TOWN OF MARION
PLANNING BOARD
March 16, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Napoli, Chairman
Peter Winters, Vice-Chairman
Julia Deane Crowley
Thomas Magauran
Steve Gonsalves
Jay Ryder, Clerk
Patricia McArdle
BOARD SECRETARY: Debra Paiva
ALSO PRESENT: Albin Johnson
Carol Sanz
Liz Brainerd
Bob Alves
B.J. Barros, Jr.
Lucy Napoli
Jack O’Leary
Ricky Pursley
Fernando Sardinha
George Haight
Leo Scarry
Debbie Gonsalves
John Sweeney
Alex Harris
Leedia Macomber
Chris Collings
Ron Wisner
Christian Farland
Sherman Briggs
Karen Dourdeville
John Rockwell
Annie Rockwell
Steve Grima
Dana Anderson
Commencement – Chairman Napoli called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. and explained meeting procedure.
Continued Public Hearing – Modification to Special Permit/Site Plan Review - 450 Wareham Street – Sardinha Family Trust, c/o Merrill Associates
The applicant was present for this meeting and was represented by Attorney Leo Scarry, engineer Jack O’Leary, and architect George Haight. Mr. O’Leary submitted a revised site plan and also a sketch plan showing a sliding gate proposed for the site. During the presentation the following items were addressed:
· Drive up window – The width of the drive up lane at the front of the building has been reduced to allow the building to be pulled closer to the road. The lane will be double width at the rear of the building to allow a “bypass lane”.
· Parking area/easement to abutter - The parking easement to the abutter has been reduced, allowing the building to be pulled further to the north, widening the parking area to accommodate an 8’ wide landscaped island between some of the parking spaces.
· Gate – There was a concern that people wanting to access the drive up lane might cut through the middle of the parking area rather than following the intended drive on the outer periphery. The revised site plan shows a sliding gate that can be used during normal operation to block the middle access. The gate would need to be opened to allow access for emergency vehicles or delivery trucks.
· Stormwater design - The revised site plan includes the following addition of tree box filters and biodetention areas/rain gardens. These revisions accommodate the reduced size of the drainage basin.
Member Ryder asked if directional signage is proposed for site; Mr. O’Leary described the signage.
Member Crowley asked if the plantings proposed for the biodetention areas will be noninvasive, local plants. She explained that the Board encourages the use of indigenous plants. Mr. O’Leary told her that some of the plants were not local but they have been used successfully. He said no invasive plants are proposed.
Member Gonsalves asked for a description of the tree box filters, which Mr. O’Leary provided. Member Gonsalves voiced concern that the trees would not be able to grow in wet conditions. Mr. O’Leary said a fast-growing wetland tree would be used and would be placed in another site when it outgrew the structure.
Member Crowley asked if biodegradable products are proposed and was told they will be used if they are made available by Dunkin Donuts.
Chris Collings, 13 River Road, asked how the site will be approached by foot. Mr. O’Leary said a sidewalk is proposed along Wareham Street. Mr. Collings asked what the strip of land at the rear of the site is. He was told there is no work proposed at that portion of the site as it’s not part of the project. Mr. Collings asked if a pathway has been discussed for that area and was told yes.
Member Magauran said a walkway is not proposed due to concerns voiced by the abutters. He said he believes the project is safer with pedestrian access to Spring Street and there is no safe alternative on Route 6 or Ryder Lane. Member Magauran said one of the concerns voiced by abutters was that trucks would be parked on Spring Street and the drivers would use the pathway to access the site; he believes that could be resolved with a no parking zone. The second concern has been that customers would throw their trash. Member Magauran said the applicant has indicated they would support the path except for fear of an appeal by abutters. He said putting trash barrels near the Spring Street entrance would probably catch more trash and his main concern is for safety. Mr. Collings said the
pathway should be considered because pedestrians cannot travel safely along Route 6.
Albin Johnson, 147 Spring Street, said neighbors have submitted several petitions over the years voicing opposition to the pathway. He said the applicant’s traffic consultant and the Board’s traffic consultant both came to the conclusion that the path would be a dangerous access for pedestrians and should not be done.
