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:
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes of February 2, 2009.
The Board agreed to notify the Building Commissioner that the site plan for One Scobee Circle complies with the minimum requirements of the zoning bylaw after the issues outlined in the staff report are addressed, and, after review of a detailed parking analysis per Section 205-17D(3) finds that the entire lot has appropriate provisions for shared parking, access and utilities and as such may reduce the parking space requirement of Section 205-23 by up to 33%.
26 Circuit Avenue – Access Determination
The Board voted to notify the Director of Inspectional Services that the subject way (26 Circuit Ave) is not of adequate width, grade or construction design.
Bill Wennerberg moved to approve the above administrative notes; the vote was unanimous 4-0-1) with Malcolm MacGregor in abstention.
Minutes:
January 26, 2009
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of January 26; the vote was 3-0-2 with Bill Wennerberg and Malcolm MacGregor in abstention.
B437 – Pinehills LLC – Amendment to Escrow Agreement
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve and endorse the amendment to the escrow agreement for the Pinehills LLC; the vote was (4-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
Public Hearing:
MEPOD – Adoption of Forms and Fees
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Valerie Massard explained that this public hearing was being held to adopt the Movie and Entertainment Production Overlay District (MEPOD) forms and adding language regarding the filing fees for the site plan approval process into the Planning Board Regulations. Ms. Massard noted that the Town received notification from the Attorney General’s office that the language for the MEPOD bylaw was approved with one slight alteration. The following language regarding review fees was stricken from Section 205-76 (F), 12, a, 2 “Such fees shall be held by the Town of Plymouth in an interest-bearing escrow account, and shall be used only for expenses associated with the use of outside consultants employed by the Approving Authority in reviewing the Site Plan application. Any surplus funds remaining after the completion
of such review, including any interest accrued, shall be returned to the applicant”.
Lee Hartmann suggested a filing fee of $15,000 for the site plan review of the Master Plan and $550 for each subsequent site plan review.
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to adopt the forms and fees as recommended by staff.
Ms. Massard stated that the MEPOD bylaw allows the Board to establish fees and suggested striking the reference to Mass General Laws; Section 53G as the Studio has agreed to the fees being assessed.
Mr. Wennerberg amended his motion to include deleting the reference to Mass General Laws, Section 53G; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3517 – Balboni LLC (HC 3/4)
125 Camelot Drive, Map 83, Lot 24-4
Marc Garrett recused himself from this review and left the room.
Malcolm MacGregor presided as Chair for this hearing.
Atty. Robert Betters began the presentation on the request for special permits in order to construct a wind energy facility and exceed the height requirements. If granted, the special permits would allow for the construction of a wind turbine tower on a site zoned Light Industrial. The tower would measure 262 ft. from grade to the top of the hub and 389 ft. to the tip of the blades. Atty. Betters outlined the three discussion items that were identified in the staff report: The applicant’s willingness to work with the Town to provide alternative energy to town owned properties; the landscaping of the site; and requested waivers. Atty. Betters stated that the applicant has agreed to work with the Town to determine if the alternative energy produced could be provided to the Town; that the landscaping
will be addressed by the project engineer, and that a waiver of setbacks is being requested. The waiver of setbacks is being requested because of the fall zone for the proposed wind turbine. A restrictive covenant with an abutter has been entered into that would prohibit any building in the area of the fall zone for the proposed wind turbine.
Richard Tabaczynski, Atlantic Design Engineers LLC, stated that the plans meet the bylaw requirements; letters from the Plymouth Airport Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration; and Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission and; studies on noise, shadow flickering and capacity calculations have been submitted. A balloon test was held on Saturday, February 7, 2009 that indicated the height of the proposed structure. The site is a 17.7 acre parcel with four existing industrial buildings fronting on Camelot Drive and a wetlands replication area. The building closest to the construction site, is approximately 515 ft. away and the Town’s Wastewater Treatment Facility is over 500 ft. away. The proposed turbine will be adjacent to the wetlands area and will need review by the Conservation Commission. Erosion
control measures are proposed along the wetland edge and will be pitched away from the wetlands to reduce stormwater runoff. The site is an already disturbed area and will require no additional clearing. An access road will be created and a 50’x50’ fenced, concrete pad will be installed. Loam and seeding of the disturbed area is the only landscaping being proposed at this time.
