Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2008
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, Malcolm MacGregor, Paul McAlduff, Larry Rosenblum, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard, and Howard Coppari
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne

Administrative Notes:
The Board recommended approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals for BOA 3494 – Shawn & Martyne Lunney, 34 Asiaf Way, Map 45, Lot 39-218 – Special Permit to waive the side setback requirements in order to demolish a single story existing converted cottage and rebuild a new two-story single family house subject to the following condition:
If the applicant chooses to enclose or enlarge the rear wooden deck in the foreseeable future then the applicant shall apply for a Special Permit to seek relief from zoning.

The Board approved the minutes of June 2, 2008 as presented.

The Board recommended the clerk sign the following Form A plan:
        A4302 – RJ Childrens Trust, Dunham Road Properties Nominee Trust, Wendy F. Siwik – Dunham Road, Map 98. Lots 10 (0.193A), 11 (1.399A), 13 (0.277A), 14Z (0.315A inc. 13A and 13B) – Lot line adjustments to create lots 10-1 (14,065 sf), 11-1 (50,393 sf), 14-1 (21960 sf) and to define two easements on lot 13

Paul McAlduff moved to approve the above-mentioned Administrative Notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

A4301  - William K Harris – Ellisville Drive, Map 49, Lot 5-807 (1.41 A)– Divide into two lots 5-815 (20,045 sf) and 5-816 (41,495 sf)
A 4301 – was removed from Administrative Notes and will be presented at the meeting on June 30, 2008.

Committee Appointments
Manomet Steering Committee
        No applicants

Planning Board Alternate
        Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to appoint Timothy Grandy to the Planning Board Alternate position; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

