Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2009 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2009 (3) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 5 May 6,2009 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 6,2009 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S.Moore,Jr. - Chairman Stuart W. Ivimey,Vice Chair Jean Healey Dippold, Clerk Charles A. Samuelson 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. ADMINISTRATION • ENDORSE NEW MYLARS WITH LAND COURT CHANGES FOR FORM A #910, 62 WHITEHEAD RD. (OWNER/APPL.ROBERT&JACQUELINE RALSTON) — ORIGINALLY ENDORSED ON AUGUST 11,2008. MOTION: by Member Samuelson to endorse the new mylars for Form A#910,62 Whitehead Road reflecting the changes made by the Land Court SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Ivimey had not yet arrived at meeting) • VOTE TO APPROVE APRIL 22, 2009 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Brewer to approve the April 22,2009 minutes SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD—Rob Skolnick,Jim Sandell,Bob Egan and John Tiryaki in attendance for the DRB to obtain information from Planning Board as to their expectations of the DRB in reviewing filings for the VB District. Moore explained that the Planning Board will be seeking guidance in terms of the appearance of the proposed building plans. Skolnick suggested that the applicant should meet with the DRB early on in the process so the applicant is not burdened with costly changes once he is further into the process. Skolnick also mentioned that he thought signage and awning should be built into the guidelines. 7:15 P.M. 8 JAMES LANE, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, OWNER: STEPHEN CLEARY, APPLICANT: SOUTH COASTAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP,LLC filed on: March 5,2009 In attendance for applicant: Owner Stephen Cleary; Partners Paul Cleary, Paul Sullivan, James Marathas; Engineer: Robert Hannigan;MZO Architect Andrew Zalewski; Attorney Walter Sullivan. In attendance for town: John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc.; Town Counsel Richard Hucksam. Paul Cleary: James Lane is an accepted public way. Parking will be underground,with some outside. Underground and exterior handicapped parking. Elevator. Have shifted and moved the building since the last meeting so the building is totally outside the setback. Gravel parking is within the setback,which is allowed. Respects existing grade. Using durable finished exterior material that will require less maintenance. Mansard roof relates to the Red Lion Inn. Gas fired for heating and electric for cooling. Have a reasonable chance of meeting LEEDS. Cleary noted that this building could be all commercial according to the bylaw,but South Coastal believes that all residential is a better use choice for this location. All plans are on their website: www.southcoastaldeveloi2ment.com Will forward catalog cuts to John Modzelewski for review. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 5 May 6,2009 Rob Skolnick,DRB: requested sound study and lighting plan John Modzelewski: noted that a driveway has to be a minimum of 5' from the side lot line and that proposed driveway is very close right now— may need to go to the ZBA for variance. Applicant will add the landscaping they removed and get the 5' needed. Jim Sandell,DRB: asked if DRB should limit review to materials. Member Moore indicated that Planning Board will review zoning etc. DRB should look at design, materials.Moore noted that this lot has been zoned Downtown Business (now called Village Business District) since zoning went into effect and that the Village Business District name did not change the zoning. Neighborhood has evolved into residential,but this lot is zoned business. Alix White,25 James Lane: Was of the impression that the VB District zoning required retail on the first floor— Moore noted that the bylaw requires a retail component unless it meets 18.2.a which adds some flexibility. White was also of the impression that in 18.2.a, both buildings would have to be owned by the same owner—Member Ivimey commented that this may have been the intent of the bylaw—Town Counsel will give opinion as to whether common ownership of two buildings as per 18.2.a is required. Member Ivimey: explained that there were two purposes to the bylaw: 1). To promote business vitality of and attract more people to the downtown and, 2). Since the downtown financial reality is that the downtown does not command high rent,renting upper levels of buildings to residents would supplement income of business owners. Alix White,25 James Lane: noting that this property abuts Water Dept. land asked about Watershed protection and economic protection of the sale of spring water. Moore assured her all appropriate boards will review the plans. Gail Whitehouse, 17 Ast St.: finds this plan truly upsetting- it has a 100%negative impact on the neighborhood. She feels this huge building in a residential neighborhood of smaller homes should be rejected. Again,Moore reiterated that this property is zone for business and,as such, a new house is not permitted—the existing house is a pre-existing,non-conforming use of this property and,while it is unfortunate that this parcel is zoned for business when the rest of the neighborhood is residential,Planning Board's responsibility is to make sure zoning is met. George Cooney,43 James Lane: asked many questions about garage ceiling heights, door openings,parking space measurements, location of exhaust vents and