston- a 40 story building. Scott Dale,Avalon Bay Community: Lighting is a key issue for Avalon due to the close proximity of Avalon community. Asked if screens can be provided so light is focused upward and does not shine downward, adding that cell towers have screens that block light from ground level and quite a radius out. Sweeney stated that, according to the manufacturer,the latest lighting has the built in screening so the light only shines upwards. Dale also stopped by the Hull turbine on the way to the meeting and noted that the blades do get lit somewhat and wondered if there is an application that will mitigate this? Sweeney will look into. Also asked what height triggers the light requirement by the FAA—Sweeney indicated anything over 200' in the air. Dan Axelson,29 Sanctuary Rd.: Asked if applicant has spoken with Logan Airport re: closeness of turbines to flight paths? Sweeney indicated the applied to and have been approved by the FAA. John Modzelewski: Road going to turbine 2—brought to Board's attention that applicant is proposing above ground utilities—asked if there would be any lighting on the poles? Sweeney indicated they are proposing underground for the most part unless there are parts that must go above ground. Modzelewski noted that the plans show above ground—Sweeney said they were trying to show worst case scenario. Modzelewski asked for specs on the poles. Sandy Driscoll,240 Fair Oaks: Asked if there was any consideration of the release of methane when digging into the landfill. Sweeney indicated no issues—as a clay liner has to be installed over the hole. Modzelewski noted that gas collection pipes should be shown on the site plan. Closest vent is 60' from the turbine. FLICKER Modzelewski summarized this topic as a work in progress. Has received a report from Emergent Energy and a 2nd study from Atlantic Renewable Energy which supplements the Emergent report. Modzelewski sent the study to Garrad Hassan Canada, Inc.-just received their report yesterday and did not have time to review it before this meeting. He noted that the Emergent reports were dealing with slightly different locations for the towers and he is not sure how much a difference it makes in the hours.Also,the Emergent and the Atlantic reports give two scenarios: 1.)the worst case scenario in which the sun is up and there are no clouds and the wind is blowing in the perfect direction to create the north shadow and the amount of time certain points will be in the shadow; and, 2.) the mitigated scenarios based on cloudy days, changes in wind direction etc. The methodology still has to be reviewed by Modzelewski's consultants. In general,he thinks the worst case scenario has to be looked at until other substantial data is available. That said,there is remarkably little to indicate how many hours of exposure are harmful to human health. Also,there are issues with location,elevation of base of the turbine—have to get together with consultants and make sure they are talking about the same data. There was question about how much shadow and flicker would disappear if the turbines were lower in height. Gossett,Emergent Energy, will run 80 meter tower through his computer programs to look at the subsequent flicker results. Member Samuelson noted that the Bylaw has reasonable criteria for evaluation of sound,but not for flicker—only refers to"significant"shadow or flicker—which is very subjective measure and he is not sure what the term"significant"means in evaluating the flicker. Gossett,Emergent Energy, noted that the German standard is 30 actual hrs/yr of experiencing. Modzelewski's consultants also reference 30 hrs. Worst case scenario(no clouds,wind and sun in perfect position), Sunrise Assisted Living would experience 65 hrs./yr of flicker. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 6 December 1, 2008 Andrew Willard,AEC, 37 Stockbridge St.: noted that there is a difference between hard shadow and flicker and asked whether Rose Hill and/or Sunrise will experience hard shadow line falling on their property. Sweeney's group will look at this. Geoffrey Wolf,representing Connell Cohasset LLC: Looked at the Atlantic Study. 40-50 hrs/yr is essentially a shadow line sweeping for 45 minutes a day for 3.5 months. Asked the Board to keep this in mind. Larry Steinhauser, Sunrise Assisted Living: Noted that no one has approached them for a dialogue. Pointed out that Sunrise houses 70 fragile seniors ranging in age from 75— 100 yrs.,with multiple,varied problems. Many of them do not have the ability to move away from the flicker. Literature shows that strobe light can have an effect on the seniors. Asked if the applicants can move the turbine away from Sunrise. Member Samuelson noted that the turbines have been the subject of public hearings for several years and that it is the public's responsibility to participate in Town process. He further noted how pleased he is to see so many people at the current hearings. Name not given: Epilepsy, June 2008 shows an increase in epileptic seizures with flicker. Member Samuelson asks the public to submit such documents to the Board. Sandy Driscoll,240 Fair Oaks Lane: It is a good idea to get input from the public,but the public are not experts. Board is responsible to get the facts and instead of asking the public to submit documents, the Board should request studies be done by specialists. Name not given: Obviously, shadow flicker is one of the biggest issues—have 3 different versions and is confused as to which version to apply other than taking the worst case scenario. Suggests collecting data for a full year. Modzelewski agrees and explains that is why he is reaching out to the experts and right now the experts are advising to take the worst case scenario. Name not given: Is it possible to have studies on flicker caused by moon light?Modzelewski noted that there are no programs to model this,that he is not aware of any moon shadow studies and that the moon is high and the shadow range is very shallow to areas right around the turbine,but he will check into this further. Also asked if it is possible that Sandy Beach(1500 in away)will be affected by this in the summer—will beach goers have to enjoy the shadow every 14 seconds. Planning Board should look at this. Name not given: wanted to address what is"significant"relative to afternoon flicker—she is mother of small children who is concerned about interruption to childrens' naps and interruption to 3:00 PM Thanksgiving dinner— if data suggests that every year there will be flicker during her Thanksgiving dinner—she questions why the onus should be on her to close the drapes—if Mr. Sweeney and the Town want to close her blinds or buy custom drapery for her home, she would be open to that suggestion. Larry Steinhauser, Sunrise Assisted Living_mentioned the phenomenon of "sundowning"in seniors in the late afternoon—seniors and Alzheimers patients show significant increase in confusion-at about the time flicker would occur. Turbine flicker could exacerbate this phenomenon and be very detrimental to the seniors. Modzelewski suggested that the applicant should discuss the siting of various applications of the Sunrise building(eg. the dining room location) with Sunrise so the Board has a handle on that information so it can be considered. Paul Barry, Owner of Cohasset Heights propert.