Planning Board Meeting
September 17, 2007
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, Marc Garrett, Loring Tripp, III, Paul McAlduff, and Larry Rosenblum
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard and Caroline Quidort
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Conceptual Review
Governor Bradford and Harbor Place
Phil Chrusz, NE environmental developers, reviewed downtown study – purchase and sale, Stephen Kelleher, Stephen Kelleher Architects, presented a conceptual review for proposed new development of two waterfront sites. The sites now contain the Governor Bradford Hotel and Harbour Place, which would be demolished. The conceptually proposed building for the Governor Bradford site would have 76 underground parking spaces, 8,000 sq. ft. of retail/commercial space on the ground level with 40 parking spaces to the rear and 1350 to 1700 sq. ft. condominium units on the second and third floors. The conceptual Harbour Place site would have 119 underground parking spaces; a 5,800 sq. ft. retail building and a 7,200 sq. ft. restaurant building on the ground level with 65 parking spaces to the rear; and 1400 to 1800 sq. ft.
condominium units on the second and third floors with an open courtyard in the center. The conceptual plans meet the goals identified in the Plymouth Public Space Action Plan. The proponents have presented the proposal to DPW. They are in the process of doing test borings on the site and will have the results in a couple of weeks.
Lee Hartmann stated that in 1995 the zoning of the area changed from General Commercial (GC) to Downtown/Harbor (DH) in order to encourage economic development of the area. Minimal setbacks are required in the area. The proponents have met informally with the Historic District Commission (HDC) to present their proposal. The project would require a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals and approval by HDC. There is some question as to whether the Harbour Place building is a historic structure.
Julie Reynolds, Café Carmen Nicole, asked if there was a plan to accommodate the existing businesses in Harbour Place and whether the retail/commercial spaces would be leased or sold.
Phil Chrusz stated that the project would be done in two phases with the Governor Bradford demolition/reconstruction done first. Existing businesses in the Harbour Place building would then be offered the right of first refusal for the retail/commercial space in the new building. The demolition/reconstruction of the Harbour Place site would be the second phase. The retail/commercial spaces would be leased.
Richard Quintal, Board of Selectmen was adamant about keeping the same amount of retail/commercial businesses on the waterfront. Mr. Quintal wanted to insure that the historical character of “America’s Hometown” was maintained.
Marc Garrett thought that it was an interesting concept. He requested that the proponents submit the hydrologic information for both sites as there are artesian and tidal conditions that might affect what could be built on the sites. Mr. Garrett also wanted to insure that the existing businesses were able to operate continuously.
Larry Rosenblum suggested varying the architecture in a grander fashion and possibly creating elements that exceed the 35 ft. height limit as these buildings will be a focal point on the waterfront. Mr. Rosenblum suggested that the proponents show sections through the building. Paul McAlduff stated that the conceptual presentation was a good start. He also wanted to insure that the existing businesses were accommodated. Mr. McAlduff thought that the Harbour Place building was part of the original mill that was on the site and could be historic.
Malcolm MacGregor had many of the same comments, but suggested balancing the residential with office/retail and not restricting the design to suburban architecture.
Loring Tripp felt that the massing of the proposed buildings on the waterfront and the limited ability for the stockpiling of building supplies and materials on the sites was of concern. Mr. Tripp suggested increasing the articulation of the roof lines. He requested that construction timelines be provided that would limit the impact to the waterfront during peak seasons.
The Board looks forward to further review of the proposed project.
Administrative Notes:
BOA 3452 – Paul J D’Angelo
The Board recommended approval of Board of Appeals Case 3449 – Petitioner: Paul J. D’Angelo, West Ridge Trail, M 95, L 49-28, request for a Special Permit to waive the front setback requirements in order to construct an addition with garage, breezeway and deck subject to the following conditions:
The proposed front porch shall not be enclosed without further review by the Board of Appeals.
Proper authorization must be received from Natural Heritage for work within priority habitat for rare and endangered species, if applicable.
The elevator tower roof line shall have a flat roof to more resemble a chimney.
