Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (21) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 5 September 1, 2010 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 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: 7:00 P.M. 7:00 PUBLIC COMMENT (10 MINUTUES) - No comments 7:10 P.M. RICHARD HENDERSON& TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS. INFORMAL DISCUSSION RE: PLANS TO CONSTRUCT WIND TURBINE ON TURKEY HILL (45 MINUTES)--In attendance to represent The Trustees of Reservations (TTOR): Steve Sloan,Regional Director for Trustees; James Younger, TTOR; Daniel Mendelsohn,Applied Sciences Association(ASA). Jim Younger explained that TTOR received a Mass. Grant to conduct a feasibility study. They have tried to fast track the project in hopes of obtaining the available tax credits before they expire at end of the year. They have met with the AEC and had a public meeting on August 18. TTOR want to be the owners so they can control and manage the turbine. Dan Mendelsohn,ASA: handed out a project overview. Mendelsohn worked on the feasibility study. Explained that the placement is determined by the setbacks from the property lines. They plan to install a Vestas V-100 turbine which is the same manufacturer as the Hull 2 turbine,but has 100 meter diameter rotors to extract more energy. They need 3 phase power to synchronize with the grid and believe the best interconnect is through Cohasset via buried lines on an easement that exists at the Golden Living Center site rather than via the above ground poles on TTOR property. There are no NHESP designated areas on TTOR property so the site does not present concerns in terms of wildlife. Have conducted noise and flicker studies.Noise was measured in the middle of the night. Sound level increase was 11 dBA at the terminus of Turkey Hill Road but, only an 8 dBA increase at the nearest dwelling(Golden Living Center). Flicker does not impact any dwellings. Vestas monitors their turbines remotely and, TTOR will have a monitoring station. Turbine also has sensors that detect if the energy being generated is not at the level expected for the wind conditions(possibly due to ice build-up) and, shuts down the turbine. TTOR does not plan to fence the area around the turbine. They plan to take advantage of net metering with National Grid so end rate to the Town might be higher than they now pay. Benefit to the Town will most likely be in the form of taxes. Planning Board offered several points of advice: • Do not start every public hearing with a 15-20 minute dissertation on the benefits of wind power—the Board is fully aware of the benefits and does not need to be reminded of them at the start of every hearing. • Make very sure submissions are complete from the beginning • This is a special permit and site plan review—Member Moore cautioned that the Planning Board will look closely at the Site Plan Review aspect. • The Stormwater Management Bylaw is a very restrictive and onerous procedure—recommend the TTOR speak with them very early in the process Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 5 September 1, 2010 • Make sure the coordinates used in all studies actually match the exact location of the proposed turbine. • The Golden Living Center is the sole site(dwelling,residential)impacted by this proposed location—look for mitigation techniques that can be provided for this site. • Visual impact applies to surrounding neighbors such as Hingham residents • Make very sure that the variables input into computer models for noise measures will stand up to scrutiny—don't just input numbers that are favorable to TTOR ZBA RECOMMENDATION - 215 CJC HWY. — APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE- RICHARD HENDERSON ON BEHALF OF CROCKER LANE REALTY TRUST,LLC—Not addressed. Taken off agenda at request of Attorney Henderson. 8:09 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE AUGUST 18,2010 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the August 18,2010 meeting minutes SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES 8:10 P.M. 380/400 CJC HWY. (STOP & SHOP PLAZA) SITE PLAN REVIEW- DELIBERATION APPL: COHASSET ASSOCIATES. Filed on Dec. 22,2009 In attendance to represent this application: Applicant Donald Staszko; Attorney Charles Humphreys. In attendance for the Planning Board: Town Counsel Richard Hucksam; John Modzelewski, Civil Designs, Inc. Town Counsel indicated that the items mentioned in the motion to close the public hearing on August 18, 2010 are OK to enter into the public record. Items that were submitted: 1. Outdoor lighting catalog cuts (spec sheets) 2. 