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, Paul McAlduff, and Larry Rosenblum
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
7:00 Administrative Notes:
The Board recommended approval of BOA 3468 – Francis & Carol Kuhn, White Horse Road, Map 45A, Lot 37, Special Permit to waive front and side setback requirements and Special Permit to alter, move, construct, reconstruct or enlarge a pre-existing non-conforming structure/use in order to reconstruct a two bedroom, 2-story, single-family dwelling.
The Board recommended approval of BOA 3467 – Four OC LLC, Commerce Way, Map 103, Lot 14K-150, Special Permit for master plan signage to construct a series of signs related to a commercial development.
The Board discussed the size and scope of the proposed signs as they relate to the other signs already approved for this site to insure compliance with zoning.
The Board approved a subdivision covenant extension for B537 – Village at South Meadow VOSD.
The Board approved the final guarantee account release for B432 and B488 – Carter’s River Farm, I & II in the amount of $10,380.85.
The Board approved the minutes of December 3, 2007 as presented.
The Board approved a lot release for All Lots in the B520 – Beaver Dam Ridge subdivision.
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing (cont. from 12-10)
B545 – Anderson – Glen Ave VOSD
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Randy Parker, Land Management Systems Inc., presented an application for a Village Open Space Development (VOSD) off Glen Avenue. The VOSD would create two single family lots and an open space lot. One of the single family lots has an existing dwelling. Drainage improvements would be installed on Glen Ave and the residential lots would share a 14’ wide driveway. Mr. Parker presented an alternative scenario for the VOSD that would reverse the structure and the septic system in the rear dwelling in order to create more of an equal open space area between the abutting homes.
Tony Raila, 24 Glen Ave, was concerned with the existing drainage that is causing flooding on his property.
Valerie Massard assured Mr. Raila that staff has insisted that drainage be installed to alleviate the flooding in the roadway as part of the project.
Janice Duval, 5 Neds Way, was curious about how the drainage would affect her property, how much of the forested area would remain, and whether Ridge and Indian Aves would be disturbed.
Mr. Parker outlined the retaining wall along the driveway that would contain drainage and the open space area that will buffer her property. Mr. Parker stated that there would be no access through Ridge or Indian Aves.
Allison Sullivan, 11 Ridge Ave. speaking on behalf of her brother who owns 12 Ridge Ave also, was supportive of the plan, but asked about the ownership of the open space and whether a fence or monument could be installed that would delineate the open space area.
Mr. Parker stated that they could install a split rail fence or monument to delineate the open space.
Gail Prescott, 24 Glen Ave., was concerned about the drainage and construction trucks traveling on the road.
Ellen Nix, 7 Landfall Lane asked who would own the open space and whether it would be Town or conservation land.
Mr. Parker explained that a homeowners association would be established that would provide maintenance of the roads and drainage and create an undivided interest in the ownership of the open space.
Valerie Massard stated that the key issues are the drainage on Glen Ave. which can be addressed and the improvements proposed will be inspected by the Town, prior to the issuance of any building permits and reinspected after construction of the buildings. Ms. Massard asked that plans incorporating the changes to the driveway, the relocation of the septic system, any easements, structures, and landscaping as well as the architectural design for the proposed structures should be presented; that the open space be bounded; a flow test for adequate water pressure should be submitted; and peer review of the drainage needs to be done.
Marc Garrett suggested adding a condition to the approval about the installation and maintenance of the monuments and an unobtrusive type of fence to delineate the open space. Mr. Garrett asked for clarification on the proposed drainage.
Mr. Parker explained that the catch basin at the end of the driveway was designed to catch the water from the lot to Glen Ave. and the road drainage will address the problems of the neighbors.
Larry Rosenblum asked if the open space would have a restriction.
Mr. Parker stated that it would be a privately held conservation restriction that would prohibit the cutting of any trees but allow passive uses and would be defined in a restrictive covenant and through deed restrictions.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if a rain garden could be installed in lieu of some of the drainage.
Mr. Parker felt that the amount of water would be too excessive for a rain garden.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the B545 – Glen Avenue VOSD subject to the following conditions:
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 VOSD plan, as well as incorporated into the Protective Covenants and Restrictions and Deed Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the lots within the VOSD development. Said Protective Covenants and Restrictions and Deed Restrictions shall include provisions for the open space as described in Condition Number Ten (10) below.