BOA 3453 – Christopher Garuti
The Board recommended approval of Board of Appeals Case 3453 – Petitioners: Christopher Garuti and Jessica Kelly, 14-16 South St, M 22, L 115, request for a Special Permit to waive the side setback requirements and a Special Permit to enlarge/alter non-conforming structure in order to remove 7.5 feet of the left, side entry to gain one parking space and to add 4 feet to the rear of the entry to make usable space as a pantry subject to the following condition:
The recommendations of the Design Review Board shall be met to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes as presented: the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3450 – Motiva Enterprises LLC/Shell Station
Long Pond Road, M 89, L 47, Modification of SP #3007 to waive setback requirements in order to construct an awning
Monica Weil presented the request for a modification of Special Permit #3007 to waive the setback requirements in order to install awnings at the entrance and exit of the car wash behind the Shell Gas Station at the intersection of Long Pond Road and Home Depot Drive.
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The canopy shall be peaked rather than curved.
All prior conditions of the special permits shall remain in full force and effect, including any conditions issued for previous modifications to those existing special permits.
The vote was (4-1-0) with Loring Tripp in opposition.
BOA 3454 – Plymouth Regional Economic Development Foundation
Hedges Pond Road, M 55, L 25, SP for gravel removal, 400,000 cu. yds.
Bill Shaw, Associated Engineers, reviewed the request for a Special Permit subject to Environmental Design Conditions in order to remove approximately 400,000 cubic yards of gravel in order to prepare the site for commercial development (see following subdivision B544). Mr. Shaw reviewed the existing topography of the site which varies from 50 ft to 157 ft. at the highest point. The proposal is to remove the gravel by taking of the top of the hill above Hedges Pond Road. At the rear of the site 3.5 acres will be left as open space. Town water will be brought to the site.
Valerie Massard reminded the Board that this was a two part review – the request for gravel removal under BOA Case 3454 and the review of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for B544 Hedges Pond Road Commercial Park. The preliminary plan freezes the zoning for the site. The land was deeded to the Economic Foundation by the Town after Town Meeting action that rezoned the site from residential to commercial. The applicant has reviewed the new gravel removal conditions that would be required under the proposed amendment to the gravel removal bylaw (Fall Town Meeting 2007) and has agreed to comply with them as conditions for this project.
John Mahoney asked whether the revenue for the 400,000 cubic yards went to the Town, who was going to do the removal and over what time frame would the removal take place.
Mr. Shaw stated that they have agreed to two years for completion of the gravel removal.
Denis Hanks stated that they have not selected a company to do the removal as of yet. Any proceeds or profit would be put back into the site for the infrastructure within the subdivision that will have to be installed.
Marc Garrett was concerned with providing adequate buffering from surrounding properties.
Mr. Shaw stated that a minimum of 50 ft around the perimeter of the property would be provided as a buffer.
Paul McAlduff was concerned with the additional traffic that would stack up on Hedges Pond Road trying to access Rte. 3A and Rte 3. There is already a need for traffic lights in the area.
Malcolm MacGregor was concerned because the Board has tried very hard to avoid allowing projects that would be visible from the highway.
B544 – Hedges Pond Road Commercial Park
Preliminary Subdivision Plan
Valerie Massard stated that there is already a need for traffic mitigations in the area and that need will increase as development continues in the area. The British Beer Company is looking to expand, Cedarville Commons (still under appeal) may be developed, and a McDonalds has been proposed. The off ramps from Route 3, at State Road, already have a higher than average crash rate. Without knowing what type of businesses would be constructed on this site it is difficult to predict what the impacts could be. Smaller businesses would not require a special permit. A recent ANR plan defined lots along Hedges Pond Road. These lots may be reconfigured when the definitive plan is filed. There is a concern about the number of curb cuts on Hedges Pond Road. The drainage proposed would create an earthen
dam of approximately 8 ft. in height along the adjacent Town property. Ms. Massard stated that staff hassuggested eliminating the dam and reducing the grades onto the Town owned property. The proposed cul-de-sac road is in excess of 500 ft. and will require a waiver of road length. Traffic issues will have to be addressed.
Larry Rosenblum asked how much other commercial space is available along Hedges Pond Road.
Ms. Massard identified the available commercial areas.
Marc Garrett suggested installing leaching basins throughout the site instead of the proposed drainage because of potential impacts to groundwater next to the capped landfill.
Mr. Shaw suggested that the Board visit the site prior to making any recommendations and/or acting on the preliminary plan.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to take no action and hold a site visit on Saturday, September 22, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
The Board took a five minute break.