determination of number of parking spaces. Modzelewski noted that several parking spaces will be tight for safely pulling in and out,but it was pointed out to him that since the building has been shifted and moved slightly,there have been changes to the parking which are reflected in the updated plan—Modzelewski to review updated parking plans. John Modzelewski: Suggested that this lot is almost an orphan—the town parking lot can be seen but the MBTA fences block access. He queried if applicant can explore a pedestrian access across the train track with the MBTA to accommodate and encourage business and utilization of parking in the town lot—Member Brewer noted that while this is an interesting idea,the MBTA is not very amenable to accommodating such ideas. Modzelewski noted in his April 21 letter that there are some zoning issues in the initial plan—parking spaces were not 9.5' X 20' with 24' aisle width and the access driveway should be 5' off the line. Also, setbacks should be scaled correctly on the final plan. Old"James Lane" is not on the submitted plan—applicant explained this is an old right of way that is an easement on the applicant's property—they are not building on it. Member Brewer: thinks the train side of the building would be good for commercial purposes as commercial would be more tolerant of the train noise than residential units. He is disappointed that the project does not fit the model of using residential interest to subsidize commercial interest. He feels the massing is not incompatible with the Red Lion Inn although there is some massing clash with adjacent residences that might be able to be accommodated with some modulation of the massing and surfaces, perhaps moving some of the building towards the train tracks, screening etc. He also noted that James Lane might be substandard in width,but making it wider or adding sidewalks might help this project be successful. Jospeh Rosano,owner of 2 Pleasant St: neighbors should be asked if they would prefer commercial on the first floor. Cynthia MacCleave answered—yes, if it means fewer cars utilizing James Lane. Keith Conforti, 88 Pleasant St.: putting this in all residential area hinges on the fact that abutting property will remain commercially viable. Right now,that seems very much in the air as no one knows what the future of the 2 Pleasant St. property is. Conforti feels everyone should know what is going on with the front parcel before jumping into this project because if, in the future,the 2 Pleasant St.property is no longer under commercial use,the area would then be essentially entirely residential. Moore corrected this statement again clarified that regardless of what happens with the business at 2 Pleasant St., the lot is still zoned for business and that will not change. Tucker Glavin, 107 Nichols Road: has Sewer Commission released capacity? Yes— 18 sewer connections. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue public hearing to May 20,2009 at 7:15 PM SECOND: Member Samuelson Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 5 May 6,2009 VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 8:35 P.M. 215 CJC HWY, COHASSET HEIGHTS WIND TURBINE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT - CONTINUED DELIBERATION. APPL: JAMES SWEENEY,CCI ENERGY; OWNER: PAUL BARRY In attendance for town: John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc.; Town Counsel Richard Hucksam. Attending for applicant: Paul Barry, Land Owner; Gordon Deane, Palmer Capital Corp.; Attorney Kenneth Ingber. Member Moore polled board members for update since last meeting: Member Brewer: noted that the application has been reviewed for 7 months—he has 142 files—does not think a lot of time has been devoted to deliberation. He added that not voting at the last meeting made sense and allowed time for more discussion of the issues to the extent necessary. He feels that: the visual impact compared to the overall mass of other surrounding commercial buildings is not out of scale; the distance that RERL recommends from residences is a 1:3 ratio of height to length which he believes, although not in the bylaw, is a very reasonable distance and,the only residential property within that ratio is the future Avalon site (and only 1-2 corners of one building is in the ratio); the main issue of visual impact is greatly offset by the distance setback on a landfill which will not have any other use; while the applicant's engineer may have used an absorption factor which was perhaps not as high as it could have been in relation to some of the information that came out during the public hearings, it is offset substantially by the time of year and time of day the baseline sound calculations were made(March, in the middle of the night) -the noise will be a greater factor in the summer,when residences have windows open,but at that time of year,the ambient noise levels are also higher(in his neighborhood,the cricket noise is 45 dB which is 10 dB above what the ambient measure was in March—noise issue is not a problem for this application. Would like more active dialogue between members after all members have been polled. Brewer added that the reality of the turbines is that they are tall and are sited 80' above Rt. 3A(not 150' as members of the public have stated)but that is where the wind is. These particular turbines might not be state of the art forever—in 10 or 20 yrs. the state of the art might be better, smaller etc. Brewer's big concern is that there be a unanimous vote so there can be controls that protect the