Type: Limited Site Plan Approval

Transcription

1 W e s t o n P l a n n i n g B o a r d M i n u t e s : 4 A p r i l A p p r o v e d 6 J u n e B o a r d M e m b e r s P r e s e n t : A l f r e d A y d e l o t t, S u s a n Z a c h a r i a s, S t e p h e n O p p e n h e i m e r S t a f f P r e s e n t : I m a i k a l a n i A i u ( T o w n P l a n n e r ), K a t h l e e n B r o o m e r ( A s s i s t a n t T o w n P l a n n e r ) M e e t i n g c a l l e d t o o r d e r a t 7 : 3 7 p. m. Public Comments: None. Topic: Public Hearing for New Science and Arts Building Type: Limited Site Plan Approval Address: Rivers School, 333 Winter Main Presenters: David Earhart, Dario Designs Stated plan for Center for Science and Visual Arts for upper school. Stated that existing football field would be removed and site reused. Stated that generator and yurt relocation was previously approved by Board. Stated new building would be 2 story, 50,000 SF, above parking level. Stated arts and humanities would use 1 st floor, science on 2 nd floor. Stated building would be brick and have large gable features. Stated that building height dictated by use and desire for 10 ceilings. Rooftop equipment and skylight would be above maximum allowed height. Campus center skylight and other buildings also above maximum height. David Nardone, Stantec Stated former football field would become quad. Stated part of lawn would be synthetic turf based on students requests. Stated that garage would replace existing parking lot and would not change traffic circulation. Stated drainage plans for expanded underground infiltration. Stated that new building would tie into existing utilities. Stated planting plans relative to conservation land and wetlands. Documents: Documents Author Last Revised Title Sheets General Plans Stantec 04/03/2018 Application Narrative 1 Civil Engineer and Landscape Architect: Stantec 04/04/2018 Presentation Slides 36 03/06/2018 Existing Conditions Plan Context Plan Parking Analysis Plan EX-100 CP-100 PK-100 1

2 Specifications - Lighting Architect: Dario Designs Inc. 03/06/18 Bega 2018 Kichler Liton Kirlon 2017 Zoning Setback Plan* ZSP- 100 Site Preparation Plan SP-100 Site Preparation Details SP-101 Layout And Materials Plan* L-100 Grading And Utilities Plan* L-200 Planting Plan* L-300 Site Details (Sheet 1 Of 2) L-400 Civil Details (Sheet 2 Of 2) C-100 Garage Floor Plan A 1.0 First Floor Plan A 1.1 Second Floor Plan A 1.2 LED garden and pathway luminaires 1 Bronze 7 High Outdoor Dark Sky Tube Light 1 6 Square 1 Direction Adjustable Wall Mount 1 Super Shallow Lensed 4 Downlight 2 Stormwater Stantec 02/08/2018 Stormwater Report 1 Discussion: Engineering Issue: Aydelott asked about proposed changes in traffic patterns and parking. Issue: Oppenheimer asked if football field were being relocated. Nardone stated that natural fields elsewhere on campus would be used for football. Issue: Aydelott asked if utilities like septic needed to change to accommodate new building. No change in student population is planned and expansion not needed. Issue: Aydelott asked if BOH had signed off on plan. It had not yet. Issue: Aydelott asked how much earth would be moved. Excess would be related to building construction. Issue: Aiu read Conway s comments into the record, which stated that plan complied with Board standards. 2

