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: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Form A’s:
4224 – Map 87, Lots 19, 20, & 21 – Combine a portion of lot 19 with lots 20 and 21 to create lots 20-1 and 19-1
Loring Tripp moved for the clerk to endorse the plan; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Paul McAlduff arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Pilgrim Necklace Presentation
George Crombie and Dennis Carlone presented the proposed Pilgrim Necklace for the Downtown/Waterfront area. The plans include many related projects: define the Town’s Gateways; upgrade Nelson Park; at Stephen’s Field, develop the DPW land with neighborhood housing, upgrade the park, and provide a connection along the waterfront between the two parks; Town pier revitalization; constructing a promenade between Brewster and Park Avenues; constructing the parking garage behind Memorial Hall; create links to get visitors on the waterfront up onto the Main, and Court Streets areas; provide a walking tour of the Town’s historic buildings; create an environmental resource area at Jenney Pond, and redesign courthouse square. Information kiosks would be erected throughout the downtown area with
maps, directions, and advertising. The projects would be funded through state and local entities with a possibility of some private funding.
Mr. Carlone stated that it is being done as a group, but the DPW is a major developer of the Town’s infrastructure. He also stated that the ideas for the improvements are included in the Town’s Master Plan, but there has never been an implementation plan to make this work.
Loring Tripp felt the concepts were exciting, but was concerned with converting the land adjacent to Stephen’s Field into housing. He felt it would be more appropriate to expand the parking areas. Mr. Tripp suggested that the Planning Board should be kept apprised of the proposed plans as they may also be able to apply for funding of portions of the project.
Mr. Carlone stated that they are beginning to look toward Federal funding as well as State funding.
Mr. Crombie felt that when the current waterfront leases are up for renewal, they should be carefully reviewed.
Paul McAlduff suggested that something similar to Boston’s Freedom Trail should be included in the waterfront improvement plans. Mr. McAlduff also suggested that Destination Plymouth and the Chamber should be included in all discussions of improvements, especially in regards to the parking. The parking problem needs to be addressed before any parking spaces are eliminated.
Mr. Crombie stated that parking could be done through a public/private enterprise with the possibility of a Federal grant for parking and transportation.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that there could be some external sites utilized for parking with a shuttle service available to bring visitors to the downtown area.
Larry Rosenblum suggested decentralizing the parking and defining structured parking, drafting design standards and getting all the plans in place before the developers are involved.
Marc Garrett felt that it was important for the recreation fields to be maintained or the use transferred to another area
Mr. Crombie felt that the parks need to be neighborhood parks. The marina component is a tremendous opportunity for tour ships to come in and would require dredging of the harbor, which may be eligible for Federal funding.
Mr. Tripp suggested that the cobblestones on Main Street should be restored.
Elspeth Franks was concerned that using cobblestones would make it difficult for handicap access and a smoother surface should be considered.
The Board looks forward to working with the DPW on this project.
Public Hearings – Town Meeting Articles
Rezone Obery Street
Obery Street Overlay District
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notices and opened the public hearings for the rezoning of lots 43-E, 43-F, and 44 on Map 27 from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Lot Residential (R25) and for the creation of the Obery Street Overlay District (OSOD).
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that the Obery Street Master Plan Committee has been very active in drafting a master plan for the area. One of their concerns was the type of development that could occur under the current zoning. Under the current zoning, a retail structure larger than Shaw’s could be built. This article would create an overlay district that would encompass the high school property, the Whiting Lane area and the existing commercial area. The overlay district would limit the commercial development to those uses that are appropriate in a residential neighborhood. Any existing or permitted commercial businesses would not be affected by the adoption of the overlay district. Mr. Hartmann handed out draft design standards for the overlay district.
Nicholas Filla informed the Board that the Obery Street Master Plan Committee unanimously supported the creation of the overlay district, design standards, and the proposed rezoning of several lots on Obery Street. Mr. Filla requested the Board’s support of both articles.
Atty. Larry Winokur informed the Board that Mayflower Bank has under agreement two lots to the east of Marylou’s Coffee for the construction of a drive through bank with office space and that the use of the space is frozen due the Form A plan that was filed recently.
Larry Rosenblum asked if the zoning changes would eliminate small retail uses.
Mr. Filla replied, yes, the committee reviewed both ends of Obery Street and felt that there were adequate retail uses in the area. Also, the Hospital and Courthouse have their own cafeterias and there is a possibility of the high school adding a culinary component. DPW is considering adding a rotary or roundabout at the hospital/high school intersection.
Mr. Hartmann informed the Board that during the public hearings held by the Obery Street Master Plan Committee, the residents were adamant about not allowing any further retail uses.
