|
Planning Board Minutes May 8, 2006
 |
|
These minutes are not verbatim
Board Members: Loring Tripp, III, Nicholas Filla, Larry Rosenblum, Malcolm MacGregor, and Paul McAlduff.
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Peggy Fitzgibbons
Form APaul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Presentation
Woods Hole Research Center Tom Stone, Woods Hole Research Center, reviewed the land use changes in Southeastern Massachusetts. The maps presented showed urban development between 1971 and 1999 and two possible scenarios for development of the region. There was a nine percent increase in development in that time period. The two possible scenarios showed how the region would look in 2030 if there was unmanaged growth and smart growth. In the unmanaged growth scenario, there would be an increase in the developed land of thirty-four percent over the next thirty years while in the smart growth scenario, there would be a twenty percent increase. The smart growth scenario encourages development by increased density in the centers, while reducing density in rural areas. By limiting density in the rural areas, the aquifer, pine barrens,
natural habitats, endangered species, cranberry bogs, etc. would be protected and preserved.
Discussion
Village Crossing (to be continued to May 22, 2006)
Malcolm MacGregor moved to continue the discussion to May 22, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Plymouth North High School; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3362 Highland Ave
Steve Kotowski, Webby Engineering, presented a revised plan for the proposed accessway for two residential dwellings at the intersection of Highland and Manomet Avenues. The Fire Chief has requested that the road be widened to 18Mr. Hartmann requested a cross section of the road profile.
Mr. Kotowski stated that he could provide the cross section. Mr. Kotowski provided details about the drainage system, road improvements and the proposed water line access.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, a final access plan showing the transition aprons, common driveway and revised drainage should be submitted to the Planning Board for review with final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The plans shall be revised to reflect the following:
The Petitioner shall revise the plans to reflect the schematic A typical road cross-section is needed. ~The road improvements shall be consistent with Department of Public WorksAn easement is needed for the proposed drainage area.
The Petitioner has agreed to install a bituminous concrete or cobblestone gravel-to-pavement transition apron at the Highland Avenue and Simes Road intersection as well as the Highland Avenue and Beachwood intersection.
The Petitioner has also agreed to create a single looped common driveway to serve both dwellings and end the Highland Avenue improvements at this common driveway. ~As a result of the reduction in road improvements to Highland Avenue, the drainage system should be downsized as necessary.
Plantings to adequately screen the drainage area from neighboring properties shall be shown on the plan.
Tree trimming specifications in order to satisfy the concerns of the Fire Chief shall be shown on the plans.
The plans shall be revised to reflect a snout or equal hood in the drainage details as required per the DPW.
DPW advises that a Street Opening Permit is required.
An engineerThe vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing
B536 Nicholas Filla recused himself from this public hearing and left the room and Timothy Grandy, Planning Board alternate joined the public hearing.
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Atty. Robert Betters addressed the discussion items that staff had included in the BoardRiverDavid Johnson, PMP Associates, reviewed the proposed plan for six single family detached units (including the one to be conveyed to the Alicandroprovided to Court St., but sprinklers and a hammerhead turnaround will not be provided. Mr. Johnson stated that the Town Engineers comments would be addressed on the final plan.
Doris Johnson was concerned about the grading, the impact to the stream, and suggested that more than one unit be designated as affordable housing.
Charles Benevento, preferred that the emergency access onto Court St. remain a gravel way and have a breakaway barrier and that the sidewalk end at the boundary of the ownerTom Jaeger was concerned with the height of the retaining wall and the grading impact.
Stuart Baker requested that the pond be cleaned up and a catch basin be installed to collect drainage.
Mr. Johnson stated that the developer has been working with DPW to design a system to address the drainage issue.
