Planning Board Meeting
September 18, 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: Malcolm MacGregor, Paul McAlduff, Loring Tripp, III, Larry Rosenblum, and Marc Garrett
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Valerie Massard, Caroline Quidort
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Malcolm MacGregor informed the Board that the 1,000 acre parcel in South Plymouth is being considered for a potential wind farm. Senators Murray and O’Leary and Mass Technology are supportive and will aid in the process once the support of the Planning Board, Board of Selectmen and community has been obtained. Once support is obtained, a test tower would be erected.
Paul McAlduff stated that there is an existing electrical substation in the area that would help support the proposed wind farm in South Plymouth. He also stated that there were 20 bidders for the proposed windmill at the sewer treatment plan.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to support and move forward to the Board of Selectmen for their support; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing (cont.)
B539 – 292 Summer Street
Loring Tripp arrived and Timothy Grandy joined the Board for this continued public hearing.
Paul McAlduff did not participate in this hearing.
Valerie Massard informed the Board that she, Marc Garrett and the proponent met at the site to work out the details for the drainage in order to address the Board’s concerns. The open space has been reconfigured to contain the drainage on the new building lot, the drainage along the driveway has been redesigned to go into a drywell, and a berm and rain garden with a leaching basin will be installed to prevent any water from the proposed development from flowing onto the neighbors property. At the previous two hearings, the Board was concerned with the drainage for the two lot total, plus open space subdivision. Staff met with Mr. Bows and Marc Garrett at the site and worked out the details for the drainage. The reconfiguration of the open space will also provide a buffer from the house to the west.
Lynn Kelleher, an abutter, voiced her concerns with insuring that the drainage being contained on the site and the amount of vegetation and trees that would be removed.
Ms. Massard stated that the revised plans will be submitted to the Town’s Engineers for approval of the drainage design. There is also a planting plan for the areas that will be disturbed. The proposed berm will meander through the existing trees to reduce tree-cutting associated wit the drainage.
Larry Rosenblum moved to approve the special permit for a VOSD for B539 - 292 Summer Street subject to the following conditions:
The Village Open Space Density Development entitled “Village Open Space Development, 292 Summer Street” as approved is for no more than two (2) single-family residential units. The Petitioner agrees to waive its right to further subdivide the subject property shown on the Plan 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 or Deed Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the lots within 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.
The Petitioner has agreed to waive its right to any further residential development of the premises 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 or Deed Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the lots within the VOSD development.
The Approval Not Required Plan shall make reference to the Special Permit.
Prior to endorsement of the ANR plan:
a. Petitioner agrees to the return to the Planning Board with revised Plans and Drainage Calculations for final approval, which shall reflect the attached Concept Plan (Attachment A, reviewed at the September 18, 2006 public hearing), and shall incorporate the following as agreed to by the Petitioner:
i. Reconfigure the driveway and roof runoff into a drywell or rain-garden (Low Impact Design a.k.a. LID), rather than over land to the drainage area off the front of the lot as previously shown.
ii. Construct a berm around the natural low point where drainage will be directed so that there will be no overtopping of the rain garden or leaching basin (or combination of the two) constructed at this location. The Petitioner has done percolation test pits at the proposed drainage location, and a 2-foot berm as conceptually noted on the plans will tie into existing contours and prevent any overtopping of the drainage from the subject property. The berm will meander around significant trees at this location.
iii. Town Engineering has been consulted on this approach and asks that the one leaching basin minimum be installed with the rain garden to account for frozen ground conditions, they support the proposed approach described herein.
iv. Show the proposed 20-foot easement for the Town’s access to its underground drainage pipe at this location, and to continue to show the Town’s 8,000 SF drainage easement.
v. Offer phased planting plans for areas that will be re-graded on the property – phase 1 to consist of quickly established rooting vegetation (seeding and shrubs) with a phase 2 planting to consist of more significant trees and shrubs after stabilization has taken place. This plan should also include erosion control measures to prevent any sedimentation into the proposed open space.
vi. Reconfigure the open space consistent with the intent to buffer the street and surrounding residences. Ownership of the open space is likely to remain private, the proponent wishes to consult with an attorney prior to a final commitment on the configuration and proposed ownership of the open space.
