 |
Planning Board Meeting
October 31, 2005
Minutes
These minutes are not verbatim - they are the secretary's interpretation of what took place at the meeting. - Open Meeting Law - Section III.
Board Members: Nicholas Filla, Larry Rosenblum, Malcolm MacGregor, and Paul McAlduff.
Planning Board Alternate: None
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Form A
Public Hearing (cont.) B426 Modification of Subdivision/off Ship Pond Road
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to January 9, 2006 at 7:15 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing (cont.) B515 - Nestle Down VOSD
A & H Realty Trust/off Stage Point Road
(At the request of the abutters, this hearing will be continued to November 14, 2005 at 7:15 p.m.)
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to November 14, 2005 at 7:15 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3330 Pembroke Rd/SP side setback requirements
Lee Hartmann presented the application for a special permit to waive the side setback requirements in order to construct a 16Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Minutes:
October 17, 2005
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2005 as presented; the vote was (3-0-1), with Larry Rosenblum in abstention as he was not present.
October 24, 2005
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of October 24, 2005 as presented; the vote was (3-0-1), with Larry Rosenblum in abstention as he was not present.
Administrative:
Priscilla Beach Road Valerie Massard presented a Performance Guarantee Agreement in the amount of $10,000 for B340 Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to sign the Performance Guarantee in the amount of $10,000; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3327 Seven Hills & Carver Rds/Variance of Pork Chop lot
Valerie Massard reviewed the request for a variance of frontage reduction requirements on a Major Street in order to subdivide the two lots into three lots. The lots are located at the intersection of Carver and Seven Hills Roads. The petition was continued at the last Planning Board meeting in order to clarify the petitioner's request and to consider a possible division into two lots rather than three. Two alternatives were included in the Boardthree lots utilizing a shared driveway off Carver Road. They had no objections to the plan, but requested additional screening of the new driveway from existing homes and a buffer along Seven Hills Road. Ms. Massard informed the Board that if subdivided into two lots, the applicant could apply for a special permit to construct two duplexes, but if the three lot configuration was approved, there would be three single family dwellings proposed.
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, stated that the preferred option is the original plan, which has a single curb cut and a shared driveway for the three lots. Mr. Shaw informed the Board that the hardship for the property is the location of an adjacent microwave tower, which diminishes the value of the property. The applicant is amenable to a restriction of a single curb cut with single family dwellings on each lot. Mr. Shaw stated that if the variance was granted, he would have to return to the Board with an Approval Not Required plan.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
There are no unique circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography of land and especially affecting such land but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located.
Desirable relief may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Bylaw which is to prevent the overcrowding of land. The Planning Board does not accept the interpretation of the Director of Inspectional Services that the resulting Lots 1 and 2 do not require additional variances for depth and width as described in TABLE 1. 
Preliminary Plan Review - B530
Cherry St/Waterhouse Properties LLC
Valerie Massard presented a preliminary plan for a connector road on the Kingston/Plymouth line. The goal is to create a connection between William C. Gould Jr. Road and Cherry St./Commerce Way. Waterhouse LLC has received a special permit for gravel removal on their property, which has been appealed. The Board will also be reviewing a request for a special permit for gravel removal for Conifer Realty Trust. Ms. Massard reviewed a map detailing the four options for the proposed connector road. The applicant is working with the Town of Kingston and the Independence Mall to create a mutually acceptable site access plan.
William Shaw, Associated Engineering, requested that the Board accept the preliminary plan as complete and accurate. Mr. Shaw stated that the definitive plan would be submitted after all the details have been worked out with all the interested parties. The definitive plan would include a master plan which would detail the phasing and terracing of the project. Mr. Shaw submitted a revised grading plan for proposed subdivision. At the request of Mr. Filla, Mr. Shaw agreed to add curvature to the proposed road.
Larry Rosenblum was concerned that there were too many unanswered questions regarding the location of the road and whether there could be a connection to Commerce Way/Cherry St. in the future. Mr. Rosenblum suggested creating a curving, landscaped boulevard at the Commerce Way/Cherry St. intersection.
Malcolm MacGregor was concerned with the elevations on the property.
Paul McAlduff moved to accept the preliminary plan as a complete and accurate submission with the following comments to be addressed at the definitive stage:
To hook-up to the municipal water system, the applicant must demonstrate that the water system can deliver adequate fire flow protection and static pressure.