09/01/10 memo from Axiom Architects regarding Cohasset Plaza colors 3. Plan sheets A1,A2,A3—building elevations 4. List of Abbott Development objections to Cohasset Place John Modzelewski noted that the isolumen plan is very small and difficult to read—he needs to be able to confirm the fixtures—Humphreys to address this. Modzelewski outline the items his records show as not complete: Zone&Zone Lines: Modzelewski believes the property does fall in Zone A Water Protection District. He doesn't think this will change the plans much,but thinks it should be shown as such on the plans. He feels that if it is a requirement of the bylaw, it cannot be waived and has concern about collateral consequences in the future. Modzelewski believes the Zoning Enforcement Officer should give the final opinion regarding this. Town Counsel noted that, since the public hearing has closed, the Board should not take any new information. Humphreys does not think it is required to be shown on the plan and, does not agree that this is applicable (they do not meet the definition of "tributary"or"bank")and noted that neither Norfolk Ram (who did the Zone A delineation) nor the Water Dept. (for whom the delineation was done)think the property is in Zone A.Humphreys further noted that this should be vetted by the ZBA during their special permit hearings. Modzelewski cited 14.2.A—Zone A definition point(d) as the basis of his comment—point d takes away all that was given in points a,b and c. Modzelewski further noted that it is on the Site Plan Review checklist and that he is pretty sure it is in the actual bylaws. Town Counsel Hucksam stated that whether a site plan shows compliance with the Zoning Bylaw is one of the fundamentals of Site Plan Review and it is one of the only reasons a site plan can be denied—if a zoning violation is shown. He feels it is a significant issue and that the Board could condition that the applicant must provide information that is satisfactory to the Building Commissioner as to whether the Zone A regulations apply. Modzelewski continues to believe that the Zone A line should be on the plan and that Zoning Enforcement Officer's opinion should be the final determinant. Lighting: Everything has been received and clarification of the tie-in of the catalog cuts and isolumen plan is forthcoming. Modzelewski noted that the rear light seems to have a pencil light reflected upward. Member Brewer thought it was definitely only a downlight that was mounted at 15' above grade and, also suggested that the rear light could be put on a motion sensor rather than a timer. Modzelewski suggested adding a condition that rear light should not have a pencil beam up. Parking spaces: They have the required number of spaces but, near the loading zone,they planned to eliminate a couple of spaces to add more room around the loading zone. Modzelewski not sure if that has been incorporated Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of5 September 1, 2010 onto the latest plan and recommends that it be conditioned that the final plans show the 24'aisle width next to the loading zone and,whether or not the spaces have changed. Green Belt(what the Board wants to do in the 30'buffer where the septic system is proposed): Modzelewski repeated what he has said in the past—if the Board's interpretation is that nothing —above ground or subsurface— is allowed in this 30'buffer, the project is not killed—it would require some redesign. Town Counsel's opinion is that the proposed subsurface use of this area is OK and,his opinion has not waivered or changed. Member Brewer commented that the bylaw says"unused"and the proposal seems to be"use"even though it does not have a structure on it—however,the applicant has made an effort to catalog existing trees and make improvements to the visual screening and,there is no above grade use of the area. Member Moore noted that a strict interpretation would mean the applicant could not be asked to plant in the area either. Member Healey Dippold noted that having the subsurface septic system would actually prevent growth. The bigger issue is whether it contemplates having a commercial function when in fact the zoning is for the protection of a residential neighbor. She would prefer not to go down the slippery slope of allowing 30'zones to be chipped away by subsurface systems. She would rather have them approach the septic system in an alternative way to preserve that land. Humphreys thinks this is elevating this to a"non-disturbance"zone as opposed to a greenbelt which it really is—an area that is maintained as a visual greenbelt—and,their proposed landscaping appropriately provides that. Humphreys suggests that they are not diminishing the value of the greenbelt which was designed to protect a natural border between a commercial district and a residential district—Humphreys contends they are actually improving the natural border between the two properties. Member Moore suggested that the argument could be made that"unused"means exactly that—not used in any way and,what you put subgrade it could restrict what you plant above grade —for example, it could be a problem if you put a tank underground that will only allow planting grass above it. Member Samuelson added that the bylaw says"on which to grow grass,bushes, flowers or trees." Humphreys added that the key words are"on which" whereas they are proposing a septic system"under" and that a proposal that grasses the 30'buffer strip does not violate the bylaw,the bylaw specifically permits it. Discussion about"unused" and"unbuilt upon" continued. Member Ivimey is troubled by this—he believes the septic system is an underground structure and that the Board should therefore be enforcing the 100' setback and that the Board should err on the side of