 |
Planning Board Meeting
March 27, 2006
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, Loring Tripp, III, Larry Rosenblum, and Paul McAlduff.
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Form A's:
A4192 - Map 89, Lots 10 and 39, Billington St.
Lot line adjustment between lot 10 (3.1 A) and lot 39(2.0 A) to create lots 10-1 (3.1A) and 39-1 (2.0A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (4-0)
A4194 - Map 74, Lot 33-21, Snowberry Lane & Crest St.
Subdivide lot 33-21 (10752 sf) into lots 33-62 (5376 sf) and 33-63 (5376 sf)
Larry Rosenblum moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (4-0)
A4193 - Map 17, Lot 66, Russell & Sever Sts.
Subdivide lot 66 (20738 sf) into lots 66-1 (13379 sf) and 66-2 (7359 sf)
Nicholas Filla requested a site plan review for any structure on lot 66-2.
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Presentation
Affordable Housing Strategy
Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard have been working with Bruce Arons, Community Development to move ahead with the affordable housing strategy.
Valerie Massard informed the Board that the average single family home price in Plymouth is $322,500 and the State has defined an affordable unit as costing $178,250. The maximum home price affordable to a first time homebuyer in Plymouth is $191,162. Plymouthmobile home units and other housing that the state does not count. Under State guidelines, the Town should have 10 percent of its housing units as affordable units in order to have local control over Chapter 40B filings. That would mean 1,254 affordable units are needed today. Plymouth has approved four Chapter 40B projects within the last year, which is of concern as they are exempt from all local zoning restrictions. If the Town were to build approximately 159 affordable units per year, there would be more local control over Chapter 40B filings.
Lee Hartmann stated that the objective is to develop a strategy to provide affordable housing in Plymouth. The Office of Community Development has been designated as lead agency. The focus is on education, smart growth, and Develop Affordable Marketing/Monitoring Program
Limit future LIPs until an official policy is adopted
Create 40B & LIP Review Group for projects in pipeline
The long-term actions are as follows:
Develop Local Initiative Program Policy
Establish filing procedures and fees
Establish project requirements
Complete Housing Plan
Review-update Housing Plan as necessary
Provide plan & focus support to the Affordable Housing Committee
The review process would include having the Community Development Office meet with the developer, provide initial feedback, coordinate with committees and agencies, and submit an MOU regarding the affordable units.
The Housing Authority would be the lead agency for monitoring the units and drafting a lottery and monitoring plan.
Other smart growth strategies would be to convert vacant, under utilized, deteriorated buildings, examine town-owned land, and encourage growth in the Village Centers.
The next steps are to present the plan to boards and committees, finalize and adopt the affordable housing plan, adopt regulations and policies to implement the plan, and make any necessary revisions to the inclusionary housing bylaw.
Paul McAlduff felt that the affordable housing strategy was a great step forward. Mr. McAlduff suggested that unbuildable lots owned by the Town could be considered for affordable housing units.
Loring Tripp welcomed Mr. Arons efforts to coordinate the Affordable Housing Strategy. Mr. Tripp felt that it will be difficult for the community to accept the increase in density in the village centers.
Larry Rosenblum hoped that the State would look at realistic goals for any town that is making an effort to increase their affordable housing.
Bruce Arons addressed the board. Mr. Arons stated that this is an important component of smart growth for the community.
Public Hearing (cont.)
B532 - Duck Plain Road
Nicholas Filla announced that the Duck Plain Road public hearing would be continued, as a full Board was not present.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to April 3, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (3-0) as Loring Tripp had recused himself from the hearing.
Minutes:
Loring Tripp moved to approve the minutes of February 27, 2006 as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of March 6, 2006 as presented; the vote was (3-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention, as he was not present.
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of March 13, 2006 as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of March 20, 2006 as presented; the vote was (3-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention, as he was not present.
Administrative:
B497 - Bog View - model home lot release
Loring Tripp moved to release lots 4-859 and 4-861 for the construction of model homes with the following condition:
No occupancy permit for dwelling purposes is to be issued prior to the satisfactory completion of work on the ground, or prior to the posting of a performance guarantee.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing (cont.)
Smart Growth Zoning
Lee Hartmann updated the Board on the progress of the proposed amendment of the Zoning Bylaw for the Cordage Park Smart Growth Zoning District. The Cecil Group has submitted design standards in draft form. Town Counsel has recommended several changes to the proposed bylaw. Language has been added that would place the following caps on what would be allowed on the site:
Ø Cap on total residential (675 units)
Ø Cap on square footage in single retail use (50,000 sf)
Ø Cap on total retail uses (100,000 sf)
Ø Cap on total commercial uses including existing development (600,000 sf)
The development of this site would revitalize the neighborhood. The neighbors and the North Plymouth Steering Committee would like the developer to save the smokestack, which is a local landmark. If approved and constructed the Town would receive approximately $2.6 million in State funds. Plymouth could be one of the first towns to approve a Chapter 40R development. Mr. Hartmann stated that under Chapter 40R, 20 percent of the units would be affordable, but if the development is done under a special permit, at best only 10 percent would have to be affordable and there would be no funding from the State. Mr. Hartmann recommended support of the proposed zoning bylaw with conditions that the Board reserve the rights to revisit and/or take further action on the final design standards and final traffic
study. In order for the article to proceed to Town Meeting, the language needs to be submitted to the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee.
Nicholas Filla asked if Town Meeting action would be required for any density changes once the bylaw was approved.
Mr. Hartmann replied that it would.
Paul McAlduff inquired whether a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) could be used to increase the density.
Mr. Hartmann replied that Goody Clancy has advised the Town not to allow significant density if you want to use the TDR.
