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 approved the minutes of October 6, 2008 as presented.
The Board approved an extension of the subdivision covenant for B510 – Stonegate Farm.
The Board approved bond reductions for work completed in the following subdivisions:
B497 – Bogview Estates - $10,000.00 B476 – Mill Pond Landing - $10,000.00
B438 – Bramhall Estates - $17,808.00
The Board supported the Local Initiative Program for the Village at South Street.
The Board recommended that the clerk sign the following Form A plan:
A4318 – 2419 State Road, Map 56, Lots 61B & 61C – Lot line and area definition
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
A4311 - J&M Properties, 1432 Old Sandwich Road
Map 52, Lot 32-2 (5.51A) – Divide into 32-89 (2.78A), 32-90 (0.69A), 32-91 (0.94A) and 32-92 (0.87A)
Valerie Massard presented A4311 which creates four lots out of one parcel that has three structures that existed prior to zoning. Under Chapter 41, Section 81L, lots will be created that separate the existing buildings. These lots will not conform to zoning. The plan will also create one lot which meets dimensional standards for the zone. The following notes have been added to the plan:
No determination of compliance with zoning requirements has been made or is intended.
This plan does not constitute a subdivision, as it shows the division of a tract of land on which two or more buildings were standing when the subdivision control law went into effect in the Town of Plymouth into separate lots, on each of which one such buildings remains standing.
Ms. Massard stated that Town Counsel supports endorsement of the plan with the notes added.
Malcolm MacGregor asked for clarification on the existing structures.
Ms. Massard replied that the dwellings consist of two single family structures and a structure which may have been a duplex at one time. The Building Commissioner has reviewed the plan and determined that at least one of the dwellings may have been abandoned and it would require a special permit in order to renovate the existing buildings that have not been abandoned.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the clerk to sign the plan with the addition of the notes as defined above; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing – (cont. from 9/29) Gunning Point 2
Valerie Massard reviewed the history of the Gunning Point property, which began as a potential ANR plan in 2002 which was not supported by staff and was brought back as a VOSD in 2004. The 2004 petition was denied without prejudice for insufficient information. Since the 2004 filing, the proponent has gone through Mass Natural Heritage (MNH) review and has also obtained their confirmation of the wetland boundaries. There are some legal questions that remain outstanding regarding the legal settlement of the Heritage Hills subdivision. Residents have requested information regarding the proponent’s right to access the property through Gunning Point Road. The perc tests for the site have been completed. Staff has met with the proponent’s engineer, the Town’s consulting engineer to
review the filing and the technical concerns. The proponent may be able to satisfy the technical considerations with potential plan changes.
Leonard Bradley, DiPrete Engineering, presented the proposed plans for a VOSD special permit in order to construct eight single family condominium dwellings with restricted open space. Each structure would have its own sewerage system and would be serviced by an eight inch water main supplying water from the Ponds at Plymouth’s private water company. The MNH confirmation states that there will be no take of any endangered species or habitat. Mr. Bradley presented a map of the property to identify the location and the topography of the property. Perc tests have been completed and the soil is conducive for on-site sewage systems that will meet Title 5 requirements. The structures will be located as close to the gravel way as possible to increase the open space areas. The existing gravel way will be
widened to 20 ft. and terminate with a hammerhead along the southwest boundary of the site, just short of the abutting neighbor. There will be a 50 ft. no build setback from the wetlands as required by the Conservation Commission and DEP. The drainage will be low impact using berms and swales along the road and capturing roof runoff that will be recharged into the ground.
Mr. MacGregor asked why this is a VOSD. He felt that the buildable area is small, there are no yards, and the rear of the site has steep slopes. Mr. MacGregor asked if there were any calculations of the nitrogen and phosphorous loading.
Mr. Bradley stated that there will be some type of demarcation to define and protect the open space; the property will be marketed as an over 55, wooded neighborhood; the slopes at the rear of the proposed structures are not dangerous and the calculations for nitrogen and phosphorous have not been completed; use of organic fertilizer will be encouraged; there will be a homeowner’s association; and there will be a conservation restriction on the open space, possibly held by a third party.
