HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2008 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2008 (21) Planning Board Meeting 1 of 5
September 8,2008
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8,2008
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— 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
Mike R.Westcott
Clark H. Brewer
Board Members Absent:
Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. INFORMAL DISCUSSION, 8 JAMES LANE, MSC DEVELOPMENT Paul Cleary, Stephen
Cleary of MSC Development and Joseph Rosano, owner of 2 Pleasant St. in attendance. MSC's goal is to find way
to work with community as they design properties they plan to develop. They are frustrated with the slow progress
of Village design guidelines. Plan is to build 2.5 story structure with approx. 25 underground parking spaces
(more if parking can be stacked). Site is surrounded by ledge so plan is to cut into ledge for parking. EDC
suggested combining the 8 James Lane and 2 Pleasant St. sites so more units could be created but MSC is not sure
that is a good idea—they prefer separate buildings as it allows each to be designed in keeping with the area—e.g.:
the residential building can be designed to resemble the Red Lion Inn design—Planning Board agrees. FAR is only
1.1 rather than the 1.3 allowed. MSC would like Planning Board input before they proceed further. Current plan is
to keep the rear parcel at 8 James Lane as residential and the front 2 Pleasant St.parcel as commercial/retail so
there will not be retail traffic on James Lane. Residential will be approx. 1200-1500 SF,2 bedroom,2 bathroom
units. Will have acoustical design on the side of building facing the train tracks. "Boys of Summer"building will
probably be torn down as will the small ranch on the rear parcel,but they haven't fully addressed the front lot yet.
There are no plans for variances or special permits—they plan to design to conform completely with the Village
Business District Bylaw. Member Westcott prefers plan to keep the front and rear parcels as separate buildings as
it would encourage further attempts to keep the rear parcel residential building more to a residential scale but he
would like to see an entire plan of what is intended for both lots. Cleary indicated the two lots would be handled as
two separate filings. Member Ivimey thought MSC was moving in the right direction and, although the height
seems less overwhelming that the last time they were in for an informal discussion,he is still a little concerned
about the height—Cleary indicated the height is<35' which is in keeping with zoning. A/C condensers will be
pushed back from edge so as to be sheltered from visibility. There is a large shelter of trees around lot—goal is to
keep as much of it as possible. Board felt the scale of this plan is an improvement over the last one presented.
Overall mass will be greater than other surrounding residences but not out of scale with other buildings in the
Village. Planning Board is willing to accept a combined SPR and Special Permit filing as long as MSC agrees to
time extensions if necessary. MSC would agree. MSC plans to file separately for front and rear parcels- OK with
the Board although they prefer to see an entire plan at once for both lots even if they are filed separately. Board is
pleased with these plans to this point.
7:40 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS
• 357 ATLANTIC AVE. SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION, APPL: CARR,LYNCH& SANDELL,
OWNER: JANICE REITER - not addressed-withdrawn w/o prejudice by applicant
Planning Board Meeting 2 of 5
September 8,2008
• 380-400 CJC HWY., VARIANCE APPLICATION, APPL: AGNOLI SIGN CO.,APPL: COHASSET
REALTY TRUST Donald Agnoli,Agnoli sign was in attendance to represent application. Stop& Shop logo has
changed,which requires update of all signage. There will be no increase in the square footage of the sign mounted
on the west front elevation of the Stop& Shop building although the lettering is less massed and more delicate in
nature. Current front elevation sign is backlit(halo lit) and the applicant would like to change the lighting to
internal or"face illumination". Only change proposed for existing free standing pylon sign is to change face.
MOTION: by Member Westcott to recommend that the ZBA approve overall size and format of proposed
signage but that the ZBA maintain its current restriction on internal illumination and not allow the change
in the style of illumination from the current backlit illumination to the proposed internal"face illumination".
