Planning Board Meeting
March 14, 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, Larry Rosenblum, Malcolm MacGregor, and Paul McAlduff.
Planning Board Alternate: William Keohan
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Presentation – Chapter 40R
Barry Bluestone
Loring Tripp, III introduced Barry Bluestone, Professor of Political Economy and the founding director of the Center for Urban and Regional Policy (CURP) at Northeastern University. Prof. Bluestone and the Commonwealth Housing Task Force have been instrumental in the successful passage of Chapter 40R housing legislation.
The task force found that employers are having a difficult time attracting young people to fill their available positions in part due to the high cost of housing. Massachusetts is the only state in the U.S. to lose population in the past year. The goal is to provide enough affordable housing without destroying the environment. Currently there is not enough land zoned to support affordable housing while encouraging the preservation of open space.
Chapter 40R encourages mixed use developments, directs growth to areas near transit and with existing infrastracture and protects open space. A Smart Growth Overlay District would be established to allow “as of right” residential development of minimum allowable densities with mixed use and infill. Twenty percent of the units would be affordable and open space and protection of historic districts are encouraged. The State would provide two types of payment to municipalities that utilize Chapter 40R. The State’s Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund would pay a one time “zoning incentive payment” depending on the number of units approved by DHCD and a one time “Density Bonus Payment” of $3,000 for each new or rehabbed housing unit built with a smart growth zoning district. In
addition to the bonuses, the towns would be eligible for special priority for State discretionary funds from EOEA, Transportation, DHCD, and A&F (shools, transportation, water, sewer, etc.). There is also pending legislation that would reimburse the towns approximately $5,000 per housing unit for additional school costs attributable to children in new units in the Districts.
Mass Housing has $3, million to fund $50,000 in grants to towns interested in pursuing Smart Growth Zoning Districts.
The Board thanked Mr. Bluestone for his informative presentation.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to draft a letter in support of the pending legislation for the Smart Growth Education Supplement; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to pursue the application for the technical assistance grant; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing (cont.) –
B296 – Modification Ponds at Plymouth
Ball Fields
Atty. Robert Betters updated the Board on his efforts to establish a trust for the $480,000 contribution from Pulte Homes to the residents of the Ponds at Plymouth in lieu of the construction of the recreation fields. The remaining issues include setting up the trust as a non-profit entity, designating the specific purpose for the expenditure of the funds, and identifying the appointing authority for the trustees and the number of trustees that will be administering the funds. It has been suggested that residents from each phase of the development be appointed as trustees. Atty. Betters requested that the Board approve the modification of the subdivision plan that would allow for the trust to be established in lieu of the construction of the recreation fields.
Valerie Massard suggested that the Board approve the modification with the expectation of the trust being established.
Dan Galvin, representing the residents of the Ponds At Plymouth, was concerned that the estimate by Earth Tech for the construction of the recreation fields was outdated and insufficient. Mr. Galvin suggested that Earth Tech visit the sites and present a current estimate before the Board votes on the modification of the subdivision plan.
Ted Gowdy, Pulte Homes, stated that the fields that were proposed by LeBlanc Homes cannot be constructed by Pulte due to ownership and title issues. Pulte has worked with the Town and the residents to address outstanding issues in the development and is prepared to provide the $480,000 in lieu of the construction of the recreation fields.
Loring Tripp, III stated that as the recreation fields that were promised to the residents cannot be constructed, it is up to the Board and the residents to establish an alternative.
Greg Howe suggested revisiting the Town site as appropriate for construction of the recreation fields. Mr. Howe also suggested that the $480,000 might not be sufficient funds.
Valerie Massard stated that the use of the Town site was not supported by the residents at previous meetings and would require extensive and expensive site preparation before any construction could be done.
Larry Rosenblum reminded the residents that the $480,000 is what Pulte has offered to contribute and he encouraged them to resolve the issue.
Dan Galvin requested that the Board postpone its decision on the modification in order for the residents to have more time to review their options.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to continue the discussion to April 11, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.; the vote unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing
B520 – Beaver Dam Ridge RDD
William Keohan, Planning Board Alternate joined the Board for the public hearing, as Nicholas Filla was absent.
Loring Tripp, III read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Valerie Massard began the presentation for a nineteen residential lot subdivision (including two affordable units) with three open space lots, seven drainage lots and a proposed road layout. The applicant has requested a substantial number of waivers. Ms Massard reviewed staff’s recommendations for the approval of the subdivision which include further discussion of the proposed ownership, use and maintenance of the open space, water access on the ponds and proposed trail linkages to abutting open space, defining no cut buffers, which lots are proposed for affordable housing and at what income level, design standards on the road width, building materials and landscaping to reduce fire impacts and access, emergency access standards, and drainage design.
