Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes February 27, 2006
These minutes are not verbatim
Board Members: Loring Tripp, III, Nicholas Filla, Larry Rosenblum, Malcolm MacGregor, and Paul McAlduff.
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne

Form A
A4191
Loring Tripp asked for clarification of the buffer area around the rye field.  
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan with the condition that the tree line and buffer area around the rye field be defined on the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

A4189
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

A4190
Loring Tripp moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

Appointment                                                             
West Plymouth Steering Committee
Loring Tripp moved to appoint Patricia Majeski to the West Plymouth Steering Committee; the vote was (3-2) with Larry Rosenblum and Paul McAlduff in opposition.  

Public Hearing                                                  
       B533 - Oak Ridge Road
Nicholas Filla read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.  
Loring Tripp recused himself from this public hearing, as he owns abutting land.  
Timothy Grandy, Planning Board Alternate, joined the public hearing.
Valerie Massard reviewed the plans to subdivide Lot 74 on Assessors Map 30.  The lot would be subdivided into two residential lots with an open space lot.  There is an existing two-family attached home which would be separated.  If the special permit for a Village Open Space Development (VOSD) is granted, the applicant would follow up with an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan.  There is existing Town water and sewer to the site.    
Malcolm MacGregor asked if there would be a violation of setback requirements.  
Ms. Massard replied that the applicant would be demolishing the sheds in the open space area but the Planning Board could waive setback requirements. One of the houses was built prior to 1900 and the other was built in 2003.  A two-family home is allowed in this area.  The separation of the two houses could be done through a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals or through a special permit for a VOSD from the Planning Board.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved to approve the special permit for a VOSD subject to the following conditions:

The Village Open Space Density Development entitled
The Petitioner has agreed to 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, and this shall be noted on the plan, as well as incorporated into the Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the lots within the VOSD development.
The Approval Not Required Plan shall make reference to the Special Permit.
Prior to issuance of a zoning permit:
Four (4) sets of full size copies of all drawings comprising the VOSD 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.
Petitioner agrees to the return to the Planning Board with requested revisions of the Plan for final approval, including:  Show the right-of-way as part of a lot; relocate or remove the sheds on the subject property so that they no longer encroach on side/rear yards; demonstrate on the plan that 40% of the land is designated as open space after subtracting out the area of the right-of-way:  the VOSD requires 40% open space.  63,995 SF parcel area, less road right-of-way of approximately 5,690 SF, leaves 58,305 SF of land to be used in figuring the required open space area, 40% of which is 23, 322 SF.  The plan depicts 21,976 SF, and will require approximately an additional 1,346 SF of open space be incorporated into the lot configuration to meet the 40% minimum open space requirement.
Conditional upon the payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for this property, if any.
Evidence that (1) the Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restriction(s) per the Conditions of this decision on the subject property and (2) this Decision have been recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Planning Board.
Petitioner has agreed to include within the Protective Covenants and Restrictions and/or Deed Restriction provisions on the open space lots or 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 for conservation and recreation, with an allowance for maintenance and permitted recreational uses subject to plans approved by the Planning Board, or its appointed representative(s).  The use of the designated open space shall allow for maintenance of existing mowed areas including access to said areas, as shown on the plans, as either garden areas, mowed areas or areas where plantings of native shrubs and trees may take place.  Planting of native trees and shrubs shall be allowed in the open space area.  Trees/shrubs within the open space area may be removed only in the event that they are diseased or dying.
The Protective Covenants and Restrictions and/or Deed Restriction on the open space lots or areas may include:
The Protective Covenants and Restrictions also reflect that any violation shall result in a fine of $100.00 per day for the first thirty (30) days, and $200.00 per day thereafter, and provide that the Protective Covenants and Restrictions shall be in place for as long as allowed under Massachusetts law.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Loring Tripp rejoined the Planning Board meeting.


