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, Bill Wennerberg, and Tim Grandy
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
B475 – Watercourse Place – Lot Release* 12-37
The Board approved the release of lot 12-37 in the B475 – Watercourse Place subdivision.
BOA 3646 – James Kuketz
9 Aldrin Road, Map 101, Lot 41G, Unit 3
Special Permit for auto repair in a LI zone
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft staff report
Memo from DPW dated September 28, 2011
Letter from Fire Department dated September 28, 2011
Locus Map
Site Plan dated August 9, 2011
Building Layout plan dated June 17, 2011
The Board moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals of Case No. 3646 subject to the following condition:
No unregistered vehicles shall be stored on the exterior of the building.
BOA 3648 – Ryan Realty Trust
Saquish Head, Map 132, Lot H-32
Special Permit to waive the side setback requirement in an R20SL Zone in order to construct an 18’x26’ shed/workshop with three foot roof overhang
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft staff report
Memo from DPW dated September 28, 2011
Locus Maps and site photographs
Site Plan dated August 31, 2011
Architectural Elevations
The Board moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals of Case No. 3648 subject to the following conditions:
The scale of the plan shall be corrected to read 1” = 30’.
The shed shall not be used for commercial purposes or converted to living space.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the lot release (12-37) for B475 – Watercourse Place and to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals of Case Nos. 3646, 3648; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Minutes:
September 19, 2011
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the minutes* of September 19, 2011 as presented; the vote was (4-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention.
ANR Plans:
A4404* – ADM Agawam Development LLC, Wareham Road, Map 117, Lot A-3(682.9A) - Divide into Lots A-4 (168.78 A), A-5 (112.46 A), A-6 (240.04 A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to determine that A4404 is entitled to endorsement; the vote was (4-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention.
1820 Courthouse Historic Structure Report *
Plymouth Redevelopment Authority
Dean Rizzo asked for the Board’s input and support of the 1820 Courthouse Historic Structure Report. Mr. Rizzo stated that the report was completed in the beginning of September and is divided into two sections: historical analysis and reuse. He noted that three significant historic elements have been identified in the courthouse building - the façade, the Daniel Webster courtroom and the storage vaults. The historic element in the commissioner’s building is the jail cells. There is approximately $227,000 available from the funds appropriated at Town Meeting which will be used to continue with the exterior renovations and stabilization and to provide building insurance and some heat and ventilation. An RFP will be developed for the work that will be done. The reuse section of the
report identifies both short and long term options. Reuse options include business/office space; a visitors center; public meeting/event space; town hall; hotel, retail and other commercial space; and housing. Ideally, a plan would be developed for the entire courthouse corridor. The community needs to determine what is to be done and whether it should be a public, private or public/private project. The community partners also need to work together (Plymouth Redevelopment Authority, Historic District Commission, Plymouth Center Steering Committee, Plymouth Growth and Development Committee, Planning Board and Board of Selectmen). CPA and grant funding will be sought to continue with the renovations and stabilization of the buildings.
Tim Grandy felt that he needed more time to review the report in depth before forming an opinion.
Paul McAlduff asked about the costs for the heating and building insurance and whether the school department is supportive of the corridor development concepts since portions are school property.
Mr. Rizzo replied that it is estimated that heating and insulation for the courtroom would be approximately $22,200 with fuel costing $2210 annually, and the cost for the historic portion of the courthouse approximately $65,000 with fuel costs $4,600 annually. The insurance is $10,000 annually. Contacting the school department will be part of a Phase 2 plan.
Larry Rosenblum was supportive of the report but noted that the community is struggling to figure out the future of the courthouse corridor. The goal of Phase 2 is to create design and development guidelines using all the resources of the community in order to capture private development interests.
Marc Garrett stated that this discussion would need to be continued. The site needs to be developed for the health of the town, but how it happens and where the money comes from is a major question. Mr. Garrett stated the given the lingering recession, and the limited funding available through state and federal grants, involvement of the private sector is a key component. He also felt that communication with the community needs to be improved and the process of engaging public interest should be revisited. .
Tim Grandy asked if the report is available on line.
Mr. Rizzo stated that the report is available on the Town’s website under the Plymouth Redevelopment Authority and copies are available for viewing in the office.
Mr. Garrett suggested that the PRA contact staff to schedule a continuation of the discussion on the 1820 Courthouse Historic Structure Report before the holidays.
