May 12, 2014
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, Tim Grandy, Malcolm MacGregor, and Ken Buechs
Planning Board Alternate: Richard Manfredi
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Robin Carver
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Laurence Pizer, Town Clerk, officiated the swearing in of Paul McAlduff who was re-elected to the Planning Board and Kenneth Buechs who was appointed to the Board by the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board members.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to appoint Richard Manfredi to position of Planning Board Alternate; Ken Buechs, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0). Mr. Manfredi was sworn in as Planning Board Alternate by Mr. Pizer.
Reorganization of the Board
The Planning Board reorganized as follows:
Malcolm MacGregor nominated Paul McAlduff as Chair, Tim Grandy, second; the vote was (4-0-1) with Marc Garrett in abstention.
Malcolm MacGregor nominated Tim Grandy as Vice Chair; Marc Garrett, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Marc Garrett nominated Malcolm MacGregor as Clerk; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Tim Grandy nominated Marc Garrett as Clerk Pro-Tem; Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes* of May 5, 2014 as presented.
ZBA 3747 - Stephen Young, 116 Long Pond Road, Unit W-3/Map 88, Lot 55-20
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Engineering Dept. Comments dated April 11, 2014
Locus Map and Site Photographs
Unit Plan and Building Layout Plan
Interior Layout Plan
Site Plan dated November 23, 1988
The Board recommended approval of the special permit requested for ZBA Case No. 3747 in order to operate a tattoo shop subject to the following condition:
The existing building is served by an on-site septic system. The applicant must get Board of Health approval that the existing septic system has the capacity for the proposed use.
ZBA 3748 – Wayne Bogosian, 27 Provincetown View Road/Map 49, Lot 2-118
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Engineering Dept. Comments dated April 16, 2014
Fire Department Comments dated April 16, 2014
Site Photographs
Building Elevations
Property Record Card
Site Plan dated April 5, 2014
The Board recommended approval of the special permit for relief of the side setback requirements for ZBA 3748 in order to construct a stoop with shed roof and a deck extension.
Form A Plans: None
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; Ken Buechs, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
ZBA 3745 – Andrea Melville (cont. from 5/5)
16 Caswell Lane/Map 12, Lot 62
Appeal of Building Commissioner’s findings in ZBA Case 3579 that the building erected at 16 Caswell Lane is inconsistent with and contrary to the special permit granted
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff report, revised
Letter from Flaherty and Stefani dated April 29, 2014
Letter from Atty. Robert Kraus dated March 20, 2014
Letter from Atty. Robert Kraus dated February 18, 2014
ZBA decision 3579
Site Photographs
Property record card
The Board visited the site on Saturday, May 10, 2014.
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that he added a Chronology of Events to the staff report for 16 Caswell Lane. A special permit for five units was supported by the Planning Board and subsequently denied without prejudice by the ZBA in 2006 (Case No. 3392). In 2007 the plans were revised and resubmitted to show a reduction in building size and a four unit structure (Case No. 3406). The Planning Board recommended approval of Case No 3406 and the ZBA granted the petition. Work on the project did not commence and the special permit expired in 2009. In 2010 a petition was filed (Case No. 3579) to reinstate the 2007 special permit and since there were no changes from the 2007 petition, the same site plan was submitted (C2-2). The Planning Board recommended approval and the ZBA granted the petition.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that the Board had a couple of questions during the site visit regarding the elevations of the deck and the garage.
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty and Stefani, Inc., replied that he was not able to get to the site to determine the elevation of the garage, but that it was constructed according to the plans that were approved. Mr. Flaherty noted that the plan showed notations indicating “FFE elevation 19’” for the two units closest to Water Street and “FFE elevation 17’” for the two units closest to the water. The grading plan clearly shows that the elevations were to be top of foundation. The ground next door to the site was elevation 18’ on the proposed plans. A field change was made due to the existing grade that put the elevation at 18.5’ for all units which is 6 inches lower than proposed.