town in terms of mitigation and conditions of approval. Town Counsel clarified that under the circumstances that only 4 of the 5 Board members are eligible to vote, a unanimous vote of those 4 members is necessary to grant the special permit at all—if there are not 4 members that vote for it, it is denied. Member Samuleson: reading the bylaw and reviewing the application carefully, in general and except in some extreme,very worst case conditions, and if the DEP noise regulations are applied to an industrially zoned area and, if the commonly accepted flicker annual duration are applied to these locations,the intent and the letter of the bylaw are met and he does not see anything in the application that is an exception. Member Ivimey: does not have anything new to add—is still concerned about noise; still remains unpersuaded and unconvinced. He is still concerned about noise, safety and visual impact. He feels the board is trying to convince themselves that the noise may or may not be annoying and that this is not the correct analysis—the correct question is whether or not the applicant has proven to the Board's satisfaction that this application will meet the noise regulations of Massachusetts. He feels the board must be convinced that all sections of the bylaw will be met. Member Moore: Moore feels the single issue is visual impact—he feels all other factors can be mitigated. The concept permitting both turbines but allowing only one turbine to be built and collecting data for 3 seasons before allowing the second to be built concerned Moore because he felt this could in essence become a denial if it was not economically feasible for the applicant to build only one turbine. However,in a recent letter to the editor of a local newspaper,the applicant seemed to indicate this would be viable. Member Moore suggest proposing a motion for discussion—Town Counsel advises that discussion and informal polling are OK but the Board should not try to take an official vote and then try to do something after that. PROPOSED MOTION FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: Member Samuelson to approve the proposal as submitted by the applicant to develop two wind turbines with the condition that they are only allowed to build the back turbine and operate that one through three climatic conditions—leaves on trees,no leaves on trees and snow on ground—collecting date which, if proves criteria for safety,sound and flicker etc are met, the applicant then be allowed to build the front turbine and,to include all other conditions discussed during deliberations. In actuality,this would be a full scale working model to prove the data. Samuelson feels this is a compromise to Ivimey's wanting to approve only one turbine that would get the Board to the same end point- that the applicant can only have one turbine or none, if it does not work as advertised,without going through another lengthy and expensive approval and public hearing process. Member Moore added that this has been the first application for a wind turbine and has been a learning experience for all involved and suggests that any future applications would proceed faster and more efficiently. Member Ivimey believes this is in effect what they would Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 5 May 6,2009 be doing by approving only the back turbine. He is not comfortable with granting an approval of this application saying, in effect as Samuelson is suggesting, that we are approving the front turbine as well with an"if'. Any approval requires that all elements of the bylaw have been met and an approval with an"if'indicates the Board is not sure all elements of the bylaw are met. Town Counsel offered opinion to the suggestion to approve the back turbine and"conditionally"approve the front turbine: To grant a special permit,there must be a finding that all the criteria of the bylaw are met and satisfied. For this to be a solid decision to withstand an appeal from either side, there should be findings that all bylaw criteria are met. If four members feel the criteria are met for only one turbine, then the Board should vote to approve only one turbine. If four members feel the criteria are met for both turbines,then the Board should vote to approve both turbines. Samuelson would then amend his suggested motion for discussion to: vote to approve both turbines as he believes the conditions are met. Further, Town Counsel added that if only one turbine were approved, the applicant could either return with a new application or with an application to modify the special permit,which would be a significant modification that would require a new public hearing process which could make reference to the data that has been submitted and incorporated into the modification hearing. Samuelson also added that he has concerns about the rumors that there is a movement to either rescind the bylaw or seek a moratorium on any further applications—he thinks it would be very unfair to the applicant to allow him to build only one turbine now, only to find that the bylaw rescinded, thereby prohibiting him from building a second in the future. However, Samuelson suggested that if there were to be a motion to approve only one turbine,he would make a motion to approve only the front turbine because that is the worst case and the one that would have the most impact,if any, and would make the back turbine an easier consideration for approval. Member Ivimev suggests approving the back turbine and let the applicant do what the applicant wants. Member Healey