Randy Parker, Land Management Systems, Inc., reviewed the proposed plan. The buildable lots would have private well and septic systems, walking trails will be designed, the applicant is willing to redesign the intersection of Bog Road and Hollis Road to eliminate the dangerous S curve and to modify the hammerheads to accommodate the fire apparatus. Mr. Parker assured the residents that a 10 to 12 ft. way will be maintained during construction to provide access to the existing homes in the area.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to continue the Public Hearing to April 11, 2005 at 8:10 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3284 – Village at Sawmill Woods
Chapter 40B
Atty. Robert Devin, began the presentation for a Chapter 40B subdivision which would include 130 duplex townhouse condominium units on approximately 58 acres off Kathleen Drive. The applicants are continuing discussions with the Shallow Pond Home Owners Association.
Dennis Seguin, Seguin Associates, informed the Board that the majority of the project would be serviced by a sewerage treatment plant; the boundaries of the site have been defined through Land Court; wetland delineation has been determined; a topographical survey of the site was done in 1989; and the road design from Kathleen Drive wraps around the contours. Mr. Seguin stated that definitive plans were previously filed and approved by the Town in 1993. The current plan has minor changes from the original plan.
Valerie Massard stated that the State has reviewed the application and in the approval letter suggested that during the Public Hearing process, the Board of Appeals discuss density alternatives, phasing the construction, improving surrounding roads and traffic mitigation, stormwater management, groundwater quality, preservation of open space, and certification of potential vernal pools. Ms. Massard had some concerns about the plans that were submitted. They are over two years old, detail sheets were not included, abutters were not noted, and no revision dates have been added. A peer review of the submission has not been completed yet.
The Board felt they would need more time to review the data and the issues.
Atty. Robert Devin stated that the Board of Appeals Public Hearing which, is scheduled for March 23, 2005, might be rescheduled for April 11, 2005. The applicant is more than willing to work with the Town’s boards and the neighborhood toward a mutually acceptable project.
Residents abutting the property expressed their concerns with increased traffic, existing road conditions, water pressure, the ecological impact, public safety, emergency access,
Alternative suggestions for this site included an eighty lot, age-restricted subdivision, or an eighty lot condominium project with a shared drive way.
John Joseph, representing the Shallow Pond homeowner’s association, informed the Board that they are circulating a petition to rezone this site to R25.
Mr. Tripp, felt that to rezone this one area would not be in the Town’s best interest.
Lee Hartmann suggested that staff continue discussions with the applicant and post any further meetings with the Board on the Town’s website.
The Board took a five minute recess.
Public Hearing
B521 - Twilight Hills RDD/TDR
William Keohan, Planning Board Alternate joined the Board for the public hearing, as Nicholas Filla was absent.
Loring Tripp, III read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Atty. Robert Betters, reviewed the plans for the proposed subdivision and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). A preliminary subdivision plan divided two lots on Mountain Hill Road, Map 60, Lot 6 and Map 64, Lot 16, into twelve residential lots. As the property was adjacent to Town owned land, the Board asked the applicant to consider transferring the development rights from the rear parcel to another area owned by the applicant. The current plan shows three residential lots on Map 60, Lot 6, Mountain Hill Road, with Map 64, Lot 16 designated as open space (to be conveyed to an entity designated by the Board) and the rights for nine residential lots transferred as follows: six residential lots on Map 72, Lot 4N-H, Bayden Path and lots 4N-15, 4N-17 and 4N-26 on Map 51, Ship Pond Road, each subdivided into two
residential lots. The road for the six lots off Bayden Path was previously layed out in the Special Permit for the Camp Child Settlement subdivision (B461). To create these lots, Map 70, Lot 5 was to be set aside as open space, but the title of that lot was in question. A final disposition of the lot is still pending. All of the receiving parcels are owned or under agreement by the applicant.
Valerie Massard questioned whether a resolution of the trust being turned over to homeowner’s association had been reached. Ms. Massard suggested that a condition of the Special Permit could be that the trust should be turned over before any building permits could be issued.
Atty. Betters stated that the resolution of the trust would be determined when it is determined whether the six additional lots would be included.
Ed Marks reviewed a list of concerns of the residents of Camp Child Settlement which include the following: finishing the walking trail, rehab of the bath house, guardrails around the west end drainage area, an entrance sign for the development, removing the bump at the intersection of Tadmore Trail and Bayden Path, removing debris from the staging area, restricting construction vehicles from using Bayden Path and the annual meeting to discuss outstanding issues and an accounting of annual fees.