BOA 3490 – Late Night LLC       
        Long Pond/Holman Rds., Maps 89, Lots 34F-1 and 34F-13A
Atty. Robert Betters reviewed the history of the original special permit requests under BOA 3204 for a use requiring a curb cut off a major street (which was granted) and the request for a special permit to waive the off-street parking requirements (which was denied) in order to construct a restaurant and 17,500 sq. ft. of retail space.  The restaurant subsequently located elsewhere.  In 2007 a site plan review was done for a 32,250 sq. ft. retail center, which showed two phases of development on the site.  The Planning Board was not supportive, but the Board of Appeals approved the site plan as a two phased project including landscaping and lighting subject to Phase II being a modification of the special permit.  In the first phase a 17,500 sq. ft. retail building was constructed.  BOA 3490 has been filed for a modification of the original special permit and for a special permit to modify and/or waive off-street parking and associated requirements in order to construct an additional 15,000 sq. ft. of retail space.  The traffic study for the project has recently been updated.  As part of the original special permit, the proponent deeded easements to the Town for a 10 ft. strip of land on Long Pond Road to allow the expansion of Long Pond Road, contributed $10,000 toward a master plan for the area, and was required to provide a curb cut onto Holman Road.  Atty. Betters stated that his client has indicated that the mitigations already agreed to are adequate.
Jeff Dirk, Vanasse Associates, reviewed the updated traffic study which included a Long Pond Road corridor study, traffic counts, and motor vehicle crash data.   It is estimated that the proposed project would add 50 vehicle trips to the traffic travelling north on Long Pond Road with no drop in the service level of the road.  There are existing issues with traffic flow (unrelating to the Petitioner’s project) at the intersections of Long Pond Road and Home Depot Drive as well as the intersection of Route 3 South ramp and Long Pond Road.  Retiming of the traffic signals and/or redirecting the traffic flow patterns with additional signage and pavement markings and/or additional signalization could alleviate some of the issues both at the problem intersections, the intersection of Holman Road/Long Pond Road, and within the subject site.   Two other suggestions have been made to address the existing traffic on Holman Road:  an exit onto Holman Road with an extension from Holman Road to Home Depot drive has been suggested to take advantage of the existing signalization or signalization of the Holman Road/Long Pond Road intersection.  Results from the Town’s peer review of the traffic study have not been received.   
Malcolm MacGregor, Larry Rosenblum, and Paul McAlduff voiced their concerns with allowing additional traffic on a corridor that is already overburdened.  
Mr. MacGregor asked if the link between Holman Road and Home Depot Drive would be viable.
Lee Hartmann responded that the link area is private property and would have to be taken by eminent domain or the property owners would have to agree to allow the link to be constructed.  The proposed link would increase traffic on Home Depot Drive where there is already an issue.  Valerie Massard stated that staff and Mr. Dirk participated in a meeting with Richard Bryant, Tetra Tech Rizzo, and Ron Mueller from Greenman Pedersen (who created the recent traffic study for Viking Development for Home Depot Drive).  They discussed current issues and potential solutions for the area as outlined above, especially that of the Holman Road intersection.  The Holman Road intersection may need signalization, which could be synchronized with the Shops at 5 Way intersection.    Ms. Massard reminded the Board that they did not support the massing on the original plans which were approved by the BOA.  Ms. Massard offered the following points to the Board: the configuration of the proposed plan could be altered to move the L shaped building closer to Long Pond Road to break up the parking lot; the landscaping has been installed, but the earthen berms that were required in the original plan have not been provided and should be installed; the proposed retaining wall along Holman Road could have more aesthetically pleasing façade than the versa lock retaining wall at the rear of the site with better landscaping; a reduction in parking in excess of 10% should require further review; and a signal at the Holman Road/Long Pond Road intersection, integrated with the existing Shops at 5/Long Pond Road signal, is the best available option to improve the egress situation at this intersection for Holman Road.   Ms. Massard stated that as there is only one tenant in the existing retail building, it is difficult to assess the full impacts within the site and on the surrounding area.    
Marc Garrett was concern with the Holman Road intersection and felt it should have a traffic signal.  Mr. Garrett also suggested that Holman Road, the existing curb cut, and Shops at 5 Way should function as one intersection.   
Mr. MacGregor was supportive of relocating the proposed building closer to Long Pond Road, maintaining the access onto Holman Road, and installation of the earthen berm as required in the original plan.  
Mr. Rosenblum was supportive of the synchronized signalization of the two intersections (Shops at 5 Way and Holman Road), retaining the Holman Road access and minimizing the impact of the proposed retaining wall.  
Ms. Massard stated that the comments from the peer review would be available before the Zoning Board’s public hearing, but that existing conditions merit the Holman Road issue should be addressed, with a portion of the mitigation being the responsibility of the proponent.  
Bill Wennerberg was supportive of relocating the proposed building closer to Long Pond Road to break up the massing, mounding the landscaping, and the retaining wall should have a more natural façade.   
Atty. Betters stated that the landscaping and architectural plans would be presented at a later date, once the tenants are identified and the buildings are established.  
Larry Rosenblum moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following:
It is recommended that the petitions for the Modification of the Special Permit and to modify off-street parking be DENIED for the following reasons:
The road and signalization infrastructure is not adequate to support the proposed additional retail use that is the subject of this petition.  In addition, the applicant has not proposed any mitigation to minimize the impacts of the added traffic from the proposed additional retail use at the subject property on the turning movements at the Holman Road/Long Pond Road intersection.~
No curb cut is shown onto Holman Road, and the grading that will result is not in keeping with the close proximity of pedestrian sidewalk access at this location, nor is the resulting grading in keeping with the surrounding properties.  This is a highly visible location for passing motorists on Long Pond Road, a Major Street, and the resulting 15-foot elevation change with the associated retaining wall is not in keeping with the surrounding properties or the goal of the Town of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan to maintain an extension of the village fabric at the lands immediately adjacent to village centers and to create pleasant, safe and desirable commercial areas with an emphasis on fostering a sense of community for residents and property owners.  Secondary emergency access off of Holman Road is recommended for planning purposes.
