|
Planning Board Minutes December 19, 2005
 |
|
These minutes are not verbatim
Board Members: Loring Tripp, III, Malcolm MacGregor, and Paul McAlduff.
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Form AA4177 Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
A4178 Valerie Massard has asked the applicant to meet with staff to review the plan as several items were omitted from the plan. A revised plan would have to be submitted.
Loring Tripp moved to deny the plan; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
A4179 Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Conceptual Review 12 So. Meadow Rd/Map 105, Lot 8-3
Atty. Larry Winokur presented a conceptual plan for a Village Open Space Development (VOSD) on Assessors Map 105, Lots 8-3 and 8-4 (2.9 acres), 12 South Meadow Road. Atty. Winokur stated that the applicant had submitted several different scenarios in the BoardMark Flaherty reviewed the site plan. Currently there is a single curb cut off South Meadow Road. The site is flat closest to the road and slopes upward toward the rear. The applicant proposes a twenty-two foot wide roadway, opposite Jan Marie Drive with two parking spaces for each unit (one garage space and one exterior space) with six overflow spaces. The proposal provides a substantial buffer and open space along South Meadow Road and the perimeter of the property. The site would be serviced by Town water and have on site septic systems.
Lee Hartmann was concerned with how the open space works and the mixture of market units and age-restricted units. Mr. Hartmann reminded the Board of the issues Mill Pond Landing had with difficulty marketing the age-restricted units and that a modification of the special permit was granted to remove the age-restriction.
Valerie Massard stated that staff would have to clarify the affordable housing requirements if there is a mixed use on the property.
Paul McAlduff supported option five, but also liked the gazebo, park area and curve of the road on the conceptual site plan. Mr. McAlduff suggested that the applicant refrain from a mixed use on the site. He also asked if the applicant did all age-restricted units, would he consider dedicating two units as affordable housing.
Loring Tripp felt that due to the size of the lot and guidelines for age-restricted housing, this site would not qualify. Mr. Tripp also stated that under State and Federal guidelines a mixed use would be prohibited. Mr. Tripp stated that under the VOSD, the density would be consistent with the density allowed under a definitive subdivision plan. In this case the site would be appropriate for three duplex units. Mr. Tripp suggested that a waiver of the subdivision road entrance (use a shared driveway) would provide increased open space.
Malcolm MacGregor questioned how much earth removal would be required on the site.
Mr. Flaherty stated that if the applicant uses option five, there would be minimal earth removal.
Atty. Winokur stated that he would work with staff to draft appropriate conditions. He stated that the applicant does have a sketch that shows two separate lots, one for the age-restricted housing). Atty. Winokur stated that the applicants would review the suggestions made by staff and the Board and return for further conceptual review of the proposed development.
Public Review Roxy Cahoon Road/Road Improvements
Valerie Massard informed the Board that under the approved plan, the petitioner has agreed to pave that portion of Roxy Cahoon Road from the termination of the existing pavement to the entrance to the proposed subdivision, which constitutes approximately .6 to .7 miles. The Department of Public Works has approved what is being presented and Mr. Bracken has worked with the Town Engineer to address any issues. Earth Tech had a few technical comments that the applicant is working to address.
Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering Inc., presented the road improvement plans as required under condition no. 4 of the approved special permit for Valley View Preserve. The paved area would consist of 3,870 ft of roadway improvement from the existing pavement on Valley Road to just beyond the entrance of the subdivision. Majority of the layout is 40 ft. wide, with some areas wider and some narrower in order to create minimal disturbance. The existing gravel road may be realigned to fit within the original road layout. Cape cod berms would be installed where required and a substantial number of catch and leaching basins to contain runoff. At the entrance to the subdivision there would be additional leaching structures. The existing driveways would be connected to the new pavement through a ten foot paved
apron.
Ms. Massard stated that there is a condition in the subdivision approval that requires the applicant to video tape the existing conditions on the roadway before any paving begins.
Paul McAlduff felt that the roadway improvements were a great opportunity for the Town.
David DiBona, resident, asked what would it take for them to complete the rest of the road.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that the condition of the approval only required improvements to the subdivision entrance.
Loring Tripp stated that this was a significant amount of road improvement for an eleven-lot subdivision.
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the road improvement plan as presented; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Public Hearings Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notices and opened the public hearings in the following order:
Special Permit Applications
Parking Spaces
R40/RDD
Retirement Mobile Homes PUD/Age Restricted Developments
Atty. Edward Angley presented the petitioned article to change the parking requirements for food and beverage establishments because the Building Commissioner does not enforce the requirement for 1 space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area. Atty. Angley stated that under the Paul McAlduff was in agreement.
