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: Malcolm MacGregor, Paul McAlduff, Loring Tripp, III, Larry Rosenblum, and Marc Garrett.
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Form A’s:
A4216 – Map 27, Lot 65B (6.13A), Stafford St – Subdivide into lots 65B-7 (3.03A) and 65B-8 (6.13A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0),
A4215 – Map 101, Lot 53C (16.78A), Armstrong Rd – Subdivide into lots 53J (14.01A) and 53K (2.77A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Plymouth Energy Committee
Wind Energy Facility Zoning Bylaw
Brian Kuhn, representing the Plymouth Energy Committee requested that the Board revisit the Wind Energy Bylaw that was approved at Fall Town Meeting, 2005. The bylaw that was approved defined the site for construction of a windmill as five-acre parcels of municipal land. The Attorney General’s office approved the bylaw with the exception of the defined location. The committee has spent several months trying to define areas that would be appropriate locations for the windmills. Mr. Kuhn stated that the goal is to put a bylaw into effect that will encourage alternative energy solutions, but at the same time provide protection for the community.
Lee Hartmann stated that the committee has also worked toward creating a public process to identify an overlay district, but has been limited by lack of funding and staff support.
The Board was supportive of revisiting the Wind Energy Bylaw at this Fall Annual Town Meeting.
Mr. Kuhn invited the Board to take a field trip with the Energy Committee to view the Hull wind farm.
Loring Tripp requested copies of the current bylaw so the Board could begin the review process.
Marc Garrett left the meeting to attend a Conservation Commission hearing.
Public Hearing (cont.)
B537 – Village at South Meadow VOSD
Loring Tripp moved to continue to 8:00 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Minutes:
May 15, 2006
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of May 15, 2006 as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
May 22, 2006
Paul McAlduff requested that the attendance at the May 22, 2006 meeting be adjusted to reflect that Marc Garrett attended the meeting and Nicholas Filla was not in attendance.
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of May 22, 2006 with the above requested change; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
June 19, 2006
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of May 15, 2006 as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Administrative:
B436 – Pinehills LLC - Road Names
Valerie Massard presented a request for approval of the following street names requested by GP Pines LLC, for the Great Island Community:
Rebecca’s Landing Old Evergreen Path Traveler’s Rest
Trillium Rise Red Canoe Sweetfern Hill
Greengage Crescent Hidden Cove
Loring Tripp moved to approve the above-mentioned road names as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
B524 – Orchard Hills – Lot Release and Phasing Covenant
Valerie Massard presented a partial release of covenant for lots 15-6, 15-9, and 15-15 in the Orchard Hills subdivision and a phasing covenant for endorsement by the Board. The release is part of a legal settlement for the subdivision.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to endorse the partial release of covenant and the phasing covenant; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
B296 – Ponds At Plymouth – grass strips
Valerie Massard requested direction from the Planning Board regarding the efforts by Pulte Homes to loam and seed the grass strips in the Ponds at Plymouth subdivision. The only grass strips that have survived are the ones maintained by the homeowners. Pulte has considered installing gravel, wood chips, or leaving in a natural state but has requested the Board’s input.
The Board directed Pulte Homes to reseed the grass strips with a drought tolerant seed mix and utilize watering trucks to water the mix until the grass is established.
BOA 3378 – SRW Contractor’s Supply
Robert J Way
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, presented the request for special permits in order to operate a contractors supply building and yard on property located on Map 83, Lot 23-39, Robert J. Way. The applicant received a special permit two years ago, but the permit lapsed before construction began. Mr. Shaw stated that the building would be similar to the vacant J& J Materials building on Cherry St.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the draft recommendation in the Board’s packets was based on the previous vote.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The applicant must conform to all required Local, State and Federal Regulations prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
A current and valid waste pickup contract between the owner and a licensed hazardous waste hauler must be on file with the Building Commissioner at all times if hazardous wastes are handled at the facility.
Conservation Commission permits will be required for any work under its purview.
Outdoor storage and screening will be shown on the plans, to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals, prior to issuance of the Zoning Permit.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Site Plan Review
4 Collins Ave
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, presented a site plan review for 96 additional parking spaces adjacent to an existing manufacturing building at 4 Collins Ave. The site will require minimal re-grading and natural vegetation removal.
Larry Rosenblum moved to recommend that the Building Commissioner be notified that the site plan will comply with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw after the following issues are addressed:
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, a Registered Professional Engineer must certify that the drainage system, drive ways, curbing and parking areas have been installed according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the approved site plan.
Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.
Lighting is to comply with the Light Pollution Bylaw. Light poles should not exceed twelve feet in height (20 foot high poles are proposed).
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Valerie Massard presented letters thanking former committee members for their service for endorsement by the Board.
B520 – Beaver Dam Ridge
Ms. Massard presented a request for a lot release in the Beaver Dam Ridge subdivision.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to endorse the release of covenant for lot 9-11 in B520 - Beaver Dam Ridge; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
B497 – Bog View Place
Ms. Massard informed the Board that a portion of the Bog View Place subdivision is being conveyed to a separate builder. A request to release the current covenant and enter into separate covenants with each of the builders has been submitted.
Loring Tripp moved to release the existing covenant for Bog View Place and enter into separate covenants with each of the builders; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
B526 – Alpine Estates
Ms. Massard presented a request to reduce the bond held for Alpine Estates for work completed in the subdivision in the amount of sixteen thousand, one hundred five dollars and 00/100 ($16,105.00).
Loring Tripp moved to release the bond for B526 – Alpine Estates in the amount of $16,105.00; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3376 – Cedarville Property Land
State & Old County Roads/British Beer Company
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, began the presentation of a request for special permits in order to construct 14,000-sq. ft. of retail space and 30 units of age restricted housing on Map 54, Lots 5-2B-4, 5-3-1A and 6-6, at the intersection of State Road and Old County Road. The retail would be constructed next to the existing British Beer Company with the residential component constructed at the rear of the site. The residential section would consist of several town house units and a twelve-unit building with parking underneath. Sidewalks and crosswalks will direct pedestrian flow toward the retail center. An auxiliary parking area has been located behind the Tedeschi’s site. The applicant is in the process of obtaining an MOU from DPW regarding the traffic mitigations necessary. The applicant has
discussed with Bruce Arons, Community Development Director, making a contribution to another location for affordable housing. All drainage and sewerage would be on site and the site will be serviced by municipal water. The proposed plan has 45 more parking spaces than required. The petition has been reviewed by the Cedarville Steering Committee, which has submitted a letter to the Board outlining its concerns regarding traffic and safety and suggestions to improve the project.
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that staff had not drafted a recommendation to date, as there were 13 points of discussion that needed to be addressed. The thirteen points are as follows:
The status of the applicant’s meetings with the DPW regarding infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the project.
The status of the applicants meeting with the Director of Community Development relating to Affordable Housing.
Review of the architectural design and layout of the retail building, 12-unit age restricted building, and the 18 townhouses.
A description of façade treatments and building materials.
The location and screening of building mechanicals (HVAC).
Review of the traffic impacts of this project and the improvements required for the nearby project (currently under appeal).
Review of site landscaping and buffers to abutting residential dwellings. Street furniture should be included in the plan. The box type lighting proposed is not in keeping with a mixed use/residential development. Decorative lights are encouraged.
The acceptability of the proposed 12-foot retaining wall.
The acceptability of having parking 300 feet from the nearest residential dwelling and 500 feet from the proposed retail building.
The amount of gravel to be removed from the site.
Location and screening of trash receptacles.
Curbing and sidewalk treatments along State Road and Old County Road.
Document total number of parking spaces proposed.
A peer review of the project has outlined five issues regarding traffic patterns and the need for site plan approval.
Anne Skelly, Cedarville Steering Committee, informed the Board that their comments echo the concerns of staff. There is a need for small retail space, but traffic and safety is a concern. The committee also suggested installing sidewalks on Old County and State Roads, installing landscaping on all four sides, and buffering from the abutting neighbors.
Mr. Shaw stated that the applicant would like to begin the retail component of this as phase one of a master plan. They understand that the residential component would need to be worked out with the neighbors. They would also need a gravel removal permit for the necessary grading of the site.
Larry Rosenblum felt that the residential component was too dense. There was no significant usable space for residents or any amenities provided. Mr. Rosenblum suggested putting multiple entrances to the retail building instead of having a solid façade facing Old County and State Roads. He was also concerned with the parking appendage behind Tedeschi’s becoming a dumping area. Mr. Rosenblum suggested that the topography of the site could be used to a better advantage.
Paul McAlduff stated that significant landscaping would camouflage the façade of the building.
Mr. Shaw stated that they could return at a future meeting with further detail on the project.
