Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2009 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2009 (4) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 4 May 20,2009 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 20,2009 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: 7:05 P.M. 7:05 P.M. 34 CROCKER LANE, FORM A—ANR APPLICATION; APPL: CCI ENERGY/DAMES SWEENEY, OWNER: CROCKER LANE REALTY,LLC (34 CROCKER LANE) & CROCKER II REALTY TRUST c/o PAUL BARRY Simple move of a lot line on owner's property. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to endorse this Form A application SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 7:06 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE APRIL 29,2009 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve the April 29,2009 minutes SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES • VOTE TO APPROVE MAY 6,2009 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve the May 6,2009 minutes SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES—Member Samuelson wanted to be sure the DRB gives the Planning Board feedback about the Village Design Review Guidelines. Planning Board Administrator to send email to DRB. • UPCOMING MEETING DATES - Discussion started about public hearing date for June, STM warrant zoning article to rescind Section 19—Wind Energy Conversion Facility bylaw. Discussion continued to end of meeting. 7:30 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; Partner Paul Cleary; Attorney David Kellem; Engineer: Robert Hannigan; MZO Architect Andrew Zalewski. In attendance for town: John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc.; Town Counsel Richard Hucksam. Robert Hannigan, Engineer:ewer. about'/2 acre site. Bldg. to contain seventeen, approx.1300 SF residences. Many ledge outcroppings as well as some shallow ledge. Existing 2"gas line runs up from Cushing.No water main per say in James Lane—there are individual services that run from Pleasant St. Water Dept. requested loop of 8"water main. Existing sewer manhole. Sewer will be connected to existing main. Proposed floor drain in garage which will run through oil/gas separator and flow into the sanitary system which is standard for garage floor drains. Will recharge runoff and will capture,treat and deliver to the existing drainage system any runoff from any parking or paved areas. Best Management Practice to storm ceptor to separate particulate matter and oil/gas that might accumulate. Will submit calculations and drawings. Will provide maintenance plan,user manuals etc. Change in corner of bldg.to remove it from the setback and driveway still in discussion and will be shown on new plan. Member Ivimey asked for Hannigan's thoughts on Bylaw section 12.4.1.b.2: "proposed use will not create danger of pollution..." specifically in well field. Hannigan replied that the application will be going before the Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 4 May 20,2009 Conservation Commission and Stormwater Management review and will be addressed by an environmental scientist at the next Planning Board meeting. Ivimey also asked if there has been any consideration given to potentially eliminating some of the exterior asphalt and parking spaces. Cleary indicted that this had been brought up by the DRB as well and the applicant's are not opposed as long as they have enough interior parking. Zalewski did not that they will still need at least one exterior space to accommodate a handicapped van. Traffic and traffic patterns were discussed on site with John Modzelewski—no conclusions were drawn but did consider making James Lane one-way but Hannigan is not sure this is the right approach for the other James Lane residents as it would limit access to their homes. Also considered a right turn only exit from 8 James Lane to Pleasant St. Will have a traffic engineer on board shortly. Right now,the general number of trips per day for condos as cited in the ITE handbook are: • 6.6 trips/unit for condos or 112 trips/day for this project • 17.7 trips/day/1000SF for general office units or, 504 trips/day for this project • 54.6 trips/day/1000SF for a medical office bldg. or 1556 trips/day for this project • 40.1 trips/day/1000SF for a retail/residential bldg. or 448 (380 retail+66 residential)trips/day for this project Ben Kennedy,44 James Lane: asked about the current laws that would regulate/control guest parking on the right and left hand sides of James Lane. Member Moore indicated that: generally, signage would be required to regulate parking;that James Lane is an accepted town way and the Town could expand and add sidewalks; and, that the Town Parking lot is not that far away that could be used by guests. Further,the Police Dept. would respond if emergency vehicles could not get through. Cleary indicated that the applicants are willing to contribute to widening the road and adding brick pavers, street lights etc. Modzelewski added that this application is for a special permit which requires that the Board make certain findings and that the street in front of the building is only 14' wide and added that a one-way road might allow 18' instead of 20' width. Member Ivimey: asked if it might be better to bring all potential phases of the project before the Board at once so entire scope of the project