Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (17) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 4 June 23,2010 COHASSET TOWN MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2010 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— SELECTMEN'S OFFICE 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 Charles A. Samuelson William Hannon,Associate Member Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Administrator Meeting called to order at: 7:05 P.M. 7:05 P.M. 20 & 28 BOW ST.—FORM-A APPLICATION, APPL: ARNOLD &DUTTON, filed on June 7,2010 In attendance to represent application: Attorney Lisa Hewitt on behalf of owners. The Arnolds and Duttons purchased vacant land in front of their homes. They would like to divide land between them. Both lots would be non-buildable, conforming lots with frontage. They do not plan to merge the new lots into their individual existing lots. Their goal is to preserve the views from their homes. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to endorse this Form A application SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 7:10 P.M. TOM GRUBER,PHASE III VILLAGE REVITALIZATION—Gruber is preparing PWED grant to continue village revitalization work. Gruber distributed memo written to the BOS dated 06/18/10 . Plans currently include: 70-80 new parking spaces on town owned parcel behind Teen Center; sidewalk addition on Parkingway behind So. Main St. to encourage redevelopment of the land not currently well used; addition of streetscape items to enhance the look of Parkingway; clean up the work done by the"T" and the unsafe passage created by that work at the Ripley Rd. and Depot Ct. intersection; infrastructure and storm drainage work up Ripley Rd. to the Library and tie in the commercial portion of this area to the Village to give a more unified appearance and to encourage people to visit this Ripley Rd. area. Public Hearing to be held on June 28,2010 and BOS need to vote as to whether to submit the grant. Would like a letter of endorsement to submit as part of the grant submission. Member Healey Dippold,who lives next door to the proposed parking expansion behind the Teen Center, supports the revitalization in general principal,but has concerns about the impact on abutters. Member Ivimey would like to see specifics of how the money will be dispersed among the project areas and thought that the Board could give support going forward to get the grant with the idea that the specifics will be worked out via Town Committee. MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to draft a letter of general support of the revitalization phase III which Chairman Moore can endorse on behalf of the Board and, Member Healey Dippold will draft the letter. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 7:30 P.M. 380/400 CJC HWY. (STOP & SHOP PLAZA) SITE PLAN REVIEW- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: COHASSET ASSOCIATES. Filed on December 22,2009- VOTE TO POSTPONE AND CONTINUE TO JULY 7, 2010 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST MOTION: By Member Ivimey to postpone tonight's public hearing and continue to July 7, 2010 at 7:30 PM as requested by applicant SECOND: Member Healey Dippold Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 4 June 23,2010 VOTE: 5 -0 MOTION CARRIES 7:31 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATIONS • 4 BAYBERRY LANE SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION—APPL: HELEN& KEVIN TARPEY In attendance to represent this application: Helen&Kevin Tarpey. The applicants propose to construct an approx. 500 sq. ft. second story over the existing garage for a bedroom and bathroom. The lot is a pre-existing,non-conforming lot. The house is situated on a corner lot and exceeds the 30' front setback on the Bayberry Lane side of the corner lot but does not meet the 30' front setback on the Clay Spring side of the corner lot which is the side where the garage (and proposed second story) is located. The proposed second story addition extends the non-conformity created by the garage in the vertical direction. The overall height of the building is not increasing—the height of the existing two story portion of the home will be extended over the garage for the proposed second story. The footprint is not being expanded. The applicants indicate that several neighbors will be writing letters to the ZBA in support of this proposal. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this Special Permit application as the proposal is not substantially more detrimental to uses in the area. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES • 53 WINDY HILL,SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION—APPL: CAVANARO CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF LANDOWNERS In attendance to represent this application: Carmen Hudson, Cavanaro Consulting,Inc.; Owner Richard Ford. Lot is a pre-existing,non-conforming lot. The existing home is also non-conforming in that it does not meet the 20' side setback on the north side(is setback 4.1' from the property line). Applicant proposes to construct a deck on the south west side of the existing house (rear of house). The deck will be raised to the first floor elevation but will be<15' in height and will have a patio beneath. Similar to the non-conformity of the house on the north side, the north side of the deck will also be non-conforming in that it will be 7.5' from the north property line(which is better than the 4.1' setback for the side of the house), so,the deck will extend the non-conformity but not extend it any further than already exists. Due to the small, 4.V setback from the property line, Al Moore felt strongly that the feelings of the neighbors should be entered into consideration. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to recommend that the ZBA approve this Special Permit application as the proposal is not substantially more detrimental to uses in the area but feels the neighbors should attend the ZBA meeting to express their opinions for consideration by the ZBA. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 7:45 P.M. ANDREW WILLARD,AED—UPDATE ON WIND TURBINE BYLAW—Andrew Willard had not arrived at meeting, so Board covered Calhoun agenda item and returned to this agenda item. See 8:40 P.M. 7:45 P.M. DAVE CALHOUN—MANOR WAY CIRCLE UPDATE - Member Ivimey recused himself. Calhoun wants to convey Manor Way lots and wants written confirmation from the Board that the lots can be conveyed. Several weeks prior,he had requested a letter stating that building permits could be issued for the lots— this request was forwarded to Building Inspector Egan who requested that Calhoun's attorney provide a summary of the status of all the conditions of approval for the Manor Way subdivision. Calhoun distributed this summary (produced by Attorney Walter Sullivan and dated June 22, 2010)to the Board at this meeting. Calhoun would like to convey several of the lots and and pave to subdivision standards prior to the issuance of the 3rd occupancy permit. Egan noted that he would not issue building permits until the Planning Board and Town Engineer said the conditions of approval required for a release of lots were met. Egan wants a statement of the status from the Town Engineer. Member Moore wants the status of the subdivision reviewed by Town Engineer Modzelewski and wants opinion from Town Counsel as to whether the Board can even write a statement about conveyance of lots—for the July 7 meeting. Calhoun stated that this was too late. Calhoun wants: confirmation that the project remains in good standing; and, a statement that Lots 2-6 can be conveyed—he will pave on Cedarmere property after a certain number of occupancy permits are issued. Planning Board Administrator noted that this seems more like a release of lots and that there is a prescribed procedure for requesting lot releases. Member Brewer would also like Town Counsel and Town Engineer review and opinion before any lots are released. Member Healey Dippold agreed with Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 4 June 23,2010 Moore and Brewer as she would not want to create problems between Cedarmere, Calhoun,prospective buyers and the Town. Brewer and Healey also thought the construction of ways and services were required before any lots could be released. Moore thought it possible that Calhoun could convey lots—the Planning Board could not stop him from doing this—but that the lots may not be buildable. Hucksam,Modzelewski and Egan to be contacted to initiate review, opinions for next meeting. 8:40 P.M. ANDREW WILLARD,AED—UPDATE ON WIND TURBINE BYLAW—A. Willard had not arrived at meeting, so Board covered Calhoun agenda item and returned to this agenda item. In attendance to represent this agenda item: AEC members—Andrew Willard, Conrad Langenhagen,Rod Hobson. AEC emailed new wording for noise and setbacks to Board as basis for discussion at this meeting(date stamped 06/16/10). Have been looking at updated Mass. draft Wind Bylaw to see how the wording has changed in the past 5 years. NOISE: UMASS fatal flaw analysis looks for 3X hub height to nearest dwelling as fatal flaw to reduce risk of being near the 1 Odb measure. State law measures ambient at property line and nearest dwelling but the State Law is still max 1 Odb at nearest lot line. They also want measuring equipment to be placed at nearest dwelling. Noise seems to be an issue at night. Some towns have gone beyond the 10 db at lot line measure and set 8 db as the max. at the nearest dwelling. Samuelson cautioned use of "property line"as some locations—such as the RTF—which may consist of several lots and therefore several property lines. Langenhagen noted that after discussion with the director of wind energy development in Mass.,what is usually seen is that once a turbine is built,the visual impact is not as great as people expected it to be but that the noise is greater than people expected it to be. He added that, just as is being done to other town bylaws in the State, what the AEC is putting forth as language is nothing new— they are merely lifting out the State guidance language and putting it into the Cohasset bylaw to try to limit some of the uncertainties that came up in the past. Standards have tended to get more conservative regarding noise to try to constrain impacts to the owner's property as much as