Tim Grandy asked if there was any work done today to correct the issues with the drainage swale.
Mr. Flaherty replied that work was begun today including site grading on the swale on the left side of the building and the installation of a silt fence along the property line to prevent wash or dirt from getting on the abutting properties. Mr. Flaherty noted that there will be a Homeowner’s Association to maintain the drainage swales.
Tony Schneider noted that a 12” temporary berm was installed along the silt fence and the work on the drainage swale was not completed today, but would be finished tomorrow. Mr. Schneider stated that privacy screening would be installed on all of the decks to provide privacy for the residents and the abutters.
Mr. Grandy noted that his biggest issue with the site was the drainage and that the building elevations and roof ridge lines were in keeping with the approved special permit.
Mr. Hartmann noted that the site is under construction and the Building Commissioner is working with the developer to insure that the drainage is installed according to the approved design.
Marc Garrett stated that he did not have an issue with the roof lines and building size, as the site is in an urban setting. He was supportive of the installation of privacy screening on the decks.
Ken Buechs echoed the comments of Mr. Garrett, but was disappointed that the drainage issues were not completely addressed today.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested that the developer add privacy screening to the bottom of the decks at each end of the building and Mr. Schneider agreed.
Atty. Robert Kraus presented new information regarding the builder indicating that the building wasn’t constructed to the plans and that field changes were made. Atty. Kraus stated that the developer installed a slurry foundation that has changed the water flow on the site. He was concerned that there is no environmental plan associated with the site and reiterated that the building is not consistent with the approved plan.
Andrea Melville stated that she has five concerns: the slurry wall under the foundation redirects ground water, doesn’t match the foundation plan and causes flooding on her property; the Building Commissioner allowed the basements instead of crawl space because there was no change to the building footprint; the grade will not remain as it is and additional gravel was added today (this is inconsistent with the plan); extra soil is to increase the grade and reduce the overall height of the building; and the building is not constructed to the approved plan.
Roy Hamlin stated that he was never informed that there was a second permit and that there is a non-conforming design for sewerage.
Mr. McAlduff noted that the sewerage design for Caswell Lane is not part of this petition.
Michael Devitt stated that abutting his property the grade is two feet higher than his property. Before construction began the grade was three feet lower than his property. He was concerned with runoff affecting his property and the height of the foundation.
Mr. MacGregor asked for a comment regarding the slurry foundation.
Mr. Flaherty explained that the flowable fill was installed so the foundation would be on a solid footing as there was peat material underneath.
Mr. Grandy asked if the flowable fill affects the water drainage.
Mr. Flaherty replied that the drainage patterns were not affected. He noted that the site is an ongoing construction site and the final drainage will match the approved plan.
Mr. Garrett wanted the developer to make the swale functional now. He also wanted enough berming along the property line to prevent runoff which would be taken out when the final swale is completed.
Mr. Grandy agreed with Mr. Garrett.
