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
Public Hearing – FTM cont. from 8/18/08
Movie and Entertainment Production Overlay District (MEPOD) Bylaw
Marc Garrett opened the continued public hearing.
Lee Hartmann stated that the Board received a revised bylaw this evening which would be posted on the website tomorrow.
Bill Wynne, Plymouth Rock Studios (PRS) reviewed the framework for reviewing solutions that are related to the site plan approval and the proposed zoning bylaw. There are three categories: Technical, Practical and Jurisdictional. The Technical category includes traffic, noise, visual impact (especially on Long Pond Road), and lighting. The Practical category relates to construction (traffic, noise and lighting) and operational issues. The last category is the Jurisdictional process: “As of Right” vs. “Special Permit”. The jurisdictional issue can be addressed once the technical and practical issues are addressed. The goal is to have the Board and the citizens express their concerns so solutions can be reached that will balance the needs of the studio, the Town and the citizens.
There are three pertinent agreements that have to be drafted and agreed to: the zoning bylaw for the MEPOD, the Design Standards, and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Mr. Wynne invited the Board, staff and the public to meet at the Waverly Oaks Clubhouse tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. for a site visit. He would like people to view the land as it exists and see how it will be changed.
Larry DiCara, a zoning lawyer from Nixon Peabody, reviewed the history of why zoning overlay districts came into effect. “As of right” zoning can’t be accomplished unless the building department approves the plans. The creation of an overlay district is unique. Special overlay districts (Chapter 40R) were created for the purposes of smart growth where housing can be encouraged in town and/or city centers, and near transient mills. Other terms for overlay districts include planned development areas, planned unit developments, U districts, or institutional master plans. Public policy has determined that a project is so different from the ordinary course of business, that it requires the creation of an overlay district where certain things can and cannot occur. Mr. DiCara used the
institutional master plan for Boston College as an example. The project to construct laboratories, classrooms, dormitories, etc. had a major impact on Boston and Newton. A master plan was necessary so the public policy goals can be established to fit the buildings into the land. An overlay district for something such as the studio, a smart growth district, or a master plan for a university or a planned development area is not a single family subdivision, convenience store, gas station or three-story office building that is governed by the variance or special permit process through zoning bylaw. An overlay district proposes stringent conditions of what can occur where, and the size, location and use within the district. In Plymouth, recommendations from the Boards are presented to Town Meeting, the article is voted and if approved will be reviewed by the Attorney General’s office. The goal of the overlay district is to provide a master plan
so a large, unique parcel and development can be created in an orderly basis. The goal of the MEPOD is to keep the Planning Board at the table every step of the way. If the overlay district is approved by Town Meeting, there are requirements for ongoing discussions, for ongoing review by the Planning Board and other Town departments, and for peer review at the expense of the developer. Mr. DiCara stated that this process is appropriate. He believes that this is a unique opportunity for the Town and it is a project that is competing with the rest of the world for life science jobs, other high tech jobs, financial service jobs, and for a movie studio. PRS is looking to invest money where there is some certainty that the project will be successful. It is a unique opportunity for the community, it is the community’s decision to be made at Town Meeting and everyone is working hard to create the best possible language for the overlay
district.
Atty. Edward Angley, PRS, presented the language of the proposed bylaw on the Smart Board. This project is a unique situation. The bylaw would allow a movie and entertainment production studio; a studio complex for the creation of commercials, television shows, and films. It is a business that rents and sells to various media and production companies by providing sound stages, music recording facilities, various equipment, office space, etc. The complex will provide places for the production companies to eat, drink, shop, sleep, etc. In addition, they have a larger vision which is to teach, pass on what they know and what they have learned. The proposed MEPOD bylaw includes sections that outline the intent, defines the location, provides definitions, identifies the uses of each campus, provides dimensional
requirements, the site plan approval process and requirements, the administration for the overlay district, the design guidelines, signs, noise and parking requirements, open space, waivers, prohibited uses, and what is required for the permits and certificate of occupancy, and the Citizens Advisory Committee agreement and costs. Atty. Angley noted a few of the changes to the current draft version of the bylaw. The entire complex will consist of 2.1 million sq. ft. of building space, the housing component for the entire complex is now 125 units, the gross square footage of the educational campus has been reduced, “energy conservation facilities” should read “energy conversion facilities”, and there is a special permit process for wind energy with the Planning Board as the granting authority.
