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: Marc Garrett, Malcolm MacGregor, Paul McAlduff, Larry Rosenblum, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard, and Howard Coppari
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
BOA 3499 – Robert and Kathryn McMakin
43 Cochituate Road, Map 44, Lot 6-213, Special Permit to waive the side setback in order to demolish existing house and rebuild new house
Minutes:
July 28, 2008 July 29, 2008
July 30, 2008 August 11, 2008
Larry Rosenblum requested two changes to the minutes of July 28, 2008 as follows:
Page 3, second paragraph, change “north” to “south” in reference to the Wildland’s Trust land
Page 3, third paragraph, change “plan for parking area” to “traffic calming plan”
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes with the above-mentioned changes to the minutes of July 28, 2008; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing – B437 - Pinehills LLC
Great Kame Modification
Marc Garrett read the pubic hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Bill Wennerberg recused himself from the public hearing.
Valerie Massard presented the application for a modification to the Great Kame neighborhood. The road was built an additional 100 ft. to serve as a common driveway for three lots. The additional 100 ft. was built to the same width and standards as the road. Two of the lots have an easement to use the common driveway for access. The modification would allow the additional 100 ft. of pavement to be incorporated into the subdivision road. All three lots would then have individual driveways and be more marketable.
Paul McAlduff moved to for the Board to approve the modification for B437 – Pinehills - Great Kame; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
MEPOD Workshop:
Bill Wynne, Plymouth Rock Studios (PRS) gave an overview of the anticipated schedule for the next few meetings. On Tuesday, August 19, 2008 there will be a joint meeting with the Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Advisory and Finance Committee for a MEPOD update and to discuss the MOU. A review of the draft bylaw language is scheduled for Wednesday, August 20, 2008. Design guidelines, buffers and architecture will be presented on Monday, August 25, 2008 with traffic and noise being reviewed on Wednesday, August 27, 2008. A review of impacts, mitigation and MEPOD language will be held on Wednesday, September 3, 2008.
The studios development principles have not changed. They are as follows: Signature Destination; Commercial Viability; Sustainability; Stewardship of the Land; State of the Art Production Facilities; Memorable Brand and Design; and Connections.
Steve Newbold, Gensler Architects, reviewed the first two drafts of the site plan. The first draft located the sound stages in the middle of the site with the amenities close to Long Pond Road. The second alternative moved the hotel and village to the rear of the site and had the educational component closer to Long Pond Road. In the third alternative, because the lot lines were less than what they originally thought, they had to relocate the studios. In the most recent plan, the stages are located closer together and moved back which increases the buffers on Long Pond Road, the clustered housing has moved to the village area, there will be cuts to the earth that will allow the stages to be lower, the height of the buildings has been lowered, and a vegetated berm will screen the stages from Long Pond Road.
Marc Garrett asked if the development program numbers would remain the same and if the housing on Long Pond Road would be single family and/or clustered housing.
Mr. Newbold replied that the development program numbers have not changed. The housing closest to Long Pond Road would be 10 single family homes and the clustered housing has been relocated to the village area. The relocation of the clustered housing allows less density along Long Pond Road and more vegetated buffering.
Jim Concannon asked when will the new drawings would be available on the studio’s website and whether the vegetated berm would be planted with mature trees.
Bill Wynne replied that the site plans would be on the studio’s website tomorrow and there will be a landscape plan presented on the night that we talk about architecture and buffers.
Pat Adelman asked if the proposed well that the schools would use would be monitored by a private water company or be public.
Mr. Wynne replied that the well would be a public improvement that would be transferred to the Town.
Alfred Baum asked if the potential for slip ramps and/or direct access from the highway would be precluded.
Mr. Garrett answered that the proposed site plan does not preclude the slip ramps or direct highway access.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the draft bylaw does require a shuttle to downtown.
