Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (2) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 6 November 16,2010 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16,2010 TIME: 7:00 PM 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 Clark H. Brewer William Hannon,Associate Member Board Members Absent: Charles A. Samuelson Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Administrator Meeting called to order at: 7:05 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT (10 MINUTUES MAXIMUM) - No public comment 7:10 P.M. HARBOR DISCUSSION—In attendance for this discussion: Town Counsel Paul DeRensis; Jason Burtner, CZM South Shore Regional Coordinator; Andrea Langhauser, MA DEP Waterways Program. Documents used during this agenda item and on file in Planning Board office: • Paper copy of powerpoint presentation used by Jason Burtner Jason Burtner presented information about: Harbor Planning; State Approved Harbor Management Plan; Local Harbor Planning; MGL Chapter 91; 301 CMR 23.00; 310 CMR 9.0; the Harbor Planning Process and Planning Issues; and, reasons for conducting a Harbor Management Plan. Burtner explained that if what a Town would like to do in a harbor area can be done under current Ch. 91 regulations, a State Approved Harbor Management Plan would not be necessary—the town could proceed with local harbor planning which would be developed and implemented on the local level with as much or as little help from the State as a town would like to ask for. The local plan,developed and implemented on the local level, is potentially less rigorous because the town would not be seeking to amend Ch 91. Town Counsel DeRensis: Cohasset Harbor is a great asset to the community. He believes Cohasset would greatly benefit from a State Approved Harbor Management Plan. In DeRensis' opinion, from a legal standpoint: • A State Approved Plan allows Cohasset to participate in the plan and become embedded in the process • The State has the power. Towns have only minimal means to control the process unless partnered with the State in a State Approved Plan • The State Approved Plan creates an effective partnership on a regulatory level • State Approved Plan allows the town to lay the groundwork to control what can be done in its harbor. • If a town has a State Approved Plan, it can be part of the process by which the State will regulate its Harbor, giving the town better control over the future of its harbor than it would have working without the State Other points covered: • BOS is the responsible municipal body to appoint and initiate a steering committee of sorts • Planning Board representative must be included on the committee • Engage community in pre-planning review • Process in initiated by filing a request for notice to proceed with CZM • Once notice to proceed is granted,town has 2 years to formulate plan • Hiring consultants is usually more successful approach to completing the plan—difficult for volunteers to accomplish • DeRensis thought the cost might be 25-40K • Member Ivimey suggested that CPC funds could be used Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 6 November 16,2010 • 5 years after plan is completed, it is updated and renewed — usually not as rigorous as initial process • Scituate is going with a Local Harbor Plan as they did not need any modifications to Ch 91 • Hull has a State Approved Plan done with 2-3 consultants—results had no bearing on Ch 91 • Boston Harbor, Salem, Gloucester,Nantucket and Provincetown have State Approved Plans • DEP is currently overseeing the sewer plant discharge into the Cohasset Harbor. Harbor Plan doesn't address this unless the community wants to change the permitting which is done by other processes • In terms of Harbor Management Plans and 40B developments being built on a harbor, Town Counsel explained that regulations put emphasis on water dependent uses that need access to the water rather than on other uses that can be located elsewhere(such as 40B plans)or on uses that are"private advantages of use". If a 40B project is only dealing with housing, it would be considered a private purpose and not a water dependent purpose. Langhauser explained that housing over the water is prohibited under the new regulations,but might be allowed if the land is filled tidals or if the location is already a non-water dependent use. Regulations as they exist now, do not allow the displacement of water dependent uses with residential uses. For every sq.ft. of building, 1 sq. ft. of open space is required which doesn't really lend itself to densities like 40B projects. There is a provision that does allow something like a 40B but substitution of the required open space in another part of the harbor would be required. DeRensis added that the 40B trumps local regulations but does not trump State regulations—in otherwords,the use of a comprehensive permit does not trump the State jurisdiction. • Harbor Management plans extend only as far as filled tidelines • Town can begin by looking at municipal records that would provide information as to where filled tideline lies,not just the presumptive line • Common themes in harbor plans—access,water quality, community character,harbor management, regulatory issues, land use,water use and economic issues Planning Board encouraged BOS to continue this discussion and to initiate a committee to go forward. 