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
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
August 31, 2009
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to approve the minutes of August 31, 2009 as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
September 14, 2009
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the minutes of September 14, 2009 with the following addition to the discussion of the architecture for the school (BOA 3548 – Plymouth Public Schools):
Mr. Rosenblum commented relative to the building’s architectural style in discussion with the architects. The architectural style was beyond the scope of the requested Special Permit to exceed the 35 ft. height limitation.
The vote was (4-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
BOA 3547 – Martin K Gunther (10/7)
146 Long Pond Road/Map 88, Lot 41A
A4344 – Sandra, William and Frank Shaw, Long Pond Road, Map 55, Lot 44 – Divide Lot 44 (15.87 acres) into Lots 44-1 (5.11 acres) and 44-2 (10.76 acres)
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the clerk to sign A Form No. A4344 and to recommend approval of BOA 3547 to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following condition:
The second floor of the garage shall not be converted into separate living space or used for home occupation purposes.
The vote was (4-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
A4345 – Pinehills LLC, Hickorywood, Map 78C, Lots A-213 (123,682 sf) and 11-201 (10,486 sf) - Lot line adjustment to create lots A-216 (2.82 acres) and 11-214 (0.26 acres)
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the clerk to sign A4345; the vote was (4-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
Lee Hartmann presented for endorsement Form A plans A4343 (Land Court) and 4346 (Unregistered), Sompit Whiting and Tidmarsh Farms, Map 45, Lots 56 (1.96 acres) and 56A (25,729 sf) – Lot line adjustment to create lots 56B (35,842 sf) and 56C (32,750 sf). The original plans were endorsed by the Board January 10, 2005 (A4128) and not recorded due to changes requested by Land Court.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the clerk to sign A4343 and A4346; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Presentation
Rock Studio Dr/Campus Dr – Layout Adjustment
Kevin O’Reilly, Plymouth Rock Studio (PRS), began the presentation for Article 18 for Fall Town Meeting regarding a proposed revision to the easement line for the access road to PRS. The revision is a result of survey work that was completed on the site and will result in lessen the impact of the road. The new easement line will preserve approximately four additional acres of land and provide enhanced access to South Middle School and the athletic fields. The revised plan has been reviewed and supported by the Town’s Engineering Department, Wildlands Trust and the School Department.
Brad Soule, PRS Project Director, stated that the new layout shows the shared pedestrian and bicycle path to the east side of the proposed access road with one crossing underneath the road. The previous access road had two crossings. Mr. Soule presented plans of the proposed new easement detailing the access road, the shared path, and the school access. The easement on the PRS property remains unchanged.
Paul McAlduff commented that any time four acres of trees can be preserved it is a good idea.
Lee Hartmann noted that the new easement layout minimizes cuts and fills and the Wildlands Trust has submitted a letter of support which was handed to the Board this evening. He also noted that the School Department is supportive and the proposed easement layout makes for a better project.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend support to Town Meeting of the proposed revisions to the easement layout for the access road for Plymouth Rocks Studios; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Open Space Committee Presentation
Right-to-Farm Articles 21 & 22
Members of the Open Space Committee and the Plymouth Agricultural Committee presented an overview of two articles (21 and 22) proposed for Fall Town Meeting. Article 21 would add a “Right to Farm Bylaw” to the Town’s bylaw that would encourage the pursuit of agriculture, promotes agricultural based economic opportunities, and protects farming in the Town of Plymouth by allowing agricultural uses and related activities to function in minimal conflict with abutters and town agencies. Article 22 would establish and Agricultural Committee that would serve as facilitators for encouraging the pursuit of agriculture in Plymouth; promote agricultural based economic opportunities; act as advocates, educators and/or negotiators on agricultural issues; work for the preservation of agricultural lands; pursue all
initiatives appropriate to creating a sustainable agricultural community; and encourage early and effective resolution of farm related disputes. The committee shall consist of seven members appointed by the Board of Selectmen. Four members shall be actively engaged in farming, and three members shall be at-large.
Paul McAlduff was supportive of any initiative that would help the farmers in Plymouth.
