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, Tim Grandy, and Malcolm MacGregor
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
June 4, 2012
June 11, 2012
The minutes* of June 4, 2012 and June 11, 2012 were approved as presented.
B572 - Braley Rd VOSD - Architecture review
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff memo dated June 28, 2102
Architectural Photo and Floor Plans
VOSD Plans dated January 30, 2012 and May 3, 2012
Locus Map and Photos
The Board reviewed and approved the architecture and privacy screening for B572 - Braley Rd VOSD.
B437 – Pinehills LLC – Lot Releases
Cobblestone, Lots 10-521 and 10-522
Greengate, Lots A-232 through A-234
The Board approved the above mentioned lot releases for B437 – Pinehills LLC.
Form A Plans:
The Board determined that the following Form A plans* are entitled to endorsement:
A4430 – Pinehills LLC, Stones Throw, Map 77C, Lot 10-341 (2.09A) – Divide to create lots 10-523 (1.20A) and S-200 (0.89A)
A4431 – ADM Agawam, West Long Pond Road, Map 111, Lot 1-18 (58.23A) – Lot line adjustment to create Map 111, Lot 1-19 (58.23A) and Map 69, Lot 33A-3 (59 sq. ft.)
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to approved the Administrative Notes as presented; Paul McAlduff second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
B474 – Wadsworth Estates
Status Update
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff Memo dated June 28, 2012
Draft minutes from June 4, 2012
Minutes excerpt from April 25, 2011 Planning Board meeting
Site photographs
Valerie Massard noted that the Board received recent site photographs of the stabilization completed for the property located off Herring Pond Road. To date, the stockpiled loams and fines, as well as the sides of the temporary drainage basin along Herring Pond Road, have been loamed and seeded. The berm face and stockpiled gravel and sand remain exposed, very sparsely vegetated (sporadic weeds), or un-vegetated.
Paul McAlduff moved for the developer/owner to have the following additional areas graded and vegetatively stabilized: the berm along Herring Pond Road located immediately behind the silt fence (for its entire length); and the stockpiled gravel and sands visible from Herring Pond Road; Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to request that the cash bond being held by the Town for vegetative re-stabilization of the site through the Board of Appeals special permit be exercised, if at a minimum, these two named areas have not been vegetatively stabilized within 60 days of July 2, 2012; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing
B573 – Dublin/Nameloc/Coastline Drives
Reconfiguration of existing lots with open space
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Tim Grandy, Paul McAlduff, Malcolm MacGregor and Ken Buechs
Atty. Robert Betters and Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering thanked Ms. Massard for working with the applicant and neighbors to craft an alternative acceptable to all parties and presented VOSD plans that would reconfigure existing lots and reconfigure existing density for three dwellings (a two-family and a single family) and create three new single family buildable lots with open space. An existing cottage on the east side of Nameloc Road will be demolished, the lots for the two existing dwellings will be reconfigured, three new buildable lots will front on Dublin Drive and/or Coastline Drive, depending on final layout. Waivers of density, front setback and open space requirements have been requested.
Valerie Massard stated that staff, the developer, and the immediate abutters have worked together over a series of meetings during the past year to create a plan that would reconfigure the lots and create a best fit scenario for the all parties involved and the surrounding neighborhood.
Paul McAlduff was concerned with creating open space on a highly eroding bluff.
Mr. Bracken stated that there might be some flexibility on where the open space would be located.
Ms. Massard agreed that the lot layout could be redesigned if the VOSD is approved.
Public Comment:
In Favor:
Joan Landry was supportive of the proposed VOSD.
In Opposition:
Anthony Gervais was concerned with the open space lot that is in an erosion area.
Tim Grandy moved to close the public hearing; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve B573 – Dublin/Nameloc/Coastline Drives VOSD with waivers subject to the following conditions:
The following Conditions DO NOT apply to land of the Participating Abutters shown on the VOSD Plan as new Lot 054-005-002B-015 at #41 Nameloc Road or to new Lot 054-005-001B-002 at #47-49 Nameloc Road, and only apply to the Developer’s Lots, as same may be reconfigured on the ANR Plan consistent with this decision.
The Village Open Space Density Development as approved is for no more than the density stated in the Findings of this Special Permit. The Petitioner agrees to waive its right to further subdivide the Developer’s Lots shown on the ANR Plan pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 41, and this shall be noted on the plan, as well as incorporated into Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the Developer’s Lots. 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 its right to any further residential development of the Developer’s Lots 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 ANR Plan, as well as incorporated into the Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restrictions imposed by the Petitioner on the Developer’s Lots.
