Planning Board Meeting
October 30, 2006
Minutes
These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law – Section III.
Board Members: Malcolm MacGregor, Paul McAlduff, Loring Tripp, III, Larry Rosenblum, and Marc Garrett.
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Valerie Massard and Caroline Quidort
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Form A’s:
A4232 – Map 101, Lots 37-1D-1, 37-1D-2, 42-1 and 42-90, Aldrin Road – Lot line adjustments to create lots 37-1D-3 (.93A), 37-1D-4 (4.07A) and 42-3 (5.82A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan.
Conceptual Site Plan Review
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, presented a conceptual site plan review to utilize an existing access and utility easement for the Plymouth Athletic Club (lot 37-1D4) in order to construct a maximum of 50,000 sq. ft. of industrial and/or commercial space with 173 parking spaces on lot 42-3 and a structure containing approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of office space with 54 parking spaces on lot 37-1D3. The three lots were created by the above mentioned Form A plan. A formal site plan review will be scheduled before any construction of buildings commences. Majority of the building will not be visible from the highway.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested adding a substantial buffer area along the highway. The Board was supportive of the conceptual plan.
The vote for the clerk to sign the plan was (4-0-1) with Loring Tripp in abstention.
A4233 – Map 121, Lots 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, Paulette Terrace – Lot line adjustments to create 7-60 (0.78A) and 7-61 (1.08A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Appointment
Open Space Committee Charter and Reporting Authority
Valerie Massard presented a proposed change to the language in the charter regarding the appointments to the open space committee.
The Charter currently reads:
3-14-8 The Planning Board shall appoint an open space committee comprised of nine persons to act in an advisory capacity to the Planning Board, representative town meeting with respect to the preservation of natural open space and to assist the Community Preservation Committee in fulfilling its duties under the Community Preservation Act.~ Five members shall be appointed by the Planning Board, two by the Selectmen and 2 by the Conservation Commission.
If the proposed changes are incorporated, the language would read as follows:
3-14-8 The open space committee shall be comprised of nine persons and act in an advisory capacity to the Planning Board with respect to the preservation of natural open space and assist the Community Preservation Committee in fulfilling its duties under the Community Preservation Act.~ Five members shall be appointed by the Planning Board, two by the Selectmen and 2 by the Conservation Commission.
Joan Bartlett, Chair of the Open Space Committee, addressed the Board regarding the Open Space Committee’s proposed change to the charter language. Mrs. Bartlett reviewed the history of the creation of the committee in 1999 and the changes made by the Charter Review Committee in 2003.
Robert Pomerene, Open Space Committee, presented their proposed language change as follows:
3-14-8 There shall be an open space committee comprised of nine (9) persons to act in an advisory capacity to representative town meeting with respect t the preservation of natural open space and to assist the Community Preservation Committee in fulfilling its duties under the Community Preservation Act. Five (5) members shall be appointed by the Planning Board, two (2) by the Selectmen and two (2) by the Conservation Commission.
The proposed change would remove the Planning Board as the sole appointing authority to the committee and clarify the advisory capacity as representative town meeting.
Valerie Massard stated that the question has arisen as to whether the open space plan is part of the master plan which by state law falls under the purview of the Planning Board. Ms. Massard reminded the Board that they would be attending the Charter Review Committee meeting scheduled for November 9, 2006.
Larry Rosenblum stated that the Open Space Committee is one of three committees that have been charged with reviewing land use questions. The other two committees are the Town Owned Land Review Committee and the Industrial/commercial Land Review Committee. All three committees are essentially reviewing the same land. Mr. Rosenblum felt that the proposed changes to the Charter should be discussed at the Charter Review Committee meeting.
Marc Garrett stated that everyone has a view of what planning should be and that the preservation of open space is a part of planning. Mr. Garrett suggested that the charter should look at what the scope of planning is – both legally and what Plymouth wants it to be.
Paul McAlduff felt that the Planning Board has the responsibility for planning and the master plan implementation.
Mr. Pomerene stated that the question is whether the Open Space Committee should exist as an independent committee advisory to representative town meeting or the Planning Board.
