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, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
August 20, 2008
August 25, 2008
August 27, 2008
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the administrative notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
MEPOD Workshop
Mark Wallace, Tech Environmental, presented an updated noise analysis. He reviewed the common measures of sound which is expressed in decibels (dB). The human perception of sound is as follows: 3dB is just perceptible; 5 dB is noticeable; and 10 dB is twice (or Half) as loud. Mr. Wallace reviewed commons sound levels ranging from a low of 25 dBA (ex. an empty concert hall or a rural area at night) to 110 dBa (ex. an indoor rock concert or a jet take off at 1,000 ft.). He reviewed the five locations where sound was measured for daytime and nighttime noise levels: 440 Long Pond Road, 14 Mast Road, 1 & 2 Bowsprit Lane, 1 Martingale Lane and the Middle and High Schools. The dominant sources of sound are the Rte 3/Long Pond Road traffic, aircraft and insects. The types of sound sources to be expected
once the studio project is completed would be generated from AHU’s, cooling towers, emergency generators, exhaust fans, the mill shop, delivery trucks, and backup alarms. Temporary noise would be generated by construction activities including excavation, concrete pouring, framing and paving. Sound mitigation would include use of mufflers, silencers, acoustic louvers, buildings as shielding, requiring the use of quieter equipment and the construction of earthen berms with vegetation. Operational noise is predicted at seven locations and assumes simultaneous operation of all regulated sources on the studio site at maximum load. The projected daytime sound levels are 39-42 dBA or an increase of less than 3dBA and the projected nighttime sound levels of 36-40 dBA or an increase of less than 5dBA. The results show that the operational noise would be below the DEP Noise Policy and MEPOD 10 dBA allowable increase threshold. Other background sources of
noise such as a marching band competition at the high school, the school buses entering and leaving the schools and seaplane training activities on Long Pond Road generate a noise level of between 28-40 dBA which is similar to the noise levels that would be generated by the studio. During the construction phase, the noise levels during the daytime would range from 75 dBA to 89 dBA at 50 ft. away and at the nearest receptor location would be 32-56 dBA which is comparable to existing conditions with traffic along Long Pond Road. Mr. Wallace indicated that the completed report on the noise analysis should be ready later in the week.
Mr. Garrett asked if preliminary analysis indicates that the noise levels generated by the studio would be similar or slightly above the existing ambient noise conditions.
Mr. Wallace stated that was correct.
Mr. Garrett asked what the difference of 3 dBA during the daytime and 5 dBA during the nighttime translates to.
Mr. Wallace explained that with a worst case scenario 3 dBA during the daytime would be barely noticeable to most with 5 dBA during the nighttime being noticeable. The 5dBA could be considered a nuisance for those that are sensitive.
Joseph DeSilva asked if the night time ambient noise at Bowsprit was 32 dBA and the studio would average 45 dBA during operation.
Mr. Wallace explained that at nighttime the predicted noise level contribution from the studio at Bowsprit would be 33 dBA which would mean the new noise level would be 36 dBA.
Mr. DeSilva asked if the marching band example was typical of the level of noise to be expected.
Mr. Wallace replied that the noise from the studio would be different, but it would be a similar level of sound.
Mr. DeSilva stated that the marching band is only heard once or twice a week for a few months out of the year and that it would not be acceptable for the studio to be generating a similar level of noise throughout the year.
Atty. Edward Angley stated that the noise levels presented are worst case scenario and assumes everything is operating at the same time.
A former studio employee stated that she had experience working at studios one where the back lot was adjacent to a main road and residential areas. The studios have a very quiet atmosphere.
Robert Alpert asked how the dBA varied close to and further away from the point of the noise generation.
Mr. Wallace explained that the noise levels decreases 6 dBA for every doubling of distance, not taking into account any atmospheric conditions and other types of shielding. Mr. Wallace stated that the report will have a figure with contours and the sources of noise and how far out the noise expand away from the studio.
Mr. Garrett asked how many sensitive receptors were used and if noise levels from the edge of the studio could be shown at the receptor locations.
Steve Newbold gave an example of the nearest building being approximately 500 ft away from the sound stages where the nearest sound source being a truck moving around the stages or the cooling equipment for the studio.
Kevin Doyle stated it was his understanding that the sound stages are designed to isolate the sound within and asked how much sound would be heard off site.
Mr. Wallace stated that the sound stages each have four air handling units which will be in the penthouse to reduce the sound with a couple of small exhaust fans on the top of the building. Most of the sound is contained within the building.