Loring Tripp moved to close the public hearings; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Loring Tripp moved to recommend support of the rezoning of lots 43-E, 43-F, and 44 on Map 27 from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Lot Residential (R25); the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Loring Tripp moved to recommend approval of the following language creating the Obery Street Overlay District and design standards:
§ 205-75.Obery Street Overlay District (OSOD).
A. Intent. The intent of the Obery Street Overlay District (OSOD) is to permit a limited and reasonable amount of non-residential development that is in harmony with the residential and historic character of the Obery Street neighborhood.
The Obery Street neighborhood is an area in transition. The intent of this overlay district is to encourage a cohesive mix of uses that incorporates the proposed public and institutional facilities, as well as limited commercial development while also protecting the quality of life of the homeowners in the neighborhood.
B. Location.
(1) The Obery Street Overlay District (OSOD) shall be considered as overlaying other zoning districts and is as delineated on Zoning Map No. 1. Unless expressly in conflict with any provision of the OSOD, all use and dimensional requirements and restrictions of the underlying district shall continue to apply.
C. Objectives.
(1) Encourage “park like” or campus style development through the use of boulevard roads and drives, open space, landscaping, and mature trees;
(2) Promote uses that enhance and compliment the economic potential and community significance of the Obery Street area that are in harmony with park like settings; and
(3) To encourage a mix of uses, building and building designs.
D. Allowed uses.
(1) All allowed uses provided for in the underlying district.
(2) Municipal offices and community service uses.
(3) Professional, general and medical office buildings under 5,000 square feet gross floor area.
(4) Professional, general and medical office buildings under 5,000 square feet ground floor area and under 10,000 square feet gross floor area on lots exceeding 40,000 square feet.
(5) Financial and banking institutions under 5,000 square feet gross floor area.
(6) Financial and banking institutions under 5,000 square feet ground floor area and under 10,000 square feet gross floor area on lots exceeding 40,000 square feet.
E. Special permit uses.
(1) All special permit uses and special permit uses subject to environmental design conditions as provided for in the underlying district.
(2) Professional, general and medical office buildings over 5,000 square feet gross floor area but less than 15,000 square feet gross floor area.
(3) Financial and banking institutions over 5,000 square feet gross floor area but less than 15,000 square feet gross floor area.
(4) More than one principal nonresidential structure may be erected on a single lot.
(5) Single family residential dwellings on 10,000 square foot lots.
Environmental design conditions for small lots of less than 20,000 square feet. The following environmental design conditions shall be utilized by the Board of Appeals in establishing appropriate safeguards for lots of 10,000 square feet minimum area allowed by special permit.
Lot requirements with special permit.
Table 205-75 (1) |
Width |
Front Yard |
Side Yards |
|
|
Total |
Major |
Minor |
75 feet minimum |
10 feet minimum |
28 feet minimum |
20 feet minimum exclusive of driveway |
3 feet minimum; recommend 6 feet maximum without driveway; recommend 14 feet maximum with driveway |
(b) Front yard depth. On minor streets or other streets that are unlikely to be widened in the future, the minimum yard requirements may be altered as stated herein. Such setbacks shall be allowed only when appropriate in relationship to other setbacks on the street and to the general character of the area, as determined by the Board of Appeals. The requirements of § 205-17H shall be followed to create a variety in the setbacks along the street.
(c) Side yard requirements. The principal structure should normally be sited so that one side yard is of minimum width and the other is thereby made larger and more useable. The major side yard shall normally be at least 20 feet wide. The minor side yard should not be less than three feet and should normally be no larger than six feet, unless it accommodates a driveway, in which case it should be no wider than 14 feet. The width of side yards and their relationship to principal structures on the lot and to yards and structures on adjacent lots shall be varied along the street.
(i) The width of side yards shall be carefully considered in relation to the depth of the front yard, placement of the driveway, placement of permanent walls and accessory structures, if any, trees and other major plantings, the topography, side yards and front yards on adjacent lots, and distances between structures on adjacent lots. These relationships shall be varied from lot to lot along the street and shall not be the same for more than three contiguous lots.
(ii) Where appropriate, accessory buildings of approved design and construction may be placed within four feet of the side lot line, provided that such structures shall not violate any requirements controlling distances between buildings, nor shall any such structure be placed to cause any structure subsequently built on any adjacent lot not to comply with the intent of this section.
(d) Distances between buildings on adjacent lots. No part of any structure shall be within 16 feet of any part of another structure on another lot, and no part of any principal residential structure shall be within 21 feet of any other principal residential structure.
(e) Accessory buildings. Accessory buildings may be constructed in front or side yards as described previously. No accessory building may be constructed more than two stories high or within six feet of any other building on the same lot. It is recommended that any accessory buildings be placed to help define yard spaces or to create privacy for yard spaces.