Public Hearing                                                  
        Town Meeting Article
Nicholas Filla read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann began the presentation on the Smart Growth Zoning Article.  The consultants and staff have met with the Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, North Plymouth Steering Committee, and the management of Cordage Park to draft language for this proposal.  A Chapter 40R application has been submitted to DHCD and is currently under review.  The remaining issues to address are the traffic impacts and the design standards.
Ted Carman and Angus Jennings from Concord Square Development Company presented the history behind the legislation that created the Chapter 40R and Chapter 40S programs.  Under the Chapter 40R program the State would provide a one time incentive payment and density bonus to a town once the project is fully under construction, and a town would be eligible for state discretionary funds (grants, etc.).  Under the Chapter 40S program a town would be eligible for reimbursement of net educational costs in excess of 50% of taxes generated by the project. The Cordage Park site meets State site requirements for Chapter 40R.  The legislation allows the community to define the design standards for the project.  The design standards must not pose unrealistic costs for the developer.   The site was previously considered for a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) component, but that has been removed.  If the project is approved, there would be definitive plans for the number of housing units and the infrastructure.  The proposal is to construct taller buildings along the waterfront and smaller building closer to the existing neighborhoods.   Any non-residential components would be filed under the light industrial zoning (the underlying district).  The project would create approximately 135 units of affordable housing, 70% of which would be local preference.  The project would be subject to the site plan review and public hearing process with the Planning Board as the granting authority.  A study of the traffic impacts is underway and the DPW is reviewing the water and sewer infrastructure.  
The final product would create a structured neighborhood, restore public access to the waterfront, and connect to the Rail Trail.   Access would be through a central boulevard with a wide median (20 ft.). and there would be a bicycle and pedestrian network.   They applicants would like to retain the smokestack as a landmark if it is determined to be structurally sound.   
Nicholas Filla questioned how long the process could take.
Mr. Hartmann stated that staff is comfortable with the bylaw as presented, but the design standards need to be addressed and the information from the traffic study needs to be reviewed.    
Elspeth Franks questioned how the town would be insured that the design standards would be adhered to if the economy changed.  
Mr. Jennings replied that the landowner would have to submit a written statement that the design standards are appropriate and acceptable.   The Planning Board would have the authority to deny any changes to the plan once approved.
Noreen Kerry-Neville questioned how the funding from the State would be dispersed.  
Mr. Carman stated that the density bonus would be a one time payment and would be funded through designated funds in the State's surplus account.  The educational reimbursement would be an annual appropriation based on the number of children times the average cost to educate minus fifty percent of property taxes paid by the development.  The Chapter 40S funding would come from the State
Malcolm MacGregor suggested reinstituting the TDR component by dropping the initial density of the project and allowing TDR
Mr. Carman stated that any TDR would have to be without cost to the developer in order to make the project viable.
Mr. Hartmann was concerned that in order to include the TDR component, the density would have to exceed the proposed density.  
Larry Rosenblum was concerned with the proposed density.   Mr. Rosenblum suggested that the taller buildings should not be at the water
Mr. Jennings stated that the grant was structured to pay half to work on the bylaw, the second half was to be used as needed and as directed by the Town.  Specialists would be brought in as we move forward.
Paul McAlduff stated that the Town of Franklin felt that the Chapter 40R and Chapter 40S requirements were too restrictive.
Mr. Carman stated that the guidelines are not simple and there is a long set of regulations that the Town must comply with in order to meet the objectives.
Loring Tripp suggested that the Town could update its RKG model with some of the funds.   Mr. Tripp felt that the affordable housing would be good for the community.  Mr. Tripp felt that the
Town should do what is best for its community and not rely on the State.   Mr. Tripp suggested that the buildings closest to the waterfront could be in excess of sixty feet.
Mr. Filla stated that the design standards would be an important component of the project.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to March 6, 2006 at 8:15 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

Public Hearing                                          
        Camp Cachalot
                Continue to March 6, 2006
Nicholas Filla read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Valerie Massard suggested that the public hearing be continued to March 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. as the mailing to the abutters was delay.  The abutters have been notified that it would be continued.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to continue the public hearing to March 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

