Town of Plymouth, MA - Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2010

Planning Board Minutes February 8, 2010

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, Paul McAlduff, Larry Rosenblum, and Bill Wennerberg

Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy

Staff Members: Lee Hartmann

Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne

Administrative Notes:

None

Presentation

Town Engineer – Street Acceptance

Lee Hartmann presented the list of seventeen private ways that the Engineering Department has presented to the Board of Selectmen for acceptance as public ways and will be presented to 2010 Annual Town Meeting for acceptance under Article 34. The private ways are as follows: Ryan’s Way, Sweet Amanda’s Way, Fathom Road, Halyard Road, Leeward Way, Mizzen Lane, Mooring Circle, Spinnaker Drive, Lombard Street, Sansome Street, Worrall Road, Archer Street, Chandler Street, Downey Street, Jackson Street, Kelley Street and Milford Street.

Steve Lydon and Gus Diodato spoke in favor of accepting the roads.

Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to invite DPW to a future Planning Board meeting to give a presentation on the proposed road acceptances and future road improvements; the vote was (1-3) with Larry Rosenblum in support.

Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend acceptance of the above-mentioned seventeen roads to Town Meeting and to have DPW attend a future Planning Board meeting and present the Town’s long term plan for private streets and street acceptances, the criteria used to select streets for acceptance and an up-date on any proposed changes to the private and gravel roads bylaw; the vote was unanimous (4-0).

Marc Garrett announced that at the Planning Board meeting held on February 1, 2010 the Public Hearing for B564 - J & M Properties/Danielson was continued to March 1, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. and a notice of the change of date was sent to abutters.

Public Hearing (cont. from 1/25, 2/1)

STM10 – Pinehills - Amend OSMUD

Bill Wennerberg recused himself from this public hearing and joined the audience.

Mr. Garrett reopened the public hearing and asked for public comment on the Pinehills LLC petition to amend the OSMUD as follows:

as follows:

1. Drive-through modification: currently the bylaw allows for financial institutions and one other business to have drive-through windows. The proposed change would allow for financial institutions and two other businesses to have drive-through windows.

2. Building setback modification: currently the bylaw requires a 100 ft. treed buffer along Clark Road and Route 3 in the village green area with a second 100 ft. buffer (100-200 ft.) in which road, utilities or parking lots can be constructed. The proposed change would retain the 100 ft. treed buffer and allow building construction within the second 100 ft. buffer (100-200 ft).

3. Building height modification: currently the bylaw allows construction of 45 ft. tall buildings in the village green outside the 500 ft. buffer and 35 ft. tall buildings within the 200 – 500 ft. buffer. The proposed change would allow 55 ft. high sloped roof buildings and 50 ft. high flat roof buildings within the village green outside the 500 ft. buffer and 45 ft. high buildings within the 200 – 500 ft. buffer.

4. Define contiguous land by adding the following language: Land in excess of the 3,000 acre minimum may be added to the open space mixed use development which (i) meets the foregoing criteria, (ii) is located within or abutting the opposite side of a pond that is adjacent to the open space mixed use development and consisting of not less than 50 acres in its natural state, , or (iii) is contained within a parcel in single ownership at the time of inclusion of such parcel in the open space mixed use development, a portion of which parcel is located within 1,000 ft. of the boundary of a pond that is adjacent to the open space mix use development and consisting of not less than 50 acres in its natural state.

Steve Travis and Ron Kearn spoke in favor.

Pat Naji and Peter Stearns spoke in opposition.

Paul McAlduff was supportive of the proposed changes with a slight concern regarding the language that would allow land adjacent to a pond to be added to the OSMUD.

Larry Rosenblum suggested recommending to Town Meeting that each item proposed be voted separately. Mr. Rosenblum was supportive of one additional drive-through and amending the buffer/setback language to limit buildings within the 100-200 ft. buffer between Pinehills Drive and Landmark Drive. Mr. Rosenblum did not support the language to increase to building heights or the language to allow land adjacent to a pond to be added to the OSMUD.

Marc Garrett was supportive of the amendments to the drive-through, buffer/setback (not along Route 3) and height portion of the proposed changes to the OSMUD. Mr. Garrett did not support the proposed language that would allow land adjacent to a pond to be added to the OSMUD without a feasibility study.

Tim Grandy was supportive of separating the issues and supportive of the amendments to the drive-through, buffer/setback and building heights. Mr. Grandy also felt that the amendment to the language regarding the additional land should be postponed until a feasibility study can be completed.