(f) Walls and other site elements. For safety and aesthetic reasons, the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits may require that permanent walls, fences, hedges, or other plant materials be used to define exterior yard spaces and to increase privacy for windows or yard spaces. Any such structures must be of compatible and durable nature. These elements should be carefully placed in relation to structures and yards and should contribute to a sense of variety and spatial enclosure along the street.
F. Dimensional Requirement.
(1) The minimum dimensional requirements for residential and non-residential uses:
Table 205-75 (2) Minimum Lot Requirements* |
Area |
Width |
Front Yard |
Other Yard |
20,000 |
90 feet |
20 feet |
10 feet |
Structures on lots under 20,000 square feet in size that lawfully existed prior to (insert effective date of this amendment) may be converted to professional, general and medical office buildings, financial and banking institutions based on a finding from the Planning Board that the proposed change complies with the design standards of Section G.
Table 205-75 (3) Dimensional Requirement |
WIDTH |
FRONT YARD |
SIDE YARD |
REAR YARD |
MAX. LOT OVERAGE |
MAX. BLDG HGHT. |
75 foot |
10 foot min. 20 foot max. |
20 foot min. exclusive of driveway |
15 foot min. |
Bldg. 15% Bldg., drives & parking 55% |
2 stories 30 feet excluding roof which cannot exceed 35 feet @ the peak of a 100% pitched roof. All roof top mechanical systems must be visually screened; unit & screen may not exceed a height of 6 feet above the top of the highest building story below. |
Note: Dimensions defining the length of any one side of the structure shall not exceed 100 feet. The Boards may grant exceptions to this requirement of a maximum length of a side if the project proponent provides, what the Board determines to be, appropriate design distinctions that keep the structure in a scale and appearance appropriate to the adjoining uses as well as the size of the project parcel
G. Design standards.
All allowed and special permit uses are subject to the following design standards. In the case of allowed uses, prior to the issuance of a zoning or building permit the applicant must obtain a determination by the Planning Board that the site plans and building design comply with the design standards. For special permit uses, the special permit granting authority must find that the site plans and building design comply with the design standards.
In the case of additions or secondary structures that are allowed, the Building Commissioner may find the work to be minor and waive the review requirement.
Architectural Standards
a. Buildings shall be no taller than two stories with a mix of one, one and a half and two story structures encouraged, especially for larger buildings.
b. The visible exterior finishes of all structures shall consist of materials traditional to the common historical character of coastal New England. Such materials shall include real or realistic facsimiles of, brick, cedar shingles/shakes, stone (natural and quarried), wood clapboard, and slate and shall be approved by the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits.
c. Variation in building exterior detailing including potential combinations of columns, roof soffits, porches, and trim are required as a means of introducing a residential scale to proposed reuse of existing buildings as well as construction on new structures.
d. The use of color in and on exterior finishes must be approved by the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits in advance of a building permit being issued for the project; coordination between the color palettes of building and site materials is strongly encouraged.
e. No plate glass windows shall be allowed unless a real or realistic facsimile of a muntin is incorporated into the window design.
f. Structures shall exhibit characteristics of coastal New England architecture and/or otherwise aesthetically pleasing architecture which defines a scale and spatial articulation reflective of the architectural finishes and perimeter layout of the existing residential uses located along Obery Street.
Landscaping Standards
The site elements shall be selected and constructed to create a unifying theme and hierarchy that supports the access and use of the proposed project while minimizing the extent to which it imposes on, or conflicts with, existing neighboring uses. Open space components shall be located where they can be combined to potentially form a community wide open space system in combination with existing or potential open space areas on adjoining parcels. Open space areas need to be accessible and reinforced with natural elements. Materials for accessory structures, paving, fences, walls, etc. shall be selected to blend with building materials and be durable based on projected levels of use, maintenance requirements and climatic limitations.
Natural buffer areas shall be created and maintained where necessary, as determined by the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits and further defined in these standards, to limit views between proposed and existing uses, establish privacy, and provide attractive foreground views with reasonable year round screening. Such buffers shall limit visibility of one use from the other during both daytime and night time periods. This standard recognizes that plant material will not form an opaque buffer but such material should be selected, located, and planted at a size to generate considerable effectiveness within a five year period. At maturity the plant material should provide a daytime buffer of no less than approximately 70% of the ground level of adjoining
building/s during the growing season and no less than approximately 50% of the ground level of the adjoining building/s during the dormant season for deciduous plant material. The plant material shall provide a daytime buffer of no less than approximately 30% of the adjoining building/s second story. These percentages should be applied across the entire building elevation and the requirement not met by buffering one single segment of the elevation representing the required percentage. The buffer percentage shall be determined from a viewpoint/s on any interior ground floor level within or attached to a habitable structure; in this case attached structures applies to decks, porches, sunrooms, accessed directly from the habitable structures and not to sheds, garages, or other such similar uses. Visibility from ground level outdoor points on adjoining properties is to be limited at the discretion of the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for
Special Permits; buffers of exterior uses shall be considered as needed to maintain or create privacy and visual quality for existing and proposed outside areas. The use of existing vegetation to meet these needs is encouraged.