3 Landscaping Architecture Issue: Zacharias asked about lawns and lighting planned there. Bollard lights would be used. Issue: Aydelott asked about illustration of landscaping and its accuracy. No tree planting shown north of quad. Components were missing from plans. Issue: Aydelott asked about height of plantings near wetlands. Issue: Zacharias asked what species were planned for allée. Not yet determined. Issue: Aydelott asked if building would be visible from off campus. It would be largely invisible. Issue: Aiu read Turner s comments into the record, stating that site was well screened and that project would be reviewed after construction, as was standard, to assess impact of building and need for additional screening. Issue: Aydelott asked about planned lighting and locations. Wall mounted fixtures would mirror others on campus. Issue: Zacharias asked about parking garage and possible need for continuous lighting. Low level lighting would be used for security and timed. Higher level lighting would be needed while used, including during daytime. Issue: Oppenheimer asked about height of building. Issue: Aydelott stated that height issue would go to John Field for decision because that was not a Board determination. Aiu agreed. Action: Aydelott stated that decision would be conditional on Field s determination. Issue: Aiu stated that ridge height had previously been an issue. Issue: Zacharias stated that skylight would be like a cupola, in that it would be a large uninhabited space. Issue: Aydelott stated that ridge height of gables would be verified by survey. Public Comments: Commenter Issue and Resolution Diana Chaplin, Love Lane Issue: Asked about source of sprinkler water used on campus. MWRA water used. Stated that homeowners are required to use wells for sprinklers. Aydelott agreed and asked Aiu if that issue had been discussed. It had not been discussed. Aydelott stated that drinking water should not be used for lawns and that campus should comply with same rules as homeowners, and cited 2 Town 3

4 Leslie Glynn, Unknown committees related to the topic. Zacharias asked if nearby ponds could be used for water. Action: Aiu to look at water issue. Issue: Asked about screening sound from A/C condensers and generator and what screening was planned. Aydelott stated that sound levels would be verified. Action: Verify sound level compliance. Issue: Asked if parking garage would be used for events and the need for nighttime lighting. Aydelott suggested that lighting be revisited at continued hearing. Aydelott stated that hearing would continue to 18 April meeting. Topic: Public Hearing for Citizens Petition for Zoning Bylaw Amendment Type: Repeal Scenic Road Site Plan Approval Address: N/A Main Presenter: Greg Shay Read and distributed a letter of explanation of article. Stated that by-law impacted 40% or 5,000 residents. Stated that current law was ineffective and unfair. Stated that he had paid less recently for a house because it was subject to by-law. Stated there were 2 Scenic Road by-laws in town, one from State. Stated that current by-law was voted in 1990 by margin of 120. Claimed that current by-law caused larger homes to be built. Claimed by-law designation was subjective. Stated that Board Chair was misrepresenting intent of by law. Stated that other towns with historic streets governed them without scenic road law. Documents: Type Author Date Citizens Petition February 23, 2018 Greg Shay Information Sheet April 4, 2018 Discussion: Petitioner Interests Issue: Aydelott asked who comprised group called Weston Scenic Roads. Shay identified only himself. Issue: Aydelott asked if group members had financial stake in outcome of petition. Shay answered no. Aydelott asked if Shay were a builder. He answered yes. Issue: Aydelott stated petitioner s claim that review process caused financial penalties, so repeal of by-law would benefit petitioner. 4

5 Applicability Property Values Bylaw Adoption Scenic Road Review Issue: Zacharias asked who comprised Weston Scenic Roads group. Stated that group would likely be made up of builders, realtors and developers, who would stand to profit from change. Issue: Oppenheimer stated that if 40% of Weston s homes were on Scenic Roads, as stated by petitioner, not all of those homes would have to go through Site Plan Approval. Issue: Oppenheimer stated that Board had no purview over additions or renovations. Issue: Aydelott asked if applicant contended that half the town would be subject to current by law. Issue: Aydelott stated that the General Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw were not synonymous. Issue: Aydelott stated that Scenic Road designation went to older neighborhoods in town that contribute greatly to town s character. By-law allowed forum for neighborhood comment on and mitigation from new replacement buildings. Stated that person who wrote the by-law was present at meeting and could state its purpose. Stated that the two by-laws covered different issues: one dealt only with trees and stone walls in ROW, other allowed for community input on new construction to preserve character of neighborhood. Stated community comment allowed only under current by-law. Stated that Board had never denied a permit for replacement building. Stated that most town historic districts had no protection from demolition other than delay. Issue: Zacharias asked applicant to be less aggressive. Stated that applicant called Board chair a liar. Issue: Zacharias stated that applicant called by-law worst in state but cited the law as one main reason Weston looked as it did. Stated that sale prices reflected additional costs. Issue: Oppenheimer stated that letter contained many distortions and misrepresentations. Stated that 120-vote margin on by-law was consistent with many Town Meeting margins and as such the law was not unfair or conversely all bylaws were unfair. Issue: Zacharias stated that applicant made his own design choices for his Fields Pond project and that Board approved his choices.they were not mandated. 5