Paul McAlduff moved to:
1. GRANT a Special Permit for Village Open Space Density (2. GRANT a Special Permit for Adequate Facilities per Section 205-67B of the Bylaw;
3. GRANT a Special Permit for one (1) affordable unit under Inclusionary Housing per Section 205-71 of the Bylaw; and
4. GRANT waivers of certain dimensional and other provisions of the Bylaw, as applicable, including but not limited to a waiver of the side yard requirements from ten (10subject to the conditions set forth below:
The VOSD development for the Property as approved is for no more than one (1) single-family residence on a separate lot and fourteen (14) residential condominium units. The Petitioner agrees to waive its right to further subdivide the Property pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 41, and this shall be noted on the plan, as well as incorporated into the Protective Covenants and Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the VOSD development. The term "subdivided" shall include the process of division of the lots into parcels by means of a plan not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Notwithstanding this provision, the Planning Board may endorse the relocation of any lot lines when consistent with the intent and purpose of this restriction. Said restriction shall
be in place prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
The Petitioner has agreed to waive its right to any further residential development of the Property that results in a more intense or dense use, regardless of any local, state or federal criteria to the contrary, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapters 40A and 41, and this shall be noted on the plan, as well as incorporated into the Protective Covenants and Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the VOSD development.
The Petitioner has agreed that one (1) of the condominium units would be designated as The Affordable Unit must be comparable in construction quality and exterior design to the Market Rate Units. The Affordable Unit must have access to all on-site amenities.
The Affordable Unit must be constructed and occupied concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of Market Rate Units or development.
Rental Affordable Units must remain affordable in perpetuity, as documented through an affordable housing agreement recorded against the property. Ownership Affordable Units must remain affordable in perpetuity pursuant to an affordable housing agreement recorded against the Property.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit on any of the condominium units:
The Petitioner has agreed that one (1) of the condominium units would be designated as An Affordable Housing Agreement, as described in the Bylaw, shall be in place prior to issuance of a Building Permit on any of the condominium units.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Petitioner agrees to the return to the Design Review Board with more definitive architectural, lighting, and landscaping detail, and with revised parking and driveway configuration to address peer review and Fire ChiefThe Petitioner shall obtain a sign-off for the proposed curb cut improvements from the Town of Plymouth DPW.
A pre-construction meeting will be held with Town Hall staff, including the Building Department, Planning Department and Department of Public Works.
Conditional upon the payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for this Property, if any.
Evidence that (1) the Protective Covenants and Restrictions required under this decision per the decision have been imposed by Petitioner on the Property, approved as to form by Town Counsel; (2) the condominium owners trust documents in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws and the provisions of this decision, approved as to form by Town Counsel; and (3) this decision have been recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Planning Board.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, all no-cut and open space areas in the vicinity of any construction on the site will be staked off to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, and shall remain staked off until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on each individual condominium unit, individual lampposts will be installed per the plans.
Petitioner has agreed to include within the Protective Covenants and Restrictions on the open space lots or areas within the VOSD project as shown on the approved plans, in a form acceptable to Town Counsel. Said provisions shall limit the uses of said open space for conservation and recreation, with an allowance for maintenance and permitted recreational uses subject to plans approved by the Planning Board, or its appointed representative(s). The use of the designated open space is for walking trails, footpaths, and conservation, with an allowance for drainage as shown on the plans.
The Petitioner agrees to record a condominium ownerThe Petitioner has agreed to provide a maintenance program for drainage facilities and appurtenances, open space, parking and common drive/emergency access areas to be maintained by the condominium ownerIn the event that the condominium ownerAny signage shall comply with the Bylaw or additional permits will be required.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, evidence of adequate fire flow and static pressure for water must be demonstrated by the Petitioner, and requirements of the Fire Chief with respect to hydrants must be satisfied, to the satisfaction of the Planning Board. In addition, the Petitioner must receive appropriate approvals from the Plymouth DPW with respect to the sewer connection.