Larry Rosenblum was supportive as the initiative is consistent with land preservation.
Malcolm MacGregor and Bill Wennerberg were also supportive.
Marc Garrett expressed his concern with creating yet another committee and asked whether the proposed agricultural committee would get involved with gravel removal for cranberry bogs and report to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Garrett also asked whether different farming types would be represented by the four farming members on the committee.
Mr. Keohan suggested that the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals could request that the petitioners have any agricultural projects reviewed by the Agricultural Committee which could submit an advisory report. He noted that the Board of Selectmen would determine the make up of the four farming members on the committee. Mr. Keohan also stated that by adopting the bylaw and creating the committee, the Town would become eligible for additional grants from the State.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend support to Town Meeting of Articles 21 and 22; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Presentation – Town Meeting Article
43D Expedited Permitting 1820 Courthouse – Redevelopment Authority
Laura Schaefer, Redevelopment Authority, requested the Planning Board support for Article 15 a request for Town Meeting to approve an application to the Commonwealth to have the County Courthouse corridor designated a 43D Priority site. The benefits of 43D designation are Technical Assistance Grant eligibility to help develop the site, priority for other grants and marketing assistance by various Commonwealth departments. If the site is designated a 43D Priority site, the Town within 120 days would have to appoint a single municipal point of contact for streamlined permitting; amend local rules, regulations, bylaws, etc. to comply with 180 day permit timeline; determine and make available the requirements for each permit; establish a procedure for identifying necessary permits for a project; and establish a procedure for
determining completeness of the required submissions. After the 120 day phase-in period is complete, the town must render permitting decisions on priority development sites within 180 days. Ms. Schaefer noted that 66 other communities within the State have applied for priority site designation under “43D”.
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that this initiative has not been on the list of projects the Board has identified as priority items and he has not had adequate time to look into the impacts, amending the bylaw, permitting authority, required timelines, etc.
Larry Rosenblum was supportive of the concept and felt the project was appropriate for this type of effort, but felt there were many questions that needed to be addressed.
Malcolm MacGregor felt the same as Mr. Rosenblum, but was unsure of the process.
Paul McAlduff stated that although he felt the Courthouse needs to be preserved, he did not necessarily think that the Town should undertake the project. He also felt there were a lot of unanswered questions especially regarding the cost to the Town.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that there would be a bid process for a developer to renovate the buildings. She also noted that by not applying for the “43D” designation, the Town would fall behind 66 other communities in the State when it comes to applying for available funding.
Tim Grandy agreed with Mr. McAlduff, Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Hartmann that the Town should be cautious about amending the bylaw, appointing a single point of contact, and the timeframe for the process of review for any proposed development.
Bill Wennerberg was generally supportive, but was concerned with the State’s review process.
Marc Garrett was supportive, but expressed his concerns with the local permitting process; with the State’s review process and with developers who are not familiar with the state and local permitting processes in regards to traffic impacts, stormwater management, change of use, environmental issues, site development, etc.
Dean Rizzo, Redevelopment Authority, informed the Board that they have been encouraged by Mass Development to apply for the 43D Priority Expedited Permitting Program. He noted that during the time it would take to receive approval of the application, they would be working for months on creating a development vision, going out to bid for a developer, amending the bylaw, etc.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to support Article 15 to recommend that Town Meeting approve moving forward with the Town’s application for a 43D Expedited Permitting Program; the vote was (3-1-1) with Paul McAlduff in opposition and Marc Garrett in abstention.
BOA 3548 – CBF Nominee Trust (10/7)
176 Sandwich St/Map 24, Lot 10C
Atty Edward Angley and Greg Morse, MacKenzie Engineering, presented a request for a modification of Special Permit #3359 to change structure locations and reduce the number of units, including Inclusionary Housing in order to demolish an existing two-family dwelling and a commercial building to construct seven condominium units on a 2.89 acre site. The site is located at 176 Sandwich Street. The site received approval for nine condominium units under Special Permit #3359. The seven condominium units would consist of 2 duplex and 3 single family structures, shorter driveway lengths, drainage in compliance with the stormwater guidelines, increased distance between buildings, decreased impervious surface, less units per acre, and additional distance from buffer zones around the wetland areas.