Public Hearing: B569 – Bay Colony Drive RDD
Marc Garrett read the pubic hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy, Larry Rosenblum, Bill Wennerberg and Ken Buechs
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft staff report/vote
Excerpt from the Planning Board minutes of July 25, 2011
Memo from DPW dated September 28, 2011
Letter from Fire Department dated September 15, 2011
Letter from Flaherty & Stefani, Inc., dated August 25, 2011
Locus Map
Site Plan dated August 15, 2011
Plan of Roads and Lots dated December 1, 1970
Atty. Edward Angley and Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc, presented plans for a proposed Rural Density Development (RDD). The development would consist of two residential lots (27,743 and 56,970 sq. ft.) and 84,712 sq. ft. of open space surrounding the perimeter of the site. Access to both residential lots will be via a single common driveway and a landscaped area will separate both dwellings. All drainage will be contained on site and will include two rain gardens and drywells to contain roof runoff. The architecture of the proposed dwellings will be in keeping with the character of the surrounding Chiltonville area.
Shown during the presentation:
Architectural Plan dated August 26, 2011
Cross section depicting the dwelling on proposed Lot 26-5 at approximate first floor elevation 110 at station 1+50, and the dwelling on proposed Lot 26-6 at approximate first floor elevation at 100 at station 3+00, undated
An undated conceptual plan showing a potential two-lot subdivision with a hammerhead turnaround using waivers of the cul-de-sac and corner rounding requirements
Atty. Angley noted that they have reviewed and agreed to the recommended conditions in the staff report.
Valerie Massard stated that the Bay Colony Drive subdivision did not include this particular property, but the parcel has access to the road which is a public way. Ms. Massard noted that the site could support a duplex by special permit or a two lot subdivision with a waiver for a hammerhead turnaround. Ms. Massard reviewed the suggested conditions if the Board were to grant the petition.
Atty. Angley noted that the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the subdivision plans and were supportive.
Ms. Massard noted that no report has been received from DRB.
Public Comment:
In Favor: Harvey LeSueur
In Opposition:
Thomas Frates, John Fay, and Lynne Moylan expressed their concerns with increased traffic, the poor condition of Bay Colony Drive and River Street, existing drainage issues in the area, and potential access to Clifford Road.
Marc Garrett stated that the open space covenant would prohibit access to Clifford Road.
Tim Grandy asked if all the drainage would be contained on site.
Mr. Flaherty explained that the two proposed rain gardens, leaching systems and the drywells for roof runoff would capture all drainage on the site.
Larry Rosenblum asked if a hammerhead turnaround would be allowed under a conventional subdivision. Mr. Rosenblum felt that the proposal did not meet the intention of the RDD bylaw to conserve substantial open space. He noted that a duplex would disturb less land area.
Ms. Massard explained that a cul-de-sac would normally be required for a subdivision and that a hammerhead turnaround would require a waiver. She noted that the hammerhead design alternative has been approved by the Planning Board.
Lee Hartmann noted that a duplex would require a special permit.
Mr. Garrett preferred the option that would provide open space vs. construction of a duplex in this area.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to approve B569 – Bay Colony Drive RDD subject to the following conditions:
A revised set of plans for the RDD shall be submitted, which shall: include the architectural plan and cross-section plans shown at the October 3, 2011 Planning Board meeting, address the concerns of the Fire Department and DPW, show proposed bounds and monumentation for the open space, and include driveway and stormwater design details, proposed maintenance programs and stormwater calculations. Said plans are subject to final approval by the Planning Board prior to endorsement of the RDD special permit plans (the “Approved Plans”), and prior to endorsement of a plan as described in Condition number two below.
There will be a subsequent Plan of Division of Land filing on the Petitioner Land under the Approval Not Required (ANR) Process under Subdivision Control Law to create the lots as shown on the Plan. Prior to endorsement of the ANR Plan:
- The ANR Plan shall make reference to this Special Permit or the Special Permit shall be recorded with the plan, and will reflect Conditions of this Decision as appropriate.
- Conditional upon the payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town, if any, through evidence of a Municipal Lien Certificate.
- Evidence that this Special Permit decision has been recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Planning Board.
- Five (5) sets of full sized copies of all drawings comprising the~endorsed Approved Plans with one complete set of reproducible plans (mylars) will be delivered to the Planning Board and one (1) electronic copy of the plans shall be delivered in a format acceptable to the Town Engineer.
Evidence of recording of the ANR Plan referenced above shall constitute substantial use of this special permit.
