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, Paul McAlduff, Larry Rosenblum, Tim Grandy, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
August 30, 2010
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of August 30, 2010 as presented; the vote was (4-0-1) with Tim Grandy in abstention.
The Board recommended approval of BOA 3601 – Richard Burton, Map 103, Lot 2A-1 – Special Permit per Sec 205-27, Para G3A for a temporary extension for a temporary office trailer subject to the following condition:
This special permit extends the use of the modular structure on the lot for no more than one (1) year from the effective expiration of the existing temporary use permit as issued by the Building Commissioner.
The Board determined that the following Form A plan is entitled to endorsement:
A4376 – Bruce & Nancy Hutchinson, Map 123, Lot I-73 (4.04 A) – Divide into Lots 1337 (65,909 sf) and 1338 (101,147 sf)
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals for BOA 3601 and for the clerk to endorse A4376; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3600 – Stephen J McDonough
5 Manomet Point Road/Map 46, Lot H-15=5A
Stephen McDonough presented his request for a Special Permit to waive off-street parking requirements, specifically: waive setback from street, backing into street, number of spaces and buffers in order to re-purpose the existing building for a beauty salon.
Valerie Massard noted that the Rejuvenations Salon and Day Spa would move from its current location (772 State Road) to an existing vacant commercial building on the corner of Manomet Point Road and Strand Ave. The petitioner has submitted a detailed packet that shows the current conditions on the site; the proposed renovations; the landscape improvements; signage and lighting plans; and site layout. Ms. Massard noted that the site constraints include 20 ft. landscape setback from street; one parking space that would back into a public way (possible employee space); the number of spaces required (12); and the 10 ft. landscaped buffer for parking. The project has the full support of the Manomet Steering Committee. DPW has suggested that bollards or some other form of protection be installed to protect the building.
Paul McAlduff asked if there were any issues with the septic system for a salon and if parking could be shared with parking on the abutting lot which is now fenced.
Ms. Massard stated that Title 5 requirements would have to be met.
Mr. McDonough stated that he has already received Board of Health approval for the septic system and a 2000 gallon tight tank. The adjacent parking lot is owned by Luke’s Liquors.
Lee Hartmann noted that Luke’s had issues with a previous tenant therefore, the fence was installed.
Larry Rosenblum felt that bollards or another form of protection should be installed to protect the exposed building from vehicular traffic.
Bill Wennerberg suggested eliminating parking space #12 which would eliminate the need for bollards.
Tim Grandy asked how many sinks would drain into the tight tank.
Mr. McDonough stated that one sink used for washing chemicals such as hair dye would drain into the tight tank. The tank would be pumped as needed.
Marc Garrett suggested waiving the requirement for parking space number 12.
Mr. McDonough preferred to keep the space for employee parking or if the space was waived still using the area for employee parking.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The protection of the building from vehicles through the use of landscaping/buffering mechanisms is recommended where feasible.
Landscaping shall maintain adequate sight distances around this corner at maturity.
A qualified licensed professional shall certify to the Building Commissioner prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan, is consistent with the Bylaw, and installed using acceptable landscape practices.
All signage shall be consistent with the Bylaw, or additional permits will be required.
The parking space to the east side of the building (shown as space number 12 on the site plans) may be used at the discretion of the Petitioner, and may be waived through this special permit.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3598 – Secured Realty LLC (Cedarville BBC)
State Road/Map 54, Lots 5-2B-4, 5-3-1A, & 6-6
Atty. Edward Angley presented a request to modify Special Permit #2502 in order to add a drive-through use for a bank to the retail building. The drive-through was not approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the original petition because a specific use was not identified.
Valerie Massard noted that the site is adjacent to the British Beer Company and has been previously approved for special permits in order to construct age restricted housing and retail space. The drive-through would be two lanes with a passing lane and four parking spaces would be eliminated. Waivers were granted for parking and island requirements in the previous petitions. Site plan review is required when a use is determined. Staff noted that if a restaurant is proposed, additional special permits would be required. The Cedarville Steering Committee has suggested adding a left turn only sign onto Old County Road and that sidewalks are constructed along State Road and Old County Road in the retail area. There is also a concern with hours of operation which could be addressed in future site plan
reviews.
Lee Hartmann noted that a special permit for the drive-through would not be required if there was an allowed use on the site. This site is subject to a special permit therefore, a special permit is needed for the drive-through.
Paul McAlduff suggested a stop sign onto Old County Road instead of the “left turn only” sign. He also asked if a sidewalk could be accommodated in the area of the berm and vegetated buffer that screens the back of the retail buildings.
Bill Wennerberg suggested creating a path through the berm instead of adding a sidewalk.