Richard Rothstein asked for a description of the character of the noise as many of the large shopping areas in Plymouth have similar air handling units.
Mr. Wallace stated that a commercial development has air handling units that are not shielded as the studios will be. The noise levels at the sensitive receptors are rather low and are what is expected in a rural suburban area.
Paul McAlduff stated that the studio should be aware that all the school buses have back up alarms and that noise should be taken into consideration during filming.
Public Hearing
Pinehills LLC – Article 26 – Leto Parcel
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Bill Wennerberg recused himself from the public hearing.
John Judge, Pinehills LLC, informed the Board that the language for Article 26 is identical to the language that was presented to the Board last year. The OSMUD allows land to be added and this article would amend the bylaw to include a 69.4 acre parcel in the northeast corner of the development and increase the total number of units allowed. The land was the former Leto parcel and was purchased with an agreement to develop 21 acres of the parcel with the remainder to be open space with passive recreation. The previous article was supported by the Board, but was not supported on Town Meeting floor because the affordable housing component of the development had not been addressed. To address the affordable housing issue, the Pinehills is in the process of creating an affordable housing charitable trust. The
Pinehills will start the trust with funding of $100,000, and the contributions to the trust will increase yearly on the basis of the number of units sold during the year and from trust sponsored events that will be held. It is estimated that the contributions to the trust will be $500,000. The trust will be administered by a five member board of trustees which will be appointed by Pinehills LLC. The trust will look to advance local qualified affordable housing efforts including but not limited to Habitat for Humanities, housing for disabled veterans, etc. The trust will be created whether Town Meeting votes to approve the proposed amendment or not.
Paul McAlduff and Malcolm MacGregor were supportive of the creation of the affordable housing trust and the Pinehills efforts to address the affordable housing issue using an interesting approach.
Lee Hartmann commented that in 2007, the Board supported (4-0) the proposed amendment that would allow the Pinehills to add the Leto parcel to the development, but Town Meeting did not support the proposed amendment. Staff, Board members and the Pinehills have worked together to reach a compromise to create a commitment to affordable housing. John Connery Associates, a consultant who did an independent fiscal analysis of the Pinehills development indicated that he has never seen a more positive tax generation from one entity in his career. The Pinehills generates $7,158,000 annually in taxes; has a cost/revenue ratio of 0.1%, which means for every 10 cents in services the Town provides we receive ninety cents back; the net fiscal benefit of the Pinehills to the Town is $6,463,000 annually; at the projected buildout in 2020
will generate $27,800,000 with a net benefit of $24,900,000 annually; an estimated $20,000,000 in retail revenue is generated annually in the region by residents, employees and visitors to the Pinehills; and $2,500,000 has been paid to date for building permits, with an estimated 6-7 million dollars for permitting fees at full buildout. The fiscal analysis is independent from the request before Town meeting, but Mr. Hartmann stated that the Pinehills Development is a model development that has exceeded all expectations and a project that the Board, the Town and the developers can be very proud of.
Michael Main stated that he was the leading force to oppose the addition of the Leto property at last years Town Meeting specifically for affordable housing reasons. He stated that the five member board that will administer the housing trust will have two representatives from the Pinehills community, an elected official and three members from the community at large. Mr. Main spoke about the eligibility for the affordable housing which could include the local chapters of the Habitat for Humanity, the Town’s Affordable Housing Trust, Plymouth’s Redevelopment Authority, Plymouth Housing Authority, and any organizations that provide housing for veterans. Mr. Main was supportive of the initiative taken by the Pinehills to create the Affordable Housing Charitable Trust and asked the Board for their support.
Mr. Garrett thanked and congratulated John Judge, Tony Green and the Town for their efforts to address the affordable housing issue and stated that the response shows how reasonable solutions can be created.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend approval to Town Meeting (see attached amendment and map); the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Marc Garrett proposed to continue the workshop on the MEPOD design standards and then begin the bylaw discussion afterwards.
MEPOD Workshop (cont.)
Steve Newbold, Gensler Architects, stated that the Board had received Version 3 of the Design Standards. They were loosely based on the Cordage Park Design Guidelines and incorporated the some of the goals from the original MEPOD bylaw, the interest of the community, and will include diagrams and images of examples of the types of materials and landscaping, as well as diagrams about the design process.