Loring Tripp, stated that the Open Space Committee was formed to advocate for open space and that he would support an autonomous committee.
Marc Garrett moved to continue the discussion at the November 6, 2006 meeting; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing:
B541 – Atlantic Point
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Atty. Lawrence Winokur informed the Board that the applicant’s representatives have met with staff and the Fire Chief and received significant input which they are now in the process of incorporating into a modification of the VOSD plan. Atty. Winokur requested that the public hearing be continued to allow for the submittal and review of the revised plans.
Marc Garrett requested that the open space areas be clarified on the revised plan.
Loring Tripp moved to continue the public hearing to November 6, 2006 at 7:45 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3391 – Stephen L. Good
Osprey Lane
Valerie Massard reviewed the history of a previously granted special permit (BOA Case 3308 that called for the demolition of a single family home and the reconstruction of a larger single family home) which is currently under appeal. Subsequently, the owner of the property on Osprey Lane filed for a building permit to retain at least 50% of the existing structure and construct an addition which was approved. The current Board of Appeals petition is an appeal of the Building Inspector’s decision not to order a cease and desist of work per Zoning Permit #749 and Building Permit A791/06. The petitioner feels that the proposals are the same.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend denial of this petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals; the vote was (2-3); therefore there was no action taken.
Atty. Richard Serkey, representing the petitioner, Stephen Good, contended that as the courts have not issued a decision on the current appeal of BOA Case 3308 and there has been no substantial change to the plans, the building permits should not have been issued. Atty. Serkey stated that Mr. Good opposes the height of the new building.
Atty. Robert Krauss, representing the owners, stated that they are complying with the letter of the law.
Valerie Massard explained that under State law, there is no stay for a case pending appeal when the scope of the work has changed and complies with the bylaw
Loring Tripp moved to recommend denial of the appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
The work subject to Zoning Permit #749 and subsequent Building Permit No. A791/06 is not the same project as the work in Zoning Permit #895 of 2005 currently under appeal in Land Court through an appeal of BOA Case #3308.
It is clear that the work permitted under Zoning Permit #749 and subsequent Building Permit No. A791/06 constitutes an entirely separate project: a renovation with more than 50% of the existing structure remaining. Mr. Montiero and Ms. Chaves are not making their structure any more nonconforming by respecting the 20/10/10 setbacks. The decision of the Building Inspector should be upheld.
Building permits are effective when issued and have never been subject to the automatic stay provision of M.G.L. c.40A, §11 which affected only special permits and variances prior to August 6, 2006. The decision of the Building Inspector not to issue an order to cease work on Building Permit No. A791/06 should be upheld and work should not cease pending disposition by the Land Court of Civil Action 313623. Work under Zoning Permit #895 is not proceeding pending Land Court action; and this is entirely separate from the work under Zoning Permit #749.
Further, Land Court of Civil Action 313623 is considering an unrelated appeal, in that the question in that case is related to Zoning Permit #895, which is an entirely separate case and project from that of Zoning Permit #749 and subsequent Building Permit No. A791/06.
There is no appeal of the work under Zoning Permit #749 and subsequent Building Permit #A791/06. The appeal subject to this Petition is solely based on an appeal of the Building Inspector’s decision not to issue a cease work order based on pending disposition of Land Court Civil Action 313623. Without an appeal of the work subject to the Zoning Permit #749, Section 205-6 ¶C is not applicable.
The vote was (3-1-1) with Malcolm MacGregor in opposition and Larry Rosenblum in abstention.
BOA 3390 – Augustino Diodato
Cherry Street
Caroline Quidort presented the request for a special permit to reduce the minimum lot area below 20,000 sq. ft. in order to subdivide a residential lot with an existing single family home into two residential lots. A single family home would be constructed on the newly created lot.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval of the special permit to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following condition:
Indicate on revised plan depths of new lots.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Site Plan Review
Pinehills LLC – Fitness Center
John Judge presented a site plan review of the proposed Racquet and Fitness Center for the Pinehill’s Village Green. The center would include a fitness area, tennis courts and an indoor pool. There will be open membership policy. Part of the structure would be built into the grade to camouflage the high, blank walls of the tennis courts.