The Board agreed to review the draft bylaw that was dated August 15, 2008 so they would all be working on the same document.
Lee Hartmann noted that in Section 4, “studio production complex” should read “movie and entertainment production complex” and that the total housing units should reference 125 units.
Bill Wennerberg stated that in the 1000 acre bylaw, the housing was temporary, rental housing. He asked if the 125 units of residential housing would all be single family and who would construct the housing.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the current draft bylaw has changed the single family and multi unit residential component to “for sale” units.
Atty. Angley explained that there would be 10 single family house lots on Long Pond Road, 10 bungalows in the education complex and a mix of townhouse, condo, and rental apartments in the amenity complex. Some of the housing will be over the retail buildings. The construction of the housing will be controlled by the studio.
Bill Wynne stated that the studio does not intend to be in the housing market. A portion of the housing would be short-term rental and some will be permanent housing. They will have a specific number of sale and rental housing at a later date. The short term rental housing will probably be 1-2 bedroom units with approximately 1,500 sq. ft.
David Kirkpatrick stated that the interest is to promote an artist community within the complex. Marc Garrett requested that the definitions of buffers vs. screening should be clearly defined and for a clarification of complex vs. campus. Mr. Garrett asked that the numbers on the Development Program be tightened up. In section C, f, 1, he asked for a change to “convenience and general retail establishments” to “read convenience and limited retail establishment”, and add “accessory to the studio production campus” at the end of the paragraph. He also asked that in section C, f, 2, the plural be removed from health clubs, medical centers, etc. as only one of each is needed.
Malcolm MacGregor asked that the language regarding the Planning Board’s ability to approve a structure above the maximum square footage should allow the Board to vary the minimum square footage of a structure.
Atty. Angley stated that he would remove the language that allows the Planning Board to vary the size of structures. In section 5, Atty. Angley reviewed the changes to the dimensional requirements; FAR has changed to 0.25 with structured parking excluded; reduced building heights; setback requirements; and reduced maximum lot coverage of 25%.
Mr. MacGregor suggested that the minimum lot size should be raised from 100 acres to 200 acres and questioned why the building heights were 45 ft. instead of the 35 ft. that is currently allowed in the bylaw.
Atty. Angley explained that a 35 ft. height limit does not work in the modern world for this type of project. Atty. Angley then reviewed Section 6; the process and requirements of site plan approval.
Mr. Rosenblum questioned what would constitute an acceptable disapproval for a site plan.
Mr. Hartmann explained that the Board would have to find that the plan does not comply with the Design Standards or the MEPOD bylaw and making a determination to that affect.
Atty. Angley pointed out that the reasons for denial are defined under Section M, 5, a, and b.
Mr. Rosenblum felt it would be advantageous to have a master plan.
Mr. Wennerberg asked for examples of existing buildings that are above 45 ft.
Mr. Hartmann listed the Hilton Garden Inn, the Visitor Center, the Sports Complex, the Hampton Inn, the 1820 Courthouse, and Memorial Hall.
Mr. Wennerberg stated that taller buildings would work on this site, but may not work on another site. He asked if this bylaw would allow another studio on another site.
Mr. MacGregor stated that this might set a precedent for taller buildings in other areas.
Mr. Hartmann explained that there are some areas where buildings of 55 ft. are allowed, but it would be up to the Board to allow taller buildings anywhere else. He also explained that if there was a proposal for another studio on another site, it would take an amendment to the bylaw.
Tim Grandy asked for a clarification on Section 6, F, which allows the Board to make minor adjustments to the location and design of buildings, parking areas, and other elements.