Joseph Jannetty, Cordage Park LLC, thanked the TownAngus Jennings, Concord Square Development, reviewed the key changes to the bylaw, which include the caps on residential, retail and commercial space and the creation of four subdistricts with height limits as follows:
Use Maximum Building Height
Court Street First Sub-District Court Street Second Sub-District Coastal Sub-District Coastal Renovation Sub-District
Dwelling Units, Single-Family Detached. 35 35 35 N/A
Dwelling Units, Two-Family. 35 40 40 N/A
Dwelling Units, Three-Family 35 40 40 N/A
Dwelling Units, Multi-Family. 35 40 60 See § 205-74(G)(2)(d)*
*Coastal Renovation Sub-District. The Coastal Renovation Sub-District shall include all land in the Cordage Park Smart Growth District containing the footprints of Building 15 and Building 16 as of the effective date of this § 205-74 of the Bylaw. Building 15 shall be entitled to increase its height pursuant to expansion or new construction, up to but not to exceed the height of Building 16 as of the effective date of this § 205-74 of the Bylaw. Building 16 shall be renovated within its current building envelope. The allowable unit densities for Buildings 15 and 16 shall equal the number of units that can be constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes within the envelopes of said buildings, provided that no single Dwelling Unit may contain less than 600 square feet.
The Cecil Group (Ken Buckland, David Masenten and Jonathan Harris) gave a PowerPoint presentation of a massing model. The model detailed the various building heights and traveled throughout the site giving a view of the infrastructure, public green, parks, etc.
Larry Rosenblum felt that the model did not ask the right questions. It assumed that the placeholder buildings provided by the landowner were the starting point for discussion, in the absence of a proposed street system, waterfront plan, or anything else. Because of the nature of the 40R process, the right questions need to be asked now.
David Masenten stated that the model was one part of an entire approach, the design standards, when completed will define all aspects of the project.
Nicolas Filla stated that part of the process would include site plan review and that the Board would continue to work on the design standards.
Loring Tripp and Paul McAlduff felt that the process was moving in the right direction.
Enzo Monti, NPSC, stated that the Cordage property is a keystone of the community. The Committee has met with the developers several times and they have been extremely cooperative. The Committee agreed that they would like the industrial roots of Cordage to be maintained in the new development, including retention of the smokestack. The Committee still has concerns with improvements necessary on Hedge Road, Boundary Lane and Route 3A, but they support the proposal.
Kevin Joyce, asked for a time line of the permitting process if the article is passed, if the commuter rail service would be expanded and if there would be moorings and slips available for the public.
Mr. Janetty replied that there would be a 12-18 month process for State and Federal permits and approximately two years before construction could begin. Currently there are 54 slips available, and they would like to add more, but that requires permitting the dredging of the harbor.
Mr. Filla stated that the Town would be working with the MBTA to increase service or possibly create a shuttle between the Kingston and Plymouth rail stations.
Mr. Joyce suggested that this project would be a great opportunity for the developer to assist the Town with providing a senior center.
Mr. McAlduff replied that there is an article before Town Meeting that would create a temporary senior center at Cordage Park.
Mr. Janetty stated that the original lease for a senior center would be five years with the option to extend the lease if the Town so desires.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend support of the amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to Town Meeting with further review of the design standards and traffic information. The amendment is as follows:
§ 205-74.Cordage Park Smart Growth District (CPSGD).
A. Purposes. The purposes of the Cordage Park Smart Growth District are:
(1) To provide an opportunity for residential and mixed-use development within a distinctive, attractive and livable environment that supports the commercial revitalization of Cordage Park and the North Plymouth Village Service Area.
(2) To promote continuing development and redevelopment in Cordage Park that is pedestrian friendly and consistent with Plymouth history and architecture.
(3) To ensure high quality site planning, architecture and landscape design that enhances the distinct visual character and identity of North Plymouth and provides an environment with safety, convenience and amenity.
(4) To provide for a diversified housing stock at a variety of costs within walking distance of the North Plymouth Village Service Area and the Plymouth commuter rail station, including affordable housing, and in housing types that meet the needs of the Town(5) To generate positive tax revenue, and to benefit from the financial incentives provided by M.G.L. c.40R, while providing the opportunity for new business growth and additional local jobs.
B. Scope and authority. The Cordage Park Smart Growth District is established pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c.40R and 760 CMR 59.00, and shall be deemed to overlay the parcels as shown on the Zoning Map of the Town of Plymouth, as amended. The applicant shall have the option of applying for Site Plan Approval pursuant to the zoning controls set forth in this § 205-74, or complying with all applicable zoning controls set forth in the Zoning Bylaw of the Town of Plymouth for the underlying LI/WF District. Development Projects proceeding under this § 205-74 shall be governed solely by the provisions of this § 205-74 and shall be deemed exempt from the standards and/or procedures of the Underlying Zoning.
C. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
Affordable Housing Restriction Affordable Rental Unit AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP UNIT ANNUAL UPDATE APPLICANT APPROVING AUTHORITY As-of-right development ASSISTED LIVING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMMON OWNERSHIP Design Standards DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DWELLING UNIT (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED (2) TWO-FAMILY (3) THREE-FAMILY - A residential building containing three dwelling units, designed for occupancy by not more than three families.
(4) MULTI-FAMILY Eligible household FAMILY household Income, median MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SITE PLAN APPROVAL SITE Plan Review Smart Growth District SUB-DISTRICT Underlying Zoning UNDULY RESTRICT UNRESTRICTED UNIT USE, ACCESSORY USE, PRINCIPAL USE, SECONDARY VILLAGE SERVICE AREA D. Establishment and delineation of Cordage Park Smart Growth District. The boundaries of this district are delineated on the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Plymouth on file in the office of the Town Clerk.
E. Allowed uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the Cordage Park Smart Growth District As-of-right upon Site Plan Approval pursuant to the provisions of this § 205-74:
(1) Dwelling Units, Single-Family Detached.
(2) Dwelling Units, Two-Family.
(3) Dwelling Units, Three-Family.
(4) Dwelling Units, Multi-Family.
(5) Assisted Living Housing Development Projects, provided that not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the housing units in any such Assisted Living Housing Development Project shall be Affordable Units.
(6) Mixed-Use Development subject to the requirements of this § 205-74(H) and applicable Design Standards.
F. Prohibited uses or activities.
(1) Any use which emits strong odors, or dust particles, or smoke, or poses danger, such as manufacture of acids, gases, fertilizers, and glue, petroleum refining, reduction of animal matter, and manufacture of cement, gypsum, or explosives.
(2) Any other use dangerous to persons within or outside the district by reason of emission of odor, fumes, gases, particulate matter, smoke, noise, vibration, glare, radiation, electrical interference, threat of fire or explosion, or any other reason.