Conceptual Review                                                       
        Stafford St/Assisted Living
Atty. Edward Angley presented a conceptual review to revitalize the vacant Pilgrim Manor Nursing Home.  The 188-bed nursing home would be converted to a 85 unit assisted living facility and a second building would be constructed for approximately 50 independent units. Tom Gaston, Northbridge Communities LLC, stated that the footprint of the existing building would remain the same.  The upper two stories of the 70-75,000 sq. ft. building would be converted to 60 assisted living units while the below grade basement level would be converted to house 25 Alzheimerresidents or other independent living residents.  The facility would be a private-pay facility.  It would pay taxes, have no school children and have low impact on the Town
David Harrington, Allen and Major Associates, Inc., stated that there is an existing 12
Mr. Gaston stated that screening and landscaping along Stafford Street and the rear of the site would be installed.  The large berm near the water tower would remain.  The buildings may be connected by a covered walkway.
Michael Liu, The Architectural Team Inc., reviewed the proposed changes to the existing institutional building that would create a more residential structure.    The courtyards would be landscaped to create outdoor living areas.  The parking would also be revised.
Larry Rosenblum suggested creating landscape areas that would take advantage of the natural path of the sun and the seasons.    
Paul McAlduff suggested that there should be a solid connection between the two buildings and  the parking should be reviewed.  He also suggested creating a connecting road to the Pontus Meadow Development.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested adding a third story to the existing building and creating more park area instead of an additional building.  He felt that increasing the landscaping and creating substantial buffers would be beneficial.
Loring Tripp stated that there is a huge need for this type of development in the Town.
Nicholas Filla stated that the Board looks forward to further review of the plan.

The Board took a five-minute recess.

