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, 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
6:30 Joint Meeting with the Board of Selectmen
Chapter 40T (cont.)
(Richard Quintal, Jean Loewenberg) Marc Garrett, Malcolm MacGregor, Larry Rosenblum (Loring Tripp and Paul McAlduff arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Marc Garrett had some concerns with the Board sending a letter of support for the proposed legislation. He felt that if the legislation passed, the Town would have to deal with it on a case by case basis.
Larry Rosenblum listed his concerns with the proposed legislation as follows:
Accelerates residential and urban development in Plymouth;
Favors big developers and large land owners;
Starts to build a nuclear authority of private entities;
Other mechanisms are existing that would provide the same benefits;
Loring Tripp and Paul McAlduff were supportive of the proposed legislation.
Larry Rosenblum suggested having other interested parties come to a future meeting to address the Boards and give another perspective.
Paul McAlduff suggested asking someone from our State legislation to attend a future meeting.
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
August 13, 2007
Larry Rosenblum requested that the following change be made on Page 2, under the presentation by Hal Davis: The sentence that begins "If the plan receives 100% support..." should read "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."
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of August 13, 2007 with the above-mentioned change; the vote was (4-0-1) with Malcolm MacGregor in abstention.
The Board voted to clarify the B-510 – “Stone Gate Farm” Subdivision and Special Permits pursuant to Section 205-66 for Village Open Space Residential Development and pursuant to Adequate Facilities Conditions per Section 205-67 of the Plymouth Zoning Bylaw (the “Bylaw”) Clarification of Vote of EXTENSION as presented, as requested by Attorney Robert C. Betters.
The Board voted to release Lot A-185 on Pinehills Drive in Plymouth, Plymouth County, Massachusetts, as shown on a plan entitled “Modified Definitive Subdivision Market Block at Pinehills in Plymouth, Massachusetts”, dated March 29, 2007, prepared by Daylor Consulting Group, Inc., from the Covenant by and between Thomas F. Wallace, d/b/a Wallace Associates, and the Planning Board of the Town of Plymouth dated November 12, 1996 and recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds (the “Registry”) in Book 15163, Page 41, as affected by Amended and Restated Subdivision Covenant dated May 4, 1999 and recorded with the Registry in Book 18003, Page 153 (collectively, the “Covenant”).
The Board voted to make recommendations, as presented, to the Director of Inspectional Services regarding site plans as shown on “Site Permitting Plans for a 4200 SF Multi-Tenant Industrial Building at #31 Meadow Park Road shown as Lots 21-10, 21-11, Map 108 of the Plymouth Assessor’s Records, Prepared for Charles Caranci, Jr., Trustee of AMC Realty Trust and MJC Nominee Trust,” prepared by Associated Engineers of Plymouth, Inc. and dated July 31, 2007.
The Board approved the endorsement of the following Form A plans:
A4269 – Off Sandwich Street, Map 80, Lots 3-1, 3B-2, and 42-2B
A4137 – Cape Cod Avenue, Ma 48, Lot 377 – Land Court Plan
The Board recommended approval for BOA Case No. 3447 - Petitioner: Second Church of Plymouth, 518 State Road, Map 45, Lot 7A-1. Request for a Special Permit per Section 205-19, Table 205-19-1, to exceed size and setback requirements in order to install a 20 sq. ft. double-sided wooden sign subject to the following condition:
The lighting for the proposed sign must comply with the Prevention of Light Pollution Bylaw.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing (cont. from 6/18, 6/25, 7/30)
B530 - Waterhouse Subdivision
Atty. Edward Angley informed the Board that an alternative has been worked out that would connect the site to Cherry Street, near the intersection of Commerce Way. It would be an offset intersection and that Roger Hammond, DPW Director, has reviewed the plans and agreed that the intersection could work.
Ron Mueller, Greenman Pedersen, presented the revised plans for the new intersection and the updated traffic study. The location of the intersection of the proposed road and Cherry Street would be 300 ft. east of the Commerce Way traffic signals. Mr. Mueller stated that acceptable traffic conditions can be accomplished even with other projects that are proposed for the area and the growth on Commerce Way however, a traffic signal is needed to avoid back ups at the Commerce Way intersection. The proposed connector road could be realigned in the future if the Independence Mall and NStar approve. The realignment would be opposite Commerce Way.
