Planning Board Meeting
October 1, 2007
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, Marc Garrett, Loring Tripp, III, Paul McAlduff, and Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard and Caroline Quidort
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
7:00 Executive Session
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to enter into executive session to discuss strategies pursuant to potential litigation. The Chairman stated that the Board would reconvene its regular meeting after the executive session. A roll call vote was taken: Marc Garrett, yes – Paul McAlduff, yes – Loring Tripp, yes – Malcolm MacGregor, yes.
The meeting reconvened at 7:20 p.m.
Lee Hartmann announced that Caroline Quidort has accepted a position as Senior Planner in Binghamton, New York and will be leaving shortly. Mr. Hartmann, Ms. Massard and all the Board members thanked Ms. Quidort for her hard work and dedication to the Town of Plymouth and its citizens and wished her well in her new position.
Administrative Notes:
Minutes
September 17, 2007
Minutes
September 24, 2007
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the administrative notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
7:20 BOA 3455 – Scott B. Richards
Long Pond Road, M 60, L 38-1, SP to waive side and rear setbacks for a camp building built without permits and moved
Valerie Massard presented a request for a special permit to waive the side and rear setback requirements for the post facto tear-down and reconstruction of a camp building. The lot was created through a Form A plan in 1979 that split lot 38 into 38-1 and 38-2. There is a house on lot 38-2 and the existing camp structure was on lot 38-1, which is considered a buildable lot. When the existing structure was demolished all grandfathered zoning protection was lost. The new structure does not meet the current zoning requirements. Ms. Massard stated that staff is recommending denial for a couple of reasons: the building is the primary structure and has to meet current setback requirements (a special permit to reduce the setbacks is for additions and extensions only), proper permits were not obtained (Building and
Conservation permits), the structure has no indoor plumbing, and the structure could be a hazard to the pond due to its proximity to the pond (13 ft.).
Scott Richards addressed the Board and explained the history of the project. The original cabin was built in the early 1900’s and had no running water, a few years ago several trees damaged the roof of the cabin and during repairs he decided to demolish the existing structure and rebuild. The new cabin is in the same location as the old one and still has no plumbing.
Dick and Karen Silva, abutters, were supportive of the changes to the structure.
Marc Garrett questioned whether there could be any local consideration to waive the setback requirements given that the Silva’s is the lot to the north and they are supportive, his mother is the lot to the south, and it was originally one lot.
Ms. Massard replied that once more than 50 percent of the structure was taken down the zoning protection was lost and the new structure should have been built to the current setback requirements and that she met with the Building Department to specifically review options.
Scott Richards asked if the lots were combined into one lot again, would that help the situation. Ms. Massard stated that even if the lots were reconfigured into one and the cabin was considered an accessory structure, the structure would still have lost its zoning protection.
Jean Richards stated that in 1979 she was told by the building department that in order to build a house on the four acre lot, she would have to separate the lots as there was an existing dwelling on the site and under the zoning in place at that time, she could not have two dwellings on one lot.
Loring Tripp stated that in the past the building department has allowed a structure to be rebuilt on the same footprint when retaining 50 percent of the structure creates a safety issue. Mr. Tripp suggested that fines and fees should be assessed, but that to remove the structure would be detrimental to the environment.
Mr. Garrett stated that the topography of the site is severe and a structure could only be located on the top of the hill or where it is. He agreed that there should be some jeopardy in the terms of fines, but that taking it down would be detrimental. Mr. Garrett suggested recommending approval of the request subject to the Conservation Commission’s approval.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
The Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a special permit per Section 205 to reduce the front, side or rear yard setbacks, for building additions and extensions (the primary structure must meet the established setbacks) in the RR, R-40, R-25, R-20SL, R-20MD & R-20MF provided the following additional conditions are satisfied:
a. The proposed structure does not negatively affect abutting uses and buildings.
b. The proposed height and building mass is reasonable for the proposed setback.
c. The proposed structure is not likely to negatively affect the future use of abutting land.
The Board of Appeals finds that the primary structure does not meet established setbacks, which is a mandatory criterion for evaluation of whether a special permit for the waiver of setbacks should be granted per Section 205-40, Table 5. The camp in question is the primary structure. A special permit to reduce the side or rear setbacks is to be considered for additions and extensions only.
The structure in this location negatively affects abutting uses, as it is located on the bank of Little Herring Pond without plumbing, and without permits from the Town Building Commissioner or Conservation Commission, which have purview over this project, to ensure that proper safeguards are in place.
