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 and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Form A’s
4259 – Map 104, Lots 26-6, 26-10, and 14-1, Colony Place – Lot line Adjustments
Portion of Lot 26-6 (0.26A) combined with portions of lots 14-11 (1.22A) and 26-10 ((0.07A) to create lot 26-17 (1.56A)
Portions of Lot 26-6 (1.35A) and 26-10 (0.15A) combined with remainder of Lot 14-11 to create lot 26-18 (28.14A)
Remainder of lot 26-6 to become Lot 26-16 (30.58A)
Remainder of lot 26-10 to become Lot 26-19 (13.78A)
Loring Tripp moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
A4260 – Map 12, Lots 13-6, 13-7, and 13-9, North Walnut Street – combine a portion of lot 13-7 with 13-6 to create 13-6A with remainder of lot 13-7 being combined with lot 13-8 to create lot 13-8A.
Loring Tripp moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
A4261 – Map 14, Lots 6A and 9, Court Street – Lot line adjustment to create lots 6C and 9-1
Loring Tripp moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Appointment – Atty. Robert Betters
Sprinklers at B517 - Great South Pond Place
Atty. Robert Betters presented a request to remove condition #1 under the RDD Special Permit approval for B517 – Great South Pond Place that requires residential sprinkler systems be installed in each of the newly constructed single-family dwellings. This was the first special permit to require the sprinkler installation. The applicant is proposing to include the following fire safety measures in lieu of the sprinklers in the covenants for the subdivision:
Wood roofs are not permitted, and fire resistant materials shall be used in construction of the home as much as practicable.
Fine mesh shall be provided over any intakes into the home to minimize ash intrusion.
Wire mesh shall be provided over roof gutters to minimize leaf and debris build-up.
All underbrush with a minimum of one hundred (100) feet shall be cleared around the home.
These provisions are similar to those imposed on subdivisions that have been approved since the approval of B517.
Lee Hartmann stated that through a negotiated process where concessions were made on both sides in order to grant waivers for the proposed special permit, the condition to require residential sprinklers was the agreed upon alternative. Mr. Hartmann felt that this was a negotiated process and the condition is enforceable. Mr. Hartmann did say that the building department does not have a set of standards or codes and that there are no state-wide standards that address the installation of residential sprinkler systems. It would take legislative action to add the requirement to the building codes. To work properly, the requirement should be adopted at the State level not on a unit by unit basis.
Paul McAlduff asked why the developer is reluctant to install the sprinklers.
Atty. Betters replied that there are no specific standards on what has to be installed and how they should be installed. In homes where the developer has installed the sprinkler systems, there are problems with maintenance, residents have had problems with them releasing at inappropriate times, and the cost is a factor. He stated that during the negotiation process the applicant reluctantly agreed to the condition.
Paul McAlduff informed the Board that he is trying to coordinate a presentation by a company in Pembroke that does installs residential sprinkler systems. Mr. McAlduff gave an example of a new home that was built recently and burnt to the ground because the fire spread so quickly. When the home was rebuilt, sprinkler systems were installed.
Larry Rosenblum stated that it has been proven that residential sprinklers save lives and that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) does have standards and codes for installation. Mr. Rosenblum felt it would be inappropriate to change the conditions.
Loring Tripp was concerned that enforcing a condition on a local level that is not State mandated may be difficult. Mr. Tripp stated that when a sprinkler system fails, it causes significant damages.
Mr. Hartmann stated that if the applicant was aggrieved by the condition, there was a 21 day appeal process that could have been followed. The applicant could apply for a modification of the RDD special permit or re-file the petition.
Malcolm MacGregor argued against the unknown costs in the beginning, but since it was a negotiated settlement it should stand.
Loring Tripp moved that for the Board to uphold the condition that requires the installation of residential sprinklers.
Atty. Betters commented that the applicant felt that the subdivision would not be approved without the residential sprinkler system condition, that standards were going to be developed (which hasn’t happened) and that the same conditions has not been imposed on subsequent subdivisions.
The vote was (4-0-1) with Loring Tripp in abstention.
Loring Tripp temporarily left the meeting.
