HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2009 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2009 (17) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 3
December 2,2009
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: WEDNESDAY,DECEMBER 2, 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. 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. - ADMINISTRATIVE DISCUSSION Paul Cleary in
attendance to represent this filing. Member Moore explained Board's concern with the lack of progress and
forward movement with this filing and that this has dragged on for long enough—it is not fair to anyone. Cleary
distributed a document about Rainwater Harvesting and explained that this is the plan they intend to use to deal
with stormwater runoff and that they have been investigating this for the past four months. Cleary offered that the
economy has resulted in so many engineering firms closing that their project has been delayed but that it should be
ready in a month. Moore explained the Board's position at this point:
1. The Board could simply deny the application due to the applicant not providing requested information. The
denial would mean the applicant could not return for two years with the filing
2. The applicant could withdraw without prejudice and refile when ready to proceed.
Member Ivimey recommended withdrawal without prejudice as this is not fair to neighbors to have this hanging
over their heads. Ivimey added that many points in 12.4 are not addressed and that changes have not been made to
the plans. Ivimey feels the filing is not on the right track or progressing at the right speed.
Member Healey-Dippold thought it would behoove the applicant to withdraw without prejudice and agrees that
12.4 has not been fully addressed.
Member Brewer thought it was up to the applicant to decide which way to go but that they should be sure they
have a full, complete package that addresses all questions raised thus far when they are ready to continue.
Member Samuelson stressed that if they continue to January,2010, all plans should be submitted by January 6`''
He added that if they are not ready to proceed in January,they will be denied—no more extensions.
Member Ivimey disagreed stating that the applicant had any number of items they could have addressed to keep this
moving and that they have not been addressing any of the items.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to deny this application for failure to comply with Sections 12.4 and 18 of
the Zoning Bylaws.
SECOND: Member Samuelson
Member Healey-Dippold has concerns that this filing does not meet 12.4 and is concerned that voting for this does
not give the applicant a chance to address engineering and stormwater issues that expertise to address. She felt
there are many reasons to deny this application and again encourages the applicant to withdraw without prejudice.
VOTE: 1 -4 MOTION DOES NOT CARRY
MOTION: By Member Samuelson to continue this discussion to December 16,2009 at 7:15 P.M.at which
time the applicant should indicate to the Board if he plans to continue to January or,withdraw without
prejudice. If the applicant chooses to continue to January 20th, the applicant must be: fully prepared to
proceed with the public hearing; submit a check for$5,400.00 to the Planning Board Office by the
December 161h meeting to bring the Engineering Deposit up to the required minimum amount as per the
Planning Board fee schedule; and,all documents for the January 20th public hearing must be submitted to
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES tot' 3
December 2,2009
the Planning Board office no later than January 6th to allow the Board and its consultants a full two weeks
review time. If these criteria are not met,the Board will not grant any further extensions and,the
application will be denied.
SECOND: Member Healey-Dippold
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
Member Ivimey added that the applicant should also review all applicable sections of the Cohasset Zoning Bylaws
to make sure that all applicable sections will be addressed and met at the January 201h meeting.
Planning Board Administrator to contact John Modzelewski, CDI and request that he prepare a comprehensive list
of all items and documents that need to be completed.
Abutters in the audience stressed disappointment in the Planning Board motion and vote.
7:35 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
• JANUARY,2010 MEETING DATES - January 6 and January 20
• VOTE TO ACCEPT NOVEMBER 24,2009 MINUTES
MOTION: By Member Brewer to accept the November 24,2009 minutes
SECOND: Member Samuelson
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
7:37 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- VOTE TO CONTINUE TO DATE
AND TIME CERTAIN
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to continue this public hearing to January 6,2009 at 7:15 P.M.
SECOND: Member Brewer
VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES
7:40 P.M. REMAND OF CCI ENERGY LLC'S APPEAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD DENIAL OF A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO WIND TURBINES AT 215 CJC HIGHWAY
Not on agenda—Attorney Ken Ingber in attendance with Remand Order which had been issued late this afternoon.