Member McArdle said if the applicant is not presenting a pathway at this time the Board should not waste its time in a debate. She said if it’s not on the plan there’s nothing to discuss.
John Sweeney, 29 Crapo Street, said he liked the revised plan. He asked why two lanes are necessary at one area of the site; Mr. O’Leary explained the purpose of the bypass lane. Mr. Sweeney asked how much of the detention basin had been reduced and was told approximately 30%. He said pedestrians will use the empty land on the site for access whether it’s a pathway or not.
Member Crowley asked how mosquitoes will be dealt with if there’s standing water in the detention basin. Mr. O’Leary said the basin is designed to drain within 48 hours so mosquitoes will not have time to breed. She asked what the brown line at the rear of the site represented and was told it’s a proposed row of evergreens.
Architect George Haight described the proposed building. He said Dunkin Donuts has a palette of colors and would like them to be incorporated into the building. The proposed 48’ x 48’ building will be wood framed with clapboard outside the perimeter and sheeting on the outside walls. The roof will have asphalt shingles and a copper roof cupola. The signage will have indirect lighting at the front and at the drive through.
Member McArdle noted a logo on the side of the building and asked what it consisted of. Mr. Haight said it could be made of different materials but wood is commonly used.
Vice-Chairman Winters asked if Mr. Haight had an interior layout of the building and was told no.
Member Crowley asked how high the cupola was and was told 32’. She asked if it served a purpose and was told it provided ventilation. She asked if a light is planned for the cupola and was told no.
Signage colors were discussed. Chairman Napoli said he hoped the colors agreed to in the 2006 application (radicchio, gold leaf) would be used.
Vice-Chairman Winters asked why an entrance is not proposed on the side of the building facing the parking lot. Mr. Haight said an exit only door could be added.
Member Ryder asked if the same ventilation could be accomplished without the cupola and said he would like to see a rendering without it. He said there are places for cupolas but maybe not on this site.
Steve Grima, 36 Cottage Street, said there is an element to the roof that resembles an Egyptian temple and not in keeping with Marion. Mr. Haight said it’s a traditional hip roof. Mr. Grima said the scale of the roof gives it the appearance of a temple and it would look better with two gable ends and possibly a dormer.
Ron Wisner, Delano Road, said the roof looks enormous and the building will be imposing, not what the town is accustomed to.
Chris Collings said it looks like the applicant has made an effort to make the building not look like a franchise. He said the building is large but the Board should be concerned with the color more than the roof proportions.
Belmiro Barros, 158 Wareham Street, asked if the structure was approved by the Board’s architect in 2006; Mr. Haight said the external elements were worked on at that time. Mr. Barros said he did not like the gate and it would not leave enough room to back out of a parking space. Mr. O’Leary explained that two lanes are provided and they will allow enough room for backing up. Mr. Barros asked if use of the gate will be limited to peak hours; Mr. O’Leary said it will be closed for most of the time unless a truck needs to access the dumpster.
John Rockwell, 1171 Point Road, said the comparison of the roof to a temple is unfair but it was a horrible design. He said the bylaws require the building to be in keeping with Marion architecture and he cannot think of one building in the Route 6 area with that roof design.
Vice-Chairman Winters asked what the hours of operation will be and was told 5:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. He asked when deliveries will be and was told bakery deliveries will be at approximately 4:30 a.m. and a box truck will be used. Vice-Chairman Winters asked if a trash mitigation plan has been submitted and was told it was submitted with the 2006 application. He asked if trash receptacles are indicated on the revised site plan and was told they are proposed by each door, on every pedestrian route and every parking area. He asked if any other uses (Togo’s, Baskin Robbins) are proposed for the site and was told no. He asked how the signs will be lit and was told they will be externally lit. He asked if the walkway to the abutting site will be concrete or
gravel and was told gravel.
Member Ryder asked what colors are proposed for the trim, clapboard, and sign. Mr. Haight said Benjamin Moore historical colors are proposed (HC172, HC174), and the roof will be brown. He agreed to provide a chart showing the colors.