Entrance Sign – BOA 3355, Four OC LLC
Atty. Robert Betters presented the proposed entrance sign for Four OC LLC for their project on Commerce Way. Atty. Betters asked that the Board approve the general design concept.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the design concept for the proposed sign; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Mass Development Proposal
Rte 495 Land
Denis Hanks presented a proposed agreement with Mass. Development Finance Agency to expend approximately $50,000 to perform a predevelopment due diligence study in order to determine whether the “1,000 acre” site located near Rte 25 would be viable for development. The review will assess whether any portion or the entire site is developable. The review process will take approximately twelve weeks and would include the following:
Legal analysis of title issues
Market analysis
Additional consultation with rare species regulatory agencies and experts
Consultation with Mass Highway staff regarding costs and timing of a new interstate highway interchange
Preparation of a site development timetable including all major permits
Creation of a preliminary estimate of site development costs and
Preparation of a preliminary report addressing the feasibility of development of the site, based on the work undertaken pursuant to this letter agreement.
Mr. Hanks also provided a draft timeline for the completion of the due diligence period and public workshops that would be held if the study identifies any of the site as developable. The workshops would aid in refining the zoning language and the process to make any zoning changes that may be necessary. Town Meeting action would be required to approve the zoning changes.
Tim Grandy, Town Meeting Rep, Precinct 9, suggested that a citizens committee be formed from the onset of the process, within the next week or two. The residents in that area would like to partner with Mass Development.
Helen Hapgood asked whether the “1,000 acre” site included the tax title parks on both sides of Bourne Road. Ms. Hapgood also suggested that the neighbors should start doing their due diligence now. Ms. Hapgood asked if the $50,000 would ever have to be refunded to the State.
Mr. Hanks replied that all of the parcels on both sides of Bourne Road are included in the study process, that inclusion of the neighborhoods would begin after the study is completed. Mr. Hanks agreed that involvement of the neighborhood should commence as soon as possible. If the project moves ahead, the $50,000 would be paid back to the State, but if the project is not viable, the funds would be forgiven. If a development agreement is entered into with Mass Development, a portion of the land sales would go to Mass Development.
Steve Pitney asked if lots were sold and a portion of the price goes to Mass Development would the remainder of the funds go to the Town.
Mr. Hanks stated that the portioning of the funds would have to be outlined in a subsequent agreement.
Mr. Pitney was in favor of proceeding with the study and supported the formation of a neighborhood committee.
Paul Hapgood asked if the study would review infrastructure needs of the Town.
Mr. Hanks stated that the study would provide a fiscal analysis, look at the infrastructure needs, and funding sources for both the onsite and offsite work.
Brian DuBois asked if the preliminary environmental study that the Economic Foundation has already completed was available.
Mr. Hanks stated that the preliminary work has not been released yet, but will be turned over to Mass Development.
Selectmen Richard Quintal assured that public input would be an important part of the process. If the study determines that two or three uses are appropriate for the site, the public will be involved. If the study determines that the site is not developable, nothing will happen. Mr. Quintal encouraged the participants to allow the study to proceed in order to determine the viability of the site.
Ed Russell was concerned with the infrastructure and the proposed exit off Rte. 25. He suggested that the Town should have a funding commitment from the State for the construction of the interchange before any development is considered. Mr. Russell stated that the Town cannot afford the infrastructure improvements that would be necessary away from the interchange and the developers should contribute to those improvements. He wanted assurance that the process would be open with full disclosure.
Mark Dakers suggested that a third party should review the study and that the final decision should be made through a public process where the residents vote for the proposed change in use, including zoning.
Larry Rosenblum was supportive of proceeding with the study by Mass Development. He felt that the study and the land use suggestions that will be detailed will bring the Town closer to defining what should happen with the land.
Loring Tripp rejoined the meeting.
Paul McAlduff asked if the Economic Foundation provided the $40,000 that has already been spent reviewing the project?
Mr. Hanks answered that the funds were provided by the Economic Foundation, not the Town. Those funds were used to hire consultants to begin looking at the constraints of the site and environmental issues.
