Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (15) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 5 May 19,2010 COHASSET TOWN MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 19,2010 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 Jean Healey-Dippold, Clerk Clark H. Brewer Charles A. Samuelson Board Members Absent: Stuart W. Ivimey,Vice Chair William Hannon,Associate Member Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M.Pilczak, Administrator Meeting called to order at: 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. ROB SCHWANDT—UPDATE ON SCITUATE HILL SUBDIVISION Applicant Rob Schwandt and Brendan Sullivan, Cavanaro Consulting in attendance for update. Explained that they have been in the permitting process for a traffic signal with Mass. Highway. Had received a temporary permit to construct the road but that has since expired. In addition, application process has changed and is more complicated than it was previously. They have filed their applications and will be meeting with appropriate officials on 05/27/10. Time frame for final approval is not known. In addition, the downturn in the economy has had a significant impact on commercial development. Member Moore asked if the site can be stabilized. Schwandt agreed that they can reestablish some of the growth for stabilizing the site. All agreed that they will return in November,2010 for another update and will contact Planning Board if they need assistance or advice with any of the permitting issues. MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to extend the definitive subdivision approval to 12/31/10. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:20 P.M. ROB SCHWANDT—CROCKER LANE SPORTS COMPLEX - Did not come before the Board earlier because it had been determined that the field was not a"structure"and therefore did not require Site Plan Review. The asphalt has been removed and replaced with crushed stone and outside turf. Two smaller buildings were demolished. Schwandt added that the original plan was for an indoor field where two teams would be playing and two teams would be arriving to play. Interest quickly grew to include camps,leagues,practices, adult leagues, soccer,lacrosse, flag football etc., so the outside field was added to the plans. However,the plan is to play outside in good weather and inside in bad weather. Parking is not considered an issue. Schwandt did explain that there are two factors that might be considered an extension of the plans: • Fencing: there is a severe drop off at the northern side of the field. They might need to add an 8' fence along the ridge line, side lines and end line to keep balls in the field area. Building Inspector Egan noted that an 8' fence is allowed if it is internal to the lot line. In the Bylaw definitions, a fence is a structure. Moore does not think a fence would trigger a Site Plan Review. • Lighting: Low height, low intensity lights are OK for soccer practices,but are not adequate for sports like lacrosse. Might be interested in 60' - 80' lights. Member Brewer noted that everyone thinks this is an exciting project,but still wonders why, since this is such a big change of use,there was not a Site Plan Review as the Planning Board would have a lot to look at and could make recommendations of an advisory nature (citing 12.6.11) even if Site Plan Review is not required. Member Healey agreed with Brewer. Member Moore added that the consideration of fencing,light towers and permanent seating would probably require review and input from the Planning Board. Schwandt understand that he might need to come before the Board if the plans extend beyond the field and,welcomes the input if future plans warrant it. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 5 May 19,2010 7:40 P.M. TOWN COUNSEL OPINION RE: BEECHWOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT— Member Moore explained that the Planning Board does not have an agenda for changing the zoning etc. of this area,but thought the residents of the area should be alerted that at any time, someone could come along with plans to do something that they are allowed to do by current zoning but which may not be pleasing to or consistent with this otherwise residential area. He thought the area residents could think about the situation in case they would like to move forward with changes. The question becomes, if a change were proposed for this area,would it even be legal? Town Counsel suggested that if past uses for this area no longer seem to make sense in today's world and,a change were proposed, the best approach would be via a proper planning process to identify what if any changes should occur. Such a planning process would also strengthen the legality of changes made. He referenced the planning process and approach that was taken by Concord Square Development in conducting the study of the Village Business District. Member Brewer noted that the draft Master Plan already identifies this area as a zoning anomaly. 7:45 P.M. 380/400 CJC HWY. (STOP & SHOP PLAZA) SITE PLAN REVIEW- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: COHASSET ASSOCIATES. Filed on December 22,2009 Applicant Donald Staszko, Jack O'Leary,Merrill Associates, Attorney Charles Humphreys and,Jeffrey Dirk,Vanasse&Assoc.,Inc. in attendance to represent application. Jack O'Leary: • Site plans have not changed substantially since last meeting • ConComm hearing scheduled for June 3 • Landscape plans done by Tomasi nurseries include more formal planting plan for the front of the building and along the sidewalk. More variety and larger number of plants in the buffer. • BOH approved the plan • Had a favorable hearing with the DRB and have incorporated all DRB comments—major change is that the large tower on right side has been reduced in scale and height. Jeffrey Dirk, Vanasse: • Collected existing traffic count data • No sight distance limitations • Recommended some trimming of plantings to increase sight lines although the sight lines do meet the requirements for the speeds out there • Motor vehicle crashes are not above the state average- indicates no deficiencies in the roadway geometry • No appreciable impact in terms of delays • Traffic signal operates acceptably with and without this project's traffic • Included traffic projections from all projects in the area for accessing impacts—cuing in left hand lane is between 2 and 5 vehicles or, 50'- 125'—the existing left turn pocket is about 200' so there is a buffer to accommodate seasonal increases in volume • Drove trucks through the site including the Cohasset PFD design vehicle, coke truck,garbage truck, and a large delivery truck—all could maneuver into and out of the site as well as through the site and back into loading areas • Traffic study will have to go to MASS DOT • Recommendations: o vegetation trimming o improve pavement markings at driveways and at Sohier St. o Two cross walks at Sohier St. intersection—not common to have a crosswalk that goes through a left turn lane and should be studied and potentially removed and, other crosswalk has better site lines o Retime traffic signal • John Modzelewski reviewed his major comments outlined in his May 19, 2010 memo and,that his consultant was happy with the traffic study and, in many instances,thought the work was conservatively conducted Attorney Hu!Ephreys: addressing the question of the 30'no build zone • Town Counsel Hucksam reviewed his opinion—essentially: o subsurface septic soil absorption system that is located completely below the surface of the ground does not constitute a violation of Section 5.4.10 of the bylaw o the subsurface septic soil absorption system is not a"building"or a"structure" as defined by the bylaw o the subsurface septic soil absorption system must be setback at least 10' from the property line Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 5 May 19,2010 • Member Healey Dippold stated that she would interpret 5.4.10 to include"unused" as well - it is a green strip and 5.4.10 extends beyond the use of parking and requires that the green strip not be used at all if there is an easy engineering alternative. Humphreys disagreed noting that the concept of a green strip is a concept of vegetation which is a surface concept (which cannot be parked upon or used)to provide a visual buffer and,this proposal does all of that without compromising the intent of the bylaw. • Member Brewer: the presence of a subsurface septic soil absorption system actually prevents one of the categories of a green strip,which would be trees or other large plantings from being grown in that area and he does not know what the resistance is to pulling the subsurface septic soil absorption system use out of the buffer or whether it is impossible to pull it out. Humphreys answered that the subsurface septic soil absorption system is only 232 Sq. ft. of the total approx. 28,000 sq. ft.buffer with is less than.08%of the buffer zone which has no material effect on the overall growth. In addition,they propose to go beyond the grass planting requirement by adding plantings that they do not have to add. Humphreys added that it is very difficult to redesign this area and subsurface septic soil absorption system. O'Leary added that they have limited area to put on-site sewage disposal systems - not every square foot of this area is suitable—the systems had to be fit in as best as possible. • Member Healey Dippold(referring to the Water Dept. 05/18/10 letter) asked if the water pipe will be in the 30' buffer also in light of the Cook Estate easement. Applicant's team did not know anything about easement. Member Brewer did not think there was much use difference between a water pipe in the buffer and the subsurface septic soil absorption system in the buffer. No Comments from public MOTION: By Member Brewer to continue this public hearing to June 23,2010 at 7:30 PM SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 4 - 0 MOTION CARRIES 8:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- JUNE 14,2010 SPECIAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLE- ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8.7.1 OF THE COHASSET ZONING BYLAWS- Member Healey Dippold read public hearing advertisement. Woody Chittick,ZBA, Building Inspector Egan and Town Counsel Hucksam in attendance for this public hearing. Woody Chittick introduced the background of this article: • 8.7 deals with non-conformities either in terms of structure or lot. There are several categories of non- conformities—structural, setback, height, coverage, lot size and/or other lot dimensions such as width. If you have a non-conforming structure and/or a non-conforming lot and wish to do some building, at present you have to get a building permit. The ZBA and the Building Inspector have taken the approach that if you have a non-conforming structure and want to alter the structure in a way that does not increase the non-conformity,the Building Inspector has authority. Recently, 90-95%of all building permits in this town are issued by the Building Inspector without any intervention or recourse from the ZBA—which the ZBA thinks is sensible. The vast number of properties in this town are non-conforming by virtue of their lot size. When dealing with this case,the ZBA and the Building Inspector have taken a practical approach—if the non-conformity is only one of lot size—the Building Inspector makes the determination if the proposal requires a special permit. In last 4-5 years,there have been two Supreme Court cases which have said that in the absence of any exclusionary language(our bylaw does not exclude undersized lots)towns cannot pick and choose which area dimensions should or should not be considered by the Zoning Board. In Cohasset, the vast majority of building permit requests would have to go to the ZBA even though the Building Inspector is more than capable of making appropriate determinations. This would be burdensome for citizens who would have to pay application and advertising fees for the ZBA filing, provide 12 sets of documents etc. This would also diminish the role of the Building Inspector and, prove burdensome for the ZBA. They therefore propose several small word changes to the bylaw which have been drafted by Town Counsel: is limited to single or two family residences; addition of"reconstruction"and"reconstructed" (already allowed by 2.1,but clarified); if the proposed enlargement, alteration or change complies in all respects, other than minimum required lot size, the change would be allowed by right as