Conditional upon the payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for this property, if any.
Four (4) sets of full size copies of all drawings comprising the VOSD plan with one complete set of reproducible plans (mylars) will be delivered to the Planning Board and one (1) electronic copy of the plans shall be delivered in a format acceptable to the Town Engineer.
Evidence that (1) the Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restriction(s) per the Conditions of this decision on the subject property, which restrict the use of the open space in a manner satisfactory to the Planning Board and Town Counsel consistent with this Decision, and (2) this Decision have been recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Planning Board. The Planning Board may negotiate an alternative timeline for the open space restrictions or deed restrictions if requested by the Petitioner.
Adequate fire flow and static pressure for water must be demonstrated by the Petitioner as approved by the Town Water Department within DPW.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the new building lot as depicted on the plan:
a. Site construction plans detailing proposed grading and trimming/cutting shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Board; and
b. The Petitioner agrees to attend a pre-construction meeting, and to stake the open space in the vicinity of construction to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, prior to the start of any earth work at the site. Said stakes are to remain in place until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
The petitioner states that the intended use of Lot 35A-5 (3,399 square feet), which is a narrow strip of land on the rear easterly portion of the existing lot, is that it may be combined with another parcel in the future. This should be noted on the plans.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Pinehills LLC – Street Name Approval
Valerie Massard presented a request for street name approval of two streets in the Pinehills development. The proposed names were “Painted Turtle” and “Four Greens”.
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the road names as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
B532 – Duck Plain Road – Lot Review
Loring Tripp recused himself and left the room.
Valerie Massard presented the site plan for Map 30, Lot 72A-1, which includes the demolition of an existing house and the proposed drainage and road improvements, driveway layout, and rain gardens for the site located off Duck Plain Road.
Larry Rosenblum moved to recommend approval of the site plan to the Building Commissioner subject to the following conditions:
The driveway pitch be shown to crown the water off to the north onto the lot rather than to flow towards the street.
Significant trees to be saved shall be flagged and noted on the plans near the road layout.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearings – Town Meeting Articles
Inclusionary Housing (cont. from 8/26/06)
Valerie Massard presented the proposed changes to the inclusionary bylaw with a table of the Proposed the number of units of affordable based on the number of units to be constructed and the proposed warrant article to create the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The design guidelines have yet to be drafted. Language has been added that would allow fees in lieu of the construction of affordable housing units.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval of the changes to the inclusionary bylaw to Town Meeting as follows:
SEE ATTACHMENT
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Affordable Housing Trust
Valerie Massard presented the proposed warrant article to create an affordable housing trust to accept and handle any cash in lieu of affordable housing, the land gifts, etc which could then be utilized by the Town, in partnerships with the public and private sector, to construct affordable housing. Currently, the Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting have to approve any land that goes to a non-profit group for the construction of affordable housing, which can take up to six months. The creation of the housing trust would allow for a quicker turn around of the funds or land for the local housing organizations. If the creation of the trust is approved at Town Meeting, the scope of duties would be further defined.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend support of the creation of the Affordable Housing Trust; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
TDR – MURA (cont. from 9/11/06)
Valerie Massard presented the framework for the design guidelines which the Board received prior to the meeting. Ms. Massard suggested that as the Board had not had an opportunity to fully review the proposed article with any of the affected steering committees or Town Meeting members, and therefore the Board continue working on the language for a future Town Meeting and take no action on these Fall Town Meeting articles at this time.
Ben Carlson, Urban Designer for Goody Clancy presented the proposed receiving area guidelines, which encompassed the project area scale for both large and small projects and the design principles for the site, architecture and landscape. Many of the design principles would apply to both the large and small projects. The sites would have a mixture of uses including residential, a minimum of 25% commercial, and public open space. The public areas would include neighborhood greens and recreational pathways. The streets and access would be pedestrian friendly and the sidewalks would provide connections throughout both the commercial and residential areas. In the commercial areas, parking on street would be encouraged with pedestrian friendly access and in the residential areas garages would be located on alleys and
parking courts to the extent possible. The architecture would be varied with larger buildings having varied façade treatments. The residential areas would have a traditional coastal New England appearance. Landscape would be varied and drought tolerant.