Alex Hernandez, Gensler Architects, stated that the design guidelines include the following sections; Purpose, Applicability, Review Process, Definition of Terms, Design Vision, Guiding Principles, Standards for Compliance, Building Precedents, and Bibliography and Sources.
Mr. Newbold stated that the purpose of the design guidelines is to work with the MEPOD bylaw and to provide more detail about the development.
Mr. Garrett noted that the language that speaks to amending the design standards by a two-thirds majority vote should be changed to a super majority.
Mr. Newbold reviewed the applicability which outlines the site plan review requirement of the bylaw and the Board’s authority. The definition of terms includes definitions that are unique to this project.
Mr. Garrett asked if the terms are the same as those in the MEPOD bylaw. He suggested keeping the two documents separate, cross-referencing each other only.
Mr. Newbold replied that he tried to eliminate duplication, but there are some terms that are in both places for example the different campuses and the hilltop. The review process is the legal process of how the document is applied and includes requirements for a pre-application review, a preliminary master site plan, and any minor engineering changes or insignificant changes.
Mr. MacGregor asked for the status of the master plan concept.
Mr. Newbold stated that there would be one master site plan that would define the areas to be developed, the circulation around the areas, the buffers, and the setbacks. If the project is done in phases, there will be separate phasing site plan for the buildings within a specific area.
Mr. MacGregor asked if the master plan and the phasing plans would have to be submitted to the Board for approval.
Mr. Hartmann replied that submission of the master plan and/or the phasing plans is mandatory in the bylaw and should also be mandatory in the Design Standards.
Mr. Garrett suggested that the Design Standards should be scrutinized to make sure that there are no duplications within the proposed MEPOD bylaw. The MEPOD bylaw is driving the action and the Design Standards should outline how the goal will be reached.
Mr. Newbold agreed to review both documents to make sure there are no duplications.
Mr. Hernandez stated that the design vision has been added to the Design Standards. The Guiding principles were presented at a previous meeting and define the site planning and building design principles. Buffers and screening from Long Pond Road have been added.
Mr. Newbold reviewed the Standards for Compliance on what the studio wants to do and how they are going to accomplish their goals.
Mr. Hernandez stated that the prevention of light pollution was important to the public and a section has been added that outlines how it will be addressed.
Mr. MacGregor noted that there is an exemption for outdoor lamps under 150 watts and there is creates a potential for 100 – 50 watt lamps to be installed in a small area.
Mr. Newbold suggested adding a limitation for the number of fixtures in an area.
Paul McAlduff noted that the Town’s bylaw bans neon lights.
Mr. Newbold stated that the studio is aware of the ban for neon lights.
Mr. Hernandez noted that the common landscaped features are defined under the Standards for Compliance and include: landscaping, walkways, landscape maintenance, underground utilities, light fixture height, urban furniture, and accessory buildings. Transportation access and circulation guidelines are defined. They include the main site entrance, the road within the Conservation area, the ring road/access road, and internal roadways. The Long Pond Road entrance will only be used by emergency vehicles and those residents living in the 10 single family house lots that abut Long Pond Road.
Mr. Garrett suggested that the lighting detail for the access road should be more specific. There needs to be a balance between keeping the rural character of the road and public safety.
Paul McAlduff encouraged the proponents to work with the school authorities to determine whether the access to the schools should be gated at night. Mr. McAlduff asked who would be responsible to plow the access road in the winter.
Mr. Newbold stated that the plowing will be done in accordance with the Town’s snow removal policy. They can’t use a lot of salt on the road because of the watershed issues.
Mr. Hernandez reviewed the building design requirements for the residential and commercial buildings, massing and composition, building materials, (wood, brick, masonry, stone, terra cotta, tile, poured concrete, metals, glass, etc), windows, coverage of mechanical components.
Mr. Newbold noted that the MEPOD bylaw contains the building size requirements and the allowable square footage for each area.
Mr. Hernandez presented the building designs for the different areas of the development. The building designs for the amenity area were based on existing buildings in the downtown area and Plimoth Plantation.
Mr. MacGregor suggested adding guidelines for stormwater management.
Mr. Hartmann suggested referencing compliance with the Town’s existing (recently updated) Stormwater Design Guidelines. Mr. Hartmann suggested adding an overall diagram of the general layout of the site. He also suggested adding more information about the general species and size of landscaping plants, and the replanting of existing mature vegetation.
Mr. Newbold stated that the next steps would include landscaping detail. He was unsure about how much detail to include in the Design Standards about the roadways.
