11/25/13
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, Malcolm MacGregor, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
7:00 p.m. Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
November 18, 2013
The Board approved the minutes* of November 18, 2013 as presented.
ZBA 3729 – Daniel and Alicia Gargiulo, 30 Fresh Pond Circle, Map 74, Lot 40-20 – Special Permit to waive side and rear setback requirements in order to construct a 20’x25’ garage
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Fire Dept. Comments dated November 20, 2013
Locus Map
Site Plan dated October 4, 2013
The Board recommended approval of ZBA Case 3729.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Form A Plans:
ZBA 3727 – Joshua Bows
7 Park Avenue, Map 48, Lot 49-104A
Special Permits subject to EDC to create a 15,000 sq. ft. lot and to waive accessway requirements
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Engineering Dept. Comments dated November 21, 2013
Fire Dept. Comments dated October 29, 2013
Narrative from petitioner dated October 22, 2013
Environmental Impact Statement dated August 29, 2013
Locus Map and Site Photographs
Site Plan dated October 22, 2013
Joshua Bows, Merrill Associates, presented a request for a special permits for access and to subdivide a 35,000 sq. ft. lot with an existing single family dwelling at 7 Park Ave in Manomet. The lot has frontage on both Park and Crescent Aves. The site plan showed a new driveway off Crescent Ave to service the existing dwelling and utilization of the existing driveway off Park Ave for a new single family dwelling. Improvements proposed for the first portion of Park Ave include widening to a 16 ft. gravel roadway, installation of drainage, and removal of vegetation to improve sight distances on State Road. Mr. Bows felt that the proposed two single family dwellings would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Bows stated that he has met with abutters and tried to address their concerns.
Lee Hartmann noted that neither Park Ave or Crescent Ave meets access requirements and that a special permit is required to create a lot less than 20,000 sq. ft. The proposed lot sizes are 20,311 sq. ft. for the existing dwelling and 15,038 sq. ft. for the new lot. The site would support a two-family but single family dwellings are more consistent with the neighborhood. The question of access to the new lot is the real issue that needs to be addressed.
Marc Garrett commented that the abutting owner may need to grant permission for improvements to the road that impact his right of way.
Malcolm MacGregor asked what is likely to happen on Crescent Ave further in?
Mr. Bows replied that another developer has plans to improve Crescent Ave.
Paul McAlduff asked how wide the right of way on Park Ave is.
Mr. Bows replied that the right of way is 40 ft. wide.
Public Comment:
Brian Richmond stated that he had no issue with the plans as presented, but suggested road improvements to Crescent Ave should be included because of the hill.
Anthony Mayo preferred to minimize the impact on Park Ave. He felt that the drainage and the widening of Park Ave would remove a sound barrier for the residents.
The Board discussed whether two accesses off Park Ave until such time as Crescent Ave improvements were completed would be preferable. Another alternative was to include some road improvements to Crescent Ave in addition to those proposed on Park Ave.
Mr. Bows stated that to fully improve both roads would be costly. He stated that he would be amenable to adding a grassy shoulder along Crescent Ave to the proposed driveway.
Mr. MacGregor moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals as outlined in the staff report with the additional comment that the slope on the entrance to State Road from Crescent Ave be moderated.
After a discussion on the motion, Mr. MacGregor amended his motion to include grass shoulders on both sides of Crescent Avenue instead of moderation of the slope.
Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
The Board recommended the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit on the new buildable lot:
- The construction of Park Avenue shall be to width of 16 feet and consist of compacted binding gravel consisting of crushed asphalt pavement, crushed cement concrete or gravel borrow meeting the Massachusetts Highway Department Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges, Sections M1.03.0 and M1.11.0.
- Two (2) foot wide shoulders on both sides of Crescent Avenue shall be created (graded, loamed and seeded) along first 185 feet of (from State Road).
- A Municipal Lien Certificate shall be provided to the Building Commissioner as evidence of payment of any back taxes, fees or penalties owed to the Town, if any;
- Construction plans must be submitted to the Plymouth DPW for final review and approval of proposed connections to public water. Construction plans must show adequate detail on the size and material of the proposed water mains and fire service lines, including valves, fittings, hydrants, post indicator valves and other related appurtenances. Locations of existing mains and services must be shown on the plans;
- A Street Opening Permit for connection to the water system and any private utilities is required from the DPW Engineering Division;
- A Zoning Permit must be issued; and
Minor modifications to the design and location of buildings, parking, landscaping and other site elements may allowed by the Building Commissioner (aka Director of Inspectional Services) to accommodate reasonable and/or necessary field conditions which modifications do not amount to a substantial modification of the plans. Such changes as substituting a particular plant material or number of shrubs or trees where it is impractical to do something, or move a building in a manner which does not materially change the project, or slightly reconfigure a drainage area or parking space may be allowed.