a. The use of landforms such as berms which blend with the existing surrounding grades or creates interesting forms supportive of the proposed and existing uses is encouraged to enhance visual buffers. Such landforms shall not be utilized where they constitute a threat to potentially damaging and/or threatening drainage patterns on and off the project and neighboring site. Combinations of landforms and vegetation may be used to provide visual buffers.
b. Every structure, whether new or an alteration of an existing building, shall have a minimum of two proposed trees for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. A 50% reduction in this requirement may be granted by the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits where the proposed action protects a significant number of existing healthy trees which will meet or exceed the 2 tree/1,000 gross square foot of floor area standard. In either case 50% of the proposed trees shall be planted at a min. 2” – 2 ½” inch cal.; 25 % of the proposed trees shall be planted at a min. 1 ½” – 2” inch cal.; and 25% of the proposed trees shall be planted at a min. of a 1” – 1 ½” inch cal. No proposed evergreen
trees shall be less than 5 feet in height unless otherwise approved by the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits.
c. Every structure, whether new or an alteration of an existing building, shall have a minimum of five proposed shrubs installed for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. No less than 50% of the proposed shrubs shall be planted at a minimum of a 15” – 18” inch spread and the remaining 50% of the proposed shrubs shall be planted at a minimum of an 18” - 24” inch spread. The use of low maintenance ground cover plantings, other than lawn grasses, is encouraged to supplement proposed planting designs.
d. All proposed plant material shall be selected to minimize or eliminate the need for irrigation. Where irrigation is planned, use of re-circulated runoff or non potable water for a water source is encouraged.
e. The selection and layout of all proposed plant material shall be designated by and bear the registration stamp of a landscape architect registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Building Standards
a. Buildings shall have no more than 50% of the total gross square footage on a second floor. A total maximum square footage for all building uses on a lot shall not exceed 15,000 square feet (See E. Special Permit Uses).
b. Variation in the overall architectural design, including building elevations, building setbacks and the exterior details, (roofing, siding, glazing), shall be a part of the project concept development through construction documents to promote the existing residential/historical character of Obery Street.
c. No building shall exceed 30 feet in height to the upper most point of the second level, excluding the roof. Roof heights shall not exceed 35 feet in the case of pitched roofs which may include gabled walls not to exceed this height, and 32 feet in the case of flat roofs. All roof mounted mechanical equipment must be enclosed to reduce the noise of operation and eliminate visibility of such equipment from the equivalent of an adjoining second floor level. In no case shall roof mounted equipment or the accompanying enclosures exceed a height of 6 feet above, or occupy more than 30% of the area, of the roof surface.
d. Building orientation, layout, and configuration shall be designed to provide adequate light and air for the proposed and adjoining buildings.
e. Drive-up windows are permitted if the windows and accompanying drives are buffered by an attractive 6 foot high opaque fence with a minimum of a 10 foot wide landscaped buffer to the exterior/outside of the fence.
Sign Standards
a. Unless otherwise approved by the Board of Appeals, all signs as defined in Section 205-19 (Signs), shall consist of materials in character with those defined for the architectural standards for this Overlay District.
b. Maximum free standing sign height shall not be more than 5 feet above the adjoining natural grade with a maximum sign area of 12 square feet per side. Signs shall have no more than two sides whether used for display or structural support. One free standing sign is permitted per project unless otherwise permitted by the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits.
c. The maximum size for signs mounted on a building shall be no more than 5% of the area of the side of the building on which the sign is mounted but never more than 20 square feet in display area. No sign may project more than 12 inches off the side of the structure to which it is mounted. One sign is allowed per business.
d. Directories, mounted on the exterior only at public entry points, shall be allowed in addition to signs identifying businesses; a directory sign shall be no greater than 6 square feet in size.
e. All signs may be lit from an external source which is either concealed from view or accommodated if a fixture is in keeping with the required architectural style and which eliminates virtually all glare and spillage. Internally lit or neon signage is not allowed.
f. Sign colors shall be compatible with the color palette of building materials as well as the architectural standards for this Overlay District.
