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, and Bill Wennerberg
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
February 23, 2009
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of February 23, 2009 as presented; the vote was (3-0-1) with Malcolm MacGregor in abstention.
Public Hearing
B540 – Zion Hills Rescind
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Valerie Massard explained that the project was approved by the Planning Board and appealed. The developer has requested that the plan be rescinded due to financial reasons.
Peter Fantoni, Cornerstone Developers, explained that in order for the appeal that is currently before the courts to be dismissed, the plan has to be rescinded.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to close the public hearing and rescind the subdivision approval for B540 – Zion Hills; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Conceptual Review
Subdivision off Shallow Pond Lane
Brad Bertolo, JC Engineering, presented a conceptual plan for an eleven lot residential subdivision with one lot designated for affordable housing. The property is located off Shallow Pond Lane. A two lot subdivision was previously approved by the Planning Board for the site, but was annulled in 2008 by the courts. The courts found that that the applicant did not have the rights to travel across the private roads in Shallow Pond Estates and could not gain access via an easement through Town property. The current proponent has stated that he has acquired the necessary rights to access the property via Shallow Pond Lane from the developer of Shallow Pond Estates. The site will have emergency access via an easement through an existing residential lot in the Shallow Pond Estate subdivision. The
property is not in a flood zone or a mapped habitat area. The “by right” plan showed thirteen lots including two lots that could support duplex structures. Option 2 showed a ten lot layout. The project would be subject to the inclusionary bylaw, therefore, option 3 showed a layout for eleven lots with a potential shared driveway between two of the lots. With option 3 a waiver for road frontage would be requested. The applicant will meet with Bruce Arons to discuss the affordable housing unit. Waivers would be required for the road frontage, length, width, and curbing to allow a low impact design using swales or vegetative depressions for drainage. The proposed development would require minimal cuts and fill. Mr. Bertolo informed the Board that the conceptual plans were supported by the Manomet Steering Committee.
Valerie Massard noted the location of the property which is behind the Town-owned Indian Brook Elementary School and north of the Town-owned “Briggs” Estate. The property is surrounded on the south and east by Town-owned land. There is a possibility of creating a link to the Briggs Estate to access walking paths. A VOSD was raised, but the developer feels there are topographical issues on the site that limit this approach and has so far expressed a desire to stay with a standard subdivision. The affordable housing lot could be deeded to the Affordable Housing Trust. Ms. Massard noted that the roadway in Option 1 should be 50 ft. instead of the 40 ft. and that the by-right scenario would have to be looked at more closely as it would require an adequate facilities special permit, they need
to show adequate access, and the roads were constructed to subdivision standards but have not been inspected with regards to this proposal. Option 2 shows a ten unit plan and Option 3 shows eleven units one of which would be designated for affordable housing. Two of the lots in Option 3 would have a shared driveway which would take the frontage off the new road. They are generally consistent with the size of the lots in Shallow Pond Estates. In the future, the Town would like to place a well on the Briggs Estate and that it would be beneficial to stub the water out to the Town property. Some of the neighbors have concerns about the Town land being protected and whether there is adequate access. The Manomet Village Master plan speaks to connection of open space and this could be accomplished by providing a buffer to the pond that would connect the trails, as the Town also owns property along part of Shallow Pond, off Shallow Pond Lane.
Lee Hartmann encouraged the proponent to meet with the neighborhood and present the plans.
Paul McAlduff suggested providing a section of land along the pond that would connect the Town owned properties. Mr. McAlduff asked if the owner of Lot 7-135A had agreed to the emergency egress that was shown.
Mr. Bertolo replied that there is a possibility of deeding a piece of land to the Town, a land swap of equal size parcels, or providing an easement. The emergency egress is shown through land owned by the potential developer. Town Meeting action might be needed in order to use the land owned by the Town that has frontage on Shallow Pond Lane as an emergency egress if this is a desired alternative.
Lee Hartmann explained that Town Meeting did vote to grant an easement, but there are no legal documents showing that the easement was recorded. Mr. Hartmann noted that the Town would have to insure that use of the easement would be legal and not open the Town to litigation for providing access to private roads.
Malcolm MacGregor agreed with Paul about providing an easement from Shallow Pond Lane to the Briggs Estate. Mr. MacGregor asked about the nature of the existing vegetation on the slopes.
Mr. Bertolo explained that the site is pretty vegetated with white pines, low brush, and existing paths throughout the property.
Mr. MacGregor encouraged the proponent to preserve as many white pine trees as possible. Marc Garrett asked why the drainage easement was shown on Option 3 and not on the other two and whether the drainage would be a pit or infiltration system.
Mr. Bertolo replied that they have not done a full drainage design yet so it has not been determined what type of drainage would be installed.
Mr. Garrett noted that the drainage easement cuts off access to the road and that is why there would be a shared driveway for lots 8 and 9. Mr. Garrett asked if there has been any communication with the neighborhood.
Mr. Bertolo stated that the president of the neighborhood association was at the Manomet Steering Committee meeting when the plans were presented. He also noted that the proponent has spoken to the abutters to the north and they are supportive.
Mr. Garrett expressed his concern that the roads in this subdivision are private and have some issues with the ability to be maintained.
Bill Wennerberg asked if there was a minimum lot size and suggested that if the lots were smaller, the slopes could be protected and a buffer around the pond could be provided.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the minimum lot size for this zone is 25,000 sq. ft.; if the adequate facilities special permit determines that the water supply is insufficient, the minimum lot size would be 40,000 sq. ft. and if there is insufficient access the minimum lot size would be 60,000 sq. ft. Another option would be to apply for a VOSD that would cluster the disturbed area and provide open space. Under the VOSD the Board could waive lot sizes and frontages and could reduce the road construction requirements.
Mr. Bertolo stated that the developer wants to build large homes on the lots and would like to have a similar lot size to the existing subdivision.
Mr. Wennerberg stated that the Pinehills development has larger homes on small lots and that he would be more supportive of a VOSD.
Ms. Massard noted that the side and rear setbacks are more flexible under a VOSD.
Mr. McAlduff was supportive of reducing the lot size but noted that the requirement under a VOSD of 40 percent open space might be a burden.
Mr. Hartmann encouraged the proponent to show why a VOSD would not be viable for this site.
Ms. Massard stated that the open space doesn’t have to be “undisturbed” it could be integrated as a common recreation area.
Loring Tripp informed the Board that this property originally came before the Board when it was under the ownership of the Second Church of Plymouth. An agreement was placed on the property that limited the development of the property to no more than two house lots.
Nick Silvieri, the proponent, stated that he has an agreement with the Church that if the project is approved, they will lift the restriction.
Mr. Garrett stated that the Board would need more information regarding the restriction before considering the current proposal.
Other Business:
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that the results of the Capital Outlay process ranked the Planning Department’s request for funding of the Downtown Design Guidelines 15th and the update to the RKG report was ranked 42nd.
Marc Garrett asked about the status of Clark Estates.
Valerie Massard stated that a meeting has been set up with all the developers for later in the week to review the punch list, who is responsible for each item on the punch list, and to create a timeline for completion. The update to the Board has been scheduled for March 16, 2009.
Mr. Garrett requested that the neighborhood association be notified of the meeting on the 16th.
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 8:10 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: March 9, 2009
Administrative Assistant
| 
