These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A § 22.
Board Members: Marc Garrett, Paul McAlduff, Larry Rosenblum, and Bill Wennerberg,
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
July 18, 2011
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes* of July 18, 2011; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3640 – Patrizia’s Italy Trattoria
170 Water Street, Map 14, Lot 7-2
Modification of SP 1465 to add a 440 sq. ft. addition to expand the kitchen, bathroom, and storage area and add a 6’x12’ entry vestibule (8/3)
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft Staff report Site Photographs
Property Record Card BOA Decision #1465
Architectural Rendering Site Plan dated May 25, 2011
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The exterior treatment of the additions and landscaping will be in keeping with, and complementary to, the rest of Building Number 9 with respect to architecture, color and materials.
Appropriate screening of exterior mechanicals, which are anticipated to be at ground level, will be installed – this may include fencing, vegetative screening, or similar elements.
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
- A final plan, which includes the landscaping, architecture and screening detail related to Conditions No. 1 and 2 above, must be submitted for advisory comment to the Design Review Board, and subsequently for final acceptance by the Board of Appeals on an informal basis;
- Evidence of payment of any fees or back taxes owed to the Town (if any) through providing a Municipal Lien Certificate to the Building Commissioner, shall be demonstrated; and
- Evidence satisfactory to the Board of Appeals that this special permit has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds must be submitted.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Form A Plans:
A4400* – Pinehills LLC, Stones Throw at Pinehills, Map 77C, Lots 10-134 (1.90A) and 10-135 (0.47 A) – Divide to create lots 10-517 (0.94 A), 10-518 (0.50 A) and S-196 (0.94 A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse A4400; the vote was (3-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
Informal Conceptual Review
RDD Bay Colony Drive
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff Report Locus Map
Conceptual Plan
Mark Flaherty presented a conceptual Rural Density Development (RDD) to create two residential lots with open space on property located off Bay Colony Drive. The existing pork chop lot consisting of 1.87 acres was created through an Approval Not Required plan (A4392) in January, 2011. A waiver of frontage would be needed as the lot has 49.92 ft. of frontage on Bay Colony Drive. The proposed RDD creates two residential lots of 40,112 sq. ft. and 44,600 sq. ft. with 41,652 sq. ft. of open space. The proposed open space would create a vegetative buffer from abutting properties. Mr. Flaherty noted that with a hammerhead turnaround, two 40,000 sq. ft. lots could be created or through a special permit a two-family dwelling could be constructed.
Valerie Massard noted that the property is located in the Chiltonville section of Plymouth and the original lot existed prior to the Bay Colony Drive subdivision. Ms. Massard stated that the property has level contours along Bay Colony Drive with some clearing in the middle of the property. The owner would like to maintain permanent buffers while creating a second lot on the existing property. An RDD special permit for this property would require a waiver of frontage on Bay Colony Drive. The surrounding area consists of mostly single family homes.
Paul McAlduff asked if there was an existing home on the lot.
Ms. Massard replied that there is no house on the lot.
Larry Rosenblum felt the proposal does not provide the public benefits intended in the RDD bylaw. Mr. Rosenblum felt that the buffers could be created in a different way.
Mr. Flaherty stated that the bylaw calls out that the open space can be designed to buffer property lines.
Marc Garrett stated that the intent of the bylaw is to cluster uses on smaller parcels and leave broad open space on the periphery. He felt that this was just a subdivision plan and that he would be more comfortable with a duplex or the tighter clustering of the two single family structures with more green space along the periphery.
Mr. Flaherty noted that there are two tiers to this piece of property. He stated that he could return with a plan that clusters the structures and creates more open space.
Mr. Garrett requested that sections be presented in the future that shows the tiers.
Ken Buechs asked if preliminary talks have been held with the abutters regarding the proposed plan.
Susan Meharg, the owner, stated that she has not approached the abutters.