Driveway, Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Standards
a. All driveway and parking areas shall be visually buffered from all streets by mounding and/or planting. Any screening shall maintain a minimum of 50% of it’s effectiveness year round. Care should be taken to insure that visual buffers reduce the light from vehicular headlights from reaching onto adjoining streets.
b. All driveway and parking areas shall be visually buffered from adjoining residential uses by one or more of the following; mounding, fencing, and planting. Any screening shall maintain a minimum of 75% of it’s effectiveness year round. Care should be taken to insure that visual buffers reduce the light from vehicular headlights from reaching onto adjoining properties.
c. A portion of the required parking may be accommodated on access drives within the project provided such parking does not interfere with sight lines to pedestrian or vehicular access routes, directional signage, or interfere with vehicular access/egress in any area.
d. No more than 12 parking spaces shall be laid out in a continuous row unless interrupted by a landscaped island of a minimum of 8 feet in width and equal to the depth of the adjoining parking spaces. The landscaped island shall be treated with consideration given to the need for shade; pedestrian access where appropriate, snow storage, and the need to soften the appearance of a large paved area during the growing season.
f. The number of parking spaces required may be reduced up to 40% at the discretion of the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits providing such a reduction does not shift a demand for parking onto public streets or any areas not equipped to handle such activity. The Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits may give consideration to shared parking between adjoining uses as a means of reducing the paved area required for proposed uses provided the following conditions are met:
- the shared parking is sufficient to properly service the adjoining uses without leaving either in a deficit of spaces needed;
- the shared parking has well defined pedestrian access to both uses that meets the standards herein provided for pedestrian access;
- there is a legally binding agreement, executed by all parties to be served, which permits vehicular and pedestrian access to and from all the parcels involved; this agreement must be in place, and a copy provided to the Building Commissioner before the proposed use/s can be opened for business
- all open space and coverage requirements are met based on the ability of the project site to accommodate all of the required parking.
g. Parking areas may consist of pervious hard surfaces or impervious surfaces. In either case provisions need still be made for some level of runoff collection and dispersal. At the discretion of the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits, up to 10% of the parking required may be constructed in an alternative paver which incorporates the use of grass or a “grass on gravel” system to allow for greater permeability and an appearance more characteristic of open space/courtyard features. This treatment shall be proposed only for parking required but considered as overflow beyond that normally needed to support the proposed use. The treatment of such parking shall be such that those spaces can be cleared and used if needed in winter conditions. The
location of such spaces should be in peripheral areas of the parking facility where they can enhance the appearance of adjoining open space and not be in a location where they would be in daily use or overlap with pedestrian activity.
h. Parking areas shall be lighted to provide adequate visibility for use in the dark without adversely impacting adjacent uses or parcels.
i. Off-street parking spaces may be laid out in a perpendicular, angled, or parallel alignment provided adequate access is provided for vehicles to enter and leave the spaces; pedestrians to enter and leave the vehicles, and service/emergency vehicles to access the drives, parking areas, and building/s.
j. Perpendicular or angled parking spaces shall not be less than 9 feet wide by 18 feet in depth with the following exception. Up to 5% of the required parking spaces may be accommodated using a layout of an 8 foot width by a 17 foot depth space at the discretion of the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits; such spaces shall be identified by a sign mounted at a height of not less than 5 feet or more than 8 feet, indicating the space is for a subcompact car only. Parallel parking spaces shall not be less than 8 feet in width/depth by a 22 foot length.
k. Driveways which can be shared for more than one use are encouraged provided they do not limit adequate service or emergency access at any time or serve as the only route of vehicular access to a project unless so approved at the discretion of the Planning Board for site plan review and Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Permits.
l. Customer/client pedestrian access areas shall include a combination of walkways and landscaping. Such pedestrian access shall be provided for from the street/s providing frontage and/or access for the project as well as the drives and parking areas within the project. Pedestrian access routes shall be laid out to minimize conflict with vehicular routes, and where the two cross, the pedestrian route shall be clearly marked on the vehicular surface and when appropriate, with signage. Pedestrian access routes shall be lighted to provide adequate visibility for use in the dark without adversely impacting adjacent uses or parcels.
Service Access Including Deliveries and Trash Removal
a. Provisions shall be made for service vehicles to access the site and building so as not to obstruct client/customer and emergency pedestrian and vehicular access routes.
b. All trash receptacles and areas to be utilized by service/delivery vehicles shall be visually and, to the extent reasonably feasible, acoustically buffered from adjoining residences by one or more of the following; mounding, fencing, and planting. Any visual screening shall maintain a minimum of 75% of it’s effectiveness year round. No service vehicle shall be allowed to have an engine idling for more than ten minutes unless it is necessary for the service being provided, (for example: tree trimming, power washing, refrigeration, etc.).
H. Waivers
Waivers may be granted, in the case of site plan review, by the Planning Board, and in the case of Special Permits, by the Zoning Board of Appeals, where the appropriate board determines that such waiver is consistent with the purposes of the OSOD, and, specifically, that such waiver will result in meeting or exceeding the district Objectives.
