HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2009 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2009 (7) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 3
July 8,2009
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: WEDNESDAY,JULY 8,2009
TIME: 7:00 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
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: 7:07 P.M.
7:07 P.M. SIGN CCI ENERGY WIND TURBINE SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
DECISIONS - Members Moore,Ivimey, Samuelson and Brewer signed the special permit and site plan review
decisions. Member Healey Dippold as a newly elected Board member, did not participate in public hearings, or
vote on this filing and therefore did not sign the decisions. Decisions to be filed with Town Clerk on July 9,2009.
7:10 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
• VOTE TO APPROVE JUNE 24,2009 MINUTES
MOTION: by Member Healey Dippold to approve the June 24,2009 minutes as amended on p. 5 by
Member Healey Dippold
SECOND: Member Ivimey
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
• SET AUGUST MEETING DATES - August 19
7:15 P.M. COHASSET HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION FILING. APPLICANT: JAMES
SWEENEY,CCI ENERGY,LLC; OWNERS: PAUL BARRY, CROCKER LANE REALTY TRUST;
CROCKER II REALTY TRUST. In attendance for applicant: Appl. James Sweeney, CCI Energy; Gordon
Deane; Jeffrey Couture,PE, SITEC Environmental. In attendance for Planning Board: John Modzelewski, Civil
Designs Inc. Modzelewski pointed out that filing a preliminary plan freezes the zoning for a period of time.
Jeffrey Couture, SITEC Environmental: Plan is to subdivide the existing parcels into 3 lots-two useable,
conforming lots in the Technology Business district and then the landfill lot which is the currently closed and
capped to which access will be provided,but will not be used. Extra frontage to allow this will be gotten from the
proposed new Technology Drive roadway to be accessed from Rt. 3A and will require a new curb cut. Crocker
Lane will remain. There are wetlands in the area of the new Technology Dr. —will be filing with Conservation
Commission. Proposed Technology Dr. is 34' wide as required by the design standards and will end in a 120' right
of way cul-de-sac to access all 3 lots. Around station 800 there is a steep incline of 12%which exceeds the 6%
max. slope of the design standards. Waivers requested will include: a 12% roadway slope rather than the 6%in
the design standards; and, a 2:1 side slopes after the right of way rather than the 3:1 max. in the design standards.
Already fully serviced by utilities from Crocker Lane—location of cul-de-sac was chosen because all existing
utilities are aimed in that direction. Could include sidewalk easement so pedestrians could walk along Technology
Drive to access train station—this would be more direct route for pedestrians than walking down Crocker Lane.
Member Brewer: asked about the intent of creating the new road. Couture answered that it provides frontage for
the new lot and provides access via a conforming road. Side benefit is that it reduces traffic on Crocker Lane.
John Modzelewski: does not understand value of crossing all wetlands to build new road. Crocker Lane already
accesses site.
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 3
July 8,2009
Member Moore: noted that Crocker Lane is dangerous road. Likes idea of a 2nd road,but thinks slope is too steep.
Member Ivimey: suggested closing Crocker Lane or only using as a driveway for the medical building.
Modzelewski: noted that this is a very steep slope - Pond St. is about 9%. He added that to decrease slope to about
9% , the slope at the lower end would have to be increased . He noted that 9%is a more reasonable slope to try to
achieve and the slope should exceed 9%. Modzelewski will look at the slope of Forest Ave. at the intersection of
Jerusalem Rd. He thinks this is a very expensive road to build for one lot. Applicant should also examine in
depth what can be done to utilize Crocker Lane.
Member Samuelson: suggested that the PFD might not be comfortable with the 12% slope.
Member Brewer: suggested that elimination of the top of Crocker Lane might allow them to get more length out of
the run and thereby decrease slope at the top of the hill. Might make more sense to spend money on Crocker Lane
than to build this new roadway.
Member Healey Dippold: asked what the applicant plans to do with the lots and how the use will affect traffic.
Couture is not sure what Paul Barry's plans are for the lots.
Jeffrey Couture: asked if a conforming cul-de-sac is needed if they use Crocker Lane as the access. They might
not be able to create 3 lots using Crocker Lane as access and build a conforming cul-de-sac. A-the 120' is
designed to allow turn around for the larger PFD trucks.
Member Moore: without the slope issue,this preliminary could be approved at this meeting but the grade issue
needs to be looked at again. Board would like to see changes showing how this could be worked out. Applicant
should also reexamine Crocker Lane. Directed applicants to look at access and grade. Is there a better way to
access this property?
Public Comment: none
Continue this preliminary subdivision discussion to August 19, 2009 at 7:15 PM to allow applicant time to
work on access, slope,grade issues. Applicant will send extension letter—extending to August 31,2009.
8:05 P.M. MERLE BROWN, BEECHWOOD DB DISTRICT DISCUSSION - Public attending: Merle
Brown,David Stover,Wayne Sawchuk. Letter was submitted to Board by Herbert L. Brown, 534 Beechwood St.
Moore explained the reason for the discussion citing the current dispute on James Lane relative to the zoning and
the current application before the Board for a 17 unit condominium building. Moore suggested that if there is any
thought about rezoning the Beechwood DB District to residential, it would be better to address the rezoning before
there was an application before the Board. Merle Brown suggested that the side of Doane that David Stover lives
on, to the river could probably be rezoned residential. However,Herbert Brown, on the other side of the street,
would prefer to maintain the DB district zoning as he may reopen a store. Member Samuelson suggested that
perhaps there could be some restrictions put on the zoning such as restricting the size of a business. There are many
"as of right"uses for this DB district right now. Member Brewer suggested that perhaps the Table of Use
Regulations could be modified to restrict the types of allowed business. All agreed that letter should be sent to all
surrounding residents in this area informing them of a meeting to discuss this. Target meeting after Labor day.