Loring Tripp supported the reduction.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to January 9, 2005 at 8:00 p.m. for further discussion by a full Board; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Atty. Richard Serkey presented the petition he filed on behalf of Carol Smith, an owner of property in the R40 zone. Atty. Serkey stated that the petition would allow owners in the R40 zone to file for a Rural Density Development (RDD). The R40 zone is one of the only zones that does not have this provision. The RDD would allow for clustering of homes in the R40 zone as an alternative to a definitive subdivision.
Lee Hartmann stated that the R40 zone was overlooked when the RDD bylaw was added to the Zoning Bylaws and that he is in support of the change.
Randy Parker spoke in support.
The Board members present were in support of adding the RDD to the R40 zone.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to January 9, 2005 at 8:00 p.m. for further discussion by a full Board; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Lee Hartmann presented the language that was drafted using the mobile home park PUD and the PUD development standards. The proposed amendment to the bylaw would change the definition of elderly from all persons must be 55 or older to at least 1 member of the household must be 55 or over; shift the special permit granting authority from the Board of Appeals to the Planning Board; and allow age restricted development in the following districts:
ü Medium Lot Residential (R-25)
ü Small Lot Residential (R-20SL)
ü Mixed Density Development (R-20MD)
ü Multifamily Residential (R-20MF)
ü Waterfront (WF)
ü Transitional Commercial (TC)
ü Light Industrial/Waterfront (LI/WF)
ü Downtown/Harbor District (DH)
Age-restricted developments would not be allowed in:
Ö Rural Residential (RR)
Ö Large Lot Residential (R-40)
Ö Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Ö General Commercial (GC)
Ö Arterial Commercial (AC)
Ö Light Industrial (LI)
Ö Airport (AP)
Ö Mixed Commerce (MC)
Ö Highway Commercial (HC)
Mr. Hartmann also suggested that the Board review the revised development density. He suggested that if the Board did not want to amend the definition of age-restricted housing, that the Board should consider just adopting the review standards.
Loring Tripp was concerned that projects that have been approved under the Paul McAlduff supported the change; he would not be able to take advantage of an age-restricted development at this time, because one person in his family is not over 55. He felt that this is a market that will grow.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested that the Board should look at the demographics and cautioned that the Board should also consider the increased density very carefully.
Valerie Massard stated that the change that would require review by the Planning Board would also allow for review of proposed age-restricted projects by the Water Department, Town Engineer and the DPW.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to January 9, 2005 at 8:00 p.m. for further discussion by a full Board; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Valerie Massard presented the proposed Spring Town Meeting Article that would delete the reference to the number of copies of applications, information and plans to be filed with a Special Permit application and incorporate the requirements into the Zoning Board of Appeals Rules and Regulations. This change to the bylaw would require the petitioner to file the number of copies in the appropriate size necessary for circulation to all departments.
Paul McAlduff supported the change.
Loring Tripp moved to continue the public hearing to January 9, 2005 at 8:00 p.m. for further discussion by a full Board; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Discussion:
Land Gifts Rezone: Map 124, Lots 85 & 9-76
Briggs Estates Map 89, Lot 48
Valerie Massard stated that there are open space, TDR, cranberry bog, and other parcels that will be gifted to the Town either through Town Meeting action or other action relative to the gift. Ms. Massard stated she would have a report on the individual gifts for the January 9th meeting.
Ms. Massard informed the Board that the Briggs Estate land gift is currently under title review by Town Counsel and that a public hearing will be scheduled prior to Town Meeting to discuss the Challenge Grant Conservation Restriction to be placed on the parcels.
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that two petitions were received for the rezoning of properties located on Assessors Map 124, Lots 85 and 9-76 and Assessors Map 89, Lot 48. The public hearings for these petitions have been scheduled for January 9, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.
Loring Tripp suggested that the Board consider instituting a special permit process for a fee per pound for storage of radioactive waste for Pilgrim Power Plant. He was also concerned with the possibility of additional storage facilities being constructed.
Richard Serkey stated that if imposing a fee on something that is existing it may be grandfathered through the Zoning Bylaw.
Mr. Tripp suggested that it could be done through the Town Bylaw as it would require a new structure for storage.
Mr. Hartmann stated that staff could look into the concept.
BOA 3298 Landscape Review
Randy Parker, Land Management Systems, Inc., presented the site plan (as required under Condition # 2 of the Zoning Board of Appeals Special Permit # 3298). The special permit was granted to demolish the Shore Store and construct two additional 24Valerie Massard stated that the architecture was in keeping with the other newly constructed units. Ms. Massard suggested that the parking spaces could be reduced.