(3) Any use not listed in § 205-74(E) is expressly prohibited.
G. Dimensional and other requirements.
(1) Table of residential density allowances. The following residential densities shall be allowed on all lots and within all buildings within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District pursuant to the requirements of this § 205-74 and applicable Design Standards:
Use Allowed Res. Density (du/ac.)
Dwelling Units, Single-Family Detached. 8
Dwelling Units, Two-Family. 12
Dwelling Units, Three-Family 12
Dwelling Units, Multi-Family. 20
Assisted Living Housing 20
Mixed-Use Development Project. 20
(2) Building height and sub-districts. The height of new and renovated structures within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District shall be governed by this § 205-74(G) of the Bylaw in addition to specific requirements for building form in applicable Design Standards adopted pursuant to § 205-74(J) of the Bylaw. Accessory or appurtenant improvements necessary to the operation of a structure (for example, elevator or stairway enclosures and visual screening as may be appropriate) may exceed the maximum height limit defined herein by not more than fifteen (15) feet. To ensure an overall site design that complements the existing architectural scale and character within the North Plymouth Village Service Area, the maximum height for allowable structures located within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District
shall vary within four distinct sub-districts:
(a) Court Street First Sub-District. The Court Street First Sub-District shall include all land in the Cordage Park Smart Growth District located within 175 linear feet easterly of the Court Street right-of-way. Within the Court Street First Sub-District the maximum allowable height for all structures shall be thirty-five (35) feet.
(b) Court Street Second Sub-District. The Court Street Second Sub-District shall include all land in the Cordage Park Smart Growth District located to the west of the MBTA rail right-of-way and lot located within the Court Street First Sub-District. Within the Court Street Second Sub-District the maximum allowable height for all structures shall be three stories or forty (40) feet.
(c) Coastal Sub-District. The Coastal Sub-District shall include all land in the Cordage Park Smart Growth District located to the east of the MBTA rail right-of-way but excluding Building 15 and Building 16 as of the effective date of this § 205-74 of the Bylaw. Within the Coastal Sub-District the maximum allowable height for all structures shall be sixty (60) feet provided, however that for any structure erected prior to the effective date of this Zoning Bylaw, the maximum allowable height shall be the height of such structure as of the effective date of this § 205-74 of the Bylaw.
(d) Coastal Renovation Sub-District. The Coastal Renovation Sub-District shall include all land in the Cordage Park Smart Growth District containing the footprints of Building 15 and Building 16 as of the effective date of this § 205-74 of the Bylaw. Building 15 shall be entitled to increase its height pursuant to expansion or new construction, up to but not to exceed the height of Building 16 as of the effective date of this § 205-74 of the Bylaw. Building 16 shall be renovated within its current building envelope. The allowable unit densities for Buildings 15 and 16 shall equal the number of units that can be constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes within the envelopes of said buildings, provided that no single Dwelling Unit may contain less than 600 square feet.
(3) Table of maximum allowable building height.
Use Maximum Building Height
Court Street First Sub-District Court Street Second Sub-District Coastal Sub-District Coastal Renovation Sub-District
Dwelling Units, Single-Family Detached. 35 35 35 N/A
Dwelling Units, Two-Family. 35 40 40 N/A
Dwelling Units, Three-Family 35 40 40 N/A
Dwelling Units, Multi-Family. 35 40 60 See § 205-74(G)(2)(d)
Assisted Living Housing 35 40 60 See § 205-74(G)(2)(d)
Mixed-Use Development Project. 35 40 60 See § 205-74(G)(2)(d)
(4) Non-Frontage Development. In the Cordage Park Smart Growth District, a lot lacking frontage may be developed and used consistent with the requirements of this § 205-74 without regard to the lack of frontage, provided that the Non-Frontage Development has permanent access to a private or public way through easements recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds and appropriate provisions are made for parking, drainage and utilities. Such Non-Frontage Development may be subdivided and sold or transferred provided that each lot so subdivided retains or is granted such cross access, drainage and utility easements to serve such Non-Frontage Development. Should such transfer occur after an approval hereunder, in addition to the easements referenced above, the transferee shall demonstrate to the Planning
Board that the Non-Frontage Development will remain in compliance with any conditions of Site Plan Approval.
(5) Setbacks. New structures within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from property lines and the Court Street right-of-way. However, this requirement shall not apply to the MBTA commuter rail right-of-way and associated access easements. Minimum lot line setbacks and setbacks between buildings shall be zero feet for buildings existing as of the effective date of this § 205-74 of the Bylaw.
(6) Number of buildings on a lot. In the Cordage Park Smart Growth District, more than one principal structure may be erected on a lot following a determination by the Planning Board that the entire lot and all structures are planned and designed as a unified complex and appropriate provisions are made for parking, access, drainage and utilities.
(7) Additional Dimensional Standards and Requirements. Applications for Site Plan Approval will also be governed by the Design Standards for the Cordage Park Smart Growth District, adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Plymouth pursuant to § 205-74(J) of this Bylaw and approved by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to M.G.L. c.40R § 10 and 760 CMR 59.04(1)(f).
(8) Maximum residential development. The total number of Dwelling Units within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District shall not exceed six hundred and seventy-five (675).
(9) Total allowable non-residential uses. No single retail use in excess of 50,000 gross square feet shall be permitted in a Mixed-Use Development Project. Total allowable retail development permitted pursuant to this § 205-74 shall not exceed 100,000 gross square feet. Total non-residential uses within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District, including existing and new retail, restaurant, office, industrial and institutional uses, shall not exceed a total of 600,000 gross square feet. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or affect the right of existing structures and uses to continue to exist and operate.
(10) Contiguous lots. In the Cordage Park Smart Growth District, where two or more lots are contiguous or are separated by a right-of-way, such lots may be considered as one lot for the purpose of calculating maximum lot coverage; parking requirements; minimum useable open space; and dwelling units per acre.
(11) Age-restricted housing units. An applicant may propose a residential or Mixed-Use Development Project in which all dwelling units are designed for or accessible to the elderly or the handicapped under all applicable laws and regulations, provided that not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the housing units in any such Development Project shall be Affordable Units. All such Development Projects shall be governed by the requirements of this § 205-74 of the Bylaw and applicable Design Standards.