SECOND: Member Ivimey
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
• 609 JERUSALEM RD. SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION,APPL: HEIDI CONDON ASSOC.,
OWNER: LADD McQUADE Architect Heidi Condon in attendance to represent this application. Current barn
structure is non-conforming-only 7"from the side lot line. Lot is also non-conforming. Original plan was to
restore existing barn. However, it has been determined that current structure is in such bad condition that
restoration would be dangerous. Due to the dangerous condition of the existing structure, applicant would like to
demolish the structure and replace it with a new structure basically on the same footprint,but eliminating 47 SF on
the NW corner that is currently in the flood plain. This will improve but not eliminate the non-conformity.
Applicant intends to maintain current height of barn.No windows will be installed on the side facing neighbors. To
improve drainage, the applicant plans to install french drains, regrade, channel water to a catch basin etc.
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this special permit application
SECOND: Member Brewer
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
8:00 P.M. 215 CJC HWY, WIND TURBINE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC
HEARING, APPL: JAMES SWEENEY,CCI ENERGY; OWNER: PAUL BARRY. Filed on August 20,
2008. 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 Group, in attendance to represent
applicant. Member Samuelson read public hearing advertisement. Chairperson Moore explained how public
hearing will be conducted. Also explained that this is not the time to debate the merits of wind power or the bylaw
—that happened a year ago at public hearings for the bylaw and on the floor of Town Meeting where bylaw was
unanimously passed. Moore read disclosure that he filed with Town Clerk—Barry owns the building in which
Moore leases office space and,Barry is a client of Moore's printing business. Member Brewer also read disclosure
he filed with Town Clerk—Brewer was architect for Cohasset Heights Ltd. project in 2002-2003.
James Sweeney, CCI summarized protect: 2 wind turbines to be installed. Will benefit Cohasset via reduced energy
costs. MET tower was installed a few years ago to measure wind. Monitored area for 1 year. Precision Wind did a
redundant study. Both showed that area had sufficient wind to be a worthwhile site. Emergent Energy Group was
hired to assist with the permitting as well as feasibility study and community outreach. Lumus Construction helped
with pricing. Local resident— Gordon Deane,President of Palmer Capital Corporation is financing. Sweeney
admitted that they overlooked Avalon(abutting 40B project) as they were not sure it was going forward,therefore
their studies only represent the project as the area exists today. Paul Barry, Cohasset Heights Ltd.-owner of land
on which turbines will be installed- explained that he directed Sweeney to not take Avalon into consideration
because Avalon was not cleared to proceed at the time. Sweeney explained that this project must be a win-win for
the community and the owner as total cost of turbines and installation will be $8 million. Explained that they look
at all size turbines—the lower the turbine,the less the energy return; the higher the turbine,the greater the wind
availability which results in an exponential increase in energy return(output). Sweeney noted that the small turbine
along Rt. 93 in Dorchester outside the IBEW location, is a small turbine used more for marketing than for energy
return. Turbine at Mass. Maritime Academy on Cape Cod Canal is on a 50 meter tower rather than a 65 meter
tower and is actually underperforming. 100-120 meter high towers are more appropriate heights to begin to get
sufficient wind in this area. Vestas turbines used for this study however,does not want to lock into 1 turbine for
the permitting. Turbine used for study was 100m, 1.65 megawatt turbine with 80m rotor. Vestas has 2 yr. lead
time and AAER Inc. has 1 yr. lead time. After approval by Planning Board,they will submit to National Grid for
electrical study to see what needs to be done to take the power off the site. Plan is to enter long term contract with
town to provide power to all municipal bldgs. at discounted rate—this is not only a savings for the town but allows
Planning Board Meeting 3 of 5
September 8,2008
town to be able to predict energy costs. Will be able to send power directly to meter numbers for municipal bldgs.
Building permit will require a geophysical study to determine how far down they need to dig to anchor the
foundation—probably about 30' for rods and anchor bolts. Foundation must be able to withstand a category 5
hurricane. Site construction will involve borings, 16' w gravel road for transporting crane to site to lift tower,
blades and, installation of two transformers.