determined by the Building Inspector; and, deletion of "and"that links 8.7.1 and 8.7.2 - these sections are not linked, it is an"either"/"or" scenario. Sam Wakeman, Advisory Committee: concerned that the ZBA and Planning Board did not have a joint meeting to discuss this bylaw amendment before putting it on the Warrant (correction to this misconception—they did meet Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 5 May 19,2010 for discussion at the 04/21/10 Planning Board meeting) and feels this is being rushed and could be put off. Member Brewer added that this should merely be a housekeeping issue for purposes of clarification. Chartis Tebbetts, Advisory Committee: feels this is a case of taking a small piece of the zoning bylaw and looking at it in isolation and that in the future, perhaps the entire Zoning Bylaw should be examined. Peter Brown, 38 Atlantic Ave.: Suggested that attacking the entire Zoning Bylaw could be prohibitively expensive —the Village Business District study was an extensive effort which cost$60,000+. As a resident,he thinks this proposed amendment makes a lot of sense. Member Healey Dippold: this change has the impact of taking away the right of abutters to contest. Building Inspector Egan noted that the protection for adjacent property would still be setback and lot coverage. Member Moore: in the past, a large area of town could not be developed because land would not perc—this has changed with sewering and could have development implications on the Town. Member Samuelson agreed that there is a side effect with this change. Chittick pointed out that this does not have any impact on what kind of structure can be built on a lot—it only changes whether it goes to the ZBA or the Building Inspector for a permit and, if an abutter feels aggrieved,he can appeal the permit to the ZBA. Peter Brown added that the value is putting it to Town Meeting and let the citizens exercise their 2/3 judgment. Building Inspector Egan: added that this is not a change to the bylaw—it is a clarification of what currently exists and eliminates the last shadow of doubt as to what was meant when the bylaw was written in 1987. It does not grant any more rights to the person who wants to build and it doesn't take any rights away from the adjacent property. Member Brewer: This seems reasonable especially when it effects existing homeowners who merely want to make modest or reasonable changes to their homes and are subject to an unnecessarily burdensome time because of unclear verbiage. There maybe other aspects of the zoning bylaws that the Planning Board and Zoning Board might want to look at a little more aggressively in the future as opposed to looking at the whole of the zoning bylaws. Sam Wakeman: for clarification—if this bylaw is not changed, it would mean that the ZBA would be faced with 20-30 special permit applications per month and the ZBA would grant all those special permits if they met all the proper requirements, so, not passing this adds another layer of bureaucracy to the process. Chittick confirmed. MOTION: By Member Samuelson to continue this public hearing to June 9,2010 at 7:30 PM SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES 9:25 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS • 143 ATLANTIC AVE.- SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION, APPL: HEIDI CONDON ON BEHALF OF OWNERS WILLIAM&ELIZABETH ALLARD. Heidi Condon was in attendance at this meeting to represent this application. Existing barn sits on a combination of piers and cement block, sits below the flood plain, is approx. 90% in the wetlands, is in extreme state of disrepair and is nonconforming to the north side setback(4.6'). The first floor of the structure actually does get wet. Applicant is proposing to raze the existing, non-conforming barn and build new guest house. Guest house will be within the same proportions but will be raised out of the flood plain and pulled closer into the property. The guest house will be on 28 concrete piers (existing barn sits on 64 piers/blocks). Existing ramp access (lowest point on the property) to the property will be eliminated so people will no longer be accessing the property via the lowest point. Proposal is less non- conforming in all respects than the existing structure. Existing height is non-conforming—the proposed height is non-conforming as well since the proposed guest house has been raised 5' to get it out of the flood plain. Building Commissioner reiterated that the proposal improves the non-conformity and raises it +2 above the base flood as required by the new building codes. MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to recommend the ZBA approve this special permit application SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES • 44 JOY PLACE—SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION, APPL: HERB KUENDIG ON BEHALF OF LANDOWNDER JAMES CAMPBELL. Herb Kuendig was in attendance at this meeting to represent this application. This is strictly a flood plain issue. Proposing to raze and reconstruct the entire house. Lower level of proposed house will be garage with first floor at elevation 19 which is well above the required level 13. Proposal triples the size of the existing home although they are below the 3500 sq. ft. that triggers a Large Home Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 5 May 19,2010 Review although Kuendig will keep the Large Home Review parameters in mind if there are changes to the proposed home. Lot is non-conforming but setbacks are conforming. MOTION: By Member Samuelson to recommend that the ZBA approve this special permit application SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 4 -0 MOTION CARRIES 9:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE MAY 5,2010 and MAY 12,2010 MEETING MINUTES—Postponed to June 9 meeting—not all members at this meeting we in attendance at the May 5 and/or May 12 meetings and felt they could not vote on the minutes. • LEED FOR NEIGBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT WEBINAR—DISCUSSION -Postponed to June 9 meeting. MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 10:00 P.M. SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2010 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD DATE: JUNE 9,2010