Valerie Massard stated that two sets of design guidelines are currently being drafted as one document would not be sufficient to address the differences between a small and large site. Ms. Massard suggested adding more specific information in the design guidelines about the architecture. Ms. Massard stated that the Board would have to vote to approve this article tonight in order for it to move forward for the Fall Town Meeting. She suggested that more outreach to the Steering Committees and the Town Meeting members regarding the design guidelines would be appropriate.
Loring Tripp suggested moving forward with the article while continuing to work on the design guidelines until Town Meeting..
Malcolm MacGregor felt that the design guidelines should be finalized before the article moves forward.
Marc Garrett was in favor of continuing to work on the language for a future Town Meeting.
Valerie Massard stated that this first draft addressed specific sites, but the final language would be applicable to all sites.
Larry Rosenblum felt that more time was necessary to work out al the details.
Loring Tripp moved to take no action on the proposed TDR-MURA article; the vote was (3-2-0) with Loring Tripp and Paul McAlduff in opposition.
Public Hearing (cont.)
B540 – Zion Hills/off Long Pond Road
Atty. Richard Serkey request a continuance to October 16,2006 at 7:30 p.m. for a full Board.
Loring Tripp moved to continue to October 16, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Site Plan Review
Hedges Pond Road/Marylou’s Coffee
Valerie Massard presented the site plan review for the proposed renovations of an existing building, and relocation of parking in order to open a Mary Lou’s Coffee Shop with a drive-through window at 6 Hedges Pond Road.
Marc Garrett questioned whether there is currently only one curb cut onto Hedges Pond Road.
Jody Murphy, representing Mary Lou’s, replied that there is only one curb cut now. Mr. Murphy stated that they would be installing an island, removing some of the slope on the site and installing a planting area in front of the building.
Paul McAdluff acknowledged that the site was a difficult area in regards to traffic, but it would be advantageous to clean up the site.
Valerie Massard suggested that the Cedarville Steering Committee should review the plans.
Loring Tripp was supportive.
Larry Rosenblum and Marc Garrett had some concerns with the additional exit lane and the parking configuration of the site. Mr. Garrett suggested making a single, two-way curb cut.
Ms. Massard stated that staff had some concerns with the parking and pedestrian access and that the project may require a variance because the corner of the building does not meet the minimum 11 ft. width requirements. She also suggested that a landscaping plan should be submitted.
Mr. Murphy suggested that he would like to meet with staff to address some of the concerns prior to returning to the Board.
Loring Tripp moved to continue the site plan review for Mary Lou’s Coffee Shop to October 16, 2006; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3384 – Goscon, Inc.
Warren Ave
Caroline Quidort reviewed the revisions to the proposed 4 unit multi-family duplexes with parking for one car underneath and additional parking in the rear. The decks that were proposed between the structures have been moved to the rear of the structures.
Jon Henson reviewed the site plan and the landscaping plan.
Marc Garrett moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Traditional wood siding material shall be used. Wood siding is more in keeping with the neighborhood. Alternatives such as “hardy plank” or other acceptable alternatives to wood may be used conditional on said materials having been presented for approval by the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals in advance.
Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy, the petitioner has agreed that detailed final landscape plans shall be prepared and submitted for review by the Planning Board with final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The proposed drainage system shall be in compliance with the Town Building Inspector’s accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw.
All site lighting is to comply with the Light Pollution Bylaw. Light poles should not exceed twelve (12) feet in height.
The proposed decks shall not be enclosed.
The project is subject to the purview of the Conservation Commission. No work may begin on the property until all relevant environmental permits and licenses are received for the project.
If a trash receptacle is used on the site, it is to be located and screened from the public view.
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 for any of the units at the site a Condominium Association shall be created and incorporate annual assessment for roadway maintenance, snow plowing, landscaping, wastewater treatment and other areas of common interest and concern. The Condominium Association shall also provide a maintenance program for drainage facilities and appurtenances, open space, parking and common drive/emergency access areas within the property to be maintained by the condominium association, which shall be detailed in the condominium association documents for the Condominium property.