Lee Hartmann stated that in 2006 the Planning Board voted (5-0) not to support petition #3359, but the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the petition for nine units. The petitioner has worked with the Conservation Commission and they have issued an Order of Conditions for the current project which includes work within the riverfront area and buffer zone of Wellingsley Brook, work within the buffer zone of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and within the buffer zone of Top of Coastal Bank. The site is also within land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage but no work is proposed within this area. Mr. Hartmann stated that the staff report notes that if the reduced unit count was granted, the conditions of the previously granted petition (#3359) would remain in effect. If the seven unit count is not approved, the unit count will
remain at the nine granted under Special Permit #3359.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if the sewerage would have to be pumped up to remove it from the site.
Mr. Morse replied that the sewerage system is a pump system, run by gravity to a wet well pump chamber and then up to the street.
Paul McAlduff asked if the petitioner would be willing to make one of the seven units affordable housing even though the decrease in unit count doesn’t require inclusionary housing.
Atty. Angley replied that they would not be creating an affordable unit.
Marc Garrett asked for clarification on which unit is within the 25 foot buffer zone. Mr. Garrett also asked given the environmentally sensitive site whether the petitioner would be willing to place a restrictive covenant on the site to protect the rear of the site, the most landward jurisdictional resource.
Mr. Morse showed unit 3 as being within the 25 ft. buffer zone.
Atty. Angley stated that they would be willing to place a restrictive covenant on the rear of the site but would have to work out the details. He also noted that the wetlands are protected under the Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Morse noted that the petitioner has also agreed to grant a permanent easement to the Town for the restoration of Wellingsley Brook.
Bill Wennerberg suggested that a split rail fence with a Conservation Commission tag could be installed to restrict access to the protected areas.
Malcolm MacGregor asked for clarification on the proposed stormwater system.
Mr. Morse stated that the stormwater system would consist of seven individual dry well units and within the roadway there would be catch basins, a storm sensor particle separator, and flared intersections with rip rap to an outlet that would discharge into the marsh.
Larry Rosenblum suggested that the units should be located to increase the sight corridor between the units and maximize the views of the water resource. He also suggested that a single building for all seven units would create a smaller footprint or another scenario that would have less impact, provide a greater amenity and provide a better model could be considered.
Mr. Morse noted that in the previous plan, five of the units were in the buffer and the driveways were 12 ft. long. In the current scenario, two units were rotated to comply with buffer requirements, the parking design has been improved, and a view has been created down the middle of the corridor.
Atty. Angley stated that a single building would block more of the view and that the Design Review Board was supportive of the current proposal.
Bill Wennerberg asked for a sense of the architecture.
Mr. Morse presented the architectural drawings for a duplex unit.
Mr. Rosenblum asked if there was a requirement for the presentation of a landscape plan.
Mr. Hartmann replied that a landscape plan was required under the previous decision and those conditions would still be in effect for the current petition.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following:
The Planning Board voted to deny the petition and is still unable to support the proposed development as it is too intensive for this marine resource area and the 25-foot setbacks are not adequate to protect the abutting wetland resources.
The vote was (3-2) with Marc Garrett and Bill Wennerberg in opposition.
Discussion
Design Guidelines/Site Plan Review
Lee Hartmann presented a matrix outlining the zoning areas, and the types of development within those areas that would be subject to design standards. The next step is for the Board to review and make suggestions on applying the design standards based on proposed uses.
Marc Garrett suggested that the Board take two weeks to review the document and submit their suggestions on how to organize the design standards and identify any additions and deletions that should be included.
Larry Rosenblum suggested adding the R25 zone to the matrix.
Mr. Hartmann noted that the R40 zone should also be added to the matrix.
Other Business:
Lee Hartmann presented the plans for B437 – Pinehills, Hickorywood neighborhood for endorsement.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse the B437 – Pinehills, Hickorywood plans; the vote was (4-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 9:20 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: October 5, 2009
| 
