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
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard, and Howard Coppari
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
The Board approved the following ANR plan for endorsement by the Clerk:
A4331/B549 – Whitley Trail
The Board approved a covenant extension for B509 – The Trails.
MOU - A. D. Makepeace & Boy Scout
Transfer of Development Rights protection of 434 acres
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding theTransfer of Development Rights (TDR) from Old Colony Boy Scout Council (Camp Squanto) to A. D. Makepeace. The Transfer would preserve 434 acres. The Boy Scouts have agreed to transfer the Development Rights provided that the Conservation Restrictions do not confer access rights to the general public to, over, through or across their land.
Tom Melehan, A. D. Makepeace, noted that the State does not require public access to land under a Conservation Restriction and they are asking the Town to agree to limit public access.
Lee Hartmann noted that Town Counsel has reviewed the MOU and requested a few minor changes.
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the Administrative Notes; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
B437 – Painted Cottage - Plan Endorsement
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the endorsement of Painted Cottage; the vote was 4-0-1 with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
BOA 3530 – Richard Burt (HC 6/3)
148 Beaver Dam Road/Map 75, Lot 19-1
Randy Parker, Land Management Systems Inc., presented the request for a special permit to waive the side and rear setback requirements in order to construct an open deck with stairs on an existing dwelling. The property abuts the house of the applicant’s mother.
Howard Coppari reviewed the petition and suggested adding a condition that the deck should not be enclosed or used for year round use without further review by the ZBA.
Bill Wennerberg moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The deck shall not be enclosed or improved for year-round use, or altered, without additional review by the Board of Appeals.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3531 – Steven M Austin (HC 6/3)
27 Great Wind Drive, Map 121, Lot 6-164
Randy Parker, Land Management Systems Inc., presented the request for a special permit to waive the side setback requirements in order to allow for an existing house to be located closer to a side property line than what is required by zoning. The foundation was constructed too close to the lot line due to an error in calculations on the plan.
Howard Coppari noted that the zoning application that was originally submitted complied with the setback requirements, however due to an error in calculations by the surveyor, the foundation was located too close to the property line. A certificate of occupancy has not yet been issued for the dwelling.
Mr. Parker noted that this is a brand new house. There was a cottage on the site that was removed.
Mr. Coppari explained that the cottage was built in1967 and demolished in 2006.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals: the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Appointment:
Viking Development - Rezoning and MOU
Atty. Edward Angley presented a draft MOU for the rezoning of lots behind the Home Depot development. The property would be rezoned to Highway Commercial (HC) and is adjacent to other properties that are zoned HC and Light Industrial (LI). The plans show a 50 ft. buffer around the perimeter of the property with an enhanced buffer next to property owned by Walter Brady, Rocky Palladino and Barry Tassinari. A 4.9 acre parcel would be donated to the Town of Plymouth for protection and future opening of the Zone 2 well. The MOU also outlines the traffic improvements that would be installed as mitigation for the project.
Ron Mueller, Greenman Pedersen, reviewed the proposed traffic improvements on Long Pond Road, Home Depot Drive, and Exit 5.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if the proposed improvements would help the existing general traffic flow in the area or just the Home Depot area.
Mr. Mueller explained that under the existing conditions there is an “F” Level of Service (LOS) at Exit 5 and an “E” LOS at the left turn out of Home Depot Drive. The improvements would allow for the additional traffic that the rezoning would create and improve existing conditions. Viking Development is the only entity that can make improvements in the area without a taking because they own the land.
Marc Garrett asked if the corridor study has been completed.
Lee Hartmann stated that the contract for the corridor study has just been executed.
Atty. Angley stated that David Gould the Acting DPW Director has reviewed the MOU and is supportive.
Larry Rosenblum stated that there is no requirement for a special permit and asked what mechanism would be used to limit the development of the site.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the trip generation would be limited.
Atty. Angley noted that rather than limiting the number of retail or office buildings, the vehicle limit would define the maximum build out of the site.
David Gilvar, Viking Development, noted that the majority of the traffic issues occur at the Home Depot Drive intersection. He felt that the proposed improvements would be able to handle any additional development at Shops at Five and Holman Road.
Mr. Rosenblum asked what the timing of the improvements would be. He also expressed his reservations regarding the process where rezoning of properties is being sought in areas that might not be suitable from a planning perspective.
Mr. Mueller explained that the improvements would be completed before the first building is occupied.
Mr. MacGregor suggested that the Board should consider the potential uses of the site prior to rezoning the property. He thought the standards of how much retail and office space the Town should have vs. the existing retail and office space should be defined. He also suggested that if the rezoning is approved any construction should be LEED certifiable.
Mr. Mueller noted that the project will have to go through MEPA review and that process will require that green building technology is used.
The Board reviewed the draft MOU with the proposed changes from Town Counsel.
Atty. Angley noted that the MOU language defines the limitation of the development by peak traffic generation, the requirement for a traffic study, the traffic mitigations that have been proposed, the buffers, the excavation restraints and construction access, and the donation of 4.9 acres for protection of the Lout Pond Well.
Mr. Hartmann noted that on Page 2 language was deleted regarding the Planning Board’s review of the improvements. He noted that the MEPA process and MA Highway will make a determination as to what traffic improvements are needed and the Town would have to insure that the required improvements have been installed. On page 3, language was deleted regarding the loaming and seeding being free of roots, stones and twigs.
Atty. Angley noted that on page 3, language regarding the requirement of completion of the road improvements for the issuance of a “building permit” has been changed to “occupancy permit”.