Mr. McAlduff asked if the site will be reviewed by Natural Heritage for endangered species, would wind test towers be considered and would the study look at peripheral growth in the surrounding area?
Mr. Hanks stated that wind power would be considered, and that the study will look at a regional concept and the environmental issues. The proposed interchange is already on the State’s TIP list and is a crucial part of the development of the site.
Loring Tripp was supportive of Mass Development moving forward with the study, but is concerned with the possibility of an industrial park and its impacts. Mr. Tripp suggested that a stakeholders committee should be formed to review the information that is available now before the technical information is provided and that the education of the public is crucial.
Marc Garrett was supportive of pursuing the study by Mass Development and the context of the study. Mr. Garrett felt it was vital to bring in the public as early as possible and to form a review committee.
Mr. Rosenblum felt that the public process should wait until there is definitive information to act on. He suggested adding the phrase “following the resolution of these issues” in lieu of the phrase “prior to the Fall Town Meeting” in the second paragraph on page 2 of the letter to Mass Development, because it will take time for the public to review the information.
Malcolm MacGregor agreed that the public should be involved as early as possible.
Mr. Hands deferred the formation of a citizen’s or shareholder committee to the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Quintal proposed that the formation of the committee should wait until it is determined whether the site is developable. He supported moving ahead with the study by Mass. Development.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend the letter be sent to Mass Development to begin the review of the “1,000 acre” site and for the Economic Foundation and the Board of Selectmen to form a citizen’s/stakeholders committee to be in place to review the study information when it becomes available; the vote was (4-0-1) with Loring Tripp in abstention.
The Board took a five-minute recess.
Presentation
Plymouth Carver Aquifer
Jim Riordon, Fuss & O Neill, presented an overview of an action plan to develop protection for the Plymouth Carver Aquifer. Several communities including Plymouth, Carver, Kingston, Middleboro, Plympton, Wareham and Bourne rely on the aquifer for their water supply and have been active in developing the plan. Developing a strong local approach such as a bylaw, that minimizes the impacts of wastewater, stormwater, impervious pavement, well installations and sand and gravel removal, as well as promoting open space protection and water conservation is crucial to protecting the aquifer. The action plan encourages communities to work together to establish consistent and appropriate development standards and to establish an area wide authority for the protection of the aquifer.
When the plan is finalized, it will be presented to Board of Selectmen for their support before it is submitted to the State.
The Board was supportive of the proposed action plan and looks forward to reviewing any proposed bylaw language that would strengthen the Town’s efforts to protect the aquifer.
BOA 3416 – Caranci (cont.)
SP for Earth Removal
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, informed the Board that the request for a special permit for earth removal has been presented to the West Plymouth Steering Committee (WPSC). The WPSC recommended that the gravel removal trucks enter the site through the Pinehurst Mobile Home Park and exit the site through Pinewood Road. The applicant would like to use Pinewood Road for both the access and egress to the site.
Kevin O’Reilly, abutter on Pinewood Road, was concerned with the number of truck trips if Pinewood Road was utilized for both access and egress. He preferred the option of using both Pinehurst Village Roads and Pinewood Road. He suggested limiting the hours of the truck access/ egress so as to limit any interference with the school busses.
Valerie Massard stated that the remaining issues that the Board identified during the last review of the proposal are the truck routes and whether the residents of the Pinehurst Mobile Home Park and Pinewood Road had been notified.
Loring Tripp was supportive of the compromise of using both Pinehurst Road and Pinewood Road truck routes.
Larry Rosenblum stated that the notification issue is critical and that the residents impacted by the proposal should be aware of the incredible imposition to the community.
Marc Garrett felt that the applicant should consider alternatives that would allow the trucks to traverse over the applicant's vacant land to a major road.