Bill Wennerberg was supportive of the proposed plan, provided the buffers are maintained to create a natural separation between abutters.
Mr. McAlduff felt that relocating the front house or creating the duplex toward the rear would be a better alternative.
The Board looks forward to further review of this proposal.
Informal Conceptual Review
40 and 42 Industrial Park Road
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff Report Presentation Slides from SBA Architects
Locus Map Conceptual Plan dated July 11, 2011
Joseph Sirkovich presented a conceptual site plan that would add two buildings on property within the Plymouth Industrial Park. The site has two existing buildings with associated parking. One building houses the Registry of Motor Vehicles, Post O’Connor and Kadrmas Eye Center and several other office businesses. The other building houses a school for special education students. The proposed 25,000 sq. ft., two-story building would be located next to the school on land that has already been cleared. The proposed 50,000 sq. ft., 2.5 story building would be constructed along Industrial Park Road. The two new structures may be medical office buildings. The building closest to Industrial Park Road would have buffering along the roadway with two rows of parking in front with four rows of parking to
the rear for a total of 170 parking spaces. The building to the rear of the site would have 163 parking spaces in front of the building. Both parking areas would include landscaped islands and would include space for loading, trash, recycling and utilities. The lower building would be accessed through a curb cut on Industrial Park Road. They have met with the Design Review Board and incorporated their suggestions into the current site plan. The architecture of both buildings will consist of masonry, windows, and metal screening with the mechanicals located on top. The lower building will be raised on columns with parking below. Light poles will be installed in the upper level, while bollard lighting will be used for the lower level.
Valerie Massard noted that a special permit for 70,000 cubic yards of gravel removal for this site was granted in 2005. The gravel removal commenced, but the project engineer is waiting for information on how much gravel has been removed to date. The project would be reviewed by the Board under site plan approval. There will not be a request for a waiver of parking as the proposed medical office buildings will utilize the required parking spaces. When the school was built on this site, there was some concern about the impact of the busses. The bus traffic is minimal and has not created any issues.
Larry Rosenblum was supportive of the conceptual plan. Mr. Rosenblum felt it was the most reasonable way to grow our commercial/industrial land uses in the community and takes advantage of the zoning change allowing multiple buildings in the industrial and commercial area. He stated that this plan was a model for how the industrial park should grow by the integration of the four building elements and how they sit on the site. Mr. Rosenblum stated that in order to create a true campus atmosphere, a pedestrian component including movement, amenities and landscaping should be considered. He also noted that signage is important.
Paul McAlduff asked what type of school was located on the site and how much more gravel will need to be removed. Mr. McAlduff felt that the proposed parking plan was excessive and suggested reducing the parking.
Greg Jordan replied that the school is an independent, non-profit school for special education students.
Bill Shaw, Associated Engineers Inc., stated that approximately 40,000 cubic yards have been removed from the upper level and approximately 30,000 cubic yards will need to be removed from the lower level.
Marc Garrett agreed with Mr. Rosenblum that this is an appropriate use for the site. He agreed that a campus atmosphere should be created instead of four separate buildings on one site. Mr. Garrett was concerned with the activity and the tough angles at the crest of the hill. He agreed that the area could be improved with additional landscaping, signage, clearer crosswalks, and creating pedestrian amenities. Mr. Garrett suggested creating an amenity for the people waiting outside the Registry of Motor Vehicles for road testing.
Mr. McAlduff noted that motorcycle license testing is done in the parking lot of the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Mr. Rosenblum suggested adding a food service as part of the campus.
Ken Buechs suggested adding a traffic calming measure as the existing crosswalk is dangerous.
The Board looks forward to further review of this project.