The vote was (2-1-1) with Marc Garrett in opposition and Loring Tripp in abstention.
Loring Tripp left the meeting to attend to personal business.
The following two cases are being reviewed together as they relate to the same property:
BOA 3454 – Plymouth Regional Economic Development Foundation
Hedges Pond Road, M 55, L 25, SP for gravel removal, 400,000 cu. yds.
B544 – Hedges Pond Road Commercial Park
Preliminary Subdivision Plan
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, submitted an alternative potential grading plan “Exhibit A” plan to the Board. The changes to the plan include relocation of the entrance to maximize sight distances to 350 ft. in either direction, keeping the Form A lots as Phase 2 (no grading until uses are determined), maintaining a natural buffer along the northern perimeter of the site with an earthen berm in heights ranging up to 18 ft., a section west of the existing dirt road will be left in its natural state and will mitigate the impacts of the profile, terraces with natural vegetation are proposed on the west and east side of the site, the terraces are about 25 ft. wide and drop 4 ft. into the site which allows for an area for planting if necessary to mitigate headlights and building visibility.
Valerie Massard stated that the proponents worked with staff to address the concerns of the Board. The following conditions were agreed to by the proponents in addition to the conditions in the original staff report:
Earth Removal Special Permit
Condition: No earth work shall begin until the plans are revised to incorporate the following items, and these plans shall be subject to further review by the Planning Board prior to final approval by the Board of Appeals:
The proposed earth work will be done in two phases. Phase I of Earth Removal, approximately 14 acres, shall be in keeping with the proposed conceptual grading plan supplied by Associated Engineering dated September 28, 2007 entitled “Exhibit A”, attached herewith. Phase II will consist of the ANR frontage lots on Hedges Pond Road as shown in Exhibit A.
As presented in the proposed conceptual grading plan supplied by Associated Engineering dated September 28, 2007 entitled “Exhibit A”, attached herewith:
The buffering on the north portion of the lot will be increased by pulling the buffer area further within the lot line, which will increase the height of the remaining tree line and further reduce the visibility of the project from the hilltop residential communities to the north and northeast of the project site. The buffer to the hilltop residences on the lot will be increased to a 75-foot buffer (from 50'), which will provide a 125-foot buffer when taken in conjunction with the buffering on the adjacent property’s (Jeanine Anderson, BOA #3288) earth removal project. The buffer will be further improved by earthen berms with landscaping in areas of thin vegetation, currently identified as the norththeasterly and northwesterly portions of this buffer. An approximate 18-foot mound will result from these
changes within the widened buffer, increasing the screening of the proposed future development.
The plans will include a clear depiction of the improved buffering by showing the lines of sight for both the original and the proposed change in the aforementioned buffer area.
Additional plantings or buffering will be included, if needed, to screen the project from said residences as a result of the site plan review process.
The grading for the proposed entry to the subdivision will be moved further north on the property to improve sight distances.
Terracing shall be used to maintain the natural screening provided by existing trees around the perimeter of the project on the north, east and west so that the inner developed "pad" will be at a slightly lower elevation. These terraces will be an estimated 20 feet in width and shall later be landscaped for additional visual buffering. These terraces will remove the need for a guardrail within the future development, will result in an estimated 150-foot vegetated buffer to Route 3, and will screen any headlights within the property from surrounding uses.
No earth work shall be undertaken in Phase II until such time as a revised grading and buffering plan has been presented, subject to further review by the Planning Board and approved by the Board of Appeals. The Phase II plan will address limited curb cuts on Hedges Pond Road, and maximum screening of the resulting development on the subject property from Hedges Pond Road by maintaining existing grades and vegetation to the extent feasible and through plantings and other screening through the site plan review process.
The Preliminary Plan
At the time of filing of the Definitive Plan, in addition or as amendments to previous staff recommendations, the applicant should address:
Limiting curb cuts on Hedges Pond Road to the extent feasible;
Lines of sight for safety on Hedges Pond Road, while limiting any increase in traffic speeds in the vicinity of the project; and
Consideration of traffic safety mitigation in the vicinity of the intersection of Hedges Pond Road and Route 3A, such as signalization improvements, whether this be through a District Improvement Financing program or other mechanisms that are feasible for the applicant. Traffic estimates should account for full build-out potential within the subject property.
