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: Marc Garrett, Loring Tripp, III, Paul McAlduff, and Larry Rosenblum
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard and Caroline Quidort
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Joint Meeting with the Board of Selectmen and School Committee
The Board met with the Board of Selectmen and School Committee to discuss the State’s request that the Town identify whether Plymouth North High School or Plymouth South High School was a higher priority for funding of renovations. The group consensus was that Plymouth North High School was a higher priority.
Minutes:
July 30, 2007
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of July 30, 2007as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Administrative Notes:
BOA 3445 – Kelleher
Brian’s Way/ SP to move & enlarge nonconforming structure and SP to waive the front setback requirements
The Board recommended approval of BOA Case 3445 – Petitioner: Kevin Kelleher, 8 Brian’s Way, Map 45, Lots E7, E9 & E11, request for a Special Permit to move and enlarge a nonconforming structure and a Special Permit to waive the front setback requirements for the following reasons:
The proposed use is appropriate to the zone and this specific site. The dwellings have existed on this land for many years, and the primary structures are legally non-conforming. The lots are pre-existing non-conforming lots. These legal non-conformities result in a situation where the structures do not conform to yard setback requirements for the zone. The structures are relatively crowded with 15 feet between three of the four houses on the property. The new location for the structure in question will improve the distances between the structures and improve the conformance of the subject structure with regard to yard setbacks, and the new location is the site of a previously existing dwelling which had been in place for many years. The proposed deck is an appropriate accessory use to the single-family
dwelling, providing semi-private outdoor use of the property, similar to two of the existing four structures on the lot and similar to many of the structures in the neighborhood.
Adequate and appropriate facilities are in place and can be extended to serve the structure, which will not need additional town services.
There will be no hazard to pedestrians or vehicles. Moving the structure does not alter the density on the lot, and will create safer ingress and egress for vehicles by creating a new driveway for access to the subject structure, reducing the usage of the existing drive.
A pre-existing non-conforming structure and/or use may be moved upon issuance of a special permit by the Board of Appeals based upon a finding that the aforesaid shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure and/or use to the neighborhood. The new location of the subject structure will not be a nuisance or have an adverse effect upon the neighborhood because the house will not change the primary use of the property. The subject house will become more conforming as a result of the move, and the remaining structures will be less crowded as a result of the move. The proposed deck is an appropriate accessory use to the single-family dwelling, providing semi-private outdoor use of the property, similar to two of the existing four structures on the lot and similar to many of the
structures in the neighborhood.
B452 – Cedar Oaks
Performance Guarantee and Contingency Funds
The Board voted to take the remaining funds in the Contingency and Guarantee Accounts for B452 – Cedar Oaks as the developer has failed to complete the work within the specified time.
Form A:
The Board approved the endorsement of the following Form A plan:
A4268, Map 103, Lots 25-3 & 25-4A, Seven Hills Road – Lot line adjustment to create lots 25-3A (0.60A) and 25-4B (0.84A)
Loring Tripp moved to for the Board to approve the above-mentioned administrative notes; the vote was unanimous (4-0)
B426 – Little Hios Hills
Covenant Release
The Board endorsed a revised release of covenant for B426 – Little Hios Hills. In the original release, a legal reference was omitted.
B505 – Pickerel Cove
Site Plan Review; Lot release; extension of covenant
Loring Tripp moved to release lots 1326 and 1327 from the covenant, allow the Building Department to issue building permits as the lots have been stabilized and for the Board to endorse a two-year extension of the special permit for B505 – Pickerel Cove; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Presentation – Hal Davis
Chapter 40T
Hal Davis presented proposed Chapter 40T legislation that is currently before the State House. The legislation could be adopted by the Town and would create a Development Zone (designated sections of a town benefiting and paying for infrastructure improvements in their area). Water lines, sewer plants for areas with septic systems, roads and sidewalks, parking garages, dam improvements and other infrastructure could be funded. A petition with a detailed improvement plan from property owners would start the process. Abutter’s notification would be sent and a public hearing would be held by the Board of Selectmen. If the petitioner owns 100% of the proposed district, only Board of Selectmen approval is required.~ If the petitioning body owns between 80% and 99%, Town Meeting approval would also be required.~ Districts cannot be proposed with less than 80% representation of acreage to be included in the development district and 80% of the tax parcels.
