Town of Plymouth, MA - Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2010

Planning Board Minutes December 20, 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, Tim Grandy, and Bill Wennerberg

Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs

Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard

Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne

Marc Garrett announced that the Energy Committee is hosting a “Wind Energy 101 Forum” on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. in the Mayflower Room.

Administrative Notes:

Minutes:

November 22, 2010*

Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of November 22, 2010* as presented; the vote was (4-0-1) with Tim Grandy in abstention.

December 6, 2010*

Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of December 6, 2010* as presented; the vote was (4-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention.

B437 – Pinehills LLC – Cobblestone – Endorsement of Plan*

Form A Plans*:

A4390* – Pinehills LLC – Cobblestone, Map 77D, Lots A-223 (.36A) and A-224 (.26A) – Divide into lots 10-503 (.09A), 10-504 (.08A), 10-505 (.08A), 10-506 (.09A), 10-507 (.06A), 10-508 (.07A), 10-509 (.06A), and 10-510 (.08A)

A4391* – Pinehills LLC – Hitching Post, Map 77C, Lots 10-512 (22,664 sf) and 10-511 (21,966 sf) – Lot line adjustment to create lots 10-513 (22,994 sf) and 10-514 (21636 sf)

B437 – Pinehills LLC – Cobblestone - Release of Covenant*

Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse the plan for B437 – Pinehills’ Cobblestone neighborhood creating eight residential lots; for the Board to determine that A4390 and A4391 are entitled to endorsement; and for the Board to endorse a release of covenant for lots 10-503 through and including 10-510 in the B437 – Pinehills’ Cobblestone neighborhood; the vote was (4-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.

Site Plan Review – CHS*, 15 Apollo Eleven Rd, Map 101, Lot 32G

BOA 3612 – William Harrington, 69 Manomet Point Rd, Map 46, Lot 18 - Special Permit to waive the side and rear setback requirements in order to demolish and rebuild an existing garage

The Board received the following documentation* for this review:

Draft Staff Report Locus Map

Site Photographs Architectural Drawing

Plan of Land

B515 Nestle Down –Revision of Covenant*

B503 – Wood Fern Path – Release of Covenant*

Paul McAlduff moved as follows:

For the Board to notify the Building Commissioner that the site plan for 15 Apollo Eleven Road will comply with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw after the following issues are addressed, and that the Planning Board has determined that the entire lot and all structures are planned and designed as a unified complex with appropriate provisions for parking drainage and utilities:

Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.

Compliance with the Prevention of Light Pollution Zoning Bylaw must be documented.

The final plantings shall include trees with a minimum 3-inch caliper and shrubs with a minimum 12-18 inch height at time of planting.

A Registered Landscape Architect or other qualified licensed professional must certify to the Building Commissioner prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit that the required landscaping has been installed in accordance with: the approved site plan, the Zoning Bylaw, and acceptable landscape practices.

The Town Engineer must approve the drainage design and system for the new roof runoff and the expanded parking area prior to construction.

Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit a Registered Professional Engineer must certify that the drainage system, drive ways, curbing and parking areas have been installed according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and the approved site plan.

For the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit to waive the side and rear setback requirements in order to demolish and rebuild an existing garage for Case 3612 – William Harrington, 69 Manomet Point Road, Map 46, Lot 18 subject to the following conditions:

The architecture and exterior materials of the garage shall be in keeping with the existing single-family dwelling.

The dimensions of the garage may be up to 24’x28’, in keeping with current 2-car garage standard size, as long as the side and rear yard setbacks are not further encroached upon.

For the Board to amend the covenant for B515 – Nestle Down subdivision by separating the parcels to be covenanted with each of the developers rather than all of the parcels being subject to one covenant, which will allow land to be conveyed out from the covenant to Nestle Down Realty LLC or Stage Point Realty LLC for ownership, but not for building purposes and for the Board to release lots 21-1, 21-14 and 21-16 and

For the Board to release lots 39B-1 and 30B-2 in the B503 - Woodfern Path Subdivision.

The vote was unanimous (5-0).

Marc Garrett recused himself and left the room.