Prior to any earth grading activities at the site, including driveway construction or issuance of any Building Permits, all open space and other no-disturb areas in the vicinity of any construction on the site will be staked off to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, and shall remain staked off until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for each lot:
- Architectural and site plans shall be signed off by the Planning Department with respect to that dwelling within the RDD being consistent with the Approved Plans, and include the light posts as described in Condition 10 below. Substantial changes to the proposed placement of the dwellings or architecture are subject to review and approval by the Planning Board.
- As agreed to by the Petitioner, the building lots subject to this Petition shall be subject to a Covenant with the Planning Board that guarantees the work to be completed on the driveway will be consistent with the Approved Plans, and that any damages to Bay Colony Drive attributable to the construction activities for new construction, shall be repaired prior to release of any individual lot for final occupancy by the Planning Board. Evidence of recording said Covenant at the Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Planning Board.
The RDD as approved is for no more than two (2) residential single-family dwelling units. The Petitioner agrees to waive its right to further subdivide the subject property shown on the Approved Plans. The term "subdivided" shall include the process of division of the lots into parcels by means of a plan not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Notwithstanding this provision, the Planning Board may endorse the relocation of any lot lines when consistent with the intent and purpose of this restriction.
The Petitioner has agreed to waive his/her right to any further residential development of the premises that results in a more intense or dense use, regardless of any local, state or federal criteria to the contrary, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapters 40A and 41, and this shall be noted on the Approved Plans, as well as incorporated into the Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the lots within the RDD development.
Protective Covenants and Restrictions, Easements or Deed Restrictions shall be imposed upon the property subject to the RDD by the Petitioner in a form acceptable to Town Counsel which shall include:
- The requirement that the open space within the project is to be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners in a manner consistent with conservation, stormwater management and passive recreational purposes, as noted in this decision and as shown on the Approved Plans.~ The open space is serving as a wooded natural buffer to neighboring residences and other uses and shall remain primarily in its undisturbed natural condition or as established upon installation of landscaping as shown on the Approved Plans.~ Structures or uses not associated with those listed herein are not allowed in the open space without the express consent of the Planning Board.
- A maintenance program for the stormwater management aspects of the buffer areas and for the common driveway.
- The requirement that the common driveway within the RDD will not be plowed or maintained by the Town, and the common driveway is not a road.
The common driveway shall be constructed, and utilities installed, as per the Approved Plans, subject to inspection and final approval by the Town of Plymouth Planning Board or its representatives with respect to standard inspections as would be undertaken with construction of a subdivision roadway under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Petitioner shall provide peer review/consulting fees to the Town for these inspection services, including water connections.
Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit:
- The lot must be released by the Planning Board for Occupancy.
- Bounds at the boundaries of the open space Lots shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board per the Approved Plans.
- Evidence of recording the Protective Covenants and Restrictions, Easements or Deed Restrictions per the Conditions of this decision at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Planning Board.
- On each individual lot, individual photosensitive lampposts will be installed within 25 feet of the common driveway.
- House numbers shall be posted at the frontage of the common drive along Bay County Drive.
- Landscaping shall be installed as shown on the plan and a two (2) year performance deposit shall be provided to the Town Planning Board with respect to the landscape materials.
Bill Wennerberg recused himself from voting on this subdivision and Planning Board Alternate Ken Buechs participated in the vote.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
BOA 3647 – Indianhead Realty Inc.
1929 State Road, Map 61, Lot 6A-3
Special Permits subject to EDC to extend or alter a non-conforming use; to enlarge a campground and for removal of 560,000 CY of gravel (for ball fields proposed as an amenity to campground) in an RR zone.
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft staff report and amended draft staff report
Memo from DPW dated September 28, 2011
Locus Maps
Proposal Booklet from Churchill Engineering
Atty. John Danehey, presented the request for special permits to remove approximately 560,000 cubic yards of gravel in order to construct ball fields, a pet area and maintenance barn as part of the existing Indianhead Campground. There will be a buffer area along State Road and a walking trail to Old Sandwich Road will provide access to Ellisville Harbor State Park. A performance bond will be established to insure that the fields are built. There is a potential for the ball fields to be leased to the Recreation Department or local sports leagues.