. The plan that accompanies the petition would include the boundaries of the Development Zone, cost of the improvements, and who would provide the financing. If it is an economic development project, the bond would be issued through Mass Development Finance Agency. If the project is residential the bond would be issued by a local improvement district and the managers would be a “prudential committee”. The people on the prudential committee must be listed in the improvement plan. The property owners could have up to 35 years to pay back the betterment. The program is voluntary and would enable a developer to finance infrastructure improvements up front. It would provide a fairer assessment of impact fees. CHAPA, the Mass Chapter of the American Planning Association, Mass Home
Builders, Mass Alliance for Economic Development, and the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce are among the supporters of the proposed legislation.
Loring Tripp asked whether other improvements could be added once a specific betterment district is created for a specific project?
Mr. Davis replied that an amendment to the original plan would have to be petitioned and then go through the process.
Larry Rosenblum asked what New England Economic Development Corporations (NEEDC) role was. Mr. Rosenblum also asked if the financing could be used for projects other than infrastructure and whether it could be used for revenue producing projects.
Mr. Davis stated that NEEDC were consultants. Mr. Davis stated that the districts could be created for projects other than infrastructure ie. a parking garage or recreation area, but no profits could be generated from the resulting use because the improvements must be owned by a non-profit organization.
Mr. Rosenblum asked how long these bonds stay in place.
Mr. Davis replied that there is a forty year limitation, which is better than the 20 year limit on bonds.
Paul McAlduff stated that the proposed Stop and Shop in Cedarville had agreed to provide traffic signalization and mitigations, but the cost of the improvements have increased significantly while the special permit is under litigation. Mr. McAlduff suggested that if 80 % of local businesses were supportive, they might be able to obtain funds to install the traffic mitigations.
Loring Tripp moved to submit a letter of support for the proposed legislation.
Paul McAlduff was supportive.
Mr. Rosenblum suggested further review of the concept and making a more comprehensive recommendation.
Marc Garrett stated the he was not for or against the motion at this point. Mr. Garrett suggested holding the motion for two weeks for further review.
Loring Tripp withdrew his original motion and moved for the discussion to be added to the docket on August 27, 2007; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Mr. Rosenblum asked if the Board of Selectmen would be interested in working with the Board to assess whether to support the proposed legislation.
Dick Quintal replied that he would be available to work with the Board.
Public Hearings: Fall Town Meeting Articles
Floor Area Ratio
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing. Mr. Garrett suggested continuing the public hearing until Mr. MacGregor could be present.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to August 27, 2007 at 7:45 p.m.; the vote was unanimous(4-0).
Gravel Removal
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann asked the Board to table discussion until later in the meeting.
Loring Tripp moved to continue the public hearing until later in the meeting; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
TDR/MURA
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann reminded the Board that this article has been proposed on the last three town meeting warrants. Staff has been unable to devote time to drafting additional language for this article.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to take no action on this article; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Rezone Map 45C, Lot 152, Taylor Ave
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Atty. Ed Conroy stated that the existing building has always been used as a restaurant, but as it has not been used as such for more than two years, the zoning protection no longer exists. The proponents would like to operate a restaurant in the existing building. Atty. Conroy stated that the proposal has been presented to the Manomet Steering Committee and they are supportive.
Lee Hartmann stated that originally there were a number of commercial lots in this area that have over the past several years been rezoned for residential uses. This structure has been a non-conforming store and restaurant which lost its zoning protection. Through the Master Plan, the residents of Manomet recognize that small businesses are important to the fabric of the community. The restaurant is designed to serve the neighborhood and if the neighbors are supportive it would be beneficial to the community. It would be up to a judge to decide whether this proposal is considered spot zoning. Mr. Hartmann stated that the petition, advertisement and public hearing notice only included lot 152 and that the building is actually on lots 152 and 153. He stated that if the Board was inclined to be
supportive, the petition would need to be re-advertised.
Larry Rosenblum and Paul McAlduff were generally supportive.
Loring Tripp and Marc Garrett wanted to hear from the public.
Doris Muirhead spoke in support of the proposal.
David McDonald was concerned with the condition of the existing building and requested to see plans of the proposed renovations. He would be supportive if the building was overhauled and done with quality.
Marc Garrett stated that the petition only addresses the request to rezone the parcel. The renovations to the building would have to be submitted to the building department and may require a special permit.
Sheila Damiano spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Damiano felt that a restaurant would not be supported by foot traffic and there is no parking available for vehicles. Ms. Damiano stated that the Town lot is used by residents in the area.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to re-advertise the petition to include lots 152 and 153 and to reserve an article under the Board’s name; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Rezone Map 89A, Lot 1-3, Long Pond Road
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann presented the petition to rezone a Town owned parcel on Long Pond Road. The building was formerly used by the water department and the parcel is currently zoned residential. A single family home could be constructed on the site. The parcel is surrounded by commercial properties and would be rezoned to Highway Commercial (HC).