Mr. MacGregor suggested that the proponent create a brochure that markets the property as a conservation-minded condominium development.
Paul McAlduff had some concerns about protecting the conservation area in such a remote location.
Mr. Bradley stated that the homeowner’s association document would address what is allowed in the conservation area.
Bill Wennerberg stated that a split rail fence with plaques that identify the area as restricted open space could be installed.
Mr. Bradley had no objection to the installation of a split rail fence with appropriate signage.
Larry Rosenblum thought that the density adjacent to Big Sandy Pond could be reduced from four units to three units.
Marc Garrett suggested defining the area for the individual condos and the areas of common ownership. He also suggested that a clarification was needed regarding the MNH requirement for both a declaration of restriction and a conservation restriction to be held by a third party. Mr. Garrett asked for an explanation of the stormwater management.
Mr. Bradley explained that the calculations are in the drainage report that was submitted. They would be installing a grass swale with rip rap along the gravel edge of the road, which is shown on a revised plan.
Ms. Massard stated that the revised plans would again be peer reviewed and reviewed by DPW. Proposed revisions include taking the water that runs down Gunning Point Road and directing it into a water quality swale on the proponent’s property and adding a cape cod berm on the north side of Gunning Point Road at the proposed paved apron at Raymond Road.
Mr. Garrett asked if the revisions meet the DEP and Town’s Stormwater Design Guidelines.
Mr. Bradley stated that the site will meet all the latest regulations for stormwater mitigation.
Ms. Massard stated that the landscaping plan has yet to be submitted. She suggested that in order to preserve the rural character of the property, trees to be preserved should be flagged and a construction phasing plan should be submitted that details how materials would be stored. There is a separate project that is adjacent to this site (Hutchinson property) that the proponent should work with to minimize the impact to the area and to coordinate conservation efforts with MNH.
The following residents spoke in opposition to the project:
Bill LaPierre, Harold Woodsby, John Dill, Paula Butterworth, Pat Higgins, Joe Duffy, Debra Nascimbeni, and Fred DeSantis.
Their concerns included the destruction of the property during the perc testing, the road drainage and proposed road design, the increase in traffic and the vehicle speeding on the road, drainage into the ponds and wetland areas, management of the conservation areas, the proponent has not shown the “by-right” use of the property given the MNH restrictions, the houses will be too close to the road, and access to the ponds and whether a beach would be allowed.
Mr. Garrett stated that the conservation restriction would not allow for a beach, but may allow for passive access to the pond. He suggested that staff should inspect the site to see what damage was done by perc tests, if an, based on the neighbors concerns.
Mr. MacGregor asked about the status of the restrictions that may have been part of the settlement for the Heritage Hills Subdivision.
Ms. Massard stated that she has asked for that information but has received no response. She stated that at the end of the last public hearings for the previous filing information was received that the conservation restriction has expired because Massachusetts has a 30 year perpetuity rule and it has been over 30 years since the restriction was placed on the property. Town Counsel could offer an opinion. What is unknown is the settlement for Heritage Hills and how it affects the 30 year rule.
Larry Rosenblum stated that the first thing that needs to be determined is how many units are allowed by right.
Ms. Massard explained that they have filed a by-right plan that does conform to all the dimensional requirements and provided a layout outside of the MNH limits, but have not provided evidence that they have legal rights to use Gunning Point Road for access and have not created a plan that shows a full detailed subdivision paved road design.
Mr. Garrett was concerned that the layout plan doesn’t show the drainage and infrastructure needed in order to determine actual yield. He felt that there were too many questions unanswered including landscaping design issues, the Natural Heritage determination, drainage issues, etc. He asked that a list be provided to the proponent that outlines all the issues that need to be addressed before they come back to the Board. He also asked that full size plans be submitted for the Board to review.
Mr. Bradley asked for 60 days to gather all the information the Board and staff has requested.