Form A Plan:

A4382* – Rockland Trust Company, Hollis Road, Map 75, Lot 9-42 (458,780 sf) – divide open space into lots 9-43 (22,810 sf) and 9-44 (435,970 sf)

B520 – Beaver Dam Ridge – Confirmation that the agricultural use, cranberry bog farming, is an open space use consistent with the special permit

Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to determine that A4382 is entitled to endorsement and to confirm that the agricultural use, cranberry bog farming is consistent with allowed uses for the special permit for open space under B520 – Beaver Dam Ridge; the vote was unanimous (4-0)

Marc Garrett rejoined the meeting.

BOA 3616 and Site Plan Review - Paul M Rodriques

5 Resnik Road, Map 103, Lot 14K-125 (a.k.a. 14K-167) – Special Permit to exceed the height requirements and to reduce the number of parking spaces required in a LI zone

The Board received the following documentation* for this review:

Discussion Points

Draft Staff Report

West Plymouth Steering Committee comments dated November 24, 2010

Fire Department Comments received December 1, 2010

Copy of Board of Appeals Decision Case No. 3573

Map of Site

Plans entitled “Site Permitting Plans for Two 36,000 SF Office Buildings” (7 sheets and cover), dated November 16, 2010 and prepared by Associated Engineers of Plymouth, Massachusetts (the “Site Plan”)

A “Preliminary Planting Plan” prepared by R. Jon Henson Landscape Architects of Florence, Massachusetts (the “Landscaping Plan”)

Supporting documentation as required under the Bylaw

Valerie Massard stated that the proposed project at the intersection of Resnik Road and Commerce Way is seeking a special permit to exceed the height limitations and to reduce the number of parking spaces. The site is currently subject to a special permit for gravel removal under BOA Case No. 3573. The original staff report was a negative recommendation, but after discussions with the Building Commissioner regarding the permitting request and Zoning Board’s public hearing notice, the recommendation has been revised. Ms. Massard handed out revised conditions that could be imposed with a supportive recommendation. The site plan review would (if the Board is supportive) allow the design two buildings on one lot as a unified complex.

Bill Shaw, Associated Engineers of Plymouth, Inc., reviewed the two issues before the board. One is a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) petition for special permits to exceed the height requirement and reduce the parking and the second is the site plan review. The proposed buildings would have a reduced footprint with a 46 ft. building height including the mechanicals and a reduction of 24 parking spaces. The proposed buildings are at a minimum 100 ft from the property line which puts the location of the nearest residence at approximately 200 ft. Mr. Shaw stated that it is not economically feasible to construct the buildings as originally proposed. A public benefit would be that the construction would move forward in an expeditious manner once the gravel removal and grading has been completed thereby utilizing a disturbed site instead of leaving it vacant. Mr. Shaw presented a cross section showing that the increase in the height of the building will have a minimal impact on the abutting residences. There is some natural vegetative screening between the site and the residences which will be enhanced with additional plantings as necessary. The second item before the Board is a site plan review for two buildings on a single lot with a reduction in parking of 24 spaces showing that the site is unified and works properly.

Ms. Massard noted that a three story building would require installation of an elevator for ADA compliance and the actual building height would be 38 ft. with an additional 8 ft. for the installation of rooftop mechanicals.

Mr. Shaw stated that in addition to the work being done on site, a 30 inch drain line will be installed down Industrial Park Road, a sewer line and utilities have to be installed. It is more economically feasible if the cost of the necessary infrastructure is amortized over buildings with a larger square footage. Additional fixed costs and public benefit includes the entrance construction and the cul-de-sac construction.

Tim Grandy asked what percentage of the building will be at 46 ft.

Mr. Shaw stated that 25 to 30 percent would be above the 35 ft. height limit.

Larry Rosenblum was not convinced that the increase in building height was necessary or that the sight lines as shown in the cross-section demonstration were appropriate because the buildings will be visible not only from the residences, but from other directions. Mr. Rosenblum thought that the bylaw could be amended to address the need for higher buildings if it is not economically feasible to construct smaller structures in the industrial zone.

Lee Hartmann stated that the Industrial/Commercial/Office Land Study Committee (ICOLSC) is looking at amending the height requirements in the bylaw. Mr. Hartmann stated that if higher buildings are not allowed in the industrial zones, the Town would be looking to create additional industrial land in other areas of Town.

Mr. Shaw noted that the special permit request includes a parking reduction of 2 to 3 percent which is appropriate in the area.