Valerie Massard stated that the current connector road would have a stop sign initially and that the alternative plan would be a four-way offset. In either scenario, the timing of the lights would have to be adjusted as necessary. Ms. Massard stated that all the concerns of the other property owner on this application have been resolved. Ms. Massard also informed the Board that Mr. Tripp would not be able to vote on this plan as it is a continued public hearing.
Paul McAlduff suggested that the road could have more curvature as a traffic slowing measure.
Ms. Massard stated that the staff recommendation asks that the applicant to revise the definitive plan prior to endorsement of the final design.
Lee Hartmann suggested that the Board could continue the public hearing and have the applicant come back with revised plans or the Board could condition the approval to provide a bend in the road with final approval of road layout and landscaping prior to endorsement.
Atty. Angley suggested approving the subdivision subject to conditions, but not endorsing the plan gives the Board the control it needs to insure the road layout is appropriate.
The Board suggested traffic islands, median strips or a roundabout as traffic calming measures.
Carol Cristani suggested adding signage that identifies the residential neighborhoods on Cherry Street and the school.
Mary Costa was concerned with the increased traffic on Cherry Street, especially heading into Town.
Loring Tripp suggested making the entrance onto Cherry Street a right turn only.
Mr. Mueller explained that this would not be appropriate given the traffic data and turning movements.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing; the vote was (4-0-1) with Loring Tripp in abstention.
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the B530 – Waterhouse LLC definitive subdivision subject to the following conditions:
The Applicant has agreed to the endorsement of the plans and profiles within 120 days from the date of approval, or in the case of an appeal, endorsement of the plans and profiles within 120 days of the settlement of the appeal.
The following will be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board prior to endorsement of the plans:
The subdivision plans, landscaping as presented during the public hearing process, including no construction of roadway parallel to the Massachusetts State Highway (Route 3) beyond approximately station 4+00 and drainage designs will be revised to be reflect the revised plan entitled “Definitive Subdivision Master Grading Plan, Lots 1, 2, 13 and 14, Plymouth’s Assessor’s Map 102, Crows Way, Plymouth, Massachusetts” dated February 2, 2007 (revised through August 20, 2007), prepared by Associated Engineers of Plymouth, subject to peer review, with final approval by the Planning Board, and shall include lot numbering as approved by the Engineering Department. The plans shall address the following:
The Planning Board supports the recommendations of the Design Review Board of the intention to screen the adjacent property from the road, to create a bend in the final roadway layout to remove the straight appearance, as presented during the public hearing process by the proponent’s design engineer, through a series of curvatures in conjunction with landscaping.
The roadway design should reflect similar new construction for entryways into the commercial shopping centers in Plymouth, including the boulevard entries of Colony Place and the Shops at Five, with respect to landscaping and street design. The new road will be another entryway into the Town of Plymouth, and the design should reflect this accordingly, including traffic-calming measures, medians, and landscaped islands throughout the length of the roadway.
The Plans will be revised to reflect the proposed adjustments to the drainage easements as presented by the applicant and owners: (1) Redesign of 1.12 Acre Drainage Basin.~ The 1.12 acre drainage basin shown on Conifer Property will be relocated to area of the Conifer Property along the frontage with William Gould Jr. Boulevard and will be redesigned as below grade galleys.~ Not an open hole or depression. (2) Redesign of the 20' wide drainage easement at the Town Line to run parallel to William C. Gould Jr. Way.
To hookup to the municipal water system, the applicant must demonstrate that the water system can deliver adequate fire flow protection and static pressure. This should be demonstrated with appropriate flow tests as required by the Water Department.
Fire hydrants shall be located as approved by the Fire Chief.
The definitive plans should clearly indicate the cuts and fills required.
A street opening permit from DPW should be provided to the Planning Board.
A pre-construction meeting will be held with Town Hall staff, including the Building Department, Planning Department and Department of Public Works.
Conditional upon the payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for this property, if any.
Easements should be shown for utility locations, to allow for access and maintenance of the utilities shown on the plan.
The Department of Public Works shall approve repair details for the any curb cut improvements constructed by the applicant, and sidewalk improvements associated with this development for work on Town land or within a public road layout, including repair of any damaged monuments, sidewalks or benchmarks as noted on the plans, and these details shall be shown on the plan.
Applicant will work with the Town in providing signage, as approved by the Department of Public Works and appropriate Town officials, from the new intersection of the Gould Way extension with Cherry Street towards the North Plymouth Village service area, such as “thickly settled,” “school,” acceptable to the Planning Board.