protecting the homes in the residential districts. Ivimey does not understand why they cannot move the septic outside the buffer. Member Brewer does not see the septic leach field as a structure but he does see it as being"used" so he is more inclined to enforce the 30' unused buffer and not try to keep them out of the 100'area. Brewer believes the applicant has some reserve areas and can move the septic out of the 30'buffer but that the applicant chooses not to. Member Healey Dippold agrees but does not think it is a deal breaker—she thinks it can be subject to condition that any subsurface should not be in the 30'buffer. Member Samuelson believes that all the examples of "structure" in the bylaws are visible from the surface and used daily by the public—his interpretation is that you cannot put a structure on this strip that people will be regularly using so he does not have a problem with this small triangle of land being used for the subsurface septic system—it does not meet the definition of "structure"or"use" according to the bylaw. Ivimey believes a tunnel is a structure and therefore cannot be in the 30'buffer and that the 100' setback from a residential structure applies (Ivimey cites 5.4.9 and 5.4.10 (p. 23) -as requiring 130'total setback in this case). Humphreys suggested that this argument would then have to apply to all underground utilities,gas or electric. Town Counsel believes there is some significant to the fact that septic systems have their own setbacks under Title V and under local regulations. Samuelson believes the criteria the Board should follow is if the person who is being impacted can see any difference in the area once the work is done—in this case,no one will be able to. Town Counsel offered that since there was such disagreement in the Board, it was his duty to advise the Board —in his opinion,the language overwhelmingly supports that the bylaw is talking about"surface" that is supposed to be maintained(he believes the language is clear on both the 30'and the 100) and that the septic system is not a"structure"—so many other things were mentioned, it would have been easy to include septic systems in the examples used in the bylaw. In plain language,the term"unused" just does not support an interpretation to mean anything other than the surface. In addition, regarding the 30'buffer,the language does not support the interpretation that this is an area that is completely untouched—it may be disturbed,but in its final form, it is going to be landscaped with either grass or plantings. Member Samuelson also offered the thought that if this was, in general, an issue(between the definition of use and structure)that comes up frequently, there would be a lot of case law,which,Town Counsel indicates there is not. Abbott Devel. Concerns,Applicant response: (See"Objections to Cohasset Place" date stamped 08/31/10 in files) 1. East side of building will be colored architectural block most likely a medium tone warm beige(Axiom memo dated 09/01/10) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 5 September 1, 2010 2. Lighting - discussed earlier in meeting 3. Dumpsters - all will be enclosed and will be behind the 8'-10'retaining wall with natural screening above 4. HVAC - Humphreys said this cannot be fully determined until tenancy is determined but that all units will meet State standards for noise levels etc. Abbott Development would prefer that contactors not be located on the roof. Mr. Staszko indicated that the noise at the property line will not exceed 10 dBA above ambient at the property line and that ambient includes the noise from Rt. 3A. 5. Roof detail—flat rubber roof probably black or silver—some discussion about white, for energy efficiency,but concerns about reflection from a white roof. 6. Cupola lighting—will be lit with a very subtle, dim,backlit type glow as opposed to a strong light—the bulb will not even show. 7. Does any portion of the building exceed 35'height?- only the cupola does—no other portion of the building exceeds 35'. 8. Hours of operation- entire town has an 7 AM to 11:00 PM restriction as well as truck delivery/unloading restrictions 9. Intended use—tenants have not been identified,but would not rule out bakery,restaurant or fast food establishment—this is getting into limitations of types of tenants and questions of "use". Modzelewski noted that the parking and traffic studies were done for retail facilities with no mention of restaurants and, a relatively large restaurant tenant,could have a large impact on traffic that has not been considered. Even if an allowed use, this could create a different,unexpected traffic pattern. Humphreys suggested that restaurant is less dense in terms of internal space used. Member Brewer noted that all the plans state"retail space" so the Board has to assume retail tenants. Member Ivimey noted however,that a restaurant is an allowed use. The Board could assume retail use and condition that if a tenant/use changes to higher volume use,the impact on parking or traffic could change and the applicant would have to return with new calculations to analyze parking,traffic flow,noise etc. and perhaps amend the plans. Town Counsel noted that the fact that