Loring Tripp had a variety of concerns regarding the access and egress for the residential component and the commercial area. Mr. Tripp suggested that the two components should be separated with the commercial access off State Road and the residential access off Old County Road. Mr. Tripp suggested removing the 12-unit building as the project was too dense and relocating the townhouses to leave more open space and be more sensitive to the neighbors. He also felt the parking was excessive and that the streetscape should be similar to that which was approved for the Stop & Shop project across the street.
Malcolm MacGregor agreed with the comments made by both Mr. Rosenblum and Mr. Tripp. Mr. MacGregor suggested relocating the retail building and he was not in favor of any gravel removal from the site.
Mr. Shaw, the applicant, and other representatives left the room to discuss whether to move forward or to postpone their hearing.
Marc Garrett returned to the meeting.
Public Hearing (cont.)
B537 - South Meadow Village
Atty. Edward Angley presented revised plans for a Village Open Space Development on Map 105, Lot 8-3 and 8-4, South Meadow Road. The current plan details six townhouse units (three duplexes) on a 2.9-acre site with a common driveway. The site would have 1.22 acres of open space.
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. reviewed the surrounding neighborhood and the existing conditions on the site. The site could have a standard three-lot subdivision with duplex units or eight units including two affordable housing units as bonus units. The plans showed a fifty-foot buffer along both sides and 75 feet along back of the site. NStar owns a thirty-foot lot that runs along the east side and the rear of the site. Approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill will need to be brought in to the site. Mr. Flaherty stated that the West Plymouth Steering Committee suggested that additional parking spaces should be provided therefore, the increase to 28 spaces. Mr. Flaherty stated that the architecture would be similar to the Murray St. project. The townhouses would have 1250 sq. ft of
living space on the first floor with 350-sq. ft. on the second floor - two bedroom units some with a loft. Mr. Flaherty reviewed the grading and utility plan and the drainage for the site. The Town is reviewing drainage issues on South Meadow Rd. The hydrant flow test has been completed and determined that there is adequate water pressure and flow. There are existing hydrants on South Meadow Rd and one will be installed on the site. The units will have interior sprinkler systems. There will be three septic systems on site. Jon Henson handed out two planting plans for the site. He reviewed the preferred alternative, which included shade tree plantings along South Meadow Rd., with low level planting at the entry area, plantings surrounding the drainage area, and shade trees along the drive to reduce headlight glare. Open grid pavers with grass planted in between will be installed in the two turnaround areas provided for emergency
or service vehicles. Two crescent shaped retaining walls will be installed. The units will be surrounded by a lawn area which extends to a meadow area to be planted with a wildflower mix and additional plantings that will extend to the buffer area around the perimeter of the site.
Atty. Edward Angley stated that the density calculations allow for a total of six units. There will be some tree trimming in the right of way to improve sight distances. Atty. Angley stated that all drainage would be contained on site.
Lee Hartmann stated that this alternative provided a good design for the site. Mr. Hartmann suggested adding a condition that would prohibit “chain link” fencing around the retention area. Mr. Hartmann felt that the 22-ft. driveway would provide ample parking spaces along the side and that some of the parking spaces shown could be eliminated.
Harold Volta and Donna Forbes were concerned with the traffic impact on South Meadow Rd. and the existing drainage issues.
Larry Rosenblum felt that the entire length of South Meadow Rd. is a safety issue as the traffic moves too fast and the road could use some calming measures. He stated that the drainage issue needed to be addressed by DPW. Mr. Rosenblum suggested using the pavers for the overflow parking areas as well as the turnarounds.
Paul McAlduff suggested eliminating the extra parking spots and using the pavers for the parking areas. Mr. McAlduff was concerned that the 22-ft. width of the driveway might be excessive.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested narrowing the driveway.
Mr. Hartmann explained that the Fire Chief prefers the 22-ft. wide driveway for a better turning radius for the emergency vehicles.
Mr. MacGregor suggested keeping the driveway at 22 ft. off South Meadow Rd. and then gradually narrowing the drive to 18-ft. beginning approximately 50 ft into the drive. Mr. MacGregor also suggested eliminating ten of the parking spaces.
Marc Garrett was concerned with the increase to traffic on South Meadow Rd. and felt that the density could be a safety issue.
Loring Tripp moved to approve the B537 – Village at South Meadow plan subject to the following conditions:
The Petitioner agrees to waive its right to further subdivide the lots shown on the definitive subdivision plan, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 41, through a deed restriction on the lots, and this shall be noted on the plan. The term "subdivided" shall include the process of division of the lots into parcels by means of a plan not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. Notwithstanding this provision, the Planning Board may endorse the relocation of any lot lines when consistent with the intent and purpose of this restriction. Said restriction shall be in place prior to the issuance of building permits.