BOA 3349
        CVS
Atty. Edward Angley began the presentation of a revised plan for to construct a CVS at the intersection of Beaver Dam and State Roads.
Jon Stephenson, VHB, Inc., reviewed the site plan changes.  They have met with the Manomet Steering Committee and the Design Review Board and incorporated their suggestions into the revised site plan.  The changes include the relocation of the dumpster and vertical compactor to the south side of the lot, they added a bus shelter at the intersection, ornamental fence along the retaining wall, and a landscape berm at southwest corner of property along the residential area.  The water line would Loop to the rear of the site, the guardrail along State Road would be wood with steel backing and they have enhanced the landscaping plan and added decorative light fixtures.  
Kevin Patten, BKA architects, reviewed the changes to the building,  The changes would include dormers and additional windows, gabled roof lines, and a unified receiving area.   The structure would be clapboard with brick elements.
Patrick Dunford, VHB Inc. reviewed the site access and traffic flow.  There would be one access on State Road and one access on Beaver Dam Road.   Both accesses have been designed to be as far from the traffic signals as possible and to satisfy sight distances.  Traffic would flow clockwise around the building.  There would be two lanes for the prescription pick up/drop off window.  The structure is smaller than other CVS prototypes at 11,800 sq. ft.   Land has been reserved for a future right turn lane on Beaver Dam Road.   The access permit application with Mass Highway for the curb cut on State Road will be submitted shortly.
Atty. Angley informed the Board that the Conservation Commission application would be submitted this week for review of the wetland area at the southwest corner of the property.
Loring Tripp suggested that a shingle façade and wooden signage would be more in keeping with the character of the surrounding New England Village look.
Mr. Patten stated that CVS looks for a maintenance free building and would be using a prefinished wood/resin clapboard product with a 20 year guarantee.  Wood shingling would require higher maintenance.  Mr. Tripp stated that the dedicated right turn lane on Beaver Dam Road should be created now and that other developers have donated funds for the traffic mitigation of that intersection.     
Mr. Tripp questioned whether the retaining wall would be visible from the road.  
Mr. Stephenson stated that the wall would only be visible from within the site.
Nicholas Filla agreed that the project should be designed with the right turn only lane on Beaver Dam Road.
Paul McAlduff questioned the size of the proposed building in comparison to the CVS in Cedarville.  Mr. McAlduff suggested reducing the prescription pick up/drop off to one lane.
Ms. Massard stated that the CVS in Cedarville is smaller at 10,900 sq. ft.
Malcolm MacGregor felt the building was too big for the site.
Larry Rosenblum agreed that this project was not appropriate for a neighborhood commercial area and that the character of the neighborhood should be protected.  Mr. Rosenblum felt that the changes that were made were not responsive to the major issues.
Ms. Massard stated that the project had a variety of inconsistencies with the bylaw.  Ms. Massard has not had time to conduct a thorough review of the traffic study, but noted that it was incomplete.  She was also concerned with sight distances, mitigation for the turning lane, crosswalk mitigation, the height of the proposed building exceeding the limit for the zone, the size of the building, the number of parking space, inadequate setbacks, no 50 ft buffer from the residential neighborhoods, overflow into the wetland area, drainage design and easements, etc.  
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend denial of the special permit to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
The proposed activity is not appropriate to the zone and not appropriate for this specific site:
The proposed building exceeds the maximum 25-foot height limit in the NC zone.
The proposed site plan does not meet the buffering requirements of a minimum of 50 feet proportional to the size of the commercial use as required under the Bylaw, other characteristics of use not in harmony with a residential environment or the existing character of the residential neighborhood.  
Given the previously stated planned goals of the Town to enhance landscaping, pedestrian access and buffering as the village center grows, this site plan contradicts the intent of the village center plan for this location:
This intersection is considered very important from and aesthetic perspective, in that it is a major intersection in the Manomet Village Center and is a gateway to this part of Plymouth.  According to the 1979 Village Centers Plan, the village center is to serve as, among other things, a
The Manomet Village Center Plan calls for a general intent of having [commercial] buildings located within 30-40 feet of the street line to reduce the
There is an historic church and cemetery located at the intersection, and the potential for redevelopment of the other two remaining corners to enhance community character is anticipated.
The traffic study notes that by 2010 (four years from now), a widening of the Beaver Dam Road approach to Route 3A will be needed based on projected traffic volumes regardless of the CVS, and that the site has been designed in anticipation of this need; however, no attempt to leave a minimum 20-foot landscaped area and between what will be the widened roadway and the proposed parking lot has been included in the current site plan along Beaver Dam Road.  
At the Planning Board meeting, the Petitioner stated that it is not willing to reduce the size of the proposed building at this location.
Adequate information has not been supplied by the Petitioner to determine whether adequate mitigation for any potential traffic impacts has been proposed and if the project meets the requirements of the NC zone, which prohibits uses of an incompatible nature or which serve a community or regional market and hence would be likely to create undue traffic, late hour operations or other characteristics of use not in harmony with a residential environment or the existing character of the residential neighborhood:
The Town of Plymouth Department of Public Works (DPW), Planning staff, Manomet Steering Committee and Planning Board have expressed concern over traffic impacts at the intersection.  The Planning Board and town staff have expressed the need to provide the land for the dedicated right-turn lane at Beaver Dam Road at this intersection as a condition of the special permit, and to consider participation in the process of evaluating the design configurations for this intersection, both as mitigation for the anticipated impacts to the intersection, neither of which has been offered or agreed to by the Petitioner at this time.
The Petitioner
A Comprehensive Permit has recently been issued to Manomet Ponds LLC for approximately 60 age-restricted dwelling units which will also utilize this intersection for access to the area where the community is located.  The proponent
Weekday AM peak period traffic capacity is not included in the traffic analysis, and some turning movements appear to be absent from the study.
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that adequate parking can be accommodated on the site with the size of the building that has been proposed in conformance with the Bylaw.  