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to recommend that the ZBA uphold the Building Commissioners findings with a separate memo that the developer has agreed to provide upper and lower screening of the decks from surrounding properties; the construction and maintenance of a drainage swale during construction that protects the neighboring properties from off-site discharge; and all final elevations approved shall be shown in the as-built for approval; Ken Buechs, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing:
B587 – Village at South Meadow VOSD
(cont. from 4/14/14 – no one seated)
Definitive Subdivision, VOSD, and Adequate Facilities to create 6 residential lots, open space and associated infrastructure
Seated: Marc Garrett, Tim Grandy, Paul McAlduff, Malcolm MacGregor, and Ken Buechs
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Letter from Flaherty & Stefani dated April 30, 2014 Re: Beals & Thomas Comments
Letter from Flaherty & Stefani dated April 30, 2014 Re: Engineering Dept. Comments
Letter from Flaherty & Stefani dated March 11, 2014 – Project Narrative
Requested Waivers of Construction
Environmental Impact Statement
Locus Map
Fire Truck Turning Template
Conventional Subdivision Plan dated March 10, 2014, revised April 4, 2014
Site Plans dated March 10, 2014, revised April 29, 2014
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc., presented the site plan for six-three bedroom single family structures with waivers, associated infrastructure and open space at 12 South Meadow Road. There is an existing single family dwelling on the site that will be razed. In 2006 a special permit was granted for a project consisting of three duplex buildings. The 2006 special permit expired before any construction commenced. The road location will remain as originally proposed in 2006. The road will have a 40 ft. wide layout consisting of a 20 ft. wide paved area with 12 in. Cape Cod berms. There will be less site disturbance and an increased buffer along South Meadow Road. The low impact drainage will consist of a retention area with a drainage wick. Lighting that complies with the dark
sky bylaw will be installed at each driveway and in the parking area. Utilities will include Town water and private on site septic systems. The developer has offered a $10,000 gift to the Town for drainage improvements on South Meadow Road and will provide a ten ft. wide easement for a future sidewalk. Mr. Flaherty noted the conditions in the staff report are acceptable to the developer and that the West Plymouth Steering Committee was supportive with an increase to the buffer along South Meadow Road.
Robin Carver stated that all the conditions of the 2006 special permit have been included in the staff report. Ms. Carver noted that one item for discussion was the change from three-two bedroom duplex units to six-three bedroom single family units.
Tim Grandy asked for an explanation on the “drainage wick” and whether a homeowner’s association would be responsible for site maintenance. He also inquired whether the open space would have bounds on the inside and outside perimeters.
Mr. Flaherty explained that the subdivision drainage wick is a leaching catch basin at the bottom of a retention basin that is surrounded by rip rap stone around the perimeter so the water is allowed to drain over a period of time and does not become a mosquito trap. Mr. Flaherty stated that the road would be built to the Town’s current road standards so that it could be accepted as a public road in the future. He affirmed that the open space would have interior and exterior bounds.
Lee Hartmann stated that the drainage wick also prevents the area from standing water that would freeze in the winter. Mr. Hartmann showed the conceptual plan from January 2014 that showed two of the units closer to South Meadow Road and the other units spread out further with less open space.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if the units shown on the conceptual plan were two or three bedrooms. Mr. MacGregor also asked for an explanation of “meaningful open space” on this site
Ms. Carver confirmed that the conceptual plan showed six-two bedroom units and the current plan shows six-three bedroom units.
Mr. Flaherty explained that if the units were two bedrooms, the State requires a deed restriction on the units that would prohibit the addition of any living space. He noted that the proposed open space will be bounded and provides a substantial perimeter buffer for the abutters.
Public Comment:
Atty. Robert Betters, on behalf of Wayne Botelho, stated that Mr. Botelho had no objections to the proposed project.
Harold Volta expressed concerns with traffic, vehicle speed, public safety and existing drainage issues on South Meadow Road.
Andrea Holmes was supportive of the proposed project but was also concerned with traffic, speed and public safety on South Meadow Road.
Mr. Hartmann noted that the Board of Selectmen and DPW are working on improvements to address the traffic and speed on South Meadow Rd.
Ken Buechs was concerned with sight lines issues along South Meadow Road.
Mr. Flaherty explained that the sight lines from this site toward Federal Furnace Road are approximately 400 ft. while the sight lines from the site toward Plymouth Airport are approximately 250 ft.
Mr. Hartmann noted that the DPW and the Town’s consulting engineers always review the plans to insure that there are adequate sight line distances.
Mr. Garrett, Mr. Buechs and Mr. Grandy agreed that traffic calming measures along South Meadow Road in the vicinity of the project should be considered.
Atty. Betters stated that the $10,000 gift could be used at the discretion of the Town toward drainage improvements or traffic calming measures on South Meadow Road in the vicinity of the project. He stated that he would look into what type of traffic calming measures would be applicable and would be approved by DPW.
The Board was generally supportive of the change in bedroom count for the project.