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 subdivision 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 Petitioner agrees to attend a pre-construction meeting, and to stake the open space in the vicinity of construction to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, prior to the start of any earth work at the site. Said stakes are to remain in place until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Conditional upon the payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for the land shown on the definitive subdivision plan, if any. Verification of payment is to be provided to the Planning Board prior to endorsement of the definitive subdivision plan.
Prior to endorsement of the VOSD division plan, the plan will be revised to detail the conditions of the approval, as needed, and notes specifying the conditions will be incorporated into the plan or the decision will be recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds with the plan. The Petitioner shall provide revised drainage calculations, drainage structure details, and shall address the stated concerns of the Town Engineer, Fire Chief, the Planning Board’s consulting engineer and the Planning Staff’s punch-list of remaining items as they evolved through the public hearing process, if any (to be prepared by staff and issued to the Petitioner within five (5) business days of the date of the recording of this decision with the Town Clerk), to the satisfaction of the Planning Board.
A Street Opening Permit is required from the Town Engineer’s office for the proposed roadway.
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
Four (4) sets of full sized copies of all drawings comprising the VOSD 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.
The Petitioner agrees to record a Restrictive Covenant. Evidence of recording of said Restrictive Covenant is to be presented to the Planning Board.
Evidence that Restrictive Covenants on the land have been recorded must be presented to the Planning Board, which will include but not be limited to the following provisions:
The Petitioner has agreed to waive his 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 Restrictive Covenants.
The Restrictive Covenants may include language with respect to tree cutting on open space or no-cut buffer areas (if any are located on lands owned or managed by the homeowners association) which may impose a fine of $100 per day for the first thirty (30) days and a $200 per day thereafter, for any tree cutting other than removal of hazardous or diseased trees in these areas.
Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit for any individual lot, the Petitioner shall:
Install individual lampposts on each individual lot within thirty (30) feet of the individual units’ driveways.
The Petitioner shall provide concrete bounds at appropriate open space corners as approved by the Planning Board.
The Petitioner agrees to create a condominium as the form of ownership of the premises. Said condominium shall be in place prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits.
The Petitioner has agreed to provide a maintenance program for drainage facilities and appurtenances, open space, parking and common drive/emergency access areas to be maintained by the condominium owner’s trust, which shall be detailed in the condominium owner’s trust documents for this project.
The open space within the project is to be privately owned and maintained by the condominium association in a manner consistent with conservation and recreational purposes, as noted in this decision. In the event that the condominium should no longer be in existence, the disposition of the open space shall be determined through a mutually agreeable alternative as approved by the Planning Board.
Any signage shall comply with the Zoning Bylaw or additional permits will be required.
The applicant shall meet with the Town’s Traffic Safety Committee to determine if additional traffic signage is needed on South Meadow Road in the vicinity of this development. If addition signage is deemed necessary, said signage shall be installed at the applicant’s expense.
The applicant has agreed to gift the Town $10,000 ($2,000 per each additional unit proposed) to be used for drainage and infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the development.
The applicant has agreed to create an easement in the land along South Meadow Road to be gifted to the Town for future highway purposes (this includes sidewalks).
A maximum of two (2) bedrooms shall be allowed in each dwelling.
The driveway width at South Meadow Road shall be 22 feet and shall taper to a width of 18 feet in the vicinity of the overflow parking area and for the remainder of the driveway.
Four (4) overflow parking spaces shall be provided. The surface for this parking area shall be either gravel or grid pavers as proposed for the emergency turn around areas.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Planning Board shall review and approve the architectural design and façade treatments, and exterior building materials for each dwelling.
Adequate fire flow and static pressure for water must be demonstrated by the Petitioner, and requirements of the Fire Chief with respect to hydrants must be satisfied. In addition, the Petitioner must receive appropriate approvals from the Plymouth DPW with respect to the sewer connection. The applicant has agreed to install fire suppression sprinkler systems in each unit.
Trash receptacles must be screened with landscaping and decorative fencing.
The chain link fence proposed around the drainage area fronting on South Meadow Road shall be eliminated.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
William Shaw informed the Board that the petitioners for Zoning Board of Appeals Case No. 3376, Cedarville Property Land Owner LLC had agreed to ask for a continuance from the ZBA until October in order to further develop their plans.
The Board took a five-minute recess.
