Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2009 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2009 (14) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 5 October 28,2009 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY,OCTOBER 28, 2009 TIME: 6:45 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: 6:50 P.M. 6:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -SPECIAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT"ARTICLE XX: ASSOCIATE PLANNING BOARD MEMBER" Town Counsel Hucksam in attendance. Sam Wakeman, Advisory Committee in attendance. There were not any members of the public in attendance. Member Healey- Dippold read public hearing advertisement. Town Council explained that he is not comfortable with the wording changes recommended by the Advisory Committee for two reasons: 1. because the language in the article as drafted is derived directly from the relevant statute(Ch. 40A§49)which uses almost the exact language concerning the chairman"may"designate; and, 2. because it is better for the chairman of the planning board to have that discretion because there are different kinds of special permit hearings—those that are very short in duration and,those that can go on for many months and there can be a lot of variability in the factual circumstances and situation that the board is dealing with and, it is very hard to know what the factual circumstances will be and what the board will confront when they are reviewing a special permit application. The purpose in doing this is to allow the chair to,with the advice of counsel,make the decision that will make the board's decision and vote as strong as possible. Wakeman explained that Advisory Committee had voted against the article as worded feeling that the chairman should not have the option to either appoint or not appoint the associate member—the chairman should be required to appoint the associate in the event of a recusal or vacancy—this takes away all semblance of any political influence that might bear on a particularly difficult hearing. Counsel thinks it unlikely that a chairman would not make the decision on a political basis or preferring one position over another on an application. Member Moore added that if it were"required"that the associate is appointed it would mean that if a regular member were sick for one meeting,that it would mean that the board's hands would be tied and they would have to automatically shift to the associate member. Member Ivimey added that he thought other members of the Board would have a strong reaction if the chair of the board did not appoint the associate member if a situation called for it. Member Healey-Dippold added that she thinks the language reflects the boards preference that there should be a commitment to have the five members who have the five year terms be the voting members for the special permit. Wakeman will bring the information back to the Advisory Committee and will advise the Planning Board of any changes. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to close the public hearing on this matter and proceed with this article at Town Meeting as drafted by Town Counsel. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:15 P.M. COOK ESTATE,ABBOTT DEVELOPMENT— ENDORSE AMENDED COVENANT Attorney Richard Henderson in attendance. Henderson withdrew the amended covenant. He explained that the original covenant was revised by Town Counsel. Town Counsel revised the covenant to, in addition to prohibiting occupancy and transfer, include a prohibition against starting construction—even a foundation—until the entire project was completed.Henderson feels this is impossible in a 27 unit cluster development. Abbott Development had planned to begin foundations now as they have people who want their units. Abbott feels they cannot wait until Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 5 October 28,2009 April to begin foundations for closings in May. Henderson says they cannot sell them or occupy them. Town Counsel Hucksam explained that the language is basically the same language as in the Subdivision Control Law Ch. 41 §8 1 U in terms of performance guarantees and it is not a radical concept that the roadways have to be constructed before a lot can be"built upon or conveyed." This is conventional performance guarantee law for a subdivision. While Henderson agrees, he noted that there is already a$50,000 reclamation agreement for the Cook Estate site and that this is not a subdivision, it is a cluster development and cluster developments are unusual in that they are dealing with a single lot with 27 homes. Further, in subdivisions, lots can be released upon approval by the Board. If that is not allowed for this cluster development,Abbott cannot build foundations and homes until the very end of the project. Abbott feels that the more houses that are sold early on,the more houses will sell and that if they don't sell houses quickly and get them started,the marketing process will suffer. Modzelewski explained that with subdivisions,the developer asks the Board if they are far enough along with the infrastructure to have a lot released. Modzelewski then inspects the site's infrastructure and advises the Board if there is enough property to hold as security to allow a lot to be released. Modzelewski understands why Abbott would not want to complete the whole infrastructure and then start having construction vehicles roll over it to construct 27 