Mr. Parker stated that given the area and the seasonal parking requirements, the applicant feels that the additional parking is necessary.
Paul McAlduff stated he would like to see reduced parking, unless the neighbors feel that it is needed.
Loring Tripp agreed that he would prefer a reduction in parking, but as it is a beach community providing extra parking spaces would be appropriate.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals as the plan meets the requirements of condition No. 2.;
Architectural renderings presented at the December 19, 2005 Planning Board meeting depict structures similar to the other five (5) units previously constructed on the site, in keeping with the character of the property.
Landscaping plans as submitted are acceptable and are suitable to the property.
Parking was not reduced; however, the Planning Board accepts that the neighborhood is experiencing a need for parking as a summer beach-oriented community, and that additional parking for guests of the property at this location is a suitable amenity given the location of the property.
The vote was unanimous (3-0).
Conceptual Review Court Street
Atty. Edward Angley began the presentation of revised plans to construct eight condo units on Map 11, Lot 16A-2, with one of the units designated as an affordable housing unit. The Board has already reviewed several scenarios for this site. During the last review, the Board requested that a scenario be drafted showing one or two units at the front of the site. This scenario was submitted to the Board, but Atty. Angley stated it would not comply with setback requirements as it is within ten feet of the road.
Jon Henson reviewed the existing conditons on the site and the newest alternative for the proposed eight-unit condominium complex. Mr. Henson stated that there is a major concern at the rear of the site that would prohibit building in that area. Alternative 9 showed two attached units at the front of the property with two attached units to the rear of the pond and four attached units to the north of the pond. The two units at the front of the site would have a separate curb cut while the other units would access the site using the existing curb cut, which would be a shared driveway ending in a hammerhead turnaround. The existing gravel drive that runs along the front of the property would be eliminated. Mr. Henson stated that the preferred option for the site is Alternative 2 which has two attached units at the rear
of the site and six attached units along the north side of the pond. This scenario utilizes the existing curb cut with a few modifications. The shared driveway would have a hammerhead turnaround at the end. Each unit would have one interior and one exterior parking space. The pond would be enhanced with a surface water feature for recirculation and recharge.
Valerie Massard stated that the presentation addressed many of the issues.
Lee Hartmann stated that in the Transitional Commercial zone there is some flexibility regarding the density. Mr. Hartmann felt that the improvements to the site would be a benefit to the entire neighborhood.
Paul McAlduff agreed that the site needs to be cleaned up. He would prefer Alternative 9, but would support Alternative 2.
Malcolm MacGregor agreed with Mr. McAlduff. He liked the waterfall feature that would be useful to control the street noise.
Loring Tripp stated that he would support either option.
Conceptual Review - Randy Parker
Long Pond Road/Map 55, Lot 44
Randy Parker, presented a conceptual plan for a residential subdivision on Map 55, Lot 44. The property is located in the R20MD zone and could have 28 single-family lots or 42 two-family units, but there is an issue with adequate facilities (water). Mr. Parker stated that the developer, Fred Karbott, would like to subdivide the lot into fifteen single-family lots with one designated for an affordable housing unit. Mr. Parker stated that one approach to the project would be to file a VOSD and request a waiver of the 40 percent open space requirement in lieu of a donation per unit towards the purchase of open space.
Lee Hartmann recommended not waiving the 40 percent open space requirement. He suggested that the applicant consider either a conventional subdivision or a VOSD. Mr. Hartmann stated that it would not be appropriate to accept a donation in lieu of the open space and that the applicant should find specific land to set aside as open space under the VOSD/TDR.
Loring Tripp felt that it was an interesting site. Mr. Tripp suggested a buffer along Long Pond Road and splitting the road around the 82-foot elevation. He also suggested that the applicant should look at appropriate locations for the structures, wells and septic and then design the lot lines around those.
Valerie Massard stated that the applicant is struggling with clustering in regards to trying to make the well and septic work.
Paul McAlduff encouraged the applicant to locate the open space at the front of the lot, as a buffer along Long Pond Road. He would not be in favor of accepting payment in lieu of the open space.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested a hiking path along the upper lot line with a buffer and a link to the land at the rear of the site.
Mr. Parker stated they would consider the suggestions made by the Board. He also suggested that at the Fall Town Meeting the Board take a look at revising frontage regulations, which would help to prevent irregular lot shapes.
Loring Tripp suggested that the applicant look at Top Tree Lane in Carver. That subdivision has the open space along the front of the subdivision and has a little village green in the center.