The Holman Road/Long Pond Road intersection is not signalized.  There are identified traffic congestion and maneuvering issues in this section of Long Pond Road extending through to the Route 3 interchange, and the timing/phasing of the signals is crucial for public safety and reduced traffic congestion.  The Petitioner’s traffic engineer has found that the periodic spikes in the turning movements into and out of Holman Road at this intersection cause periodic congestion and safety concerns on Long Pond Road, and has identified a possible solution:  a signal at the Holman Road/Long Pond Road intersection tied into the Long Pond Road/Shops at 5 Way signal that would treat the two lights as one signalized intersection.  The subject property is located immediately adjacent to the Holman Road/Long Pond Road intersection, and utilizes the Long Pond Road/Shops at 5 Way intersection as a major ingress/egress point to the subject property.  No mitigation is proposed for the impacts of the added traffic from the proposed additional retail use at the subject property on the turning movements at the Holman Road/Long Pond Road intersection.  The road and signalization infrastructure is not adequate to support the proposed additional retail use that is the subject of this petition.
In the event; however, that an agreement can be negotiated on the above-referenced issues that is satisfactory to the Board of Appeals, the Planning Board offers the following Recommended CONDITIONS:
Note – additional traffic peer review comments should be incorporated into the Conditions when they become available as approved by the Board of Appeals if the special permit is granted.
The Petitioner has agreed to a condition that no more than 10% of the parking requirements shall be waived by this special permit without further review by the Planning Board and final approval by the Board of Appeals.
The Petitioner has agreed to a condition that there shall be a new pedestrian crosswalk installed as at the Shops at 5/Long Pond Road intersection, with a review and adjustment of the timing and phasing of the signal for the crosswalk prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being granted for either of the new structures associated with this petition.
A CONDITION must be added requiring signalization of the Holman Road/Long Pond Road intersection, consistent with the recommendation of the Petitioner’s traffic consultant dated June 10, 2008, in order to mitigate for traffic impacts that the subject petition will have on the turning movements at the intersection, prior to issuance of any additional Certificates of Occupancy for either of the new structures associated with this petition.
The previously approved landscaping plan and the proposed site plan shall be revised to match the new site configuration, with the subsequent review of the architectural and landscaping plans for advisory comment by the Planning Board, Town’s traffic peer review consultant and Town Engineer, subject to final approval by the Board of Appeals, and shall include, at a minimum:
  • An evaluation of required sight distances for traffic safety shall be performed for the site driveways and internal to the site, and the landscaping plans shall include the earthen berms to be installed to the extent that sight distances are not hindered; and
  • The site plans shall be revised to change the configuration of the L-building to bring more of the retail massing closer to the frontage of Long Pond Road.
  • The site plans shall be revised to show details of the proposed retaining wall that will tie into the existing retaining wall at the rear of the property along Holman Road;
  • A curb cut onto Holman Road shall be incorporated into the site plan in order to reduce the significant impact of the 15-foot grade change now shown on the plan and therefore the resulting size/height/proportions of the proposed retaining wall along the western side of the property fronting Holman Road with a pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to the road layout, and the retaining wall shall have a façade or be made of materials that are more aesthetically pleasing and suitable for such a highly visible intersection on a Major Street; the Petitioner shall submit details and materials for the proposed retaining wall and landscaping to screen this wall as appropriate;
  • In order to evaluate safety conditions, the Petitioner shall satisfy the Town Engineer’s request (see memo dated May 16, 2008 in file) for further evaluation of the Holman Road/Long Pond Road intersection impacts if a curb cut is installed on the subject property to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals.
  • The site plans shall be modified to incorporate the following requested changes from the Town’s traffic peer review consultant and those changes recommended by the Petitioner’s traffic engineer:
  • The north site driveway (located north of Shops at 5~Way) shall be a minimum of 16-feet in width and shall be restricted to operation as a right-turn, entrance only facility.  Appropriate signs and pavement markings shall be installed to regulate traffic flows at the driveway.
  • The main site drive will intersect the west side of Long Pond Road, opposite Shops at 5 Way and forming the fourth leg of this signalized intersection.  The main site drive will be a minimum of 36-feet in width, accommodating one entering lane and two exiting lanes (left-turn lane and a through/right-turn lane).  In order to improve traffic operations, a lagging left turn phase shall be provided on the Long~Pond~Road northbound approach to the intersection and an optimal traffic signal timing and phasing plan shall be developed and implemented as a part of the first phase of the project and prior to any additional tenant Occupancies in the existing structure.  
  • All signs and pavement markings shall be designed and installed in accordance with the standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
  • Any signs or landscaping adjacent to the site driveway intersections with Long Pond Road, Holman Road and within the project, shall be designed and maintained so as not to restrict lines of sight.
  • Traffic control signs and pavement markings shall be added to the site plans at the signalized intersection within the site;
  • Parking at 90-degree angles located directly opposite the signalized site driveway shall be reviewed and reconfigured as appropriate to address delays that may occur for entering traffic;
  • The STOP-bar proposed at the right-turn entrance-only driveway from Long Pond Road shall be removed to avoid backups on Long Pond Road and the 90-degree parking opposite this drive shall be reviewed and reconfigured as appropriate;
  • The two narrow medians on either side of the signalized driveway separating the driveway from the parking stalls shall be reviewed and reconfigured as appropriate to address potential snow overtopping into the site driveway during plowing;
  • A truck-turning analysis shall be completed for the entire site and the entry lane at the signalized driveway shall be widened as may be necessary to accommodate truck-turning maneuvers at the intersection;
  • Split-phasing of the traffic signal and installation of appropriate signs and pavement markings to accommodate the offset lane alignment with the entrance drive to Shops at 5 Way shall be incorporated; and
  • Stop signs on the internal circulation road at the two driveways from Long Pond Road shall be installed.
All prior conditions remain in full force and effect.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).  