Marc Garrett moved to continue this Public Hearing to June 23, 2014 at 7:15 p.m.; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing:
B589 – 574 State Road VOSD –
Special Permits for a Village Open Space Development, Inclusionary Housing and Adequate Facilities in order to construct a 23 unit multi-family complex with open space and associated infrastructure
Marc Garrett recused himself from this public hearing and left the room.
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Conservation Planner Comments dated May 7, 2014
Engineering Dept. Comments dated May 1, 2014
Fire Dept. Comments dated April 25, 2014
Manomet Steering Committee Comments dated February 2, 2014
Beals & Thomas Comments dated May 1, 2014
Greenman Pedersen Inc. Comments dated May 7, 2014
Letter from Associated Engineers dated April 30, 2014
Existing Condition Plan dated February 20, 2104
Draft Memorandum of Understanding
Environmental Impact Statement
Locus Map
Site Permitting Plan packet dated February 20, 2014 through March 31, 2014
Handout: Letter from Associated Engineers dated May 12, 2014
Site Photographs
Lee Hartmann presented an update on affordable housing requirements in the Town of Plymouth.
Paul McAlduff read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Tim Grandy, Paul McAlduff, Malcolm MacGregor, Ken Buechs and Richard Manfredi
Atty. Robert Betters began the presentation for two special permits: VOSD and Inclusionary Housing. The petitioner is seeking permits for 23 units for the site, 11 market rate and 12 affordable units. The site has an existing 7 unit building and a four unit market rate building with two-six unit, deed restricted, affordable housing buildings are proposed. At this time all units would be rentals. Atty. Betters noted that a number of advisory reports have been submitted including but not limited to: Beals & Thomas – peer review, Greenman-Pedersen – traffic review and a favorable report from the Manomet Steering Committee.
Jon Henson presented the site plan detailing the layout of the four buildings, existing and proposed interior parking areas with deciduous trees, foundation plantings, a drainage basin to the rear of the site, additional planting along State Road, and a buffer area along the periphery of the site which will consist of the existing vegetation with supplemental plantings.
Jeff Dirk, Vanasse Associates, commented that the peer review was in concurrence with the traffic study. The project will add approximately one vehicle trip per every 5-6 minutes during peak hours. State Road currently experiences approximately 14,500 vehicles per day and this project will not create a large net increase in traffic. The sight lines at 45 mph exceeds 500 ft. in either direction (360 ft. is required). There is an existing sidewalk along the east side of State Road that will connect to an internal sidewalk, there is public transportation available and although State Road is not wide enough at this time to provide a bicycle lane, the project will be designed with bicycle accommodations interior to the site.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if there was any indication that the State is likely to provide bicycle access along State Road.
Mr. Dirk replied that there was nothing in the State’s ten year plan for this area.
Richard Manfredi asked what hours the traffic study was done and what will be the traffic increase.
Mr. Dirk explained that they used rubber road tubes to count vehicles for a 48 hour period during mid week in order to obtain an average week day condition. The peak hours were between 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. with the evening hours having the highest volume. The increase to traffic will be approximately 116 vehicle trips per day.
Lee Hartmann asked if there were any seasonal adjustments.
Mr. Dirk replied that the net increase for seasonal adjustments would be below 1 percent.
Bill Shaw, Associated Engineers, presented the revised site plan showing the four buildings which were relocated away from the wetland at the rear of the site. There is a Title V septic system under the existing parking lot and another septic system is proposed for the new buildings under the new parking lot. The drainage disposal system would consist of a catch basin to a fore bay oil and gas separator and infiltration system. To address the wetland boundaries, the four unit building has been relocated 40 ft. closer to the existing seven unit building with eight parking spaces added to the existing parking lot. Approximately two acres of open space will include the wetland area. Handicap access will be provided, snow removal will be retained on site and the existing dumpster will remain.
Jeff Metcalfe presented the architectural renderings for the project detailing 1.5 story cape style, two bedroom staggered units. The buildings will have white cedar shingles siding with clapboard fronts, shed dormers and front entryways with a light grey and white color scheme.