BOA 3638– MCDE Realty LLC
2240 State Road/Map 54, Lot 14
Special Permits to exceed the 60’ front setback requirement, for more than 6,000 sq. ft. floor area and to waive the off street parking requirements in a GC Zone. (8/3)
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff Discussion Points and Report Fire Department Comments
E-mail from Cedarville Steering Committee Chair, dated July 12, 2011
Locus Map Site Photographs
Planting Plans dated June 2, 2011 and July 13, 2011
The following documentation* was received during the presentation:
Architectural Rendering Presentation Slides from SBA Architects
Lighting Specifications
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. began the presentation of a request for Special Permits for exceeding the 60’ setback requirement; for more than 6,000 sq. ft. of floor area and to waive the off street parking requirements in a General Commercial (GC) Zone. Mr. Flaherty presented the site plan for an 11,600 sq. ft. retail building with a drive-through and loading dock; associated parking; drainage; and landscaping. The building would be constructed on a 1.32 acre site located on State Road. The entrance off State Road would access a parking area in front of the structure with a drive-through, loading dock employee parking, drainage (sized for a 100 year storm) and access to Old County Road to the rear. The septic system would be located in the front of the property. The aisles along side the
building are intended to create a one-way traffic pattern in a circular movement. The Fire Chief has requested that the aisles be 18 ft. wide for adequate emergency access. A four ft. striped fire lane could be added around the building for pedestrian safety. The fire hydrant will be relocated and the position of the sprinkler valves was approved by the Fire Department. A recent flow test was done and there is excellent water pressure in the area.
Bill Forniciari, BF Architects, presented the architecture for the building which would be reminiscent of a 1920s commercial building and have a slight Cape Cod flavor. The building would be a one-story, shingled structure with large glass storefronts with transoms, awnings, pilastered columns, heavily corniced entablature, and gooseneck lighting.
Paul McAlduff felt that the building should be more consistent with others in the village and have a brick façade.
Larry Rosenblum suggested breaking up the front façade of the long (135 ft.) structure.
Ken Buechs stated that the Cedarville Steering Committee should have more input so the building fits in with others in the area.
Atty. Angley stated that the plans were shown informally to the Cedarville Steering Committee and there were no objections.
Ron MOld County Road access is important for access by the area residents. Mr. M In order to match the adjacent grades, there needs to be a 3 ft. offset for the wall. With the 3 ft. offset, the width of the retaining wall and the location of the building, there is a concern that emergency vehicles will not be able to access the rear of the site. There is a drainage issue on Old County Road and puddling at the Florence Street intersection. The
DPW has yet to comment on whether the proposed drainage is adequate. The goal in the village center is to bring commercial businesses closer to State Road and they have not demonstrated why a 130 ft. setback is necessary. The Cedarville Steering Committee and Design Review Board have yet to comment. There is a landscaping issue at the rear of the site with a 6 ft. chain link fence that is1 ft. off the property line and within the 4 ft. wide landscaping buffer on a separate sheet of the plan. There is also a concern with snow removal/storage on site.
Atty. Angley noted that the proponent is trying to address the drainage issues on Old County Road as well as provide adequate drainage for the site. The parking has been designed in front of the building for business reasons. He noted that the building could be cut back in size to get the width and snow will be removed off site. Atty. Angley also noted that the Cedarville Master Plan calls for buildings with shingled or clapboard facades.
Phil McGuinness stated that the location is suitable for retail business. If the building was moved closer to State Road and the parking was located in the rear, pedestrians would have to walk around the building to enter the businesses. Mr. McGuinness noted that visibility is extremely important to have a successful business. He felt that the rear entrance to Old County Road was appropriate as there would be two means of access/egress. Mr. McGuinness was amenable to adjusting the architecture to fit in better with surrounding businesses and to widening the side driveways.
Ms. Massard noted that the dumpster pad is not shown on the plan and that another business in the area has parking in the rear with an alleyway for pedestrian access.
Public Comment:
Glen Justice, 3 Florence Street, expressed his opposition to the entrance onto Old County Road. He was concerned for the safety of the residents as there are no sidewalks and limited visibility. Mr. Justice suggested that a meeting should be held with the neighborhood residents to review the proposed project.
