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, Larry Rosenblum, and Tim Grandy
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
B523 – Valley View Preserve Modification – Endorsement
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse the vote* for B523 – Valley View Preserve Modification; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
B568 – Nicks Rock Road/Balboni – Endorsement
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to endorse the vote* for a definitive subdivision plan for B568 – Nicks Rock Road/Balboni; the vote was (3-0-1) with Marc Garrett in abstention.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to endorse the vote for a special permit for adequate facilities for B568 – Nicks Rock Road/Balboni; the vote was (4-0-1) with Marc Garrett in abstention and Ken Buechs, Alternate voting.
B437 – Pinehills, Great Island – Lot Release*
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to release all lots held under a covenant recorded in Book 29308, Page 230 at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds for B437 – Pinehills, Great Island; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3642 – David & Alice Vaccarello
27 Brian’s Way, Map 45A, Lot 94-37Z
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft staff report
Letters of support from Marion H. Liston, Maureen Shea, Michael and Karen Shepard
Locus Map and site photographs
Plot Plan of Land, dated December 14, 2010
Elevations, dated July 27, 2011
Special Permit for rear yard setback in order to convert rear deck to screen porch with roof
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to recommend approval of BOA 3642 to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following condition:
The enclosed screen porch shall not be converted to year-round living space.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3643 – Adriano Cimbron
6 Cedar Hill Park Dr, Map 55, Lot 37A-3
(1) Special Permit per Section 205-49, Paragraph D8 subject to Environmental Design Conditions, for a building in excess of 6,000 square feet, including a waiver of dimensional requirements; (2) Special Permit per Section 205-49, Paragraph F3 for modification of front yard setback; (3) Special Permit per Section 205-23, Paragraph A3 to modify off-street parking; (4) Special Permit per Section 205-17, Paragraph D1 subject to Environmental Design Conditions, for more than one principal building on a lot; and (5) Special Permit per Section 205-49, Paragraph D6 subject to Environmental Design Conditions for minor repair shops (9/21)
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft staff report
Engineering Memo dated September 1, 2011
Locus Map
Photo Simulation of Buildings
Site Plan dated March 1, 2011
Planting Plan dated March 11, 2011
Atty. Robert Betters reviewed a request for the above-mentioned special permits in order to construct four office/storage structures (26,250 sq. ft. total) consisting of twenty-one units with associated parking and utilities on property located at the end of Cedar Hill Park Drive. Forty-two oversized parking spaces are proposed to accommodate larger construction vehicles. Each storage unit would have 400 sq. ft. of office space. The number of buildings has been reduced to four from the five structures that were shown during the recent conceptual presentation. In 2006, the site was permitted for a fitness center and indoor pool. The Cedarville Steering Committee reviewed the project and was supportive. A landscaping plan has been submitted. Atty. Betters stated that the conditions outlined in the draft
staff report are acceptable, but there are still a couple of issues that need to be worked out.
Steve Kotowski, Webby Engineering, presented that the revised site plan shows two buildings perpendicular to Rte 3 and two buildings parallel to Rte 3. The grade of the site will be lowered to minimize the visual impact along Rte 3. In the northern area of the site, a retaining wall will be installed. The Fire Department has reviewed the hydrant locations and the Engineering Dept. has reviewed the drainage design. Each unit will have individual floor drains that will be tied into the system and will have its own water service. Two shared septic systems are proposed on site and will be constructed along the outside edge of pavement.
Valerie Massard stated that the site has an odd shaped lot with a neck under the 100 ft. wide NStar easement. The proposed 60 ft. setback is shown from where the neck opens up to the width of the lot instead of along the frontage which is acceptable because the site is not visible from a public way. A modification of off-street parking and a waiver of 18 parking spaces are being requested in order to allow for longer, wider parking spaces. Staff suggested looking at a smaller front yard setback to allow more flexibility for parking. DPW and Planning staff is cautious in respect to turning radii and adequate parking and has encouraged increasing the number of parking spaces and scaling back some of the setbacks where the neck opens out. Landscaping is shown along the frontage that abuts the NStar easement where
it is not visible. Staff would encourage the petitioner to increase the landscaping in the buffer area along Rte 3.