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.
Prior to endorsement of the VOSD Plan, verification of payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for the land shown on the plan, if any, is to be provided to the Planning Board.
Prior to endorsement of the VOSD Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan will be revised to detail the conditions of the approval, as needed, and notes specifying the conditions will be incorporated into the plan or the decision will be recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds with the plan. Plan revisions shall include:
a. Roadway drainage improvements on Glen Avenue shall be shown on the Plan subject to approval by the Planning Board. The Petitioner is obligated to notify the Town at least 3 days in advance in order for appropriate inspection of the work in Glen Avenue prior to installation of any drainage structures in the roadway. The Petitioner shall pay for expenses related to inspection by the Town or its representatives for the improvements constructed in Glen Avenue, including a post-construction inspection after the Certificate of Occupancy is granted on the new building lot.
b. Landscaping and architectural design and façade treatments and exterior building materials for the proposed new garage and driveway for the existing dwelling shall be provided, subject to final approval by the Planning Board, and shall be considered a part of the Plan subject to this special permit. Minor changes may be approved in the field by planning staff.
c. Adjustments to the driveway improvements and siting of the structures on the new building lot and lot with the existing dwelling shall be depicted on the Plan as shown on the schematic revised through December 5, 2007, with associated drainage calculations, consistent with revisions in statement (a) above, subject to final approval by the Planning Board.
d. The concerns of the Department of Public Works shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board.
e. Utility easements; access for maintenance by the association/trust of on-site septic or utilities, as needed shall be shown on the Plan.
f. Access easements for the association/trust to maintain and use the open space;
g. Adequate fire flow and static pressure for water must be demonstrated by the Petitioner, and requirements of the Fire Chief with respect to hydrants (if any) must be satisfied.
h. Detailed lighting plans shall be included on the Plan, subject to final approval by the Planning Board.
i. Existing and proposed septic systems shall be clearly noted on the Plan for all units.
j. The Plan shall include a detail for a fence and concrete bounds delineating the boundary of the open space at the limits of the new building lot, with fence materials and design requiring approval by the Planning Board prior to installation and building permit (if required).
Prior to issuance of a building permit for the new building lot:
a. Five (5) sets of full sized 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.
b. Evidence that Restrictive Covenants on the land, and this decision, have been recorded must be presented to the Planning Board.
c. Landscaping and architectural design and façade treatments, and exterior building materials for the proposed new dwelling unit and for the fence delineating the open space limit (which shall be unobtrusive in appearance), shall be provided, subject to final approval by the Planning Board.
d. Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit, said improvements to Glen Avenue, the concrete bounds delineating the open space, and said improvements to the dwelling unit on the new building lot are to be installed under the supervision of a Registered Professional Engineer. The engineer must certify that the improvements noted above have been installed in accordance with the conditions noted herein and accepted installation practices.
Only one single-family home shall be constructed on the new building lot, with accessory structures, and this shall be noted in the Protective Covenants and Restrictions and Deed Restrictions noted in Condition Number 1 (above).
The Petitioner agrees to create a condominium or homeowners trust as the form of ownership of the premises. Said condominium or trust shall be in place prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits.
The 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 owner’s trust, which shall be detailed in the condominium owner’s trust documents for this project.
The open space within the project is to be privately owned and maintained by the condominium association or homeowners trust in a manner consistent with conservation and passive recreational purposes as a separate lot, as noted in this decision.~ The open space is serving as a wooded natural buffer to neighboring residences and a wetland area exhibiting vernal pool characteristics, as stated by the Petitioner's representative at the public hearing, and shall remain primarily in its undisturbed natural condition.~ The Protective Covenants and Restrictions and Deed Restrictions noted in Condition Number 1 (above) shall include such restrictions.~ In the event that the condominium or trust should no longer be in existence, the disposition of the open space, consistent with the conservation and passive recreation, primarily in
its undisturbed natural condition, uses as contained herein, shall be determined through a mutually agreeable alternative as approved by the Planning Board.~
Any signage shall comply with the Zoning Bylaw or additional permits will be required.
Trash receptacles (if any) must be screened with landscaping and decorative fencing.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Site Plan Review – Roger Randall
B525 – Guide Board Park VOSD
Marc Garrett recused himself from this site plan review and left the room.