The applicant must provide detail on the size and type of the proposed sewer main and how it shall connect to the existing sewer system. The applicant must also demonstrate that the existing sewer system has the capacity to accept additional wastewater flows from the proposed development.
The applicant is encouraged to review the plan with the North Plymouth Steering Committee prior to filing a definitive plan.
The required 200-foot natural buffer from the Highway should be shown on the plan.
The comments of the Town Engineer dated October 25, 2005 (see file) should be addressed, including obtaining any necessary approvals from the Town of Kingston, and from the state with respect to grading in the highway layout (if any).
The definitive plan should incorporate the proposed mitigation as a result of the traffic study under review as prepared by Waterhouse LLC in conjunction with BOA filing 3302 for the future development of the site, and should take into consideration the possible uses on what is shown as The proposed connector road should be adequately demonstrated to be in the best possible location suitable for construction to make the connection at a future date at the time of the definitive plan filing.
The proposed use of proposed Lot 5 and Lot 6 should be clearly stated.
The lot dimensions for setbacks, width and depth should be depicted on the plan to show conformance with the Zoning Bylaw requirements.
Rights as to the existing cart paths should be addressed.
A waiver of dead-end street length of maximum 500 feet under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations Section 311 will be needed for the plan as shown.
The site has an electric transmission line easement 150 feet wide over the proposed lots. It appears that some of the poles may need to be relocated horizontally or vertically due to the proposed grade changes. The power company should be involved in the review process.
The road name of NickThe Planning Board supports the recommendations of the Design Review Board to continue of the intention to screen the adjacent property from the road, to create a bend in the final roadway layout to remove the straight appearance, and to return with further plans including landscaping as development proceeds.
The roadway design should reflect similar new construction for entryways into the commercial shopping centers in Plymouth, including the boulevard entries of Colony Place and the Shops at Five, with respect to landscaping and street design. The new road will be another entryway into the Town of Plymouth, and the design should reflect this accordingly.
Section 408 of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations allows for a maximum vertical cut or fill of 12 feet. The definitive plans should clearly indicate the cuts and fills required and note waivers (if any) needed for the grading of the road. The Zoning Bylaw Section 205-18 D requirements for Grading and Topography shall be met.
The vote was (3-1) with Mr. Rosenblum in opposition.
BOA 3328 - Conifer Realty Trust
Off William Gould Road/SP, EDC for gravel removal
Valerie Massard presented the request for a Special Permit , subject to Environmental Design Conditions for gravel removal in excess of 10 cubic yards to re-grade an area in order to construct a commercial subdivision road and prepare 16 acres for commercial development. The property is adjacent to the Waterhouse LLC property discussed prior to this review.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following reasons:
Inadequate information about the proposed needs for grading and the specific grading plans has been provided to determine whether the specified earth removal is appropriate for the site in question. The proposed activity, earth removal, is allowed by Special Permit in the MC zone. The most critical aspect of this petition involves a future connector road from William C. Gould Jr. Way in the Town of Kingston to Cherry Street in the Town of Plymouth. Gravel excavation at the site in question is necessary for the proposed roadway; however, the location of the roadway is not fully determined. Gravel excavation may be needed for the future development of the site, but the future use of the site is undetermined, and portions of the site may have to be set aside to allow the roadway to be constructed as a
through-connector to Cherry Street.
It cannot be determined, based on the information available, if adequate and appropriate facilities are available and will be in place for the proposed road and possible future use of the site:
a. Although safeguards will be in place for the roadway, if the roadway is approved and it has not been approved, as defined by the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land to provide for the proper operation of the roadway use, there are a number of unresolved issues regarding the road as discussed in the Preliminary Plan vote dated November 2, 2005 and in the staff memorandum dated October 27, 2005.
b. There is inadequate information regarding approvals from MassHighway with respect to earth removal activities in or near the state highway layout.
c. Water, sewer, electric and stormwater facilities may be needed for future development of the site and the roadway, and locations of these utilities have not yet fully been determined. There may be further need to evaluate the layout of the roadway with respect to the power line easement on the abutting property (subject of BOA 3302).