I. Prohibited uses.
(1) Any use not specifically permitted above, including but not limited to all manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, warehousing, outdoor storage, outdoor advertising, automobile service stations, automotive and automotive parts sales, service or repair shops, junk, scrap or lumber storage, and general retail uses.
(2) Storage or occupancy of mobile homes, camper trailers, inoperative or unlicensed automobiles, or products, materials, or vehicles in connection with manufacturing or commercial uses outside the district, as provided for under § 205-40, Rural Residential, Subsection E, Prohibited uses.
(3) Any use or structure incompatible with the nature of the district or dangerous or noxious to persons in the district or those who pass on public ways by reason of odor, smoke, particulate matter, fumes, noise, vibration, glare, radiation, electrical interference, or danger of fire or explosion.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
The Board took a five-minute break.
BOA 3373 - Cimbron
Cedarhill Park Drive – Gym
Loring Tripp recused himself and left the room.
Atty. Robert Betters began the presentation of the sight distance plans and photographs that were requested by the Board during the previous review of this request for special permits in order to construct a total of 34,000 sq. ft. recreational buildings with associated parking and utilities.
Steven Kotowski reviewed the sight distance plan which shows approximately 40 percent of the structure being built into the hillside with a vegetative buffer along Rte 3 to screen the exposed portion of the building and the parking area.
Jon Henson reviewed the landscape plan which, provides green space on either side of the entry drive and in front of the buildings. The islands in the parking areas will have plantings and shrubbery will be installed to buffer any headlight visibility.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The Petitioner has agreed to provide final site and landscaping plans which (1)include lighting details; (2) reflect as-built conditions at Cedar Hill Park Drive; (3) take into account the revised location of the subsurface drainage easement location within the NSTAR right-of-way; (4) accommodate the larger green area in front of the proposed buildings as depicted on the landscaping plans; (5) show a corresponding reduction of the size of the parking lot island at this location (northern end of the parking area); (6) show a corresponding number of parking spaces; and (7) addresses the concerns of the DPW in its memorandum dated June 6, 2006; which shall be submitted for review by the Planning Board subject to final approval of the Board of Appeals prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
As agreed to by the Petitioner, the landscaping plans will include a note on the plan that the evergreen plantings on the Route 3 (rear) side of the building shall be field-located to fill in any perceived gaps in the vegetative screening of the site from Route 3.
Compliance with the Prevention of Light Pollution Zoning Bylaw must be documented.
The trash receptacle should be screened from view with either plantings or decorative fencing.
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.
A registered landscape architect or other qualified licensed professional must certify to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit that the required landscaping has been properly installed in accordance with the approved site plan, the Zoning Bylaw, and acceptable landscape practices.
Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Loring Tripp returned to the meeting
BOA 3381 - Lewis
Haskin/McKay Streets
Patrick Farah presented the request for a special permit for accessway in order to construct a single family dwelling on property located off McKay and Haskins Streets. Mr. Farah reviewed a detailed map that was in the Board’s packets that showed existing properties and remaining vacant land.
Larry Rosenblum was concerned with allowing further development without any further improvements to the roads.
Lee Hartmann stated that others have argued that if there is an existing Land Court plan, the development is allowed.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The Town Engineer or Town’s consulting engineer shall review and approve the proposed road and drainage improvements. Said improvements shall be reviewed by the Planning Board with final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, said improvements are to be installed under the supervision of a Registered Professional Engineer. The engineer must certify that the improvements noted above have been installed in accordance with the conditions noted herein and accepted installation practices.
Only one single-family home shall be constructed.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3383 – EGV, LLC
Modify SP/Commerce Way – Add car wash bay
William Shaw, Associated Engineering Inc., presented a request for a modification of special permit #3057 in order to construct a 14’x40’ addition to an existing car wash. The addition would not change any of the landscape or parking areas, but will reduce the queue of cars waiting to be washed.
Paul McAdluff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to all prior conditions remaining in full force and effect; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3382 – William Smith
359 Lunn’s Way/waiver of side setbacks
Valerie Massard presented the request for a special permit to waive the side setback requirements in order to construct a 2 story 24’x26’ addition with a family room on the first floor and office/studio on the second floor, with a 8’x15’ ell for additional garage/storage space with living space above, a 20’x21’ second story addition above the existing garage, and a 10’x17’ deck with steps.
Russell Stefani, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. informed the Board that the applicant would be meeting with the neighbor prior to the BOA public hearing, but that the impact on the neighbor is minimal as it would be garage to garage.
Larry Rosenblum requested that the recommendation be contingent upon the support of the abutting neighbor.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend approval to the ZBA subject to the support of the neighbor; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearings:
TDR – MURA
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that he would be recommending a continuance in order to continue working on the changes to the existing bylaw and the addition of the Mixed Use Receiving Areas (MURA) language and design standards, and for presentations to the steering committees in Cedarville, Manomet, and West Plymouth. Mr. Hartmann requested comments and suggestions from the Board that could be incorporated into the proposed bylaw. Goody Clancy has been working on the three scenarios in the village centers. Makepeace is interested in sending development rights into the MURA areas.