Randy Parker, Land Management Systems, Inc., reviewed the conditions of approval of the VOSD, including DPW’s suggestion of paving of Guideboard Road, which is currently a gravel road topped with bluestone. Mr. Parker reviewed the existing drainage which is adequate. There are no grade changes proposed. The applicant prefers not to pave the road and to leave the drainage as is. The delineation of the lots, building footprints and a common drive easement are shown on the revised plans. One of the lot lines has been adjusted to accommodate a septic system.
Valerie Massard commented that during the original approval for the subdivision, the Board did not require the paving of Guideboard Road and DPW’s suggestion was available at that time . The site has no drainage issues and staff is supportive of the proposed drainage.
Larry Rosenblum asked where Guideboard Road might go in the future.
Ms. Massard stated that it extends into the Entergy property.
Ed Fuller presented the landscape plan which maintains existing mature trees, saves 90 percent of the trees in the meadow, preserves the meadow, and aligns the homes in a crescent shape to have a view of the pond. A common driveway will be utilized for access to two of the lots and will preserve existing trees. The homes would be separated by native landscaping buffers. The landscaping will be similar to that around the existing buildings and would consist of hydrangeas, hibiscus, vibernum, lilac, etc. The plants will not require a lot of artificial watering. The unified development will create a New England hamlet clustered around the pond. There will be three light fixtures for each home, which will be consistent with the dark sky bylaw. The homes would have different
architectural styles: a saltbox, a gambrel and a cape. Materials would include cedar shingles, wooden clapboard and have a natural look.
Larry Rosenblum moved to approve the site plan subject to the following:
Provision of evidence of adequate fire flow and static pressure for water prior to issuance of a building permit per Condition 5.
Prior to endorsement: (1) details sheet, architectural and landscaping plans for the project shall be added to the plans, with a notation that these sheets are conceptual and minor changes may be approved by staff as field changes without further review by the Planning Board; (2) required notations and easements shall be added to the plans per the Conditions of approval; (3) sight distances at Rocky Hill Road shall be shown on plans to be reviewed by the Planning Department and DPW subject to final approval by the Planning Board; (4) Water Department sign-off on hydrant and water main connection details is required.
Regarding Conditions 1 and 7-9, attorney Angley stated that language regarding maintenance, limitation to further division of land, open space, etc. is to be incorporated into the individual deeds for the property or as a deed restriction, as well as noted on the plans as appropriate. The Planning Board expressed the desire to have Covenants and Restrictions also placed on the open space in addition to the deed language. The language with respect to this condition must be approved by the Planning Board prior to issuance of a building permit. Maintenance strategy is to be provided by Randy Parker, PLS for incorporation into the Guide Board Farm Homeowners Association Trust and/or deeds.
Letter certifying placement of bounds for open space from Professional Land Surveyor or Registered Professional civil engineer is required to satisfy Condition 6.
All prior conditions remain in full force and effect.
The vote was unanimous (3-0).
Marc Garrett rejoined the Board.
Conceptual Review
Modification of Waverly Oaks RDD
Mark Ridder presented a conceptual review for a modification of an existing RDD special permit (approved in 1996) in order to construct approximately 75 new residential dwellings overlooking the Waverly Oaks golf course. Access is proposed in two locations: the existing entranceway and access drive for the 10 RDD house lots which has already been constructed and a new entrance opposite the existing curb cuts on Long Pond Road just north of Plymouth South High School. The entire site is approximately 242 acres. A buffer would be maintained along Long Pond Road; utilities would be underground; there would be an on-site waterwater treatment facility; and an on-site privately owned well for water supply. Eight of the homes at the proposed density would be designated as affordable housing.
Valerie Massard reminded the Board that the Town explored the possibility of purchasing the property at the recent Fall Town Meeting, but the article did not pass. Mr. Ridder is exploring alternatives. The suggested road layout would be 40’ side with 18’ paved and berms on either side; the lot sizes would vary between 7,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. and the site takes advantage of a natural ridge line on the property that overlooks the golf course; landscape and architectural plans would need to be submitted; and shared driveways should be considered along with a more comprehensive look at the proposed condo layout as shown.
Marc Garrett asked how many units would be allowed under current zoning.