Atty. Edward Angley spoke in favor of the article.
Paul McAlduff moved to close public hearing; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend approval of the proposed zoning change to Town Meeting; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3442 – Industrial Tower and Wireless, LLC
SP to exceed height requirements in order to construct a wireless communication tower
Atty. Edward Angley presented the request for a special permit to exceed the 35’ height limit in order to construct a 120’ communication tower with accessory structures.
Don Cody stated that the North Plymouth area has been identified as a deficient area for mobile communication and that a tower is needed. The proposed monopole with branches at the top would be located off Tanglewood Drive and the existing path would be improved gravel to provide access to the site. A secondary access would be through the property owners back yard. The accessory structures would not be visible from the existing homes, the street or to people walking in the park area. Four diseased trees would have to be removed in front of the proposed structure. Other sites considered were the smokestack at Cordage Park, the boat yard, Walmart, the Lutheran Church, and another location on Tanglewood Drive.
Valerie Massard stated that the proposal was scheduled for review by the North Plymouth Steering Committee, but the meeting was not held and that the Design Review Board suggested adding more branches to camouflage the pole.
Paul McAlduff felt that the proposed pole was not appropriate for a residential neighborhood.
Marc Garrett was not supportive of the proposal.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
There may be feasible alternatives to the proposed tower. The Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that there are not other sites, towers or power line utility poles that could be utilized to serve the identified gap area. No information regarding the alternative sites that were investigated by the Petitioner was submitted with the Petition.
There is no clear and specific public benefit which may be realized only by exceeding the 35-foot height limitation. The Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that there are not other sites, towers or power line utility poles that could be utilized to serve the identified gap area. No information regarding the alternative sites that were investigated by the Petitioner was submitted with the Petition.
The proposed structure will detract from the visual character and quality of the adjacent dwellings, buildings, the neighborhood, and the Town as a whole. The monopole will exceed the height of the treeline by 30 feet, and no landscaping has been proposed to screen the fenced in 100’ x 100’ pad during winter conditions from abutting residences.
In the event that the Board of Appeals chooses to grant the petition, the following conditions are recommended:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Permit, the following alternatives analysis must be provided to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals:
The Petitioner shall demonstrate that service cannot adequately be provided through mounting antenna to existing power line stanchions in the area or through placing the antenna on an existing tower before a monopine alternative is considered; and
In the event that a monopine is determined to be the most feasible alternative, the Petitioner shall be required to document the minimum height necessary to fill the identified service gap, with the scientific supporting data which may be submitted for peer review by the Town’s consulting engineer to verify the minimum height determination; and
The monopine materials shall be presented to the Board of Appeals in order for it to determine which design is most desirable in terms of reducing the visual impacts of the tower to the surrounding neighborhoods and roadways, which shall address the concerns of the Design Review Board and are subject to final approval by the Board of Appeals; and
The site plans will be revised to show all areas of disturbance and drainage/road improvement locations with drainage calculations for review by the Town Engineer or Town’s consulting engineer; subject to final approval by the Board of Appeals.
A landscaping plan for the cell tower pad shall be submitted for final approval by the Board of Appeals, which shall address visibility during winter conditions. Significant older hardwoods will be cut down for the proposed cell tower pad – these should be noted on the plan. For each of these trees (>12-inch dbh), 3 evergreen trees with a 2-inch to 3-inch caliper shall be planted to provide screening from abutting properties. Said plantings shall be shown on the plan.
The scale on the plans will be edited, as needed, if necessary to reflect accurate dimensions.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit:
The Petitioner shall supply all necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance with all federal and state regulations, including Massachusetts Natural Heritage under MESA, with respect to the location/design/operation/licensing of the tower; and
Any disturbance to existing vegetation is to be restored and stabilized to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In the event that the need for the monopine itself becomes obsolete, or if technological advances allow for the height of the monopine tower to be reduced, the Petitioner is responsible for all removal or replacement of the tower and restoration of the site within a reasonable timeframe mutually acceptable to the Board of Appeals and the Petitioner, at the Petitioner’s sole expense.
The tower will not be marked with painted striped or lit unless required under federal/state regulations.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3446 – Plymouth Redevelopment Authority
Murray St/Variance of area requirements to construct a new single-family home for use as affordable
Caroline Quidort presented the request for a variance of area, depth, and width in order to construct a single family dwelling for use as affordable housing. The site was approved for conveyance to the Plymouth Redevelopment Authority by 2007 Special Town Meeting. Originally the site had a multi-family structure, but has been vacant for several years. The proposed structure is a 22’x32’single family dwelling with a single car garage underneath and a second parking space in the driveway.
