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, and Larry Rosenblum
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
B318 – Whipple – Lot Certificates
The Board approved a Release of Covenant* for lots 4A-6 and 4A-7 and Certificate* acknowledging that the way serving lots 4A-6 and 4A-7 is of sufficient grade, width and construction.
The Board determined that the following Form A Plan* was entitled to endorsement:
A4392 – Susan A. Meharg, Bay Colony Drive, Map 42, Lot 26-1 (0.92A) and Clayton M Coggon Revocable Trust, 30 Clifford Road, Map 42, Lot 26-2 (2.02) – Lot Line Adjustment to create lots 26-3 (1.0A) and 26-4 (1.87A)
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes as presented: the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Presentation
Engineering Department
Spring Town Meeting Article 39 – Street Acceptances
This presentation was postponed to February 14, 2011 at the request of the Town Engineer.
BOA 2902 – Golfscape LLC
Informal Review of Clubhouse at Crosswinds Golf Course
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this presentation:
Draft memo to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Case 2902
Copy of Amended Decision for BOA 2902 dated October 31, 2000
Copy of Decision for BOA 2902 dated April 12, 1999
Locus Maps
Phase 2 Clubhouse Construction Plans dated January 13, 2011
Constantine Paganos, Golfscape LLC, presented proposed plans for the construction of a clubhouse at the Crosswinds Golf Course to improve the level of service. The property is owned by the Town, but leased by Golfscape LLC. The site consists of a 27-hole golf course with driving range, paved access drive, associated parking, a clubhouse trailer, maintenance area and maintenance building, and temporary tents used for golf outings and functions. The clubhouse would be constructed in the same location as the tents to minimize disturbance of the site. A limit of work and landscape plan for plantings around the clubhouse was included in the Board’s packets (page 6 of 18).
Valerie Massard noted that as a condition under the original Board of Appeals (BOA) Case 2902, there was a requirement that notification by certified mail be sent to abutters for the review of the proposed clubhouse by the Design Review Board, Planning Board and Board of Appeals. This review process would allow the abutters and boards to comment on the proposed clubhouse. The proposed clubhouse would include a pro shop, office, rest rooms, food area, exterior deck and a pavilion. Future expansion for banquet facilities could replace the pavilion area. Additional issues need to be addressed before final approval. Information on the level of service for roadways and intersections was handed in tonight and has yet to be reviewed by staff. The entrance way is required to be screened from residences on Long
Pond Road to minimize headlight glare. An undisturbed buffer was laid out as part of the Special Permit and is required (originally an access way was proposed in the buffer area).
Mr. Paganos confirmed that the entrance and access would remain as is and the buffer would remain undisturbed.
Ms. Massard stated that proponents will return in the future with final plans that address all the comments of the boards. They will also need to address the size of the building and the Impacts on Level of Service in the area based on the proposed use. They need to address how their septic and drainage is consistent with their MEPA permits and how their lighting will comply with the dark sky section of the Zoning Bylaw. Detailed landscaping plans with size and types of materials will have to be provided with the final plans. Ms. Massard stated that an informal recommendation on the proposed landscaping and architecture is being requested at this time.
Larry Rosenblum asked whether the clubhouse could be used for banquets. Mr. Rosenblum wanted to review the traffic impacts for the extended season.
Mr. Paganos replied that once constructed the clubhouse could be used for small banquet functions (144 seat maximum). The season of use for functions would be extended into the winter, but the golf events would be seasonal.
Paul McAlduff expressed his concerns with the complexity of the proposed rooflines and the potential for leakage.
Mr. Paganos stated that the Design Review Board has similar concerns and suggested a few improvements to the building lines. The square footage of the buildings totals approximately 6,000 sq. ft. with 4,560 sq. ft. on the first floor and 1,200 sq. ft. on the second floor.
Marc Garrett asked what the total square footage of the building is. Mr. Garrett stated that the architectural renderings are not detailed enough, but the use is appropriate and the site warrants a clubhouse facility. He suggested that the landscaping should be increased. Mr. Garrett noted that the traffic issues need to be addressed.
Ms. Massard stated that the Board’s comments will drafted and put in a memo to be passed along to the proponent and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
BOA 3621 – Kevin P Shea
27 Shore Road, Map 56, Lots 71-30, 71-32, and 71-34
Special Permit to waive accessway requirements in an R25 zone in order to reconstruct a single family dwelling.
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Draft staff report
Locus Map
Copy of e-mail to Michael Pimentel dated January 20, 2011
Copy of Special Permit Application with letters of support from abutters
Site Photographs
Brad Bertolo, JC Engineering, presented the request for a special permit to waive accessway requirements in an R25 zone in order to reconstruct a single family dwelling. A single family dwelling that was on the site was demolished and the lot is currently vacant. Access to the site is an existing gravel road 12-14 ft. wide which needs improvement in some areas. The proponent will add gravel to repair the road and correct the existing drainage issues. Mr. Bertolo noted that the Fire Department has reviewed the plan and is supportive.
Valerie Massard explained that the site is part of an older 1927 subdivision with undersized lots. Three have been combined to create a 9,150 sq. ft. buildable lot. The existing house was demolished in order to construct a new single family home, but construction was not started within the two year time frame. A special permit for access is required as the 35 ft. layout does not meet the current standards of the Zoning Bylaw. The proponent will install gravel where necessary to improve the road and will repair a drainage area at the intersection of Pond Road. Ms. Massard suggested that two conditions be recommended that would require that the road improvements be overseen by a professional engineer and that MESA be contacted regarding the portion of frontage that is in a Natural Heritage area.
Larry Rosenblum asked why a large portion of the driveway will be paved. He suggested that the pavement be minimized and vegetation should be restored or established.