He noted that a Traffic Impact and Access Study will be completed and agreed to add language that the Board will have an opportunity to review and address any deficiencies in the traffic improvements.
Mr. Rosenblum was concerned that there is a development process including special permits, site plan review, traffic studies that are protection for the Town. He felt that this process of negotiating an MOU allowed customized zoning.
Mr. Hartmann stated that because of the zoning the uses are all allowed uses. He noted that peer review of the traffic study was acceptable. He requested that the map attached to the MOU be made a little clearer. On page 3, the buffers have been reduced from 100 ft. to 50 ft. with the exception of the enhanced buffers as shown on the attachment. Another change was that the traffic improvements would be consistent with their plan and not the corridor study. If the Town’s corridor study is completed prior to the construction of this project, the development should also be consistent with the corridor study.
Atty. Angley stated that the timing of the construction vehicles will be coordinated with the school bus schedule and the proponent will provide an amount to reimburse the Town for legal expenses and peer review of engineering and traffic reports.
Mr. Hartmann stated that a section was added that addressed excavation of the site, trucking of the materials and the hours of operation for construction. Mr. Hartmann requested that the proponent be identified as Harald throughout the document for consistency purposes. In section IV, A, 4, Mr. Hartmann requested that the access easement be clarified because Home Depot Drive is not considered a roadway. It is considered a driveway. The next two pages of comments by Town Counsel regarding the general provisions should include language regarding the agreement be binding on all future owners of the site.
Mr. Rosenblum was concerned that the traffic improvements did not address future development further west on Long Pond Road. He asked why there is such an issue with the Home Depot Drive intersection.
Mr. Mueller explained that traffic turning left onto County Road to access the Shops at Five and development further west on Long Pond Road was not considered when the Home Depot development was created. The green light time for vehicles traveling in this area has been decreased due to the changes in the traffic patterns.
Mr. Garrett stated that originally there was a 100 ft. buffer and asked if the buffer was reduced to 50 ft. because of the increases to the buffer near the abutters and the land donation.
Atty. Angley replied that the buffer decrease/increase and the set aside of acreage for the land donation happened simultaneously.
Mr. Garrett asked if the MOU language is amended, what would be the time constraints for the Boards to review.
Mr. Hartmann explained that the article is being presented to the Advisory and Finance Committee on Wednesday night and the Board of Selectmen on May 5, 2009. He was concerned that Town Counsel would not have ample opportunity to review and respond to the changes.
Mr. Garrett was also concerned with Town Counsel having an opportunity to respond.
Atty. Angley suggested that a recommendation on the MOU could be made subject to approval by Town Counsel.
Mr. Garrett noted that the Board of Selectmen wanted the developer and the Planning Board to have a consensus before they would make a recommendation.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that he was uncomfortable with the rezoning itself and the MOU that has not been reviewed by Town Counsel. He suggested that language be added that the improvements have to be consistent with the corridor study once it becomes available.
Mr. Gilvar agreed to Mr. MacGregor’s suggestion regarding consistency with the corridor study.
Mr. Hartmann reviewed the recommended language changes: consistency with the corridor study; including Planning Board review of the report that will be prepared for the development proposal; and the attachment should define the buffer areas more clearly.
Paul McAlduff was supportive of the proposed development and improvements to the road. He would be supportive of the MOU if Town Counsel approves the language.
Bill Wennerberg stated that he wanted the proponent to be successful while the town is protected, but there needed to be a level of consistency with what the developer is asking to do and the Town’s peer review recommendations.
Larry Rosenblum stated that he would not support the proposal as it would set a terrible precedent for rezoning a property via Town Meeting with an MOU. He felt that there are existing processes in place for thorough review of the proposal.
Mr. Garrett asked if there would be site plan review process included in the MOU and whether the Board could review the landscaping plan.
Mr. Hartmann replied that there would be an informal site plan review and could be a landscaping plan as part of the negotiated process and that the Building Department could hold the permit if the Board is not satisfied.
Mr. Wennerberg stated that this is the type of development and road improvements that are appropriate given the proximity of the land to the existing highway. Mr. Wennerberg suggested that the developer consider applying green building principles in any construction on the site and that the site plan review language should be more definitive.
Mr. MacGregor requested that language be added to the MOU regarding green building practices and site plan review that would include a landscaping plan.
Atty. Angley replied that green building practices would be up to the individual tenant.
Mr. Garrett suggested adding a short statement indicating that when the tenant’s are determined, the site plan review will include green building standards and a landscape plan.
Atty. Angley agreed to draft language in the MOU regarding green building practices and review of the landscape plan.
Mr. Garrett stated that design standards have been developed for other projects and there are already published standards for green design.
Mr. Hartmann stated that staff was comfortable with the site plan review process, but there is not enough time to develop design standards. He also noted that the Board has approval rights for consistency with the Zoning Bylaw.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the MOU language subject to the above-mentioned changes, Town Counsel’s favorable review, and $10,000 for peer review. Mr. McAlduff amended his motion to include language regarding the requirement of site plan review.
The vote was (1-4-0) with only Mr. McAlduff in favor of the motion. The motion did not pass.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Planning Board to reconsider their vote regarding the requirement of granite curbing for B515 – Nestle Down on May 18, 2009 at 7:05 p.m.; the vote was (4-1-0) with Marc Garrett in opposition. The abutter’s will be notified of the meeting.
Bill Wennerberg moved to adjourn at 10:11 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: May 18, 2009
Administrative Assistant
| 