8:25 P.M. SUBDIVISION RULES ®ULATIONS UPDATE- DISCUSS UPDATE APPROACH
Member Brewer noted that the Subdivision Rules &Regulations update is also an opportunity to review the LEED
Performance Standards and the Green Communities Act and other high performance building and construction
approaches. Master Plan takes a longer range overview while the Subdivision Rules&Regs. make it a
requirement. Main component of that is life cycle cost analysis so everyone knows the payback of high
performance building. There is reward for being a"Green Community" - gives a town access to $10-$20 million
to do things like upgrade town hall,buy energy efficient vehicles etc. Brewer noted that MGL 8 1 M Subdivision
Control Law said that Subdivision Control Law powers could be exercised for policy to encourage the use of solar
energy systems and to protect access to direct sunlight. In Brewer's experience,having solar access allows any
building to be close to zero energy providing it has the other high performance components. Member Ivimey
inquired as to how this is put into practice—mandate or give a benefit back such as a density bonus? John
Modzelewski thought suggestions could be made during the preliminary subdivision stage. Wayne Sawchuk
suggested that Subdivision Rules &Regulations should be closer to a cluster development right from the beginning
than a formal subdivision. Contractor also looks at how many lots he can fit on a piece of land but,the greatest
value for the developer and the town can be gotten if clustering within a subdivision can be done. Member Brewer
added that density bonus language is reasonable and has long term payback. LEED development program
establishes a set of guidelines for green planning - basic principles of doing a high performance building need to
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 3
July 8,2009
be thought about as a part of the subdivision plan—layout and orientation of the lots drives what can be done in the
future. Brewer stressed that the subdivision sets in motion the potential efficiency of any building—the
orientation of any building's access to solar energy is set in motion and locked in at the time of the subdivision
planning and that opportunity will never be gotten again. LEED for Neighborhood Program—narrower roadways,
smaller lot size,density bonus is set up to save the developer and the homeowner money. Sawchuk added that
there has to be flexibility within the subdivision layout to be able to face the mini clusters in appropriate directions.
Modzelewski noted that the subdivision regulations are for the street layout and things like density bonus are part of
zoning regulations. Member Moore felt that if something needs some sort of artificial subsidy, it is probably not
going to work and,that most developers in Cohasset seem to have an approach of doing things right. Sawchuk
warned against making the rules®s. so restrictive that they will not want to do development. Member Healey
Dippold cited§81Q which states that the Planning Board has the right to implement rules and regulations that
encourage the use of solar systems and protects,via restrictive covenants, the access to direct sunlight of solar
energy systems and there are other mechanisms that the State provides with respect to solar access. She added that
rather than having this as a mandate,the Board could consider§81R as well,which indicates the Planning Board
may,when in the best interest of the public and not inconsistent with the intent of the Subdivision Control law,
waive strict compliance with the subdivision rules and regulations. Planning Board could ask(strongly
encourage?)developers to layout the subdivision lots in a solar access format. Modzelewski agreed but added that
he has always seen developers layout the subdivision to maximize the number of lots available. Sawchuk opined
that the Board should allow small clusters of three or so houses off the subdivision road—this would reduce the
length of the road,reduce the amount of asphalt and allow for variations. Modzelewski added that his estimate for
updating the Subdivision Rules&Regs. was based on updating the out-of-date technological information and
requirements that currently exist, not making wholesale changes and creating an entirely new document.
Brewer to have copies of the LEED for Neighborhoods program for the Board at next meeting.
Board will review Sections I and H for next meeting.
Will also look at Subdivision Rules&Regs. of other similar towns such as Scituate,Hingham,Hull, Concord.
Will also consider ways in which LEED and Green Communities criteria could be added or referenced in the
Subdivision Rules&Regs. via,for example, a referenced addendum
8:45 P.M. MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION
Selectmen Karen Quigley very glad to see the Master Plan under discussion. She has been encouraging BOS to
adopt some policies regarding green development and to work with the Planning Board to support any green
development policies. Open Space&Recreation Plan has been undergoing update and can be supplied. If there is
something that can be done within a new master plan to encourage development to be more green, she would
encourage that. Member Moore pointed out that the Board is not at a point of a"new"master plan as, for the
record, they do not even have a master plan yet—the board did not adopt the master plan. Member Brewer
clarified that he feels they are now at a point where it needs some update—the Board should adopt a position that
"this is where we were"and now, map out a direction for the next five years. Quigley further noted that there are
now new committees examining finances,budgeting, accounting etc. and that it might be a good idea to start
dialogue between committees that have overlapping interests. Brewer noted that he was vice chairman of the
Growth and Development Committee which had as a primary responsibility,the coordination and execution of the
master plan and would like to begin detailed discussion at next meeting. Other towns have assigned a Chair of a
Master Plan Review Committee as well as a leader of each section of Master Plan to review their section and report
back to the Chair about updates needed. Brewer is interested in forming a transportation subcommittee.
MOTION: by Member Samuelson to adjourn at 10:15 P.M.
SECOND: Member Healey Dippold
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2009 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD, CLERK
DATE: AUGUST 19,2009