Mr. Hartmann stated that minor adjustments would be at the Board’s discression, because you can’t anticipate everything that will happen on a site.
Mr. Garrett suggested adding an abutter’s notification requirement to the site plan approval process.
Mr. MacGregor asked how much strength the Board would have in the site plan approval process if there is a disagreement between the Board and the proponents.
Mr. Hartmann replied that a special permit gives more strength to defend but in both cases a denial has to be based on the failure to comply with the design standards or the bylaw.
Mr. Garrett noted that Section M Administration should actually be Section L.
Mr. Hartmann noted that Section 7, Design Standards will have a paragraph that the project must comply with the Design Standards and the paragraphs that are listed will actually be moved into the actual Design Standards which will be reviewed at the next meeting.
The Board took a 5 minute break and then opened the floor for public comment on the sections that had been reviewed.
Public Comment:
William Abbott expressed his concern that the development numbers in the proposed bylaw keep changing, which may render the studies that are being done inaccurate. He suggested that the access road should be part of the bylaw. He was also concerned with the buffers, the provision that structured parking is deducted from the measured height of a building, and again reiterated his concern that the bylaw should require a special permit process.
Joseph DeSilva expressed his concern with the buffers, reduced setbacks, and the parking structures under the sound stages.
Connie Delago stated that the proposed bylaw is a work in progress and that the Town and the Studio have given the residents many opportunities to become educated about the project and express their concerns. Ms. Delago was very supportive of the educational component of the project.
Barry Meltzer stated that the public should be made aware of what the MOU would be as it is a binding legal document once it is signed by all parties. He felt that every phase of the project should be regulated by the Planning Board and that the CAC that has been appointed should be continued after Town Meeting votes on the overlay district and work with the studio over the phases of construction.
Chris Schelleng asked if all the housing could be built in the first phase of the development.
Mr. Hartmann explained that the first phase could have that scenario, but that before anything will receive an occupancy permit, there must be a fully functioning studio.
Michael Main clarified that the 125 housing units would be a combination of single family and multi unit structures; that the Pinehills project is a “by right” use and that the Zoning Board of Appeals does not review anything involving the PInehills Development.
Mr. Wennerberg stated that the building heights would be addressed in the Design Standards which have yet to be reviewed.
Mr. Wynne explained that the first phase is 100,000 sq. ft. because it would be impossible to have all 14 sound stages built in one month. The construction of the hotel, offices and other buildings could be simultaneous with the construction of the sound stages, but they could not open until some of the sound stages are operational. He stated that they will try to build a portion of the higher structures below grade where the topography allows, but they also have to consider the amount of grading, water flow, etc.
Mr. Newbold suggested that the Board could require a 2:1 ratio that would require twice as much studio space has to be operational for every sq. ft. of any other use.
Mr. Wennerberg suggested that where any buffers are minimized, the density should be increased.
Mr. Garrett questioned the foot note regarding the sub-structure parking.
Mr. Newbold explained that the foot note is in regards to how the building is measured. On a sloping site, the grade can vary and the measurements of the height of a building should be taken from the front door entrance to the building. This can also be addressed in the Design Guidelines.
Atty. Angley stated he would look at the language before the next draft is done.
Mr. Rosenblum stated that the access road is critical to the project and should be addressed in the bylaw rather than the MOU.
Mr. DiCara stated that the same protections and objectives can be placed in the overlay district or in the MOU. The traffic studies and the MEPA review will determine whether the proposed access or other alternatives should be constructed.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the MOU is a work in progress and will address water, wastewater and infrastructure that are public improvements, therefore, under the purview of the Board of Selectmen. The MOU could have a clause that any amendments require Town Meeting action or action by the current governing body.
Atty. Angley stated that the access road will be shown on the site plan.
Mr. Wynne stated that if there is no access off Clark Road, there is no project. Provisions will be made that will not preclude a slip ramp off Route 3.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to continue the public hearing to September 8, 2008 at 7:45 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: September 15, 2008
Administrative Assistant
| 