Member McArdle said the Board is reviewing the project due to the settlement of the applicant and the ZBA. She noted that two members of the ZBA were present and asked their opinion of the reduction of the parking easement. Mr. Barros said he had been against the reduction and also the tree box drainage but the project needs to move on so he would go along with it. Mr. Alves said he agreed with Mr. Barros but if the applicant went along with it he would too.
Carol Sanz, 110 Front Street, said she did not think anything should be done to move the project along unless everyone was happy that it would fit in with the town. She asked if the Board’s architect will be reviewing the design and was told yes. She voiced concern for the proposed signage.
Leedia Macomber, 9 Indian Cove Road, asked what the front setback will be and where the parking easement will be. She was told the parking easement will be on the side of the building and the front setback will be 26’. She asked if that setback is standard for businesses in the area and said the town did not need one more building that looks like the one on the corner of Route 6 and Point Road.
Member Crowley said two or three years ago the applicant had offered to establish a cleanup fund to help DPW pay for road cleanup. Mr. O’Leary said he did not remember that but thought the applicant had offered to implement the trash management plan on record. Member Magauran said there had been an indication that something might be done but when this process began again after the settlement it was made clear that the offer was no longer on the table.
Moved by Vice-Chairman Winters and seconded by Member Ryder to continue the public hearing to April 6 at 8:15 p.m. VOTE: 7-0-0
Moved by Vice-Chairman Winters and seconded by Member Ryder at 8:40 p.m. to open the public hearing for the Neighborhood Overlay District. VOTE: 7-0-0
Public Hearing – Neighborhood Overlay District – Amendment to Zoning Map
Public Hearing – Neighborhood Overlay District – Amendment to Section 3.1
The public hearing notices were read into the record.
Vice-Chairman Winters said the map includes all of the properties presented at Town Meeting last year. Some other lots were added for the purpose of the public hearing and the Board will determine whether they will remain in the overlay.
Vice-Chairman Winters said the existing zoning would prevail unless someone chose to take advantage of the overlay. Most of the properties are zoned for General Business with a few designated Residential C and Residential A.
Carol Sanz asked what the purpose was for adding the parcels this year. Vice-Chairman Winters explained that the Board hadn’t decided on them yet but they had to be included in the advertisement prior to making the decision. He said the size of the overlay can be reduced but not increased without legal advertisement.
Member McArdle noted that one lot was skipped over; she was told that was an oversight and if the Board decides to add the lot to the overlay it will be readvertised.
Member McArdle said she did not believe that commercial use should be extended into residential areas.
Karen Dourdeville, Bell Guzzle Lane, asked if the proposal is to make the entire overlay residential and was told no. Vice-Chairman Winters said the overlay district would not change the underlying zoning but would allow, with a Special Permit, a mixed use project with increased density. She asked what would be accomplished by that and was told it would allow the commercial and residential uses to help support each other and it also is a way of increasing affordable housing. Mrs. Dourdeville voiced concern that the overlay would open the town to more development.
Albin Johnson asked how many other overlay districts are proposed. Vice-Chairman Winters said development should be concentrated in areas designed for development and this is one of the areas. Other areas are Point Road/Route 6, Converse Road/Route 6, and the center of town; however, the Board does not have plans for those areas. He explained that the Board wanted to start in this area as it’s the most conducive for an overlay district. The Board had a subcommittee working on a possible overlay in the Village. Mr. Johnson asked why the village overlay couldn’t be done first; Vice-Chairman said most of this area is already zoned for business so it’s an established business area and some of the existing structures could be redeveloped.
Ron Wisner asked if the overlay could result in uncontrolled sprawl. Vice-Chairman Winters said potential for uncontrolled sprawl exists there now because the area is zoned for business. He said requiring a Special Permit would allow the Board to manage the project. Mr. Wisner said he was not sure that higher density would make anything more livable. Vice-Chairman Winters said the density is less than what is allowed in the village. Mr. Wisner asked if the impetus for the overlay is the result of Chapter 40B. Vice-Chairman Winters said it’s a way to make the town less susceptible to a 40B proposal. Mr. Wisner asked if in-law apartments would be a better approach. Vice-Chairman Winters said the overlay is one way to encourage development of affordable housing.