H. Mixed-use development. Development Projects may include a portion of the total gross floor area to be used for secondary non-residential uses including medical, professional or business office, retail, laboratories and research facilities; boat sales, service, rentals, ramps and docks and commercial sightseeing or ferrying; commercial fishing and seafood wholesale or retail outlets and related uses; restaurants and outdoor eating facilities; recreational, social, or cultural facilities, such as a theatre, playhouse, band shell, outdoor pavilion, nightclub, or community center; hotel, motel, or other tourist related facility; specialty shopping facilities such as art galleries, gift shops, antique shops, import shops, and leather and natural goods stores; or similar compatible uses which
complement and strengthen the function of the waterfront area. These uses may also be permitted as a single-use or with other such uses within Building 14 and Building 36 provided that the development occurs within said structures as they existed on the date of adoption of this § 205-74 of the Bylaw, but allowing for alterations ancillary to or required for said non-residential use such as driveways, parking lots, loading docks, patios for outdoor seating, roof deck, kitchen and associated ventilation.
I. Off-street parking.
(1) Off-street parking shall be provided in order to meet or exceed the following minimum requirements:
Use Minimum Required Parking
Retail 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet
Office 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet
Restaurant 1 space for each 3 seats
Residential unit (1 bedroom) 1.3 spaces
Residential unit (2 bedrooms) 2 spaces
Residential unit (3 bedrooms) 2.6 spaces
(2) The Planning Board may grant a Site Plan Approval making such modifications in the standards or prescribe safeguards and conditions as it shall warrant appropriate, provided that it finds that it is impractical to meet the standards and that such modifications are appropriate by reason of the proposed use and will not result in or worsen parking or traffic problems in the district. The Board may impose conditions of use or occupancy appropriate to such modifications.
(3) Shared use of required parking. Shared use may be made of required parking spaces by intermittent use establishments such as churches, assembly halls, or theaters whose peak parking demand is only at night or on Sundays and by other uses whose peak demand is only during the day. A formal agreement shall be made in writing by the owners of the uses involved concerning the number of spaces involved, substantiation of the fact that such shared use is not overlapping or in conflict, and the duration of the agreement. Required spaces shall be within 600 feet of churches and public assembly halls and 400 feet of other uses.
(4) Cooperative establishment and operation of parking areas. Required spaces for any number of uses may be provided in a combined lot or lots, provided that the number of spaces in the combined facility shall not be less than the sum of those required of the individual uses, with allowances made, upon formal designation, for night use or for separate and distinct working shifts, and provided also that such lot or lots shall be within 400 feet of the principal buildings served.
J. Design standards. To ensure that new development shall be of high quality, and shall be compatible with the character of building types, streetscapes, and other community features traditionally found in Cordage Park and the North Plymouth Village Service Area, the Planning Board shall adopt Design Standards relative to the issuance of Site Plan Approvals for Development Projects within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District and shall file a copy with the Town Clerk. In addition to the standards set forth in this Bylaw, the physical character of Development Projects within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District shall comply with such Design Standards.
K. Open spaces and recreational areas.
(1) Design and location. The overall site design shall include a common open space and facilities system as required by the Design Standards with the intent to accomplish the following objectives:
(a) The primary access drive to the Cordage Park site shall be designed as a boulevard with sidewalks, street trees and lighting, and shall create a view corridor to Plymouth Harbor. The access drive shall create a prominent pedestrian and bicycle corridor connected to the Plymouth Seaside Rail Trail, and oriented in an east-west direction, extending from the Court Street corridor (Route 3A) to the waterfront.
(b) Proposals for development of the Cordage Park site shall seek to restore and maintain public access to the Plymouth Harbor waterfront. Public amenities accompanying Development Projects located to the east of the MBTA rail right-of-way should include parks, benches, trees and landscaping, and a gazebo or other public gathering space.
(2) Ownership and maintenance. The plans and documentation submitted to the Planning Board shall include a description of proposed ownership and maintenance of all common open space or facilities.
(3) Plans. The plans and any necessary supporting documents submitted with an application for Site Plan Approval within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District shall show the general location, size, character, and general area within which common open space or facilities will be located.
L. Affordable housing.
(1) Number of affordable units. Twenty percent (20%) of all dwelling units constructed in a Development Project shall be Affordable Units. Twenty-five percent (25%) of all rental dwelling units in a Development Project shall be Affordable Units. Provided however, for Development Projects in which all of the dwelling units are limited to occupancy by elderly persons and/or by persons with disabilities, twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units shall be Affordable Units, whether the dwelling units are rental or ownership units.
(2) Fractional Units. When the application of the percentages specified above results in a number that includes a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number if the fraction is 0.5 or more. If the result includes a fraction below 0.5, the fraction shall be rounded down to the next whole number.
(3) Affordable Units shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) The monthly rent payment for an Affordable Rental Unit, including utilities and parking, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income permissible for an Eligible Household, assuming a Family size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one, except in the event of an Eligible Household with a Section 8 voucher in which case program rent limits shall apply.
(b) For an Affordable Homeownership Unit the monthly housing payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income permissible for an Eligible Household, assuming a Family size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one.
(c) Affordable Units required to be offered for rent or sale shall be rented or sold to and occupied only by Eligible Households.
(4) Design and construction.
(a) Design. Affordable Units must be dispersed throughout a Development Project and be comparable in initial construction quality and exterior design to the Unrestricted Units. However, nothing in this section is intended to limit a homebuyer(b) Timing. All Affordable Units must be constructed and occupied not later than concurrently with construction and occupancy of Unrestricted Units. In Development Projects that are constructed in phases, Affordable Units must be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the Development Project.
(5) Unit mix.
(a) The number of bedrooms per unit in the Affordable Units shall be in the same proportion as the number of bedrooms per unit in the Unrestricted Units.
(b) If only one Affordable Unit is required and the other units in the Development Project have various numbers of bedrooms, the Applicant may select the number of bedrooms for that unit. If Affordable Units cannot mathematically be exactly proportioned in accordance with the Unrestricted Units, the unit mix shall be determined by the Planning Board.