Mr. Hartmann suggested including a non-site specific diagram of the roads and shows the hierarchy of how they relate to each other.
Jim Concannon suggested adding information about the other alternatives for access.
The Board took a five-minute break
Public Hearing (cont.)
Movie and Entertainment Production Overlay District Bylaw
Marc Garrett opened the continued public hearing. Mr. Garrett stated that the previous review of the proposed bylaw was through page six of the draft document. Tonight’s review began on page one of the draft bylaw dated September 4, 2008.
Atty. Edward Angley thanked Atty. Robert Betters for reformatting the draft bylaw to match the formatting of the existing zoning bylaw. Following the outline of the existing bylaw, the MEPOD bylaw begins with the Intent, Establishment and Location and Definitions.
There were no changes requested on Page 1.
Marc Garrett requested that on Page 2, “/Research” should be added to the “Educational Campus” to be consistent with the Design Standards. Mr. Garrett also noted that under the definition for Gross Floor Area the font was inconsistent and should be changed to be consistent.
Atty. Angley reviewed Section D – Uses and Requirements.
Mr. MacGregor asked why the housing numbers were 25 residential units when only 10 would be on Long Pond Road. He questioned the need to have 15 units in the interior of the site.
Atty. Angley explained that there could be a need for the internal housing units for people working at the studio that might not want to live in the Artists’ Housing.
Marc Garrett asked why it is called “a development project” instead of “the development project”.
Atty. Angley stated that the language is generic. Pages 4-6 outline the Size and other Requirements for the Studio Production Campus, the Studio Amenity Campus, the Educational/Research Campus and what is allowed in the open space.
Paul McAlduff asked if there was a limit on the time one could rent a unit in the Artists’ Housing.
Atty. Angley replied that the time limit was removed.
Lee Hartmann stated that in a previous version of the bylaw there was a one year limit.
Mr. Garrett asked why there was no mention of the traffic and special permit for access in this section.
Atty. Angley stated that they are listed as number 11 and 12 beginning on Pages 11 and 12.
Mr. Hartmann stated that they are not allowed uses, so they were placed elsewhere. Mr. Hartmann suggested that it could become number 3 on Page 8. the uses are allowed it makes more sense to stand alone.
Atty. Angley suggested leaving it where it is and coming back to it later. Page 7 outlines the Dimensional and other Requirements through a table that details the minimum and maximums for development size, lot size, setbacks, height of structures, lot coverage, separation between buildings, etc.
Mr. MacGregor suggested to reducing the building height from 45 ft. to 35 ft. with some caveats to make it flexible based on design, location and view shed. He doesn’t want to set a precedent by allowing buildings taller than 35 ft.
Mr. Garrett was supportive of the 45 ft. height limit as it is a reasonable scale within the context of the site.
Bill Wennerberg stated that these types of the buildings are unique and different from what exists in other areas of Town.
Mr. Hartmann asked a studio representative to speak to the change in the language regarding parking.
Mr. Newbold explained that the intent is to be able to park under certain buildings where the topography allows and to measure the height of the building from the grade at the building entry facing a public way or internal roadway. The office buildings on the hilltop and in the education complex and the hotel are some of the structures that could have subsurface parking. The visible height would be the first level of the building.
Atty. Angley stated that page 8 explains the curb cuts, street frontage, buffers, and setbacks. The Design Standards have been removed from this section and are defined in a separate document.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the Design Standards are referenced under Section G on page 14. Atty. Angley stated that page 9 begins the section on Site Plan Approval with allowances for a phased development on Page 10. If the development is phased, each phase will require abutter notification. No building permits can be issued until site plan approval has been completed.
Mr. Garrett stated that access and traffic should not be located under site plan approval. He suggested that the “one” mile boundary under traffic should be expanded to “two” miles.
Atty. Angley stated that there is a requirement that the transportation study be peer reviewed. He also stated that section 12 outlines the special permit process for adequate access.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the language for adequate access comes from the adequate facilities section of the bylaw.
Atty. Angley reviewed Section 13 regarding the Administration of the site plan approvals which states that the Planning Board is the granting authority. He also stated that Section H addresses signage, noise, lighting and parking. There will be a master plan for signage and the noise standards meet the State standards.
Mr. MacGregor asked if the allowable increase in ambient noise (10 dBA) would be as of the date of the adoption of the bylaw. He was concerned that the ambient noise level would continue to increase as development occurs.