Lee Hartmann stated that the structure would be smaller than the previous structure and that it would be restricted to a two-bedroom unit.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following condition:
The dwelling will have a maximum of two bedrooms.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3444 – Albert White and George Mendes II
Tilton Street/SP for accessway
This item was moved from Administrative Notes due to an abutters concern.
Lee Hartmann stated he and Caroline spoke to the abutter and that his concerns were not with the petition and would be addressed by staff at a later date.
Loring Tripp moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Only one single-family home shall be constructed.
There shall be no further subdivision of the lots.
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall return to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals with plans that show the stormwater containment system for the site.
Septic and leaching areas shall meet the appropriate Board of Health regulations.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Form A:
A4267, Map 121, Lots7-26, 7-27, 7-28, & 7-59S, Paulette Terrace – Lot line adjustment to create Lots 7-60 (0.591A), 7-61 (1.47A),and open space lots 7-59T (2.503 A) and 7-59U (0.864A)
Valerie Massard stated that the site for the above-mentioned plan that would create two residential lots has two wetland areas and that the Board of Health may not approve the installation of septic systems.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to take no action; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Town Meeting Articles (cont.)
Gravel Removal
Lee Hartmann stated that staff has reviewed the gravel removal bylaws of other towns and talked to Town Counsel about language for amendments to Section 205-18 regarding gravel removal bylaw. The standard conditions that are now included in special permits would be incorporated into the bylaw and additional language has been proposed as follows:
Excavation of materials shall be allowed for a period of two (2) years from the start of excavation. The applicant shall notify the Building Commissioner prior to the commencement of work. Upon completion of the two (2) year period the applicant shall have sixty (60) days to submit a written request to the Board of Appeals for an extension of the excavation period. The Board of Appeals may deny the request of the extension for the following reasons:
(a) Violations of the conditions of the original permit.
(b) The work site has been deemed abandoned by the Building Commissioner.
(c) Proper stabilization methods, as outlined in Subsection H(2) and/or H(3), are not maintained.
(d) A violation of agreed upon truck routes.
No excavation shall be larger than five (5) acres for earth removal, storage, and/or processing at one time. Prior to the commencement of the subsequent five (5) acre operation the preceding five (5) acres shall be stabilized either temporarily or permanently as required in Subsection H(2) and/or H(3).
The Petitioner shall permanently stabilize, as defined in Subsection H(3), any portions of the site that are not under construction after earth removal activities have ceased for a period of six (6) months.
A performance bond determined by the Town, and tied to the restabilization of the work site, of shall be required in an amount equal to a documented, verifiable estimate of cost to reclaim work site according to the site plan submitted. The estimate shall include an adjustment for projected inflation or other predictable factors over the term of the permit plus one year.
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.
A limit of 40 truck trips per day will be the maximum allowed for all earth removal operations for the project. Every effort shall be made to phase the truck trips with the other local projects.
A heavy-equipment truck route shall be designated and approved by the Board of Appeals. Final stabilization shall occur no later than October 31st.
Inspection. The Building Commissioner or its duly authorized agent shall have access to the excavation site at all times in order to inspect the site to insure compliance with the approved site plan.
Paul McAlduff asked if language could be added that would require scales be on site for larger gravel removal projects with suspension of the operation if trucks go around the scale or add a fee per cubic yard of gravel to be removed.
Loring Tripp suggested researching how the Town of Carver charges a fee per cubic yard of gravel removed.
Larry Rosenblum suggested adding language that would require a definition of the intention of the end use of the site.
Mr. Hartmann suggested that a recommendation could be made in individual cases that all permits are in place before gravel removal begins
Marc Garrett was concerned with tying the end use of a project to a permit. He was supportive of requiring permits before work commences and suggested a performance bond that would be held for revegetating and restabilization of the site. Mr. Garrett questioned who would monitor the scale if it was a requirement.
Mr. McAlduff suggested that the company doing the removal would have to turn in slips to the Building Commissioner to verify the amount removed.
Marc Garrett suggested requiring that surveys be done on each phase to verify what has been removed as it is the volume in the ground that is calculated, not what is being trucked off site.
Loring Tripp moved for this public hearing to be continued to August 27, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. for additional language to be drafted; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Marc Garrett reminded the Board that included in their handouts for tonight was an invitation by the Charter Commission for the Board to attend the next meeting on Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Also included was a copy of the proposed language for the Charter.
Lee Hartmann stated that the changes include an appointed Planning Board to oversee subdivision control and an appointed Strategic Planning Board for long-range planning.
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 10:10 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved:_____________________
Administrative Assistant
| 
