Planning Board Meeting
January 24, 2005
(Rescheduled for February 3, 2005)
Minutes
These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law – Section III.
Board Members: Loring Tripp, III, Nicholas Filla, Larry Rosenblum, Malcolm MacGregor, and Paul McAlduff.
Planning Board Alternate: William Keohan
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Form A’s:
A4132 – Map 56, Lots 23B & 23F-1, Combine lots and subdivide into lot 46 (26,000 sf) and lot 47 (54,448 sf)
Withdrawn by the applicant.
American Planning Association Award
Plymouth’s Master Plan
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that the Master Plan received an honorable mention award from CHAPA. Mr. Hartmann also informed the Board that the Town of Plymouth ranks 16th out of 356 on the eligibility list for Commonwealth Capital Funds. This ranking is due in large part to the efforts the Town has made to institute the Public Works Economic Development Program, Community Development Action Grant Program, Transit Note Grant Program, State Development Fund, the DEP Ground Fields Funding, Self Urban, Self Help Program (used for Forges Field), Agriculture Preservation Restriction Program, Land Acquisition Program, and Off Street Parking Program.
Larry Rosenblum applauded the efforts of the Master Plan Committee and Enzo Monti, Chair for their dedication and hard work to complete the Master Plan.
Loring Tripp, III stated that the ranking puts the Town in an advantageous position to receive State grants. Mr. Tripp requested that staff send a copy of the Master Plan to the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and a letter of thanks for their help.
Nicholas Filla moved to recommend approval of the Master Plan to Spring Town Meeting; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3274 – Verkade/Stitcher, Meadow Glen Lane
Special Permit side setback requirements/enlarge nonconforming structure
Valerie Massard presented the request for a special permit for side setback requirements and a special permit to enlarge a nonconforming structure in order to demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling with a second floor addition on the rear of the home, an ell attached to the front of the home, and a rear deck. Ms. Massard suggested adding the condition that the deck should not be modified for year round uses or enclosed for living space without further approval by the Board.
Larry Rosenblum inquired whether the applicant has contacted the abutting neighbors. Mr. Rosenblum felt that this step is an important part of being able to make an appropriate judgement.
Mr. Verkade replied that he has contacted the neighbors and they had no adverse comments.
Lee Hartmann suggested that the Board could add a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the setback is minimal but that the neighbor’s opinions should weigh heavily on their decision and that the Board’s recommendation is done without public process.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following:
The Planning Board does not have the input of the surrounding abutters in making its recommendation. The Planning Board recommends that the input of the abutters at the Public Hearing should weigh heavily in the final decision.
It is recommended that the Special Permit to expand and change a non-conforming use and structure be GRANTED for the following reasons:
The proposed reconstruction and additions are appropriate in the zone and specific site in question. The attached additions, and deck will utilize available space on the property, and will not be not substantially more detrimental to the existing residential area.
Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for proper operation of said use.
There will be no hazard to pedestrians or vehicles. The proposed reconstruction and additions, and will not change current pedestrian and vehicle egress/ingress to the property, or along the way.
There will be no nuisance or adverse effect upon the neighborhood.
Conditions:
The following conditions should be imposed:
The proposed deck shall not be modified for year-round use or enclosure as living space without further board approval.
The vote was (4-0) with Malcolm MacGregor in abstention as he was not present for the beginning of the review.
Malcolm MacGregor arrived at 7:13 p.m.
Public Hearing (cont.)
B505, Pickerel Cove – VOSD
To be continued to February 14, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to February 14, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3275 – Dean C Gallo
Gate Road/Special Permit side setback requirements
Valerie Massard presented the request for a special permit to wave the side setback requirements in order to construct a three-season sunroom attached to an existing single family dwelling.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following:
The Planning Board does not have the input of the surrounding abutters in making its recommendation. The Planning Board recommends that the input of the abutters at the Public Hearing should weigh heavily in the final decision.
It is recommended that the Special Permit to vary side setback be GRANTED for the following reasons:
The proposed use is appropriate within the zone and this specific site in question.
The proposed sunroom addition will not substantially alter existing conditions. Adequate and appropriate facilities serve the existing dwelling and are in place for the proper operation.
There will not be an increased hazard to pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed addition is to the east side of the dwelling and egress/ingress to the lot will remain unchanged.
The construction of the three-season sunroom will not be a nuisance or have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, which consists of similarly undersized lots with similar sized structures.