Mr. Shaw suggested that the ten cents per cubic yard of gravel removed could be earmarked for improvements to Pinewood Road.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following reasons:
The proposed earth removal activity is appropriate to the zone but not this specific site, as it is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Also, the hauling route proposed is not appropriate for the activity. The use of a small dead-end residential cul-de-sac as the primary ingress and egress to the site for an estimated minimum of 8-9,000 truck trips (full and empty) over a two-year period within a few hours on a daily basis during the work week is not an appropriate use of Pinewood Road. Although the amount of earth removal, 115,000 cubic yards, is not excessive and is associated with an existing agricultural use, adequate mitigation for the impact to the residential neighborhood through which the truck route is proposed has not been offered in the submittal. No alternative routes have been offered or explored
by the Petitioner.
Although the resulting use would improve cranberry bog operations, and would have adequate facilities for the cranberry bog operations in place, adequate and appropriate facilities are not available and will not be in place and to provide for the proper operation of the hauling route on Pinewood Road. The 20 foot wide residential roadway, Pinewood Road, is not adequately constructed for the proposed heavy commercial truck traffic proposed under the petition. No alternative routes have been offered or explored by the Petitioner, and the proposed compromise of having ingress to the site through other land of the Petitioner which would directly access a Major Street has not been considered.
There will be a clear hazard to both pedestrians and vehicles. Pinewood Road is a 20-foot wide residential street without sidewalks, constructed for a small 25 single-family home residential neighborhood. Seasonal tourist buses and recreational vehicles (RV campers) already use Pinewood Road for access to the winery and recreational campground. There are three separate school bus stops on Pinewood Road during the school season. Children and residents use the roadway for pedestrian travel, including school children access to the school bus stops. There is not adequate room for safe vehicular passage of tour buses, RVs and residential traffic or school buses and the added proposed heavy construction vehicles that would be operated to remove the material for the project subject to this petition. No
alternative routes have been offered or explored by the Petitioner, and the proposed compromise of having ingress to the site through other land of the Petitioner which would directly access a Major Street has not been considered.
There will be a clear nuisance and adverse effect upon the neighborhood. There is not adequate room for safe vehicular passage of tour buses, RVs and residential traffic or school buses and the construction vehicles that would be operated to remove the material for the project subject to this petition. No alternative routes have been offered or explored by the Petitioner, and the proposed compromise of having ingress to the site through other land of the Petitioner which would directly access a Major Street has not been considered. Although the amount of earth removal, 115,000 cubic yards, is not excessive and is associated with an existing agricultural use, adequate mitigation for the impact to the residential neighborhood through which the truck route is proposed has not been offered in the submittal. Pinewood
Road has experienced 15 years of wear and tear, and the added heavy commercial truck traffic proposed under this petition will significantly impact the roadway.
NOTE: Although the Planning Board does not support the Petition as presented, the following conditions are recommended by staff and have been agreed to by the Petitioner in the event that the Board of Appeals chooses to grant the petition. These conditions are provided for assistance only, and do NOT represent a difference of opinion from staff with that of the Planning Board.
The granting of this petition should be subject to the following conditions:
Prior to the start of excavation at the site:
The Petitioner shall post a performance guarantee to protect Carver Road, South Meadow Road and Pinewood Road from damage caused by outgoing loaded trucks. The performance guarantee is to be in a form acceptable to the Building Commissioner upon consulting with the Director of Public Works. The Board of Appeals agrees to terminate the performance guarantee upon completion of earth removal activities if South Meadow Road, Pinewood Road and Carver Road have not been damaged thereby.
The Petitioner has agreed to prepare an erosion control plan (and dust suppression measures if needed) to be submitted to the Building Commissioner. Any exposed banks created by the excavation should be hydro-seeded or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the Building Commissioner and maintained for three years. Proposed side slopes shall be at a grade of 3:1 (or 2:1) with erosion control measures in place. Said plan shall include 100 feet of pavement prior to trucks leaving a gravel hauling area in order to prevent mud from being tracked by the vehicle tires onto paved roadways.
The plan referenced in item (b) above shall include a spoils drying area, as excavated materials will be wet when first removed from the pond. Wet excavated soils shall have dried to a point of not leaving a trail of mud/water from any vehicles beyond the subject property.
Evidence of recording of this Special Permit at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be presented to the Building Inspector, and the plans shall be recorded with the Special Permit.
