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, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes of January 11, 2010 as presented.
The Board approved the endorsement of the plans and covenant for B543 – River Run Way.
The Board recommended that the clerk sign the following A Form plan:
A4354 – Susanne Filkins, 41 Billington Sea Road, Map 98, Lots 29J and 30C (7.07A) – Lot line definition for lots 29Q (4.79A) and 30P (2.12A).
Malcolm MacGregor moved to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
BOA 3572 – RJ Ferioli and David and Shelley Binder
21 and 23 Alewife Road, Map 55, Lot 40-8
Atty. Robert Betters presented the request for a special permit to vary the side setback requirements in order to place each half of a two-family dwelling on separate lots with a zero lot line setback. Atty. Betters stated that the structures would remain the same with the exception of the removal of the roof area connecting the two structures. The removal of the roof line connection would create a 4 ft. side yard setback for each structure.
Lee Hartmann noted that the two subdivided lots would meet the minimum lot requirements.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if this petition would set a precedent for other duplex structures in the area to be separated.
Mr. Hartmann replied that although several of these duplex/condo structures exist, most would not be able to meet the lot size minimum requirements.
Marc Garrett was concerned that given the size of the subdivided lots, they could be further subdivided or the density could be increased by creating two family structures on each lot.
Atty. Betters stated that further subdivision and/or increasing the density was not the intent of this petition. He suggested adding a condition to the Board’s recommendation that would limit each lot to a single family structure.
Mr. Garrett stated that the removal of the connection should be added as a condition in order to create a 4 ft. side yard setback.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Only one (1) single-family dwelling (a total of two dwelling units) is allowed on Lots 40-8A and 40-8B.
The attaching breezeway shall be removed.
The vote was unanimous (3-0).
Public Hearing
B562 – Village at South Street
VOSD and Inclusionary Housing
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann stated that the applicant has requested a continuance to allow for a full Board to be present.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to continue the Public Hearing to February 1, 2010 at 7:45 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
The Board recessed for 4 minutes.
Public Hearing
STM10 – High Voltage Utility Poles
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann presented an article that would aid in settlement of on-going litigation between the Town and NStar. The article, if approved by Town Meeting, would define a high voltage utility pole as follows:
Utility pole structures in excess of 49 feet in height used for the transmission and distribution of a minimum of 25,000 kilovolts (kV) of electricity.
The article would also allow a single communication antenna of 15 ft. to be added to an existing (as of the date of adoption) high voltage utility pole without a special permit. The high voltage utility pole cannot be located within a public or private road layout. The intent is to provide an incentive for telecommunication companies to locate antennae on existing structures instead of constructing a monopole or telecommunication tower.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested amending the language under section 1 to read “…increased by a maximum of 15 feet without a special permit from the Board of Appeals for wireless communication equipment provided said poles are not within 100 feet of the layout of a public or private way”.
Marc Garrett noted that NStar is required to put a road for all of their easements to create permanent passage to each of their transmission lines.
Public Comment:
Richard Withington asked for clarification on whether a new pole that is replacing an existing utility pole would be allowed to have a single communication antenna installed.
Mr. Hartmann stated that if it was a replacement that would be allowed, but if there was any doubt, it would trigger a special permit.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to close the public hearing and recommend approval of Article 22 – to amend Section 205-3.Definitions and 205-17 Lot Regulations in order to define a high voltage utility pole and to increase the height of existing high voltage utility poles for wireless communication equipment as follows:
§ 205-3.Definitions.
HIGH VOLTAGE UTILITY POLE – Utility pole structures in excess of 49 feet in height used for the transmission and distribution of a minimum of 25,000 kilovolts (kV) of electricity.
§ 205-17.Lot regulations.
I. Height.
(1) No structure shall be built, constructed, erected, or added to above a height of 35 feet, without a special permit from the Board of Appeals, except: utility poles less than 41 feet in height or , without a special permit from the Board of Appeals, except items which may be exempted by the definition of "height" in § 205-3, after a finding by the Board that there is no feasible alternative to the proposed height, that it is the minimum necessary, that there is a clear and specific public benefit which may be realized only by exceeding 35 feet in height, and that the proposed structure will not in any way detract from the visual character or quality of the adjacent buildings, the neighborhood or the Town as a whole. [Amended
4-24-1979 ATM by Art. 65] high voltage utility poles in existence as of (insert date of adoption) which may be increased by a maximum of 15 feet without a special permit from the Board of Appeals for wireless communication equipment provided said poles are not within 100 feet of the layout of a public or private way
(2) Special Permit Conditions:
a. Structures may exceed 35 feet in "height" as defined in § 205-3, by special permit after a finding by the Board of Appeals that there is no feasible alternative to the proposed height, that it is the minimum necessary, that there is a clear and specific public benefit which may be realized only by exceeding 35 feet in height, and that the proposed structure will not in any way detract from the visual character or quality of the adjacent buildings, the neighborhood or the Town as a whole; [Amended 4-24-1979 ATM by Art. 65].
b. Structures may be built, constructed, erected, or added to for a height not to exceed five stories, 55 feet maximum, within the portion of the Light Industrial District of the West Plymouth Village Service Area abutting the North Plymouth Village Service Area. This limitation may be exceeded through the special permit procedure referenced in Sections 205-9 A and B above. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply by cross-reference to any other zoning district. [Added 4-1-2000 STM by Art. 9]
Buildings/structures exceeding a height of 35 feet or three stories, up to a height of 45 feet or four stories, shall be set back a minimum of 400 feet, including a buffer of 250 feet, from any residential district boundary. Buildings/structures exceeding 45 feet in height or four stories, to a maximum of 500 feet, shall be set back a minimum of 500 feet, including a buffer of 300 feet, from any residential district boundary. [Added 4-1-2000 STM by Art. 9]
The vote was unanimous (3-0).
Public Hearing
STM10 – Pinehills - Amend OSMUD
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Bill Wennerberg recused himself from this public hearing.
John Judge, Pinehills LLC, requested a continuation of the Public Hearing to Feb. 1, 2010 to allow for a full Board to be present.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to continue the Public Hearing to Feb 1, 2010 at 8:00 p.m.; the vote was (2-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss strategy pursuant to litigation. The Board would not resume in regular session. A roll call vote was taken – Bill Wennerberg, Yes – Malcolm MacGregor, Yes and Marc Garrett, Yes.
The Board entered executive session at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: February 1, 2010
Administrative Assistant
| 