There are some concerns with the utility connections as shown and whether there is adequate water pressure. The plumbing code does not allow floor drains to be connected to the leaching system. The Fire Department has some concerns that some of the individual storage units may be leased as small repair shops and has suggested that the units have sprinkler systems installed. Ms. Massard suggested that a preliminary report be submitted to the Board of Appeals for their next meeting, that the petitioner return to the Planning Board on Monday evening to address the outstanding issues.
Tim Grandy asked about the existing rim covers visible outside the cul-de-sac. Mr. Grandy noted that floor drains require installation of storage tanks.
Mr. Kotowski stated that the existing covers are subsurface drainage structures installed as part of the subdivision.
Ms. Massard confirmed that floor drains would require installation of a tight tank for each building.
Marc Garrett was supportive of the proposed use on the site. Mr. Garrett noted that the landscape plan only showed planting of nine trees on a three acre site. He suggested that the landscaping be a little more creative within the site and that the landscape should be increased.
Atty. Betters suggested adding a condition to the staff report that would require final landscape and architectural plans be presented at a later date.
Larry Rosenblum was also supportive of the use, but suggested reducing the number of units and moving the buildings away from the highway. Mr. Rosenblum was concerned with the visual impact along Rte 3.
Atty. Betters noted that given the drop in grade and the height of the proposed buildings, they should not be visible from Rte 3.
Paul McAlduff and Tim Grandy were also supportive of the use, but felt that the landscaping should be increased along Rte 3 and the interior of the site.
Mr. Garrett read a letter of support from the Cedarville Steering Committee*.
Ms. Massard noted that the petitioner is seeking a preliminary recommendation from the Board and would return Monday to provide additional information regarding the unresolved issues regarding a sprinkler system, DPW issues, and hydrant positioning. In addition, a turning radii plan which demonstrates ability to enter and leave the storage units safely, adequate maneuverability for emergency vehicles on site, and turning radii around the corners of the buildings should be submitted. The petition will be reviewed by the Design Review Board on Wednesday, September 14, 2011, so their comments should be available by Monday. Trash receptacles should be shown on the plan. Final site construction, landscaping and architectural plans will also be required.
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to continue their review of BOA 3643 to Monday, September 19, 2011; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing
North Plymouth Master Plan
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Tim Grandy, Paul McAlduff, Marc Garrett, and Larry Rosenblum
Valerie Massard noted that the Board received copies of the North Plymouth Village Master Plan Update during the preliminary review two weeks ago. Public comment at that time was favorable. An additional paragraph will be added to the demographic information after the North Plymouth Steering Committee’s (NPSC) review. The additional paragraph will be presented to the Board under Administrative Notes next week.
Public Comment:
In Favor:
None
In Opposition:
None
Charles Vandini, Chair, NPSC, stated that the committee discussed the boundary of North Plymouth and suggested that North Plymouth includes Cherry Street, Nicks Rock Road to Commerce Way.
Marc Garrett suggested that the Chairs of the North Plymouth and West Plymouth Steering Committees should meet to determine the boundaries for steering committee review of projects.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend that the Board adopt the North Plymouth Master Plan Update and recommend acceptance to Town Meeting; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Discussion
Administrative Notes Policy
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft Administrative Notes Policy
Marc Garrett noted that this policy is being presented to establish a written policy for how Administrative Notes are handled. The goal would be to limit activity on minor projects and allow more time for discussion of planning issues.
Lee Hartmann stated that the policy is an overall guideline, but the Board may elect at any point to have a presentation or request that the petitioner come back at a future date.
Larry Rosenblum noted that the Board has been utilizing administrative notes for a couple of years, with the purpose of leaving more time for long range planning. Mr. Rosenblum felt that it should not take a majority vote of the Board to request a presentation of something listed under Administrative Notes. He felt it should be a single member’s request in order to protect the public and that any petitioner has a right to make a presentation.
Mr. Hartmann suggested revising the language to make it clear that any member can ask questions and a full presentation could be requested with a consensus of the Board.
The Board will review the revised language and continue the discussion at the October 3rd meeting.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 8:17 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: September 19, 2011
Administrative Assistant
| 