The vote was (5-0).
Public Hearing (cont.)
General Commercial Change
Atty. Robert Betters reviewed the petition to allow multi-family residential units in planned shopping centers of 35 or more acres, no unit may contain more than two bedrooms, the number of units may not exceed twenty percent of the total gross floor area, or if a free standing building, devoted solely to multi-family use, may not exceed eight units per acre on a maximum of ten acres or such combination of same as may be approved by the special permit granting authority. The site that is currently being considered for a planned shopping center in West Plymouth would allow for approximately eighty units. Atty. Betters stated that there are not many sites in the Town that would qualify if the above mentioned restrictions were adopted. To date no provisions have been reviewed for the inclusion of TDR units.
Loring Tripp, III was concerned with the traffic and population impacts to the Town.
Paul McAlduff suggested lowering the acreage restriction to sites of 25 acres or more.
The Board felt that they needed further study of the impacts to the Town and how it would interface with the TDR.
Larry Rosenblum moved to take no action; the vote was unanimous (4-0) with Loring Tripp III in abstention as he was not present during the discussion.
Article 28 - Conservation Land
Lee Hartmann reviewed the following parcels that Town Meeting will consider to transfer from the Town Treasurer for the purpose of sale to the Conservation Commission for conservation purposes:
MAP |
LOTS |
ROAD |
BOOK/PAGE |
TAX TITLE |
64 |
19 & 20 |
Route 3 |
18816/186 |
#6093 |
61 |
28, 29, 30, 31 |
Mountain Hill Road |
14411/166 |
#6005 |
110 |
2 |
Woodland/Cattle Pond |
13610/76 |
#6006 |
113 |
23A |
Long Pond Road |
12803/169 |
#5581 |
114 |
20-28 |
Bay Farm Drive |
16431/160 |
#8628 |
92 |
7 |
Widgeon Pond/State Forest |
18857/214 |
#4078 |
92 |
3 |
Federal Furnace Road |
13705/049 |
#6827 |
127 |
8 |
Sol Joseph Road |
16795/202 |
#6569 |
96 |
60 |
Kings Pond Plain Road |
2114/245 |
|
Mr. Hartmann stated that there were two other parcels that were being considered, but were withdrawn upon the request of the Economic Development Foundation. The Foundation would like to review the potential for commercial development on those parcels.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend support of the transfer of the above-mentioned parcels to the Conservation Commission; the vote was unanimous (4-0), with Loring Tripp, III not present for the discussion.
Public Hearing
B296 – Modification of Ponds at Plymouth – Ball Fields
Loring Tripp, III read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Valerie Massard stated that the hearing was being held regarding a modification of Phase 4 of the definitive subdivision plan for the installation of the recreation fields only. Ms. Massard has been meeting with the developer and they have detailed a punch list for the completion of the development. The developer is proposing to donate $480,000 in lieu of the construction of the recreation fields, because they do not hold ownership of the land the fields were to be constructed on. Ms. Massard stated that Earth Tech determined construction costs of the recreation fields to be an estimated $630,000 and after accounting for the work already completed, Pulte Homes has offered $480,000.. If the recreation fields were constructed on Town property, they would be available for public use.
At previous meetings the Board has discussed several ideas for the use of the contribution such as: field maintenance for Forges Field; constructing recreation fields on the Town owned land that has been designated as a possible future school site within the development; funding “Cops in Schools”; constructing a walking trail in the development; constructing smaller pocket parks in the development; etc. One of the issues with the Town installing fields or parks within the development is long-term maintenance once the work is completed.
Paul McAlduff suggested that the Town hold the funds in a park fund for a park within the development on the future school site. Mr. McAlduff also suggested that the residents could raise additional funds for a park on their own.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested holding the funds in a revolving account with funds set aside for future maintenance. Mr. MacGregor also suggested looking at adjacent tax title land that could be utilized for recreation fields for the development.
Valerie Massard stated that access to the future school site would require construction of a long road and significant grading.
Larry Rosenblum felt that the funds belonged to the residents, but that the Board needed a consensus on how the money should be allocated. Mr. Rosenblum also suggested that the residents could form a homeowners association on their own, without participation by all the residents of the Ponds at Plymouth.
Residents of the Ponds At Plymouth had the following suggestions: install the recreation fields within the development or on adjacent Town-owned land; use the funds to update the equipment at South Elementary School; construct several playgrounds throughout the subdivision; split the money up between the homeowners; and/or form a homeowner’s association or trust to control the funds.