—mentioned that proponent is always the one that has to dispute accusations and innuendos. He was in Hull today and noted that you can hardly hear the turbines—he asked people living 100 yds. from the turbine gate how they felt about the turbines and they respond—"what turbines"—they love them. He contends that the Hull residents love the turbines and feel they have no effect on their lives. Barry contends that turbines and other alternative energy sources are needed today and that accusations being made by the opponents are just hype to stop this project. Name not given: The difference between Hull and Cohasset is that Hull's turbines were a public works project that benefits Hull residents directly via discounted electricity whereas in Cohasset, it is a private enterprise, only the developer benefits. In Cohasset, $53 million worth of Cohasset property value will be affected. If prices drop just 5%, the loss is $2.5 million and what do the citizens get—flicker,noise etc. Member Moore pointed out that the bylaw has been passed and the Board has to judge this application in terms of the bylaw and if people are not happy with the bylaw,they should have attended the public hearings held over several years, and attended Town Meeting to vote on the bylaw. No one came to the public hearings and the turbine bylaw was voted on unanimously by those who attended Town Meeting. Jeff Patterson,10 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: Section 19.4 require two things for this project to be approved: 1) It must be consistent with the requirements of Section 19 and 2)it must be consistent with the other criteria in 12.4 for granting a special permit which do include the finding that this permit will not be detrimental to the safety,health and welfare of the surrounding properties. Member Samuelson requests clarification from Town Counsel as to whether there is an inconsistency in the criteria stated in Section 12. 4 and Section 19 and he would like to Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 6 December 1, 2008 understand which takes precedence. Town Counsel noted that he would be happy to do that but this topic is far outside the boundries which the chair has established for the points to be discussed at this meeting. Member Ivimey: asked if anyone can point to any data or studies that indicate that property values have suffered, other than anecdotes and fears. Someone in audience pointed to the Beacon Hill Institute School which showed 4.5%to 10%decrease in property value. Regarding impact on property value,Member Moore noted that there are so many other factors that come into play and effect property value, and that in terms of the fears people had about the impact of the train on property value,the fear was much greater than the reality. Leslie Bryan, 20 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: commented that this project cannot be compared to the train in that the train noise stops at 10:30 PM and can be mitigated by landscaping—neither of which can be applied to the turbines. Steve O'Brien: Asked if the Board is looking at Hull 2 as a model and as something that people are happy with and is the Board taking this into consideration in their decision making?Member Ivimey mentioned that it is a frame of reference not a tower for tower comparison. Mr. O'Brien had difficult time selling property and condos in Hull when Hul12 was happening and does not think it is accurate to portray the Hull 2 situation as all positive— there are many other stories relative to the property values and real estate in Hull. ICE THROW Modzelewski also mentioned ice throw as far as the laydown area as something that should also be examined. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue to December 15, 2008 at 7:15 PM SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 10:15 P.M. INFORMAL DISCUSSION—JOHN TEDESCHI— 2 SMITH PLACE Applicant/Owner John Tedeschi and Attorney Richard Henderson in attendance. Mr. Tedeschi wants the Board to approve 20 residential units. This would require amendment of the existing site plan approval which the Board granted with regard to a proposed 8 bay commercial/industrial development at 2 Smith Place; and,a special permit under Section 18 of the Cohasset Zoning By-law dealing with the development in the Village Business District. Henderson submitted a written document to the Board stating that by those sections of the By-law adopted at the March,2007 Annual Town Meeting and the November,2008 Special Town Meeting"this Board was granted exclusive jurisdiction to permit wholly residential structures within the Village Business District"allowing apartments on the first floor if the Applicant can demonstrate compliance with 2 conditions: a. The building is located behind another building that has one or more retail or services uses on the ground floor,when considered relative to a street; or the residential portion of the first floor of a building is located behind one or more retail services uses within the same building. When considered relative to a street; and, b. Where the applicant demonstrates and the special permit granting authority specifically finds that first floor residential uses will not have an adverse impact on the continuity of any retail or services uses located adjacent to a street." Henderson expressed opinion that Mr. Tedeschi's property satisfies these conditions and should be allowed to construct 20 residential units at 2 Smith Place and,will make formal application accordingly and,will be prepared at the formal hearing to establish the evidence required in subparts a. and b. as quoted above as well as all other special permit criteria. Regarding an engineering fee deposit, the Board agreed to a reduced deposit where this property has already been reviewed by Civil Designs. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn at 10:30 P.M. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, DECEMBER 15,2008 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: Charles A. Samuelson, Clerk DATE: December 15,2008