The Petitioner has agreed to offer the Town a gift of $0.10/cubic yard, or $11,500.00, in order to assist with mitigation impacts to the roadway in advance of work. Payment to be accepted by the Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Town and shall be made available for purposes of evaluating and installing improvements as may be needed at South Meadow Road.
Temporary signs warning traffic of truck entry shall be installed for safety as determined by the Police Department and will be approved by the Director of Inspectional Services.
A limit of 35 truck trips per day will be the maximum allowed for all earth removal operations for this project. Every effort shall be made to phase the truck trips with the other local projects as has been done to date.
The excavation and trucking of material and/or noise generated by the excavation and trucking of material shall be limited to Monday through Friday. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No excavation activities shall be permitted on holidays.
The Petitioner has agreed to allow access to the site for periodic inspections by the Town or its designated representative, and to cover the costs of said inspections through the contingency account managed by the Planning Office. All funds not expended during the construction project shall be refunded upon satisfaction of all conditions and completion of the work.
The Petitioner shall be responsible for the clearing of any sand that accumulates on the truck route as a result of the excavation of material on a daily basis.
The Petitioner shall provide an “as-built” survey which verifies that no more than approximately 115,000 cubic yards of material were removed. A GPS-generated survey plan is acceptable for this purpose.
At no time shall more than five acres of the site be exposed. The Petitioner shall loam and seed any portions of the site that are not under construction after earth removal activities have ceased for a period of six (6) months.
Integrated Pest Management Techniques (outlined in the Department of Agriculture's guidelines entitled “Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Techniques Required for Regulations Governing Protection of Groundwater Sources of Public Drinking Water Supplies from Non-point Pesticide Contamination”) are to be utilized on the bogs.
During construction, monthly statements are to be submitted by the Petitioner to the Building Commissioner from a Registered Professional Engineer stating that the provisions of the Special Permit are being followed.
Once the work has commenced, it shall be completed within two (2) years from start of excavation. After the two (2) year timeframe, unless extended by the Board of Appeals, this Special Permit shall expire and all gravel removal shall cease.
If all of the above noted conditions are not adhered to, the Building Commissioner may cause all excavation work to cease until the problems identified are corrected.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Appointment - Manomet Steering Committee
Barry Wood addressed the Board.
Loring Tripp moved to point Barry Wood to the Manomet Steering Committee; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
4258 – Map 80, Lot 4A-5, Bump Rock Road – subdivide lot 4A-5 (24.83A) into lots 4A-6 (10.0A) and 4A-7 (14.83A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Preliminary Form A Plan – Russell Mills Road
Lee Hartmann presented a preliminary Form A plan to subdivide a large lot of land that has a conservation restriction on a portion of the property. The area to be subdivided would be outside the portion with the conservation restriction. Mr. Hartmann stated that he would request that a note and delineation be added to the plan that clearly identifies the area of the conservation restriction. He noted that the plans call for the creation of a reduced frontage lot. If the Board looks at the lot as it existed in 1973, the proposed division is consistent with Section 205-17 (J) of the Zoning Bylaw. The process could be done through an Approval Not Require (ANR) plan or through the special permit process.
The Board was supportive of the ANR process.
Administrative:
Plymouth Industrial Park – Form O
Valerie Massard presented a Form O for the Board to endorse for the completion of the North Triangle Park subdivision. The roads have been been constructed and the lots have
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to endorse the completion certificate for the above-mentioned subdivision; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
B426 – Little Hios Hills – Performance Guarantee through a Tri-Party Agreement
Valerie Massard presented a Tri-Party Agreement for the B426 – Little Hios Hills subdivision for endorsement. The agreement would cover the first 2,000 feet of roadway in the amount of $250,000.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse the Tri-Party Agreement for the above-mentioned subdivision; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Support for NEP Program
Valerie Massard asked the Board to support the finalization of the study for the TMDL of nitrogen in the watersheds and convey that support to the Board of Selectmen.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to support the study as proposed; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Minutes:
April 2, 2007
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of April 2, 2007 as presented; the vote was (4-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention.
April 9, 2007
Marc Garrett moved to approve the minutes of April 9, 2007; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 10:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: May 14, 2007
Administrative Assistant
| 