the studies were done in relation to certain uses is significant in that the site plan review bylaw, one of the few criteria is that "the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the site and in relation to access streets will be safe and convenient". Member Healey Dippold added that the Board could find that based on the applicant's presentation, they have met that requirement with respect to retail/dry goods but the Board does not find that they have met the requirement showing that the traffic impact would not be greater with respect to higher use, so if they wanted to do a higher use,they would have to return to the Board to amend the plans. Member Ivimey questioned if this meant that this is a basis to reject the site plan since all permitted uses in the area have not been accounted for. Modzelewski added that the applicant should have determined what the most intense use on the site could be,done all studies based on the most intense use allowed and, designed for that. Humphreys thinks the traffic study was a conservative study that showed, by a fairly substantial margin, that there would be no materially adverse increase in the levels of service. He agrees that a condition as suggested by Healy Dippold could be appropriate. 10. 12' - 14'trees instead of 8'— 10'trees for screening: the applicant will stay with their proposed landscape plan 11. Retaining wall fence: this will be a safety fence on top of this retaining wall—cannot put a post and rail fence. They will install a fence that is architecturally pleasing. Modzelewski will come up with a proposed fence detail that can be conditioned. Site Safety: (Member Brewer believes there are things that can be done to improve the site safety along Rt. 3A— rest of the Board agreed): 1. Removal of some trees/bushes (in corridor between Sohier St. and entrance to the plaza) would improve the site distance when pulling out from Sohier St. onto Rt. 3A 2. Signalizing Sohier St. to connect with the Plaza lights so if a car sits at Sohier St. for an identified number of minutes, the traffic lights are tripped. Would have to be coordinated with the State. 3. Sidewalk to connect Sohier St. to the plaza(at Feng Shui corner) to accommodate pedestrian access. Avalon plans to build sidewalk along Sohier St. Applicant is more than willing to do something but right now,there is no sidewalk to connect to. Member Moore mentioned that it could be conditioned that if and when sidewalks are installed on Sohier St.,the applicant will agree to connect the Plaza to those sidewalks. Water Dept.wants loop—water to the site is adequate but the Water Dept.wants to improve the water service to the benefit of the neighboring site. Modzelewski is satisfied that what is on the proposed plan is not detrimental to the water distribution system(while not the best, it is appropriate) and believes the project can go forward without that loop. Modzelewski also noted that looping the line behind the Stop& Shop through wetlands would create Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 5 September 1, 2010 permitting issues. Capt. Trask mentioned that his letter also talks about looping the fire service and mentioned that a line directly in from the Rt. 3A entrance, down the driveway with two hydrants would be more appropriate for the Fire Dept. than the location of the hydrants directed by the previous Fire Chief. Trask further explained that this site's fire main is not unlike the Hingham Lumber location—a fire line was brought in from Rt. 3A that branched into the store and into the warehouse. This past year, Hingham Lumber was ordered by the Water Dept. to put in a new line because the fire service main had developed a bacteria problem from sitting stagnant. He believes the Water Dept. is trying to establish moving water so this problem will not occur. Applicant explained that,unlike Hingham Lumber warehouse, his site has domestic water flow moving through its pipes at all times.Also,all sprinkler lines must be tested within the buildings twice a year. Ivimey commented that the applicant should understand that he assumes the full risk if the Water Dept. informs him that he has a bacteria issue in his piping and has to make changes. Increase in impervious coverage: Modzelewski mentioned that when the Board votes,they are giving implicit approval to increasing impervious coverage from the existing ±53% to approx. 59%, which will require the applicant to go to the ZBA. Member Ivimey asked if the Board can approve an application that has a zoning violation like this—Town Counsel indicated that it could be approved with a condition that they receive a special permit from the ZBA. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to continue deliberations to October 6,2010 at 7:30 P.M. SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES MOTION: By Member Healey to accept the request for to extend the September 7, 2010 decision filing date to (up to and including) November 2,2010. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES MOTION: By Member Brewer to adjourn at 11:00 P.M. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 , 2010 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2010