(6) Affordable housing restriction. Each Affordable Unit shall be subject to an Affordable Housing Restriction, which is recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds or Land Court Registry District of Plymouth County. The Affordable Housing Restriction shall provide for the implementation of the requirements of this § 205-74(L) of the Zoning Bylaw. All Affordable Housing Restrictions must include, at minimum, the following:
(a) Description of the Development Project, including whether the Affordable Unit will be rented or owner-occupied.
(b) A description of the Affordable Unit by address and number of bedrooms.
(c) The term of the Affordable Housing Restriction which shall be in perpetuity or for the longest period allowed by law if other than in perpetuity.
(d) The name and address of an administering agency with a designation of its power to monitor and enforce the Affordable Housing Restriction.
(e) Reference to a housing marketing and resident selection plan, to which the Affordable Unit is subject, and which includes an affirmative fair housing marketing program, including public notice and a fair resident selection process. The housing marketing and selection plan may provide for preferences in resident selection to the extent consistent with applicable law. The plan shall designate the household size appropriate for a unit with respect to bedroom size and provide that preference for such unit shall be given to a household of the appropriate size.
(f) A requirement that buyers or tenants will be selected at the initial sale or initial rental and upon all subsequent sales and rentals from a list of Eligible Households compiled in accordance with the housing marketing and selection plan.
(g) Reference to the formula pursuant to which rent of a rental unit or the maximum resale price of a homeownership unit will be set.
(h) A requirement that only an Eligible Household may reside in an Affordable Unit and that notice of any lease or sublease of any Affordable Unit shall be given to the administering agency.
(i) Provision for effective monitoring and enforcement of the terms and provisions of the Affordable Housing Restriction by the administering agency.
(j) Provision that the restriction on an Affordable Homeownership Unit shall run in favor of the administering agency and the Town of Plymouth, in a form approved by municipal counsel, and shall limit initial sale and re-sale to and occupancy by an Eligible Household.
(k) Provision that the owner(s) or manager(s) of Affordable Rental Unit(s) shall file an annual report to the administering agency, in a form specified by that agency certifying compliance with the provisions of this Bylaw and containing such other information as may be reasonably requested in order to ensure affordability.
(l) A requirement that residents in Affordable Units provide such information as the administering agency may reasonably request in order to ensure affordability.
(m) Designation of the priority of the Affordable Housing Restriction over other mortgages and restrictions.
(7) Administration. An administering agency for Affordable Units, which may be the Plymouth Housing Authority, regional non-profit housing agency, or other qualified housing entity shall be designated by the Plymouth Board of Selectmen and shall ensure the following:
(a) Prices of Affordable Homeownership Units are properly computed; rental amounts of Affordable Rental Units are properly computed.
(b) Income eligibility of households applying for Affordable Units is properly and reliably determined.
(c) The housing marketing and resident selection plan conforms to all requirements and is properly administered.
(d) Sales and rentals are made to Eligible Households chosen in accordance with the housing marketing and resident selection plan with appropriate unit size for each household being properly determined and proper preference being given.
(e) Affordable Housing Restrictions meeting the requirements of this section are recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds or Land Court Registry District of Plymouth County.
The housing marketing and selection plan may make provision for payment by the owner of reasonable costs to the administering agency to develop, advertise, and maintain the list of Eligible Households and to monitor and enforce compliance with affordability requirements. Such payment shall not exceed one-half percent (1/2%) of the amount of rents of Affordable Rental Units (payable annually) or four percent (4%) of the sale or resale prices of Affordable Homeownership Units (payable upon each such sale or resale).
In the case that the applicant and the administering agency cannot mutually agree on duties, upon certification of this fact by the Plymouth Board of Selectmen or by the Department of Housing and Community Development, the administrative duties shall devolve to and thereafter be administered by a qualified housing entity designated by the Plymouth Board of Selectmen or, in the absence of such designation, by an entity designated by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The applicant shall agree to pay reasonable fees as required by the administering agency to ensure that the Affordable Unit remains in compliance with affordability and marketing requirements over time.
M. Administration. The Planning Board shall be the Approving Authority for Site Plan Approvals in the Cordage Park Smart Growth District, and shall adopt and file with the Town Clerk administrative rules relative to the application requirements and contents for Site Plan Review. The Site Plan Review process encompasses the following:
(1) Pre-application review. The applicant is encouraged to participate in a pre-application review at a regular meeting of the Planning Board. If a pre-application review is requested by the applicant, the Planning Board shall notify all interested boards and committees of the date and time of said meeting, including but not limited to the Board of Selectmen, Design Review Board, Board of Health, Historical Commission, Housing Partnership, and the North Plymouth Steering Committee. The purpose of the pre-application review is to minimize the applicant's cost of engineering and other technical experts, and to obtain the advice and direction of the Planning Board prior to filing the application. At the pre-application review the applicant shall outline the proposal and seek preliminary feedback from the Planning
Board, other municipal review entities, and members of the public. The applicant is also encouraged to request a site visit by the Planning Board and/or its designee in order to facilitate pre-application review.
(2) Application procedures.
(a) The applicant shall file the required number of copies of the application with the Town Clerk for certification of the date and time of filing, and with the Planning Board. Said filing shall include any required forms provided by the Planning Board.
(b) Review fees. The applicant shall be required to pay for reasonable consulting fees to provide peer review of the application for the benefit of the Planning Board. Such fees shall be held by the Town of Plymouth in an interest-bearing escrow account, and shall be used only for expenses associated with the use of outside consultants employed by the Approving Authority in reviewing the Site Plan application. Any surplus funds remaining after the completion of such review, including any interest accrued shall be returned to the applicant forthwith.
(c) Upon receipt by the Planning Board, applications for permits shall be distributed to at least the Design Review Board, Historical Commission, Fire Chief, Board of Health, Housing Partnership and the North Plymouth Steering Committee. The reports of the Design Review Board, Board of Health, the North Plymouth Steering Committee or others, which are advisory, shall be submitted to the Planning Board within sixty (60) days of filing of the application.