Jayson Uppal and Jesse Gossett,Emergent Energy Group: have received positive feedback from FAA,
Massachusetts Aeronautical Commission,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Massachusetts Endangered Species Act,
Massachusetts Historical Society. Used"Wind Farmer"program for environmental impact analysis,which is
premier program in the wind industry to perform environmental impact studies. Allows them to take turbine data
and determine: sound impact in the area,what kind of shadowing effect will result, create photo visualizations to
illustrate what the turbines will look like from various locations in town to ultimately determine what locations will
be impacted by the turbines and how so the Town can draw conclusions about impact.
Public comment:
Jeffrey Patterson: 10 Sanctuary Pond Rd: Q: how many projects has Emergent done? A: this is first project done
completely through permitting although they have done portions of many projects. Q: which turbine will be used?
A: AAER or Vestas 1.65-megawatt—have not made final decision yet. Are also considering purchasing two
turbines that are owned by Mass. Technology Collaborative(MTC) and were slated for installation in Orleans,
MA—warranty on these turbines has expired. Q: What is status of Fairhaven project? A: it was approved by
Town of Fairhaven,but is in appeal. Q: Are there any turbines this size in use in N.E. area that can be used for
actual noise, flicker etc. studies rather than relying on software models? A: the software has been tested and proven
to be accurate and actually produces maximum data results—everyday impact will actually be less. Q: How close
will this be to commercial bldgs? A: The only real commercial bldgs. are those along CJC Hwy.—future plans will
include actual distances. Q: does this project comply with the space requirements of the American Wind Energy
Association? A: Sweeney was not familiar with their figures but did want to note that other studies have a
recommended area—but that anywhere in N.E.,the area required will be less than those figures which were
formulated in the Midwest(much more open land). In Fairhaven,they considered 650' distance between turbines.
Merle Brown, 546 Beechwood St.: would like measurements in feet rather than meters. Q: Will power be
transported on poles, on towers,underground? A: Right now,power coming off turbine will be buried
underground. If it is more beneficial to community etc. they could go to power line.
Jim Piper, 6 Rose Hill Lane: Q: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends against turbines in proximity to bird
sanctuaries—what was applicant's interaction with this group? A: Emergent had discussion with this service and
this did not come up as an issue.Audubon Society concluded that turbines will be outside of both endangered and
threatened species habitats and do not pose undue threat. Applicant has a letter of approval from the Service.
Conrad Lanenhagen,24 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: has backed over 1,500 mega-watt wind power,none of which have
been over 2-megawatts and wanted the audience to know that 5-megawatt turbines is a red herring of turbines that
are not installed on land. The most commonly installed is 2-megawatt turbines. Sweeney noted that the 5-megawatt
is a brand new turbine which are land based and will be available in a year. He further noted that lowering the tower
would decrease the visual impact but would also decrease production which might make financing difficult to
obtain. Langenhagen noted that the financing is not the concern of this Board—only the impact of this project is on
the Town according to the bylaw. Q: has the financial impact(savings)to the Town been quantified? A: They
have not yet negotiated with the Town-they do have some figures and are prepared to review them with the Town
as soon as Town is ready. Langenhagen questioned why the town would approve this application without knowing
what the Town will get from it. Chairperson Moore noted that finances and financial benefit to the Town are not a
Planning Board consideration in a site plan review. Q: Will the developer be willing to construct a financial
remuneration plan for residents impacted by a decrease in property values? A: Sweeney felt there were too many
variables that come into play to do this and that a developer would open himself up to too many claims. Q: to
Planning Board—where are the Planning Board members on the spectrum of visual impact and how do they make a
value judgment on what visual impact is to the Town? A: Member Moore noted that one thing that has to be
considered is that the property in question is zoned differently and has been for a long time(and,before Rose Hill
was constructed) and that anyone moving into the area knows they are moving near or in sight of industrially zoned
land. Moore also noted that the AEC began work on the wind turbine bylaw several years ago,that public hearings
were held a year ago and that the bylaw was passed unanimously at Town Meeting after many opportunities for
public comment. The bylaw was written to indicate where the Town would like to see turbines located and,this has
to be taken into consideration when reviewing the impact. Member Samuelson noted that it is not a matter of being
Planning Board Meeting 4 of 5
September 8,2008
good or bad-the Town passed the bylaw to allow wind turbines—the decision now is—in the class of wind
turbines, is this more or less annoying or good than any other turbine?