Other Business:
1,000 Acres Development Guidelines List
The Board reviewed the revisions to the memorandum regarding the 1,000 Acres Guidelines Development – Framework for Action and Action Plan and the recommended mission statement for the Citizens Advisory Committee that were presented at last weeks meeting. The Board agreed to several more revisions and approved the documents as follows:
Town of Plymouth 1000 Acres Citizen Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDED MISSION STATEMENT
The following is proposed language for charging the 1000 acres CAC:
The 1000 Acres Citizen Advisory Committee will work with the Town of Plymouth, as part of a guidelines development process, to identify desired long-term uses for the 1000 acre site in south Plymouth, including those currently being proposed by Good News Holdings. It will also evaluate and compare the long-term cumulative impacts of these uses and identify other community goals and concerns related to the future of this site and possible creation of a new highway entrance to Plymouth. The result of its work will be written and oral presentations to the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board. These reports will be delivered concurrent with other guideline development activities. The emphasis of this work should be the interests and concerns of the south Plymouth community.
Town of Plymouth 1000 Acres Guidelines Development
FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
The Planning Board makes the following recommendations to the Board of Selectmen to continue the process of assessing the development potential(s) and limitations on the 1000 acre parcel. These recommendations amend and should supersede those presented in the Planning Board memo dated September 27, 2005.
While many elected and appointed town officials, and staff have expertise in land planning and management issues, the Planning Board acknowledges that the Town does not have the resources in place that are necessary to address the varied and complex issues related to a possible development scenario for the 1000 acre site. Therefore, it is essential to engage a third party participant that not only has the resources, but also the contacts and expertise to ferret out all of the site specific issues that need to be addressed. Mass Development certainly fits the requirements for such a third party participant to partner with the Town in this site review and evaluation process.
Prior to executing any agreements with a third party participant (e.g. Mass Development and/or others), and prior to any land transfer or development commitments with the Regional Economic Development Foundation or any other public, private, or non-profit entity: the Citizens Advisory Committee should be appointed and be given specific objectives and charge, and be authorized to commence their work immediately. Paralleling this effort, clear and specific guidelines should be developed by the Town to direct a third party assessment to best benefit Plymouth. The purpose of these guidelines will be to establish the framework and conditions under which further action, if any, should take place.
The purpose of this guidelines development process is to:
· Further refine development potential of site considering, but not limited to – land constraints, tax title, environmental permitting restrictions and public infrastructure;
· Establish needs of interested developer, in this case Good News Holdings, including but not limited to land size and character, land use, public infrastructure, town services, zoning and permitting;
· Identify long-term community goals and concerns to provide benchmarks for evaluating future development of this site;
· Identify and evaluate other possible long-term uses for the site related to long-term community goals and concerns, and relate to current development proposal;
· Identify long-term off-site potential benefits and impacts of above possible uses, and relate to current development proposal;
· Assess the implications of Plymouth’s Master Plan and RKG Economic Development Study to the advisability of developing this site with this user at this time;
· Evaluate benefits of a no-build option;
· Identify infrastructure needs in South Plymouth resulting from a Route 25 entrance and development on the 1000 acre site;
· Assess the long-term cumulative impacts of development on the 1000 acre site and the proposed A.D. Makepeace development;
· Identify opportunities and benefits of possible integration of known major development projects in area to minimize duplicated efforts and mitigate impacts to the southern portions of Plymouth and neighboring towns;
· Identify zoning and other growth control measures that might be needed to prevent undesired secondary development or other impacts in the immediate area or beyond;
· Determine process benchmarks and performance standards for disposition and development of the site;
· Evaluate the possible application of “smart growth” planning principles, in the form of substantial land transfers and new infrastructure, to future development in south Plymouth, recognizing that the largest land parcels in this area are controlled by only three entities – Town of Plymouth, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and A.D. Makepeace Company.
The guidelines should recognize that there are complementary, but potentially conflicting interests in the outcome. On the one hand, the Commonwealth is looking to boost economic development and the State’s attractiveness as a film production center. For that, they are prepared to provide significant economic incentives to participating companies and look at measures that might otherwise not be available to Plymouth, such as allowing a new interchange on Route 25. Mass Development, as an agent of the State, has similar objectives, with the added incentive of being not only a development agency, but a funding source for development as well.
On the other hand, the State, through its environmental and other agencies, has conservation and other interests to protect, and these may create substantial limits to allowed development on the site.