Marc Garrett suggested removing the bypass lane as there is already a one-way lane for exiting the drive-through area.
William Shaw, Associated Engineers, agreed that the bypass lane was not necessary and the curbing shown could be eliminated. The petitioner agreed to add a sidewalk that will meander along the Old County Road landscaped berm.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The Petitioner shall, at the time of phase plan review as outlined in Conditions 17, 18 and 21 of Special Permit 3439R:
Review the feasibility and safety of adding a meandering walking path in the vicinity of, or within, the landscaped berm running parallel to Old County Road;
Address the feasibility and safety of adding a “left turn only” sign at the Old County Road parking lot access point; and
Provide proposed hours of operation as well as dimensions and turning radii for evaluation of the drive-through and revised parking lot travel lanes as proposed.
A drive-in eating/drinking establishment is subject to a special permit subject to Environmental Design Conditions in the General Commercial zone per Section 205-49, Paragraph D.
All prior conditions in Case 3502 remain in full force and effect.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3599 – James Deeb
0 Saquish Beach/Map 132, Lots B-6 and B-126
Atty. Lloyd Rosenberg and William Shaw, Associated Engineers, presented a request for Special Permits to enlarge/alter a nonconforming structure and to waive the side setback requirements in order to alter and enlarge the existing dwelling (post facto).
Mr. Shaw stated that Mr. Deeb purchased the property a year ago. Prior to that, an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission and a permit for a Title 5 septic system with a three bedroom restriction were obtained. Mr. Deeb’s renovations went beyond the scope of the permits. Mr. Deeb received a letter from the Building Commissioner noting that the renovations did not conform to the existing permits and that the proper zoning and building permits were not obtained. An agreement with the Court stated that Mr. Deeb had to proceed with the permits consistent with the Town’s requirements. A zoning application was submitted and it was determined that Mr. Deeb needed special permits to enlarge/alter a nonconforming structure and to waive the side setback requirements. Subsequently, Mr.
Deeb filed for the special permits with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Several other permits will also be applied for with the Building Department. The upper deck and walkway was removed and the addition is approximately 493 sq. ft. The addition is one ft. off the property line. Mr. Shaw stated that Mr. Deeb has agreed to formalize the utilization of an existing holding tank for community fire protection located at the rear of his property.
Valerie Massard stated that work was done prior to obtaining appropriate zoning, building, and conservation permits. There is an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission, but the expansion of the footprint was not included. The site is in a velocity zone for wave action, is within a mapped habitat for rare and endangered species on a barrier beach and would be subject to Conservation Commission review. A reduction of the side setback requirements from five ft. to a one ft. has been created with the incorporation of a small bump out area to a full length addition on the western side of the dwelling. The neighbor has a retaining wall along his driveway which the addition abuts. Staff has reviewed this with Building Commissioner who was notified by staff that it appeared work was being done without
permits; several notices were sent to the applicant asking for a response and seeking proper permitting; and has been brought through a judge to get the proper permits in place. A roof deck was removed and the footprint has been increased. The special permits that are being sought are for the further reduction to the side setback requirements and the enlargement of a non-conforming structure.
The Fire Chief has submitted no objections and the Design Review Board has not commented on the project. Recommendations for conditions, if the request for special permits is approved, include: returning to the Conservation Commission for proper permits, completing the installation of the Title 5 septic system and the decks shall not be converted to living space.
Lee Hartmann stated that there is a 5000 gallon storage tank on the property and portable pump for fire protection. The applicant has agreed to a condition of the special permits that would allow the tank and the well to remain on his property and allow the association to use and maintain the well.
Tim Grandy asked in reference to the velocity zone, where the elevation of the building is located and whether there were blow out walls in the structure. Mr. Grandy also asked for clarification on the water tank.
Mr. Shaw replied that the first floor elevation is at 14 ft. and blow out walls are not required.
Ms. Massard stated that the Building Commissioner had some concerns with the project’s compliance with FEMA requirements.
Mr. Hartmann pointed out the location of the tank and the well point in the pictures. The shed
houses the well pump and hoses. The shed would also be added to the condition regarding the holding tank.
Marc Garrett asked what rare and endangered species are in the area and whether Natural Heritage has been contacted.
Mr. Shaw was not sure.
Public Comment:
In Favor – None
In Opposition:
Mario Lopriore informed the Board that since the addition was constructed water from this site is draining on his property. He was also concerned with fire spreading from the adjacent structure.
Joanne Jenness expressed her concerns with fire safety and the close proximity of the structure to the lot line; the impact on endangered species, and the applicant’s disregard for the building permit process. Ms. Jenness stated that the association holds semi annual drills for fire safety.