The Board voted to make the following recommendations to Town Meeting:

To amend certain sections of the Plymouth Zoning Bylaw in the following manner (crossed-out words are deleted, proposed additions are underlined):

Amendment #1

Section 205-63(B), definition of OPEN SPACE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, (1):

(1) An open space mixed-use development may include a mixture of common open space or facilities, single- and multifamily residential in limited occupancy communities and planned retirement communities, commercial (high technology planned unit development uses), general commercial, retail, agricultural and recreational uses, and a variety of building types and designs, on well-buffered sites of at least 3,000 acres where access to the open space mixed-use development from a limited access highway such as Route 3 is by a major street. ~For the purposes of this section, the 3,000 acres in the open space mixed-use development may consist of adjacent parcels in compact, nonlinear shape, zoned Rural Residential, and divided only by highways, public and private roadways, and easements, and may include land subject to special permits for other overlay districts such as high technology PUD or recreational development.~ For purposes of this section, parcels on opposite sides of a roadway shall be deemed to be adjacent parcels in compact, nonlinear shape if said parcels have at least 200 feet of frontage directly opposite each other on a highway or public or private roadway. Land in excess of the 3,000 acre minimum may be added to the open space mixed use development which (i) meets the foregoing criteria, (ii) is located within or abutting the opposite side of a pond that is adjacent to the open space mixed use development and consisting of not less than 50 acres in its natural state, or (iii) is contained within a parcel in single ownership at the time of inclusion of such parcel in the open space mixed use development, a portion of which parcel is located within 1,000 feet of the boundary of a pond that is adjacent to the open space mix use development and consisting of not less than 50 acres in its natural state.

Planning Board Recommendation:

The Planning Board voted (3-0) not to support this amendment at this time. This language would allow Pinehills LLC at a future time to seek either a special permit through the Planning Board or a Development Plan amendment through Town Meeting to add approximately 110 acres of land located east of Great Island Pond to this OSMUD. The request may have merit, however, before proceeding, the Planning Board would like to better understand implications related to access, number of possible units and impacts on abutting Town land.

Amendment #2

Section 205-63D(4):

(4) Drive-through establishments shall be allowed for financial institutions, but only ~~one~~ two other drive-through ~~establishment~~ establishments shall be allowed.

Planning Board Recommendation:

The Planning Board voted (3-0) to support this amendment. The addition of one additional drive through is a reasonable request for a development that is permitted for 1.3 million square feet of commercial and retail space.

Amendment #3

Section 205-63, Table 12, Footnote 4:

Table 12

Perimeter Buffer and Setback Requirements for Contiguous Parcels Making Up the 3,000 Acres in OSMUD	Requirement

Scenic streets buffer	300 feet^{1, 4}
Major streets buffer	500 feet^{1, 4}
Rear yard buffer	200 feet²
Side yard buffer	200 feet²
Limited access highways buffer	200 feet1, ^{3, 4}
Limited access highways setback	500 feet⁴

¹.These requirements only apply to distances from major streets and scenic streets existing at the time of the application for the master plan special permit for an open space mixed-use development. The five-hundred-foot front yard buffer from major streets may be penetrated for the creation of new internal ways or new ways to connect an open space mixed-use development to the existing public roadway system. Any buffer may be penetrated for utility easements, agricultural purposes, recreational purposes, cartpaths, emergency access or property maintenance, or for vehicular access, the primary purpose of which is to serve nonretail uses. These buffers shall be measured the required distance from the street line and shall not restrict the development of residential lots fronting on existing ways. All of the above are subject to limitation by the Planning Board in the master plan special permit.

². These requirements only apply to retail and high technology uses. These requirements only apply to distances from property lines existing at the time of application for the master plan special permit for an open space mixed-use development separating the open space mixed-use development from land not in common ownership.

³. The two-hundred-foot limited access highway buffer is included within the five-hundred-foot setback requirement.

^4. In the master plan special permit, the Planning Board may approve a reduction in the width of buffers or setbacks to allow (i) no less than a two-hundred-foot buffer or setback from existing major streets, limited access highways, and existing scenic streets, and (ii) within the area of permitted retail uses under Subsection E(2), no less than a one-hundred-foot buffer or setback from portions of existing major streets that are a minimum 1400 feet from the center point of a limited access highway interchange and a maximum of 3700 feet from the center point of a limited access highway interchange ~~and limited access highways~~ consisting of undisturbed land except for penetrations for ways, utilities, etc. as provided in Footnote 1 to this Table 12.

