Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (24) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 9 October 20,2010 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20,2010 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 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 Board Members Absent: William Hannon,Associate Member Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Administrator Meeting called to order at: 7:00 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT (10 MINUTUES MAXIMUM)— No public comment 7:10 P.M. INFORMAL DISCUSSION, HAZARD MITIGATION,JAMES FREAS,MAPC (See handout distributed at meeting) Freas has been updating Cohasset's `05 Hazard Mitigation Plan(not the same as Emergency Response Plan) . All towns are required to have a FEMA approved plan to qualify for grants. Hazard Mitigation includes six areas: 1. Prevention of Damages 4. Natural Resource Protection 2. Property Protection 5. Structural Projects 3. Public Education&Awareness 6. Emergency Services Protection Plan Development Steps(Public Input is welcomed at all steps): 1. Map Hazards 5. Develop Mitigation Actions 2. Assess Potential Damages 6. Prioritize Mitigation Actions 3. Existing Mitigation Measures 7. Plan Approval&Adoption 4. Mitigation Needs & Opportunities 8. Implement&Update Plan BOS adopts plan,not Town Meeting. Should be completed by March,2011. Draft to be posted on Town Webpage. Member Healey Dippold mentioned that the Board is often asked to offer recommendations to the ZBA on Special Permit filings in the flood plain and suggested that it would be interesting for the committee to review and offer guidance. Building Inspector Egan commented that very little property in Cohasset is in danger of high velocity damage. Member Moore mentioned that in terms of natural disasters, Sanctuary Pond dam could have severe impact on the Village if it failed. Freas commented that this is the kind of thing the plan could examine. Moore asked Freas that the Planning Board be kept in the loop as this plan proceeds. 7:30 P.M. INFORMAL DISCUSSION, 2 SMITH PLACE, JOHN TEDESCHI In attendance: Owner John Tedeschi; Attorney Richard Henderson; Barbara Thissell, P.E. Plan is for 24 condos—totally residential,no mixed use which seems consistent with neighbors'preference for all residential. 55'X 200' footprint. The VBD Design standards allow a 1.3 FAR for this lot but this building has a FAR of.72 which means they could build almost two buildings this size on this lot and comply with VBD zoning. Building will act as screen to the railroad tracks. None are to be affordable units although the price point will be affordably priced. Will be fully sprinklered and have 2 doors/unit for additional safety. Also plans to have exterior stairs on back of building for egress. Building will have central hallway and elevator. Two units will be handicapped accessible. Exterior will have New England feel—wood shingle style, asphalt architectural style roof. Will go before DRB and Stormwater Management. 1 parking space per unit+ 1 handicapped space for a total of 25 spaces. Building will be<500' from town parking. Building will be all gas,have on demand hot water, independent gas burners, energy star appliances&boilers. Windows will meet energy code. Will do code analysis. Sidewalks will connect to Pleasant St.parking lot to provide connectivity to the Village. Plans to file in 30-60 days. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 9 October 20,2010 Member Brewer commented that: the gabled ends help breakup the big box look of the building; that it is difficult to tell from the site plan how it fits with the adjacent property; two doors/unit may not be needed in a fully sprinklered building; exterior stairs might get slippery overtime. Brewer also added that for this size project, it must follow Mass State Building Code 780 CMR 116—"Registered Architectural and Professional Engineering Services- Construction Control" (See the Code: 116.2.1: "All plans, computations and specifications involving new construction, alterations,repairs, expansions or additions or change in use or occupancy of existing buildings shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a Massachusetts registered architect or Massachusetts registered professional engineer and shall bear his or her signature and seal or by the legally recognized professional performing the work and seal or by the legally recognized professional performing the work, as defined by M.G.L. c. 112, § 81R."). Member Moore advised that the Stormwater Review Agent be brought into the loop early 7:50 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE OCTOBER 6, 2010 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to approve the October 6, 2010 minutes SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4—0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Ivimey had not arrived at meeting) 8:00 P.M. 150 NORTH MAIN STREET,LARGE HOME REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: KENDALL VILLAGE COHASSET BUILDERS,LLC. APPLICANT: PAUL SHEERIN. Filed on: September 30,2010 (Member Ivimey arrived at 8:00 P.M.) Member Healey Dippold read notice of public hearing. In attendance to represent application: Applicant Paul Sheerin, Attorney Walter Sullivan. Abutters/Public signed in at October 20,2010 Public Hearing: • Brenda Douglas, Cohasset Water Dept. • Roger Crafts, 150 No.Main St. • Dave Stover, 533 Beechwood St. • John&Christine Whoriskey, 6 Ripley Rd • Capt. Mark Trask, Cohasset Fire Dept. • Susan Keene, 151 No.Main St. • Chris&Kimberly McGowan, 154 No.Main St. • Patrick Gallagher, 40 Jerusalem Rd. • Geoffrey Filbey, 134 No.Main St. • Ubaldo DiBenedetto, 32 Jerusalem Rd. • Christopher Bayles, 125 No.Main St. The following points were noted during the discussion and presentation by Mr. Sheerin: 1. The application was for the demolition of an existing approx. 3,844 sq.ft. four-family dwelling and the construction of a new 6,040 sq.ft. three-family dwelling of owner occupied condominiums. 2. While the lot is a pre-existing non-conforming lot of 26,116 SF, the proposed structure conforms with all other setback,height(existing: 25; proposed: 34.6', 30.6', 30.0', 29.0'at N,S,E,W, elevations; lot coverage (existing: 10.1%; Proposed: 14.5%) and building coverage(existing: 7.5%;proposed 14.5%)requirements. 3. From the street,the structure will appear to be a 38' X 28' single family home with a farmer's porch. Two town house condominiums will be behind this structure and will not be seen from the street. 4. The number of bedrooms will remain the same (8) or,possibly be reduced to seven. 5. The third floor will be an unfinished attic. 6. The perimeter of the lot will be covered with trees in the setback that will create a wall around and screen the building. The applicant will be more than happy to plant more screening if the abutters request. 7. All units will have 2 car parking under—unit#1 will be 2 cars stacked one behind the other and units 2&3 will have two cars side by side. In addition,the applicant proposes 4 parking spaces at the rear(north side) of the lot and 3 parking spaces on the west side of the lot along the property line abutting 154 No. Main St., for a total of 13 parking spaces. The proposed coverage of the driveway and parking area shall be no more than 10%impervious. 8. The applicant proposes a 2'-3'high retaining wall at the rear of the property. 9. The proposal will reduce the number of units,residents,traffic 10. Expectation is that this will appeal to over 55 population 11. Lot width measure changes because it was measured from a different spot on the lot. 12. Condominiums will be purchased,not rental- price point has not yet been set but maybe around$600,000 Residents from 8 abutting or nearby properties in attendance. Several attendees had procedural questions or questions about multi-family structure "by right"after the demolition of an existing multi-family structure. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 9 October 20,2010 Chris McGowan, 154 No.Main St.: questioned whether the lot size complied with zoning for a multi-family—he is of the impression that 56,000 sq.ft. is required which would mean this proposal does not comply. Building Inspector Egan noted that to convert from a single-family to a multi-family today would require 56,000 sq.ft., however,this building is not a conversion, it existed as a multi-family prior to zoning which makes it a pre-existing non-conforming lot. The ZBA must rule on expanding the footprint which would make it substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformity. McGowan also noted that the current situation is a disaster and he would welcome something new but this proposal is too large, looms over their house, is closer to their house, is not appropriate for the configuration of this lot,the density will create noise issues,the tri-level of the lot will create significant water run-off to their property. Sheerin noted that because of the Stormwater Management Bylaw and the required review by the Stormwater Management Agent, there will not be any water run-off—all will be recharged into the ground. Member Ivimey noted that Stormwater Management is a Town Bylaw,not a zoning bylaw. Member Moore noted that Mr. McGowan's home is on his lot line which makes the proposed structure - which complies with zoning in terms of setback- seem closer to his home . Member Moore also pointed out that the zoning bylaw was amended at the last STM to clarify that if the lot itself is pre-existing non-conforming in terms of area, and the only reason for its non-conformity