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, Larry Rosenblum, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Vote to Adopt 2009 Update to Open Space and Recreation Plan
Form A’s:
A4336 – Adriano S Cimbron and Timothy MacMillan and Lisa Estey, Duck Plain Road, Map 30, Lots 72A-1 and 72A-2 – Lot line adjustment of Parcel 7 (643 sf) and Parcel 8 (643 sf)
A4337 – Philip and Christine Markola and Markola Family Trust, Lunn’s and Pretto Way, Map 124, Lots 9-76 and 9-85 - Re-endorsement for Land Court of A3939
Bill Wennerberg moved to for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Appointment
Termination of Tri-Party Agreement – Shops at Five
Marc Garrett recused himself from this appointment and left the room.
Valerie Massard presented a request to terminate the tri-party agreement for B501, Shops at Five. The tri-party agreement was entered into to secure completion of the roads and associated drainage in the subdivision. There has been an outstanding issue regarding the ground water mounding, but it has been determined that the location of the basin makes it difficult to identify whether the ground water impacts are caused by this development or another entity. There has been one event of flooding and that area is being monitored on a regular basis. After necessary repairs several years ago, no further flooding has occurred.
Lee Hartmann noted that most of the work on this project has been completed, but we have been holding these funds to encourage a solution to the ground water issue between the Shops at Five and its abutters. The Shops at Five have been cooperative with the Town to resolve the issue and we have received a certification from the engineer that the drainage was properly designed and installed. We have a statutory obligation to respond to the request to release the agreement, therefore, Mr. Hartmann recommended that the Board release the Tri-Party agreement.
Larry Rosenblum asked if we have learned anything from this situation.
Mr. Hartmann stated that we now encourage rain gardens and containing discharge in islands and other alternative drainage designs.
Valerie Massard noted that the new Stormwater Guidelines encourage alternative drainage designs and have adopted the most proactive guidelines available.
Bill Wennerberg suggested asking for information regarding neighboring properties and their drainage impacts when a new project comes before the Board and includes a review of groundwater issues.
Ms. Massard stated that the Stormwater Guidelines require that developers meet with professional staff before the design process has even begun.
Mr. Hartmann noted that there is a requirement that that a project’s stormwater cannot impact abutting properties even at full build out.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to endorse the release of the Tri-Party Agreement for B501 – Shops at Five; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Marc Garrett rejoined the Board.
Appointment
Manomet Village Steering Committee (MVSC)- Goals
Lee Hartmann stated that the goal was to start the update of the Manomet Village Master Plan this summer. Due to staff cuts, we will have to see how much time we can devote to the actual update. This appointment is a follow up to the brainstorming session on February 23, 2009. Comments raised during the brainstorming session were identified, organized and used to update existing goals and establish new goals. There were a total of 83 comments which have been divided into 14 categories. The most important things that were noted were the ocean/beaches in Manomet, fixing Manomet Point Road intersection, and maintaining the rustic character/informality of Manomet. The top common themes are as follows:
- New sidewalks, sidewalk repairs and crosswalks
- Traffic signal at intersection of Manomet Point Road and State Road
- Appreciation for Manomet’s beaches and Cape Cod Bay
- Protection of Manomet’s rustic charm
- Need for Commercial Design Standards
Other priorities include the need for a village green, need for streetscape improvements, identifying and protecting Manomet’s history, and historic buildings and sites, fill vacant commercial space and develop incentives for businesses to locate in Manomet, provide better safety measures for the Taylor Avenue public beaches, protect Manomet’s natural resources and open spaces and encourage small Mom and Pop type businesses.
Based on the comments, Mr. Hartmann updated the Goals for the Manomet Master Plan by adding language regarding Civic Pride and Identity and adding language to the sections on Public Space and Recreation; Public Facilities and Utilities; Building and Site Design; Traffic, Safety, Parking, Infrastructure and Pedestrian Circulation; Land Use and Zoning; Environmental Protection; Historic Preservation; and Business and Economic Development.
Marti Erbe, MVSC Chair, commended Mr. Hartmann for the work he put into the Updated Master Plan Goals. The MVSC looks forward to working with staff to update the master plan.
Buddy Moses felt that the MVSC needed further review of the document and more discussion.
Larry Rosenblum suggested that the MVSC should consider what would happen if a developer wanted to build a large project like a resort or casino which could totally change the character of the area.
Marc Garrett encouraged the MVSC to identify initial target areas that have potential to change and consider what type of changes could and/or should happen in those areas. They need to act on projects and set goals for the future.
Bill Wennerberg noted that there are existing issues that need to be addressed now as well as getting a sense of direction for change in the community.
Malcolm MacGregor encouraged the MVSC to incorporate more long-term planning in the update to the master plan.
Mr. Garrett asked the MVSC to review the goals, submit their suggestions to staff and return at a future meeting.
Discussion
Howland Street
Atty. Robert Better presented a conceptual plan to develop a parking lot at 18 Howland Street by construction 12 residential condominium or rental units. A previously granted Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Case (#2157) had a condition (No.3 on page 10) that required a Declaration of Restrictions be imposed to limit the use of the property as a parking lot for the property located at 32-40 Court Street formerly the Plymouth Federal Savings Bank. In order to develop the Howland Street property a modification of the special permit (#2157) would be required, the Declaration of Restriction would have to be released, and a new special permit would be needed. The owner would like to get the Board’s opinion before moving forward with the design process and applying for the special permit modification.