6 Public Comments: Commenter Issue and Resolution Jim O Sullivan, Oak Jonathan Buchman, Silver Hill Carolyn Spaulding, Lawrence Road Mario Alagna, Bogle Leslie Glynn, Terry Eastman, Conant Road Sandy Kakis, Marcy Dorna, Dickson Lane Aydelott closed Public Hearing. Issue: Stated approval to remove a tree took six weeks. Issue: Stated that Board should listen to applicant and open floor to debate. Issue: Stated that her 1960 s house was not historic but abutted a scenic road, lowering its value. Stated issue of well water requirement. Aydelott stated that smaller lots would trigger RGFA review for large houses. Aydelott stated that water conservation was a town issue, not Board s. Issue: Stated that Aydelott had acknowledged petitioner s argument. Aydelott stated that some changes might be made to by-law. Issue: Stated that Board provided important forum for community input on work in her historic neighborhood. Issue: Stated importance of maintaining character of the town. Stated concerns that builders were running out of big lots and needed to build in historic neighborhoods and wanted protection from current law. Issue: Stated importance of ability to comment on nearby teardown and mitigation of replacement. Supported current by-law. Issue: Asked petitioners about cost of Planning Board review cited and stated market forces were real issue in size of new construction. Topic: New Business for Add stone wall and pool equipment shed to garage Type: Site Plan Approval Amendment Address: 49 Lawrence Road Main Presenter: Jason Lavoie, The Jillson Company Stated that fence had been previously approved and proposed change to stone wall. Asked to add arch to wall, outside of setback and in rear of yard. Documents: Title Author Date Field Change Plan A The Jillson Company September 27,

7 Discussion: Issue: Aydelott asked height of proposed stone wall. It would be 2.5. Wall Size Issue: Zacharias and Oppenheimer stated approval of change. Process Issue: Aydelott stated that Board would approve change in memo form, conditional upon ZBA approval of setback issue. Public Comments: None. Topic: Decision for Construction of new sidewalks Type: Work in Scenic Road ROW and Special Permit for Wetlands and Floodplain Protection Overlay District Address: Main Presenters: Jay Doyle, Traffic and Sidewalk Committee Stated that Steve Fogg would prepare new path plan showing avoidance of trees; price should go down. Stated that plans were not yet finalized. Stated that he had not attended Site Walk with Flynn. Stated that citing fewer trees for removal would lower cost. Documents: Type Author Title Certificate of Action Town Planner April 4, 2018 Discussion: Decision Clarifications and Edits Issue: Oppenheimer asked for decision s definition of tree management. Aiu stated that Traffic & Sidewalk would come back to Board with arborist s report and protection plan for trees. Issue: Zacharias stated that tree plan changes should be specified in agreement. Issue: Oppenheimer stated that document said 28 trees planned for removal but he counted 21 on map. Aiu stated that count was wrong. Doyle stated that some trees would be maintained, not removed. Action: Aiu will correct Issue: Zacharias asked about stone wall construction. Aiu stated that stone wall mockups were a stated condition. Issue: Zacharias asked about where proposed conditions would be referenced and if they would be in conditions of approval. Aiu stated that they would be included. 7