Douglasryan, 20 Sanctuary Pond Road: noted that he has never seen 2 turbines at once in any of the simulated
models that have been created. Emergent Energy noted that the two pictures in question were taken from two
locations at Sanctuary Pond Rd. that were specifically requested by the resident and, a tree planted by the resident
was in the way of one of the turbines. Q: what type of strobe effect and how much will be seen from Sanctuary
Pond Rd.? A: Calculations of the number of hours per year of flickering were based on no clouds,no vegetation
etc.,to produce a worst case scenario. The exact numbers will be available in future reports. Bryan also noted that
he and others have accumulated a petition with 181 signatures of citizens who are concerned about this project.
Steven Schwartz, Goulston& Storrs—Attorneys for AvalonBa noted that Avalon project was approved several
years ago and that Sweeney's plans show the old owner and make no mention of Avalon. Schwartz noted that
noise,visual and environmental impacts are very significant on Avalon project and totally fail to meet bylaw
requirements. In addition, Schwartz noted: one proposed turbines is only 130' from Avalon property line and the
lay down area falls within area of Avalon buildings;DEP noise regulations are not met; Schwartz noted that
Section 12 of Cohasset Bylaws requires taking into consideration,not just current buildings and uses,but also
future buildings and uses(such as Avalon). Schwartz requested that applicant be required to submit peer review of
visual,noise, fiscal impacts etc. paid for by applicant and conducted by a consultant selected by the Town,just as
was required of Avalon.
John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc., Town Consultant: Modzelewski noted that he is not a noise or flicker
consultant but he will retain sub-consultants if the Board directs him to. He noted that a noise impact statement
(with actual readings)addendum was to have been submitted—it is forthcoming and will take Avalon into
consideration. Bylaw refers to lay down and towers falling into a residential district—in this case, if the tower fell,
it could fall onto residences even though this is not a residential district—this should be addressed by the Board.
Noise and flicker impacts should be looked at before town starts spending money on review. He also noted the
importance of looking at Avalon 40B project in terms of noise and flicker impact mitigation. Modzelewski is
somewhat leery of computer generated images and suggests other methods (e.g.—hot air balloon to the height of
the turbine)to show the actual scale of the turbine. Modzelewski also noted that the applicant must address the site
plan review information regarding grading,location of utilities etc. as outlined in the application checklist.
Member Brewer: Favors peer review. Thought the noise analysis was "thin"and would like a more complex
analysis to include the range of frequencies that can be anticipated, a more thorough analysis of the sound based on
buildings that will be in the way etc. Brewer also agrees that another way to actually visualize the height of the
turbine is necessary. Member Samuelson agreed that the study has omitted too many details.
Sandra Driscoll, 240 Fairoaks Lane: noted that this was a new subject in town that she read about it in the paper
only once and that the number of people in attendance shows the interest in the topic. She felt that more public
awareness is required via articles in newspaper etc. She also felt that an independent consultant is required. She
pointed out that this is an important consideration that will be with the town for a long time if approved.
Francis Collins,404 So. Main St: feels visual impact decreases significantly in short time. He travels all over the
world and, sees turbines everywhere. He believes this is a good opportunity to preserve air quality and our way of
life for future generations and that worry about how it will look for a few weeks is being very short-sighted.
Jim Puzinas, 63 Nichols Rd: Q: Asked if it is totally uneconomic to build this project according to bylaw? A:
Sweeney noted that they are building it according to the bylaw.
Andrew Willard, 37 Stockbridge St. and AEC Chair: Q: the turbines are set up parallel to Rt. 3A—why can't one
be built behind the other to move it away from Avalon property? A: Sweeney noted that the access road is not wide
enough to accommodate construction trucks if the location is moved further back. To address Ms. Driscoll's
comments about the need to improve public awareness, Willard outline the timeline behind the writing of the Wind
Turbine bylaw beginning with the first meeting August 17,2005, including every public hearing with every board,
every radio and television interview and newspaper article etc. to show that this project was not a surprise and that
nothing has been hidden from the public during this very public process.He also noted that since 2005,the Graham
Waste location has been repeatedly mentioned as a real possibility for locating the turbines. Willard also noted that
the people living on Straits Pond have looked at the Hull turbine for two years without any noted residual impact.