Howard Coppari reviewed the staff report. In addition to information already provided, Mr. Coppari noted that the utilities will be underground; the project will not generate additional commercial activity in the area with the exception of a maintenance person; the turbine will be erected with a crane; and the proposed lighting of the turbine is in compliance with FAA regulations.
Larry Rosenblum was concerned with the risks of collapse and fire protection. Mr. Rosenblum requested a report from the Fire Department. He was concerned with structural failure, how the Fire Department would respond in the event of a fire, liability issues and whether there was an escrow plan.
Paul McAlduff stated that the turbines run on hydraulic fluid and in most cases, a fire department would let the fluid burn out while monitoring the area.
Tim Grandy was supportive of the opportunity to work with the applicant to potentially provide alternative energy to the Town. Mr. Grandy asked if the analytical information generated by the turbine could be shared with the Town.
Atty. Betters replied that the applicant would share the analytical information with the Town.
Paul McAlduff asked why a fence was needed around the base of the turbine and asked if there were any plans for revegetation outside the loam and seeding. Mr. McAlduff shared photographs that he took during the balloon testing from several different locations to determine the visibility of the proposed turbine.
Mr. Rosenblum suggested that photographs that graphically show the proposed turbine overlaid into the pictures should be presented to the Board.
Malcolm MacGregor asked whether the lighting of the proposed turbine was a requirement.
Mr. Tabaczynski replied that the FAA did not require that the turbine have lighting, but the MAC and the Plymouth Airport Commission requested lighting.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval of the proposed turbine to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Bill Wennerberg requested that the motion be amended to include any recommendation of the Fire Department.
Mr. McAlduff agreed to amend his motion.
Larry Rosenblum requested that the motion be amended to include a visual presentation of the proposed turbine at a future meeting.
Mr. McAlduff agreed to amend his motion to include a courtesy presentation of the visuals of the proposed wind turbine. The amended motion was subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall ask the Fire Department for a written recommendation regarding fire safety issues related to the wind turbine tower.
The petitioner agrees to appear again to the Planning Board for a courtesy presentation for photo simulations and fire safety for the wind tower.
The applicant shall receive approval from the Conservation Commission prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed turbine location.
The tower shall be lit with only low intensity red lighting and should be used during night time hours, consistent with the FAA guidelines and the Bylaw, whether or not the FAA requires the lighting, based on a recommendation of the Plymouth Airport Commission.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall require that an escrow account or other suitable surety be established to ensure adequate funds are available for removal of the wind turbine tower. The amount of such surety shall be equal to 150 percent of the cost of compliance with this section. The amount shall include a mechanism for a Cost of Living Adjustment after ten and fifteen years.
Any changes or additions to the project shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals in writing for review and approval before the contemplated modifications may be initiated. Construction involving modifications that do not substantially comply with the approval, as determined by the Director of Inspectional Services, may be required to be halted until proper authorization for the modifications are obtained by the applicant.
In the event that the terms of this Special Permit approval are violated or that the approved uses are carried on in such a manner as to adversely affect the health, welfare, or safety of the commercial neighborhood, or be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood, this Special Permit may be revoked or suspended.
Prior to the certificate of completion, said improvements are to be installed under the supervision of a registered professional engineer. The engineer must certify that the physical improvements noted in the site plan have been installed in accordance with the conditions noted here and accepted installation practices.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Marc Garrett rejoined the meeting.
Public Hearing (cont. from 2/2/09):
Spring Town Meeting Article – Rezone Home Depot
Home Depot Drive, Map 89, Lots 13 and 48
Marc Garrett opened the continued public hearing.
Atty. Edward Angley presented the outline for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the proposed rezoning of property off Home Depot Drive. Atty. Angley stated that he did not want to limit the development by square footage because he doesn’t know what kind of development will be constructed at this time, but suggested limiting the development by the amount of traffic that can be supported by the proposed infrastructure. The infrastructure would support a traffic count of 730 peak on the weekends and 950 peak during weekdays. At this point it is undetermined whether the development would be retail, office or mixed use.
Ron Mueller, Greenman Pederson, explained that limiting the development by traffic counts was based on the maximum improvements that could be done to the existing roadway system and how much additional traffic could be added. The proposed traffic counts would support a mixture of uses such as retail, office, medical office, etc. If office space is the major component of the development, there would be less traffic on the weekends and more traffic on the weekdays.