is that the lot is undersized, a building permit and be issued even if the footprint of the building is changed, as long as all other zoning requirements are met. Building Inspector Egan further clarified that in the State building codes,there are two classes of buildings—one&two family buildings and, everything else. If this applicant was proposing a one or two family building of the same size as this proposal,there would be no need for a special permit from the ZBA. Susan Keene, 151 No. Main St.: concurs with McGowans and commented that no one would object to a proposal for a single family home—but the multi-family rental has caused problems in the past. Attorney Sullivan: Original structure was constructed in 1757. In 2003, the ZBA made decision that this was a pre-existing three-family use with 8 bedrooms—this property,this lot,this structure and this use all pre-existed zoning. They are before the Planning Board to have architectural drawings reviewed and to have the Planning Board make a recommendation to the ZBA relative to the Special Permit filed with the ZBA(to be covered after this agenda item). In the past,the ZBA allowed the three-unit, 8 bedroom structure to be converted to a four-unit, 8 bedroom structure. This decision was appealed and the appeal was denied by the ZBA. No appeal was taken of that decision by the ZBA so it is now set in stone. There was then an appeal to the land court regarding a request to the Building Inspector to issue a cease&desist to the people who were implementing the special permit they had received from the ZBA—this appeal was also dismissed by the court. So,the ZBA has made a final determination that this is a pre-existing,non-conforming,protected structure and use. Geoffrey Filbey, 134 No. Main St.: Asked what controls exist to prevent this from getting rundown in the future? Sheerin noted that not only will he live in the building,there will be a Condo Association. Kimberly McGowan, 154 No. Main St.: read letter from the Whipples, 119 No. Main St. who were not able to attend the public hearing. Their letter was submitted to the Board and entered into the record.McGowan also submitted a letter summarizing the McGowan's position which was submitted and entered into the record. Planning Board comments included: • Member Ivimey was concerned about parking spaces 5 and 6 for Unit#1 being stacked one behind the other • Proposal complies with zoning in all respects except the special permit required • Member Brewer suggested that rather than have a continuous wall of evergreens surround the property that the applicant consider breaking up the line and create a more natural look by utilizing some of the existing trees. • An expectation for a higher level of effort in preparation of the plans • the site plan does not have enough information (about sidewalks, distance of parking spaces from lot lines, retaining wall detail—size, location on the plan)and was lacking detail about mitigation techniques to help integrate this structure into the neighborhood. (Sheerin explained that he did not want to invest more money into engineering until he received special permit approval from the ZBA)but that he would provide more detail. • As this project is clearly a three-family dwelling, it must follow Mass State Building Code 780 CMR 116— "Registered Architectural and Professional Engineering Services-Construction Control" (See the Code: 116.2.1: "All plans, computations and specifications involving new construction, alterations,repairs, expansions or additions or change in use or occupancy of existing buildings shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a Massachusetts registered architect or Massachusetts registered professional engineer and shall Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 9 October 20,2010 bear his or her signature and seal or by the legally recognized professional performing the work and seal or by the legally recognized professional performing the work, as defined by M.G.L. c. 112, § 81R."). • Strong suggestion that the removal of parking spaces 11,12, and 13 (opinion that 10 spaces are more than ample parking for this property) could not only mitigate some traffic and noise,but would also provide a larger buffer between this property and the McGowans at 154 No. Main St. • Suggestion that removal of the porches on the west side of proposed units#2 and#3 would allow the driveway to be moved more easterly and further away from McGowan property at 154 No. Main St. (Mr. Sheerin would have to research this—he is agreeable unless it effects the turning ratio of the driveway). MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to recommend to Building Inspector Egan, that a building permit be issued to Paul Sheerin for the proposed demolition of the existing 4-unit multi-family structure and the reconstruction of a 3-unit condominium residence at 150 North Main Street subject to: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements and regulations of all other Boards and Departments and,the issuance of the building permit be conditioned upon all other regulations being met and required permits being approved and in place, including: the issuance of a special permit by the ZBA; and, Stormwater Management approval particularly with respect to stormwater runoff on 154 No.Main St. as well as all other abutting properties. 