Robin Carver noted that staff met with the proponents when it was found that the original plan showed some potential impacts to the wetlands therefore, a revised plan was submitted this evening. Ms. Carver asked if the drainage basin was also relocated outside the wetland area. She noted that there has been pedestrian access by people that do not live on the property through the site to the Brook Road Park at the rear of the site. The petitioner has agreed to provide plantings to try to mitigate. The open space is approximately 52 percent of the site which exceeds the requirements.
Mr. Shaw replied that the drainage basin had been relocated.
Public Comment:
Mrs Brenda Bartlett was concerned with the impact to the wetlands, the natural springs in the area and flooding issues. Ms. Bartlett was also concerned with traffic issues on State Road including several fatalities in the area.
John Dunne was also concerned with traffic safety and the density of the project which he felt was too intense for the site.
Barbara Dalton expressed her concerns with the increase to traffic and impacts to Brook and State Roads, water/drainage issues, and the inappropriate use of the Brook Road Park.
Russ Whiting was distressed to learn that the Bruins were losing. Mr. Whiting stated that he believes in growth and opportunity, but he had some concerns with the environmental impact of this project as well as traffic and pedestrian safety in the area.
Joan Dunne was also concerned with traffic safety and wetland impacts.
Mr. MacGregor asked if the engineer had looked at the hydrology on the site and septic discharge.
Mr. Shaw explained that the water flow comes from three culverts which drain into an untreated area. There is a drop in grade around the site. The proposed elevation is 24 ft. and they excavated to 12 ft. and found no ground water. The edge of the property is at elevation 10 ft. Runoff would be captured in drywells and there will be no impact to the level of ground water. He noted that any nitrogen would be at a low ground level.
Tim Grandy asked how many test pits were dug, who would control the open space and would concrete bounds be installed to delineate the open space. He also asked what could be constructed on the site “by right” and whether the wetlands have been flagged.
Mr. Shaw explained that they dug six test pits with no modeling or ground water, the owner would control the open space, bounds would be installed, the wetlands have been flagged and there could be four additional “by right” units on the site with the additional units to provide affordable housing.
Richard Manfredi asked what dimensional waivers were being requested.
Mr. Hartmann explained that the waiver request is to go below the one unit per 15,000 sq. ft. dimension in order to provide affordable housing.
Mr. MacGregor asked if the new septic system would be nitrogen limiting.
Mr. Shaw replied that the septic will be approximately 100 ft. from the no touch buffer and has a 200 ft. construction limit from the drainage area.
Mr. Grandy asked for information regarding traffic accidents in the area in the past year and asked if a deceleration lane along the frontage of the site would be feasible.
Mr. Dirk stated that the State statistics indicate there was only one crash reported along the frontage of the site. He stated that a State highway access permit will be required for the project and that the number of vehicles accessing the site does not warrant a deceleration lane at this time. He also noted that the sight lines exceed the standards.
Mr. Hartmann noted that the Town’s peer review consultant did review the safety issues for the site and suggested considering driver feedback signs. He was not sure if the State would allow them.
Mr. Dirk stated that the digital driver feedback signs are effective, but he has never seen one on a State highway. He also noted that it would depend on the accident data if one was to be installed and the State would have to maintain it.
Mr. Grandy inquired whether a common area for the residents would be provided on site. He expressed a concern with GATRA bus accessing the site. He also suggested adding a covered waiting area for the passengers and was supportive of a low nitrogen loading septic system.
Mr. Shaw stated that there is an existing garden and picnic area on the site and there will be a 50 ft. wide area along the edge of the wetland for functional open space.
Mr. Dirk explained that the GATRA bus will not turn into the site it will stop on State Road to pick up passengers.
Ken Buechs asked if there were any residents at the Manomet Steering Committee when the plan was presented. He also asked if improvements could be made to the area crosswalk.