Peggy Briggs, Epsilon Associates, explained the process of the environmental review of the site. At the State level, the project will be reviewed under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and will require a Water Management Act Permit, a Sewer Extension Permit and a Mass Highway Access Permit. The MEPA review will include an expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF); they anticipate filing in the Fall after Town Meeting, the public comment period for the MEPA review is 37 days, a site visit will be scheduled during the comment period, the Secretary would issue a certificate with the scope for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), preparation of a single EIR with a public comment period of 30 days, and approval of the SEIR, and completion of the MEPA process. The wetlands on the site will be
delineated, there is no alteration of the wetlands expected, work in the buffer zones is minimized and/or avoided and the project will require a filing with the Conservation Commission. There is no mapped habitat for rare and endangered species on the site, but there are mapped areas on the Town owned land to the south and north of the site. The access road and sewer lines will be sited in consultation with the NHESP to mitigate any impact to rare species. The studio will use the existing well on the site and a new well will be sized to serve the schools if they so desire. Stormwater management measure will strive to balance water resources, and reuse stormwater. A new sewer line would be installed to access the excess capacity at the Camelot Drive Waste Water Treatment Plant and could provide a connection for the school. An EENF will be provided to the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the impact of the project on cultural resources will
be reviewed. Energy requirements and strategies are currently under investigation by Vanderweil Engineers and they will be exploring the possibility of alternative energy such as photovoltaic, fuel cells and geo-thermal systems. Visual impacts will be assessed by use of cross section views. They will try to minimize the visual impact by taking advantage of the natural topography, grading and use of berms and landscaping. The campus will take 1.5 years to construct and there will be a construction traffic management plan.
Mr. Rosenblum asked how long the MEPA review process would take. He stated that suitable access is fundamental and asked if they would be looking at variations of the highway access. Mr. Rosenblum also asked about the construction management.
Ms. Baker replied that they hope to file for the MEPA review by the end of 2008 and could be finished with the MEPA review sometime in the late Spring of 2009. Ms. Baker explained that the expanded ENF will look at access from Route 3. The construction management plan will look at confining the construction traffic to off peak hours once those hours have been identified.
Mr. MacGregor asked what do the studio proposes to do about the nitrogen loading.
Ms. Baker stated that the current nitrogen loading comes from the existing wastewater treatment plant and surface run off and will be reduced with this project once the sewer line ties into the WWTP. They are also looking to reuse the water for irrigation once it has been processed through the WWTP.
Mr. MacGregor stated that it is difficult to anticipate the impact on the neighborhood and he encouraged the neighbors to get involved with the process and let their feelings about the project be known. He was concerned that the project may have an adverse affect on the schools and the neighborhoods, especially the increase in traffic. Because this industry is new to Plymouth and was not included in the Town’s master plan, it is difficult to assess the impacts.
Paul McAlduff asked if the studio would be able to accommodate the level of water quality that is mandated for the schools.
Ms. Baker agreed to look into the water quality requirements for the school.
Bill Wennerberg asked if the school well would be abandoned.
Bill Wynne stated that the studio’s intention is to address the schools water needs with the new well, which will then free up the land where the existing schools well is for expansion of the schools.
Tim Grandy asked if the EIR study would include the decommissioning of the school’s well and/or WWTP.
Ms. Baker replied that the school department has a study done by Tighe and Bond which includes the piping to the Camelot Drive sewerage treatment plant and that information will be included in the EIR.
Mr. Rosenblum recommended considering a well site on the Town owned land south of the schools. That would free up land on both the school and studio sites and is critical for highway access.
Ms. Baker stated that the new well site on the Waverly Oak site was close to approval by the State and the hydrology has already been completed.
Richard Rothstein asked if the alternative energy options would be included in the MEPA process.
Mr. Newbold stated that the studios use a lot of electricity and generate heat and they are also looking at installing a cooling tower.
Joseph DeSilva expressed his concerns in regards to the water usage and the potential expansion of the back lot. He felt the special permit process would be more appropriate than the “as of right” process.
Edward Russell asked for a clarification of the line between the WWTP and the site and what mitigation would be done if the line is run through Forges Field. Mr. Russell mentioned that a residential or Chapter 40B project on this site would have more of a negative impact than what the studio proposal.