Valerie Massard noted that the Board received a revised map from staff that details the approximate extent of the gravel removal and an overlay of the wetland areas. There is a small wetland area on the site but not within the excavation area that was not depicted on the submitted plans. The Board also received a revised staff report that included language regarding the proposed performance bond. State Road will be used for hauling the gravel and there will be no new curb cuts. The nearest residence is approximately 100 ft. away. The DPW comment memo indicates that the applicant could be subject to Federal NPDES or State Storm Water Permit for construction activities.
Paul McAlduff asked if the pet walking facility would be open to the public and noted that two gates are needed to properly confine the pets within the enclosure.
Richard Churchill, the proponent, stated that the primary use of the pet area and ball fields would be for use by campers. Mr. Churchill was amenable to the double gates for the pet enclosure and to considering the possibility of public use.
Larry Rosenblum asked if there was a business plan for the project and to see examples of other campgrounds with recreational fields.
Marc Garrett noted that Camp Bournedale has a soccer field, ball fields and tennis courts.
Tim Grandy thought the proposed amenities would enhance the camping experience. He asked for clarification on whether the recreation area would be available for public use. Mr. Grandy also asked who would determine the value for the performance bond.
Atty. Danehey replied that the recreational fields could be used by the campers during the summer months and possibly opened during early spring and late fall for other groups to use.
Lee Hartmann stated that the Building Commissioner with assistance from a consultant (if necessary) would determine the value for the performance bond.
Ken Buechs expressed his concern with the existing sight distances at the entrance onto State Road. He suggested increasing the visibility for vehicles entering onto State Road.
Public Comment:
Don Quinn expressed his concerns with the need for recreational fields, adequate dust suppression, increased traffic, maintenance of the recreational fields, potential use of the maintenance building for storing construction vehicles, having a gravel pit in a residential area, and vehicle noise. Mr. Quinn questioned whether the use of this parcel for recreational fields could be considered an extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use and whether the lot could be sold separately from the campground, since the fields are on a lot separated from the campground use.
Dr. Lee Burns expressed his concerns with the impacts of the gravel removal.
Mr. Garrett stated that he was supportive of the proposed recreation fields at the campground but was concerned with the liability of opening the fields to the public and the liability associated with a dog park. He also had some concerns with the impacts of the gravel removal including the lack of a dust suppression and maintenance plan and impacts to the ACEC including the effect of the dust on the salt marsh and State Park. He also noted that the Environmental Impact Statement does not address the issue. Mr. Garrett suggested that in order to address the questions and issues raised, the petitioner might want to ask for a continuance.
Atty. Danehey agreed that in order to answer the questions and issues raised he would ask for a continuance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to continue their review of BOA 3647; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Discussion
Administrative Notes Policy*
The Board reviewed the revised Administrative Notes Policy. The policy was revised to state that any Board member can ask a question or raise concerns on any Administrative Notes and with a consensus of the Board ask for a full presentation.
Larry Rosenblum was not supportive of codifying the Administrative Notes Policy or requiring a consensus to request a full presentation.
Paul McAlduff stated that there will always be an opportunity for a board member to raise questions and ask for a full presentation.
Valerie Massard noted that applicants or their representatives of any projects that are listed under administrative notes are asked to attend the meeting to address any questions the Board may have.
Bill Wennerberg suggested removing the word “consensus”.
Larry Rosenblum moved to adopt the Administrative Notes Policy with the removal of “A Board member with consensus fro the Planning Board can request that eh applicant or staff make a presentation on any Administrative Notes items. If issues are raised during the administrative review process, the Board may (if deadline for action permits) elect to discuss the item in greater detail or continue action to a future meeting to allow the applicant/staff item to prepare a formal presentation.” the vote was (1-4) with Mr. Rosenblum in support.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes Policy as presented; the vote was (3-2) with Bill Wennerberg and Larry Rosenblum in opposition.
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Chair to sign letters to Senate President Therese Murray and Representatives Vinnie deMacedo and Thomas Calter showing the Board’s support of the State’s Comprehensive Land Use Reform and Partnership Act; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Marc Garrett informed the Board that he has been working with Board of Selectmen Chair Bill Hallissey to try to resolve the impasse with the Town of Kingston regarding access through William C Gould Way to property in Plymouth. During a recent Kingston meeting regarding a remand from the court related to this issue, the Town of Kingston voted to continue litigation regarding the access. Mr. Garrett stated that he has reached out the Town Planner of Kingston to hold a joint meeting with the Kingston Planning Board to discuss the issue.
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to adjourn at 10:35 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: October 17, 2011
Administrative Assistant
| 