It has been further determined that the capped landfill is some 1200 feet away, and the groundwater mounding concerns that were raised during the review by the Planning Board are therefore not a concern and the stormwater treatment proposed is adequate -- a no disturb treatment of the area is encouraged to reduce any compaction of the soils which will allow for better infiltration of stormwater. All stormwater will be pre-treated prior to infiltration through best management practices.
It is anticipated that some or all of this undisturbed land used for stormwater treatment will be deeded to the Town, with a drainage easement, for other uses such as open space. In this event, arrangement regarding future maintenance of the drainage area by the tenants of the proposed subdivision should be detailed with the filing.
Anne Skelly, Cedarville Steering Committee, stated that Hedges Pond Road is part of the Saltonstall Bike Path, which runs from Boston to Provincetown and should be included in the traffic review.
Paul McAlduff asked if a right of way for a sidewalk is proposed because the other easements for sidewalks are on the opposite side of the road. Mr. McAlduff suggested providing mitigation for the bike path.
Marc Garrett asked if there would be less gravel removed due to the smaller footprint of excavation.
Mr. Shaw replied that with the addition of the berms and the relocation of the entrance the gravel removal is approximately the same 400,000 cu. yds.
Malcolm MacGregor inquired whether there would be any vegetation internal to the site.
Mr. Shaw stated that the vegetation would be proposed during the site plan review for each area of the site. Mr. Shaw stated that the new bylaw requires that only five acres of the site can be disturbed at one time and that the area would have to be loamed and seeded before the next five acres can be excavated.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval of the special permit for gravel removal to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
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 are not maintained.
(d) Documented violation of agreed upon truck routes.
The plans shall be revised to indicate the correct owner.
No earth work shall begin until the plans are revised to incorporate the following items, and these plans shall be subject to further review by the Planning Board prior to final approval by the Board of Appeals:
a. The proposed earth work will be done in two phases. Phase I of Earth Removal, approximately 14 acres, shall be in keeping with the proposed conceptual grading plan supplied by Associated Engineering dated September 28, 2007 entitled “Exhibit A”, attached herewith. Phase II will consist of the ANR frontage lots on Hedges Pond Road as shown in Exhibit A.
b. As presented in the proposed conceptual grading plan supplied by Associated Engineering dated September 28, 2007 entitled “Exhibit A”, attached herewith:
i. The buffering on the north portion of the lot will be increased by pulling the buffer area further within the lot line, which will increase the height of the remaining tree line and further reduce the visibility of the project from the hilltop residential communities to the north and northeast of the project site. The buffer to the hilltop residences on the lot will be increased to a 75-foot buffer (from 50'), which will provide a 125-foot buffer when taken in conjunction with the buffering on the adjacent property’s (Jeanine Anderson, BOA #3288) earth removal project. The buffer will be further improved by earthen berms with landscaping in areas of thin vegetation,
currently identified as the norththeasterly and northwesterly portions of this buffer. An approximate 18-foot mound will result from these changes within the widened buffer, increasing the screening of the proposed future development.
ii. The plans will include a clear depiction of the improved buffering by showing the lines of sight for both the original and the proposed change in the aforementioned buffer area.
iii. Additional plantings or buffering will be included, if needed, to screen the project from said residences as a result of the site plan review process.
iv. The grading for the proposed entry to the subdivision will be moved further north on the property to improve sight distances.
v. Terracing shall be used to maintain the natural screening provided by existing trees around the perimeter of the project on the north, east and west so that the inner developed "pad" will be at a slightly lower elevation. These terraces will be an estimated 20 feet in width and shall later be landscaped for additional visual buffering. These terraces will remove the need for a guardrail within the future development, will result in an estimated 150-foot vegetated buffer to Route 3, and will screen any headlights within the property from surrounding uses.
c. No earth work shall be undertaken in Phase II until such time as a revised grading and buffering plan has been presented, subject to further review by the Planning Board and approved by the Board of Appeals. The Phase II plan will address limited curb cuts on Hedges Pond Road, and maximum screening of the resulting development on the subject property from Hedges Pond Road by maintaining existing grades and vegetation to the extent feasible and through plantings and other screening through the site plan review process.
d. The plans must include any proposed use of on-site use of processing equipment. The size and location, as well as measure, to minimize the impacts of noise, vibrations, and dust generated from such equipment must be detailed.