Prior to issuance of a Final Occupancy Permit, all requirements of the Town Water Department with respect to water connections shall be satisfied.
B581 – Waverly Oaks
444 Long Pond Road, Map 77A, Lot 6C
Modification of an RDD Special Permit, Definitive Subdivision Plan – Phase One, Inclusionary Housing and Transfer of Development Rights in order to create a 113 unit development
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Items for Discussion and draft vote
Letter from Vanasse & Associates Inc. dated November 21, 2013
Engineering Dept. Comments dated November 21, 2013
Beals & Thomas Comments dated November 19, 2013
Nitsch Engineering Comments dated November 15, 2013
Minute Excerpts for February 25, 2013, October 15, 2012, July 11, 2011 June 13, 2011, and December 17 2007
Petitioner’s Submission Packet
Traffic Impact and Access Study dated October 2012, Amended April 2013
Phase One Site Plans dated June 19, 2013 (Sheets 1-36)
Handout: Vanasse & Associates Inc. Response to Peer Review Comments dated November 21, 2013
Paul McAlduff read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Malcolm MacGregor, Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff, Marc Garrett and Kenneth Buechs
Robin Carver and Tom Ryan presented plans for a residential development at 444 Long Pond Road. The site currently has two existing golf courses (9 and 18 holes) with a clubhouse and 10 residential lots (two existing single family homes). The plan detailed 75 “by-right” residential units with eight affordable units and 30 Transfer of Development Right (TDR)units near the clubhouse for a total of 113 units and approximately 103 acres of open space. The 18-hole golf course would remain. The first phase of the project would be accessed by a boulevard entrance opposite Martingale Lane and consist of 30 homes clustered around a green area with 40 acres of open space. Mr. Ryan explained the stormwater design for the project. Individual wells would be installed for each unit with combined septic system
for the first phase. The owner is working with the School Dept. to create a shared sewer treatment facility for future phases.
Lee Hartmann noted that there is a lengthy list of technical items raised by the consulting and Town engineers. A payment in lieu of Inclusionary Housing in the amount of $300,000 is proposed for Phase One. They are seeking a Transfer of Development Rights to designate a receiving area and a special permit to modify an existing Rural Density Development by increasing the unit count from 10 to 30 for Phase One and to create the road layout. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed including whether there are any issues with the overall master plan, defining the sending/receiving areas for the TDR, access easements for a trail system, how wastewater would be dealt with, off site improvements (possibly a temporary right turn only lane onto Long Pond Road from Clark Road) and providing bicycle accommodations along
Long Pond Road.
Malcolm MacGregor did not believe that this is an appropriate site for a TDR receiving area as it is not near any village service area.
Mr. Hartmann stated that to date we have only been able to transfer development rights from a rural area to a rural area. The question would be whether this site is appropriate for example road conditions and abutting uses.
Mr. MacGregor felt that additional housing would overburden a substantially dense site.
Marc Garrett was concerned with the way the units were laid out and was disappointed that the spine or disbursement schemes were not considered. He was also concerned with the proposed density and traffic issues on Long Pond Road.
Paul McAlduff asked if the developer worked with Community Development to determine the amount of the payment in lieu of Inclusionary Housing.
Mr. Hartmann explained that they did work with Community Development to determine that 3 affordable units would be required for this phase and that $100,000 per unit would go to the Affordable Housing Trust to be used toward the creation of rental housing.
Mr. MacGregor agreed with Mr. Garrett that the preferable options were the spine or disbursal layouts.
Public Comment:
Joe DeSilva outlined several concerns and comments regarding the proposed development including the following: how does the existing golf course (a commercial venture) qualify as “open space” under the definition and intent of the Bylaw; they are not showing where the sending site is for the TDR and the receiving site does not meet the suitability requirements or intent of the Bylaw; the increased traffic on an already stressed road (approximately 1,100 vehicle trip increase) will be a safety hazard and will add to the safety concerns at the school entrance; the proposed two raised medians are not adequate mitigation; the peer review consultants and Town Engineer have concerns
with a number of waivers have been requested; the phased approach process does not outline what will happen in subsequent phases and should be defined and designed in a complete master plan for the site.