possible. Member Samuelson does not want to see spot zoning,but also doesn't want the bylaw to legislate turbines to the degree that they are not possible in Cohasset. Member Hannon likes to see bylaw that protects the individual. Langenhagen noted that this is exactly what the AEC is doing-AEC approached this with blinders on and is rewriting the bylaw to set the"right" standards in the bylaw, then look at where a turbine could be placed to meet those standards or, see if a location meets the standard, not the reverse. Member Healey Dippold prefers the objective standards for noise so there is not confusion about guidelines to be followed by the applicant and by the Board. Member Ivimey suggested that the process has more credibility if the AEC develops the correct standards first, then test them. Discussion Point#1: Should the bylaw capture time-specific noise or average noise over 24 hrs.? Board feels it should capture time specific measures not a daily average. Consider wording that puts emphasis on nuisance noise at night—time specific noise. Discussion Point#2: Should there be additional protections for residential dwellings?: 8 db at the nearest residence is more restrictive guideline. Board agrees with this to provide more protection for residential structures. Member Ivimey also questioned how long a "potential"residential project—for example Avalon Bay—can hold up someone's development of their property and,thinks there should be some guidance in the bylaw for this. Willard suggested they could add "existing residential structures at the time of filing" as the operative words. Board also suggested adding enforcement to the bylaw via post construction sound study. Member Brewer also thought post construction sound study to be done every 12 or 24 months to make sure maintenance happens. Discussion point#3: Consider cumulative effect of multiple turbines. Discussion during CCI filing included permitting one turbine with a second permit following and consideration that the ambient noise level would change with an existing turbine operating. AEC thought they should avoid encouraging developers to plan for two but build one and then get the background ambient noise up—so,the question is - should ambient noise be based on pre-construction conditions(so db's are not added to the ambient level just because one has been built)? Requiring post-construction noise study would allow comparison of ambient noise pre-construction of one turbine and post- construction so the difference is known so if there is consideration of adding a second turbine on the same property the original ambient is known for setting the base level for the second(or, get ambient measure for the second with the first turbine not running). Brewer thought this was overly restrictive—doesn't want to see ambient noise be arbitrarily low and become a potential deal breaker. SETBACKS: AEC recommends adopting the language for setbacks directly from the most recently modified Mass. model bylaw—distance equal to the height of the turbine from buildings, critical infrastructure, or private or publics ways that are not part of the wind energy facility; 3X height of turbine from nearest existing residential structure: or, 1.5X the height of the turbine from the nearest property line. Brewer noted that new setback Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 4 June 23,2010 requirements might mitigate a lot of noise, flicker issues etc. Willard also asked if the Board wants to add wording that allows the Board discretion regarding conservation land,unbuildable land. If that is added,the key concern becomes adding to the bylaw that the lay down zone becomes a"no build zone" for the life of the turbine. Member Samuelson thinks "critical infrastructure" should be defined. Brewer added that there is still some wordsmithing needed—for example,that there may be some relief if a neighboring parcel is in the same ownership., or if the neighboring land is unbuildable. Ivimey does not agree with Samuelson's suggestion that neighboring owners should all be allowed to grant waivers. Member Ivimey agrees with the concept that putting up a turbine puts restrictions on future uses of the land(eg. laydown zone becomes no build zone). Member Moore mentioned that visual impact is still significant factor and thought it would be a good idea if the Planning Board had some kind of objective measure to apply to quantify visual impact —Member Hannon suggested that painting them properly helps camouflage them. Member Healey Dippold suggested that more surety should be required to ensure proper cleaning,maintenance etc. 9:45 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE JUNE 9,2010 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the June 9,2010 meeting minutes SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES • SET AUGUST MEETING DATES - schedule only 1 meeting in August—August 18. Put Harbor discussion on this agenda • SET DATE FOR VIEWING LEED WEBINAR- August 4 MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 10:00 P.M. SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, July 7, 2010 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD DATE: JULY 7,2010