2. Review and approval of the proposed retaining wall by the Building Inspector in terms of height and screening features 3. The applicant consider placing more screening not only near 154 No.Main Street but also along parking space#13 and the view from No.Main St. as well 4. The applicant consider removing parking spaces 11, 12 sand 13 to allow for more screening for the neighbors and a more residential look for the neighborhood. 5. The applicant shall adhere to construction work hours of 7 AM to dusk. No construction work should take place on Sundays or legal holidays. 6. The applicant is encouraged to continued dialogue with neighbors throughout the course of this construction project. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit As-Builts to the Building Department and the Planning Board Office SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 9:20 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATION- 150 NORTH MAIN ST. SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION- OWNER: KENDALL VILLAGE COHASSET BUILDERS,LLC. APPL: PAUL SHEERIN -Applicant Paul Sheerin and Attorney Walter Sullivan in attendance to represent application. Member Moore read the ZBA advertisement to clarify the purpose of the ZBA application —"an application for a Special Permit pursuant to 8.7.2 and any further relief as the Board deems appropriate. The applicant,Paul Sheerin, representing property owner Kendall Village Cohasset Builders,LLC, seeks to raze the existing four unit structure and reconstruct a three unit condominium.". Attorney Sullivan: Original structure was constructed in 1757. In 2003, the ZBA made decision that this was a pre-existing three-family use with 8 bedrooms—this property,this lot,this structure and this use all pre-existed zoning. They are before the Planning Board to have architectural drawings reviewed and to have the Planning Board make a recommendation to the ZBA relative to the Special Permit filed with the ZBA(to be covered after this agenda item). In the past,the ZBA allowed the three-unit, 8 bedroom structure to be converted to a four-unit, 8 bedroom structure. This decision was appealed and the appeal was denied by the ZBA. No appeal was taken of that decision by the ZBA so it is now set in stone. There was then an appeal to the land court to regarding a request to the Building Inspector to issue a cease&desist to the people who were implementing the special permit they had received from the ZBA—this appeal was also dismissed by the court. So,the ZBA has made a final determination that this is a pre-existing,non-conforming,protected structure and use. Sullivan believes therefore,that there will be a ZBA finding that indeed this property is eligible for what Mr. Sheerin proposes to do, especially where everything else conforms with setbacks,height,lot coverage etc. Member Ivimey clarified what the Board is and is not debating: 8.7.2 reads that the SPGA(ZBA in this case),may authorize by special permit: Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 9 October 20,2010 -"an extension of non-conforming use of a building," —(Ivimey indicated that this is not the Planning Board discussion because it is already a matter of law that this building can be a multifamily building so the Board is not here to discuss the merits of this being a multi family, condo or whatever as opposed to a single family residence) - "structure or land;" (is not part of tonight's discussion) - "or structural alteration or enlargement of a nonconforming building, (that is Planning Board discussion) provided that the SPGA finds that such extension, alteration or enlargement:" a. "Shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood(this is not the Planning Board discussion because it deals with use) and," b. "Shall not be injurious or dangerous to public health or hazardous because of traffic congestion or other reason." Ivimey summarized that the Board is not here discuss 8.7.2(a) "use" but should be here to discuss 8.7.2(b)—is this proposal more detrimental that other buildings in the area. He believes the analysis should include—is what is going to be built in the future going to be harmonious and non-injurious with the rest of the neighborhood,which he believes - due to the small size of this town-is the entire town which has colossal mansions and more modest homes. Ivimey believes argument can be made that this proposal is similarly sized to the stucco home approx. 