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 3376 – BBC
State Road
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, and Jon Henson presented the revised plans for the British Beer Company’s proposal for an additional commercial building with age restricted housing consisting of eighteen townhouses and a seventeen unit residential structure with parking underneath. The residential layout has been revised since the original presentation. Additional open space has been provided at the rear of the residential units. The two-story townhouse units will each have a one- car garage on the first level in between the units. Mr. Henson presented sections detailing the grade changes on the site, the retaining walls, and the cross section of the residential roadway.
Alan Popkin, Maugel Architects, Inc., reviewed the proposed retail building which will have seven or eight retail tenants with a drive through for a potential bank facility. The second floor of the structure will be office space. The building would have a New England style brick façade with green glass, canopies, metal standing seam roof, and dormers. The rooftop mechanicals will be screened. The townhouse units will have a farmer’s porch along the front, shingle siding with clapboard fronts, architectural shingles on the rooftops and dormers on the second level. The midrise building will have 25 parking spaces underneath, a lobby area, community room and one or two bedroom units with balconies. The first floor façade would be brick with the second floor having shingle and
clapboard siding.
Larry Rosenblum questioned the square footage of the town house units.
Mr. Popkin stated that they will be 1,800 sq. ft.
Valerie Massard reviewed the recommended conditions in the staff report. The project would be done in two phases: phase one the retail building and phase two the residential component. Ms. Massard suggested that the applicant return at a future meeting to present a traffic mitigation package. Ms. Massard stated that detailed elevations and architectural plans would have to be presented at a future date. There would also be approximately 50,000 cubic yards of earth removed from the site. Ms. Massard encouraged the applicant to do the rear grading between 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. The project is subject to Inclusionary housing. The structures would require a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals if the 35 ft. height limit is exceeded. Ms. Massard also requested
written information on the architectural materials, parking, and lighting.
Anne Skelly, Cedarville Steering Committee, was concerned with the lack of sidewalks. She suggested that a sidewalk should be installed along Old County Road.
Patricia Whalom, White Cliffs Drive, was concerned with traffic, infrastructure, earth removal, and the buffers to West Cliff Drive, tree removal, lighting, and drainage issues.
Larry Rosenblum suggested that the natural topography of the site should be utilized to make the buildings blend into the landscape, more open space should be provided, a sitting or play area should be created and sidewalks should be provided. Mr. Rosenblum was also concerned with the proposed density.
Marc Garrett had some concerns with the landscaping of the site.
Mr. Henson stated that the landscape plan was kept conceptual at this point, but would include a meandering alignment of a combination of needle and broadleaf vegetation with a height of 6-12 ft. for lower plantings and possibly oaks for shade trees. The applicant has agreed to install sidewalks along Old County Road and would be working with the State to address sidewalks along State Road.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested reducing the density of the residential units by three, increasing the open space, additional screening of the view of the rear of the retail building and providing safe pedestrian access to the supermarket.
Larry Rosenblum suggested installing blind dormers along the rear of the retail building and wrapping the glass area around the side facing State Road to make it more architecturally interesting.
Valerie Massard suggested leaving some of the earth material as a berm along the back of the retail building.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following:
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE JULY PEER REVIEW MUST BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO FINAL ACTION BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
PETITIONER HAS AGREED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD ON OCTOBER 2, 2006 TO PRESENT THE TRAFFIC MITIGATION PACKAGE.
THIS PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS IS SUBJECT ENTIRELY TO A COMPLETED, ACCEPTABLE, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION MITIGATION PACKAGE.
THE PLANNING BOARD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED UNIT COUNT OF 35 AGE-RESTRICTED DWELLING UNITS; 32 IS THE MAXIMUM UNIT COUNT, CONDITIONAL ON OTHER SITE PLANNING ISSUES, THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
and the following conditions:
Earth Removal
No more than 50,000 cubic yards of material may be removed from the site under this special permit.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase, the petitioner shall post a performance guarantee to assure completion of the earth removal. Funds are to be posted in a form acceptable to the Building Commissioner to cover the cost of establishing vegetative stabilization of the exposed areas.
The proponent should be required to post a bond sufficient to ensure that any damage caused to Town roadways will be repaired.
Erosion control measures are to be detailed on a final plan to be submitted to the Building Commissioner. Any exposed banks or land areas created by the excavation should be hydro-seeded or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the Building Commissioner within six months of the excavation. The plans shall include a three-year inspection plan to ensure adequate stabilization. The proponent shall loam and seed any portions of the site that are not under construction after earth removal activities have ceased for a period of six (6) months.