As agreed to by the Petitioner, coordination with the Plymouth DPW to provide an easement over the Property for maintenance of existing Town drainage into Dyer Pond. The Petitioner has also agreed to participate in clean up of existing debris on the land areas not under water in the vicinity of Dyer Pond on the subject property, and to contribute a gift not to exceed $5,000 to the Town to be used for purposes of engineering, permitting and/or cleanup of the sedimentation in Dyer Pond from the Town-owned drainage and/or redesign/reconstruction of the Town-owned drainage into Dyer Pond on the subject property.
The Petitioner has agreed to extend the existing chain-link fence along the Cold Spring Elementary School side of the Property.
The votes on the each of the following: the VOSD Special Permit with waivers, the Adequate Facilities Special Permit and the Special Permit for Inclusionary Housing were unanimous (5-0).
The Board took a five-minute recess after which, Nicholas Filla rejoined the meeting.
Discussion
Chapter 40R Design Guidelines
Lee Hartmann presented the revised Design Guidelines for Cordage Park. There are a few minor changes yet to be made, which will be presented to the Board.
Loring Tripp moved to accept the Cordage Park Smart Growth Design Standards; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3363 Valerie Massard presented the request for a special permit in order to erect a 150-foot communications tower with accessory structures off Bourne Road at the existing substation. The site has yet to be reviewed by Natural Heritage. The Airport Commission has recommended additional lighting. The DPW has requested rent-free use of the cell tower and wants to insure that there are adequate sight distances on Bourne Road. The access drive may need improvements,
A representative from Omnipoint addressed the Board. He stated that the site, which already has the NStar substation meets the setback requirements and the cell tower is an allowed use. The tower would be a three-carrier pole. A 40Tim Grandy addressed the Board with his concerns regarding property value decreases for abutting homes and the requirement that the area has to have a gap in service in order to be erected.
Joanne Salamone was concerned that the petition was not presented to the neighborhoods and a steering committee first. She was concerned with the microwave output and the lights affecting the neighbors. She questioned whether the Board had gone out to the site and reviewed the area.
Scott Brine was concerned with development of any kind in the Loring Tripp moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
There may be feasible alternatives to the proposed tower. The petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that there are not other towers or power line utility poles that could be utilized to serve the identified gap area, or that constructing smaller less intrusive towers strategically placed within the existing topography could not provide adequate coverage to the identified gap. No information regarding the alternative sites that were investigated by the Petitioner was submitted with the petition.
It has not been demonstrated that a need exists for this specific location to support a gap in service. The proposed height may exceed the minimum necessary to serve the proposed gap area. The petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that there are not other towers or power line utility poles that could be utilized to serve the identified gap area, or that constructing smaller less intrusive towers strategically placed within the existing topography could not provide adequate coverage to the identified gap. No information regarding the alternative sites that were investigated by the Petitioner was submitted with the petition.
There is no clear and specific public benefit which may be realized by exceeding the 35-foot height limitation. The petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that there are not other towers or power line utility poles that could be utilized to serve the identified gap area, or that constructing smaller less intrusive towers strategically placed within the existing topography could not provide adequate coverage to the identified gap. No information regarding the alternative sites that were investigated by the Petitioner was submitted with the petition.
There are other communications towers in the immediate vicinity and the addition of the proposed structure will continue to detract from the visual character and quality of the adjacent buildings, the neighborhood, and the Town as a whole.
In the event that the Board of Appeals chooses to grant the petition, the following conditions are recommended:
Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Permit, the following alternatives analysis must be provided to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals:
The Petitioner shall demonstrate that service can not adequately be provided through mounting antenna to existing power line stanchions in the area or through placing the antenna on an existing tower before a monopole alternative is considered; and
In the event that a monopole is determined to be the most feasible alternative, the Petitioner shall be required to document the minimum height necessary to fill the identified service gap, with the scientific supporting data to be submitted for peer review by the TownThe tower shall be designed to said peer-reviewed minimum height;
The monopole shall be constructed of materials/exterior finishes/paints that provide a non-reflective tower, and alternative designs shall be presented to the Board of Appeals in order for it to determine which design is most desirable in terms of reducing the visual impacts of the tower to the surrounding neighborhoods and roadways; and
The Petitioner shall place FAA-approved lighting on the monopole, if required by FAA, to address the flight pattern concerns raised by the Airport Commission.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit:
The Petitioner shall supply all necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance with all federal and state regulations, including Massachusetts Natural Heritage under MESA, with respect to the location/design/operation/licensing of the tower; and
Permits from the Conservation Commission for any work under its purview must be issued.