8 Path Alignment Documentation Process Issue: Aydelott stated that Board was being asked to approve decision prior to receiving specific documents supporting that decision. Aiu stated that would be the case. Issue: Aydelott stated that discussion regarding path changes had been held at previous meeting. Zacharias agreed. Issue: Aydelott asked who had produced survey. It was done by Beals and Thomas. Aydelott asked if path realignment would be a change order, since project had already been put out to bid. Issue: Aydelott stated that Board typically made decisions based on stamped documents, and those did not yet exist. Issue: Aydelott stated that new bid numbers should be available for next Board meeting. Issue: Aydelott asked if project were ready for decision without final plan. Aiu stated that decision contained many conditions for that reason and Board inspection would occur before work could begin. Issue: Aydelott stated that Board would consider two separate decisions related to topic: Special Permit for Wetlands Protection and Scenic Roads permit. Issue: Aydelott stated that conditional signoff should be specified in language of document and could be contingent upon receipt of construction documents containing acceptable language. This scenario had never before occurred. Issue: Zacharias added conditional to Certificate of Action. Issue: Aydelott stated that Board would vote again on final language and details before Town Meeting. Issue: Oppenheimer stated that Board should provide revisions to decision but hold vote later. Public Comments: Commenter Issue and Resolution Jim Polando, Issue: Stated ongoing concerns with tree removal plan. via letter, 8

9 Leslie Glynn, Sandy Kakis, Adrienne Giske, Boston Post Road Issue: Stated opinion that Polando s issues were being addressed. Stated concerns about large trees at risk on private property. Aydelott asked Doyle how those trees would be protected in the future. Glynn asked if plan reflected changes made on site walk with Flynn; Doyle said it did not. Glynn asked about stone wall construction. Stated some suggested additions to decision. Suggested documenting existing stone wall. Action: Aiu to include in Decision Issue: Asked about tree and shrub replacement plan and issues with easement. Stated receipt of letter from Fogg but issues remained, and had since plan surfaced in Aydelott stated that Board had previously been told by Schuckel that those issues had been resolved. Doyle stated that street alignment had changed to eliminate need for permanent easement. Zacharias stated that her issue was addressed in decision. Kakis asked about specific trees on her lot. Aydelott stated that individual easement agreements were not in ROW and should be negotiated by Committee, not by Board in decision. Issue: Stated familiarity with existing conditions and that project had made lots of progress. Hearing continued to 18 April meeting. Topic: Decision for Realign and expand driveway Type: Site Plan Approval Amendment Address: 91 Dean Road Main Presenters: Dan Gordon Stated applicant wanted 13 driveway width, existing was 12, fire department recommended 14. Asked about design of light pier at end of driveway. Documents: Type Author Date Certificate of Action Assistant Town Planner April 4, 2018 Discussion: Pier and Light Issue: Zacharias asked if light fixture met Board lumen standards. It was preexisting but did not meet current standards. Issue: Aydelott asked for rendering of pier to include in decision. Action: Broomer to include reference in Decision. Issue: Aydelott stated revisions to pier and driveway width, as requested by applicant. Zacharias agreed. 9

10 Process Oppenheimer asked if he could vote as he was not at the hearing. Aiu concluded that he could not Action: Vote would be delayed to next meeting Public Comments: None Board will vote on decision at 18 April meeting. Town Planner Report Discussion: Process 346 Highland WAIC Issue: Stated future site visit schedule. Issue: Oppenheimer did site visit to see stone veneer. Stated that stones should more closely resemble weightbearing wall, as originally built. Issue: Aydelott stated that specifications would be included in decision. Action: Broomer to draft memo. Issue: Aiu stated location issues for new utility pad and coordination with Eversource. Action: Site visit scheduled. Public Comment: Commenter Issue and Resolution Jonathan White Issue: Asked for Board opinion for client at 104 Oak regarding request for COO (Certificate of Occupancy). Aydelott stated that issue was not on agenda and Board could not act. Aiu stated that Board could not consider items not on agenda. Oppenheimer stated that issue was not a Board issue. Aydelott stated that Aiu would address issue. Topic: Executive Session for Current Litigation Type: RGFA Site Plan Approval Address: 1 Green Lane Zacharias moved to go into executive session, Oppenheimer seconded. 3-0 to approve. Board went into executive session at 10:42 Board came out of executive session at 11:30. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 Minutes submitted by Alicia Primer 10