Steve Geder was concerned with fire spreading to adjacent structures.
Larry Rosenblum stated that there have been a number of post facto filings in the past and it is unfair to the neighbors and the Town. Mr. Rosenblum also felt that the impact to the environment and public safety were significant.
Paul McAlduff agreed with the neighbors that the applicant has gone over the limit of what should have been done and the fire hazards are too great.
Lee Hartmann outlined the threshold for not supporting the project as it is substantially more detrimental because of the limited fire access and represents an over crowding of the neighborhood.
Mr. Shaw stated that the applicant has agreed to install gutters and downspouts to mitigate the drainage onto the abutting neighbor’s lot.
Marc Garrett expressed his concerns with the environmental issues; the detriment to the neighborhood and the work being done without appropriate permitting.
Larry Rosenblum moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following reasons:
The addition/alteration is substantially more detrimental than the previously existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood.
Roof runoff from the Petitioner’s dwelling is now directed onto the abutting property unabated by the expanded footprint of the dwelling.
The addition/alteration brings the distance between the abutting dwelling and the subject dwelling to approximately eleven (11) feet, which creates safety concerns with respect to emergency access between the dwellings. There is a lengthy response time in a fire situation due to the remote location of the neighborhood on Saquish Beach, and the proximity of the dwellings increases the possibility of fire hazard.
The neighborhood consists of small lots with buildings that have minimal setbacks, and expansion of the building’s footprint increases the overcrowding of land in the neighborhood. The requested ninety percent (90%) reduction in the required side yard setback does not represent minimal relief, and as such is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning bylaw, which is to prevent the overcrowding of land.
The site is in a special flood hazard area [100-year FEMA Velocity zone (subject to wave action) to El. 14], and the area is therefore subject to potential coastal storm damages. Increasing the massing of the building in close proximity to another dwelling increases the possibility of related storm damage from increased debris in wave action and run-up during a coastal storm event.
The proposed massing is not reasonable for the requested setback of one (1) foot, and negatively affects existing and future uses of the abutting land.
Roof runoff from the Petitioner’s dwelling is now directed onto the abutting property unabated by the expanded footprint of the dwelling.
The addition/alteration brings the distance between the abutting dwelling and the subject dwelling to approximately eleven (11) feet, which creates safety concerns with respect to emergency access between the dwellings. There is a lengthy response time in a fire situation due to the remote location of the neighborhood on Saquish Beach, and the proximity of the dwellings increases the possibility of fire hazard.
The neighborhood consists of small lots with buildings that have minimal setbacks, and expansion of the building’s footprint increases the overcrowding of land in the neighborhood. The requested ninety percent (90%) reduction in the required side yard setback does not represent minimal relief, and as such is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning bylaw, which is to prevent the overcrowding of land.
The site is in a special flood hazard area [100-year FEMA Velocity zone (subject to wave action) to El. 14], and the area is therefore subject to potential coastal storm damages. Increasing the massing of the building in close proximity to another dwelling increases the possibility of related storm damage from increased debris in wave action and run-up during a coastal storm event.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Other Business:
B475 – Watercourse Place – Lot release – Lots 12-21 and 12-23
Lee Hartmann explained that the final paving of Phases 1 and 2 in the Watercourse Place subdivision is being done this week and the Town is holding a bond of $66,000 for the completion of the subdivision. The developer has requested a release of lots 12-21 and 12-23 in Phase 2.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse a lot release for lots 12-21 and 12-23 in the B475 – Watercourse Place subdivision; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Paul McAlduff informed the Board that MSBA is pleased with the progress on the construction of Plymouth North High School and the project is on schedule and on budget.
Marc Garrett updated the Board on the first meeting of Industrial/Commercial/Office Land Study Committee. Mr. Garrett and Board of Selectmen Chair Bill Hallissey are co-chairing the committee. The committee will begin reviewing available land for the development potential. The next meeting is September 23, 2010.
Marc Garrett requested that each Board member submit comments for the site plan review standards so the Board can move ahead with the draft document in October.
Lee Hartmann noted that the draft standards were sent to several engineers and the only response was from Beals and Thomas. Their comments and suggestions will be incorporated into the draft document.
Larry Rosenblum updated the Board on the 1820 Courthouse project. Several high quality firms have responded to a request for architectural engineers to assist in the development of preservation and redevelopment plans for the courthouse. The Redevelopment Authority and the Courthouse Consortium will begin the process of reviewing the applicants. The Town needs to determine how the historic structure report will be paid for. There is an article before Fall Town meeting for $75,000 to fund the report.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 8:26 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: September 20, 2010
Administrative Assistant
| 
