These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A § 22.
Board Members: Marc Garrett, Paul McAlduff, Bill Wennerberg and Tim Grandy
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard, and Patrick Farah
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes of June 6, 2011 as presented.
The Board approved a Confirmatory Release of Covenant for Wedgestone and Coastline Drives in the B303 – Cliffside Estates subdivision.
Tim Grandy moved to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Appointment - BOA 3634 – William Ellis
5 Water Street/Map 20, Lot 121
Special Permit for a minor repair shop in a DH zone (6/29)
Lee Hartmann presented a request to change a previous recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals to from “gun repair shop” to “small engine repair”. The following condition has been added to the recommendation:
All repairs shall be performed indoors in an enclosed building.
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to rescind the previous recommendation and submit a recommendation incorporating the above-mentioned changes; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Discussion - B486 – Village Crossing
Lot Release
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that the developer for Village Crossing submitted the drainage analysis today. The drainage analysis will be forwarded to Beals and Thomas for peer review tomorrow. The developer is asking for relief of the permits being withheld for Phase III.
Tim Grandy asked how long it would take for the peer review to be completed and how many permits are being withheld.
Mr. Hartmann replied that he estimates it would take at least 1.5 weeks and that the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2011.
Mr. Grandy and Paul McAlduff supported withholding half the available building permits and all the certificates of occupancy until a solution to the drainage issues has been reached.
Marc Garrett did not support releasing any building permits until the drainage information has been reviewed and a solution has been reached. Mr. Garrett noted that the Board requested the drainage information in April.
MG received drainage information that we talked about in April – it is their time frame
Tim Grandy moved release seven building permits with the certificates of occupancy being withheld until the drainage information is peer reviewed and drainage is in compliance with the approved subdivision.
The vote was (3-1) with Marc Garrett in opposition.
Atty. Matthew Watsky asked for clarification on whether the units that already have building permits will not have the certificates of occupancy withheld.
Mr. Hartmann confirmed that the certificates of occupancy would not be withheld for those units that have already been issued building permits.
BOA 3637 – J & J Realty Trust
252 Summer Street, Map 100, Lot 36A
Special Permit to expand and/or add to a non-conforming use in an R25 Zone (6/29)
Atty. Edward Angley, Randy Parker and Jeff Metcalfe presented a request for a Special Permit to expand an existing commercial use (Plymouth Farm and Garden) to include a dog day care facility. Mr. Parker presented the site plan which includes removal of a greenhouse, relocation of existing stock, adequate parking, and construction of a 720 sq. ft. attached building with small and large fenced exercise areas for the dogs. Access to Morton Park will provide access to walking trails for additional exercise. A contractor has been hired to remove waste. The structure will consist of board and batten siding, with vinyl windows and a dark green standing seam roof. The fenced in areas will be screened with landscaping. A letter from the abutter outlining proposed conditions was submitted.
Paul McAlduff noted that the animal hospital in the Plymouth Industrial Park used tiles to buffer sound. Mr. McAlduff wanted to insure that the neighbors would not be adversely impacted by noise.
Atty. Angley noted that if a dog becomes a problem, the owners would not keep the dog as a client.
Mr. Parker noted that there will be boarding of animals during the night. The final landscape plan will be submitted at a later date.
Marc Garrett asked what qualifications the owner has and how many employees there will be.
Sue Gallant stated that she has operated the doggy day care out of her house for the last year, has done significant research, and visited other similar businesses. Ms. Gallant noted that there will be two additional employees.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of Building Permit, a Final Site Plan shall be submitted, subject to acceptance by BOA on an informal basis, and will include:
- Revised to be consistent with the Conceptual Plan;
- Adequate parking, which shall be confirmed by Building Commissioner;
- Evergreen landscape plantings, such as arborvitae, are to be shown which shall screen the eastern and southern portions of the lot, especially the dog day-care facility, which face the abutting property Lot 36C. Said planting details shall specify size of plantings (for example - gallon shrubs, min 3-inch caliper trees);
- Additional landscaping proposed shall be shown on plans – including fence detail and surface treatments of the dog-walk area, and surface treatment of the parking area; and
- Exterior lighting shall be demonstrated to comply with the Dark Sky component of the Bylaw (Section 205-65), shall not exceed 20 feet total height, and shall not be directed toward Lot 36C.
Dog droppings shall be removed on a regular basis – records shall be available upon request of such services being performed, such as receipts.
As agreed to by the Petitioner, hours of operation are limited to Monday-Friday 7 am to 6 pm. No weekends, and no overnight stays of pets is permitted.
Dog capacity is twenty (20) dogs.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3635 – William H and Marcia Sykes
13 River Street, Map 47, Lots 3A and 4C
Special permit to waive the side and rear setback requirements in a R25 zone for a barn built in 2007 within the required side yard setback (6/29)
Bill Sykes presented his request for a special permit for side and rear setback relief. Mr. Sykes explained that when the foundation for the barn was poured, it was too close to the property line and it was cost prohibitive to relocate the foundation.