Dippold suggested that if there had to be a choice to approve only one turbine, she would suggest approving the back turbine,not the front one, as there appears to be a unanimous factual finding to support a decision on the back one. This would build consensus among members because there is less impact and, Avalon would presumably be built and the people who are going to be most affected by the turbines will have time to live with the back turbine and then have some voice regarding the front one. Moore agreed that the better decision would be to pick the site that has the potential to do the least damage. Member Ivimev added that the Board cannot consider what may happen in the future(rescission,moratorium etc) —that is not a consideration of the Board—the Board has to look at the application and facts as they stand today and determine if those facts meet the bylaw. To address the question of approving only one turbine and,which one, Ivimey suggests that the Planning Board duty is to consider the Town's interests over the interests of the developer and that the Board should not be concerned about lawsuits—the Board should make sure the bylaw criteria is met. Town Counsel concurred that the only significant factor is that the criteria of the bylaw are met—concerns about costs,lawsuits etc are irrelevant. John Modzelewski: asked if a special permit is denied, is there a time frame within which the applicant can or cannot reapply? Town Counsel indicated the applicant could not reapply for two years unless there is a material change in the proposal. Member Brewer: proposed that if there were a motion to approve one turbine(either)that was voted on unanimously,the applicant could build the one turbine and perhaps not come back right away to build a second. However,when they did return to build a second turbine,because it would be a one turbine proposal,the noise standards would be lessened,because it would not be viewed as a class,which would mean the noise standard would be lower In other words, each successive turbine that is built will be measured against an increasing ambient noise level,meaning, each successive turbine can generate a higher noise level before reaching the acceptable limit over ambient. This vote is an opportunity to condition the turbines together to get the results the Board would like. Samuelson agreed. Brewer added that conditioning the construction of the front turbine on the performance of the back turbine provides a vehicle of rigor to the applicant. Member Moore has concern about approving one turbine—he can see that there is evidence that allows both or neither but wonders how approval of one can hold up in a meaningful and justified decision. Member Ivimev: summarized his interpretation-the back turbine meets the criteria of the bylaw because: 1. The back turbine is sited further back and therefore has less visual impact 2. Snow falling off the blades of the back turbine won't affect anyone or any building 3. Building only 1 turbine lowers the sound measure by 3dB which provides the margin of error suggested by John Modzelewski's consultant. Member Samuelson: does not think a motion to approve only the back turbine would be approved unanimously— he believes it would be detrimental to the Town, is financially less viable for the Town and the applicant and, is more likely to be appealed. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 5 May 6,2009 Jean Healey DiPpold: suggested that the safest way to approach this is to approve the back turbine, let it prove success, let the Town get used to it etc. and let the applicant come back in the future with application to modify and build the front one. Member Moore; summarized the alternatives: vote to approve two; vote to deny two; vote to approve only one turbine; or,vote to approve one turbine now and conditionally approve the second. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve this application subject to the condition that only the rear turbine can be built,that the front turbine—in either of the locations proposed—cannot be constructed for all the reasons discussed during deliberations and, that the decision incorporate all the conditions spoken about this evening and during all deliberations incorporated here and by reference. SECOND: Member Moore MOTION: by Member Samuelson to amend Member Ivimey's motion to also approve the front turbine conditional upon successful operation of the back turbine for three seasons (with leaves,without leaves and with snow) SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 3- 1 MOTION CARRIES Motion to amend Ivimey's motion carries -to amend motion to approve both turbines,the rear turbine to be constructed first, data gathered for three seasons and,the construction of the front turbine to be conditioned upon successful operation of the front turbine. Member Brewer wanted to comment that conditionally approving the construction of the front turbine gives the Town more control and protects the Town's interests by having a higher standard for the conditional approval than if another proposal came up. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: 3 - 1 MOTION CARRIES AMENDED MOTION CARRIES,BUT SINCE THE VOTE WAS NOT UNANIMOUS AS REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIAL PERMIT, THE SPECIAL PERMIT IS DENIED. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. SECOND: Member Moore VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, MAY 20 , 2009 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD DATE: MAY 20, 2009