HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (19) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 2
August 4,2010
COHASSET TOWN MINUTES
DATE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 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. PUBLIC COMMENT (10 MINUTUES) - Richard Henderson,representing the Trustees of
Reservations, requested 45 minutes on the September 1 agenda for an informal discussion about the Trustees' plans
to construct a wind turbine on Turkey Hill. Schedule for 7:15—8:00 PM on September 1.
7:15 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATION
• 215 CJC HWY. —APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE - RICHARD HENDERSON ON BEHALF OF
CROCKER LANE REALTY TRUST,LLC - Henderson explained that the zoning bylaw allows a maximum
height of 45' in the Technology Business district. In the case of this variance application, the 45' maximum height
presents a hardship in that, for safety reasons, 45' high lights are no longer installed by companies(45' high light
poles contribute to injuries). Current athletic standards are 70-75' high poles. At 4' from the field sidelines,light
from the proposed lighting on this outdoor soccer field will read 0 candles. The field is 1500' from the nearest
residence,producing no harm to the public,no light spillage and no increase in traffic to the area. Henderson
proposed that"uniqueness"and"hardship" can come from the structure itself and not just from the land,which is
a concept the ZBA is having trouble accepting. Henderson explained that this variance request is a safety factor.
Member Moore suggested that this is a complex topic and requested more information on the site,the lighting, and
the light spillage. Discussion will continue at the September 18th meeting.
Member Moore asked Town Counsel for opinion as to whether structures such as these lights trigger a SPR.
7:25 P.M. 380/400 CJC HWY. (STOP & SHOP PLAZA) SITE PLAN REVIEW- CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: COHASSET ASSOCIATES. Filed on December 22,2009 In attendance to
represent application: Attorney Charles Humphreys, Jack O'Leary,Merrill Associates. In attendance for the
Planning Board: Town Counsel Richard Hucksam; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc.
Do not have revised plans as they just recently resolved things with Norfolk Ram—all changes are subterranean.
O'Leary explained that Norfolk Ram wanted more test pits done which the Staszko team objected to as more test
pits were not needed. O'Leary explained that there will be some changes in the subsurface configuration and more
documentation on the plans,but that there will not be any changes to the buildings etc. and,they are not going
further into the 30' buffer. O'Leary reiterated that the buffer is 29,000 sq. ft. and the subsurface area being used is
a 280 sq. ft. triangle shaped piece of the buffer and that this cannot be cutoff because it includes part of the
infiltration system. This system is under pressure and,to meet code,there must be symmetry to the trenches—
cutting off a corner eliminates the symmetry from two trenches and would result in a 25-50%loss of the overall
system. The area will be replanted with evergreens and the 280 sq. ft. will be grassed. Humphreys noted that the
important factor is the end result. Humphreys believes they are within the spirit of the bylaw and that they cannot
use the surface but that does not include subterranean. Further,Town Counsel had given opinion that use of the
subsurface is allowed. Member Brewer noted that the reason for distances is to separate residential from business
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 2
August 4,2010
and that perhaps the applicant should do an inventory of existing trees and try to keep as many as possible to have
an established screen rather than waiting for new vegetation to grow. O'Leary and Humphreys thought this could
be accommodated but would have to confirm with the landscape architect. Humphreys also suggested that this
could be conditioned. Member Moore recounted the 154/156 King St. filing which set some precedent regarding
trees to buffer the abutting residential neighborhood. Moore stated that it is imperative that the applicant make
peace with abutter Abbott Development and work things out in terms of what is acceptable to them. Humphreys
noted that nothing would be visible to the Cook Estate abutters and that they want to create an aesthetically pleasing
landscape—but, if the Planning Board wants to see if any trees can be saved and if larger trees can be planted,they
can condition that. Moore again mentioned that it would be helpful if there could be a meeting of the minds
regarding landscaping between Mr. Staszko's team and Abbott Development before the next meeting. Regarding
closing the public hearing, Town Counsel advised the Board to be conservative about closing the public hearing—
if the Board thinks there is anything to be resolved,the hearing should be kept open. Members Ivimey and Healey
Dippold prefer to keep the hearing open. Attorney Humphreys will supply Abbott with a full set of plans. Robert
Durant,Abbott Development gave Humphreys and the Planning Board permission to go onto the Cook Estate
property to look at the view towards the proposed building at 380/400 CJC Hwy. Assoc. Member Hannon
suggested that Mr. Staszko's team could produce renderings of how the landscape would appear looking down
from Cook Estates and looking up towards Cook Estates from the proposed building. Member Brewer mentioned
that 2010 Google Earth might be good to use.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to continue the public hearing to August 18, 2010 at 8:00 PM
SECOND: Member Brewer
VOTE: 5 — 0 MOTION CARRIES
8:15 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
• TOWN COUNSEL OPINION RE: RETURN OF DEPOSITS TO PROJECTS(SUCH AS MANOR
WAY) NOT COMPLETED/FORECLOSURES ETC. (Member Ivimey recused) Town Counsel had just
provided opinion late this afternoon and was asked to present the opinion while he was still at the meeting. There is
question as to who,in the case of a foreclosure and/or third party sale,who the deposits should be refunded to.
Counsel also cited MGL—project must be completed before deposits are refunded—this project is not completed.
He is still researching and suggests that, for the moment, deposits should not be refunded
• VOTE TO APPROVE JULY 7,2010 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: By Member Brewer to approve the July 7,2010 minutes with suggested 08/02/10 amendments
SECOND: Member Healey Dippold
VOTE: 4—0-1 MOTION CARRIES (Member Ivimey abstained as he was not at the July 7 meeting)
• SET SEPTEMBER MEETING DATES - September 1 and 22; October 6 and 20
• COMMENTS ON DRAFT HARBOR LETTER - Member Ivimey's comments/edits to be implemented in
the draft letter. Move discussion to September 22 meeting.
8:45 P.M. VIEW AND DISCUSS "LEED FOR NEIGBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT"WEBINAR
(approximate viewing time 1.5 hours)- Members viewed the webinar. Ended late due to repeated power
outages. Discussion to be held at later date.
MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 10:30 P.M.
SECOND: Member Samuelson
VOTE: 3—0 MOTION CARRIES (Members Ivimey and Healey Dippold left meeting earlier)
NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2010 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD
DATE: AUGUST 18, 2010