.Valerie Massard presented photographs showing the location of the two-story barn. The architecture is in keeping with the house and similar structures in this rural neighborhood. When it was discovered that the foundation was too close to the abutting property a lot line adjustment was considered but was not feasible. A zoning permit to the foundation was not exercised and the barn was completed without inspections. No advisory reports were received. Ms. Massard noted that staff is supportive with several conditions.
Mr. McAlduff wanted to insure that the structure would not be used as a residential unit.
Marc Garrett added that the building should not be used for commercial or residential purposes.
Bill Wennerberg moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The barn shall only be used for private, non-commercial, non-industrial storage by the property owner. The barn shall not be used for residential dwelling or commercial purposes.
No further encroachment on the setbacks on the subject property may be granted so long as the barn is located within the required setbacks as authorized within this special permit.
No use or occupancy is authorized until (1) all required inspections and permits have been issued through the Building Department, including any Board of Health or Fire Department requirements; and (2) evidence is provided to the Board of Appeals, through a Municipal Lien Certificate, that there are no outstanding taxes, fees or fines on the subject property.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3633 Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC (continued)
109R Center Hill Road/Map 52, Lot 6I
Special Permits subject to EDC for a communication tower and to exceed the height requirements (6/29)
Paul McAlduff recused himself from this review.
Lee Hartmann reviewed the request for a special permit subject to EDC for BOA 3633 – Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC in order to exceed the height requirements to construct a communication tower (monopole) and associated infrastructure. Mr. Hartmann outlined the following guidelines for reviewing the request for a special permit:
With telecommunication facilities the Town must look at both:
- Plymouth’s Zoning Bylaw, and
- The Federal Communication Act of 1997
The Telecommunication Act requires:
- The Town act without undue delay
- Forbids discrimination among telecommunication providers
- Forbids decisions that effectively prohibits wireless services
The Town cannot use the availability of other carriers as a reason to deny a request.
The Applicant must demonstrate that:
- There is a significant gap in services, and
- There is on feasible alternative.
(The applicant has the burden of proof)
A denial cannot be based on the environmental effects of radio emissions (if they meet federal standards).
The Town’s peer review consultant indicates that there is a significant gap in coverage on Center Hill Road; AT & T has indicated that they would be interested in utilizing this site; and that the other nine sites that were considered are too far away from the gap in coverage and would not be suitable.
Valerie Massard noted the list of information provided by applicant and additional information as follows:
Finding by the Conservation Commission that there will be no significant impact to the wetland resource area that is located on the property
Correspondence between petitioner and the Town’s peer review consultant regarding the lengthy report that was submitted and indicates that the applicant has met the standards of the Federal Telecommunications Act.
The PowerPoint presentation by the applicant that was reviewed by the Board at the last meeting showed the five acre site as heavily wooded and adjacent to the Center Hill Preserve. The site is not an endangered species habitat and is not in a flood hazard or well protection area. There will be a security gate along the existing access drive. The height of the structure has been reduced from 180 ft. to 150 ft. and the structure has changed from a lattice type to a monopole. Approximately 6,400 sq. ft. will be cleared and filled with crushed stone to house the pole and equipment. The cleared area will be surrounded by fencing with an identification sign. A noise study has been done, but not reviewed by the Town’s peer review consultant. The Fire Department’s comments included
providing adequate access for emergency vehicles and access through the security gate. The Cedarville Steering Committee has not submitted their comments, but the petitioner indicated that their vote was (3-0-3). DPW comments were in respect to the technical information, but do not affect the application. The Town’s peer review consultant has indicated that based on the technical information submitted, there is a significant gap in wireless coverage in the area, the tower is at the minimum height due to existing vegetation, and there is adequate room for additional carriers. Additional peer review is anticipated due to correspondence submitted by the opposition. Ms. Massard reviewed some of the conditions in the favorable staff report: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall: demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals, compliance with the FCC Office of Technology Bulletin 65; provide copies of all
existing written, binding commitments fro telecommunications providers to locate on the proposed tower; and provide evidence of recording of this Special Permit to the Board of Appeals and Building Commissioner; additional loam and seeding should be done as an erosion control measure; a mix of evergreens should be planted for screening with a two year guarantee and a registered engineer must certify that the physical improvements noted in the site plan have been installed in accordance with the conditions.
Mr. Hartmann commented that the condition of having a carrier prior to construction should be considered. The Board generally requires that one or two carriers have committed to using the site.
Ms. Massard noted that at a recent planning conference, the definition of “co-location” has changed to be location on any structure whether it be cell tower, a barn, a roof or otherwise.