The Board took a five-minute break.
BOA 3339 Cranberry Rd/Modif. of SP for gravel removal
Valerie Massard reviewed the history of a Special Permit that was granted in 2000, that was structured to allow for phased completion of a spur from the river, a tailwater recovery pond and a series of cranberry bogs. The original special permit was granted for five years and has expired. The spur and the pond were constructed as permitted, but the earth removal was done outside the scope of the original permit. The applicant is proposing to bring the site to a state of closure by leveling the lot and loam and seeding the disturbed areas with the potential to come back at a future date to construct a bog if the cranberry industry improves. Ms. Massard also presented maps showing the current conditions of the cranberry bogs, pond, and surrounding area. She stated that staff has suggested that the petitioner consider placing a
restrictive covenant on the property to prohibit residential use on the disturbed areas. There would be no additional earth removal, but the approximately 230,000 cubic yards of stock piled material could be removed.
Mr. Davison was reluctant to place a restrictive covenant on the property. He stated that he had no intention to develop for residential use, but that it was economically unfeasible to construct a bog at this time.
Paul McAlduff understood the problems of the cranberry industry, but supported the restrictive covenant to limit residential use. He suggested that the applicant provide a donation per cubic yard of gravel removal to the Town.
Valerie Massard stated that the issues were as follows: that they didnLoring Tripp supported the restriction from residential use.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that they have extracted a lot of minerals already and that he would not support construction of anything but a bog. Mr. MacGregor supported the residential restriction. He suggested that the applicant loam and seed as is or remove the stockpile material in the disturbed area and loam and seed.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals as follows:
It is recommended that the petition be GRANTED for removal of not more than 238,201 cubic yards of earth, ONLY UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
Condition: That the proponent place a Restrictive Covenant on the 29.49 acres of land that was to become new cranberry bogs under the original special permit and additional areas disturbed north of the newly constructed bypass canal as shown on the Petitioner
The petitioner stated at the Planning Board meeting that he had no intention of placing a Restrictive Covenant as requested by the Planning Board.
IF THE PETITIONER WILL NOT PLACE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON THE LAND AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT, and that the Cease and Desist Order remain in effect The vote was unanimous (3-0).
Administrative:
B497 - Bog View Endorsement
Valerie Massard informed the Board that Land Court has resolved the issue regarding the bound along Route 3A. The subdivision plans and covenant were presented for endorsement.
Paul McAlduff moved to endorse the plans and sign the covenant; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
B526 - Alpine Road
Valerie Massard presented the request for release of all lots in the Alpine Road Subdivision and a Performance Guarantee in the amount of $35,105.00.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to endorse the Lot Release for ALL lots and the Performance Guarantee in the amount of $35,105.00; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
B479 Lee Hartmann presented a request for bond reductions for Balboni LLC in the amount of $20,416.60 for work completed on Robert J. Way and $20,931.40 for work completed on Mary B. Lane.
Loring Tripp moved to release the bonds held for Balboni LLC for Robert J. Way in the amount of $20,416.60 and $25,931.40 for work completed on Mary B. Lane; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Lee Hartmann presented a memo to the Board regarding a proposed amendment to Chapter 40B (Comprehensive Permit) law. The major changes to the law would be as follows:
Defining housing subsidies as direct federal and state financial assistance. Recently, the state has determined that private subsidies under the The amendment increases the minimum amount of affordable housing required in each development from 25% to 33%.
The amendment further defines what constitutes the maximum 20% profit allowance and requires that any excess profits be paid to the Town.
In determining the acceptability of a project, the amendment allows the Town to use accepted standards for municipal planning and environmental protection, as may be contained within the TownCurrently, Towns are forced to consider a wide range of waivers (road width, road construction standards, landscaping, etc.). This amendment limits waivers to only dimensional standards (such as setbacks).
Finally, the amendment limits the allowed increase in density to be no more than twice the allowed density permitted under local zoning. Recent Plymouth cases have had density increases of 1,000% over what the zoning would allow.
Mr. Hartmann asked for the Board to approve the letter in support of the proposed amendment. The letter will also be presented to the Board of Selectmen for their support.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to support the proposed amendment, for the Board to endorse the letter, and to send the letter to Senator Murray and Representatives deMacedo and O
Loring Tripp presented a request by the Community Preservation Committee for the BoardLoring Tripp moved to send a letter of support of CPCThe vote was (2-0) with Paul McAlduff in abstention.
Loring Tripp moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne
Administrative Assistant Approved on: Janaury 9, 2006
| |
|
|