BOA 3493 – Anna Maria K. Murray
        4 Lake Ave, Map 57, Lots 60B-9
Atty. Isaac Machado presented a request for a variance for area, depth, width, and frontage for a non-buildable lot in order to allow for the construction of a new 1,092 sq. ft. single family home to be built on a non-conforming parcel.  
Howard Coppari informed the Board that the subject property has been held in contiguous ownership with lot 60B-10, is in within the Area of Critical Environmental Concern and falls within a mapped priority habitat as established by Natural Heritage.  There is an access concern as the width of the existing gravel roads vary in width from 11’ to 12’ at the narrowest points.  
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following:
The Planning Board does not consider issues of hardship that may or may not be a factor for individual petitioners.
There are no unique circumstance relating to soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land and especially affecting such land but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located that do not affect similar lots in the immediate area or other property throughout the community.  The proposed lot areas of 6,610 SF and 13,093 SF are significantly less than the 120,000 SF minimum required in this zoning district.
Desirable relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
Desirable relief cannot be granted without nullifying the intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw. Granting this petition would convert one pre-existing non-conforming lot into two non-conforming lots that are substantially less than the minimum required in this zoning district.  
The vote was unanimous (5-0).

Conceptual Review
        Waverly Oaks
Mark Ridder began the presentation of a revised conceptual plan to modify an existing RDD special permit and include a transfer of development rights in order to construct residential units on a portion of the existing Waverly Oaks golf course.  The original special permit approved the golf course and 10 residential lots.  Only one of the residential lots has been developed and is occupied by a family member.  The entire site is approximately 242 acres.   
Tom Ryan, RLA, presented an aerial view of the site, and several scenarios for potential development which included spine schemes and clustered schemes for a mixed use development.  The proponent prefers the clustered schematic with some dwellings overlooking the golf course and other dwellings fronting on open space areas with alleyways to the rear.  Geothermal heating and solar panels are being considered to create “green” buildings.  The clustered scheme would also allow for a sewerage treatment plant instead of individual or combined septic systems.  Mr. Ryan presented cross sections detailing the proposed 50-60 ft. wooded buffer that would be maintained along Long Pond Road.
Larry Rosenblum asked what the final unit count would be and what the lot sizes would be.   
Valerie Massard replied that the maximum unit count could be 112 units (75 by right lots, 7 affordable housing units and the transfer of development right units).  The proponent is proposing 102 units.
Mr. Ridder stated that the lots would vary in size between 8,000 sq. ft. to 14,000 sq. ft. with some lots being 65 ft. in width and others being 85 ft. in width.   
Malcolm MacGregor and Marc Garrett preferred the spine scheme as it provides more character than a tightly packed subdivision as shown in the cluster scheme and it integrates the units into the site.
Mr. Rosenblum suggested joining buildings, shared driveways and providing amenities for the residents.  He was supportive of the clustered scheme which creates a village community.  
Mr. Garrett requested additional information on the proposed septic systems for the spine scheme.   Mr. Garrett questioned the viability of creating a “village” at this location.
Mr. Ridder stated that he is committed to installing a treatment plant and has submitted his plans to DEP for review.  He is also proposing to develop a community well.  