Planning Board Recommendation:

The Planning Board voted (2-1) to support this amendment subject to the bolded language changes noted above. This amendment as proposed by the petitioner would allow for reductions in buffers and building set backs along Route 3 and along Clark Road within the village green/retail area of the development. The Planning Board’s amended language would exclude buffer and building set backs reductions to 100 feet along Route 3 and that portion of Clark Road adjacent to Route 3. These buffers can still be reduced to 200 feet.

The Town’s Master Plan recognizes The Pinehills as Plymouth’s sixth village center. As a village center, the Town should encourage provisions that seek to incorporate the village into the overall community.

Please note that this is only a change to the bylaw. Actual reductions in the buffers would require a vote of the Planning Board in the case of a special permit amendment or Town Meeting in the case of a Development Plan amendment.

Amendment #4

Section 205-63, Table 13, Footnote 4:

Table 13

Uses Allowed in the Remaining Area (Maximum 30%) of the Total OSMUD May Be Used as Follows

Internal Development Requirements
Use	Intensities	Area (square feet) (inclusive of easements within such area)	Min. Lot Width	Min. Front Yard¹	Min. Side Yard¹	Min. Rear Yard¹
Limited Occupancy Communities (LOC)Dimensional and intensity requirements for the LOC uses within the OSMUD shall be as in the Rural Residential (RR) Zone or the Recreational Development (RD) Overlay Zone as in effect as of November 14, 1995, or the rural density development or this section	Shall not exceed 1,897 LOC dwelling units (du) maximum for 3,000 acre OSMUD; shall not exceed 1 LOC du for each gross acre above 3,000	6,000	25 feet	10 feet	0 feet	10 feet
Planned Retirement Dimensional and intensity requirements for a planned retirement community within the OSMUD shall be as in this section	Shall not exceed 920 planned retirement units	6,000	25 feet	10 feet	0 feet	10 feet
Commercial Dimensional and intensity requirements for the commercial areas within the OSMUD shall be as outlined in the high technology planned unit development or this section, subject to the limitation in the column of this Table 13 labeled "Intensities"	The aggregate of commercial and retail uses shall not exceed 1,300,000 square feet gross leasable area2	60,000	200 feet	50 feet	30 feet; parking areas and driveways shall comply with the minimum side yard requirement	30 feet; parking areas and driveways shall comply with the minimum rear yard requirement
Retail Dimensional and intensity requirements for the retail areas within the OSMUD shall be as in the GC District or this section, subject to the limitation in the column of this Table 13 labeled "Intensities"	Shall not exceed 220,000 square feet gross leasable area²	40,000	90 feet	40 feet	150 feet if abutting residential or 40 feet other uses; parking areas and driveways shall comply with the minimum side yard requirement	150 feet if abutting residential or 30 feet other uses; parking areas and driveways shall comply with the minimum side yard requirement
Neighborhood Green (all uses), subject to the intensity limitations of this Table 13 for the aggregate amount of any uses in the OSMUD^3,4			0 feet	0 feet	0 feet	0 feet

¹Setbacks are in addition to the buffers noted in Table 12.

²No single retailer shall exceed 40,000 square feet (except for retail food, which may be 55,000 square feet). Within the open space mixed-use development single buildings in excess of 10,000 square feet are subject to certification to the Building Commissioner, as specified in Subsection J(1) below, that such buildings are in compliance with the design and appearance criteria in § 205-12D and that the design, scale, density, and character of all buildings shall strictly incorporate the intent of the open space mixed-use development bylaw. The term "gross leasable area" as used herein shall mean net floor area minus covered walkways, gazebos, or other amenities acceptable to the Planning Board to make the development pedestrian-oriented.

³The neighborhood green may be established as provided in Subsection E.

⁴Height within the neighborhood green may be 45 50 feet in the case of a flat roof or 55 feet in the case of a sloping roof, including ornamental structures normally constructed above the roofline, such as cupolas, and other appurtenances, such as air-conditioning units (with the exception that height may not exceed 45 feet within the ~~two~~ one-hundred-foot to five-hundred-foot reduction of buffers or setbacks from major streets, limited access highways and scenic streets, ~~height may not exceed 35 feet~~ or within 500 feet of the property line existing at the time of application for the master plan special permit for an open space mixed-use development separating the open space mixed-use development from land not then in common ownership or beyond 1200 feet from a major street.)