8:20 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATION—25 RIPLEY ROAD—SPECIAL PERMIT/COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT, APPL: RIPLEY ASSOCIATES,LLC In attendance to represent this filing: Applicant Wilmarc Charles, Attorney James Creed. Documents forwarded to Planning Board to be reviewed for this filing and on file in Planning Board office: • 06/01/10 Order of Remand • Plans date stamped 06/23/1010 by Town Clerk. • Creed 06/24/10 Letter to ZBA • ZBA Notice of 07/20/10 Public Hearing • Preliminary Grading,Drainage and Utility Plan dated stamped July 14,2010 by ZBA • Architecturals stamped 12/15/08 and 08/31/10 by Town Clerk; 08/31/10 by ZBA; 09/02/10 by Planning Board • Creed 08/31/10 letter to ZBA with: Developer's(former)resume; existing lighting plan; landscaping proposal. • Creed 10/22/10 letter to ZBA re: additional submittals and letter from Planning Solutions • Site Plan and architectural stamped 12/15/08 by Town Clerk, 10/22/10 by ZBA, 10/25/10 by Planning Board • Creed 10/25/10 letter to ZBA re: List of Waivers • Abutter 11/02/10 letter to ZBA • CDI 11/02/10 review and comment letter to ZBA Applicants did not have a formal presentation or an updated and complete revised set of plans for this meeting. Attorney Creed explained that the ZBA denial was appealed by Ripley Associates, that the Housing Appeals Committee has sent it back to ZBA on order of remand and that the issues that are before the ZBA are set forth in the Remand Order. Creed also explained that the site plan is still in flux so he thinks a Planning Board recommendation is somewhat premature. ZBA has asked applicant to show angled parking as opposed to 90' parking and the ZBA wants two guest spaces in addition to the 14 zoning required spaces. The Applicant has shown preliminary and proposed angled parking plans to the ZBA which will significantly change the site plan. The ZBA has not yet advised the applicant about their opinion regarding the parking. BOH has opined that the building can support 11 bedrooms,but not 14. Applicant plans seven units and 11 bedrooms. Architecturals submitted about 3 weeks ago to the ZBA eliminate the wrap around porch. Member Moore expressed concern that the Planning Board did not have current revised plans that show elimination of wrap around porch and all other Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 6 November 16,2010 changes on one revised plan. Creed indicated that ZBA requires 12 sets of plans and if the Planning Board does not have a full set of plans, it is not within his purview to provide them. John Modzelewski reviewed the 11/02/10 review and comment letter he prepared for the ZBA(provided to Planning Board): 1. Parking: Applicant did the submission of angled parking on two separate site plans—one with angled and one with 90'parking- created a number of contradictions. Modzelewski recommended to the ZBA that they get everything on one coherent, consistent plan so they know what they are to be enforcing in the future. The lack of a single coherent, complete,updated, revised plan is a major review problem. Creed noted that Modzelewski has not been at any ZBA meetings so he would not know that they did note to the ZBA that changes such as the removal of the wrap around porch have not been changed on the architectural renderings because their consultant did not have time to do it but,internal pages of the plan reflect the changes. Currently,there is no architect on the project—these are the plans originally submitted and rejected by the ZBA and sent back by the Housing Appeals Committee back on remand. Applicant will bring new people on board after they receive ZBA approval. Planning Board was concerned that the ZBA and Planning Board are being asked to make decisions based on plans prepared by consultants no longer employed for this project. 2. Confusion caused by lack of complete, current signed and dated plans: Modzelewski noted that rather than revising existing plans, applicant has changed the submission by supplementing plans which has made the submission confusing and ambiguous. Board is very concerned that they are to review plans that are not even signed and dated by a professional,registered architect who is still on the project. Creed stated that the this is not a Planning Board situation such as a Site Plan Review—this is a 40B situation—these are preliminary plans and that is all that is required. Member Ivimey commented that the devil is in the detail and that the Planning Board is being asked to make a recommendation to the ZBA based upon an obsolete document. Creed responded that the documents are not obsolete. Heated disagreement began and Member Moore ended this discussion with Attorney Creed. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to recommend to the ZBA that they do not approve this plan based on the following: 1. In the opinion of the Planning Board,the applicant came to this meeting not in good faith to discuss this plan and solicit a recommendation from the Planning Board because the plans the applicant has provided are inadequate. 2. The plans submitted are incoherent, incomplete,inconsistent,obsolete and woefully inadequate. 3. The current site plan provided is wholly inadequate—there is no suggestion of contours, no indication of drainage,etc. 4. Proposed parking spaces 15 and 16 are dangerously close to Ripley Road and parking spaces 1 and 2 might not provide adequate site lines when pulling onto heavily travelled Sohier St. 5. It is the opinion of the Planning Board that the applicant has failed to meet the requirements of the Order of Remand. The Planning Board suggests that the ZBA assess whether the applicant has provided any information—whether in preliminary or supplemental plans— that would be necessary information to assess what the Housing Appeals Committee has required whether it be: the septic plans; the drainage and calculations plans; the new site plan showing parking,setbacks,fencing, screening,landscaping,lighting,building dimensions; a list of waivers of local bylaws and regulations; contractor's name and credentials as required by the project eligibility letter, as well as the credentials of their design professional; etc. 6. The applicant has failed to present any evidence—including preliminary—of its ability to comply with the specific requirements set out by the Housing Appeals Committee as evidenced by the examples raised including without limitation inconsistent plans, failure to present current registered architect. 7. It would appear that this application is proceeding in a haphazard manner and,the Planning Board cannot recommend approval of a project that is presented in this fashion. 8. Because of the above inadequacies,the Board is unable to come to a determination that the project should be approved and therefore recommends that the ZBA disapprove the application. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4-0 8:50 P.M. SPECIAL PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING- CONSERVATION WIND LP(TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS) WIND ENERGY CONVERSION FACILITY - TURKEY HILL Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 6 November 16,2010 Member Healey Dippold read legal advertisement for public hearing. Associate Member William Hannon participating in the hearings for this filing as a voting member (if needed). In attendance to represent applicant: Attorney Richard Henderson Steven Sloane—Greater Boston Regional Director and Deputy Director of Field Operations for TTOR Jim Younger—Director of Structural Resources&Technical Operations for TTOR Dennis Loria— Mechanical Engineer-Loria Emerging Energy Consultants LLC Stephen Andrus, P.E. —GZA,Providence Office Christopher Menge—SR.VP of Harris,Miller,Miller&Hanson,INC. (Acoustics specialists) Documents forwarded to Planning Board to be reviewed for this filing and on file in Planning Board office: Record Set of Plans: CV—Cover and Index of Figures F5—Proposed Access Road Profile& Stormwater Details F 1 —Vicinity Map/Plan of Land Boundry F6—Cross Section A, Cross Section B F2—Existing Conditions Plan F7—Construction Notes and Details F3 —Proposed Conditions Plan F8—Erosion Control Notes and Details F4- Prelim Construction Area,Erosion Control Plan Applicant Reports: • 10/28/10: Supplements to Form 12 Application including: 0 19.3.2 A and B: Evidence of Site Control o 19.4.1 C: Communication Towers Report 0 19.4.1 A : FAA Determination of No Hazard o 19.4.1 D: Environmental Concerns Report 0 19.4.1 B: Wind Turbine Noise Study o 19.4.1.1: Visualization, Shadow Flicker Analysis Other Town Boards,Commissions,Departments Comments/Submissions: • 11/04/10: Diane Hindley, Sewer Commission • 11/10/10: Joseph Godzik,Board of Health • 11/04/10: Paul Shea, Conservation Commission • 11/15110: Steve May, Cohasset Water Dept. • 11/08/10: Carl Sestito, DPW • I I/16/10: Capt. Mark Trask, CFD • 11/09/10: Chief DeLuca, CPD Other Applicant Correspondence and Submissions • 11/16/10: Andrew Kendall,TTOR President letter. Read at 11/16/10 Planning Board meeting by Jim Younger Jim Younger: Read letter from Andy Kendall,President, Trustees of Reservations. Younger explained that the TTOR are not developers—they will manage the operation. Turkey Hill has already been developed. Proposing only one turbine. Proposal meets Zoning Bylaw. Proposal has less impact on residential than the Cohasset Heights/CCI Energy proposal which was denied. Dennis Loria: All proposed work is on TTOR property. Golden Living Center is closest residential structure. Showed site plan of TTOR property and turbine location in relation to Hingham and Cohasset. Electric lines will be underground to a point, and transition to above ground cable going into Side Hill Road and old Flat Hill Road. Side Hill Rd. is approx. 