Atty. Angley stated that it is a shifting standard.
Bill Wynne stated that the ambient noise is made up of sources that are beyond the control of the studio. By setting an absolute ambient noise standard the studio would have to decrease their noise as the ambient noise increases in order to maintain a consistent level. They have committed to maintaining a threshold of 10 dBA less than what the ambient noise level is.
Atty. Angley stated that the outdoor lighting will comply with the Prevention of Light Pollution section of the bylaw. The open space requirements and goals begin on Page 15 and continue to Page 16. Waivers may be authorized by the Planning Board. Prohibited uses are defined. The requirements for Permits and Certificates of Occupancy are addressed on Page 17, followed by language that addresses the requirements for a Citizens Advisory Committee; project agreements that may require an MOU or other documentation; and the cost of consultants will be funded by the developer.
Mr. Garrett asked if the MOU is mentioned for the first time under Project Agreements.
Mr. Hartmann explained that the section on Project Agreements allows the Planning Board to negotiate agreements.
Public Comment:
William Abbott presented a list of suggested changes to the bylaw language. His suggestions included the following:
Removing “If not naturally vegetated” from the definition of Buffer;
Eliminating the word “permanent” before carnivals in the definition of Outdoor Amusement, Water Parks or Theme Parks;
Putting a limitation on the amount of office space allowed in the studio amenity campus;
Placing a restriction on the water storage systems and wastewater treatment facilities that they can only service the studio property and the schools;
Adding language that telecommunication towers are subject to Zoning Bylaw requirements;
Changing “may be constructed in phases” to “shall be constructed in phases”;
Adding additional language regarding adequate access and traffic that would eliminate Long Pond Road as a primary access, require a four-mile radius of for review and Level of Service of intersections, limiting the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until 85% of the traffic improvements are constructed;
Adding the Planning Board as the Special Permit granting authority; and
Adding a condition that amendments to the MOU shall require a super majority approval of the Planning Board.
Steve Leyden stated that he has lived in South Plymouth for years and that traffic on Long Pond Road, Bourne Road and Halfway Pond Road has always been an issue. He stated that the Studio and A.D. Makepeace cannot be responsible for all the infrastructure improvements.
Mr. DeSilva suggested that the access road should be built prior to the commencement of construction and that the Long Pond Road access should not be used during construction. He also suggested providing landscaping in the buffer areas where the natural vegetation is inadequate; limiting the understructure parking from the studio buildings; measuring the ambient noise prior to the commencement of construction; and that the MOU should have a public review process.
Michael Main expressed his concerns with the change Mr. Abbott presented tonight. He thought Mr. Abbott’s concerns with the project were addressed during the agreement to require a special permit for access. Mr. Main was not supportive of the special permit process and stated that the entire project should be an allowed use. He stated that the Studio would be a better alternative than a Chapter 40 B project with 500 units which would create further traffic issues.
Jerry Benezra expressed his concerns with the possibilities of fires on the back lot; with needing more time to review the proposed language of the bylaw, traffic, noise, and appropriate access.
Connie Dilego stated that the landscaping, noise, lighting, signs, traffic, etc. have been addressed and readdressed in depth. She also stated that the benefits that this project will bring to the Town will be substantial.
Kenneth Buechs stated that the same questions are being asked frequently and that there is tremendous support for the project in the community. He urged the Board to consider what is best for the community as a whole. He also noted that the height of the school is 45 ft.
Scott Gufstason expressed his support for the project.
Kevin Doyle stated that require a 4 or 5 mile radius for traffic review would be a higher standard than other projects have had to meet.
Richard Silva expressed his concerns with the additional changes being requested when an agreement has been reached.
Bill Wynne thanked the Board, staff and the public for their comments. He stated that there are four main issues: traffic, visual impact, noise impact and jurisdictional authority. In response to Mr. Benezra’s concern about fires on the back lot, he noted that the back lot will have an extensive sprinkler system. They are prepared to go forward with the special permit for access.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to September 15, 2008 at 7:15 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Other Business:
Article 13 – Bourne Road realignment
Lee Hartmann presented the revised layout for Bourne Road that the Engineering Department will present to Fall Town Meeting (Article 13). The revised layout is mitigation resulting from an agreement between neighbors and the A.D. Makepeace River Run project.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to support Article 13; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Bill Wennerberg moved to adjourn at 11:05 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: September 22, 2008
Administrative Assistant
| 