Loring Tripp, III suggested that the Board could talk to LeBlanc Homes to see if they were still willing to help the homeowner’s establish an association. Mr. Tripp stated that the Board would look into Town-owned land adjacent to the Ponds At Plymouth and present a list at the next meeting and to see if the current developer, Pulte Homes would revise any of its lots to create land for playground. Mr. Tripp stated that some of the parcels originally designated for recreation fields have access issues. If the fields were public facilities, they would have to have parking, handicap access, certain grading, etc. If the fields are private, some of the constraints are lifted, but they would have to have emergency access.
Atty. Betters suggested that the homeowners could set up a trust for the money to be donated to and designated for certain purposes. Residents and a member of the Planning Board could be on the Board of the trust. Atty. Betters offered to draft language for the residents to consider for the creation of a trust. Atty. Betters also stated that a voluntary homeowners association could be formed for a specific purpose.
Lee Hartmann suggested that a portion of the funds could be used for legal assistance or hiring a landscape architect to help design the fields. Mr. Hartmann also suggested that the residents needed to consider liability issues.
Larry Rosenblum moved to continue the public hearing to March 14, 2005 at 7:15 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing
Planning Board Fees Rules and Regulations re: Zoning
Valerie Massard read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to February 28, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.; the vote was (3-0) with Larry Rosenblum and Loring Tripp, III in abstention.
Informal Site Plan Review (Action Required)
Aldrin Road
Valerie Massard presented the site plan for a 70’x86’, 20 ft high addition and a 20’x25 ‘ loading dock to an existing office/warehouse building. Ms. Massard stated that staff had some concerns with the submission. There were no architecturals submitted and the landscaping detail and the drainage plans were insufficient.
Nicholas Filla requested that the applicant submit an accurate plan of existing conditions on the site, the proposed addition, landscaping and drainage details, etc.
Larry Rosenblum moved to continue the site plan review to a future date; the vote was unanimous (4-0) with Loring Tripp, III in abstention.
Conceptual Review (No Action Required)
Village Green/State Road, Manomet
Continuation requested by applicant to February 14, 2005, 7:50 p.m.
Public Hearing (cont.)
B515, Nestle Down, Manomet Point Road
Atty. Robert Betters reviewed the plans for a definitive subdivision plan for an eighteen-lot subdivision. Two lots have existing homes, two lots would be drainage lots, and thirteen lots would be for the construction of single-family dwellings.
Randy Parker, reviewed the configuration of the proposed lots, the drainage areas and the landscape plan.
Ron Mueller, Greenman Pederson, Inc., reviewed the sight distances and the traffic report. Earth Tech has reviewed the sight distances and stated that they will be acceptable from a safety standpoint.
Dan Carvalho questioned the data in the traffic report. Mr. Carvalho expressed his concern that the traffic study was done on a Tuesday in the summer and did not take into account the weekend and /or school traffic.
Mr. Mueller stated that the data was collected using standard practice with tube counters for an electronic measuring and based on the observed speeds, and that they are meeting and exceeding the minimums. Mr. Mueller also stated that the road grade would not impede the sight distances and that the trees will be trimmed and possibly removed to create adequate sight distances.
Ariana Packard felt that the traffic study underestimated the traffic on Stage Point Road.
Randy Parker stated that the traffic on Manomet Point Road is now at a Level of Service B and with the proposed subdivision will remain at a Level of Service B.
Brenda Murphy expressed her concern with public safety.
John Carr expressed his concern regarding the right of way on the property currently owned by Scambos that would provide access to the beach for six of the proposed lots. Mr. Carr questioned what safeguards could be put into place to protect the stairway and the sea wall. He felt that the additional houses would change the character of the area.
Atty. Betters replied that the Scambos property has the right of way and the right of way stays with the land regardless of how many lots.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved to approve the requested waivers subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS of Granting of the waivers:
The Petitioner agrees to reasonably cooperate with the Planning Board and the DPW regarding permanent sidewalks or other suitable method of maintaining site distance clearing within Manomet Point Road, a public way (such as signage), and agrees to donate $1,000.00 per additional residential lot within the subdivision (for a total of $13,000.00) prior to the issuance of a building permit for each said lot for purposes of maintaining the sight distance clearing within Manomet Point Road, payable in one (1) lump sum prior to release of any lot from the Planning Board covenant other than a designated model home.