Lee Hartmann stated that based on previous discussions this project would only require site plan review since a curb cut on a major street is not required. The MOU language can limit the number of traffic trips or the square footage by adding language such as “shall not exceed”. The traffic information including acceptability of the 950 peak weekday limit will be reviewed by Jeff Dirk and the MOU language will be reviewed by Town Counsel.
Bill Wennerberg suggested that the Board should have an opportunity to review the draft MOU.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that there is more than enough retail development existing. Mr. MacGregor expressed his concerns with the challenging topography of the site; the earth removal and grading that would need to be done on the site; and buffering of abutting properties. He noted that additional commercial development in this area would be contrary to creating a viable downtown; that the development should be a “Green” office park if approved and the drainage should meet stormwater standards.
Larry Rosenblum stated that the site was an appropriate place for commercial expansion. Mr. Rosenblum suggested that the following two issues should be addressed in the MOU: the future of Long Pond Road as it relates to future development and the concerns of the abutters.
Paul McAlduff agreed with Mr. MacGregor’s comments with the downtown area, but noted that the problem downtown is the lack of parking. Mr. McAlduff noted that the Master Plan encourages this type of development near intersections and roads with access to the highway. He stated that the proposed improvements would provide a safer intersection on Long Pond Road.
Lisa Raymond, Trustee of the Joseph Nunes Trust, Rocky Palladino, and Walter Brady spoke in support of the proposed rezoning.
Jack Irwin and Atty. Lee Alfieri on behalf of Barry C. Tassinari Construction, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning.
Bill Wennerberg moved to continue the Public Hearing to February 17, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall in order for the Board to have an opportunity to review the draft MOU language; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3519 – Lee Peters and Cori Champagne (HC 3/18)
23 Crest Street, Map 74, Lot 33-58
Lee Peters presented his request for a Special Permit to waive the access way requirements and to demolish an existing cottage and construct a new two-story, single–family structure with a breezeway and garage. The existing cottage does not meet building codes. Mr. Peters presented pictures of the surrounding area and the existing access way. He does not propose any improvements to the access way or drainage as he prefers to preserve the existing trees and the character of the neighborhood.
Howard Coppari reviewed his staff report and noted that the project meets the dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but the structure has been abandoned for more than two years and has lost its zoning protection. Therefore, the proposed project requires a special permit for access. Modifications to the 9 ft. wide gravel road way and drainage should be required to meet the current standards. Mr. Coppari noted that the area is in transition. There are other abandoned cottages and camps in the area as well as a few year round single family dwellings. If no improvements are proposed, Mr. Coppari was not supportive of the petition.
Bill Wennerberg asked for clarification as to the location and access to the property.
Mr. Peters replied that Crest Road is located off Snowberry Lane, which is off Bartlett Road.
Lee Hartmann explained that the Assessors’ Maps show a right of way to the property and he was concerned that without improvements to bring the access to minimum standards there would be a public safety issue.
Marc Garrett asked why the petitioner does not want to do access improvements and if paving a private road would require permission from abutters.
Mr. Peters explained that he didn’t want to cause any problems with neighbors by removing trees. He wanted to preserve the trees and was not interested in adding drainage.
Atty. Richard Serkey stated that if there is a right of way shown on a plan, you can improve to the layout, but if the access is a cart path, that would require permission.
Tim Grandy asked if the road was plowed and graded by the Town.
Mr. Peters replied that he has been told it is plowed by the Town.
Larry Rosenblum suggested that the applicant work with an engineer to look at road improvements.
Marc Garrett wanted a sense of how one would approach the site and how much road improvements would be needed. He would be more supportive if some improvements to Crest Street were proposed because the existing conditions create a safety issue.
Mr. Hartmann suggested that the Board vote on the petition as it stands and if the petitioner proposes improvements to the road, the Board could revisit the petition.
Mr. Garrett suggested that the applicant consider approximately 400 ft of improvements, from Snowberry Lane to the site.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following reasons and with the option that the petitioner could return if improvements are proposed:
Residential use is an appropriate use within an R-25 Medium Lot Zone. The existing seasonal cottage was a legally non-conforming structure prior to the abandonment of its use. However, a new year-round, two-story, single-family house will impair the aesthetic qualities of the natural and undeveloped area within the subject lot.
Adequate and appropriate facilities serve the site very well and do not require any additional town services. However, the proposed single-family house will be used in a year-round manner compared to a seasonal cottage; this will increase the number of vehicular trips on this narrow dirt road.