Larry Rosenblum asked for a clarification on municipal uses and conservation restrictions.
Mr. Hartmann explained that if the Town needed to put in a well, a small portion of the sending lot could be carved out and be exempt from the conservation restriction, the restriction would only be placed on the remainder of the land.
Mr. MacGregor questioned the 75% residential use on page 2 of the MURA section.
Mr. Hartmann replied that a minimum of 25 % would be the underlying use to encourage mixed use, with a maximum of 75 % being a residential use.
Loring Tripp suggested that the maps should include other areas such as the proposed Stop & Shop area in Cedarville and one area in Manomet Center and that the receiving areas should be larger to be able to handle the capacity that could be transferred in the next five to ten years.
Malcolm MacGregor felt that if the scope was to expand, it might be better to postpone to the Spring Town Meeting. Mr. MacGregor felt that the final design standards would be a key component in the presentations to the steering committees and the community.
Marc Garrett moved to continue the public hearing to September 11, 2006, at 7:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Inclusionary Housing
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Valerie Massard handed out the proposed changes to the Inclusionary Housing Bylaw. Ms. Massard requested that the Board review the proposed changes and provide initial comments.
Ms. Massard informed the Board that the Revere Copper site is the only project that has gone through the whole process. The changes to the bylaw would clarify what the Town is hoping to achieve and to help make the projects work. As the land costs are high, developers are hoping to be able to provide a payment in lieu of inclusionary housing. Forming a housing trust is a companion article that would be able to accept the funds or property in lieu of inclusionary housing. Ms. Massard suggested that if we want to encourage increased density, perhaps we should look at a higher than 10 percent requirement - possibly 14% or 15 %.
Larry Rosenbum stated that at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting regarding Revere Copper, the ZBA was not supportive of payment in lieu of or off-site inclusionary housing.
Ms. Massard stated that it is an option of the special permit granting authority to allow the inclusionary housing off site.
Mr. Hartmann used the South Street condominium project as an example. It would be physically impossible to provide an additional unit for inclusionary housing on the site.
Loring Tripp queried whether the percentages were changed.
Ms. Massard stated that instead of using a percentage, the change would require a specific number of affordable units per total lots or units. The numbers were indicated on the chart that was handed out.
Marc Garrett questioned what would happen if the changes to the inclusionary bylaw were passed, but not the housing trust. He was concerned that if the trust was not approved, there would be no entity to receive the funds/land.
Ms. Massard replied that there are other entities (Redevelopment, Plymouth Housing Authority, Community Preservation Committee) that could accept the funds/land, but adopting the housing trust would allow a more streamlined process. Currently, in order to accept any funds/land, it has to go before Town Meeting.
Ms. Massard stated that the Board of Selectmen would have to appoint the trustees.
Mr. Hartmann informed the Board that the State guidelines are very specific about who sits on the trust.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue to September 18, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Flood Plain Maps
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann presented the article to adopt the revised flood maps from FEMA and language changes to the zoning bylaw. If the Town does not adopt the flood maps, those residents living in flood zones would be ineligible for flood insurance through FEMA.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing, recommend adoption of the maps to Town Meeting and accept the following changes to the language in the bylaw:
Underlined text added
Strikethrough text deleted
§ 205-58.Floodplain District (FP). [Added 4-5-1986 ATM by Art. 56]
A. Intent. The purpose of this section is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed:
(1) To protect human life and health;
(2) To minimize expenditures of public money for costly flood-control projects;
(3) To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding;
(4) To ensure that those who occupy areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions.
B. Scope and authority. The Floodplain District is herein established as an overlay district. Any uses permitted in the portions of the districts so overlaid shall be permitted subject to the provisions of this district, as well as those of the Massachusetts State Building Code dealing with construction in floodplains.
C. Delineation of district. The Floodplain District includes all special flood hazard areas designated as Zone A, AE, AO V1 – V30 and VE, on the Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated July 17, 1986 December 19, 2006, on file with the Town Clerk. These maps and the accompanying Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Flood Insurance Study (FIS) are incorporated herein by reference.
Base Flood Elevation and Floodway Data
1. Floodway Data. In Zones A and AE, along watercourses that have not had a regulatory floodway designated, the best available Federal, State, local or other floodway data shall be used to prohibit encroachments in floodways which would result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence if the base flood discharge.
2. Base Flood Elevation Data. Base flood elevation data is required for subdivision proposals or other developments greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, within unnumbered A zones.