Mr. Bertolo stated that the driveway is proposed with a turnaround.
The Board was supportive and felt that the proposal would be an improvement to the area.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Commissioner that MESA requirements have been satisfied.
Said improvements shall be overseen by a registered professional engineer, to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. Said improvements shall be certified to have been completed as depicted on the approved plans and as described in this decision by a registered professional engineer, and said improvements shall be accepted by the Building Commissioner prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the residence.
The vote was unanimous (3-0).
Conceptual Site Plan Review
3 & 5 Resnik Road, Map 103, Lot 14K-125 (a.k.a. 14K-167)
Copy of e-mail from Bill Shaw to Valerie Massard dated January 21, 2011
Permit Application, Site Layout Plan dated January 6, 2011
Architectural rendering of proposed building
Copy of Memo to Building Commissioner dated January 3, 2011
Copy of BOA Decision for Case No. 3616
Copy of previous plan
Bill Shaw, Associated Engineers, presented a revised conceptual site plan for two office buildings at 3 and 5 Resnik Road. The Board of Appeals has approved a 46 ft. height limitation for the proposed structures. There are two 12,000 sq. ft. building footprints shown. The revised site plan moves the proposed buildings further away from the residential area and closer to Commerce Way. The relocation of the proposed accessway and buildings adds another 20 ft. to the buffer area, elimination of 54 parking spaces around the buildings provides open space areas for each building, and also allows for additional plantings for screening. The open space areas could be used in the future for additional parking if necessary. An architectural rendering of the proposed office building was also presented.
Valerie Massard noted that additional buffering and banking of parking spaces is included as Mr. Shaw indicated. Staff suggested an alternative layout for the buildings that would move the buildings closer together and further from abutting residences, create a courtyard and have the entrances for both buildings closer together to create a more unified layout. That approach is not shown. There are tenants for one building but not for the second building and they are trying to show a plan that gives additional buffering for the abutting residences, but are not clear on what the second building would look like at this time.
Larry Rosenblum felt that the revised site plan was an improvement over the previous plan, but asked how staff’s suggestions could be implemented.
Mr. Shaw stated that the front building needs to have visibility to the street, a major accessway, but the second building could be relocated and presented at a later date.
Ms. Massard noted that the Board of Appeals granted relief for the height of the buildings, but the Planning Board, through site plan review, will determine whether there is a cohesive plan for a unified complex and whether a reduction in parking is appropriate for two buildings on one lot. This is a situation where we don’t know what will happen on the second half of the lot. The lot could be split again and the site plan for the second building dealt with separately.
Mr. Shaw stated that the Bylaw contemplates subdivision after the buildings are constructed. This plan is for two buildings on one site, with the ability to amend the drawing for the second building at a later date.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the first building is not an issue, but it was requested that the second building be located as far as possible from the abutting residences. The layout of 5 Resnik Road could be addressed now and 3 Resnik Road could be presented at a future date when the tenants are known.
Larry Rosenblum stated that the proposed site plan is conventional and that the site plan is asymmetric and draws attention to the entrance.
Paul McAlduff stated that there is access to both parking lots that was not shown before. Mr. McAlduff stated that he would prefer that both entrances face each other instead of having the second building looking at the back of the front building. He noted that the proposed landscaping is an improvement for the neighbors.
Marc Garrett suggested that a curvilinear approach as a part of the component of the layout for 5 Resnik Road would be preferable.
Mr. Shaw replied that they did consider the curvilinear approach, but that eliminated the expansion of parking areas.
Ms. Massard suggested that the Board vote on the first building with landscaping and buffering to be finalized, and consider the site plan for the second building separately.
Russell Appleyard, Megansett Drive, commented on the Board’s level of concern in keeping the buildings as far away from the residences and asked the Board to continue working with the proponent to create a project that has minimal impact on the abutting neighbors.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to offer their support of the proposed configuration of the lot and architecture for 5 Resnik Road at this time, and looks forward to seeing more detailed landscaping and site plan information as outlined in the BOA and Site Plan review conditions prior to finding that the requirements for site plan approval have been met for either a recommendation to BOA or site plan recommendations to the Building Commissioner on 5 Resnik Road.
The second building, 3 Resnik Road, must be filed at a later date to make a determination whether the second building is configured in a manner that would support a finding that the two buildings and associated amenities are designed as a unified complex to allow a second building on the lot. Due to the limited information available on the 2nd building at the present time, no determination has been made as to architecture, lot configuration, more than one building on a lot, or architecture, etc. as will be required under BOA 3616 and site plan review for 3 Resnik Road.
The vote was unanimous (3-0).
Other Business:
2012 Capital Requests
Lee Hartmann presented a copy of a Memo to the Board of Selectmen and the Capital Outlay and Expenditure Committee outlining how the various master plans relate to the requests for Capital Outlay Expenditures for Spring Town Meeting. It is a tool to help make decisions on capital investments.
Marc Garrett felt that the exercise helps identify which projects comply with the existing master plans and should be considered for funding. Mr. Garrett stated that the community needs to comment on what the priorities for funding by the Town should be.
Larry Rosenblum expressed his frustration with the existing gravel roads bylaw and regulations not being utilized in determining which roads should be accepted by the Town. He felt that the Town should not be accepting roads unless there is a comprehensive plan for improving the entire road system.
Paul McAlduff commented that the cemeteries are running out of space and the Town needs to prepare for the future.
Mr. Rosenblum stated that it is logical to look at plans and weigh costs and benefits of the proposed expenditures. He felt that public money should be used to create the greatest benefits for the greatest amount of people.
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 8:26 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: February 28, 2011
Administrative Assistant
| 