Ms. Massard replied that based on an older preliminary plan submitted on the parcel, according to Mr. Ridder the site would support 106 residential units. Ms. Massard also stated that the open space would have to be further defined. Ms. Massard noted that the existing 10 Form A lots have yet to be developed.
Marc Garrett felt that the proposed density was excessive. Mr. Garrett also felt that more information was needed for the Board to make an informed recommendation on what could be developed on this portion of the site. The plans presented showed only the portion of the site proposed for development, Mr. Garrett felt that the entire site should be shown including the golf courses, clubhouse, the proposed open space, etc.
Ms. Massard stated that the request is to modify the RDD special permit which was granted for the construction of the golf course, clubhouse and 10 Form A lots approved under the RDD. The modification of the RDD would include the entire property.
Mr. Ridder stated that approximately 100 acres would be under restriction.
Ms. Massard stated that the Board looks at making the best use of the site. Ms. Massard suggested that the plans should show the steep slopes, the areas that are to be protected and why they are meaningful, and why the houses are being located as shown and how they fit in context with the entire property.
Larry Rosenblum asked how many “as-of-right” units would be allowed.
Ms. Massard replied that an older preliminary plan submitted prior to the filing of the RDD Special Permit showed 106 units according to Mr. Ridder.
Mr. Ridder explained that they took the 242 acres minus15 percent for slopes, wetlands, etc., divided by 120,000 sq. ft. (current RR zoning) to be 75 units.
Larry Rosenblum asked if 75 would be the maximum allowed. Mr. Rosenblum was concerned that the proposed RDD plan did not address the intent of the RDD Special Permit that requires provision of greater amenities for the home owners and the protection of open space. Mr. Rosenblum agreed that a more comprehensive plan should be provided in order for the Board to make any recommendations on the modification of the RDD.
Mr. Ridder confirmed that under those calculations, 75 units would be the maximum allowed.
Lee Hartmann stated that the unit count presented reflects one unit per 120,000 sq. ft. Mr. Hartmann suggested that further work should be done on the proposed site plan and lot layout. By concentrating the development in one area with the remaining land creating a permanently restricted open space area, if the golf course ceased to operate the open space would still be protected from further development.
Mr. Garrett stated that the plan before the Board only presented a corner of the parcel being intensively developed and that the Board needs to understand what the rest of the site could be.
Paul McAlduff asked about what type of septic and water systems would be utilized.
Mr. Ridder stated that he is considering on site sewerage treatment facility with individual wells.
Malcolm MacGregor also felt that the Board needed to review the entire parcel. Mr. MacGregor suggested creating less of a grid subdivision by scattering the units throughout the site.
Mr. Rosenblum encouraged Mr. Ridder to look at the distribution of clusters surrounded by open space.
Valerie Massard suggested that the landscape architect meet with staff and interested Planning Board members to review submit his plans detailing some alternative plans then scheduling further review with the Board.
The Board took a five-minute recess.
Conceptual Site Plan
MPG Building/Home Depot Drive
Atty. Edward Angley, representing Viking Development who purchased the former MPG Communication building, began the presentation to create medical office space with a walk-in clinic and drug store. The new structure would be integrated into the rest of the Home Depot site. Atty. Angley stated that as part of a comprehensive plan, they will look at improvements to Long Pond Road. He also stated that this parcel is not in the 5-story zone and there is a possibility that the building may need to exceed the 35 ft. height limit.
Dick Hardaway, Hardaway Associates, presented the proposed site plans. The existing building is in a depressed area and would be demolished. The site would require some fill. One options showed the proposed building as consisting of a 15,000 sq. ft. pharmacy with a drive-thru lane and a 5,000 sq. ft. clinic on the ground floor with two floors of medical offices above and 179 parking spaces. Another option showed a four story structure with a 15,000 sq. ft. pharmacy with drive-thru on the ground floor with three floors of medical office space above and 198 parking spaces. In both of the scenarios presented, a portion of the building would be built into the existing grade of the site. Parking would be shared with the 99 Restaurant in the Home Depot Plaza. Mr. Hardaway stated that
either building would require a special permit for parking and the four story building would require a special permit to exceed the height limits.
Valerie Massard confirmed that the existing building would have to be demolished and that they would like to keep the site an active site. Part of the focus for this site is the visibility and location of the site, as well as the traffic issues in the area. Shared parking was allowed for the hotel on the opposite side of the site. A notice of project change would have to be filed with MEPA.