Karen Dourdeville asked how many houses could result in the overlay. Vice-Chairman Winters said a worst case scenario could result in 200 units and the best case would be whatever the Board allowed. He said many of the parcels that could be developed already have buildings on them. Mrs. Dourdeville voiced concern for the development of 200 units. Vice-Chairman Winters said one of the advantages of a mixed use development is the addition of commercial property for every residential unit.
Ron Wisner suggested that the in-law apartment concept be given equal attention to accelerate that aspect of housing in town. Vice-Chairman Winters said this concept is a proactive approach for the time growth comes to Marion and described the Special Permit process the applicants would be required to undergo. Mr. Wisner said if the in-law apartment approach was made a priority there are many existing structures in town that could be converted. This would have no impact on the current zoning. Vice-Chairman said that would apply to single family residences and there are people who do not want multi-family units in their neighborhood. He said the applications for in-law apartments are approved by the Board of Appeals.
Liz Brainard, 23 Rogers Drive, noted the work done to the bylaws (waterfront compound, conservation subdivision, multifamily residence district, open space development district, campus office park) and asked how effective it has been. She recommended that the Board concentrate on old rules and regulations the town does not need. Mrs. Brainard said she wanted to see the town of Marion protected from crowded developments and she did not see any advantage to houses and businesses tightly packed into an area, particularly where a 40B development is proposed.
Roger Blanchette said the properties in the overlay would come under the control of the Planning Board if the owners wanted to do anything to the properties other than what is allowed in the underlying zoning.
Leedia Macomber noted that the Planning Board approved the building on the corner of Point Road and Route 6 and voiced concern that the Village might look like that corner with the buildings close to the street and with apartments upstairs. She said the building is beautiful esthetically but too big for the lot. Mr. Blanchette said the bylaw required the building to be built that way. Mrs. Macomber said before approving the overlay at Town Meeting she would want to be assured that the aesthetics of the design would not be like the corner of Point Road and Route 6. She said the Board should be working on that, not trying to build 200 or 300 units of housing without the proper bylaws in place. Vice-Chairman Winters said the Board is trying to give a developer another tool that would benefit the
town as opposed to using what the developer already has “by right”. Chairman Napoli said the Point Road/Route 6 corner is a product of the bylaws that were in place at that time. Vice-Chairman Winters said the project added six affordable units and four commercial spaces to the town’s tax rolls. Mrs. Macomber said nobody wanted downtown Marion to look like that and she did not think the Board is moving in the right direction.
Albin Johnson said Route 6 is a four lane highway and does not have the characteristics of Front Street and the Village. He said the concept of placing buildings closer to the street to slow traffic is misplaced and does not work.
John Sweeney said he believes the overlay would give the Board better control over future projects.
Carol Sanz asked why no affordable units are in the Point Road/Wareham Street property. Mr. Blanchette said the apartments are shown on the plan but have not yet been constructed; he believes this might be due to financial difficulties the owner is experiencing.
Chris Collings said a lot of people are forgetting that the site of the Point Road/Wareham Street building was previously an empty lot with a large billboard. He stated that the owner had met strong opposition from residents when he wanted to add a sandwich counter to the large retail space which is currently vacant.
Public Hearing – Neighborhood Overlay District – Amendment to Section 4.2
The public hearing notices were read into the record.
Vice-Chairman Winters explained that this amendment creates the multifamily use within the node, sets forth that applicants will be subject to Section 7 (Special Permits) and Section 9 (Site Plan Review) of the by-laws, and establishes a maximum density of eight units per acre. This density has been reduced from 12 units in response to input received at the 2008 Town Meeting and is less than what is allowed in the center of town. Applicants will be allowed, with a Special Permit, to have multifamily housing in conjunction with business use.
Annie Rockwell, 1171 Point Road, said she agreed with Mrs. Brainard and requested that the Board table the proposal for many reasons. She said it has not been well thought out and made the following statements:
· 500 units would be possible in the overlay
· There is no way residents waiting for a sewer connection would get one with this type of precedent.