The site plan shows a total of sixty (60) 10
At the Planning Board meeting, the Petitioner stated that it is not willing to reduce the size of the proposed building at this location.
Without Conservation Commission approval and revised detailed drainage plans for peer review, a determination cannot be made that adequate stormwater capacity is available at this site.  
Stormwater runoff is shown to be directed into subsurface leaching systems, with an emergency overflow into the wetland area and no easement for this emergency overflow is depicted on the plans.  
It is unclear whether all drainage will be retained on site or if the design is allowing for sheet flow onto State Road (which is the existing condition on the site).  
The drainage calculations have not been submitted for peer review by the Town Engineer and Town consulting engineer.
At staff-level review meetings in February, the site engineer advised that stone voids were included in the capacity calculations of the leaching basins shown on the plan, which is not consistent with the Town of Plymouth Design Guidelines for Stormwater, and will require an increase in the size of the leaching area shown from 1/3 to 2/3 that currently depicted on the plan.  
The plans depict removal of vegetation up to 10 feet from the wetland line for construction purposes and grading and a rip-rap spillway, neither of which depicts any plantings or restoration on the landscaping plan within the 25-foot
At the Planning Board meeting, the Petitioner stated that it is not willing to reduce the size of the proposed building at this location.
It cannot be determined, based on the information provided, whether there will be a hazard to pedestrians or vehicles:
The site plan shows a total of sixty (60) 10
According to one of the Planning Board members, the proposed Beaver Dam Road curb cut area is already blocked by traffic waiting at the signal at evening peak hours, and the Petitioner
Adequate information has not been supplied by the Petitioner to determine whether adequate mitigation for any potential traffic impacts has been proposed and if the project meets the requirements of the NC zone, which prohibits uses of an incompatible nature or which serve a community or regional market and hence would be likely to create undue traffic, late hour operations or other characteristics of use not in harmony with a residential environment or the existing character of the residential neighborhood.  The Town of Plymouth Department of Public Works (DPW), Planning staff, Manomet Steering Committee and Planning Board have expressed concern over traffic impacts at the intersection.  The Planning Board and town staff have expressed the need to provide the land for the dedicated right-turn lane at Beaver Dam Road at this intersection as a condition of the special permit, and to consider participation in the process of evaluating the design configurations for this intersection, both as mitigation for the anticipated impacts to the intersection, neither of which has been offered or agreed to by the Petitioner at this time.
Additionally, adequate information has not been provided:
The Petitioner
A Comprehensive Permit has recently been issued to Manomet Ponds LLC for approximately 60 age-restricted dwelling units which will also utilize this intersection for access to the area where the community is located.  The proponent
Weekday AM peak period traffic capacity is not included in the traffic analysis, and some turning movements appear to be absent from the study.
There will be a nuisance and adverse effect upon the neighborhood.
The proposed building exceeds the maximum 25-foot height limit in the NC zone, which prohibits uses of an incompatible nature or which serve a community or regional market and hence would be likely to create undue traffic, late hour operations or other characteristics of use not in harmony with a residential environment or the existing character of the residential neighborhood.
The proposed site plan does not meet the buffering requirements of a minimum of 50 feet proportional to the size of the commercial use, in harmony with a residential environment or the existing character of the residential neighborhood.   At the Planning Board meeting, the Petitioner stated that it is not willing to reduce the size of the proposed building at this location.
Given the previously stated planned goals of the Town to enhance landscaping, pedestrian access and buffering as the village center grows, this site plan contradicts the intent of the village center plan for this location.  
This intersection is considered very important from and aesthetic perspective, in that it is a major intersection in the Manomet Village Center and is a gateway to this part of Plymouth.  According to the 1979 Village Centers Plan, the village center is to serve as, among other things, a
The Manomet Village Center Plan calls for a general intent of having [commercial] buildings located within 30-40 feet of the street line to reduce the
There is an historic church and cemetery located at the intersection, and the potential for redevelopment of the other two remaining corners to enhance community character is anticipated.
The traffic study notes that by 2010 (four years from now), a widening of the Beaver Dam Road approach to Route 3A will be needed based on projected traffic volumes regardless of the CVS, and that the site has been designed in anticipation of this need; however, no attempt to leave a minimum 20-foot landscaped area and between what will be the widened roadway and the proposed parking lot has been included in the current site plan along Beaver Dam Road.  
At the Planning Board meeting, the Petitioner stated that it is not willing to reduce the size of the proposed building at this location.
The Town of Plymouth Department of Public Works (DPW), Planning staff, Manomet Steering Committee and Planning Board have expressed concern over traffic impacts at the intersection.  The Planning Board and town staff have expressed the need to provide the land for the dedicated right-turn lane at Beaver Dam Road at this intersection as a condition of the special permit, and to consider participation in the process of evaluating the design configurations for this intersection, both as mitigation for the anticipated impacts to the intersection, neither of which has been offered or agreed to by the Petitioner at this time.
Adequate information has not been supplied by the Petitioner to determine whether adequate mitigation for any potential traffic impacts has been proposed and if the project meets the requirements of the NC zone, which prohibits uses of an incompatible nature or which serve a community or regional market and hence would be likely to create undue traffic, late hour operations or other characteristics of use not in harmony with a residential environment or the existing character of the residential neighborhood.  
According to one of the Planning Board members, the proposed Beaver Dam Road curb cut area is already blocked by traffic waiting at the signal at evening peak hours, and the Petitioner
Additionally, adequate information has not been provided:
The Petitioner
A Comprehensive Permit has recently been issued to Manomet Ponds LLC for approximately 60 age-restricted dwelling units which will also utilize this intersection for access to the area where the community is located.  The proponent
Weekday AM peak period traffic capacity is not included in the traffic analysis, and some turning movements appear to be absent from the study.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).  