Planning Board Recommendation:

The Planning Board voted (2-1) to support this amendment. The amendment allows for the construction of slightly higher buildings. Higher buildings will reduce the overall footprint of development. It also allows for a variety of building heights and building architecture. Finally, it increases the potential for mixed-use buildings to be constructed in the Village Green.

Amendment #5

Section 205-63J(8)(f):

(f) The provisions of this § 205-63, as amended on April 4, 2005, and as further amended on __________, 2010 [insert the date of Town Meeting approval of this amendment to § 205-63] shall be applicable to a Master Plan Special Permit for an Open Space Mixed Use Development (or any modification or phase thereof) and any Development Plan for an Open Space Mixed Use Development (or any modification thereof), whether issued before or after April 4, 2005, or before or after__________, 2010 [insert the date of Town Meeting approval of this amendment to § 205-63.

Planning Board Recommendation:

This is a house keeping provision that only notes the action of Town Meeting. The Board voted (3-0) to support this amendment.

Bill Wennerberg rejoined the Board.

BOA 3573 – Atlantic Properties

3 & 5 Resnik Road, Map 103, Lots 14K-123 and 14K-124

William Shaw, Associated Engineers, presented the request for a special permit subject to EDC for gravel removal in excess of 10 cubic yards and a special permit for buffers on property located at 3 and 5 Resnik Road in order to remove approximately 80,000 cubic yards of gravel in order to prepare for development of an industrial site and an access drive in the Plymouth Industrial Park. Special permits were previously approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct the PAC-TV building on this site. The current proposal includes an office building and a warehouse/office building, associated parking, an entrance way off Commerce Way and an entrance way that will open to Resnik Road and Industrial Park Road.

Lee Hartmann asked what route the haul trucks would use.

Mr. Shaw replied that the haul trucks would access Industrial Park Rd, turn left at Christa McAuliffe Way and then right on Commerce Way to the highway.

Jon Henson presented the landscaped plans that detailed the buffer areas around the perimeter of the site, the accessways, within the parking areas and around the buildings.

Marc Garrett was concerned with the haul truck route and the 90 degree turns of large trucks in small areas.

Lee Hartmann noted that the current petition only address the reduction in buffer areas and the 80,000 cubic yards of gravel removal. The buildings are not included in this petition. The previous petition for PAC-TV was for the removal of 25,000 cubic yards of gravel. The buffer reduction is unchanged from the PAC-TV petition. Mr. Hartmann suggested conditioning that the perimeter plantings buffering the abutting neighbors should be installed prior to the gravel removal. He also noted that the Engineering Dept. has will not allow the breaking of the median along Commerce Way. Mr. Hartmann suggested the petitioner consider reducing the parking to the minimum necessary and converting that additional land to open space and using a different stone for the retaining wall along Commerce Way.

Mr. Shaw noted that if Mass Highway allows the petitioner to extend the grading onto their property, the retaining walls would be eliminated.

Tim Grandy suggested that the Town require a performance guarantee to protect Commerce Way and Resnik Road and that the site should be loamed and seeded at the completion of the gravel removal if the construction of the buildings has not commenced.

Mr. Hartmann stated that a condition could be added to the special permit that would allow no more than five acres to be disturbed at any given time and that there is a two year time limit for the gravel removal.

Larry Rosenblum suggested that the entire site would benefit from larger buffer areas.

Paul McAlduff and Bill Wennerberg were supportive of reducing the number of parking spaces.

Marc Garrett expressed his concerns that the project has not been reviewed by the West Plymouth Steering Committee (WPSC) and not having a WPSC report compromises the review process. He suggested adding the following condition: This petition is subject to a positive recommendation of the West Plymouth Steering Committee. If the committee’s vote is not favorable, the issues identified by the committee shall be revisited.

Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:

To minimize impacts on abutters, the perimeter plantings shown on the Landscape Plan presented by the petitioner shall be installed as a condition of the granting of this petition.

Prior to the start of excavation at the site:

The Petitioner shall post a performance guarantee to protect Commerce Way and Resnik Road from damage caused by outgoing loaded trucks. The performance guarantee is to be in a form acceptable to the Building Commissioner upon consulting with the Director of Public Works. The Board of Appeals agrees to terminate the performance guarantee upon completion of earth removal activities if Commerce Way and Resnik Road have not been damaged thereby.