Public Hearing
B538 – 298 Long Pond Road
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
James Shores, GAF Engineering, presented the request for a Rural Density Development (RDD) special permit for property located on Map 85, Lot 8, Long Pond Rd. The site is 6.4 acres and would be subdivided into two house lots with separate driveways and 4.3 acres of open space.
Lee Hartmann showed a map of preserved land in the area. This property abuts conservation land and would create additional open space.
Carl Julian questioned the impact on his driveway and whether there would be enough of a buffer between the properties.
Valerie Massard showed the proposed plan to Mr. Julian, which showed a buffer of approximately 250-ft.
Larry Rosenblum suggested using a shared driveway instead of separate driveways.
Mr. Shore replied that the existing driveway is a U shaped driveway, but the project could be done with a shared driveway.
Loring Tripp moved to approve B538 – 298 Long Pond Road subject to the following conditions:
The petitioner agrees to waive his or her right to further subdivide the lots shown as Lots 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 41 and 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, through a Deed Restriction or Restrictive Covenant on the parcels. The term "subdivided" shall include the process of division of the lots into parcels by means of a plan not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. Notwithstanding this provision, the Planning Board may endorse the relocation of any lot lines when consistent with the intent and purpose of this
restriction.
Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit for any individual lot, the Petitioner shall offer ownership of the open space to the Town of Plymouth, either to the Conservation Commission or to Town Meeting, for conservation or recreational purposes under the provisions of Article 97 of the Amendments to the State Constitution at no cost to the Town. Said offer shall include title insurance on the land, and rights over the access easement to the open space lot. The Planning Board makes no guarantee that the Town will accept the parcel; in the event that the land is not accepted, a mutually agreeable alternative shall be approved by the Planning Board.
A single shared driveway drive and one curb cut on Long Pond Road shall be used to access both the existing dwelling on Lot 8-2 and the proposed dwelling on Lot 8-1.
The Approval Not Required Plan shall make reference to this Special Permit, note that it is “recoded herewith” and will reflect Conditions No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 of the Special Permit with said reference.
Prior to endorsement of the Approval Not Required plan, verification of payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for the land shown on the Approval Not Required plan, if any, is to be provided to the Planning Board.
Prior to endorsement of the Approval Not Required plan, the plan will be revised to detail the conditions of the approval, as needed, including: an easement for the common drive to the new lot for access; an access easement for the open space lot.
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Lot 8-1, the Planning Board shall review and approve the proposed dwelling location.
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, evidence that this Special Permit Decision and the Restrictive Covenant or Deed Restrictions in Condition No. 1 have been recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Planning Board.
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner agrees to stake the open space in the vicinity of construction to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, prior to the start of any earth work at the site. Said stakes are to remain in place until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, four (4) sets of full sized copies of all drawings comprising the Approval Not Required 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.
Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for any individual lot, for Lot 8-3 concrete bounds shall be set at each lot corner, turning points and every 500 feet along straight property lines.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Site Plan Review
23 Resnik Road
Dan Orwig, Orwig Associates, presented the site plan review for Map 103, Lot 14K-154, 23 Resnik Road. The parcel consists of 1.95 acres. The proposed building is 26,576-sq. ft. with 62 parking spaces. The building will be office and warehouse space. There is an existing drainage easement on the site. Approximately 7,000 cubic yards of material will be removed. A crosswalk with an island will connect to the adjacent site for pedestrian access. The applicant will have to file with the Conservation Commission as the project is near a wetland area. Mr. Orwig reviewed the landscape, lighting, and drainage plans.
Paul Blanchard, Blanchard Architectural, reviewed the architecture and elevations for the site.
Loring Tripp moved to notify the Building Commissioner that the site plan will comply with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw after the following issues are addressed.
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit a Registered Professional Engineer must certify that the drainage system, drive ways, curbing and parking areas have been installed according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the approved site plan.
Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.
Lighting is to comply with the Light Pollution Bylaw. Light poles should not exceed twelve feet in height.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Lee Hartmann presented the final draft of the master plan to the Board. Mr. Hartmann asked the Board to review the document and submit any changes. Mr. Hartmann stated that the maps would be redone on 11”x17” paper for clarity.
Paul McAlduff announced that the Cedarville Family Fun Day would be held on August 5, 2006 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Elmer Raymond Park.
The Board requested that any unsigned mail addressed to the Board not be included in the Board’s agenda packets.
Loring Tripp moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne
Administrative Assistant Approved on: August 28, 2006
| 