Loring Tripp moved to accept the site plan as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Site Plan Review
Hedges Pond Road/Marylou’s Coffee
Valerie Massard informed the Board that the plans for the proposed Marylou’s Coffee shop on Hedges Pond Road have been revised after the applicant met with the Cedarville Steering Committee and staff. The change is to the internal traffic flow, the loading zone and the parking area. The parking has been reduced by one space and moved to the Northwest area of the lot where a dumpster pad has also been added. The loading zone has been located as close to the bulkhead area as possible, the northern access point has been widened to allow for traffic flow in both directions, and a portion of the building will be removed to meet the side setback requirements. Other requests were for the color to be toned down, removal of the debris (it may be on an adjacent lot), improved pedestrian flow (there is an entrance a
the rear of the building not shown on the plan), and the elimination of the soutlherly, one-way, right turn only exit.
Jody Murphy, representing the owners of Marylou’s Coffee, stated that they have been working to make this a viable project.
Larry Rosenblum suggested painted lines on the parking lot area to identify the parking spaces and direct the flow of traffic. He was concerned with the location of the loading zone, but understood that the use was minimal.
Mr. Murphy stated that striping of the parking lot would be done.
Paul McAlduff preferred that there was one access/egress, which could be accomplished by the elimination of the southerly exit.
Marc Garrett agreed that the southerly entrance should be eliminated and suggested that the landscape island could be expanded.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval of the site plan to the Building Commissioner, subject to the following conditions:
The October 30, 2006 plan revisions are acceptable with the following changes –
There should be a painted line between the in-bound and out-bound traffic lanes depicted along the northern side of the building for safety considerations.
a. The dumpster should be screened through fencing or plantings from public view. Fence detail and landscaping along the rear and side yards should be added to the landscaping plans prior to issuance of a building permit, and should adequate screen headlights from the proposed Cedarville Commons abutting to the rear and to abutters and oncoming traffic on Hedges Pond Road. Loaming and seeding of all unpaved areas that are not landscaped with formal plantings with 6-inches of loam shall be added to the plans.
b. Pavement depths should be stated on the plans.
c. The rear entry to the existing building for pedestrian access is to be shown on the plans.
d. The proposed fencing shall be in keeping with the character of the surrounding commercial properties. A wooden fence or suitable facsimile of traditional fencing material with adequate landscaping to have an aesthetically pleasing fence when viewed from the exterior of the site while screening headlights and noise is required.
e. Please see further recommendations below.
Compliance with the Prevention of Light Pollution Zoning Bylaw must be documented. Lighting details should be submitted.
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; and a Registered Landscape Architect or other qualified licensed professional must certify that the required landscaping has been installed; all according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the approved site plan.
Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.
Drainage design should comply with the requirements of the Building Inspector and with DEP best management practices.
A curb cut permit from DPW is required.
IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF PLANNING BOARD PURVIEW ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, THE APPLICANT IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO DO THE FOLLOWING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT –
Only one curb cut is recommended, as far north on the property as is feasible, for safety considerations at the intersection of Hedges Pond Road and Route 3A. (Section 205-23 Paragraph D2 would allow two drives separated by a median by right in this zone; however, safety considerations are a major concern at this location.) The applicant is asked to change the directional flow of the traffic in front of the building to northbound and to close the more southerly curb cut entirely by moving the island/plantings at the road to the southerly end of the frontage. Widening of the single curb-cut beyond 22 feet with a stop line at the intersection of the drive through egress with the entrance travel lanes, and painted directional arrows to facilitate traffic flow is strongly encouraged.
