Planning Board Meeting
February 27, 2012
Minutes
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, Bill Wennerberg, and Tim Grandy
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
February 13, 2012
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to approve the minutes* of February 13, 2012 as presented; the vote was (4-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention.
ZBA 3658 – Stop & Shop Fuel Facility
127 Samoset Street, Map 101, Lot 16A-Z
Modification of Special Permit #2939 to add a new 20,000 gallon fuel storage tank in an AC Zone
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff report
Engineering Dept. Comments dated January 23, 2012
Fire Department Comments dated January 31, 2012
e-mail correspondence between Lisa Davis & staff dated February 13, 2012
Zoning Board of Appeals Decision #2939 dated November 23, 2012
Zoning Board of Appeals Decision #3628 dated May 31, 2011
Site photographs
Site Plans dated November 1, 2011
Lisa Davis and Bill Tabor presented the request for a modification of Special Permit #2939 in order to install an additional 20,000 gallon fuel storage tank at the existing Stop and Shop gas station. A temporary permit (six months) was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow a fuel delivery during daytime hours in order to meet the high fuel demand over the summer. A condition of the temporary permit required the applicant to explore installing an additional or larger storage tank for the fuel facility. The original permit allowed fuel deliveries during nighttime hours only. The new 20,000 gallon, double wall fiberglass tank would be installed next to the existing tank and be connected to the existing tank with a siphon bar. The new tank will be filled through the existing tank. Electronic
monitoring of the sump pumps is done on a 24/7 basis. The West Plymouth Steering Committee (WPSC) requested that the applicant consider restriping the exit driveway to include three lanes. Ms. Davis stated that in order to make the changes suggested by the WPSC, they would have to obtain permits from Mass DOT and adhere to their standards, the driveway would have to be widened, a significant utility pole and underground utilities would have to be relocated, and the existing traffic signals would require modification. The changes would be costly and would be the responsibility of the owners of the shopping center.
Tim Grandy asked how old the existing tank was, what the life span of the tank is, and whether both tanks would have spill alarms.
Valerie Massard noted that the original special permit for the fuel facility was approved in 2001, was under appeal for several years, with the existing tank installed in 2006. Ms. Massard stated that the temporary permit for the additional fuel delivery would expire if the applicant had not filed for an additional or larger tank within six months and the filing came in very close to the expiration date.
Mr. Tabor replied that the existing tank is six years old, the life expectancy of the tanks is 30 years and that the sensors on the tanks are monitored 24 hours a day.
Paul McAlduff suggested diverting traffic to create a right turn only at the end of the access driveway in order to avoid traffic backups and to create a three lane exit.
Ms. Massard stated that there is an existing approved traffic circulation plan for the site which would require a modification in order to make any changes. Ms. Massard noted that the Board of Appeals, Fire and DPW departments are supportive of the expansion of the fuel tanks.
Larry Rosenblum was concerned that a right turn only would interfere with traffic moving within the shopping center.
Bill Wennerberg was concerned that requiring a right turn only would bring all traffic along the storefronts and could create a pedestrian safety issue.
Marc Garrett was supportive of the larger storage tank, but was disappointed that the property owner was not present to answer questions regarding traffic circulation. Mr. Garrett stated that during the review of the request for an additional fuel delivery, the Board expressed their concerns regarding the traffic circulation on the site. They were also concerned with adding a large truck on a daily basis during the busiest times of the day.
Ms. Massard and Ms. Davis reaffirmed that the second delivery would be eliminated once the new tank is installed.
Mr. Tabor stated that a second delivery could occur during evening hours.
The Board encouraged the applicant to engage their landlord in a discussion about improving the traffic circulation on the site to increase safety.
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following notes, comments, recommendation and conditions:
Notes
Reasons for the filing in BOA Case #3628 included: (1) there was not sufficient capacity in the summer months to satisfy the motoring public using the filling station, and (2) there was not sufficient time to design, permit and install a new UST for the summer of 2011. A “Parking and Traffic Control Plan” (labeled Drawing No. C-2, 1 page) for the Fuel Facility at Myles Standish Plaza in Plymouth, Massachusetts dated July 12, 1999 and revised through January 6, 2000, prepared by Sumner Schein of South Windsor, Connecticut was discussed during permit #3628, as supplied by the Petitioner, and a specific delivery route was identified to limit any impacts to the traffic patterns within the plaza.
One of the conditions of approval in BOA Case #3628 (to modify the delivery conditions stipulated in the original special permit) was that said special permit would expire if a new special permit application for more underground fuel storage were not filed with the Board of Appeals within six (6) months. In this case, November 30, 2011 would be the 6-month date – the new filing was received on January 3, 2012 – rendering the temporary permit expired.