The new single-family house will be more of a hazard to pedestrians and vehicles. The site functions well as a seasonal cottage. But the applicant’s insistence of not improving the existing access way will increase the volume of daily traffic, exacerbate problems associated with traffic driving in opposite directions and hasten the deterioration of the unpaved road.
The construction of a single-family house will be a nuisance and have an adverse effect with the existing residential neighborhood that already exists. The use will actually intensify the deterioration of the graveled roadway in a faster manner. The local roadway is not developed to handle the additional vehicular traffic without any new improvements.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3518 – Henley Enterprises Inc. (HC 3/18)
148 Samoset St, Map 101, Lot 18C-3A
Atty. Richard Serkey presented the request for a Special Permit to alter a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and a Special Permit subject to EDC for automotive service stations in order to construct a Valvoline Instant Oil Change Facility.
Howard Coppari reviewed his staff report outlining the changes to the site which included a larger building footprint; a slight adjustment to the side setbacks on the east side of the building; a new retaining wall at the rear; three additional small signs; landscaping; and a fenced in dumpster at the rear. Mr. Coppari expressed his concerns with the parking configuration, the height of the proposed lighting and the landscaping. He suggested increasing the landscaping, removing or relocating the two parking spaces closest to Samoset Street, and reducing the height of the light posts.
Atty. Serkey noted that the parking as proposed meets the requirements of the bylaw.
Ed Pesce, Pesce Engineering, handed out a revised site plan that showed a stop line and stop sign at the exit onto Samoset Street. Mr. Pesce suggested that the two parking spaces closest to Samoset Street could be designated for employees only. The facility is a drive-thru oil change service where the clients stay in their vehicles, so most of the parking will be used by employees. He noted that the lighting would be reduced to 12 ft. and the privacy fence around the dumpster would be chain link with privacy slats instead of wood as originally proposed.
Marc Garrett suggested adding more vertical elevation to the landscaping and adding a line of arborvitaes to the space between the concrete curbing and the retaining wall.
Bill Wennerberg requested that the applicant consider 3.5 inch caliper trees and suggested installing drought tolerant shrubbery and low growing plants or perennial grasses and providing a place for snow storage.
Lee Hartmann suggested that a final landscape plan could be requested as a condition of the recommendation. He also suggested eliminating one of the parking spaces closest to Samoset Street and converting that space to a landscaped area.
Mr. Pesce suggested eliminating the first parking space and relocating the second space toward the rear of the site.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Compliance with the parking requirements must be confirmed and accepted by the Director of Inspectional Services.
The Fire Department must review the proposed site layout to ensure for adequate site access for emergency vehicles and fire suppression.
Due to the close proximity to Samoset Street, the Planning Board recommends that the site plan be modified to eliminate one or two parking stalls near the entrance of the property and add a new parking stall towards the rear of the lot near the proposed handicap parking space. The area adjacent to Samoset Street should be landscaped.
The proposed drainage system must be approved by the Town Engineer’s Office.
A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review with final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The landscaping shall minimize sight lines, building roof lines and buffer parking areas from view to abutting properties and public ways. The applicant agrees to replace the Red Maple and White Dogwood trees with 3 ½ inch caliper Pin Oak trees and the landscaping areas shall be mounded, while the plantings within the landscaped areas shall include Rhododendrons, ornamental grasses, low growing Juniper trees and other drought tolerant, low growing, shrubs.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, a registered professional engineer must certify the drainage system, driveway, curbing and parking area have been installed; and a registered landscape architect or other qualified licensed professional must certify the required landscaping has been installed; all according to the accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and the approved site plan.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Other Business:
Capital Outlay – Consistency with Master Plans
Lee Hartmann reviewed the capital outlay list with brief summaries attached to each request to identify how it relates to the Town’s Master Plan.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the document to be distributed to the Board of Selectmen and the Capital Outlay Expenditure Committee.
Larry Rosenblum requested that the Downtown Design Guidelines be renamed the Downtown Design and Development Guidelines.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Manomet Rezoning Recommendation - Draft
The Board endorsed the vote.
Larry Rosenblum requested that the Board review the Chapter 40B memo that was included in their handouts and be prepared to discuss it at a future meeting.
Marc Garrett reminded the Board about the joint meeting with the School Department and the Board of Selectmen Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 7:15 p.m.
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 11:06 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: February 17, 2009
Administrative Assistant
| 