(d) Within thirty (30) days of filing of an application with the Planning Board, the Board or its designee shall evaluate the proposal with regard to its completeness and shall submit an advisory report in writing to the applicant certifying the completeness of the application. The Board or its designee shall forward to the Applicant, with its report, copies of all recommendations received to date from other boards, commissions or departments.
(3) Public hearing. The Board shall hold a public hearing and review all applications according to the procedure specified in M.G.L. c.40R § 11 and 760 CMR 59.04(1)(f).
(4) Site Plan Approval decision.
(a) The Planning Board shall make a decision on the Site Plan application, and shall file said decision with the Town Clerk, within 120 days of the date that the application was received by the Town Clerk. The time limit for public hearings and taking of action by the Planning Board may be extended by written agreement between the applicant and the Board. A copy of such agreement shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
(b) Failure of the Planning Board to take action within 120 days or extended time, if applicable, shall be deemed to be an approval of the application.
(c) An applicant who seeks approval because of the Planning Board(d) The Board(e) The decision of the Planning Board, together with the detailed reasons therefor, shall be filed with the Town Clerk, the Board of Appeals and the Building Inspector. A certified copy of the decision shall be mailed to the owner and to the applicant if other than the owner. A notice of the decision shall be sent to the parties of interest and to persons who requested a notice at the public hearing.
(f) Effective date. If twenty (20) days have elapsed after the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk without an appeal having been filed or if such appeal, having been filed, is dismissed or denied the Town Clerk shall so certify on a copy of the decision. If the application is approved by reason of the failure of the Planning Board to timely act, the Town Clerk shall make such certification on a copy of the application. A copy of the decision or application shall be recorded with the title of the land in question in the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds or the Plymouth Land Registry District, and indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or recorded and noted on the ownerborne by the owner of the land in question or the applicant.
(5) Criteria for approval. The Planning Board shall approve the Development Project upon finding that it complies with the purposes and standards of the Cordage Park Smart Growth District and applicable Design Standards.
(6) Criteria for conditional approval. The Planning Board may impose conditions on a Development Project as necessary to ensure compliance with the Cordage Park Smart Growth District Requirements of this § 205-74 and applicable Design Standards, or to mitigate any extraordinary adverse impacts of the Development Project on nearby properties, insofar as such conditions are compliant with the provisions of M.G.L. c.40R and applicable regulations and do not Unduly Restrict opportunities for development. The Planning Board may require construction of an approved Development Project to be phased for the purpose of coordinating the Development Project with any mitigation required.
(7) Criteria for denial. The Planning Board may deny an application for Site Plan Approval pursuant to this § 205-74 of the Bylaw if the Board finds one or more of the following:
(a) The Development Project does not meet the conditions and requirements set forth in the Smart Growth Zoning and applicable Design Standards.
(b) The applicant failed to submit information and fees required by the Smart Growth Zoning and necessary for an adequate and timely review of the design of the Development Project or potential Development Project impacts.
(c) It is not possible to adequately mitigate significant adverse Development Project impacts on nearby properties by means of suitable conditions.
(8) Time limit. A project approval shall remain valid and shall run with the land indefinitely provided that construction has commenced within two (2) years after the decision issues, which time shall be extended by the time required to adjudicate any appeal from such approval. Said time shall also be extended if the project proponent is actively pursuing other required permits for the project or if there is good cause for the failure to commence construction, or as may be provided in an approval for a multi-phase Development Project.
Appeals. Pursuant to M.G.L. c.40R, § 11, any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board may appeal to the Superior Court, the Land Court, the Southeast Housing Court or the District Court within twenty (20) days after the Site Plan decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk.
N. Waivers. The Planning Board may authorize waivers with respect to the standards set forth in this § 205-74 in the Site Plan Approval upon a finding that such waiver will allow the Development Project to achieve the density, affordability, mix of uses, and/or physical character allowable under this Bylaw. However, the Board may not waive any portion of the Affordable Housing requirements in § 205-74(L) except insofar as such waiver results in the creation of a number of Affordable Units in excess of the minimum number of required Affordable Units.
O. Fair Housing Requirement. All Development Projects within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District shall comply with applicable federal, state and local fair housing laws.
P. Annual update. On or before July 31 of each year, the Director of Planning and Development of the Town of Plymouth shall cause to be filed an Annual Update with the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) in a form to be prescribed by DHCD. The Annual Update shall contain all information required in 760 CMR 59.07, as may be amended from time to time, and additional information as may be required pursuant to M.G.L. c.40S and accompanying regulations. The Town Clerk of the Town of Plymouth shall maintain a copy of all updates transmitted to DHCD pursuant to this Bylaw, with said copies to be made available upon request for public review.
Q. Notification of issuance of building permits. Upon issuance of a residential building permit within the Cordage Park Smart Growth District, the Building Inspector of the Town of Plymouth shall cause to be filed an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), in a form to be prescribed by DHCD, for authorization of payment of a one-time density bonus payment for each residential building permit pursuant to M.G.L. c.40R. The application shall contain all information required in 760 CMR 59.06(2), as may be amended from time to time, and additional information as may be required pursuant to M.G.L. c.40S and accompanying regulations. The Town Clerk of the Town of Plymouth shall maintain a copy of all such applications transmitted to DHCD pursuant to this Bylaw, with said
copies to be made available upon request for public review.
R. Date of effect. The effective date of this Bylaw shall be the date on which such adoption is voted upon by Town Meeting pursuant to the requirements of M.G.L. c.40A § 5.
S. Severability. The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is held invalid, the other provisions shall not be affected but shall remain in full force.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearings:
Map 51, Lot 4N-15 and Lot 4N-17 To be continued to 4/3/06, due to an error in the advertisements
Nicholas Filla read the public hearing notices and opened the public hearings.
Larry Rosenblum moved to continue to April 3, 2006 at 7:45 p.m.
BOA 3356 - Paul J Carpilio
Industrial Park Road
Atty. Robert Betters presented the request for special permits in order to operate a Convenience Commercial Establishment Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals the vote was (3-0-1) with Nicholas Filla in abstention.
BOA 3355 - Four OC LLC (cont.)
Commerce/Resnik/Christa McAuliffe
Atty. Robert Betters reminded the Board that during the last review the Board was concerned with the parking and the retaining wall.