d. It cannot be determined if adequate mitigation for the traffic impacts will be installed to provide adequate access based on the information available. If the road is constructed, uses in the MC zone are allowed by right. Per BOA 3302, a traffic study by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., supports the proposed connector road and concludes that a four-way intersection at Cherry Street and Commerce Way, with signal timing improvements at the Independence Mall access points in the Town of Kingston, are the desired mitigation for the proposed uses on the Waterhouse LLC property. Although the plans depict a temporary cul-de-sac dead end, the petitioner presented conceptual plans for completion of a through-connector to Cherry Street, but the petitioner has not worked out the issues
associated with creating this connection and four-way intersection at Cherry Street.
e. The petitionerf. The future use of the property subject to this petition is unknown at this time other than the proposed roadway. No information with respect to impacts of the possible uses of the subject property is included in the traffic study by Greenman-Pederson.
It cannot be determined at this time if there will be a hazard to pedestrians or vehicles due to the resulting uses of the site once the earth has been removed, for reasons stated in Reason 2, above. There will be no hazard to pedestrians or vehicles due to gravel removal because grading and excavation work will be temporary and limited to the site. The location of the property is in close proximity to major roadways suited for truck traffic and designed under modern traffic design standards, which dictate ingress and egress from the site. The roads are in excellent condition.
It cannot be determined at this time if there will be nuisance or adverse effect upon the neighborhood due to the resulting uses of the site once the earth has been removed, for reasons stated in Reason 2, above.
IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD OF APPEALS CHOOSES TO GRANT THE PETITION, STAFF HAS SUPPLIED THE FOLLOWING Suggested CONDITIONS:
As agreed to by the petitioner, for each subsequent phase to the gravel removal phase (the gravel removal phase being approved herewith) the petitioner must submit phase site plans to the Zoning Board of Appeals for its approval as consistent with the special permit prior to applying for a building permit for each phase identified in the special permit decision. Such phase site plan shall include a site-phasing schedule, which addresses: stormwater management, utility installation, off-site mitigation improvements, emergency access, roadway construction and building construction within each phase. Each such site plan shall include drawings, details, text and specifications for drainage, utilities, roadways, landscaping, building design, colors, construction materials, and walkways.
The Planning Board, Town Engineer, Fire Chief, Department of Public Works, and Design Review Board shall be given an opportunity to review and make written recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the site plans for each phase prior to the final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Site plan approval shall require that the Planning Board, Town Engineer, Fire Chief, Department of Public Works, and Design Review Board have an opportunity to review and comment on whether the site plans adequately address issues as may be specified in the special permit, including but not limited to the following:
1. Public health, safety, and convenience;
2. Aesthetics;
3. Pedestrian circulation within and without the site;
4. Traffic circulation within and outside the sit.
5. Siting and design of structures, drainage, landscaping, utilities.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall review the plans for each subsequent phase at an informal public meeting and shall approve the phase if a majority of the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals in attendance determine that such phase is in substantial compliance with the special permit. The Zoning Board of Appeals may approve some variations in the location and design of buildings, parking areas, or other elements that do not amount to a substantial modification of the project.
The phasing schedule is an essential feature of the special permit, and the petitioner may not modify the phasing schedule without the permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In each site plan review submittal, the petitioner must identify any significant change to the original phasing schedule referred to in the special permit and provide an explanation of such changes.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING PERMIT/EXCAVATION OF MATERIAL AT THE SITE:
The possibility that the grading plans be revised to reflect an undisturbed set-aside within the Zone II delineated area on the northwestern corner of the lot, if needed to implement the proposed roadway, should be discussed with the petitioner, and set as a condition to this special permit, if granted.
Conifer Realty Trust has been asked to consider making a gift $0.06 per cubic yard of material towards road maintenance and repair with respect to truck wear and tear on roadways ($15,360), but no firm response has been provided. Payment to be accepted by the Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Town.
The future use of the property subject to this petition is unknown at this time other than the proposed roadway, and the agreements referred to by the petitioner regarding phasing between the property owners have not been submitted for review. Conifer Realty Trust anticipates phased development of its property according to the petitionerConifer Realty TrustApproval of the Definitive Subdivision Plan should be granted by the Planning Board.
The Petitioner shall obtain a sign-off for the proposed curb cut improvements from the Town of Plymouth Department of Public Works.