No discussion about the Remand beyond deadlines that were imposed by the Remand Order. Public hearing must
open within 45 days of the date of the Remand Order(November 30, 2009) and second hearing, if determined
necessary,must occur within 60 days of the date of the Remand Order.
Public hearing will be opened on January 6,2010 and continued to January 20,2010 if necessary. Planning Board
Administrator will advertise etc. accordingly.
7:50 P.M. ABBOTT DEVELOPMENT—COOK ESTATE—MODIFICATION OF EASEMENT
AGREEMENT - Attorney Richard Henderson asked that this item be removed from tonight's agenda. Board
received draft of the Abbott Development License and Indemnification Agreement from Town Counsel. Board had
looked at it individually,but has not had discussion or taken a position. Several Board members wondered if the
BOS would like Planning Board input or conversation about this document. Planning Board Administrator to
contact Town Manager asking if BOS would like to discuss this with Planning Board. Al Moore and/or Chuck
Samuelson could attend a BOS meeting.
Member Ivimey to contact Town Counsel Hucksam to discuss how difficult it is to modify the permit relative to
the easement and if it has to be treated as an amendment with a public hearing required.
8:05 P.M. MASTER PLAN—DISCUSSION
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/"STRATEGIC PLAN"
• MGL CH.41, §81D
Member Brewer reiterated his opinion that it is the Planning Board's job to write, adopt,publish and update a
Master Plan. He added that the current Master Plan is old,but much in the plan has already been addressed and
completed and that the plan is supposed to be updated every 5 years and we are at the update point now. He feels it
is not responsible for the Planning Board to continue to avoid it. Planning Board Administrator distributed pp. 9—
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 3
December 2,2009
13 of former Planning Board Member Westcott's "General or Strategic Plan",highlighting those actions that had
already been addressed and/or completed by various committees.
Member Healey-Dippold reviewed the Mass. Handbook of Land use Planning to see what the ramifications of a
Master Plan are. It seems that courts have repeatedly held that zoning bylaws may not comply with master plans
and that instead,master plans are treated as a tool to reward rather than punish a town for not following it. She was
not sure if the DHCD looks at Master Plans but feels they reward towns that have Master Plans. She feels there are
ways to be creative about getting resources for updating parts of the draft master plan and suggested that there
might be ways to involve graduate students(MIT Urban Institute)to accomplish an update. She feels master plans
provide predictability for developers.
Member Ivimey does not think the master plan should be so specific as to target certain areas. For example,he
does not think things like the town needing skateboard park should be in the Master Plan. Instead,he thinks the
goals should be more general—for example,that the town needs more outdoor recreational areas—from which a
specific such as a skateboard park might be the result if the appropriate committee determines that.
Member Samuelson thinks the Board should do a master plan, he just thinks this draft master plan is not the right
plan—he thinks there is a lot in the draft master plan that does not represent reality or what the town really wants to
do. He also thinks the plan doesn't need to be the full document as Cohasset does not have the resources or the
time to accomplish the full document but that there are some areas of the Executive Summary that could be targeted
—eg.the waterfront,the Beechwood DB section, alternative energy.
Member Moore acknowledged that a lot of time and effort went into this draft plan and that a lot of benefit was
gained by that process. Nevertheless,he thinks the statistical modeling that was done to gather the information was
not valid. Cohasset has evolved without a plan and,there is not a lot left for redevelopment and building. He too
believes a plan is needed,he is just not sure this is the one.
Brewer suggested taking the draft master plan as a foundation and establish a time table for updating the sections.
Brewer agrees that the draft plan is not perfect—he sees things in the draft that he doesn't like and there are some
sections that are not well thought through but,there are other sections that are well thought through.
Member Ivimey felt that if the Board is committed to a master plan,they should consider the executive summary as
the master plan with some changes/deletions which he reviewed. Not all members agreed that completed strategies
and goals should be deleted but should remain so there is documentation as to those strategies and goals and
something that can be pointed to as an accomplished/completed item.
CHAIRPERSON MOORE ADJOURNED THIS MEETING AT 9:00 P.M.
NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2009 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD, CLERK
DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2009