While all this may benefit us, we, as a Town, have additional concerns that need to be addressed. The site in question is in the most rural and least accessible part of the community. Creating a new southern entrance to Plymouth will encourage growth in an area currently least suited for growth. This will have major and long-term implications for development patterns in the town and service demands at every level. These are Town issues and not the State’s. This distinction needs to be recognized in how we further develop these guidelines and those we select to help us with this task.
As we enter this process, the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board may require our own consultants to advocate for the Town and evaluate potential impacts on the Town. The willingness of Mass Development, other State agencies such as EOEA, and developers to fund these assessments should be determined in advance of the guidelines development process.
The guidelines process, once begun, should proceed with a firm timeline and agenda, with periodic and formal reporting back to the Selectmen and Planning Board in a visible and highly transparent way. Based on this process, the Town of Plymouth will decide to either take or not take the next step, which is a master planning process and, beyond that, special zoning, permitting and land disposition.
The guidelines should recognize at minimum, the following stakeholders and interests. All of whom should be engaged in the process.
· Town of Plymouth – economic, environmental, conservation, infrastructure, cultural and recreational interests
· 1000-Acres Neighbors – traffic, recreation and other life-style impacts
· Commonwealth of Massachusetts – economic development, regional and transportation planning, environmental and land conservation, and recreational interests;
· A.D. Makepeace – impacts and potential synergies
· Non-governmental environmental groups – conservation
· Neighboring towns – impacts and opportunities
· Good News Holdings and other interested developers of the site – land suitability, development and permitting requirements
The product of this effort will be a Town of Plymouth 1000-Acres Development Guideline. This document, subject to modification by the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board as conditions change over time, will be the document used to guide discussion with all potential developers of the site and other interested parties. Conclusions drawn from these guidelines will be incorporated into any development agreement(s) negotiated by the Town of Plymouth.
Town of Plymouth 1000 Acres Guidelines Development
ACTION PLAN
The following is an action plan for developing a 1000 Acres Development Guideline. This is an exploratory process to determine needs, concerns and opportunities inherent in the development of the 1000 acres and creation of a new entrance to Plymouth from Route 25.
1. Each stakeholder will be asked to prepare a preliminary list of needs and concerns in order for them to achieve their development or no-development goals.
2. A half- or full-day workshop will be held at which each stakeholder group will present their list to all the others and field questions. This information will be documented and summarized in a document to be shared with all stakeholders.
3. A follow-up workshop will take place in which each stakeholder group will have an opportunity to express their flexibility with regard to their needs and concerns – what’s acceptable and not – in light of other stakeholders’ interests. These points will also be summarized in a document that describes the parameters of a development and master planning process.
4. Based on this assessment, the Town of Plymouth, through the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board, will decide whether to proceed or not proceed with a master planning process.
5. All phases of review will occur in public forums with participation from citizens at large. The guidelines process, once begun, should proceed with a firm timeline and agenda, with periodic and formal reporting back to the Selectmen and Planning Board in a visible and highly transparent way. Based on this process, the Town of Plymouth will decide to either take or not take the next step, which is a master planning process and, beyond that, special zoning, permitting and land disposition.
Action Items To Be Considered |
Lead Stakeholders |
Further refine development potential of site considering, but not limited to – land constraints, tax title, environmental permitting restrictions and public infrastructure |
Mass Development |
Establish needs of interested developer, in this case Good News Holdings, including but not limited to land size and character, land use, public infrastructure, town services, zoning and permitting |
Good News Holdings |
Identify long-term community goals and concerns to provide benchmarks for evaluating future development of this site |
Board of Selectmen Planning Board Citizen Advisory Committee |
Identify and evaluate other possible long-term uses for the site related to long-term community goals and concerns, and relate to current development proposal |
Board of Selectmen Planning Board Citizen Advisory Committee Independent consultant |
Identify long-term off-site potential benefits and impacts of above possible uses, and relate to current development proposal |
Board of Selectmen Planning Board Citizen Advisory Committee |
Assess the implications of Plymouth’s Master Plan and RKG Economic Development Study to the advisability of developing this site with this user at this time |