The Petitioner shall grant the Town of Plymouth rights for rent-free use of the monopole for municipal telecommunications applications, in a manner acceptable to Town Counsel, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Any disturbance to existing vegetation is to be restored and stabilized to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In the event that the need for the monopole itself or if technological advances allow for the height of the monopole tower to be reduced, the petitioner is responsible for all removal or replacement of the tower and restoration of the site within a reasonable timeframe mutually acceptable to the Board of Appeals and the Petitioner.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3364 Stafford Street
Valerie Massard reminded the Board that this review was continued from the May 1, 2006 meeting, in order for the applicant to return with revised architectural designs for the proposed new building, which exceeded the height limit of 35 feet. The Board also received revised, recommended conditions, which have been reviewed by the applicant.
Atty. Edward Angley stated that he has reviewed the proposed conditions and addressed several of the issues mentioned regarding retaining walls, grading, sidewalks, enclosing the walkway, setback requirements, etc.
Christopher Chuirri, Architect, presented the revised architectural plans, which reduced the height of the building to under 35 feet.
Ed Fuller reviewed the revised landscape plan and the lighting plan.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The petitioner has agreed to periodic inspections of infrastructure construction, including driveways, parking areas, sidewalks, water mains and sewer connections (if any), to be funded through the contingency account for the project with the Board of Appeals.
The petitioner has agreed that certain comment from the DPW, and certain comment from the Plymouth Center Steering Committee and Design Review Board (if any) with respect to the design of the shall be submitted on a final set of landscaping and architectural plans, including materials, colors, rooftop mechanicals, retaining walls and lighting details, subject to additional review by the Planning Board and final approval by the Board of Appeals, including:
Ø Covered walkway enclosed all-season due to resident health, conditional on zero (0) lot line setback in the event that the lots need to be split for financing purposes;
With respect to the new building:
Design appearance (color, materials, setback, height, architecture) will be related to the existing building;
Architecture to be revised to break up and re-distribute the massing from the May 8, 2006 rendering to depict a two-story building with large dormers that have a substantial overhang rather than the three-story rendering that was depicted in order to create a better structural transition from the surrounding single-family dwellings to the existing building on the subject property, although the other architectural elements shown in the May 8 rendering are appropriate and should be maintained to the extent feasible;
Parking may be moved on the site to allow for appropriate massing distribution on the site, and the unit count may be reduced as needed so that the massing is appropriate to the site;
Ø Lighting 14-16 feet tall; consistent with the Ø Landscape buffers will be maintained at a residential scale and shall utilize existing vegetation as suitable, a rendering of the view from the residences across the street shall be included;
Ø Retaining wall should not exceed 4-5 feet height if this can be engineered into the plans;
Ø Retaining wall should be faced with fieldstone;
Ø Drainage calculations subject to peer review and may be re-done for low-impact design; all drainage shall be contained on site to meet the requirements of the Building Inspector and Town Engineer;
Ø Water and sewer details must be submitted for review and approval by DPW;
Ø Said plan will show utility easements;
Ø If a trash receptacle is used on the site, it is to be located and screened from the public view;
Ø A sidewalk easement on Stafford Street from subject property to Towns Street shall be conveyed to the Town;
The petitioner shall be consistent with the requirements of the Fire Department for adequate emergency vehicle maneuverability.
All plantings shall be subject to a 2-year performance requirement after installation (which shall re-instate if replacement plantings are installed), and the Petitioner shall be responsible for any replacements needed in that 2-year time period.
Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, a Registered Landscape Architect or other qualified licensed professional must certify to the Building Inspector that the required landscaping has been properly installed in accordance with the approved site plan, the Zoning Bylaw and acceptable landscape practices.
Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, a Registered Professional Engineer must certify that the drainage system, driveways, curbing, and parking areas have been installed according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3365 Plaza Way
Atty. William Landry presented the requests for special permits and waivers of associated parking requirements in order to construct a Planned Shipping center, including restaurants and retail uses in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. on Map 104, Lot 14K-153. The parcel currently has a hotel under construction. The proposed buildings include three restaurants (ChiliJeff Georges presented two landscape plans; one for the proposed buildings and one for the Hampton Inn. The landscaping would be consistent throughout the site and be similar to the landscaping at Colony Place.
Valerie Massard stated that the petitioner has agreed to participate with other property owners and the DPW in a comprehensive traffic plan for the entire Commerce Way corridor. DPW had no remarks regarding the traffic study that was submitted.
Josh Swerling, Bohler Engineering, pointed out on the landscape plan the screening around the trash receptacles. and the landscaping for BertucciPaul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
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.
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, 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.
The PetitionerThe 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.
Documentation that the lighting plans comply with the dark skies section of the Bylaw is required prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for each individual phase of the project.
All prior conditions remain in full force and effect.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3367 Court Street
Lee Hartmann began the presentation of a request for special permits from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to construct five residential units and 1050 sq. ft. of retail space on Map 1, Lot 17A. The property is in the Transitional Commercial (TC) zone. The plan presented during the conceptual review showed just the five residential units. A retaining wall proposed for the rear of the property has a maximum height of 15addressed.
Richard DeBenedictis, DeBenedictis-Pedersen Associates, Inc., stated that the retaining wall at the rear of the site is an existing wall and they would not be constructing anything further. The largest retaining wall they would be constructing would be on the north side of the property and be 6or 7 feet. The walkout basement would fit into the setting and the topography of the site. The residential buildings would consist of two duplexes and one single-family dwelling. The existing chain link fence could be replaced or screened with vegetation.
Roy Hamlin stated that the chain link fence belongs to Wal-Mart, but he suggested that it could be screened with a wooden fence and arborvitaes or dwarf hemlocks. Mr. Hamlin stated that the mechanicals would be located on the third floor of each structure.
Nicholas Filla questioned the height of the buildings.
Mr. DeBenedictis stated that the structures would be below 35 feet. The site would be serviced by Town water and sewer. The siding would be redwood clapboard and cedar shingles.
Malcolm MacGregor was concerned that there were no common amenities shown on the plan.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Twenty-five parking spaces are proposed and twenty are required. To provide some outdoor living space and yard area, the Planning Board recommends that the five extra spaces as well as two additional spaces (7 total) be eliminated.
The Fire Department must review the proposed site layout to ensure adequate site access for emergency vehicles and fire suppression.
A detail of the proposed driveway lighting is needed.
The exteriors of the buildings shall be clad with wood clapboards and cedar shingles as presented by the applicant.
The applicant must document that the height of the proposed buildings is less than 35 feet.
All proposed trash receptacles must be shown on the site plan. Trash receptacles must be screened with landscaping and decorative fencing.
The proposed drainage system must be approved by the Town Engineer's Office.
A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review with final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant has agreed to install a wooden fence and plantings such as arborvitaes or dwarf Hemlocks in front of the existing chain link fence.
Final plans showing parking and architectural changes shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer, Design Review Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Discussion
Gravel Roads Town Meeting Article
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Planning Board to recommend approval of the Gravel Roads Management and Repair Bylaw to Town Meeting; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved to table the age-restricted amendment to the Zoning Bylaw; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Peggy Fitzgibbons
Administrative Assistant Approved on: June 19, 2006
| |
|
|