Peter Brown, 38 Atlantic Ave: suggested that better graphics would improve public understanding.
Daniel Cronin,265 FairOaks Lane: questioned how a project can be considered that has not taken Avalon into
account. Stated discomfort with the business relationship of two members of the Board with the owner of the site
as noted in their disclosures—thought this could be a conflict that would cost the Town in the event of a lawsuit.
Planning Board Meeting 5 of 5
September 8,2008
Paul Barry, 20 Hobart Lane&owner of Graham Waste: noted that he is not in this for the money but for what he
can give to the town in terms of savings on utility costs. He also sees this as a way to free our country from oil
dependence. Barry also noted that he told Sweeney to not take Avalon into consideration as it was in appeal and
no one knew if it would ever actually be built.
Mimi White,AEC Committee: suggests the public go to the Hull turbine and listen to the minimal sound created.
She also noted she is a sculptor and thinks turbines are a thing of beauty.
Marcia Comeau,26 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: spoke to woman whose residence abuts turbine who noted that the sound
is more noticeable at night.
Steven Wenner, 195 Hull St: Sees Hull turbine from his home-loves the sight -has never noticed flicker effects.
Chris Comeau,26 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: stated his concern that if there is a noise and flicker impact on his property,
it will be with him for as long as he lives on Sanctuary Pond. He also does not believe that there will not be a
negative impact on home values,nor does he think homeowners should lose value in their home investments while
developers make money. He would like objective studies of impact on home values.
Capt. Trask, Cohasset PFD: Inquired about size of nacelle and emergency crew access/response in the event that
someone (doing maintenance, for example)needs help or, if there is a fire. Sweeney explained that there is an
elevator and fire suppression systems however,if there is a fire,it is recommended that it be left alone to burn out.
Public hearing continued to October 6,2008 at 7:15 PM.
10:10 P.M. MANOR WAY CIRCLE MINOR MODIFICATIONS DRAFT DECISION AND DRAFT
REVISIONS OF HOA AND 81U COVENANT—DISCUSSION
- Postponed to Sept. 22 mtg. at Town Counsel request
10:10 P.M. PRELIMINARY PARKINGWAY SIDEWALK LAYOUT—UPDATE
- Unable to provide update at this time—preliminary plan is not ready
10:15 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
➢ VOTE TO APPROVE 08/11/08 MINUTES
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve the 08/11/08 minutes
SECOND: Member Westcott
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
➢ SET OCTOBER—DECEMBER MEETING DATES -Oct. 6&20; Nov. 3 & 17; Dec. 1& 5.
➢ ZONING BYLAW UPDATE—DISCUSSION - Significant error was found on pp. 21,22 and 23 of the
Proof Draft of the updated bylaws and has been corrected. Administrator asked Concord Square Development for
entire new, second review of the updates. Second review was done and several corrections to update were made
that should not have been and will changed back to the way they were on the floor of Town Meeting(even though
they were errors in the warrant). These were mostly grammatical and scrivener errors (as summarized in Concord
Square Sept. 8, 2008 "Secondary Review"memo) that will be changed back in the update and will be added to the
reconciliation list that Concord Square is compiling which will have to be addressed via a warrant article.
MOTION: by Member Westcott to accept the Proof Draft with the edits as summarized in Concord Square
Sept. 8,2008 "Secondary Review" memo
SECOND: Member Brewer
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
➢ MAPC GROUP QUARTERS INFORMATION UPDATE—Members have no background knowledge
➢ QUONAHASSIT TRAIL—DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS, CONVENANTS
Postponed to September 22 meeting at Town Counsel request
MOTION: by Member Westcott to adjourn at 10:30 PM
SECOND: Member Moore
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,2008 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: CHARLES A. SAMUELSON, CLERK
DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2008