Ms. Massard stated that in addition to the information that has been requested including the legal questions, addressing the affordable housing, plans that address the drainage issues and landscaping, the proponent should flag the trees to be preserved and stake the corner of the buildings close to the road, and show where the clearing for the parking areas will be located. All information should be submitted by December in order to allow for peer review.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to January 5, 2008 at 7:05 pm; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
The Board took a five minute break.
Community Preservation Committee Presentation
Bill Keohan, Community Preservation Committee (CPC) Chair, presented Articles 16 and 16A that will pay off the debts for Cherry Hill III ($2,000,000) and Hedges Pond Preserve and Recreational Area ($3,150,000). The funds to pay off the Cherry Hill debt would come from the Housing Reserve Account and the 2009 Budgeted Reserve CPA Account and the debt on the Hedges Pond Preserve would be paid off from the Open Space Reserve Account and the undesignated CPA account.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to support Article 16 and Article 16A; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3503 – Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (BOA 10/15) HC
104 Pinewood Road, M 108, L 28A – Special Permits subject to EDC, for height of a proposed structure in excess of 35’, and for deviation of set back requirements in order to install and operate a personal communications system facility in the form of a monopole.
Marc Garrett read a memo from the West Plymouth Steering Committee that offers support for the proposed communication tower, subject to favorable reports from the FAA and MAC and the Plymouth Airport Commission.
Atty. Joseph Giammarco informed the Board that to date, no other carriers have expressed an interest in utilizing the proposed communication tower and that the FAA and MAC reports have been applied for.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if there were any other carriers that have coverage in that area.
Atty. Giammarco stated he was unaware of any other carriers.
Larry Rosenblum asked if there are other communication towers that would serve the needs of Omnipoint and suggested encouraging more than one carrier on each tower.
Tim Grandy handed out a map of the location of existing communication towers.
Mr. Garrett asked whether the existing plans of Plymouth Airport or the expansion plans had been submitted to the FAA and MAC.
Atty. Giammarco replied that the coordinates of Plymouth Airport were given and he was unsure if they had the expansion plans.
Mr. Garrett was concerned with the location of tower and its proximity to Runway 33 and 15 and the approach for Boston Med Flights. He stated that until the FAA and MAC submit their findings, he would not support the petition.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
There may be feasible alternatives to the proposed tower. The petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that there are not other sites, tower or power line utility poles that could be utilized to serve the identified gap area. No information regarding the alternative sites that were investigated by the petitioner was submitted with the petition.
There is no clear and specific public benefit that may be realized only by exceeding the thirty-five foot height limitation. The petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed height is the minimum necessary.
The proposed structure will detract from the visual character and quality of the adjacent dwellings, buildings, the immediate neighborhood and the town as a whole. The monopole will exceed the height of the tree line by at least fifty feet.
The petitioner has offered no information to demonstrate that their will be no nuisance or adverse effect on the operation of the Plymouth Municipal Airport.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Other Business:
Plymouth Public Land Committee
Paul McAlduff moved to discharge the Plymouth Public Lands Committee as their charge has been completed; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Plymouth Rock Studio MOU Discussion
Malcolm MacGregor presented a draft memo from Mr. MacGregor and Larry Rosenblum regarding draft MOU (10/19/08). The memo outlined their concerns with the language pertaining to approval of the water tank, access from Clark Road and other provisions for access, a public easement to connect Town owned properties, alternate access for the Schools, a conservation set-aside, the Town relinquishing their right of first refusal and the provision that allows the Board of Selectmen to amend the MOU.
Mr. MacGregor moved for the Board to support forwarding the memo to the Board of Selectmen for their consideration of amending the MOU with the exception of the language regarding the water tank; the vote was (2-3-0) with Malcolm MacGregor and Larry Rosenblum in support of the motion. The motion did not pass.
Other Business:
Paul McAlduff informed the Board that the Town has received a rebate in the amount of $288,789 from NStar for the conversion of Plymouth Community Intermediate School from electric heat to gas heat.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to support the reclassification made by the Town Manager of the Director of Planning and Development position; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved to adjourn at 10:25 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: November 3, 2008
Administrative Assistant
| 