Jon Henson, Landscape Architect, presented the proposed landscape plan for the project. The site steps down from Commerce Way with a 12 ft. drop to the parking lot and a 4-5 ft. drop between buildings. Evergreen trees and shrubbery is proposed along Commerce Way to allow a view shed into the site in a couple of areas. The interior islands will be planted with deciduous trees to provide color and shading and to divide the parking mass. A median area will be installed along the grade change between the buildings. The existing 50 ft. of vegetation along Grabau Drive will remain and may be supplemented with additional screening. Sloped areas will be seeded with wildflower mix which can be mowed periodically or can be allowed to return to a natural state.

Paul McAlduff asked if there would be an opportunity for shared parking by creating an opening

in the median between the parking lots.

Mr. Henson stated that parking could be shared if necessary.

Mr Shaw noted that additional screening will be provided for the residential abutters as required in the original permit and that the proposed driveway is higher than the parking fields which will minimize headlight visibility.

Public Comment:

Betsy Denham expressed her concerns with interior lighting of the site, inadequate vegetative buffer for the residences, and the potential sand pit that could be left if a viable project is not completed.

Russ Appleyard expressed his concerns with screening and building visibility. Mr. Appleyard was also concerned that a permit for gravel removal was approved, the gravel removal commenced, and the project which was fiscally viable a year ago has now become unfeasible.

Henry Stout, Atlantic Properties, explained that the original designed included an office building in front with a warehouse building to the rear of the site. Prospective tenants for the office building did not want a warehouse with tractor trailer traffic behind the front building and the neighbors were concerned with the noise of the tractor trailers backing up. Therefore, the project has evolved to include two three story office buildings.

Bill Wennerberg asked if the buildings as located are feasible. Mr. Wennerberg questioned whether the goal was to separate the structures with the parking and the landscaping or could the site be configured to a more campus like setting. Mr. Wennerberg suggested relocating the driveway and increasing the buffering.

Mr. Stout answered that the two three story office buildings would be feasible. He noted that the first office building is sold out if he can build three stories.

Mr. Garrett thought that a campus setting was an interesting concept and thought that the buildings could be located closer to Commerce Way.

Mr. Stout stated that there is a potential that his lot could be split into two and sold separately if the economy improves.

Mr. Garrett noted that the request for a special permit includes an increase in building height and a reduction in parking. The site plan review is reliant on whether the special permits are granted.

Lee Hartmann noted that the special permit granting authority is the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). If there is a condition that the proponent has to install the landscaping to the satisfaction of the ZBA, that condition would be binding and need to be satisfied.

Mr. Rosenblum suggested creating a campus style setting and including pedestrian amenities between the buildings.

Mr. Stout stated that the terraces and the berm to protect the neighbors from headlight glare are already under construction. If the buildings are moved, the drainage and utilities may need to be relocated. He was amenable to placing pedestrian amenities between the buildings

Mr. Garrett asked why the Planning Board was not included in the proposed condition (No. 2) regarding submission of detailed architectural plans and revised site plans.

Ms. Massard stated that the condition is typical of a ZBA vote, but that the Planning Board could be added as advisory.

Mr. Stout suggested revising the language for condition No. 2 to include the Planning Board which would include review of a revised site plan.

Mr. Garrett suggested a change to proposed condition No. 3 that would increase the shrub height to a minimum of 24 inches and the height of the trees to 8-10 ft.

Ms. Massard clarified the change to condition No. 3 as installation of deciduous trees of 3” caliper; evergreen trees at a height of 8-10 ft. and shrubs at a 24 inch minimum.

Tim Grandy moved for the Board to recommend approval of the special permits to the Zoning Board of Appeals with suggested conditions as follows and to notify the Building Commissioner that the Planning Board has determined that the entire lot and all structures are planned and designed as a unified complex to allow for more than one principal building on a lot, that parking may be reduced by up to 33% on the proposed plans, and that the site plan will comply with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw only after the following issues are addressed, with appropriate provisions for parking, access, drainage and utilities.

SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS:

The applicant has demonstrated that a reduction in the number of parking spaces by up to 10% is acceptable and will not result in or worsen parking or traffic problems in the district. In addition, the Zoning Bylaw (Section 205-17, Paragraph D) allows for up to a 33% reduction of the required parking. If applicant at the time of occupancy seeks more than a 10% parking reduction, revised site plans can be submitted informally for review by the Planning Board and approval by the Board of Appeals. Additional landscaping can be provided in place of that parking which will be beneficial for buffering of the abutters In the event that additional parking is needed for future uses, the Petitioner may designate a reserve parking area that could be constructed at a later date.

Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, more detailed architectural plans and revised site plans shall be submitted for additional advisory review by the Design Review Board and Planning Board, subject to final approval by the Board of Appeals, which shall at a minimum include:

Review of building footprints which evaluate whether the Petitioner can move the buildings up to 60 additional feet away from the residential neighborhood as is feasible on the site with respect to meaningful buffering of the viewshed of the proposed buildings, consistent with the request of the West Plymouth Steering Committee;
Elevations that: reflect the viewshed for the residential neighborhood, clearly show where buffering to the site is lacking, and clearly showing how plantings will be used to provide adequate buffering treatments will be included to screen the view of the buildings, headlights and parking lot lighting fixtures for these residents as can best be feasibly accomplished;
Provide detail on the relationship of the rooftop mechanicals and proposed screening with respect to the building footprint and building height;
Break out the parking requirements under the Bylaw based on the architectural plans; and
Proposed building materials and colors.

Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping plans shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals to reflect:

Consistency with the revised site plans as referenced above;
The conditions of BOA Case 3573 with respect to buffering of the residential neighborhood and with respect to the added height of the buildings;
A pedestrian pathway between the two parking areas, which are at different elevations, shall be included on the plans;
Plantings shall include naturally appearing trees, and shall show sizes at time of planting as follows: deciduous trees with a minimum 3-inch caliper; evergreen trees in the critical viewshed buffer areas at 8-10’ height; shrubs with a minimum 24 inch height; and other evergreen plantings may vary in height where plantings are not intended to provide a critical and more immediate visual screening.
Address loading areas, trash receptacles, lighting details and consistency with the Bylaw with respect to parking lot design standards and street tree plantings along Commerce Way; and
Address the recommendations of the Design Review Board to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals.

Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.

Compliance with the Prevention of Light Pollution Zoning Bylaw must be documented.

The Town Engineer must approve the drainage design and system for the roof runoff and the parking area prior to construction.

SITE PLAN REVIEW ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:

The plans include buildings that exceed the 35-foot height limit, and therefore a special permit to exceed height (BOA 3516) is required.

Review of building footprints which evaluate whether the Petitioner can move the buildings up to 60 additional feet away from the residential neighborhood as is feasible on the site with respect to meaningful buffering of the viewshed of the proposed buildings, consistent with the request of the West Plymouth Steering Committee;
Elevations that: reflect the viewshed for the residential neighborhood, clearly show where buffering to the site is lacking, and clearly showing how plantings will be used to provide adequate buffering treatments will be included to screen the view of the buildings, headlights and parking lot lighting fixtures for these residents as can best be feasibly accomplished;
Provide detail on the relationship of the rooftop mechanicals and proposed screening with respect to the building footprint and building height;
Break out the parking requirements under the Bylaw based on the architectural plans; and
Proposed building materials and colors.

Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping plans shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals to reflect:

Consistency with the revised site plans as referenced above;
The conditions of BOA Case 3573 with respect to buffering of the residential neighborhood and with respect to the added height of the buildings;
A pedestrian pathway between the two parking areas, which are at different elevations, shall be included on the plans;
Plantings shall include naturally appearing trees, and shall show sizes at time of planting as follows: deciduous trees with a minimum 3-inch caliper; evergreen trees in the critical viewshed buffer areas at 8-10’ height; shrubs with a minimum 24 inch height; and other evergreen plantings may vary in height where plantings are not intended to provide a critical and more immediate visual screening.
Address loading areas, trash receptacles, lighting details and consistency with the Bylaw with respect to parking lot design standards and street tree plantings along Commerce Way; and
Address the recommendations of the Design Review Board.

Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.

Compliance with the Prevention of Light Pollution Zoning Bylaw must be documented.

The Town Engineer must approve the drainage design and system for the roof runoff and the parking area prior to construction.

Adequate parking, and ‘banked’ parking spaces which will be landscaped in a manner that the landscaped area can be used to construct additional parking if needed at a future date for alternative tenants, is demonstrated. A campus style setting is an option that could be considered for alternative site layout.

