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: Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
The Board recommended approval of BOA 3477 – Randall & Nadine Speers (2/20), 28 Oliver Neck Road, M 120, L 33-10 for a Special Permit to waive the side setback requirements in order to construct an attached garaged and to alter a pre-existing non-conforming structure by adding a 2nd floor, subject to the following condition:
The garage and addition shall be constructed with appropriate materials and architectural details to be in keeping with the architecture of the existing dwelling.
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes of January 14, 2008 as presented.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve BOA 3477 and the minutes of January 14, 2008 as presented under Administrative Notes; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
A Forms:
A4285 – Maura and John Welch – (BOA 3465) – Map 44, Lots 6-1, 6-581 and 6-582 – Lot line adjustment to create lots 6-592 (9,073 sq. ft.) and 6-593 (9,363 sq. ft.)
Paul McAlduff moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Valerie Massard presented the release of covenant for lots 36-4B and 36-6B, Harvard Drive.
Paul McAlduff moved to release the above-mentioned lots; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3476 – Jewel Trust (2/6)
131 West Long Pond Road, M 69, L 26 – Modification of a Special Permit #3435 in addition to renovations of the existing structure, the applicant seeks to demolish portions of the existing structure and to re-construct the structure as shown on revised plan dated 1/9/08
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc., presented a request for a modification of Special Permit #3435. The existing special permit did not include a request to demolish a portion of an existing structure. When renovations began it was determined that substandard construction required a substantial portion of the structure to be removed. The demolition was started and a stop work order was issued by the Building Commissioner because the Special Permit did not include demolition. The chimney will also need to be removed and will be replaced with an interior flue system.
Valerie Massard asked for clarification of the note on the plan for this petition that indicated that the main house will be demolished and she noted that a walkway and porch area that were shown on the plan for the existing special permit were not shown on the current plan.
Mr. Flaherty clarified that the current petition did not include any changes to the main house.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the site plan entitled “Plan to Accompany Zoning Permit Application in Plymouth, Massachusetts prepared for Jeffrey & Elizabeth Howe Wallace,” dated January 9, 2008, prepared by Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. of Plymouth, Massachusetts shall be modified to show no changes to the second dwelling or boat house and associated patios subject to this modification and special permit on the property by:
a. Removing the note “existing house to be demolished;” on the second dwelling, which was not included on the original special permit plan;
b. Clarifying, exactly, what the existing conditions are with respect to the patio at the east end of the bocci court now shown on the plan, but which was not included on the original plan;
c. Showing the exact location of the existing walkways connecting this patio and the associated boat house deck, which have been changed on the plans that were submitted with this petition as compared to the original plan;
d. Showing the exact location of the existing walkway and patio on the second dwelling, which has been changed on the plans that were submitted with this petition as compared to the original plan;
e. Clarify why the note “7 bedroom capacity” was added to the Soil Absorption System area;
f. Clarify where the existing driveway is located; the location of the existing driveway was deleted on the revised plans that were submitted with this petition;
g. Clarify whether the existing porch on the dwelling subject to this petition is to be rebuilt, which was included on the original plan but is not shown on the revised plan submitted with this petition; and
h. Include the note shown on the original plan which showed the location of the proposed 10’ x 20’ addition with no increase in bedrooms, which was eliminated from the plan submitted with this petition.
The vote was (3-1) with Marc Garrett in opposition.
BOA 3401 – Plymouth Housing Authority
Site Plan and Landscape Plan Review
Paul Blanchard stated that the Plymouth Housing Authority was delayed in presenting its final site plan and landscape plan while pursuing funding of the project at the State level.
Suzanne McDonough presented the landscape plan. The plan detailed the following: retains as many of the existing mature trees as is possible; creates a residential feel around the office building with foundation plantings, ornamental trees, and a private terrace; provides a landscaped and lighted walkway from the office building to the new addition and parking lots; provides a landscaped terrace off the community room for the senior housing; provides landscaped screening of the transformers; the installation of a split rail fence and plantings along the abutting property line to the south; and the installation of stone entry walls with plantings. All materials used would be consistent with the existing structures and landscaping.
Al Fein presented the architectural drawings of the proposed structures which consist of an additional apartment building attached to the existing building. The new addition would have three floors and house apartments, a community room, lobby, dining area, storage and elevator. The elevator would be available to residents of the existing building should their elevator be out of service for any reason. Mr. Fein showed the façade of the building as it would be seen from Court Street which included a gabled roofline, glass panels in the center, pilasters, and balconies. The façade of the building will have two tones of tan vinyl siding which will tie into the existing building. The separate office building will have a residential feel with shingle and scalloped vinyl siding in a darker tan, a hip roof,
octagonal turret, and porch for a Victorian look.
The mechanicals on the roof top of the residential building will be small individual units and the mechanicals for the office will be small outdoor condensers.
Mr. Blanchard stated that the plan would be presented to the Design Review Board.
Loring Tripp moved for the Board to notify the Zoning Board of Appeals that the applicant has satisfied Conditions 1 (a) and (b), once the following recommended conditions are satisfied:
1. The Design Review Board is also to provide advisory remarks to the Board of Appeals prior to final approval by the Board of Appeals, per condition 1(b);
2. The Petitioner is to return for approval of the screening of rooftop mechanicals once the size and shape of these rooftop mechanicals is established.
Also, the Planning Board supports the Petitioner’s proposal to use vinyl siding which simulates cedar shingles, conditional upon that vinyl siding material being the high-quality vinyl siding materials available (rather than the lesser quality alternatives that are available on the market). This is in keeping with the siding used in the neighborhood, will meet the goal of maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and the shingle-style siding is appropriate in the context of this building.
The vote was (3-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention.
The Board took a five-minute break.
Presentation – Michael Murphy
Status of Tidal and Wave Energy
Michael Murphy, Director of Renewable Energy Alternative Technologies for Devnie-Tarbell and Associates of Portland, Maine, gave a presentation about utilizing the ocean’s tidal and wave action to produce energy. The industry is regulated by the Federal government. Mr. Murphy explained the process to apply for a permit, which includes obtaining a preliminary permit to study the feasibility of a pre-determined area. The preliminary permit reserves the rights to study a specific area for a period of three years. Several projects have received preliminary permits: OPT, Reedsport – Oregon Wave Park; Aqua Energy – Makah Bay Wave Park; Golden Gate – San Francisco Bay; and the East River – New York. In Massachusetts, several areas have been identified as potential site; the
Cape Cod Canal, Woods Hole Passage, Vineyard Sound, Nantucket Sound, Muskeget Channel, and Blynman Canal. There are also several international initiatives, including the Bay of Fundy, Stranford Loch, Scotland, Portugal and Spain. The technology includes several different types of underwater turbines or buoy systems to capture either the tidal action or wave action and generate energy. One of the biggest challenges is transporting the energy from the turbines or buoys to land and connecting from there to the “grid”. Mr. Murphy encouraged anyone interested in further information about tidal and wave energy to research the industry and the initiatives through the internet or to review the information provided to Planning Staff.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to invite Pinehills LLC to a future meeting for a discussion regarding affordable housing; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
The Board requested that Plymouth Rock Studios be invited to make an informational presentation at a future meeting.
Loring Tripp moved to adjourn at 10:35 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: February 4, 2008
Administrative Assistant
| 