0.2 mile down the street on corner of Sohier St. and No. Main St. which houses condominiums. Kimberly McGowan, 154 No. Main St. does not think this is a similar comparison as that house does not have abutters on 3 sides and, has more land. Walter Sullivan—clarified that 8.7.2 (a) states "shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood", and, that the nonconforming use is not really a nonconforming use, it is a residential use as is the rest of the neighborhood. 4 residential units now exist and the applicant is proposing 3 units of the same use. Kimberly McGowan, 154 No. Main St.: her home is 1400 sq.ft. and is an immediate abutter. The existing home is 4,500 sq. ft. and the proposed structure is 1,500 sq.ft larger. She would prefer,even in its state of disrepair, the existing structure that resembles a single family home that encompasses the 4 apartments. She believes the current owners will eventually put this on the open market and someone will purchase it and build a single family residence. McGowan stated that in the 2005 LHR filing by Kendall Village, Building Inspector Egan stated that once a structure is torn down,they only have a right to a single family home. Egan(in attendance) stated that this is true—the only thing that could be built"by right"after a tear down is a single family home—unless they go before ZBA for a special permit to continue the use as a multi-family,which is what applicant is doing. Roger Crafts, 156 No. Main St.: there has been significant problems with noise because of traffic into the site. 55 noise complaints since 2004. Has been injurious to neighborhood. Member Ivimey noted that the property owner is frequently forgotten in discussions like this and that the property owner has rights and,the right to rely on what the zoning states he can do. Member Samuelson leans towards thinking this is more a legal question—the question of continuing an existing non-conforming use of a multi-family dwelling might be more to the point than the opinion of the Planning Board as to whether this is a good or bad proposal. Geoffrey, 134 No. Main St.: when discussing injurious—what is the comparison —what is there now or what is believed to be typical or representative of Cohasset. Ivimey believes the question is,how does this fit in with the character of the town. Filbey thought one could argue that having 3 condos discharging at the end of Ripley Rd. etc., is actually more dangerous than would be typically accepted in Cohasset or,is the comparison - "no more dangerous than the building that is there now? Ivimey and Healey Dippold concurred the comparison is to what is there now. Sullivan added that the statement could not be clearer—"shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existin2 nonconforming use..." Patrick Gallagher,40 Jerusalem Rd.: factor is that by razing the existing structure,the property owner gives up the non-conforming rights and they then have a right to build a single family so, shouldn't the comparison be to a single family? Sullivan noted the application is to raze and rebuild which is entirely different. Member Brewer: thought the LHR points applied here in recommendation to ZBA—site plan in particular doesn't have enough information and detailed mitigation techniques to help integrate this structure into the neighborhood. He expects a higher level of effort. Geoffrey, 134 No.Main St.: why does it say existing building in its neighborhood? Brewer explained that it refers to consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Filbey thought this was an escape clause as the neighborhood is now added as a consideration. Town Counsel explained that this provision is from Ch. 40A, §6. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 9 October 20,2010 The comparison is of the proposal to the existing situation and,the effect is the effect on the neighborhood. You are not comparing it to the neighborhood,you are comparing it to the existing situation and judging what effect it will have on the neighborhood. It is also not true that razing a structure means you have to build a single family—if someone razes a non-conforming structure leaves a vacant lot for a long while,the question can be one of abandonment of the nonconforming status. But if you plan to reconstruct a nonconforming structure and that includes razing an existing structure, the nonconforming status is not being abandoned such that a single family structure is the only thing that can be done by right.Under Ch 40A§6 and§8.7,the law is well established that you can do this to a nonconforming structure under these provisions. MOTION: By Member Samuelson that,since the neighborhood currently contains both single family and multi-family dwellings that are both smaller and much larger than the proposed structure,the Planning Board recommend to the ZBA that this proposal is harmonious with and non-injurious to the neighborhood and therefore recommends that the ZBA grant the Special Permit. SECOND: Member Ivimey Member Healey Dippold: believes that under 2(a),there is argument that this is more beneficial to the neighborhood than what currently exists on the site. Her concern is more with 2(b)—whether this new enlargement of a multi-unit structure is going to be more injurious to the public health in terms of traffic congestion and noise and she would be more comfortable with more information regarding the traffic use as this is a high traffic intersection—to have 13 parking spaces in this area and the potential noise does raise some questions and she would like the ZBA to get more information about traffic and parking. Chris McGowan, 154 No. Main St: it was not always like it is now, current owners allowed the property to go into disrepair and by, in his opinion, a flawed decision by the ZBA to allow this to go to 4 unit structure. Kimberly McGowan, 154 No. Main St: people have almost been hit by cars exiting this property—it is almost like a four way intersection without stop signs. VOTE: 4—1 (Member Healey Dippold opposed) MOTION CARRIES 10:00 P.M. 40 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SITE PLAN REVIEW&VILLAGE BUSINESS DISCTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER/APPLICANT: 40 SOUTH MAIN STREET TRUST u/d/t. filed on October 4,2010. In attendance to represent application: Frank Campbell,President and COO of Pilgrim Bank; Attorney Richard Henderson; Architect Gary Gardner. Member Healey Dippold read notice of public hearing. For the record, Member Ivimey noted that his office is at 34 Elm St. so he is an abutter to an abutter but does not own the building his office is in and does not have a conflict of interest relative to this filing. Henderson explained that this is a single project building that already exists and the traditional things that are looked at—parking, drainage,green zones etc. are irrelevant as the footprint of the building is not changing. Frank Campbell: Pilgrim Bank purchased this site of the former Cohasset Hardware and determined that it would be in the best interest of everyone to completely move the bank operations into this site and rent out the location they now occupy. Their goal is to retain as much of the character of the building as possible and be consistent with the architecture of other buildings in the Village. Biggest change will be the display windows which are not functional for a bank operation—will be replaced with smaller windows. Also removed 1 door on the So. Main St. side of the building. Roof has been raised 5'. Elevator for ADA access has been added on the Elm St. side of the building(only part of building that has a basement) and will need an alcove bump out to accommodate it. HVAC will likely be on the flat portion of the roof,but not sure of the exact location at this time. HVAC will be placed so it cannot be seen from the road. The pump& sidewalk on the triangular corner of So. Main St. and Elm St. were installed by the Town,but are on bank property. Pilgrim will offer the Town an easement so they have the interest in what they have installed. Member Brewer thought smaller windows on the 2nd floor make sense. He added that the amount of glass on the first floor could provide a lot of glare and heat gain. Glass type will be important to the visual appearance of the building(glass that has a shading coefficient could cut down on glare,but can result in a smoky appearance that makes it difficult to see into the building). Campbell noted that this was a topic of discussion at the DRB. DRB wanted as much transparency as possible but also did not want to see a lot of the interior, so they have a balance to strike. Brewer added that an attractive awning could help screen the sun and, Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7 of 9 October 20,2010 would provide shelter for pedestrians. Campbell indicated DRB had the same comment and awnings are under consideration. Gardner added that the glass will be low e, light insulated glass that will meet energy code. John Modzelewski reviewed his comments following his October 19, 2010 review memo(see in Planning Board files). Modzelewski indicated there is not a lotto comment on in this filing but,highlighted his major comments: 1. roof leaders/downspouts discharge to the sidewalks—can cause icing issue in winter which will be a problem now that this Elm St. area will be used as pedestrian access. Modzelewski does not think drainage calculations are required for this project. He suggests that leaders should be directed into Elm St. in such a manner that it does not overflow onto the sidewalk. He also mentioned that the sidewalk curb is flush in the loading zone area—the applicant should provide more information as to what is going to be done in this area. He also does not see a safe way to walk along Elm St. from where the pump is to the side handicapped access. 