Mr. Hartmann explained that the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager would be better able to answer those questions, but that the plans are consistent with the school study. The overland access is preferable.
Mr. Tripp stated that if the sewer line is installed with municipal funds, it would take a special act of legislation to limit the amount of growth that would be able to connect to the line.
Jim Concannon asked the Board how to encourage feedback from the neighborhoods and what impact the project would have on the wildlife in the area.
Mr. Garrett replied that the Board announces the schedule at each meeting and it is in the newspapers. He encouraged the neighbors to speak to each other and use the studio and town websites. Mr. Garrett stated that Natural Heritage will review the impact to the plants and animal species that are protected.
Phyllis Troia was afraid that the project would devastate the neighborhood; the increase in traffic would make a bad situation more difficult and asked if the Nature Conservancy had commented on the project.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the Nature Conservancy has been contacted and have discussed the project.
Mr. Garrett said that TNC was extremely involved when it was at the 1000 acres, but has been less involved in this site because it is already a developed site and is not pristine land.
Kevin O’Reilly stated that the studio has also had numerous discussions with the Wildlands Trust.
Kevin Doyle stated that everyone he has talked to is supportive of the project. He asked if there were any considerations to using wind power.
Mr. Garret explained that wind power would be discussed when the bylaw review begins. Andrea McMillan stated that 90 percent of the people are supportive of the project. She stated that the project would have a positive impact on the schools and was supportive of any improvements to the dangerous intersection at Long Pond Road and Clark Road.
Mr. Garrett stated that there are ongoing meetings with the school department about the benefits to the schools and the general consensus is that the studio would have a positive impact on the programs offered at the schools. Mr. Garrett explained the differences between the allowed use and the special permit process.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the special permit process has limits for the ability to say no.
Brian Nolan stated that most of the neighbors are behind the project and that PRS have been forthcoming with any information requested.
William Abbott expressed his opposition the “as of right” use and his preference for the special permit process.
Bill Wennerberg encouraged the neighbors to ask questions and suggested more neighborhood outreach.
Kevin O’Reilly stated that the studio is committed to outreach and encouraged the neighbors to contact them to schedule additional neighborhood meetings. They are also trying to get their website up to date.
Paul Cripps, Destination Plymouth, stated that a movie studio was not included in the master plan because it was inconceivable. He asked if the vote of the people had any impact on the process.
Mr. Rosenblum stated that the approval process is well established and that the Board will be guided by protections that are built into State, Federal and Local law. The on-binding ballot vote suggests support, but will not affect the vote of the Board.
Mr. Hartmann stated that he was comfortable that the proposed project is consistent with the master plan.
Mr. MacGregor felt that the master plan designated areas for this type of project and the areas were not in the middle of a residential area.
Ali Lanza-Cosgrove was concerned with scope and size of the project and felt that this would be a step to becoming a city and have an impact on the rural character and the quality of life for the residents.
Ken Howe spoke in support of the project.
Helen Hapgood suggested that the neighbors get together, call meetings, and ask questions. Ms. Hapgood stated that the 1000 acre site was also in the middle of a residential area and the studio was responsive to their questions and concerns.
The Board took a five minute break.
Public Hearing – FTM
Movie Studio Bylaw
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Bill Wynne, PRS, reviewed the studio’s philosophy and made it clear that they want to be a good neighbor. They are going through the process in order to work through the issues. The project won’t work if the traffic and other issues are not addressed. The language of the draft bylaw needs to be reviewed, and the MOU has to be drafted. After the zoning is approved, there will be many other issues that will be worked through during the State and local review process. The studios intent is to create motion pictures, television and commercial productions; provide ancillary uses both commercial cultural and educational; have a low impact on the neighborhood and the environment, increase the tax base and provide jobs. Mr. Wynne reviewed the MEPOD definitions as follows:
Design Standards (they will available by Friday, August 22)
Studio Production Campus (sound stages and related office space)
Studio Amenity Campus (small retail shops, hotel, walking trails, etc.)