The owner also has some concerns regarding the donations to the parking fund that currently stand at $6,000 per space and whether the fee could be lowered or waived.
Lee Hartmann noted that the parking lot is in poor condition and a reuse or revitalization would improve the neighborhood. Mr. Hartmann stated that he had observed that the parking lot behind 32-40 Court Street is usually not used to capacity, especially since the Court and Registry of Deeds have moved from the area. There is a meeting with the Parking Committee next week regarding the parking fees and the ZBA has some discretion to waive fees.
Larry Rosenblum asked if the parking lot on Howland Street was being used.
Mr. Hartmann replied that usually there are only a few cars in the lot, possibly neighbors.
Larry Rosenblum thought the project would be a benefit if done well, but was concerned about setting a precedent for other similar sites in the Downtown area. He also felt that the parking fees should be reviewed and possibly based on a sliding scale for the type of project to be done.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that the original thought on the parking fee was to accumulate funds for the design and/or construction of parking garages. In this case, there are 43 unused parking spaces and he asked whether there should be a charge for removing unused parking spaces.
Atty. Betters stated that his client is not adverse to making a reasonable contribution.
Bill Wennerberg was supportive of the concept.
Marc Garrett was supportive of the concept, but needed additional information regarding potential development in the area; whether there is adequate parking for 32-40 Court Street; who is currently using the parking lot; the split traffic flow on Howland Street; and an opinion from the Parking Committee in regards to the fees.
Tim Grandy reminded Atty. Betters that they should also meet with the Plymouth Center Steering Committee.
Other Business:
Planning Board Committee Liaisons
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to make no changes to the committee member/liaison list; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Discussion
Site Plan Review
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that he went through the Zoning Bylaw and created a table identifying allowed uses for each zone, what triggers a special permit and the granting authority.
Marc Garrett asked why agricultural uses had been omitted from allowed uses and noted that MEPOD was listed under special permit use.
Mr. Hartmann replied that agricultural uses are exempt from zoning under State law and that MEPOD should be listed under allowed uses.
Mr. Hartmann gave a presentation on zoning and the challenges in Massachusetts in regards to site plan review. State law does not allow a site plan review bylaw. The problems with special permits are that all zoning district must include “as of right” uses; the criteria to approve a special permit is based on use; and special permits increase the cost and time associated with permitting new development. The solution for special permits is to refrain from adopting a Special Permit Site Plan Review Process and establish thresholds for development review by special permit. He asked the Board to look at the allowed uses in each zone and think about which triggers for special permits need to be revised. Mr. Hartmann reviewed the allowed uses that do not require site plan review: single family dwellings,
single family additions, minor alterations of allowed commercial uses, and minor alterations of allowed industrial uses. Allowed uses that trigger site plan review are larger commercial and industrial expansion and new commercial and industrial buildings. Site plan review allows the Board to enforce the standards in the Zoning Bylaw, recommend additional improvements, and suggest site, architecture and landscape alternatives. There are some exceptions within the Downtown Harbor District, Highway Commercial zone and Industrial zones. The Board will need to determine where the exceptions should remain and where additional controls should be added. The special permit criteria includes the following:
- The use is appropriate in the zone and specific site
- Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided
- No hazard to pedestrians or vehicles
- No nuisance or adverse effect upon the neighborhood
The criteria for a special permit subject to environmental design conditions is as follows:
- Natural features conservation
- Relation to surroundings
- Vehicular and pedestrian circulation
- Siting of structures
- Design of structures
- Surface water drainage
- Utilities
- Signs
- Other site features
Examples of Special Permits subject to EDC are RD, RDD, VOSD, OSMUD, Wind Energy, Mobile Home Parks, Hospitals, Multi-Family, Planned Shopping Centers, Restaurants and Hotels in certain districts, Communication Towers and Campgrounds.
Mr. Hartmann reviewed the appearance code for the relationship to building and site; the relationship of the buildings and site to the adjoining area; landscape and site treatment; building design; materials; and signs. Mr. Hartmann then presented maps of each zone and reviewed the allowed uses for each zone. The next steps are to identify areas for higher review levels, identify additional uses and locations to be subjected to special permit review, amend the existing landscape and parking standards, and develop site and building design standards for site plan and special permit review process.
Larry Rosenblum questioned why some special permits are under the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals and some are under the purview of the Planning Board.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the special permits for subdivisions are the purview of the Planning Board. The role of the ZBA is adjudicatory and the role of the Planning Board is to negotiate.
Marc Garrett suggested holding a joint meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals, Design Review Board and the Planning Board.
Malcolm MacGregor updated the Board on the State’s proposed wind bylaw. He stated that the bylaw would allow an units over 2 megawatts to bypass local zoning. He stated that a suggestion has been made that if a town is a “Green” community, it would not be subject to the bylaw.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested that the Board create a policy that anyone applying for a zoning change must present the proposal to the Board at least 60 days before the Town Meeting Warrant closes so all issues can be addressed and that no action be allowed after a certain date.
Mr. Hartmann stated that he would look at the calendar and draft a time line.
Mr. Garrett agreed with the concept that the Board should create a deadline and kept to the deadline.
Bill Wennerberg moved to adjourn at 10:02 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: July 13, 2009
Administrative Assistant
| 