Jack Girard, 5 Janet Street, stated that he was in favor of the project, but has a lot of concerns with the proposed access onto Old County Road. Mr. Girard stated that there are two school bus stops where children congregate and people walk along Old County Road. He noted that the road is a narrow tree lined street with inadequate sight lines. Other concerns included noise from delivery trucks and dumpster removal, loud music, intoxicated drivers, and inadequate parking if there is a function at the proposed restaurant. Mr. Girard stated that when Shaw’s was built, the proposed access was eliminated and two poles were put in place to allow pedestrian access, but restrict vehicular access.
Gerre Hooker, Janet Street, has several concerns including: the impact on real estate values if this project is allowed to intrude on Old County Road; safety of students and residents who use Old County Road, noise from building mechanicals, trash removal, etc.; whether the curb cut onto State Road has been approved by the State; no commercial access for other businesses have been allowed onto Old County Road; should sidewalks and/or crosswalks be installed; maintenance and cleaning of the parking lot; and fencing of the dumpster area. Ms. Hooker suggested the following conditions be added: a green chain link fence be installed along Old County Road with thick planting and high shrubs and no vehicular access; a rear pedestrian walkway be the only access to Old County Road; a vegetative berm be installed along State Road; no
clear cutting to be done; lighting be screened from abutters; signage comply with bylaw; no deliveries be allowed before 7:00 a.m.; and no 24 hour operation be allowed.
Marc Garrett read an e-mail from Keven Joyce, Chair of the Cedarville Steering Committee stating that there was no opposition or vote from the committee on the informal presentation that they received, but they expected a follow up presentation of final plans.
Keven Joyce noted that the committee reviewed the proposed plan and had questions regarding parking, setback requirements, landscaping, and lighting. They did not have an issue with the exit onto Old County Road. No vote was taken as they expected further presentations of final plans from the proponent. Mr. Joyce had no objections to the architecture of the proposed building and the parking in front of the building.
Larry Rosenblum was concerned with the size and orientation of the building, the narrow travel lanes, the curb cut onto Old County Road, adequate buffering, and the location of the entrance on State Road. Mr. Rosenblum suggested separating the access and egress onto State Road.
Paul McAlduff was concerned with the lack of buffering between the site and the Shaws and Rock Bottom Seafood site, the noise that would be generated; the orientation of the building, the entrance to Old County Road, delivery truck access, snow removal and the proposed density on the site. He was supportive of parking in the rear of the building.
Bill Wennerberg agreed that the curb cut onto Old County Road should be eliminated, snow removal could be an issue, and the size of the building is too large. Mr. Wennerberg suggested that pedestrian access from Old County Road would benefit the residential neighborhood and relocation of the access on State Road should be considered. Mr. Wennerberg was supportive of the proposed architecture. Although he didn’t have a problem with the proposed setbacks, he would prefer the parking in the rear.
Marc Garrett was concerned with the entrance island and noted that a one-way traffic pattern would be appropriate. He was supportive of the parking in front of the building. Mr. Garrett’s concerns also included the size of the building, buffering along the sides, and the rear access.
Mr. Garrett stated that if the rear access was eliminated, the drainage area could be increased.
The Board took a five minute recess.
Atty. Angley stated that he would ask for a continuance with the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to revised the plans and present the revisions to the Cedarville Steering Committee and the Planning Board.
Bill Wennerberg moved to continue the review of BOA Case No. 3638; the vote was unanimous 4-0).
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
B436 – Pinehills LLC – Woodsong – Endorsement of Plan and Covenant*
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse the plan and the release of covenant for the Woodsong neighborhood within the Pinehills development; the vote was (3-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
B436 – Pinehills LLC – Five Lanterns – Endorsement of Plan
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse the plan for the Five Lanterns neighborhood within the Pinehills development; the vote was (3-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 9:52 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: August 15, 2011
Administrative Assistant
| 