10' wide gravel road that does go through the wetlands-will file wetlands NOI with ConComm. Will build a road from Turkey Hill Rd. to turbine site. Overview of bylaw criteria of the special permit(detailed data is contained in application materials): • Site Control: all work and fall zone are within TTOR property and complies with bylaw • Height: bylaw requires that the height from base to top of nacelle be less than 350 ft. The proposed turbine will be 262 ft. to nacelle+ 150 ft.blades for a total height of approx. 410 ft. from the base to tip of the blades. Complies with bylaw. The pavilion building around the NIKE site is at 180' elevation. • Setback: bylaw requires that distance from turbine to any property line be greater than the overall height of the turbine. Overall height of proposed turbine is approx. 410 ft. They took more conservative approach of including the measure of the outside circumference of the base for a total laydown of 417 ft. Closest property line is 420ft. and as far as almost 800 ft. on the SE. Complies with bylaw. • Meets all State and Federal requirements: Have already received FAA approval. Seeking approval with National Grid to connect to grid—so far they do not see problem. Meets State noise regulations. No construction in wetlands areas—most work is outside 100' buffer zone except the electrical connection going down Side Hill Rd. which is in the 50' buffer zone. Minimal environmental impact—no evidence of rare or endangered species. Studies show no significant impact to communications(cell towers). Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 6 November 16,2010 • Lightinga ngnage: FAA requires beacon on top—will be flashing red beacon with light angled upward. Other lighting is convenience lighting over door—which will be off when not needed. Complies with bylaw. • Visual Impact; did series of photo simulations from key locations in Cohasset and Hingham. Will be visible from very few locations in Cohasset. Reviewed the photo simulation of each location. Photosimulations were not taken at Rose Hill,the intersection of No.Main&Forest Ave. or Fair Oakes Lane. Applicant agreed to take photosimulations at those locations. Applicant will also investigate whether the turbines can be haze grey(instead of white)to blend into the background. • Land Clearingand nd Open Space: Disturbed area is less than 5 acres. Complies with bylaw. • Rare Species: Evaluation shows there are no rare species. Complies with bylaw. • Stormwater: Complies with bylaw. • Erosion Control: Complies with bylaw. Christopher Menge: Noise Analysis: requires compliance with State guidelines. • Pure Tone conditions: They do not expect the turbine to generate pure tones. • Noise ,generated by source should not exceed 10 db above ambient at adjacent property line and at nearest inhabited residence: wind increases ambient noise (eg: wind blowing through trees). As turbine noise increases with higher wind speeds, ambient noise also increases. Lower wind speed also means lower ambient so subtle increases seem greater. Increase at Golden Living Center (nearest residential)was 6 db which is less than the 10 db limit State regulation. At the nearest single family residential property,the increase was very small. Overall,noise increase was insignificant- applicant does not expect any noise impact. Modeling was based on the VESTAS turbine they intend to install,but they will be looking at prices of similar turbines. If the db increases change,they will reapply for special permit. Regarding sound absorption and propagation, they chose something a little harder and more reflective than the default soft condition for sound absorption so their projections are more conservative.Applicant sees noise levels as compliant at property lines. • Flicker; Wind Farm analysis showed no significant impact. Analysis takes into account location of the turbine, location of the sun,time of year,worst case wind direction and,produces "butterfly" showing areas impacted by flicker. Rule of thumb for acceptable amount of flicker is 30 hrs/yr. The only area within the 30 hrs./yr is Golden Living Center. Golden Living will not experience flicker in the summer months when residents might be outside in the grassy,backyard area. Flicker will hit backyard of building around 4:30- 5:30 PM during the full equinox(around March 21 and Sept. 21). This backside of the building has bedroom windows,but residents will not be in bedrooms during this time,they will be in dining room so they will not be affected by the flicker. Applicant has been in conversation with Golden Living and they are supportive of the project. The software used does not take grade change into account—it assumes a flat surface. Applicant will check flicker date with a program that takes topography into account. Andrew Willard,AEC,noted that this turbine is 20 meters shorter (to hub height)than the turbine proposed by CCI Energy and therefore the"butterfly" should have a smaller footprint than that of the CCI proposal. Al