Sam Chapin, Six Ponds Improvement Association, was concerned with the lack of mitigation to reduce the impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Chapin requested that the developer make a formal presentation to the Association and other neighborhood groups.
Mark Ridder, Long Pond Golf Corp., agreed to make a presentation to the neighborhood groups.
Larry Rosenblum agreed with comments made by others. Mr. Rosenblum suggested looking at this project as a new proposal. He felt that the site required a thorough master plan filing with defined phasing and details on the TDR receiving/sending areas.
Mr. Ridder stated that he wants the best for Waverly Oaks and has a vision of a community that focuses on golf, with the amenities of the State Forest, ocean, and preservation of open space.
Betsy Hall asked how many vehicle trips per day are there currently when the golf course use is at its peak.
Scott Thornton, Vanasse Associates, replied that between 20 to 40 trips per hour or approximately 500 trips per day. The first phase traffic will be equivalent to the use of the Executive Course.
Betsy Hall asked how many of the 500 trips per day would be reduced when this project is fully built out. Ms. Hall also felt that considering the golf course as open space was a bit disingenuous.
Mr. Thornton felt that some of the traffic trips would be reduced, but was unsure what the number would be.
Robin Carver stated that they would have to review the numbers and get a more definitive answer.
Bruce Anderson felt that to add more traffic on Long Pond Road is very dangerous for the cyclists that utilize the Saltonstall Bicycle Route. He felt that a complete master plan should be designed for the development in order to have defined boundaries and expectations.
Paul McAlduff noted that a two year construction project to rebuild the high school will also create additional traffic on Long Pond Road.
Lee Hartmann commented if a conventional subdivision was proposed for this site the Board would have little authority to deny. The only thing staff is supporting at this time is the 30 residential units proposed for Phase One. A master plan approval is not being requested. Anything else that happens on the site would require further review.
Malcolm MacGregor asked about a statement on the plan of “remaining parcel”.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the vote the Board would take would only be for Phase One.
Mr. Garrett still has not seen any technical information stating that the spine or disbursal schemes are not viable alternatives and asked the developer to address his concerns during the next presentation.
Bill Wennerberg was supportive of the proposed design with alleys and homes overlooking the open space. He felt it made sense for the style and layout of development.
Ken Buechs stated that there needs to be a discussion regarding whether the spine and disbursement options would be appropriate for the site.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the Board would be voting on the layout and design presented for Phase One.
Mr. McAlduff commented that he would like more information regarding the proposed sewer connection for the school and an explanation as to why the other options are not more appropriate.
Marc Garrett moved to continue the public hearing to December 16, 2013 at 7:30 p.m.; Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
ZBA 2946 – High Rock Cranberry Crescent
Carver/Plympton Roads, Map 105, Lot 1-127
Compliance with Conditions
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Memo
Engineering Dept. Comments dated November 21, 2013
Beals & Thomas Comments dated November 18, 2013
Letter from Withington & Betters dated November 15, 2013
Letter from TEC Dated October 10, 2013
Letter from Commerce Park LLC dated May 17, 2000
Memorandum of Understanding dated January 5, 2000
Memorandum of Understanding dated January 4, 2000
Memorandum of Understanding dated January 15, 2013
Plan of Proposed Sewer Connection Improvements
Plan of Proposed Water Line
ZBA Decision 2946
Carver and Plympton Roads View Schematics
Site Plans dated October 10, 2013 (Sheets 1-31)
Atty. Robert Betters began the presentation to demonstrate compliance with a portion of Condition No. 20 of the existing special permit. The site layout, buildings and parking, drainage were all previously approved. The final approval of architectural/general signage, landscaping and lighting plans would address the remaining portion of Condition No. 20. Atty. Betters explained the clearing and grading that occurred along Rte 80 which was part of the Mass Works grant. Mass DOT required a sidewalk and bicycle path along Rte 80 as well as the relocation of the NStar line. There was some confusion as to what would occur and the timeline for when the improvements would occur. The new plan implements understanding with the West Plymouth Steering Committee (WPSC) and the Planning Board’s expectations.