The proposed truck route shall be approved by the Board of Appeals and will not include use of Old County Road, as agreed to by the Petitioner.
A plan for dust suppression measures shall be submitted to the Building Commissioner for final approval, and shall include by a minimum of 100 feet of bituminous asphalt material on the access road at the intersection with the public roadway being used for ingress/egress to the site, with 50 feet of coarse aggregate material beyond the asphalt on the access road as agreed to by the Petitioner.
The grading of the residential portion of the site (Phase II), and the excavation and trucking of material and/or noise generated by the excavation and trucking of material shall be limited to Monday through Friday. The hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No excavation activities shall be permitted on holidays.
Proposed side slopes shall be at a grade of 3:1 or 2:1 with erosion control measures in place.
The petitioner shall be responsible for the clearing of any sand that accumulates on the truck route as a result of the excavation of material on a daily basis.
At the end of each phase, prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, a statement is to be submitted to the Building Commissioner from a Registered Professional Engineer stating that the conditions of the Special Permit are being followed, and providing tallies of earth removal to accurately determine the amount of gravel being removed.
If all of the above noted conditions are not adhered to the Building Commissioner may cause all excavation work to cease until the problems identified are corrected.
Additional conditions:
No more than 32 residential dwelling units shall be constructed under this special permit. Up to 32 residential dwelling units may be constructed subject to meeting the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals.
All residential units are to be age-restricted, as defined under the Bylaw, as elderly housing: all permanent occupants are persons 55 years of age or older.
As agreed to by the petitioner, the petitioner must submit phase site plans to the Zoning Board of Appeals for its approval as consistent with the special permit prior to applying for a building permit for each phase identified in the special permit decision. Such phase site plan shall include a site-phasing schedule, which addresses: stormwater management, utility installation, off-site mitigation improvements, emergency access, roadway construction and building construction within each phase. Each such site plan shall include drawings, details, text and specifications for drainage, utilities, roadways, landscaping, building design, colors, construction materials, and walkways.
The Planning Board, Town Engineer, Fire Chief, Department of Public Works, and Design Review Board shall be given an opportunity to review and make written recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the site plans for each phase prior to the final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Site plan approval shall require that the Planning Board, Town Engineer, Fire Chief, Department of Public Works, and Design Review Board have an opportunity to review and comment on whether the site plans adequately address issues as may be specified in the special permit, including but not limited to the following:
1. Public health, safety, and convenience;
2. Aesthetics;
3. Pedestrian circulation within the site;
4. Traffic circulation within and outside the site; and
5. Substantial use and construction to date.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall review the plans for each subsequent phase at an informal public meeting and shall approve the phase if a majority of the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals in attendance determine that such phase is in substantial compliance with the special permit. The Zoning Board of Appeals may approve some variations in the location and design of buildings, parking areas, or other elements that do not amount to a substantial modification of the project.
The phasing schedule is an essential feature of the special permit, and the petitioner may not modify the phasing schedule without the permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In each site plan review submittal, the petitioner must identify any significant change to the original phasing schedule referred to in the special permit and provide an explanation of such changes.
The Petitioner must demonstrate adequate static and fire pressure in order to utilize Town water, and must meet the requirements of the Fire Chief and the Town of Plymouth Water Department. Hydrants and residential fire-suppression sprinklers will be located as required by the Fire Chief.
The right-of-way that extends from State Road to Nameloc Road as shown on the plans will remain. The Petitioner has agreed that the pedestrian use of the easement will be directed and incorporated into the pedestrian layout of the site.
The Petitioner has agreed to address the need for pedestrian access to the Shaw’s supermarket via Old County Road and the need for pedestrian access to other shopping areas as part of the traffic mitigation package.
A curb cut permit from MassHighway on Route 3A is required prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Petitioner has agreed to: make use of landscape berms and architectural features to break up the west elevation of the proposed retail building; use of dormers and other architectural features in the large residential building; using natural contours to the extent feasible in the residential portion of the site; add a public space component to the residential portion of the project, and to add internal and external sidewalks in the final site plans.