Marc Garrett questioned how many users have committed to this site.
Ms. Massard replied that AT & T has submitted a letter of interest.
Mr. Hartmann noted that there are no committed carriers for this location.
Atty. Richard Serkey, representing abutting residents opposed to the petition, clarified that the Cedarville Steering Committee vote was (0-3-3). He noted a case in Milton where the courts upheld a denial of a proposed cell tower. Atty. Serkey presented a video by Eric Heller expressing his opposition to the project. Mr. Heller felt that there is adequate coverage in the area and that constructing a tower here would create a higher density of cell towers in this area of Plymouth. He also stated that the site is a sensitive, scenic area which would be impacted by this project; there are other locations that would be better suited (Hios Hill); no carriers have committed to this site, and there are alternative technologies that would have a lower impact on the Center Hill Preserve and abutting residents.
Atty. Dan Finnegan, Joe Landers, Carl Foley, and Thomas Keane expressed similar concerns with the proposed project. Additional concerns included impact on the shoreline and Center Hill Preserve, safety concerns regarding the “drop” zone, noise impacts and inconsistency with the Cedarville Master Plan. Mr. Keane read a letter from Christine Bostek encouraging the Board to adopt a bylaw for communication facilities that would protect the residents. Maps were shown that detailed existing coverage by the major carriers.
Mr. Garrett asked for a count of those in attendance that were opposed to this petition. The count was twenty-six.
Kevin Delaney, Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC (ITW), stated that Hios Hill was considered as a location, but the owner was not interested. He stated that the maps presented by the opposition are marketing maps and show estimated coverage areas that may have gaps in service. Mr. Delaney reiterated that the peer review consultant indicates that the proposed tower will close a coverage gap, AT & T is interested in the site, the proposed height is reasonable, and they have received FAA clearance.
Tim Grandy asked what model was used for their coverage studies and whether owners of existing towers would allow ITW to co-locate on their sites.
Mr. Delaney stated that they conducted propagation studies for existing coverage and measured the existing signal strength. He noted that locating on the existing towers would not provide coverage in the Center Hill area.
Mr. Garrett noted that this is a speculative tower with no carriers committed to this tower for cell phone or wireless public safety coverage.
Tim Grandy moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following reasons:
The Petitioner has not adequately documented that other sites were examined and determined not to be feasible.
An adequate fall zone is not provided on the Petitioner’s property.
The proposed tower will detract from the visual character or quality of the adjacent buildings, and the neighborhood.
The Petitioner does not intend to use the Tower for its own equipment, and no other telecommunication carriers have committed to locating on this tower.
Should the Zoning Board of Appeals approve this petition, the following CONDITIONS should be considered:
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall: (1) demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Board of Appeals, compliance with the FCC Office of Engineering Technology Bulletin 65; (2) provide copies of all existing written, binding commitments from~telecommunications from a minimum of two (2) providers that they will locate~on the proposed tower; and (3) provide evidence of recording of this Special Permit to the Board of Appeals and Building Commissioner.
Erosion control measures are to be depicted on the final plans, as deemed appropriate by the Building Commissioner, and shall include the placement of at least six (6) inches of loam prior to any proposed fertilizer and seed, as required under the Bylaw. The use of erosion socks as part of the erosion control measures is encouraged. The Petitioner shall limit vegetation disturbance during construction.
Prior to the Certificate of Completion or final approval by the Building Commissioner:
- Upon completion of the construction, an adequate number of eastern white pines or other suitable trees/shrubs (which are not listed as invasive or non-native species by the Commonwealth) shall be planted, with a two-year guarantee on said plantings to be provided to the Building Commissioner in a form agreed upon with the Petitioner. The location and adequacy of the proposed plantings shall be shown on a plan to be approved on an informal basis by the Board of Appeals prior to installation.
- Said improvements are to be installed under the supervision of a registered professional engineer. The engineer must certify that the physical improvements noted in the site plan have been installed in accordance with the conditions noted here and accepted installation practices.
Any changes or additions to the project shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals in writing. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall determine if said changes are non-substantial. If deemed non-substantial, the Board may approve said changes in an informal hearing.
The vote was unanimous (3-0).
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
B436 – Pinehills Confirmatory Release
Bill Wennerberg recused himself from voting on this request.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse a Confirmatory Release to correct a typographical error on the original lot release for Great Island Community. The vote was (3-0).
B560 - Hillside Estates
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse a Lot Release for 15-9 and a Rescission of Release for lot 15-4 in the B560 – Hillside Estates subdivision; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
B562 - Village at South Street
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to find that a sale price of approximately $196,000 (based on 80% of the median household income) is acceptable and consistent with the intention of Condition #8 of creating affordable housing in the $200,000 price range; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: July 11, 2011
Administrative Assistant
| 