The vote was unanimous (5-0).

BOA 3613 – Beis Jacob Society

25 ½ Court Street, Map 17, Lot 145-2 – Special Permit for temporary seasonal shelter for homeless persons

The Board received the following documentation* for this review:

Draft Staff Report

Fire Department comments, dated November 16, 2010

Plymouth Center Steering Committee comments dated, December 3, 2010

Site Photograph Locus Map

Plan of Land for Memorial Methodist Episcopal Church Society, dated August 15, 1978

Atty. Lawrence Winokur presented a request by Beis Jacob Society for a special permit for temporary seasonal shelter for homeless persons. Beis Jacob Society would join other religious organizations and the Plymouth Task Force for the Homeless in providing a dinner meal and bed for male participants. The temporary housing runs from November 1 to March 31 annually and each participating location houses the homeless one week at a time. The building has been inspected by the Fire and Building Departments and meets the requirements. Plymouth Center Steering Committee recommended approval with a limit of 15 participants. Atty. Winokur requested that no limit be placed on the number of participants.

Tim Grandy moved for the Board to recommend approval with no limit on participants to the Zoning Board of Appeals; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

BOA 3610 – John Zamperini

100 Sandy Pond Road, Map 127, Lot 5 – Special Permit for access way and a modification of Condition set forth in Case # 2801 in order to create one additional buildable lot in an RR zone

The Board received the following documentation* for this review:

Draft Staff Report

Fire Department comments, dated November 8, 2010

Cedarville Steering Committee comments, dated November 28, 2010

Locus Maps Plan of land dated August 31, 2001

Atty. Richard Serkey presented a request for a special permit for access way and a modification of a condition set forth in Case # 2801 that states “there shall be no further subdivision of this property” in order to create one additional buildable lot in an RR zone. The property is located on White Island Road, a.k.a. Little Sandy Pond Road. Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Case #2801 granted a variance of access way in order to construct a single family home which was built in 2000. The site is accessed by travelling Herring Pond Road to Little Sandy Pond Road which is a private way, a portion of which is in the town of Bourne. Improvements were made on Little Sandy Pond Road to the proponent’s driveway in order to comply with access standards. The petitioners have previously applied to have the condition of “no further subdivision” removed, but were denied under ZBA Case # 3062. An ANR plan to divide adjacent Lot 9 into seven residential lots was denied by the Board for adequate access, appealed by the developer, remanded by land court and subsequently approved and developed. It was determined by Land Court, based on an affidavit by the engineer that all access criteria that is set forth in the bylaw has been complied with for the entire remainder of Little Sandy Pond Road and the length of Sol Joseph Road. Little Sandy Pond Road is a 16-18 ft wide access of compacted gravel with a grade not exceeding 10 percent, adequate drainage control, and is not a dead end but continues into Bourne. Atty. Serkey disagreed with the comment in the staff report that stated the intent of a special permit process for access is to allow for access to “existing single lots” not to create a new buildable lot. He also disagreed with the comment that proposed lot 5-1 does not comply with area requirements, therefore the lot line will be relocated to comply with the area requirements. He also noted that the Cedarville Steering Committee was supportive.

Lee Hartmann stated that the issue is not the access. It is the condition of the previous approval that stated that there will be “no further subdivision”. The condition insured that a lower density was created as well as minimizing the impact on the roads. The bylaw states that the Building Commissioner shall not issue zoning or building permits for uses on ways that do not meet one of two standards. If we create new lots, it should be done under subdivision control. There is also a concern that the removing the “no further subdivision” condition would have an impact throughout the town. Mr. Hartman suggested that an RDD with permanently protected open space may be appropriate for this site.

Larry Rosenblum suggested that the 40 ft. right-of-way easement be relocated on the petitioner’s property as the adjacent property owned by the Town is subject to a Conservation Restriction.

Mr. Garrett suggested that the petitioner consider designing a concept that expands to the south and creates open space which will provide a rural character.

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

Removal of the “no further subdivision” restriction is subject to the Petitioner receiving and exercising an RDD Special Permit on the subject property.

The vote was unanimous (5-0).

Other Business:

Marc Garrett again announced that the Energy Committee is hosting a “Wind Energy 101 Forum” on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. in the Mayflower Room.

Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.

Respectfully Submitted,

Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: January 10, 2011