The Petitioner has agreed to prepare an erosion control plan (and dust suppression measures if needed) to be submitted to the Building Commissioner. Any exposed banks created by the excavation should be hydro-seeded or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the Building Commissioner and maintained for three years. Proposed side slopes shall be at a grade of 3:1 (or 2:1) with erosion control measures in place. Said plan shall include 100 feet of pavement prior to trucks leaving a gravel hauling area in order to prevent mud from being tracked by the vehicle tires onto paved roadways.

Temporary signs warning traffic of truck entry shall be installed for safety as determined by the Police Department and will be approved by the Director of Inspectional Services.

A limit of 40 truck trips per day will be the maximum allowed for all earth removal operations for this project. Trucks shall travel via the proposed haul road and Industrial Park Road. Resnik Road shall not be used as a truck route. Every effort shall be made to phase the truck trips with the other local projects as has been done to date.

The excavation and trucking of material and/or noise generated by the excavation and trucking of material shall be limited to Monday through Friday. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No excavation activities shall be permitted on holidays.

The Petitioner has agreed to allow access to the site for periodic inspections by the Town or its designated representative, and to cover the costs of said inspections through the contingency account managed by the Planning Office. All funds not expended during the construction project shall be refunded upon satisfaction of all conditions and completion of the work.

The Petitioner shall be responsible for the clearing of any sand that accumulates on the truck route as a result of the excavation of material on a daily basis.

At no time shall more than five acres of the site be exposed. The Petitioner shall loam and seed any portions of the site that are not under construction after earth removal activities have ceased for a period of six (6) months.

During construction, monthly statements are to be submitted by the Petitioner to the Building Commissioner from a Registered Professional Engineer stating that the provisions of the Special Permit are being followed.

Once the work has commenced, it shall be completed within two (2) years from start of excavation. After the two (2) year timeframe, unless extended by the Board of Appeals, this Special Permit shall expire and all gravel removal shall cease.

If all of the above noted conditions are not adhered to, the Building Commissioner may cause all excavation work to cease until the problems identified are corrected.

Final landscaping plans and site plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board and Planning Board subject to final approval by the Board of Appeals prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy at the site. Said plans shall include, as agreed to by the Petitioner per the request of the West Plymouth Steering Committee:

An approximately 4-foot tall fence, design to be acceptable to the residents of Grabau Drive and to the Board of Appeals, to be installed off the end of the Grabau Drive cul-de-sac running parallel to the rear property line of the subject property to prevent the possibility of a vehicular short-cut being created and to discourage use of Grabau Drive as a pedestrian cut-through to the Industrial Park buildings.

The Petitioner has agreed to add a future easement for a 4-inch sewer pipe connection extending through the subject property to the property line in order for the residents of Grabau Drive to connect to the sewer at a later date if they so desire.

The access drive shall be lit by white wooden lamp-posts (14-15-foot tall) as agreed to under the previous petition and shall be in compliance with the Dark Sky Section of the Bylaw (a.k.a. Prevention of Light Pollution).

The Building Commissioner is authorized to allow minor internal site field changes to the plans that do not amount to a substantial modification of the plans. Such changes may include; substituting or moving particular plant material, number of shrubs or trees; moving a building in a manner that does not materially change the project; reconfigure drainage areas or parking spaces; or similar changes where it is impractical to install or construct as originally designed. Internal changes to the site plans unless amounting to a material change of appearance or function may be allowed by the Building Commissioner.

Marc Garrett requested that the following condition be added to the recommendation:

This petition is subject to a positive recommendation of the West Plymouth Steering Committee. If the committee’s vote is not favorable, the issues identified by the committee shall be revisited.

Mr. McAlduff amended his motion to include Mr. Garrett’s condition.

The vote was unanimous (4-0).

Other Business:

The Board endorsed their vote for B563 – Rosemont VOSD.

The Board endorsed their recommendation to Town Meeting on Article 22 - High Voltage Utility Poles.

Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to go into Executive Session to discuss strategy pursuant to litigation; a roll call vote was taken: Paul McAlduff – Yes, Larry Rosenblum – Yes, Bill Wennerberg – Yes and Marc Garrett – Yes.

Marc Garrett announced that the Board would not be reconvening in regular session.

Respectfully Submitted,

Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: February 22, 2010

Administrative Assistant