Education Campus (space to share new technologies)
Artists housing (single family and multi-unit)
The proposed bylaw defines entire studio campus as a maximum limit of 2.0 million sq. ft. There is a 200 unit maximum for the residential component; 400,000 sq. ft. maximum for office space; 15 acre maximum for the back lot; 65 ft. building height restriction (with the exception of one 75 ft. building); 150 ft. minimum buffer from Long Pond Road; a maximum of 60,000 sq. ft. of retail space; a 300 room maximum for the hotel with a height limit of 45 ft.; and the educational component will have a maximum of 250,000 sq. ft. including 100,000 sq. ft. of office space and a maximum height of 45 ft. Site plan approval will be required for a building permit; the complex will comply with the Design Standards; additional conditions and requirements can be added during the site plan approval; 100,000 sq. ft. of studio will be required
in Phase 1; traffic control, light pollution prevention, etc. will be reviewed and there is a specific criteria for site plan approval. The Design Standards will outline the goals of the development which include reducing auto trips, preserving open space and water quality, and create a low impact, mixed use development and have sustainable LEED certified design. Signage and parking will be controlled by the Planning Board, noise will be no greater than 10dB above ambient CAC process for variations, and they will comply with the Dark Sky bylaw. Prohibited uses include the retail sale of petroleum products; exterior storage of merchandise, drive-in theaters, casinos, adult entertainment, amusement or theme parks. The occupancy and agreements are as follows: studio constructed and completed first, CAC ongoing status to provide input, MOU with Town, and third party costs paid by PRS. Mr. Wynne reviewed the schedule for submissions to the
Planning Board.
Mr. MacGregor asked for an explanation of the function of the research component.
Mr. Wynne explained that the technology of film making is changing constantly. The digital media and productions, software and minor hardware development, a digital research lab, would be components of the research component.
Mr. Hartmann stated that one draft bylaw reflects the changes from the 1000 acre draft. The Board will be reviewing the zoning bylaw, design standards and MOU. The current bylaw limits the size and scope of the development, has definitive caps on maximum size overall and specific uses and define exactly what can happen on the site. Mr. Hartmann outlined some of the changes between the 1000 acre bylaw and the current bylaw which include: the master plan special permit provisions have been eliminated; school related housing has been eliminated; the residential units can be for-sale, owner-occupied; the public green has been eliminated; professional offices within the Amenity Center have been eliminated, retail space has been reduced, the second village theater has been eliminated, some of the building heights have been
reduced, open space has been reduced, conservation land provisions have been eliminated, the 500 ft. setback for sound stages and back lots from Long Pond Road has been added, property line buffers have been reduced, the room count for the hotel has been reduced, structured parking is excluded from the FAR, number of curb cuts have been reduced, site plan review standards and procedures have been added, and pre-application review process has been added.
William Abbott that the idea for a studio is exciting and has a lot of potential, but the proposed bylaw is stripped of protection and should include the special permit process. The special permit process is required for most large projects and would insure that the developer and neighbors get a fair shake. Mr. Abbott felt that the special permit process should be added back into the bylaw.
Richard Rothstein stated he would like to see the studies posted electronically so everyone can be reviewing the same information.
Leighton Price thought that the proposed initial phase of construction (100,000 sq. ft.) might not be viable. He thought the initial phase should be increased. Mr. Price was concerned that Mass Highway would not commit funds to something that will take years to build. Mr. Price was concerned that a portion of the debt would be the Town’s responsibility if the project fails.
Mr. Tripp stated that the Chapter 40R at Cordage Park will impact more abutters than this project will. He stated that the Pinehills had to go through a cumbersome special permit process and was appealed. He felt that the Board was up to the task, working closely with the Board of Selectmen to draft an MOU that would provide sufficient protection for the residents of Plymouth while moving the process forward.
Michael Main was supportive of the “as of right” process. He felt the Board understands the protection that is needed. He felt that there is a lot of control during the site plan review.
Mr. Baum was distressed by the characterization that people with constructive concerns are being opposed to the project. Many people are in favor of the project and want to insure that the project is done well.
Bill Wennerberg moved to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 10:25 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: August 25, 2008
Administrative Assistant
| 