· Part of the overlay is in a flood zone and that is not a place to put dense housing
· There is no affordable housing or age restricted component included in the proposed language.
· The town has probably exceeded the number of required affordable units.
· Impact on the schools would be devastating.
· In his writings, Randall Arendt recommends that “clumped” development be moved somewhere else in order that everything does not get developed.
· This proposal gives a lot of power to the Planning Board, and if what the town gets is the Dunkin Donuts building then something is going wrong with the architectural review.
Mrs. Rockwell asked if the overlay superseding the underlying zoning would include wetlands and was told no. Vice-Chairman Winters said the underlying zoning will remain and the Wetlands Protection Act would remain in effect in wetland areas.
Vice-Chairman Winters said the Open Space Acquisition Committee and the Sippican Lands Trust is purchasing land and taking them out of developmental sites so this is a way to pay for them from a taxpayer’s standpoint. He explained the cost associated with taking land out of circulation and off the tax rolls, which results in an increased tax burden on everyone else. He said an affordability component would be the only way multifamily housing would be approved. Mrs. Rockwell urged the Board to shelve the proposal as it’s not ready.
Public Hearing – Neighborhood Overlay District – Amendment to Section 5.1
The public hearing notices were read into the record.
Vice-Chairman Winters explained that this would apply to parcels with a minimum area of one acre. The dimensional requirements would be:
Front yard setback – 35’
Minimum frontage - 100’ on an existing roadway
Minimum side and rear setbacks – no setback but 10’ from any existing or proposed road
Maximum building height – 35’
Member Crowley recommended the removal of the word “sole” in the phrase “the Planning Board concludes in its sole judgment.”
Dana Anderson, 568 Point Road, asked how far along in the approval process the proposed amendment is. She asked if the Board will be voting on it tonight and was told no. Vice-Chairman Winters explained if the Board votes to move forward with it a 2/3’s majority vote at Town Meeting will be required for it to pass. She asked if the Board wants it to move forward this year and was told it would have to be readvertised to include the additional lots and then the Board could decide to pare it down if necessary.
Liz Brainerd said a 10’ setback from the road is too small. She was told the front setback will be 35’; a typographical error was found in one section of the legal ad.
Moved by Vice-Chairman Winters and seconded by Member Gonsalves to close the public hearing. VOTE: 7-0-0
Carol Sanz asked when this will be discussed further and was told it will be on the April 6 meeting agenda.
ANR Plan – 550 Mill Street, Tabor Academy/Town of Marion, c/o Thompson Farland Engineering
The applicant was represented by Christian Farland. The property contains approximately 19.16 acres; Tabor Academy is subdividing approximately 1.37 acres along Mill Street for the proposed new police station.
Moved by Vice-Chairman Winters and seconded by Member Ryder to endorse the ANR plan as presented. VOTE: 7-0-0
Old/New Business
Approval of Minutes
Moved by Vice-Chairman Winters and seconded by Member Gonsalves to approve the minutes of the March 2, 2009 meeting as presented. VOTE: 6-0-1 (Chairman Napoli abstained)
Payment of bills
Moved by Vice-Chairman Winters and seconded by Member Gonsalves to approve payment of the bill ($1442.50) from Field Engineering dated February 16, 2009 for the Dunkin Donuts project. VOTE: 7-0-0
Moved by Vice-Chairman Winters and seconded by Member Gonsalves to approve payment of the bill ($1968.50) from Professional Services Corporation dated February 28, 2009 for the Dunkin Donuts project. VOTE: 7-0-0
Moved by Vice-Chairman Winters and seconded by to approve payment of the bill ($376) from the Wanderer for the publication of the zoning bylaws amendment. VOTE: 7-0-0
Vice-Chairman Winters announced that tomorrow night the Board of Selectmen will be discussing the proposal by NSTAR to remove approximately 400 trees along Point Road.
Moved by Member McArdle and seconded by Member Ryder to adjourn at 10:05 p.m. VOTE: 7-0-0
Respectfully submitted,
Jay Ryder, Clerk
| 