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, presented a schematic plan detailing a revised parking plan and retaining wall.
Elspeth Franks was concerned with the entrance off Commerce Way and if Commerce Way were widened how much of the green space would be eliminated.
Valerie Massard stated that DPW is studying this corridor and that a master traffic plan needs to be created. Language could be added to the recommendation that the proponent would have to comply with any mitigations that are deemed necessary. Ms. Massard stated that it is important to maintain the green space along the public ways.
Bill Shaw reviewed the design of the entrance off Commerce Way, which was made right turn in only.
Loring Tripp suggested installing an island to eliminate westbound traffic from crossing over Commerce Way to enter the site.
Paul McAlduff suggested having any delivery vehicles enter from Christa McAuliffe Blvd and exit through Resnik Road.
Larry Rosenblum recommended reducing the visual impact of the retaining wall.
Mr. Shaw replied that the applicant will plant the area adjacent to the retaining wall on his site, but they cannot vegetate under the power lines or in the State drainage area.
Larry Rosenblum moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Overall Phasing:
A site-phasing plan acceptable to the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be filed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any phase of this project. The petitioner shall notify the Building Commissioner and Planning Board upon completion of each phase. Said plan shall include stormwater management, utility installation, off-site mitigation improvements (if required), emergency access, driveway and parking lot construction and building construction within each phase. The anticipated phasing may be altered due to market conditions after the building permit has been issued. Any substantial alterations or modifications shall be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals during an informal hearing.
A construction-phasing plan acceptable to the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be filed prior to the commencement of construction. The petitioner shall notify the Building Commissioner upon completion of each phase. Said plan shall include stormwater management, erosion control, dust suppression, and building construction within each phase. Any exposed banks created by the excavation should be hydro-seeded or otherwise stabilized in a manner reasonably acceptable to the Building Commissioner. The petitioner shall seed, mulch or plant all disturbed non-building or paved areas on the site, including those areas disturbed by the previous uses of the site. The anticipated phasing may be altered due to market conditions after the building permit has been issued. Any substantial alterations or modifications shall
be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals during an informal hearing.
As agreed to by the petitioner, the petitioner must submit phase site plans to the Zoning Board of Appeals for its final review and approval during an informal hearing prior to applying for a building permit for, or proceeding with, each phase identified in the special permit decision. Each such site plan shall include drawings, details, text and specifications for traffic mitigation (if required), drainage, landscaping, building design, colors, construction materials, and walkways. The Planning Board, Town Engineer, Fire Chief , Department of Public Works, and Design Review Board, as appropriate, shall review and make written recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the site plans for each phase prior to the Zoning Board of Appealsthe Planning Board, Town Engineer review and comment on whether, and the Zoning Board of Appeals determine that, 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 (views from the surrounding approaches and land areas should be depicted, with elevations, of the buildings during phase review);
3. Pedestrian circulation within the site;
4. Traffic circulation within and outside the site; and
5. Substantial use and construction to date.
The phasing schedule is an essential feature of the special permit, and the applicant may not modify the phasing schedule without the permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In each site plan review submittal, the applicant must identify any significant change to the original phasing schedule referred to in the special permit, and provide an explanation and obtain a finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that there has not been undue delay in proceeding with construction or otherwise exercising the special permit.
The petitioner agrees that future maintenance of landscaping, buildings, snow removal, roadways, parking areas, lighting, lighting expenses, water mains, water distribution systems, and all other on-site improvements made through the issuance of this special permit, shall be the responsibility of the petitioner or other private party as assigned through agreement with the petitioner, and shall not be the responsibility of the Town.
The petitioner shall post a performance guarantee for re-vegetation of exposed areas at the site in the event of phases being left unfinished under this Special Permit. Funds are to be posted in a form acceptable to the Building Commissioner to cover the cost of re-vegetation (loam and seed exposed areas) of the site. Said bond may be reduced as phases of the site are constructed.
All relevant and reasonably achievable comments and improvements referenced by the Fire Chief, Earth Tech, Design Review Board, other town consulting engineers, and the Town Department of Public Works are to be addressed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for each phase, a Registered Professional Engineer, or other qualified professional as approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, is to submit to the Building commissioner a report that the installation of all landscaping, road and infrastructure improvements shown on the approved plans are installed according to the approved site plan in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw, and in compliance with Mass Highway Guidelines and Standards where applicable.
Traffic:
The petitionerA report must be submitted to the Building Commissioner by a Registered Professional Engineer, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, certifying that said traffic mitigation has been installed according to accepted practices and within MassHighway guidelines, if said mitigation is required (please see Condition No. 10, above).
The petitioner shall submit a separate pedestrian flow plan for each phase for review and reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Board, and subject to final approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, which will include crosswalks, sidewalks bicycle trails and other pedestrian amenities.
Utilities:
Detailed stormwater management design and calculations must be submitted for review by the Town Engineer, and must meet Massachusetts Best Management Practices for stormwater design and adequately satisfy the Town Engineer or consulting engineer, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any phase of this site. The petitionerreviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals during an informal hearing.
The applicant should provide confirmation that water pressure is adequate for the proposed use at this site either from the Town DPW or through supplying water pressure (hydraulic) test results satisfactory to the Town DPW Director or consulting water system design engineer prior to the issuance an Occupancy Permit. Water should be looped with sufficient fire hydrants with a water main and water distribution system design approved by the Town DPW Director or consulting water system design engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Written approval of fire hydrant and fire suppression designs meeting the satisfaction of the Fire Chief should be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The petitioner agrees to record a document of easements, covenants and restrictions that will include the operation and maintenance plan for the common areas and facilities including, but not limited to, stormwater and roads.
Executed and recorded copies of all necessary off-site easements, if any, are to be submitted to the Town prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy.
Landscaping:
As agreed to by the petitioner, the petitioner shall submit landscaping plans for each phase to the Planning Board and Design Review Board for review and comment, subject to final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the issuance of building permits for work in said phase.
Documentation that the lighting plans comply with the dark sky section of the Bylaw is required prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for each individual phase of the project.
Driveways and driving lanes:
Emergency access via parking lots and adjacent parking fields (with drive lanes) shall be adequately demonstrated. Adequate turnaround area at driveway ends, if any, until such time as the roadway connections are completed, shall be shown on the plans.