2. No lighting is shown on the plans and should be provided. 3. zoning requirements such as FAR computations are not provided and should be. 4. Location of dumpsters, if any, should be shown on plan. The dumpster appears to be on the adjacent land that is currently owned by the Bank,but are in two different names. Campbell clarified that these are construction dumpsters and that they will be using the existing dumpster(in the shed by Tedeschi's) which they shared with Tedeschi's . Modzelewski questioned if rights to dumpster use should be outlined? Attorney Henderson and Town Counsel Hucksam were comfortable with a license agreement. 5. West of the site shows a walkway over and a pump on Bank's private land. Henderson indicated that they will offer the Town a permanent easement to access and maintain their property as long as they indemnify the Bank. Campbell submitted responses to DRB comments dated 10/20/10(which see in Planning Board files) and responses to Town Engineer(Modzelewski)comments, dated 10/20/10(which see in Planning Board files). Member Ivimey asked if powerlines can be buried—Henderson indicated they would not be allowed to do this— poles must be on your property to do this. Attorney Henderson: explained that the side porch for handicapped access on Elms St. (in the current loading dock alcove area)will also serve as a secondary means of egress and, is the foyer for the elevator. Henderson explained that this requires a special permit and under Section 18,the Planning Board is the SPGA for a VBD Site Plan Review and Special Permit filing. He noted the criteria for a special permit in Section 12.4 of the zoning bylaws and, added that none of the criteria are relevant to this site and he believes they qualify for a special permit. Member Ivimey felt this actually improves an area that is currently unused,wasted land. Member Healey Dippold wondered if this increase in use of this area—which is already very tight—creates a pedestrian hazard. Gardner explained that they plan to install a fence along this area to direct pedestrians to walk close to the building not on the street. Member Healey Dippold suggested a crosswalk for people crossing from the other side of Elm St. Campbell does not expect a lot of traffic to this Elm St.handicapped/secondary means of egress/elevator entrance as it is meant to be used more for after hour entrance for meetings etc. —the Bank's main business entrance(which will also be fully handicapped accessible) is on So. Main St. Captain Trask noted that the Fire Dept.will be glad to see the Elm St. loading zone area gone. He also suggested putting sidewalk flush with the street so cars can drive off the road to allow emergency vehicles to pass. Gardner indicated it is now flush and,will remain so. Cathy O'Malley, Cohasset Historical Society: the Historical Society would love to encourage people to cross the street to the museums. Capt. Trask: Capt. Silvia had discussion with Mr. Campbell regarding installation of automatic sprinklers which Mr. Campbell committed to. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the special permit for the handicapped access/elevator entrance encroachment into the existing loading zone on the Elm St. side of this building. SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES Henderson: in addressing FAR noted that the FAR currently is 1.98 with respect to the existing hardware store— so,they are already non-compliant because it is 1.3 and can put up to 2.0 if the Board desires. In the case of the Hardware,the numbers don't make any sense because the building is like a large warehouse with one small bathroom, but does not have compliant stairways, it does not have an elevator,no handicapped access or bathrooms—it is basically totally non-compliant. Henderson suggested that if the current building is made compliant with current codes, there will be almost 1300 sq. ft. of space that cannot be used to put in doors, hallways, stairways, elevators and bathrooms. The proposed building has 1200 sq. ft more of floor space, including the porch. If you deduct the 1300 sq.ft. that could not be used in making the building compliant with Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 8 of 9 October 20,2010 codes, it would appear that they go from a FAR of 1.98 to a FAR of 2.19—which puts them over the maximum FAR. They are asking the Board for a special permit to allow the 2.19 FAR knowing that the useable floor space is actually -100 sq.ft.based on the analysis just explained. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the special permit for the 2.19 FAR. SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES MOTION: By Member Ivimey to approve the Site Plan as filed,subject to: 1. Resolution of the minor outstanding items in Modzelewski's review letter 2. Preparation of a drawing showing downspouts as Modzelewski recommended tonight and showing this on the plans to Modzelewski's satisfaction 3. Preparation of a license agreement for the dumpster 4. Offer of an easement to the Town for the walkways and pump installed on the Bank property 5. Inclusion of FAR(as granted by special permit)on the site plan or architectural plans 6. Exterior lighting plan and catalogue cuts for exterior lighting 7. Statement that applicant agrees to install automatic sprinklers 8. HVAC placement such that it will be hidden from view on So.Main St. on the flat portion of the roof and shielded by a means approved by Modzelewski 9. Sample with the specs for glass intended for above the main windows as well as the main windows and subject to the approval of Modzelewski 10. Sample and specs of mechanism for any awning as well as a sample of the fabric and color subject to the approval of the DRB 11. Applicant working with the DRB to finalize their comments 12. Incorporation of DRB comments into this Site Plan Review approval SECOND: Member Healey Dippold VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES 11:00 P.M. QUESTION BY RICHARD HENDERSON RE: TRUSTEES WIND TURBINE FILING(not on agenda) Richard Henderson indicated he had a question regarding this future filing. The Wind Turbine Bylaw prohibits situating a turbine such that the fall zone crosses a residential property line. Right now,the fall zone for the Trustees' proposed turbine would cross a residential property line and violate the bylaw. They therefore would like to change the property line via a Form A—ANR filing. The problem is that the titles are so old, they don't actually work—in the survey,they can only find 88 of the 308 acres. To Form A the land,they have to be able to show both pieces on one plan, cutting out the 6 acre parcel upon which the turbine will be located. The survey is so large,they will not be able to get it done before the turbine filing. They would like to do a site plan with just the 6 acre parcel for the site plan filing with the condition that before the Board actually signs the site plan,the applicant will complete the survey and file the Form A—the own it all(576 acres total),they have legal title,they have the deeds, it is just impossible to find everything on a 300 acre site without a survey. Henderson said they can identify the portion of land upon which the turbine will be placed,but they cannot define all the other land around it without the time consuming survey. Their filing will be delayed if they have to wait to complete the survey and, they would like to get the filing underway. Town Counsel Hucksam was not in favor of this approach,nor is Member Moore—both felt it is too complicated an approach. Moore feels the Form A must be completed before the Turbine application is even accepted because it is a violation of zoning. Town Counsel recommends that, at a minimum,they provide a memorandum that clearly states what this situation is and what the proposal is. Member Ivimey suggested that the only party carrying the risk if they follow Henderson's approach and it all falls apart is the applicant because the Board would just deny it. Henderson is confident enough about the land ownership that he they will move forward at their own risk. Ivimey asked is there is some impediment in the bylaws that requires the piece of land to be absolutely defined as part of the submittal package? Town Counsel believes that the project property being fullydefined is a fundamental part of the submittal and that the parcel Henderson wants to submit until the Form A and survey are complete are not parcels until the Form A is actually filed and endorsed. Modzelewski suggested they Form A stating "remaining land of..." and have surveyor put his stamp on it Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 9 of 9 October 20,2010 indicating"remaining land of X number of acres". They will have a Form A with the Wind Turbine SPR/SP application showing the 380 acre parcel and the 6 acre parcel showing alignment of lot lines on their property. MOTION: By Member Samuelson to adjourn at 11:15 P.M. SECOND: Member Moore VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3,2010 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: STUART IVIMEY (JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD, CLERK - ABSENT) DATE: NOVEMBER 3,2010