The Petitioner has agreed to allocate an easement for future widening of Route 3A,including sidewalk location, at no cost to the Town across the frontage of the property as depicted on the plans as a part of the proposed traffic mitigation.
The residential component of the project is subject to a special permit for Inclusionary Housing per Section 205-71 of the Bylaw. The Petitioner has agreed that due to the current housing market and other considerations regarding the residential component of the site, NO BUILDING PERMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION shall be issued until a Memorandum of Understanding with the Plymouth Housing Authority, as detailed in the Town of Plymouths Guide to Developing Affordable Housing in Plymouth, subject to Board of Appeals review and approval has been signed. Any modifications requested by the Board of Appeals are to be sent back to the Housing Authority for final review and comment prior to final approval by the Board of Appeals.
The buildings within the project will not exceed the 35-foot height limit for the respective zoning districts in which they are located.
Final site plans shall reflect the parking lot configuration as depicted in Conceptual Landscaping Plan Alternative B.
Any signage shall meet the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw.
Adequate buffering between the retail/commercial uses and abutting residential uses with respect to Section 205-21 shall be shown on the plans to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals.
Rooftop mechanicals for the retail building and the 17-unit residential building shall be adequately screened from public ways and abutters to the extent feasible.
Detailed descriptions of any presentation of the building materials, colors and architectural renderings presented at the Planning Board and Board of Appeals meetings must be provided in a written report by the Petitioner no later than fifteen (15) days from the effective date of this special permit decision. No other building materials, colors are architectural styles may be used, and no substantial changes to the conceptual landscaping plans submitted at the Planning Board meeting shall be made, without further review by the Planning Board and Design Review Board, subject to final approval by the Board of Appeals.
The Petitioner will need to demonstrate that the proposed 15,000 SF additional retail, 37 units of age-restricted housing and reconfigured parking lot will adequately meet the parking and vehicular circulation demands of the site to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals prior to issuance of a Building Permit for any phase of this site in substantial conformance with the Bylaw, include parking space dimensions, driving lane dimensions, traffic flow patterns, loading spaces, curb cuts and lighting. The information submitted by the Petitioner in satisfaction of this condition may be subject to peer review at the determination of the Board of Appeals.
The proposed residential decks shall not be enclosed without review by the Board of Appeals.
Emergency vehicle access and maneuverability at the proposed cul-de-sac and around the proposed 17-unit building must be addressed in the final site plans, through a CAD-diagram showing the driving pattern on the site plans of the typical Town of Plymouth fire engine, with Fire Chief approval, prior to issuance of a Building Permit for any of the residential dwelling units at this site. The information submitted by the Petitioner in satisfaction of this condition may be subject to peer review at the determination of the Board of Appeals.
The proposed drainage system shall be in compliance with the Town Building Inspector’s accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw.
All site lighting is to comply with the Light Pollution Bylaw per Section 205-65. Light poles should not exceed twelve (12) feet in height in the residential area and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet within the site.
If a trash receptacle is used on the site, it is to be located and screened from the public view.
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 for any of the units at the site a Condominium Association shall be created and incorporate annual assessment for roadway maintenance, snow plowing, landscaping, wastewater treatment and other areas of common interest and concern. The Condominium Association shall also provide a maintenance program for drainage facilities and appurtenances, open space, parking and common drive/emergency access areas within the property to be maintained by the condominium association, which shall be detailed in the condominium association documents for the Condominium property.
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).
The Board endorsed the vote for the proposed windmill bylaw and a letter to Helen Hapgood thanking her for her service on the Open Space Committee.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to endorse a letter of support for the application of a grant to trail improvements in the Russell Mills Pond area; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Form A’s:
A4227 – Map 11, Lot 25A (11.1A) – Subdivide into lots 25A-1 (9,094 sf) and 25A-2 (10.8 A)
This plan has been submitted as a condition of the B536 - Sherman Woods VOSD subdivision.
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to endorse the plan once the number of the notes on the plan has been corrected and a note has been added that references the condition of the VOSD special permit requiring the submission of a Form A plan the vote was (4-0-1) with Marc Garrett in abstention.
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 10:40 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: October 16, 2006
Administrative Assistant
| 