Conceptual Review
        Obery Street
Nicholas Filla presented a conceptual review for a proposed office development on Obery Street.  The site is shown on Assessors Map 27 as Lot 50 and consists of 1.53 acres.  The site is adjacent to Plymouth North High School and falls within the Obery Street Overlay District.  Several schematics showing two medical office structures with associated parking in a “park like” campus setting were presented.   
Paul McAlduff was supportive of the schematic showing the “L” shaped structures, but suggested rotating the buildings so the corners would abut.  
Malcolm MacGregor preferred Schematic Plan 9, which had a park like nature and separation of the parking lots.   
Mr. Filla explained that Schematic Plan 9 would have pedestrian paths that would connect the buildings at ground level and a pedestrian bridge that would connect the second floor with an elevator in only one of the structures.  
Marc Garrett also preferred Schematic Plan 9, but suggested that the access onto Obery Street be located as far away from the proposed roundabout as possible.  
Mr. Filla stated that the next steps would be to further define the plans and present them to the Plymouth Center Steering Committee before coming back to the Planning Board for further review or filing with the Board of Appeals for any necessary special permits.   

Other Business:
Marc Garrett asked that Roger Hammond, DPW Director be invited to meet with the Board at a future meeting.  

Malcolm MacGregor encouraged the Board to take a more proactive role in reviewing the proposed sites for Plymouth Rock Studio and moved for the Board to invite the studio to address the Board regarding potential studio sites; the vote was (2-3-0) with Paul McAlduff, Marc Garrett and Bill Wennerberg in opposition the motion did not carry.   

Malcolm MacGregor expressed his concerns regarding the lack of vegetation and plantings along the newer section of Rte 44 in Plymouth and Mass Highway’s lack of response to inquiries about the situation.  
Larry Rosenblum suggested inviting Frank Tramontozzi, who is now with Mass Highway to address the Board.  
Marc Garrett suggested that with Plymouth’s 400th anniversary coming up, it would be an appropriate time to use as leverage for improvements to Plymouth’s highways.    
Lee Hartmann suggested sending a letter to Senate President Therese Murray asking to earmark Mass Highway funding for the revegetation.    
Larry Rosenblum moved to contact our delegation, Senator Murray and Representatives deMacedo and Calter, and work with them to invite Mr. Tramontozzi from Mass Highway and other representatives from the State to discuss highway landscaping improvements; the vote was unanimous (5-0).   

Paul McAlduff informed the Board that the Energy Committee is asking for two new members, one of which would be a member of the Planning Board.
Bill Wennerberg nominated Paul McAlduff to be the Planning Board’s representative to the Energy Committee; the vote was unanimous (5-0).   

Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 10:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).

Respectfully Submitted,




Eileen M. Hawthorne                                             Approved: June 30, 2008