BOA 3348
        Watercourse/Black Cat Road (3/8)
Atty. Edward Angley informed the Board that previously BOA Case # 3313 was withdrawn without prejudice, in order to include Black Cat Cranberry in the filing by Meharg.  
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc., reviewed the plan to expand the Meharg bogs and remove 163,000 cubic yards of material and 61,000 cubic yard from Black Cat Cranberry bogs.  The trucks would enter the site from Black Cat Road and exit through Watercourse Place and Billington Street.   
Gregory Keeland, PA Landers, stated that he oversees the earth removal operation. Mr. Keelan suggested that he increase the 6 cents per cubic yard to cover the cost of road mitigations to $25,000 (just over ten cents per cubic yard).  The DPW should use the funds to mitigate any deterioration of the roadways, but it would be at their discretion.  Mr. Keeland felt that the cost estimate submitted by the Town Engineer of $1,025,000 to improve the roadway conditions was excessive.   The permit allows for 45 trucks per day; one truck approximately every twelve minutes.   Mr. Keelan felt that the impact of his vehicles is marginal regarding the wear on the roadway.  He felt that the Town receives Chapter 90 money to repair roadways from the State that is funded through fees assessed to commercial truckers
Jim Simpson, 196 Black Cat Road, submitted a copy of a petition signed by over 175 neighbors asking the Town
Steven Bianchi, 297 Black Cat Road, stated that the permit was for a two year earth removal operation and that the noise level, dirt, dust and number of trucks affect the quality of life for the neighborhood.
Robert Reifus, Black Cat Road, felt that there is a safety issue due to the narrow winding roads and that although the $25,000 is a nice idea, it would not be adequate to restore the roads.  He also stated that the applicant is supposed to restore the roads, not the Town
Alice Heckman, 184 Black Cat Road, stated that the roads were not designed to handle the large trucks and they propose a safety hazard.  During one-hour period, there are six to eight trucks.
Matthew Hall, 13 Braley Road, stated that the back entrance of Morton Park are also traveled by these trucks and propose a safety issue.
Ruth Calderra, 199 Billington Street, stated that the trucks damaged two feet of her front lawn, which was repaired by Landers.  She also said that last summer a fire truck and Landers truck almost collided in front of her house.  She was concerned with the safety issues and the noise.  
Malcolm MacGregor stated that although he is a fan of cranberry bogs, which are an economic asset, creating them in this manner where it obliterates the quality of life is unacceptable.
Larry Rosenblum felt that the project would not be in the best interest of the community and that he would not support this petition.   
Nicholas Filla felt that the petition shows the response of the neighborhoods and that the project is a nuisance to the neighbors.  This does not meet the expectations of a special permit.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
The proposed activity is appropriate to the zone but not this specific site.  Sand and gravel excavation is allowed by Special Permit and is necessary for the development of the cranberry bog expansion and associated access; however, the area and truck route also encompass residential communities will be negatively impacted by the truck traffic and earth removal activities.
Adequate and appropriate facilities are not available as proposed.  The Town of Plymouth Department of Public Works (DPW) has stated that the roads for the proposed truck route, Watercourse Road and Black Cat Road, are not designed for the anticipated truck load from the proposed earth removal project; that Black Cat Road is narrow with horizontal and vertical alignments that are unsuitable for high volumes of heavy vehicles; and that an analysis of roadway structural conditions and possibly roadway improvements including an upgrade of the roadways to withstand the truck use proposed will be needed (January 27, 2006 memorandum).  The proposed gift of $25,000 to mitigate for potential repairs and improvements to the roadways does is not adequate for the project.
There will be a hazard to pedestrians or vehicles.  Although the grading and excavation work will be temporary and limited to the site, the proposed truck route is not safe for the size and volume of the truck traffic anticipated from the proposed project.  Black Cat Road is narrow with horizontal and vertical alignments that are unsuitable for high volumes of heavy vehicles, with blind curves and inadequate passing room for vehicles coming in the opposite direction.  Pedestrians and bicyclists will not be safe on the roadway in these conditions; no sidewalk is available in this area for pedestrian use.
There will be a nuisance and adverse effect upon the neighborhood.  Although the earth removal activities are limited to the subject property, the dust and sand, and aesthetically unpleasing vista of the open sand mined areas is a nuisance and detracts from the quality of life of the residents around the bogs.  The noise from the proposed activity will detract from the quality of life of the residents surrounding the bog and along the truck route: trucks passing the residences six days a week; work starting at or before 7 am six days a week; and day-long warning beepers on the various vehicles when backing up will create constant noise in these residential communities.  The residents will be adversely affected due to degraded road conditions and unsafe roadway passage to and from their respective households as the project is currently proposed.
The vote was (4-1) with Paul McAlduff in opposition.