The Cedarville Steering Committee has made specific recommendations to the proposed project, which are attached, including recommendations on the color of the building and a request for a dormer for visual enhancement of the structure. While many of these items are outside of the scope of the Planning Board’s purview on this project, the Board urges the Building Inspector to work with the applicant to include as many of these recommendations as possible into the site plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit. With respect to pedestrian access:
a. Enclosed is the potential location of the proposed entrance drive to Cedarville Commons which would abut the property to the rear if ever constructed. (The project remains in court under appeal). A future pedestrian connector and perhaps a crosswalk could be considered if Cedarville Commons is constructed; however, this particular site links directly with the entry drive to the Cedarville Commons project.
b. The rear entry door to the existing building is not shown on the site plan but will facilitate safe pedestrian access to the building from the parking areas. If a crosswalk can be added to the driving lane in front of the building with a walking path incorporated through the landscaping that will close off the southern curb cut, safe pedestrian access into the site from a future sidewalk or abutting property will be better facilitated.
Note: All conditions will be submitted to the Building Commissioner on a mark-up of the site plan
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Discussion
Industrial/Commercial Land Study Committee
Valerie Massard presented the overview, tasks, and committee makeup that has been suggested for the proposed Industrial/Commercial Land Study Committee.
The committee would be charged with the following:
Identifying preferred development locations (exclusive of constraints).
Collecting and reviewing existing land use information (existing development, land uses, environmental constraints, transportation issues land ownership patterns, etc.).
Develop a projection for the amount of Industrial/Commercial land needed over the next 50 years.
Prepare a series of “industrial/commercial land use” goals.
Analyzing and summarizing this information.
Prepare a prioritized list of potential Industrial/Commercial land.
Document findings accompanied by a series of summary maps.
Suggest land use, zoning and policy recommendations to help achieve the goals.
Loring Tripp stated that this is the type of development that should be encourage because office space generates more taxes. One location that may be appropriate is the 110 acre parcel adjacent to the Plymouth Industrial Park., but that would require a modification of a special permit and a review of the demands on the roads and infrastructure.
Larry Rosenblum suggested that the Board should anticipate infrastructure, rethink the long range planning, and what kind of staff support and consultants would be needed.
Marc Garrett was concerned with the make up of the committee.
Paul McAlduff suggested that the Board should schedule a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen to review the discuss the role of the committee.
Malcolm MacGregor felt that further discussion by the Board would be necessary before the presentation to the Selectmen.
Loring Tripp suggested drafting a mission statement.
Ms. Massard suggested that the language could be revised to incorporate the Board’s suggestions and brought back to the Board next week.
Loring Tripp moved to continue the discussion at the November 6, 2006 meeting; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Minutes:
October 2, 2006
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of October 2, 2006 as presented; the vote was (4-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention as he was not present.
October 16, 2006
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of October 16, 2006 as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Administrative:
B416 – Seaside Cedar Heights
Paul McAlduff moved to release $8,436.74 for work completed in the subdivision; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
B475 – Watercourse Place – Lot Release
Paul McAlduff moved to release lot 42-A in the Watercourse Place subdivision; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Passbook Updates:
Valerie Massard explained that the Town Treasurer and Finance Department have requested that the passbook accounts held by the Town be closed and that the Town enter into new performance guarantee agreements. The performance guarantee agreements for the following subdivisions were submitted to the Board for endorsement:
B366 - Hayden Hollow
B488 - Carter’s River Farm
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse the performance guarantee agreements for B366, Hayden Hollow and B488, Carters River Farm; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
B505, Pickerel Cove –
Valerie Massard presented a request by the developer of B505, Pickerel Cove for a field change in order to relocate the sidewalk to the opposite side of the roadway.
Loring Tripp moved to accept the proposed field change to relocate the sidewalk; the vote was (4-0-1) with Marc Garrett in abstention.
Valerie Massard informed the Board that notification was received that the Town has been awarded a grant for the creation of low impact stormwater guidelines.
Marc Garrett informed the Board that he would be meeting with DPW on Monday regarding the harbor planning. He had some concerns with the notification of the meetings regarding the proposed changes to the Town Wharf and the vehicular and pedestrian traffic on Water St.
Larry Rosenblum stated that the harbor planning overlaps with the proposed Pilgrim Necklace and that DPW would be doing a presentation on that on Thursday, November 2, 2006.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested that tourism by water should be a component of the proposal.
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: November 20, 2006
Administrative Assistant
| 