Notification of Watercourse Alteration
In a riverine situation, the Flood Coordinator shall notify the following of any alteration or relocation of a watercourse:
· Adjacent Communities
· NFIP State Coordinator
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 800
Boston, MA 02114-2104
· NFIP Program Specialist
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region I
99 High Street, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
D. Development regulations. The following requirements apply in the Floodplain District:
(1) Within Zone A, where the base flood elevation is not provided on the FIRM, the applicant shall obtain any existing base flood elevation data and it shall be reviewed by the Building Inspector for its reasonable utilization toward meeting the elevation or floodproofing requirements, as appropriate, of the State Building Code.
(2) In the floodway, as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) All encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements to existing structures, and other developments, are prohibited unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided by the applicant demonstrating that such encroachment shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the one-hundred-year flood.
(b) Any encroachment meeting the above standard shall comply with the floodplain requirements of the State Building Code.
(3) In Zones V1 – V30 VE, all new construction shall be located landward of the reach of mean high tide.
(4) The placement of mobile homes in the Floodplain District is prohibited.
Reference to Existing Regulations
The Floodplain District is established as an overlay district to all other districts. All development in the district, including structural and non-structural activities, whether permitted by right or by special permit must be in full compliance with Chapter 131, Section 40 of the Massachusetts Generals Laws and with the following:
· Section of the Massachusetts State Building Code which addresses floodplain and coastal high hazard areas ( currently 780 CMR 3107, “Flood Resistant Construction”);
· Wetlands Protection Regulations, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (currently 310 CMR 10.00);
· Inland Wetlands Restriction, DEP (currently 310 CMR 13.00);
· Coastal Wetlands Restriction, DEP (currently 310 CMR 12.00)
· Minimum Requirements for Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage, DEP ( currently 310 CMR 15, Title 5);
Any variances from the provisions and requirements of the above referenced state regulations may only be granted in accordance with the required variance procedures of these state regulations.
Other Regulations
1. Within zone AO on the FIRM, adequate drainage paths must be provided around structures on slopes, to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.
2. Man-made alteration of sand dunes within Zone VE which would increase potential flood damage are prohibited.
3. All subdivision proposals must be designed to assure that:
a) Such proposals minimize flood damage;
b) All public utilities and facilities are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; and
c) Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards.
E. Special permits. Upon issuance of a special permit and subject to such conditions and safeguards as the Board of Appeals deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this section, the requirements of this overlay district may be varied. In passing upon such special permit applications the Board shall consider:
(1) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and the contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage upon the site and surrounding property.
(2) The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion.
(3) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable.
(4) A determination that the relief requested is the minimum necessary.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Wind Energy Facilities
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann reminded the Board that the Wind Energy Facilities bylaw was adopted at a previous town meeting, but the Attorney General’s office did not approve the location as defined. The draft of this bylaw addresses a minimum lot size.
Larry Rosenblum suggested allowing the special permit granting authority to assess the impacts to a site and determine the feasibility of constructing the wind energy facility. Mr. Rosenblum also suggested that a balloon or other test mechanism should be required in order for the public to assess the impacts.
Loring Tripp suggested that there shouldn’t be just one set of acreage and height limits, that there should be a sliding scale that increases the acreage as the height of the windmill increases.
Paul McAlduff stated that it is important to take into consideration the towerdrop zone.
Mr. Hartmann stated that this bylaw would apply to the larger commercial wind energy facilities.
Marc Garrett suggested using similar standards to those required for communication towers.
Paul McAlduff moved to limit the site area to a minimum of 10 acres.
Larry Rosenblum suggested that the Board should look at maps of 10, 20, and 30 acre parcels in order to determine how many sites might be eligible under each scenario.
Paul McAlduff withdrew his previous motion and moved to continue the public hearing to September 11, 2006 at 7:45 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Mullin Rule
Lee Hartmann explained to the Board that adoption of the Mullin Rule would allow any Board member that missed a session of a public hearing to review all material available for that hearing (tapes, documents, etc), certify that the material has been reviewed and then sit on the remainder of the public hearings for that case.
Paul McAduff moved to recommend adoption of the Mulling Rule to Town Meeting; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Minutes:
July 10, 2006
August 7, 2006
August 21, 2006
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of July 10, 2006, August 7, 2006, August 21, 2006; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Administrative:
B475 - Watercourse Place
Valerie Massard presented a request to use part of the funds (up to $2,000.00) collected from RHB Development for the Watercourse Place subdivision for the preservation of open space toward the title insurance for the Watercourse Place open space land donation.
Marc Garrett moved to approve up to $2,000.00 to be used toward title insurance for the land gift of Watercourse Place; the vote was unanimous (5-0)
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 10:55 p.m. the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: October 2, 2006
Administrative Assistant
| 