The Applicant will review the Mass Highway planting plan, and discuss with Mass Highway officials a contribution to plantings at the new Route 44 interchange with Commerce Way, and report back to the Planning Board on the results of this contribution.
The plans will be revised to detail the conditions of this approval.
The Applicant is obligated to obtain any necessary approvals from the Town of Kingston, and from the state or with respect to grading in the highway or road layouts (if any) under their purview.
This Decision will be recorded with the plans at the Registry of Deeds.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit, delivery of five (5) sets of full size copies of all endorsed drawings comprising the definitive plan with one complete set of reproducible plans (mylars) and one electronic copy of the plans in a format acceptable to the Town Engineer per the Rules and Regulations must be made by the applicant.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any of the parcel subject to this approval, the following traffic mitigation shall be installed:
Phase I road construction will consist of the installation of utilities and subdivision road construction as shown on the final definitive plans to a minimum of binder, with all drainage facilities operational at binder grade until such time as a wearing course is placed. At the time of wearing course placement, stormwater and curbing will be adjusted to function at grade of wearing course. Phase I road construction will include appropriate improvements for a stop sign controlled intersection where the new road intersects with Cherry Street as shown on the plans. All of Phase I must be completed.
Timing of the signalized intersection of William C. Gould Jr. Way at Smiths Lane in Kingston will be adjusted, upon approval by the Town of Kingston, to best practices for appropriate operation of the intersection. The timing of the signalization of this intersection shall be evaluated and updated by the proponent, if necessary, within 6 months of the issuance of an occupancy permit at the site.
The Petitioner shall complete a Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis for the “offset” intersection of the new roadway (a.k.a. the Gould Way Extension) and Cherry Street prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis shall be completed in accordance with the methodology and procedures established in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (latest edition) and shall be based on updated traffic count data obtained at the time that the analysis is completed and projected traffic volumes for the proposed and any unoccupied uses within the project site using appropriate trip-generation methodology as defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Upon demonstration that said intersection meets the necessary warrants to install a traffic control signal, the
Petitioner shall complete Phase II road construction: the completed construction of the Gould Way extension to Cherry Street, and shall design and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of the new roadway and Cherry Street, with appropriate pedestrian accommodations and interconnection with the adjacent traffic signal at the intersection of Cherry Street at Commerce Way. Said traffic signal and Phase II road construction shall be constructed prior to issuance for the occupancy permit of the use that triggers this requirement and shall include all required modifications to the traffic signal system at the intersection of Cherry Street at Commerce Way to provide a fully functional coordinated traffic signal system. An optimal traffic signal timing and phasing plan for the adjacent Commerce Way/Cherry Street intersection shall be required at the following intervals: (1) upon completion and opening of the offset intersection of Cherry Street and the Gould Way
extension as approved herein; (2) within six months after the opening of the Cherry Street/Gould Way extension intersection; (3) within one year after the opening of the Cherry Street/Gould Way extension; in order to ensure the efficient operation of the signalized intersection as traffic patterns in the area adjust with the opening of the new roadway.
In the event that necessary approvals have been granted to re-align the Gould Way Extension to intersect Cherry Street opposite Commerce Way prior to the Phase II road construction of the Gould Way extension as approved herein, the proponent will provide Alternate Phase II road construction design and construction of the re-aligned Gould Way extension to intersect Cherry Street opposite Commerce Way, and will provide a fair-share contribution toward the Commerce Way corridor improvements as will be defined in the pending Commerce Way Corridor Study being completed by VAI on behalf of the Plymouth Regional Economic Development Foundation and commensurate with the Project’s traffic volume contribution as defined therein, including appropriate signalization and pedestrian access at the 4-way intersection of
Commerce Way/Gould Way extension and Cherry Street.
The Department of Public Works shall approve that all repair details for any curb cut improvements constructed by the Petitioner (if any), and sidewalk improvements associated with this development for work on Town land or within a public road layout, including repair of any damaged monuments, sidewalks or benchmarks as noted on the plans, has been completed according to the plans prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Conditional upon the provisions of a performance guarantee in the form of a covenant duly executed and approved, to be noted on the plans and recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds. Said form of guarantee may be varied from time to time by the Applicant with mutual agreement on the content of said guarantee by the Applicant and Planning Board without amendment or modification of this approval.
Conditional upon completion of all ways and the installation of all municipal services in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the Board within two years from the date of endorsement.