can be reviewed. Cleary replied that there are many engineering issues with the Rosano Pleasant St. property and that they do not have control over his land at the moment. They could add survey detail of the Rosano property to their plan so the Board can see the whole plot picture. Blasting: at present,the details of how long ledge removal will take are not yet known. Moore pointed out that any blasting will have to be carefully planned and monitored under the purview of the CFD. Member Healey Dippold: asked what was done to harmonize the size of the building with the surrounding James Lane neighborhood. Cleary indicated that they have: placed more of the building underground; added a mansard roof to minimize massing and the"block" shape of the building; changed the solid fagade to a more broken up design; designed a center building with wings so to speak; reworked the corners of the building to respond to the setbacks; selected windows, porches etc that are scaled elements of what would be found in a single family home; modeled the building after a smaller version of the Red Lion Inn to make the proposed building a transition between the Village and the James Lane neighborhood. In addition,this proposed building is at a 1.1 FAR and could go to a 2.0 FAR with public improvements such as sidewalks. Cleary added that they have a lot of money invested in this lot and that something will be developed—if they need to develop commercial,they will,but they believe residential is the best use for the lot and the neighborhood. In addition, if they made the first floor commercial,they would have to increase number of units on the second and third levels by making the units smaller to make the project financially feasible. This would in turn,create more traffic and potential parking issues. Member Brewer added that there is more visual impact on the train side of the building than on the James Lane side of the building which will be screened by vegetation. Healey Dippold also expressed concern about overflow and guest parking in the Town lot, feeling the limited availability of parking in the Town lot could be taken up by this building's overflow. Cleary replied that most of the guest parking would be after hours when Town lot parking is not an issue and that this project adds vibrancy to the Village following current Smart Growth Concepts of drawing guests to the Village. Elizabeth Stevenson, 13 No. Main St.: has always enjoyed James Lane for the smaller homes and intimacy of the neighborhood and feels this project will destroy the sense of neighborhood that exists. John Modzelewski: noted that much more engineering detail is required before the Board can continue review of this project. He referred the Board to his April 21,2009 memo highlighting details needed. Modzelewski encourage the applicants to pursue a grade crossing to connect this building to the Town lot. Jean Salvador, 51 Smith Place: suggested the Board also needs to consider the impact of 2 Smith Place future development—these two projects will make James Lane, Smith Place,Norfolk Road and Pleasant Streets the Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 4 May 20,2009 busiest streets in Town. Salvador also asked where children will play—Cleary indicates these units typically do not appeal to families with children(usually move when children are school aged). Captain Trask, Cohasset Fire Dept: Suggests that the roads should be widened to accommodate emergency vehicles. While emergency vehicles can use James Lane at the present time,more traffic and parking could obstruct passage and create issues. Trask added that he would like 360' access to the building and have a hydrant added to the site. Last,he encourages a stretcher size (>6')elevator since this proposal is for a residential building. Ben Kennedy,44 James Lane: suggested that impacts on the Town be examined(e.g. cost to widen roads). Town Counsel to research and give opinion as to what exactly the Town's responsibility is regarding public way improvements and, if there is a mechanism to ask developer to reimburse Town for some expenses relative to public way improvements. George Cooney,43 James Lane: Noted that this is an opportunity for a green building and asked what applicant has done to create a green building. Andrew Zalewski answered that this project will have quite a few LEED credits—will have at least a Gold Standard rating, many products will use recycled materials, light colored roof, close to center of town,reusing an existing site. Cooney also asked about trash removal and servicing— Combination trash and recycling unit will be used—location to be determined. Cooney asked about snow removal from outside spots- will be removed by snow blower,not truck with blade. Member Ivimev: asked for exterior lighting plan. Not completed yet,lighting will be minimal and focused on walkways aimed towards ground. Ivimey wants lighting catalog cuts and photometrics. Margaret Buckley, 37 Cushing Rd.: According to Section 10.10 of the bylaw, doesn't multi-family dwelling require 45%empty common land? Answer: Section 10 applies to Residential Cluster Development requirements which does not apply to this application—this is a Village Business District filing. Alix White, 25 James Lane: to Town Counsel—when the VB District bylaw was proposed at Town Meeting, the understanding was that the owner would have a business component and residential component and that both would be owned by the same owner. Town Counsel referred to and read Section 18.2.a&b. —in his opinion,when a wholly residential building is located behind a building that has a retail component,the two buildings do not have to be in common ownership(under the bylaw). David Bi lg_ey, 25 James Lane: questioned the phrase"relative to the street". Town Counsel answered that the bylaw does not say"the"street that the property is getting its frontage from, it says"a" street, so the phrasing is more general in nature and a more general statement than the frontage street. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue the public hearing to June 24,2009 at 7:15 P.M. at which time, the Board needs more detailed plans and information to continue any further in the review of this project. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 9:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION—Administrator explained the status of Executive Summary(aka General Plan or Strategic Plan) as of November, 2006 when last worked on. Full Board will not be in attendance at meetings in June due to scheduled vacations. Discussion to be put on next agenda when full Board is expected to be in attendance. • UPCOMING MEETING DATES (cont'd from 7:30) July meeting dates: July 1 and 29. Petition for STM was submitted on 05/11/09 —45 day deadline for STM is 06/25/09. STM is scheduled for 06/22/09. Article was submitted to BOS on 05/18/09 and forwarded to the Planning Board on May 19,2009. Planning Board must hold public hearing within 65 days or,by 07/22/09. Earliest Board can hold an advertised and noticed public hearing is: June 10. Member Ivimev felt that handling the bylaw on the fly sets bad precedence about the process and sends a bad message about Town legislature. On the other hand,the proposed bylaw is simply to rescind"Section 19 of the Zoning Bylaws—Wind Energy Conversion Facility bylaw" which might be simpler to handle than most bylaws amendments which are to rewrite and amend sections of a bylaw. MOTION: by Member Brewer to have public hearing at June 10,2009 meeting No second MOTION: by Member Samuelson to not hold a public hearing—let the 65 days expire No second Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 4 May 20,2009 Member Brewer agreed that this STM does not follow the prescribed process for zoning articles,but would like to open the forum to see what is going on with this article Member Moore: this article is the type of article that would have been reviewed by the Zoning Advisory Committee(ZAC)which is a Planning Board committee—now inactive,but would have been reactivated for an article like this. Moore also does not like to set this precedent and send messages to the public that any time they do not like something that is happening,they can call a STM to change zoning. Member Samuelson: concurred that this does not follow the prescribed process that was established to allow adequate time for zoning articles to be fully studied,rewritten and vetted. He added that this is not an emergency that needs to be acted upon with such urgency. He feels this sets a terrible precedent. Town Counsel: advised that MGL requires the Board to have a public hearing within 65 days—this is a fundamental requirement. If a public hearing is not held before Town Meeting, a vote cannot be taken at Town Meeting. He posed that Town Meeting could be opened and continued to a date after the date the Planning Board can hold the public hearings. Looking at dates Board members are available: Week of June 10: 2 members absent Week of June 17: 2 members absent Member Moore: historically,the Board will not schedule meetings knowing two members will be absent— too much risk that one more person could be absent meaning no quorum. Moore knows for certain that he will be unavailable at some point during those weeks due to the expected birth of a grandchild. MOTION: by Member Healey Dippold to have public hearing at June 10,2009 meeting in her absence No second Member Samuelson: asked the petitioners(Conrad Langenhagen,24 Sanctuary Pond Rd.; Nathaniel Palmer, 9 Little Harbor Rd; and Jim Huse, 34 Cedar Acres Lane were in attendance)to withdraw this warrant article and work on the bylaw with the Board. Some very strong and personal comments were made by Conrad Langenhagen toward Member Samuelson. Chairman Moore stated very strongly that these comments were inappropriate and requested Conrad Langenhagen to cease. Conrad Langenhagen continued his verbal attacks. Member Samuelson left the meeting. Langenhagen apologized to Board for his comments. MOTION: by Member Healey Dippold to hold public hearing at June 24,2009 Planning Board meeting SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES Member Moore will contact Town Manager and request that Town Meeting be moved from June 22 to June 25 to allow public hearing to be held before Town Meeting. Planning Board Administrator will advertise after STM date is confirmed by Town Manager. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn at 10:30 P.M. SECOND: Member Healy Dippold VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10 , 2009 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD,CLERK DATE: JUNE 10,2009