There will be substantial supplemental plantings beyond what was required in the conditions. This project has been a public/private cooperation between the developer and DPW regarding the connector road. The developer has spent approximately $800,000 toward the design of the intersection of Commerce Way and Rte 80 and the water and sewer connections. The money for the improvements will be refunded to the developer in the form of a TIF that was approved by Town Meeting. The connector road has been designed beyond connector road standards and mirrors and extends the initial section of Commerce Way.
Rick Friberg, TEC, explained that the grading and tree clearing along Plympton Road was partially due to the Mass Works grant and partially related to a Zoning Permit from the Building Department for site grading. The idea was to blend the roadway grading with the site grading. It created a situation where the roadway grades were 5-6 ft. higher than the site grades. To improve the situation the site grades were brought to 2:1 slopes rather than 3:1 slopes, planting of 20 additional trees in addition to the trees already approved, retaining as much vegetation on the site as possible. A six ft. earthen berm was added to obscure the view of the loading area for the 130,000 sq. ft. building.
Jon Henson, Landscape Architect, explained the planting on the interior of the project will include parking lot islands with shade trees and ground cover treatment and/or shrub and ground cover plantings. Along both sides of the boulevard there would be shade tree plantings with the medians consisting of low level flowering trees and evergreen plantings. The proposed plantings along Plympton Road have not changed. The gateway plantings remain intact. Along Jaime’s Path there will be an evergreen buffer enhancement. A one acre park parcel will be transferred to the Town and will have perimeter plantings. Any barren areas within the one acre parcel will be loamed and seeded. Mr. Henson presented the additional plantings along Plympton Road that were approved by Mass DOT.
Marc Garrett was not supportive of the plans as shown. He felt they did not address the WPSC and Planning Board concerns. Mr. Garrett wanted to see plans that showed topographic restoration along Rte 80 along with the vegetation proposed. He requested that a minority summary be included in the recommendation.
Bill Wennerberg felt that the vegetation needed to be improved.
Malcolm MacGregor asked about the possibility of a installing a berm.
Kevin Dandrade, TEC, stated that the discussion of berms and buffers has been extensive. It was determined that there should be a vegetative buffer as a berm would limit development on the site.
Mr. Wennerberg suggested creating a little topography with movement and natural plantings along a portion of Rte 80 and requested a cross section drawing showing the details.
Mr. Dandrade explained that there is a detention basin in that area. He noted that the banked parking areas will be landscaped until the parking is actually needed.
Paul McAlduff also suggested improving the vegetation and adding small berms to buffer along Rte 80.
Mr. Garrett wanted the development to be screened from view and buffered from the residential road.
Ken Buechs also felt the site needed to be shielded from Rte 80.
Russel Appleyard, Chair of WPSC, felt that the barriers, buffers and plantings necessary to maintain the rural character of West Plymouth have not been addressed.
Wynn Gerhardt felt that the site needed more of a visual barrier to the residential neighborhoods. Ms. Gerhardt also stated that the proposed sidewalks were necessary.
Mr. MacGregor moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the proposed lighting would comply with the dark sky bylaw and match the lighting at Colony Place; that the landscaping would comply as shown on the plans presented with meeting the berm conditions in the 2000 MOU; the berming should begin as soon as weather permits.
Mr. Garrett did not feel that the plans presented addressed the conditions.
Mr. Wennerberg stated that the berming outlined in the 2000 MOU would look like buried submarines.
Atty. Betters stated that the only thing they are asking for a recommendation on are the final landscaping, architectural and lighting plans (b, c, e, & f).
After discussion, the Board agreed to make the following recommendation:
With the exception of the Plympton Road screening, Condition 20 (b,c,d, e and f) has been met provided the following items are addressed:
A certification for a qualified professional stating the site’s proposed lighting complies with Section 205-65 Prevention of light pollution of the zoning Bylaw is required.
Rooftop mechanicals shall be screened from view along Carver Road and Plympton Road.
The design and height of the site’s lighting shall be similar to the lighting installed at Colony Place.
Plans that include the revisions suggested by Beals and Thomas and the Town Engineer and agreed to by the applicant shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The applicant is revising (lowering) the height of the proposed office building. The applicant shall return the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals with plans showing the final height and appearance of the proposed office building.
Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
1820 Courthouse Update
Marc Garrett informed the Board that a presentation to the Committee of Precinct Chairs and Town Meeting members will be scheduled.
Correspondence: None
Bill Wennerberg moved to adjourn at 10:35 p.m.; Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted:
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: December 9, 2013
Administrative Assistant
| 