The Applicant has agreed that he/she will guarantee to protect, repair, replace, and where necessary, and upon written acceptance by the Planning Board, redesign the works constructed and submit revised plans and profiles for the Planning Board's approval and for recording at the Plymouth County registry of Deeds so that said works actually carry out the purposes for which they were intended. Said repair, replacement, or redesign will be based upon experience in the field, which demonstrates the existing construction and/or design to have been improperly installed or wholly inadequate.
Prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy, unencumbered easements for maintenance and title to all fire alarm conduits, water lines and hydrants, if any, constructed and installed in the subject property shall be conveyed to the Town. In the alternative, a conveyance of the utilities and roadway may be completed (Form F of the Appendix of the Rules and Regulations).
The vote was (4-0-1) with Loring Tripp in abstention.
Public Hearing
B474 – Wadsworth Estates SP for Adequate Facilities
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Atty. Robert Betters reviewed the history for the previously approved subdivision. The original Special Permit for Adequate Facilities was issued in 2001. The subdivision is on track to be completed in 2009 and the Town is holding a bond for $100,000 under the earth removal special permit on this property through the Board of Appeals. Atty. Betters felt that the original permit was intact, but agreed to refile in order to address the current traffic situation. An updated traffic study has been done. Atty. Betters stated that he has reviewed the staff report and doesn’t object to the recommended conditions.
Ron Mueller, Greenman Pedersen, stated that the original traffic study was done by his firm and that they updated the traffic study. The new traffic counts were performed in June of 2007 and show that traffic has decreased by approximately 30 percent. Herring Pond Road is not used as frequently due to the change in the traffic patterns in the area. The volume of traffic was 30 peak hour trips with the majority of the traffic heading to Route 3. It was observed that the posted speed limit is not adhered to and traffic travels at approximately 45 miles per hour. Mr. Mueller suggested that vegetation within the right of way and in one area of the frontage needs to be removed. The sight line easement is shown on the plan and would be cleared and regraded as necessary. The radii have been
designed to be 25’ minimum. Samples of signage were presented that would identify an intersection ahead; indicate the curvature of the road, identify the streets, etc. Mr. Mueller suggested that the best way to reduce speeds on a collector road is enforcement. With the curvature of the road, the installation of traffic islands would be inappropriate and would reduce the width of the road significantly.
Valerie Massard asked whether the intersection should be lit (as mentioned in the DPW comments), it was determined that the streetlights have not been waived under the subdivision approval. Ms. Massard recommended adding conditions in addition to requiring a pre-construction meeting and street opening permit that would incorporate updates to the plan as needed and accept the signage.
Mr. Mueller stated that adding street lighting, although not a requirement, would enhance safety.
Ted Bosen spoke in opposition to the petition. He had concerns regarding the operation of a commercial operation on the site, the noise levels and the vibrations of the heavy machinery. He stated that the petitioner had public contracts and some of the gravel that trucked in and subsequently removed from the site came from the Sagamore Bridge flyover.
Atty. Betters stated that there is an existing special permit for the gravel removal and the site is being prepared to install the subdivision roads. The only petition before the Board at this time is the Special Permit for Adequate Facilities. Atty. Betters stated that the gravel removal would be completed within a two year period and the subdivision completion is scheduled for 2009.
Loring Tripp suggested that the proponent have a meeting with the neighborhood to address their concerns.
Marc Garrett stated that the concern is the gravel operation and how it impacts the neighborhood. The subdivision has already been approved.
Malcolm MacGregor requested clarification on the gravel being brought in and removed from the site.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue to the public hearing to September 24, 2007 at 7:15 pm; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Continued Public Hearings – Fall Town Meeting Articles:
Gravel Removal
The Board reviewed the proposed revisions to the Gravel Removal section of the Zoning Bylaw that is scheduled for Fall Town Meeting. Language has been added at the Board’s request about the length of time (two years) that gravel removal can be excavated with a provision for an extension; conditions upon which the special permit can be revoked; phasing and a performance bond for the permit; hours of operation and number of truck trips and truck routes; stabilization requirements; and inspections. The Zoning Board of Appeals already adds a condition to the special permits that requires a scale on larger projects.
Marc Garrett suggested tying the performance bond to “vegetative reclaim of the site” and adding “operation and start up” to the paragraph that limits the times and noise of the gravel removal
Larry Rosenblum suggested adding language that would prohibit on site processing and screening of materials.