homes. Modzelewski felt there must be a way to approach this while protecting both Abbott's and the Town's interests. Henderson suggested adding a statement to the covenant to the effect that the Board"may however, permit the initiation of the construction by vote of the Board" which would require Abbott to come back to the Board for initiation of every foundation thereby allowing the Board frequent review of the infrastructure status. Town Counsel felt that this approach makes sense in that it allows the Board to look at each situation and, if it is comfortable, approve the foundation request while protecting the Town's interest. Member Moore felt the attorneys are not disagreeing on principle and requested Henderson,Hucksam and Modzelewski to consult and formulate an approach that will protect the interests of all parties. Will be addressed again at the Nov. 4,2009 meeting. 7:20 P.M. SUBDIVISION RULES &REGULATIONS—BRIEF DISCUSSION Town Counsel,John Modzelewski,Planning Board Administrator and Clark Brewer to produce draft update to then be reviewed by Board. Will notice other Board members re: meetings so they can attend and participate when a topic will be particularly relevant for them. 7:25 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 - POSTPONED AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST— VOTE TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 24, 2009 AT A TIME CERTAIN MOTION: By Member Ivimey to postpone as requested by the applicant and continue to November 24, 2009 at 7:15 P.M. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5 -0 MOTION CARRIES 7:30 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS • 47 LOTHRUP LANE, SPECIAL PERMIT APPL.,APPL: HEIDI CONDON Applicant submitted a letter of withdrawal. Detailed review by Civil Engineers Stenbeck and Taylor, indicated there is more linear area from proposed addition to side property line than originally thought. • 30 PARKER AVE., SPECIAL PERMIT APPL., APPL: HEIDI CONDON -In attendance: Applicant Heidi Condon; Owners Christopher and Molly Kerr; Engineer Carmen Hudson, Cavanaro Consulting;Abutters: Lisa Hewitt,27 Parker Avenue;Mark Wilcox,26 Parker Avenue. Seeking relief for enlarging two existing decks. Current decks are non-conforming and proposal is not making them anymore non-conforming than the existing structure. Only the two-story deck is non-conforming to the rear lot line. Will be replacing the sonatubes which are in the flood plain,but will not be increasing the number of sonatubes. Plans also include constructing a driveway and retaining wall within the flood plain. Original structure was a two-family with an existing barn from the 1950's. Part of the barn will be used for constructing the new garage. Driveway will go around side to two car garage (accessing from front would allow only a one-car garage because of a large fireplace). Proposing a car park so it is easy to enter the garage and that is what moves into the flood plain. There is a slope to the property that will require a retaining wall. Abutter Mark Wilcox,26 Parker Ave. is concerned about retaining wall which he stated was 6' high X 28' long—concerned about the visual impact of this large cement structure placed between the Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 5 October 28,2009 houses. Condon explained that it will be a concrete wall with a stone veneer with plantings against it(that have been approved by Conservation Commission)as a buffer and,water will go under it and be allowed to drain out. Carmen Hudson explained that the wall can be reduced by 12"to 18" and can still act as a car stop so the height will actually be 3.5'—4'. Member Brewer suggested casting in a steel raised guard rail that will still stop cars while minimizing the visual impact. Owners agreed that they want to make it as unobtrusive as possible because they don't want to look at it either. Eight letters of support were submitted for the record. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to suggest that: the ZBA work with the applicant regarding this special permit application,taking care that the neighbors' concerns are met; and,that the applicant visually represent the wall for the ZBA with a photo montage for example; and, that the height of the wall be reduced to the extent possible. SECOND: Member Healey-Dippold VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:40 P.M. 23 SUMMER ST. & 178 SO.MAIN ST.-FORM A. APPL: BRADLEY&KRISTEN DEAN, filed on 10/27/09 No one in attendance to represent application. Member Ivimey recused self as he is abutter to abutter. Simple conveyance of Lot 1B (1902.26 SF)to the adjoining lot owned by the Deans. MOTION: By Member Brewer to endorse this Form A application. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:45 P.M. OCEAN MANAGEMENT PLAN—OCEAN ACT OF 2008 Brought up by Member Brewer. Brewer met with BOS on Monday, October 26. Brewer explained that he is not advocating for or against the State's Ocean Management Plan. Plan was passed in 2008 and a draft currently exists that has a jurisdiction of about 1,500'to 3 miles off the coast. Has some relationship to the Green Communities Act although Brewer not entirely clear as to what that relationship might be. He believes the intent of the plan is to do an inventory of stake holders in the coastal area and balance out the potential for renewable energy sites with other ocean interests. The plan has two commercial wind turbine sites—one off the west end of the Elizabeth Islands and one off the west end of Martha's Vineyard—neither of which pose concern for Cohasset. The title resources are also around the Vineyard and not involving Cohasset. There may be other things the Planning Board and Selectmen want to make comment on about this plan—it was suggested that perhaps a draft joint letter of comment from the BOS and the Planning Board would be a more cohesive vehicle for the State to respond to. The other issue with wind turbines is that there is an allotment per regional planning agency of 10 turbines sites per region which could potentially be placed in waters that would be visible from the coast of Cohasset. Hull is considering four turbines on Hardings Ledge—that uses 4 of the 10 sites allotted for the entire Metropolitan Boston Area which leaves limited areas within the zone for large numbers of turbines. The BOS will meet again in a week and a half and question/comment letter has to be submitted by November 23,2009. Brewer added,that in terms of our Zoning map,this 1500'offshore is currently unmanaged areas—somewhere between property owners rights at low tide and the 1500'may be a jurisdictional area that the Planning Board wants to take a look at because right now, it is open. Member Samuelson would like to know if the Planning Board even has the jurisdiction of an area that starts 1500' off town limits given that pilings and a dock cannot be put in the harbor without the involvement of the Army Corps of Engineers. Member Healey Dippold agreed some government branch must have jurisdiction. Member Ivimey added that whether the Town has jurisdiction or not,it would be wise for the Board to be involved, at least, in the review of any studies,thoughts or plans that could result in any sort of industrial item being built off the coast of Cohasset—Cohasset's show piece. Ivimey added that they would be remiss in not keeping an eye on this and, that the Planning Board has more experience in dealing with things like this than the BOS, so the Planning Board should be sure they are involved. Member Moore added that the various rock outcroppings or small islands off Cohasset are not currently zoned. Member Ivimey would like Counsel opinion on where the corporate boundary ends going out to sea and how the federal government interplays with it(Member Healey Dippold pointed out that the Nantucket Sound issues will be a congressional issue). Planning Board Administrator to forward question to Town Counsel, keeping Town Manager in the loop. Member Brewer added that there is a county boundary going off to the northeast between Scituate and Cohasset and that the end of that point would be of particular interest in terms of visual impact on Cohasset if a windmill were on that peninsula. Brewer added that it is possible for municipalities to work together Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 5 October 28,2009 on wind projects—for example,Hingham is interested in collaborating with Hull on the four turbines proposed on Hardings Ledge by Hull. Both are municipal power towns and therefore have abilities to do things that neither Scituate nor Cohasset can do. 7:55 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO ACCEPT OCTOBER 7,2009 MINUTES • VOTE TO ACCEPT OCTOBER 14,2009 MINUTES • VOTE TO ACCEPT OCTOBER 14,2009 EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve minutes for the October 7,October 14 and October 14 Executive Session meetings SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 8:00 P.M. COHASSET HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION FILING CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. APPLICANT: JAMES SWEENEY, CCI ENERGY,LLC; OWNERS: PAUL BARRY; CROCKER LANE REALTY TRUST; CROCKER II REALTY TRUST- POSTPONED AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST— VOTE TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 24, 2009 AT A TIME CERTAIN MOTION: By Member Ivimey to postpone as requested by applicant and continue to November 24, 2009 at 8:00 P.M. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 8:00 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS CCI ENERGY APPEAL OF WIND TURBINE SPECIAL PERMIT DENIAL LITIGATION MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn open session and enter Executive Session to discuss CCI ENERGY appeal of Wind Turbine Special Permit denial and ongoing litigation SECOND: Member Brewer POLL: Members: Ivimey—yes; Samuelson—yes; Brewer—yes; Healey-Dippold—yes; Moore-yes VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES In attendance for Planning Board in addition to Board Members: Town Counsel Kimberly Saillant; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Engineering, Inc. Planning Board conducted Executive Session until 9:35 P.M. MOTION: by Member Samuelson to adjourn Executive Session. SECOND: Member Brewer POLL: Members: Ivimey—yes; Samuelson—yes; Brewer—yes; Moore—yes; (Member Healey had to leave meeting at 8:40 P.M.prior to vote) VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNED AT: 9:35 P.M. Planning Board Administrator distributed Section 9.0 of Draft Open Space Five Year Action Plan for Board to review for comments at November 4, 2009 meeting. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2009 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD, CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2009 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 5 October 28,2009