Abutters to the Ship Pond Road parcels were concerned that reducing the size of the lots would change the ambiance of the surrounding community. They were also concerned with setback issues from the road and the pond.
Loring Tripp, III supported the utilization of the TDR into an area that is closer to schools and has existing infrastructure.
Larry Rosenblum suggested that the applicant consider adding a component that would benefit the residents in the receiving areas.
Malcolm MacGregor and William Keohan suggested that there should be more discussion with the abutters to the Ship Pond Road lots.
Atty. Betters stated that Mr. Delpico would meet to discuss the concerns of the Camp Child Settlement residents and to look at alternatives regarding the lots on Ship Pond Road.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the Public Hearing to April 11, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing (cont.)
Planning Board Fees Rules and Regulations re: Zoning
The Board reviewed the following proposed amendment to the Planning Board Rules and Regulations regarding fees:
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1 Procedural History. Pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, ss. 9 and 12, the Planning Board has adopted regulations governing fees and a new schedule of fees for review conducted by the Planning Board and its consultants on the various types of applications which come before it when it is the Special Permit Granting Authority under the Town of Plymouth Zoning Bylaw (the “Bylaw”) on said application.
SECTION 2. FEE STRUCTURES AND REGULATIONS.
2.1 General. The Planning Board shall impose reasonable fees for the review of applications which come before it. The Planning Board may impose Administrative Fees and Project Review Fees as may be applicable to the types of applications set forth below.
2.2 Form of Payment. All Administrative and Project Review Fees shall be paid by bank or certified check.
SECTION 3. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
3.1 Applicability. An Administrative Fee shall be assessed to offset the expense of review by the Planning Board and Town employees.
3.2 Submittal. Administrative Fees shall be submitted at the time of the submittal of the application. Any application filed without this fee shall be deemed incomplete and no review work shall commence until the fee has been paid in full.
3.3 Schedule of Administrative Fees. The following schedule applies to the types of applications to the Planning Board set forth below. In the event that a subdivision application is also submitted for the same project, the highest administrative fee, be it from the Town of Plymouth Subdivision Rules and Regulations or this fee schedule, shall prevail, and the other shall be waived.
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT REQUIRED FILING FEE
Special Permit pursuant to G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 9, $100.00 (Residential)
NOT SUBJECT to Environmental Design Conditions $200.00 (Commercial)
pursuant to Section 205-9 of the Bylaw
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT REQUIRED FILING FEE
Special Permit pursuant to G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 9, SUBJECT to Environmental Design Conditions pursuant to Section 205-9 of the Bylaw:
If area of property is less than or equal to 10,000 $200.00
square feet
b) If area of property is greater than 10,000 square $250.00
feet and less than or equal to 50,000 square feet
c) If area of property is greater than 50,000 square $400.00
feet and less than 150,000 square feet
d) If area of property is greater than 150,000 square $550.00
feet
3.4 Fee Waivers. The Planning Board may waive or reduce any Administrative Fee, if, in the opinion of the Board, unusual circumstances exist regarding the subject property or the applicant.
3.5 Refund. Once the review process has been commenced, the Planning Board shall not refund Administrative Fees, including the case of withdrawal of the application by the applicant, except as provided in Section 3.4, above.
SECTION 4. PROJECT REVIEW FEES.
4.1 Applicability. In addition to an Administrative Fee, the Planning Board shall impose a Project Review Fee on those applications which require, in the judgment of the Planning Board, review by outside consultants due to the size, scale or complexity of a proposed project, the project's potential impacts, or because the Town lacks the necessary expertise to perform the review work related to the permit or approval. In hiring outside consultants, the Board may engage engineers, planners, lawyers, designers, or other appropriate professionals able to assist the Board and to ensure compliance with all relevant laws, by-laws and regulations. Such assistance may include, but shall not be limited to, analyzing an application, monitoring or inspecting a project or site for compliance with the
Board's decisions or regulations, or inspecting a project during construction or implementation.
4.2 Submittal. Project Review Fees shall be submitted at the time of the submittal of the application for deposit in an account established pursuant to G.L. c. 44, s. 53G (53G Account). Any application filed without this fee shall be deemed incomplete and no review work shall commence until the fee has been paid in full.
4.3 Schedule of Project Review Fees. The following schedule applies to the types of applications to the Planning Board set forth below. This schedule supersedes all previous schedules as they may have appeared in the Zoning By-Laws and any listings which may have been compiled from time to time for the benefit of applicants. Where more than one type of application has been submitted for Planning Board for action, only the largest of the applicable Project Review Fees shall be collected for deposit into the 53G Account, and not the sum of those fees. In the event that a subdivision application is also submitted for the same project, the highest Project Review fee, be it from the Town of Plymouth Subdivision Rules and Regulations Consultant Deposit or this fee schedule, shall prevail,
and the other shall be waived.