Board of Selectmen Planning Board Independent consultant (w support of FinCom and Finance Dept.) |
Evaluate benefits of a no-build option |
Open Space, Public Lands committees Environmental Conservation NGOs Regional planning organizations Planning Board Board of Selectmen Independent consultant |
Identify infrastructure needs in South Plymouth resulting from a Route 25 entrance and development on the 1000 acre site |
Planning Board Mass Development Independent consultant |
Assess the long-term cumulative impacts of development on the 1000 acre site and on the proposed A.D. Makepeace development |
Planning Board Mass Development A.D. Makepeace Company Independent consultant |
Identify opportunities and benefits of possible integration of known major development projects in area to minimize duplicated efforts and mitigate impacts to the southern portions of Plymouth and neighboring towns |
Planning Board Mass Development A.D. Makepeace Company Independent consultant Neighboring towns Regional planning organizations |
Identify zoning and other growth control measures that might be needed to prevent undesired secondary development in the area |
Planning Board Independent consultant |
Determine process benchmarks and performance standards for disposition and development of the site |
Board of Selectmen Planning Board |
Evaluate the possible application of “smart growth” planning principles, in the form of substantial land transfers and new infrastructure, to future development in south Plymouth, recognizing that the largest land parcels in this area are controlled by only three entities – Town of Plymouth, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, A.D. Makepeace Company |
Board of Selectmen Planning Board Mass Development Mass Dept. of Conservation and Recreation Mass Highway Department A.D. Makepeace Company Independent consultant |
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to forward the amended documents to the Board of Selectmen; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Minutes
August 27, 2007
Loring Tripp moved to approve the minutes of August 27, 2007 as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Valerie Massard read the notice for a balloon test for the Bay Hill Wind Project. The balloon testing is being conducted for three proposed wind turbines on land located at 44 Mountain Hill Road. The balloon tests will be done on October 4 and 6, 2007 at two hour intervals starting at 8:00 a.m. and ending at 2:00 p.m.
Larry Rosenblum suggested that the balloon testing should be done at two different intervals and the public should be notified.
Valerie Massard suggested that a press release, an article in the local newspaper and or/radio announcements in advance of the testing could be done and that during the public hearing process for the special permit the Board could request that a second testing be done.
Paul McAlduff agreed to contact the local newspaper and radio stations.
Discussion
Spring Town Meeting Articles
Lee Hartmann presented a list of articles proposed for Spring Town Meeting and possible future articles. The articles proposed for Spring Town Meeting 2008 are as follows:
Residential Building Size/FAR restrictions (Staff Responsible – Valerie Massard)
Site Plan and Special Permit Review (Staff Responsible – Caroline Quidort)
Create a formal site plan review process through the Planning Board. Detail the types of information required as part of such filings.
Adopt New Zoning Maps
With the advent of GIS, the official zoning maps (1972 Mylar Plans) are no longer updated. The Town needs to adopt the current GIS based maps as its official zoning map.
To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Maps by replacing the current Zoning Maps with Zoning Maps entitled:
“Plymouth, Plymouth Quadrant, Zoning Map No. 1, Revised to Article #31 2007 SATM”;
“Plymouth, Manomet Quadrant, Zoning Map No. 1, Revised to Article #31 2007 SATM”, prepared by the Plymouth Engineering Division;
“Plymouth, Sagamore Quadrant, Zoning Map No. 1, Revised to Article #31 2007 SATM”, prepared by the Plymouth Engineering Division;
“Plymouth, Wareham Quadrant, Zoning Map No. 1, Revised to Article #31 2007 SATM”, prepared by the Plymouth Engineering Division; and
“Plymouth, Downtown Area, Zoning Map No. 2, Revised to Article #31 2007 SATM, prepared by the Plymouth Engineering Division”
as well as associated definitions, procedures, and schedules, or take any other action relative thereto.
Valerie Massard stated that several Town Departments are working jointly on the grant to rewrite the Stormwater Guidelines and once they are done, some minor adjustments to the Zoning Bylaw will be required.
Mr. Hartmann suggested that the Board review the list and submit any suggestions for other Town Meeting articles to him.
Marc Garrett outlined several concerns that the North Plymouth Steering Committee (NPSC) has brought to his attention. They are concerned with the conditions of the buildings that house Stein Furniture and the former Love Your Pet. They also were concerned with the condition of Sever Field and how overgrown it is.
Loring Tripp suggested that the memo should be copied to the Board of Health and the Board of Selectmen
Mr. Hartmann stated that the clean up of Sever Field is more extensive than originally thought and until the issue is resolved, staff will not be sent out there to do any work, including routine maintenance such as mowing.
Loring Tripp moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: October 1, 2007
Administrative Assistant
| 