The Petitioner shall explore every opportunity to:
a. Adjust the grades on the northeasterly slope by cooperating with the Town to grade into some of the Town land, thereby reducing the height of this “berm” significantly, and creating a more natural contour as intended in Section 205-18 D(1).
b. Resulting grades shown on the ANR lots may be adjusted as future site users are identified, and lot lines may also be adjusted to accommodate such uses. The proponent shall make every effort to maintain contouring that will tie into natural grades as the final lot configuration is established.
Said adjustments may be made to the plan through submitting plans for an advisory review by the Planning Board subject to final approval by the Board of Appeals without a modification to this permit.
The grading plans will be revised with a note on the plan, prior to the start of any work at the site, to reflect that approximately 400,000 cubic yards of material is the limit of excavation allowed under this special permit.
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 shall submit 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.
The excavation and trucking of material and/or noise generated by the excavation, operation, engine start-up 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 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 400,000 cubic yards of material were removed.
The Petitioner shall provide temporary signs warning traffic of truck entry for safety, as determined by the Police Department and will be approved by the Director of Inspectional Services, if needed.
A limit of 40 truck trips per day will be the maximum allowed for all earth removal operations for the projects. Every effort shall be made to phase the truck trips with the other local projects.
A heavy-equipment truck route shall be designated an approved by the Board of Appeals.
No excavation shall be larger than five (5) acres for earth removal, storage, and/or processing at one time. Prior to the commencement of excavation of any subsequent areas the preceding five (5) acre operation the preceding five (5) acre operation shall be stabilized either temporarily or permanently.
The Petitioner shall permanently stabilize 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 directly tied to the restabilization of the work site, shall be required in an amount equal to a documented, verifiable estimate of cost to vegetatively reclaim the work site according to the site plan and existing conditions site plan. The estimate shall include an adjustment for projected inflation or other predictable factors over the term of the permit plus one year.
Planting required for stabilization shall occur no later than October 31st.
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.
Monthly statements are to be submitted to the Building Commissioner from a Registered Professional Engineer stating that the conditions of the Special Permit are being followed, and providing tallies of earth removal to accurately determine the amount of gravel being removed.
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 (2-1) with Malcolm MacGregor in opposition.
Paul McAlduff moved to accept the preliminary subdivision plan for B544 – Hedges Pond Road Commercial Park as compete and accurate; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Other Business:
40B Ballot Question
Valerie Massard read the following e-mail from Anthony Fields, Burlington Planning Director, into the record:
Among the ballot questions certified by the Attorney General last week was an initiative to repeal that section of Chapter 40B pertaining to comprehensive permits. The headlines are focused on the initiatives to reduce or eliminate taxes and sources of revenue (which by the way are an effective way to eliminate municipal planning departments and other services), so this item did not get a lot of attention in the press. Several affordable housing advocates argued against this petition, but being careful not to take a position on the question, the AG has certified that it is properly prepared and may proceed. Therefore the race is on to gather some 67,000+ signatures by December 5th. This would then result in the AG placing a bill before the legislature in January to repeal sections 20
through 23 of Chapter 40B, with a requirement that the legislature take action by sometime in May. Failure of the legislature to take action would result in the issue appearing on the 2008 state ballot in November, with the voters getting to decide what to do with 40B.
There are already more than 50 bills pending in the legislature to amend 40B. It had anticipated that the Housing Committee would work on this issue during the current session, and now it may have to. Whether you support 40B or not, this should be an interesting process to watch over the next year.
Ms. Massard stated that she would keep the Board updated as information becomes available.
Form A’s:
A4273 – Cornish Field Road, M 69, L 35 (6.1A) – subdivide into lots 35-1(5.96A) and 35-2 (0.14A) with a note to be added prior to endorsement that the existing boat house on lot 35-2 not to be considered a dwelling.
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk pro-tem to sign the plan once the above-mentioned note has been added; the vote was (2-0-1) with Marc Garrett in abstention.
A4274 – Duck Plain Road, M 30, Lots 72A-3 (24,839 sf) and 72A-4 (24,175 sf) – combine a portion of lot 72A-4 with lot 72 A-3 to create lot 72A-5 (26,069 sf) with remainder of lot 72A-4 to become 72A-6 (22,945 sf) with a note to be added to the plan that identifies the zoning as R20SL.
Marc Garrett moved for the clerk pro-tem to sign the plan once the above-mentioned note has been added; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 8:15 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: October 22, 2007
Administrative Assistant
| 