Original Special Permit, or Modification thereof:
Project Size Fee
5 - 15 Lots/Units $ 4,000
16 - 20 Lots/Units $ 6,000
21 - 25 Lots/Units $ 10,000
More than 25 Lots/Units $ 20,000
OR
40,001 – 100,000 sf building size $ 6,000
100,000 + $ 15,000
4.4 Fee Waivers. The Planning Board may waive or reduce any Project Review Fee, if, in the opinion of the Board, unusual circumstances exist regarding the subject property or the applicant.
4.5 Replenishment. When the balance in an applicant's 53G Account falls below twenty-five percent (25%) of the initial Project Review Fee, as imposed above, the Planning Board shall consider whether to require a supplemental Project Review Fee to cover the cost of the remaining project review.
4.6 Inspection Phase. After the granting of a Special Permit, the Planning Board may require a Supplemental Project Review Fee for the purpose of ensuring the availability of funds during the inspection phase of the review process.
4.7 Handling of Project Review Fees. The Project Review Fee is to be deposited into a special account as set forth in G.L. c. 44, s. 53G.
A. Outside consultants retained by the Planning Board to assist in the review of an application shall be paid from this account.
B. Project Review Fees shall be turned over to the Town Treasurer by the Planning Board for deposit into a 53G Account.
C. A copy of the latest statement from the banking institution handling the 53G Account shall be forwarded from the office of the Town Treasurer to the office of the Planning Board as soon as it is received for timely and accurate accounting.
D. An accounting of an applicant's funds held in the 53G Account may be requested by the applicant at any time.
1. The Planning Board shall respond to the request in a timely fashion.
2. This accounting shall include the following information:
a. The latest statement from the banking institution handling the account, which should include an accurate accumulated interest portion to the closing date of the statement if such statements are subdivided into individual applicants' accounts. Otherwise, a statement of principal and interest, prepared by the office of the Planning Board, based on the latest statement from the banking institution.
b. A report of all checks authorized for issuance since that last banking statement.
E. An applicant may request an estimate of bills pending from consultants for work completed, or in progress, but not yet invoiced.
F. Excess fees in the 53G Account, shall be returned to the applicant or the applicant's successor in interest, at the conclusion of the review process, as defined below. For the purpose of this section, any person or entity claiming to be an applicant's successor in interest shall provide the Board with documentation establishing such succession in interest.
1. With the filing of a decision with the Town Clerk denying or awarding a Special Permit, Variance, or Comprehensive Permit.
2. With the filing of a decision with the Town Clerk regarding an Administrative Appeal.
SECTION 5. DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS. The following rules apply to fees owed to the Planning Board by applicants:
5.1 Monthly Interest Charge. All fees past due by one month from the date of invoice shall be subject to a monthly interest charge based upon an annual interest rate of 14%.
5.2 Costs of Collection. All costs of collection associate with past due accounts shall be borne by the applicant.
5.3. Current Delinquents. All applicants owing fees to the Planning Board at the time of any amendment to these provisions of the regulations shall be sent the following:
A. A duplicate notice of the amount past due.
B. A copy of the applicable sections of these regulations with all amendments clearly indicated.
C. Notice of a 30 day grace period before the commencement of any changes in interest rates or charges.
SECTION 6. REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING FEES.
6.1 Amendment. The Planning Board may review and revise its regulations and fee schedules, from time to time, as it sees fit.
A. Amendments shall be preceded by a public hearing.
Any new regulations or alterations to the fee schedule shall take affect upon filing a copy of the amendments with the Town Clerk.
Ms. Massard informed the Board that the developers have been apprised of the proposal.
Larry Rosenblum moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Paul McAlduff moved to adopt the above-mentioned fees; the vote was unananimous (4-0).
Minutes:
March 7, 2005
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of March 7, 2005; the vote was (3-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention as he was not present.
Administrative:
B513 – Michelle’s Path
Larry Rosenblum moved to approve the street name of “Sailor’s Way” for the Surrey/Dabkowski subdivision formerly called Michelle’s Path; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
B437 - Pinehills
Malcolm MacGregor moved to approve the following street names for the Pinehills subdivision: “Shetland, Seton Highlands, and Aberdeen”; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Loring Tripp informed the Board that the County Commissioners are pursuing the creation of a County Owned Land Master Plan.
Larry Rosenblum moved to adjourn at 11:28 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne
Administrative Assistant
| 