The vote was (4-1) with Loring Tripp, III in opposition.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to modify and approve the definitive subdivision plan and the adequate facilities special permits for water and access subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS:
MODIFICATION AND APPROVAL of the Definitive Subdivision is subject to the following conditions:
The Petitioner agrees to the endorsement of the plans and profiles within 120 days from the date of approval, or in the case of an appeal, endorsement of the plans and profiles within 120 days of the settlement of an appeal.
Conditional upon the provisions of a performance guarantee in the form of a covenant duly executed and approved, to be noted on the plan and recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds. Said form of guarantee may be varied from time to time by the Petitioner with mutual agreement on the content of said guarantee by the Petitioner and Planning Board without amendment or modification of this approval.
The Petitioner agrees to complete all ways and the installation of all municipal services in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the Planning Board within two (2) years from the date of endorsement. Upon a finding by the Planning Board that the construction of all ways and the installation of all municipal services has not been completed within two (2) years the approval of, the plan shall be automatically rescinded.
The Petitioner agrees that it will guarantee to protect, repair, replace, and where necessary, and upon written acceptance by the Planning Board, redesign the works constructed and submit revised plans and profiles for the Planning Board's approval and for recording at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds so that said works actually carry out the purposes for which they were intended. Said repair, replacement or redesign will be based upon experience in the field, which demonstrates the existing construction and/or design to have been improperly installed or wholly inadequate.
CONDITIONS of the Adequate Facilities Special Permit and Definitive Subdivision Modification and Approval:
The Petitioner agrees to record a covenant or other instrument detailing the creation of a homeowner's trust or association, and to provide the imposition of easements or rights for the benefit of the homeowner’s trust with respect to drainage facilities and appurtenances, drainage lots and roadway/emergency access areas to be maintained by the homeowner’s trust or association in a form acceptable to Town Counsel. Said covenant or instrument shall be in place prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
The Petitioner agrees to provide a maintenance program for stormwater facilities at the road, drainage lots and roadway areas to be maintained by the homeowner’s association on said plan or revised plan detailed as an exhibit to the homeowner’s trust documents referenced above.
Prior to endorsement of the plans:
(a) The existing drive off of Manomet Point Road in the subject property is to be eliminated, and this is to be noted on the plans.
(b) The location and construction details of a breakaway barrier for the emergency access easement are to be noted on the plans.
(c) The final drainage calculations are to be reviewed by the Town Engineer and Earth Tech, subject to final approval by the Planning Board.
(d) The remaining issues raised in the August 25, 2004 correspondence to the Planning Board from Earth Tech, and in the July 19, 2004 correspondence to the Planning Board from the Town Engineer, shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board.
(e) The use of the road names “Anderson Way” and “Avalon Avenue” will be subject to final approval by the Planning Board.
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:
(a) Evidence shall be provided to the Planning Board that (1) the instrument creating the homeowner’s trust or association per the Condition above to be imposed by the Petitioner on the subject property, approved as to form by Town Counsel, and (2) this Special Permit Decision have been recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds.
(b) Four (4) sets of full size copies of all drawings comprising the definitive 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.
(c) Conditional upon the payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for this property, if any.
(d) The plans and drainage designs will be revised subject to final approval by the Planning Board prior to endorsement of the plans.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unencumbered easements for maintenance and title to all fire alarm conduits, water lines and hydrants, if any, constructed and installed in the subject property shall be conveyed to the Town.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, streetlights will be installed on each individual building lot within 30 feet of the access drive.
The vote was (4-1) with Loring Tripp, III in opposition.
Minutes:
Minutes of January 3, 2005
Malcolm MacGregor moved to approve the minutes of January 3, 2005 as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Administrative:
B513 - Michelle’s Path
Larry Rosenblum moved to endorse the definitive subdivision plan for Michelle’s Path, sign the covenant, and release Lots 74D and 74E subject to the following condition:
No occupancy permit for dwelling purposes is to be issued prior to the satisfactory completion of work on the ground, or prior to the posting of a performance guarantee.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing (cont.)
TDR
New language has been submitted to the Board for review.
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that John Twohig and Betsey Lane are currently reviewing the language for the proposed TDR.
Nicholas Filla moved to continue the public hearing to 9:15 p.m. on February 7, 2005; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Nicholas Filla moved to adjourn at 11:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne
Administrative Assistant Approved on:________________
| 