Paul McAlduff stated that the topsoil has to be removed, screened and stored on site for the future revegetation of the site. Mr. McAlduff suggested prohibiting the storing of boulders and large gravel.
Valerie Massard suggested that any proposed processing could be required as part of the permit application. Any changes to the processing allowed under the approved permit would then require a modification
Loring Tripp suggested increasing the fines and fees assessed for violations of the special permit for gravel removal.
Ted Bosen suggested adding a clause that would measure and limit the seismic activity on the site.
Lee Hartmann stated that a line could be added under the application process to require the processing and location of the equipment to be defined.
Malcolm MacGregor was supportive of adding language that would limit the noise, vibration and dust.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Marc Garrett moved to approve the language presented with the suggested editorial changes; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Floor Area Ratio
Valerie Massard informed the Board that Town Counsel has advised that under State law you can’t restrict new construction on a non-conforming lot in any way other than the 10-20-10 setbacks and height restrictions and new construction, enlargements, alterations, and extensions of a pre-existing non-conforming structure on any lot is to be determined on a case by case basis.
Loring Tripp stated that Duxbury limits the amount of impervious coverage on any lot to 70%.
Ms. Massard stated that we could explore impervious coverage and lot coverage limits for all lots for a future Town Meeting article.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to take no action; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing
B525 – Guide Board Park (Randall)
Marc Garrett recused himself and joined the audience
Timothy Grandy, Planning Board Alternate joined the Public Hearing.
Malcolm MacGregor read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Atty. Edward Angley presented the request to subdivide lot 8 on Map 44 under the VOSD special permit into a mixed type residential development totaling six units with a common drive. Randy Parker, Land Management Systems Inc., reviewed the site plan which currently has a 3 bedroom single family dwelling, a 1 bedroom carriage house and a 1 bedroom “Mill” dwelling. Three 2 bedroom single family dwellings are proposed. Mr. Parker stated that the Manomet Steering Committee has reviewed the plan and is supportive.
Peggy Ouimet, 783 Rocky Hill Road, was concerned with the increased traffic and the speed of the vehicles traveling on the existing driveway. Ms. Ouimet asked if there would be any traffic mitigations.
Mr. Parker replied that no changes to the road are proposed.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if there was any emergency access.
Mr. Parker stated that there is an existing cart path or trail that cuts out through the northeast corner of the property to Rocky Hill Road and a gravel turnaround could be created about halfway for emergency vehicles.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the B525 – Guideboard Park VOSD subject to the following conditions:
The Petitioner has agreed to waive its right to any further residential development of the premises that results in a more intense or dense use, regardless of any local, state or federal criteria to the contrary, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapters 40A and 41, and this shall be noted on the VOSD plan, as well as incorporated into the Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the lots within the VOSD development.
The Petitioner agrees to attend a pre-construction meeting, and to stake the open space in the vicinity of construction to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, prior to the start of any earth work at the site. Said stakes are to remain in place until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Prior to endorsement of the VOSD plan, verification of payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for the land shown on the plan, if any, is to be provided to the Planning Board.
This approval does not waive any penalties or fines associated with the post facto structures that may be levied by the Building Department or other Town Boards or Departments.
Prior to endorsement of the VOSD plan, the plan will be revised to detail the conditions of the approval, as needed, and notes specifying the conditions will be incorporated into the plan or the decision will be recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds with the plan. Plan revisions shall include:
Landscaping and architectural design and façade treatments, and exterior building materials for the proposed new dwelling units, shall be provided, subject to final approval by the Planning Board;
Emergency access, if any, shall be clearly depicted on the plans.
Adjustments to the driveway improvements depicted on the plan, with associated drainage calculations, consistent with revisions in statement (a) above, subject to final approval by the Planning Board;
The concerns of the Department of Public Works in the memorandum dated August 20, 2007 shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board.
Utility easements; access for maintenance by the association/trust of on-site septic or utilities, as needed;
Access easements for the association/trust to maintain and use the open space;
Adequate fire flow and static pressure for water must be demonstrated by the Petitioner, and requirements of the Fire Chief with respect to hydrants must be satisfied;
Detailed lighting plans shall be included, subject to final approval by the Planning Board;
Existing and proposed septic systems shall be clearly noted on the plans for all units.
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
Five (5) sets of full sized copies of all drawings comprising the VOSD Definitive Plan with one complete set of reproducible plans (mylars) will be delivered to the Planning Board and one (1) electronic copy of the plans shall be delivered in a format acceptable to the Town Engineer.