Rick Vayo, the proponent, stated that there were a number of people in the audience and no one expressed opposition. He noted that he would retain ownership of the project and provide all property maintenance. Mr. Vayo agreed to provide any traffic calming measures within reason that the State would allow.
Mr. MacGregor was not convinced that the long term preservation of the brook would be protected if the Board did not require a low nitrogen loading septic system and felt that it should be a requirement of the special permit.
Mr. Hartmann suggested that the condition could require a low nitrogen loading septic system or other suitable alternative subject to approval by the Board.
Atty. Betters suggested that a condition to come back informally to present any additional septic information.
Mr. Grandy suggested that the applicant consider solar powered driver feedback signs to reduce traffic issues provided there is State approval.
Atty. Betters replied that requiring a driver feedback sign might be more than the project could bear given the affordable housing component.
Mr. Vayo agreed that a driver feedback sign might not be feasible, but that additional fixed signage might be appropriate provided the State gives approval.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to approve the VOSD and Inclusionary Housing special permits with waivers as presented subject to the following conditions:
The Petitioner agrees to waive its right to further subdivide the subject property, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 41 and waive its right to any further residential development of the premises that results in a more intense or dense use, regardless of any local, state or federal criteria to the contrary, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapters 40A and 41, through a Protective Covenants and Restrictions on the parcels.
Subsequent to plan endorsement the Petitioner shall:
- Provide verification of payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for the land constituting the project is to be provided to the Planning Board through Municipal Lien Certificates.
- Provide evidence of recording of this decision at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds.
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit:
- Provide five (5) sets of full sized copies of all drawings comprising the plan with one complete set of reproducible plans (mylars) will be delivered to the Planning Board and one (1) electronic copy of the plans shall be delivered in a format acceptable to the Town Engineer.
- An initial deposit in the amount of $2,000 shall be deposited with the Planning Board for retainer of a consultant. The Petitioner shall provide for the costs, if any, for the Town to retain a review consultant on an as-needed basis for review and construction administration services related to the construction of the road improvements, which shall be inspected in stages.
- A Zoning Permit must be issued.
Prior to site grading in preparation for the work conditioned herein, the Petitioner shall provide the Building Commissioner and Planning office with the name and contact information for the individual(s) overseeing the work at the site.
Installation of site stabilization measures as shown on the erosion control and stabilization plan must be performed in a timely manner, and failure to do so shall be reason for the Building Commissioner to issue a cease and desist order until such time as the erosion control and stabilization measures are installed according to said plan.
Minor modifications to the design and location of buildings, parking, landscaping and other site elements may allowed by the Building Commissioner and Planning staff (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:
- A report must be submitted to the Building Commissioner and Planning Board by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying that the drainage system and paving have been installed as shown on the Approved Plans;
- Planning staff shall inspect the property prior to ensure compliance with the conditions of this special permit;
- Concrete bounds shall be set at each lot corner of the open space, turning points and every 500 feet along straight property lines; and
- Municipal Lien Certificates shall be provided to the Building Commissioner as evidence of payment of any back taxes, fees or penalties owed to the town, if any.
- Evidence of recording of this Special Permit at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be presented to the Building Inspector.
- Petitioner shall include within the Protective Covenants and Restrictions provisions on the open space areas within the VOSD project as shown on the approved plans, in a form acceptable to Town Counsel. Said provisions shall limit the uses of said open space in its natural state subject to plans approved by the Planning Board or its appointed representative(s).
If after a period of two (2) growing seasons any of the installed landscaping has failed to thrive, the Petitioner shall replace said failing landscaping materials to the satisfaction of the Planning Board.
The Petitioner shall submit proposed nitrogen measures and any other relevant information it deems appropriate to the Planning Board for its consideration, and the Planning Board shall determine at an informal hearing whether those measures are acceptable or whether a low nitrogen loading septic system is required.
The Petitioner has agreed to enhance speed limit signs and pavement markings to help reduce speed on State Road in the vicinity of the development, subject to MassDOT approval.