Engelhart, 96 Martins Lane,Hingham: would like to use tonight's presentation with Hingham Wind Committee - OK with the applicants. Paul Carlson, BOS: asked if the height to sea level should make a difference to homes in the area- as appears that the base of this proposed turbine is lower than that proposed by CCI Energy. Applicant team was not familiar with the CCI proposal but did state that the elevations are based on national NGBD 1927 so they are based on sea level. Summary of information covered thus far: • Proposal will: - create local jobs - create 5 million KW hrs./yr. and avoid 8 million lbs./yr. of CO2. - create revenue source for Cohasset - create revenue source for TTOR - fit with the TTOR mission to embrace this project and carry it through • Turkey Hill is a good site: - good wind - no significant impact on natural resources - area is already disturbed - area is relatively remote Attorney Henderson: in relation to property tax, tax assessors across the state are trying to determine how to address this,but it currently appears that a private facility like this would be treated like any other improvement on a real property and, for tax purposes,will be assessed at market value. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 6 November 16,2010 John Modzelewski: • requested coordinates of where photosimulations were taken and,resumes of people involved in the project. Applicant will forward. • None of the studies allowed him to tie into the coordinates—Applicant will provide that data • Wildlife Habitat: zoning directs focus to rare species. Planning Board needs to get a report that is attributable to someone—the submission was not signed. Once Board knows who report is attributable to,they can determine if they can just accept the conclusions or have a consultant review and comment on the conclusions. • Communication Towers: Modzelewski can find a consultant to evaluate the analysis if the Board would like. Feasibility study was done based on two alternate locations and two alternate turbines—A and B (larger turbine) . The study showed potential conflicts with the communication towers for Turbine A but no conflicts with the communication towers for Turbine B. Use of Turbine A is no longer proposed. Board does not think a consultant is necessary at this time. • Need a plan with property line setbacks and surveyor's stamp-to be delivered to Planning Board Nov. 17. Potential for Ice Throw: turbine is designed to shutdown when icing occurs. Golden Living is over 1000' away which is 2.5 times the height of the turbine- applicant is not aware of any study that expressed concern or risk for ice throws that distance. Capt. Trask: his 11/16/10 letter contains questions for applicant. CFD has concerns about removal of injured individuals. Applicant explained that currently there is no plan to improve the existing access road to the site. Traffic study indicated that Turkey Hill Lane can accommodate emergency vehicles. The access road to the towers is being designed to accommodate rescue equipment—turning radii etc. will be very adequate for emergency vehicles.Road will be plowed in winter.Applicant will address all of Trask's questions at the next meeting. Conservation Restriction: edge of portion of the parcel being improved for equipment access—when acquired, a conservation restriction was placed on the Town owned land,but the applicant's parcel did not have a restriction placed on it. Five Party Stewardship agreement exists between Hingham and Cohasset conservation commissions, two land trusts and TTOR. Robert Broker, 15 Barnes Rd.,Hingham: would like to have a meeting in Hingham because the Hingham residents are impacted as much if not more than Cohasset residents. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to continue to December 8,2010 meeting at 7:30 PM SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 10:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE NOVEMBER 3, 2010 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the November 3,2010 meeting minutes SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 3—0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Healey Dippold recused—did not attend 11/03/10 mtg.) • OPEN MEETING LAW SEMINAR—BRIEF DISCUSSION—Planning Board Administrator handed out copies of the materials distributed by Town Counsel DeRensis at the November 8, 2010 Open Meeting Law Seminar held for all Town employees,boards etc. Brief discussion about impact of new Open Meeting Law on Planning Board procedures,minutes, files etc. • FY12 BUDGET: Staff had brief discussion with Interim Town Manager regarding collection and use of legal deposits for Planning Board filings. Discussion to be continued. Board would like new line item added to FYI budget with funds to allow continual update of documents such as zoning map etc. MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 11:00 P.M. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY,DECEMBER 8, 2010 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD DATE: DECEMBER 8,2010