Evidence that Restrictive Covenants on the land, and this decision, have been recorded must be presented to the Planning Board.
Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit for any individual lot, the Petitioner shall provide concrete bounds at appropriate open space corners as approved by the Planning Board.
The Petitioner agrees to create a condominium or homeowners trust as the form of ownership of the premises. Said condominium or trust shall be in place prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits.
The Petitioner has agreed to provide a maintenance program for drainage facilities and appurtenances, open space, parking and common drive/emergency access areas to be maintained by the condominium owner’s trust, which shall be detailed in the condominium owner’s trust documents for this project.
The open space within the project is to be privately owned and maintained by the condominium association or homeowners trust in a manner consistent with conservation and recreational purposes, as noted in this decision. In the event that the condominium or trust should no longer be in existence, the disposition of the open space shall be determined through a mutually agreeable alternative as approved by the Planning Board.
Any signage shall comply with the Zoning Bylaw or additional permits will be required.
Trash receptacles (if any) must be screened with landscaping and decorative fencing.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3448 – RJ Ferioli
Carver Road, SP elderly mobile home planned unit development
Atty. Robert Betters presented the request for a special permits in order to construct a 66 unit elderly mobile home park on property located at 90 Carver Road, as shown on Assessors Map 105, as Lot 3. The project would be similar to Mr. Ferioli’s project known as Westwood Village located off Plympton Road. The project has been presented to the West Plymouth Steering Committee and they recommended a minimum of 25’ for the buffers.
Ronald J. Ferioli stated that the houses would be 50 to 60 ft from the property line and he agreed to a minimum of 25 ft for the buffer areas. He stated that he may have to disturb the buffer areas to put in septic systems, but would revegetate the area as necessary. The roads would be 22 ft. wide with sidewalks.
Ron Mueller, Greenman Pedersen, reviewed the proposed location of the entrance off Carver Road which is in excess of 200 ft. both from the West Plymouth Plaza entrance and Miller Drive and has adequate sight lines.
Julie Archer and Jeff Flockton stated that while not opposed to the project, 66 units on this site were excessive and they felt that 25 ft buffers would be inadequate. They proposed 75 ft. buffers around the perimeter of the site with high and low vegetation including evergreen plantings. They also suggested shifting the project closer to Barengo Farms. They had some concerns with the noise and dust levels during construction and asked if there would be an end date for the project.
Doug Showalter was also concerned with inadequate buffers and traffic safety.
The Board was concerned with the density of the project, inadequate buffers, and public safety.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to recommend denial if the special permit to the Zoning Board of Appeals because of the impact to surrounding neighborhoods and on public safety; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Appointment
Christopher Cummings – Ellis Estates (Brown Bear Circle)
Caroline Quidort informed the Board that staff has made several attempts to contact Mr. Cummings regarding incomplete items in the above-mentioned subdivision. Ms. Quidort stated that currently the Town is holding over $10,000 dollars in the performance guarantee account.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to take the remaining guarantee funds in the amount of $10,499.16 plus interest; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Administrative:
Discussion - Economic Development Filing Fee Waiver
Lee Hartmann presented a request by the Economic Foundation to have the filing fees waived for their proposed subdivision.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to deny the request to waive the filing fees; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
B296 - Ponds at Plymouth
Valerie Massard informed the Board that all final payments for the Ponds at Plymouth subdivision have been completed. Ms. Massard recommended that the Board release of all funds: $427,750 in bonds for Phases 0-8 and release the excess funds held in the escrow account (approximately $25,000) back to the road construction gift account.
Loring Tripp moved to release all bond funds; the vote was unanimous (5-0)
Loring Tripp moved for the remaining funds held in the escrow account be returned to the road construction gift account; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Form A’s:
A4137 – Brush Hill Road/Cape Cod Ave – Land Court Plan for lot line adjustments on Map 48, Lots 167, 119, 118, and B8 thru B13
Larry Rosenblum moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0)
A4269 – Old Sandwich Road – Map 80, Lots 3-1, 4A-2B and 3B-2 – Lot line adjustment; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Parking Fund
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to recommend to the Advisory and Finance Committee that the parking funds held by the Town should be used for the creation of new parking spaces not for maintenance; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Loring Tripp and Paul McAlduff both moved to adjourn at 11:27 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: September 17, 2007
Administrative Assistant
| 