Prior to the issuance of a zoning permit, the Petitioner shall revise the final site and landscape plans consistent with the provisions of this Special Permit decision. Said modifications shall be approved by the Planning Board at an informal hearing.
Ken Buechs, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Site Plan Review
B543 - A. D. Makepeace, Redbrook (formerly River Run)
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Engineering Dept. Comments dated May 1, 2014
Design Review Board Comments dated May 7, 2014
Letter from AD Makepeace dated April 11, 2014
Project narrative
Construction Phasing Plan
Redbrook Master Community Design Guidelines
Master Concept Trail Plans
Lighting Plan
Viewshed Protection Plan
Master Signage Plans
Building Elevations
Letter and Attachements from AD Makepeace dated May 5, 2014 Re: Traffic Executive Summary
Site Plans dated April 10, 2014
Handout: Copy of PowerPoint presentation
Atty. John Twohig, Goulston and Storrs, presented a recap of the history of the Traditional Rural Village Development (TRVD) for Redbrook (formerly River Run). In 2008 the Master Plan Special Permit was granted; in 2010 the realignment of Bourne Road was constructed; in 2012 River Run Way was constructed and off-site improvements were discussed; in 2013 the community was renamed Redbrook and construction began on the Phase One Water and Wastewater infrastructure; and in 2014 use area plans were submitted for Site Plan Review, definitive subdivision and off-site improvement plans were submitted.
Tom Berkley, AD Makepeace, presented the Site Plan for Use Area One which consisted of two single family and duplex neighborhoods (41 unit total), a Welcome Center/Meetinghouse, and phase one of the YMCA complex.
Jeff Dirk presented an update on the proposed off site improvements. The preliminary design plans have been submitted to DPW for review and will be refined as the project moves forward. The intersections that will be improved include the following:
Long Pond Road at Clark Road
Long Pond Road at Ship Pond Road
Long Pond Road at Halfway Pond Road
Bourne Road at South Elementary School and
the north section of Wareham Road
The improvements (where warranted) include: alignment changes, crosswalks, bicycle lanes, signalization and lighting, pedestrian push buttons, sidewalks/extensions, improved pavement, drainage, and plantings to screen headlights from residences.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested providing a crosswalk in the Douglas/Davis farm location.
Tim Grandy requested that the style of lights installed blend with the rural character of the area.
Mr. Dirk replied that the location for the additional crosswalk was appropriate and the light design will blend with the area.
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to approve the site plan for Use Area 1 of Redbrook with said waiver. The information provided is consistent with the special permit granted for Redbrook (formerly known as River Run) on May 13, 2008.
Waiver: To request waiver from Section 205-72(I) for Building Standards. Phase One of the YMCA exceeds 30% of the total square footage on the second floor.
CONDITIONS:
All exterior lighting will conform with Section 205-65 Prevention of Light Pollution of the Zoning Bylaw.
Minor modifications to the design and location of buildings, parking, landscaping and other site elements may be 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:
- A Registered Landscape Architect or other qualified licensed professional must certify to the Building Commissioner that the required landscaping has been installed substantially in accordance with the approved site plan and Zoning Bylaw;
- A report must be submitted to the Building Commissioner by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying that the drainage system, drive ways, curbing, and parking areas according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and approved site plan;
Final details for the traffic light proposed at the intersection of Long Pond Road and Halfway Pond Road, and the pedestrian crosswalk lights proposed shall be reviewed by the Planning Board prior to installation.
Future traffic calming measures (a pedestrian actuated traffic signal and crosswalk) shall be installed in vicinity of the Wildlands Trust headquarters on Long Pond Road.
Ken Buechs, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
Lee Hartmann presented the plans for the B523 – Valley View Preserve modification for endorsement.
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to endorse the above-mentioned plan; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to adjourn at 11:05 p.m.; Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted:
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: June 2, 2014
Administrative Assistant
| 