A pre-construction meeting will be held with Town Hall staff, including the Building Department, Planning Department and Department of Public Works.
The grading plans will be revised to show how the grading will tie into the existing landscape as referenced on the preliminary plans. The Zoning Bylaw Section 205-18 D requirements for Grading and Topography shall be met, and any variations from these requirements shall be outlined and approved by the Board of Appeals (such as retaining walls, setbacks from property lines, and other specific design guidelines in this Section).
The adjacent property shall be screened from the road, and the road layout will be altered to create a bend in the final roadway layout to remove the straight appearance.
The road name of NickAny necessary approvals from: (1) the Town of Kingston and/or (2) the state with respect to grading in the highway layout (if any), and affects to the road layout as dictated through negotiations with the power company with respect to the easement on the abutting property are provided to the Board of Appeals.
Evidence of recording of this Special Permit at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be presented to the Building Inspector, and the plans shall be recorded with the Special Permit.
A construction-phasing plan acceptable to the Zoning Board of Appeals must be filed.
The petitioner shall post a performance guarantee to assure completion of the earth removal. Funds are to be posted in a form acceptable to the Building Commissioner to cover the cost of establishing vegetative stabilization of the exposed areas.
The proponent is required to post a bond sufficient to ensure that any damage caused to Town roadways will be repaired.
Erosion control measures are to be detailed on a final plan to be submitted to the Building Commissioner. Any exposed banks created by the excavation should be hydro-seeded or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the Building Commissioner and maintained for three years.
The proposed truck route shall be approved by the Board of Appeals. The truck route shall not allow trucks to exit the site through Kingston.
Signage designed to warn motorists that trucks are entering and exiting the site should be posted at appropriate locations on roadways that will be affected.
A plan for dust suppression measures shall be submitted to the Building Commissioner for final approval, and shall include by a minimum of 100 feet of bituminous asphalt material on the access road at the intersection with the public roadway being used for ingress/egress to the site, with 50 feet of coarse aggregate material beyond the asphalt on the access road, as well as watering of the roadway as a dust suppression measure.
The petitionerThe excavation and trucking of material and/or noise generated by the excavation and trucking of material shall be limited to Monday through Friday. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No excavation activities shall be permitted on holidays.
The petitioner shall loam and seed any portions of the site that are not under construction after earth removal activities have ceased for a period of six (6) months.
Proposed side slopes shall be at a grade of 3:1 or 2:1 with erosion control measures in place.
The petitioner shall be responsible for the clearing of any sand that accumulates on the truck route as a result of the excavation of material on a daily basis.
Monthly statements are to be submitted to the Building Commissioner from a Registered Professional Engineer stating that the conditions of the Special Permit are being followed, and providing tallies of earth removal to accurately determine the amount of gravel being removed.
If all of the above noted conditions are not adhered to the Building Commissioner may cause all excavation work to cease until the problems identified are corrected.
The Director of Inspectional Services is authorized to allow minor internal site field changes to the plans which do not amount to a substantial modification of the plans. Such changes may be in the form of substituting or moving particular plant material or number of shrubs or trees, move a building in a manner which does not materially change the project, reconfigure a drainage area or parking space or similar changes where it is impractical to install or construct as originally designed. Internal changes to the site plans, unless amounting to a material change of appearance or function, may be allowed by the Director of Inspectional Services.
The vote was (3-1) with Paul McAlduff in opposition.
BOA 3329 - Al Skomial
Twin Pines Farm - Chapter 40B/Carver Road
Valerie Massard reviewed the BoardAtty Robert Betters, Withington & Betters P.C., stated that he has reviewed the staff report. He informed the Board that funds have been deposited with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the pro forma review. The public hearing process with the ZBA begins November 9, 2005. Atty. Betters informed the Board that the Fire Chief has requested and the applicant has agreed to the installation of sprinkler systems.
Valerie Massard has requested that the ZBA consider bringing its final plan back to the Planning Board for review.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend the following to the Zoning Board of Appeals:
At this time, it is recommended that the project be DENIED because there is not sufficient information available to evaluate the project.
The Planning Board respectfully requests the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed conditions prior to the Board of AppealsThe vote was unanimous (4-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne
Administrative Assistant Approved on: November 14, 2005
| |