Conceptual Review                                                       
        GAF Engineering/RDD off Long Pond Road, Map 85, Lot 8
Valerie Massard presented a conceptual review for a subdivision of 298 Long Pond Road.  The 6.42 acre lot could be subdivided into a VOSD with two residential lots with an open space lot.  The additional lot would be accessed through the current driveway for the existing single family dwelling. Ms. Massard was concerned with the frontage setbacks on a major road.  Ms. Massard stated that if the sewer lines are extended along Long Pond Road, the property could become a Chapter 40B project.
Nicholas Filla questioned whether a subdivision road could be built.
Ms. Massard replied that a road could be constructed.  
Loring Tripp felt that subdividing this lot might set a dangerous precedent.  
Lee Hartmann stated that this property abuts a US Wildlife parcel and the open space from this proposal would be additional open space for the area.  The proposal could be acceptable, but would require further review.
Larry Rosenblum questioned how the open space determined.
Ms. Massard replied that the applicant may be willing to add more open space, but that a minimum of 40% is required.
Mr. Rosenblum felt they should expand the open space.  
Loring Tripp was concerned with the protection of a potential vernal pool.
Nicholas Filla asked to staff to find out the minimum size lots that would be acceptable to the applicant.

Malcolm MacGregor informed the Board that the lot on the corner of Holman Road and Long Pond Road is hazardous to drivers.  The sand and/or snow blowing across Long Pond Road is blinding traffic heading west.
Lee Hartmann stated that the Board could request that the lot be permanently stabilized.  

Minutes:
Loring Tripp moved to accept the minutes of February 6, 13, and 21, 2006 as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

Malcolm MacGregor moved to adjourn at 10:45 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

Respectfully Submitted,



Eileen M. Hawthorne
Administrative Assistant                                Approved on: March 27, 2006