Buildings:
The petitioner shall incorporate design elements to reduce the visual impact of rooftop mechanicals to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for each phase of the project.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Presentation
Plymouth River Eels
Michael Rothberg, Vice President of Bay Colony Baseball & Athletics, LLC, presented a conceptual review of a proposed baseball stadium with an outdoor pavillion, 10,050 SF convention center, a 70,000 SF multi level sports complex for lacrosse and soccer and a 10,000 SF retail/restaurant building off Plaza Way. The goal is to create a family fun destination for the Town of Plymouth, another opportunity for residents and tourists. The proponents feel that this site is ideal. It is near Rtes 44 and 80, with easy access to Rtes 3 and 495 and close to the Kingston and Plymouth train stations and the Plymouth and Brockton bus station. The proponents have met with the West Plymouth Steering Committee, department heads and several neighbors to present their proposal.
Phil Ricardi, reviewed the site plan for the Board. The site has been designed to project sound away from the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Ricardi reviewed the parking for each facility. The proponents are working with the Town to address traffic issues. Events would use police details to direct the flow of traffic. Off site traffic would be directed to Rte 44.
Elspeth Franks was concerned that there be a sufficient buffer to cut the noise and lighting from the existing neighborhoods.
Atty. Jeffrey Angley, representing RJ Ferioli, Inc., (the developer of Grey Oaks, Tara Woods and Westwood Estates), spoke about their concerns with traffic on Plympton Road, the impact to the age-restricted residential communities, and the intense use of the site.
Bob Dawson, RJF Concepts, stated that many of the residents of the age-restricted communities have the same concerns as the developer. They are concerned with access to the site, traffic, and the impact
Larry Rosenblum asked if the proponents had considered any other sites.
Mr. Rothberg replied that they did look at other sites, but the location of this one was the most appropriate. The site is in a deep depression, which will soften the impact on neighboring properties. The traffic flow will be away from the neighborhoods. The sound would be sporadic. The River Eels will play approximately 45 games per year and the stadium may be used for Little League and Babe Ruth tournaments. The proponents plan to ban tailgating.
The proponents are on a strict deadline because there is a great deal of interest and competition from other towns to obtain the team. They are hoping to throw out the first pitch in the Spring of 2007.
Nicholas Filla suggested that the site plan show the surrounding residential uses and show cross section.
Loring Tripp thought it was a great idea, but was concerned with the height of the light towers, and the proposed buffer of 50 ft. Mr. Tripp asked if the stadium would be used for any concerts.
Mr. Rothberg replied that they would not introduce any concert or event that is inappropriate for the neighborhood.
Paul McAlduff, a baseball fan, was concerned with the traffic generation. Colony Place is not at full buildout yet and generates a lot of traffic. Mr. McAlduff suggested that a traffic study should be done in the summer and on Saturdays when the area is the busiest.
Loring Tripp questioned the hours of operation.
Mr. Rothberg replied that independent baseball would be played some afternoons, but mostly between 7-9 p.m. The proponents are willing to work with the Town on the corridor traffic study.
Mr. Filla asked whether permits for other events would be granted by the Selectmen.
Mr. Hartmann stated that certain venues could be built into the special permit.
Loring Tripp suggested that they should provide alternative scenarios for the site.
Mr. Rothberg stated that they could look at other similar size projects.
Larry Rosenblum encouraged the proponents to look at other year round uses. He felt that if the project was designed properly, it could become a neighborhood center.
Site Plan Review
Armstrong Road/Storage & Office Building
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, presented the site plan for an office/storage building on Map 101, Lot 53F. The site is a 5.32 acre wooded parcel with a no cut buffer restriction along Armstrong Road. The building will consist of a 120Nicholas Filla asked Mr. Shaw to review the contour of the site.
Mr. Shaw reviewed the contours and stated that the long driveway chases the slopes; it was the only way they could access the buildable area without building walls. The site will have a balanced cut and fill. There will be loam and seeding around the building. The sewerage will be on site.
Mr. Filla felt that the site work was extensive and that the building should be placed closer to the road.
Valerie Massard stated that the entry drive is approximately 400 ft long because the applicant is trying to work with the site constraints.
Loring Tripp moved to notify the Building Commissioner that the site plan will comply with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw after the following issues are addressed.
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit a Registered Professional Engineer must certify that the drainage system, drive ways, curbing and parking areas have been installed according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the approved site plan.
Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.
Lighting is to comply with the Light Pollution Bylaw. Light poles should not exceed twelve feet in height.
The applicant should return one year from installation of landscaping to confirm that the slopes along the drive and the plantings around the building have been properly established as a condition of occupancy.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Site Plan Review
Home for Little Wanderers Respite Center/Ship Pond Rd
Bruce Wait, Wait Land Use Consultants presented a site plan review for a 30Edward Russell, Six Pond Association, asked who the abutters to the building would be, what was the change of use to the property and how much it would effect traffic.
Valerie Massard stated that the abutter to the property is the Wildlands Trust.
Ron Steele stated that the facility would add ten new beds for short-term stays to the existing Baird Center and that most of the traffic would be generated by 10 to 15 staff members. The Home for Little Wanderers eventually plans to rehabilitate the other existing buildings.
Paul McAlduff moved to notify the Building Commissioner that the site plan will comply with the reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements after the following issues are addressed:
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit a Registered Professional Engineer must certify that the drainage system, drive ways, curbing and parking areas have been installed according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the approved site plan.
Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.
It would be preferable if lighting could comply with the Light Pollution Bylaw; however, this cannot be required.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Site Plan Review
Resnik Road/Light Industrial & Office Building
This site plan review was withdrawn by the applicant.
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that the Transfer of Development Rights report was in their agenda packets. Mr. Hartmann requested that the Board review the report and submit comments to him.
Mr. Hartmann reviewed a draft letter to the Board of Selectmen addressing their questions regarding the proposed age restricted bylaw.
Paul McAlduff moved to send the letter as submitted to the Board of Selectmen; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Loring Tripp moved to adjourn at 10:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne
Administrative Assistant Approved on: April 10, 2006
| |