During the permitting of #3628, there was discussion regarding internal traffic circulation within the Myles Standish Plaza, which has become a concern in recent years for local residents, primarily with respect to periodic ‘bottlenecks’ at the exit from the plaza. There was also discussion of the traffic conditions on Samoset Street in this vicinity, where there is an existing bottleneck (as identified through a study by the Old Colony Planning Council and the Plymouth Department of Public Works). At the request of the West Plymouth Steering Committee Chairman, the Petitioner was asked to look into whether striping a 3-lane exit within the existing layout of the plaza exit could be considered with this petition; however, the cost remains prohibitive due to the engineering, design standards, and permitting, as well
as their position as a tenant within the plaza. The Petitioner has offered to raise the possibility with the owner of the plaza of this as a possible solution to speed egress from the site; however, the Petitioner is not in a position to take the issue further.
Advisory Comment of the Planning Board
In May of 2011, the Planning Board did not support the temporary modification to allow for afternoon delivery, primarily on the grounds that there are existing internal traffic circulation issues that appear to be evolving within the shopping plaza over time (as more traffic has been generated in the time that the plaza has been in place).
This represents another case where the tenants are asked to modify special permits granted to the land, tenants who have no control over the entire site. This results in sites, over time, having insufficient infrastructure to support expanded on-site development, throughout the Town.
The Board acknowledges that tenants do not control the plaza or parking lot; however, vehicular safety within the site is the concern of the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals. The additional temporary truck delivery in peak hours was a safety concern, although a safer route was negotiated at the Board of Appeals resulting in the temporary permit.
Recommendation:
The property owner is strongly encouraged to look at internal traffic patterns, identify bottlenecks and feasible alternatives. The Petitioner offered to start that discussion with the landowner in this instance.
Conditions:
All prior conditions in Case #2939 remain in full force and effect, except as may be modified by conditions below.
The Petitioner must satisfy the requirements of the Fire Department memorandum dated January 31, 2012 prior to obtaining a Building Permit for installation of the new underground storage tank.
Fuel deliveries will remain restricted to the hours between 12 midnight and 6:00 am, as stipulated in Case #2939, once the new underground storage tank is installed.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Discussion
Planning Board Procedures
The Board received the following documentation* for this discussion:
Hand out from Robert’s Rules of Order workshop on February 1, 2012
PowerPoint presentation from Robert’s Rules of Order workshop sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce
Marc Garrett opened the discussion regarding Planning Board procedures. He noted that recently several Board members and staff attended a forum on Roberts Rules of Order at the Chamber of Commerce and he obtained a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order from the library which he has reviewed, but not read in its entirety. Mr. Garrett felt that the Board already follows the spirit and concept of Robert’s Rules and functions in a formalized, organized fashion. One of the concerns is that while we function under standardized open meeting procedures, we are also subject to the Commonwealth’s Zoning Enabling Act which specifies procedures for special permit granting authorities. Mr. Garrett stated that the presenter at the workshop stated that Roberts Rules of Order was designed for large bodies and has
restrictions that conflict with the Zoning Enabling Act… for example…..
Lee Hartmann stated that if during a public hearing someone moves to close the public hearing and public comment has not been completed, there could be an issue.
Bill Wennerberg felt that the procedures the Board currently follows are appropriate.
Paul McAlduff asked when it would be appropriate to close public comment if the comments are repetitive.
Mr. Wennerberg responded that the chair can move the discussion along.
Mr. Grandy suggested that when a motion is made to close debate when it has been overly discussed, and the motion is seconded, the Board should vote.
Mr. Garrett stated that any member of the Board can make a procedural motion, can call the debate or call the question. He stated that the chair doesn’t make motions. He suggested re-instating “seconding” of motions to validate the motions.
Mr. Wennerberg asked why “seconding” would make it more valid.
Mr. Grandy and Mr. McAlduff explained that if the motion is not “seconded”, it wouldn’t move forward to be voted.
Larry Rosenblum stated that Board should have the right to make their own rules and exceptions, and it is important to have a frame of reference. Mr. Rosenblum suggested accepting Robert’s Rules of Order as a manifesto for the Board.
Ken Buechs stated he would be supportive of re-instating “seconding” of a motion.
Mr. McAlduff was in favor of including a “second” when a motion is made, but was reluctant to adopt Robert’s Rules at this time.
Mr. Rosenblum suggested looking at other sets of rules that are geared to smaller groups.
Mr. Wennerberg was supportive of adopting “seconding” but did not support adopting Roberts Rules.
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to adopt a procedure that all motions have a second prior to the vote; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to accept the concept and spirit of Robert’s Rules.
Paul McAlduff seconded; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 8:22 p.m., Paul McAlduff seconded; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: March 12, 2012
Administrative Assistant
| 