Larry Rosenblum thought that there were a couple of interesting opportunities here that could include some public improvements that would be appropriate. Mr. Rosenblum suggested creating a public statement as this is an entry site into this area of Plymouth and that the site problems should be resolved before the Board considers a special permit to exceed the height limit. Mr. Rosenblum suggested that the visibility of the restaurant could be increased and the site should be redeveloped to connect the parking lots and create a more cohesive shopping complex.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if the site could be accessed off the exit ramp by an entrance between the existing MPG building and the 99 Restaurant.
Atty. Angley thought that the bottom of the off ramp could be widened to accommodate a flow of traffic directly into the site.
Paul McAlduff also had some concerns with the traffic. Mr. McAlduff suggested creating a one-way entrance between the off ramp and the gas station.
Mr. MacGregor suggested breaking up the parking lot and adding vegetation.
Marc Garrett stated that this is an opportunity to soften the parking fields and a better traffic flow both on Long Pond Road and within the site.
Mr. Rosenblum was supportive of widening the lane at the end of the off the ramp and possibly adding a right turn only entrance lane. He also suggested Introducing a landscape median strip between Home Depot Drive and the south bound exit ramp.
Atty. Angley stated that he would meet with Engineering and DPW to review what ideas would work.
Site Plan Review - K and D Realty Trust
279 Summer Street, Warehouse/Garage addition
William Shaw, Associated Engineers Inc., presented a site plan review for a proposed warehouse/garage/office addition on property located at 279 Summer Street. The property is south of the NStar building and north of the old P. F. O’Connor lumber yard. The proposed structure would have 6 garage bays on the basement level, one garage bay and office space on the first floor and office and storage space on the second floor. Three new parking spaces would be added and a 50 ft vegetative buffer would be retained. An on-site sewerage disposal system will be installed.
Jeff Metcalfe presented the architectural drawings of the proposed structure. It would be a combination of clapboard and cedar shingles, white vinyl windows, and gray roof shingles and would be in keeping with the neighborhood. The building would not be visible from Summer Street.
Valerie Massard reviewed the aerial photo which showed the vehicles currently being stored at the back of the existing building. The addition would allow the vehicles being stored outside to be enclosed. And provide a better viewshed for the residents of Marc Drive. The site is surrounded by a wooded area. There are no changes proposed to the entrance off Summer Street.
Larry Rosenblum asked if any landscaping was proposed and what kind of business was existing.
Ms. Massard commented on the suggested condition that would require landscape plans to be presented at a later date, and noted that no existing vegetation will be disturbed.
Kenneth Fosdick stated that the business was cleaning and detailing of automobiles, storage of antique vehicles and boats, cold storage for parts, and office space. He would like to work on an antique boat indoors.
Paul McAlduff asked if any oil changes would be done.
Mr. Fosdick stated that oil changes would be contained within. The building cannot have a catch basin any spillage has to be cleaned up with Speedy Dry or a similar product.
Marc Garrett suggested adding conditions regarding containment and clean up performance with environmental codes and air emission compliance to protect the zoning and the Town.
Larry Rosenblum felt that the facility would lend itself to a commercial business and suggested adding a condition that would limit commercial use.
Valerie Massard stated that the current use is an allowed use and is regulated by the Building Department under the existing bylaw.
Ken Fosdick stated that any changes would require a special permit or further review.
Marc Garrett moved that the Building Commissioner be notified that the site plan will comply with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw after the following issues are addressed.
Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.
Compliance with the Prevention of Light Pollution Zoning Bylaw must be documented.
Compliance with applicable Building, Environmental and Fire Codes with respect to the use must be documented.
A Registered Landscape Architect or other qualified licensed professional must certify to the Building Commissioner prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit that the required landscaping has been 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, drive ways, curbing and parking areas have been installed according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the approved site plan.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Other Business:
Form A:
A4283 – Jordan Hospital/Jordan Health Systems, Map 26, Lots 23A (0.15A) and 24A (12.25A) – Lot line adjustment to create lots 23A-1 (0.16A) and 24B (12.247A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was (1-3) Larry Rosenblum, Malcolm MacGregor and Marc Garrett in opposition, therefore the Board took no action.
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 10:40 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: January 7, 2008
Administrative Assistant
| 