Prior to endorsement of the subsequent ANR Plan, and consistent with the provisions of this decision, the Petitioner shall provide with the ANR Plan the following information, which is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board (which may be done at an informal hearing): (a) net cuts and fills, demonstrating that no net material will be removed from the site; (b) reconfiguration of the Developer’s Lots to incorporate open space within the Developer’s Lots, to the greatest extent feasible, which shall enhance buffering and privacy or common space through such methods as landscaping, site layout, building envelopes, topography and lot configuration, and which may include plantings, if so desired by the Participating Abutters, on land not owned by the Developer and which may be contained within privately owned individual
lots; and (c) evidence that drainage shall be maintained on site. The ANR Plan shall make reference to the Special Permit.
Prior to issuance of a zoning permit:
Conditional upon the payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for this property, if any.
Five (5) sets of full size copies of all drawings comprising the VOSD Plan 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.
Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restrictions shall be imposed by the Petitioner limiting the parcel on the bluff to remain open space, with allowances for passive recreational use, maintenance, and including subsurface appurtenant uses, if any. This parcel may be privately owned, or owned in common by the owners of the Developer’s Lots, but it will be protected open space.
The mechanism of maintenance of the open space property by the owner(s), as established, shall be clearly identified through Deed, Covenant or Association, with appropriate access easements to same, if necessary.
Evidence that (1) the Protective Covenants and Restrictions or Deed Restriction(s) per the Conditions of this decision on the subject property (as noted in Conditions 1, 2, 3c and 3d) and (2) this Decision have been recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Planning Board.
Evidence that there is adequate water pressure through a hydrant flow test as approved by the Town Water Department within DPW.
Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
ZBA 3677 – EJ Pontiff
off Black Cat Road, Map 90, Lot 20-1
Special Permit for gravel removal for cranberry bog (re-filing - conditions sorted with neighborhood – same as previous review)
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff Memo and draft recommendation dated June 28, 2012
Letter from Flaherty & Stefani dated March 15, 2012
Environmental Impact Statement
Locus Map
Plan dated February 28, 2012
Atty. Edward Angley presented the plans for a gravel removal project that was previously filed under ZBA 3666 and subsequently withdrawn without prejudice. A meeting was held with staff, the abutters, the petitioner and his representatives to try to address the concerns of the abutters. A consensus was reached on several items which have been incorporated into the draft recommendation.
Malcolm MacGregor was concerned with erosion of the surrounding roads used by trucks removing the gravel.
Atty. Angley stated that the hauler has agreed to repair any damage caused by his vehicles and that the Town is holding funds for any necessary road repairs.
Paul McAlduff asked if the trucks were idling for long periods of time and if documentation of the road conditions is being done.
Eric Pontiff replied that it takes less than five minutes to load the trucks. He also noted that one of the issues with the neighbors was the noise from the pumps which he has addressed by installing a muffler on the pump.
Public Comment:
Jim Eno, 80 Billington Sea Rd, expressed his concerns with the ongoing gravel removal projects in the area and the number of truck trips which are disruptive to a densely populated residential area.
Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Coby’s Road, a cartpath just west of the site (straddles lot line between Lots 19 and 20-1 on Plat 90) shall be designated as no access for this project, and this shall be noted on the Approved Plan.
All stationary on-site mechanical equipment shall be placed as far away as possible from existing homes during its operation (as material is removed this location will shift to the west).
All existing gravel removal work associated with the previous permits shall be completed, all side-slopes stabilized and Cranberry vines planted prior to the commencement of work in Phase III, which is the work subject to this special permit.
All pumps associated with the cranberry operations [in all phases, including Phase I and Phase II] shall be located within enclosed buildings or be powered by quieter alternatives to internal combustion engines (i.e electric).
The applicant agrees, and a condition of the granting of this special permit is, that there shall be no construction of residential dwellings, communication towers and/or wind turbines on the property in the future.
The Petitioner shall provide for the costs, if any, for the Town to retain a review consultant on an as-needed basis for review and construction administration services, including monitoring of ongoing activities and reporting related to this gravel removal special permit (and previous phases as granted through previous permits on the subject property) and any associated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for earth disturbance over a certain square footage) at the subject property as the Building Commissioner’s duly authorized agent.
No more than 5 acres of the entire cranberry bog operation and associated earth removal activities, whether by this permit or previous special permits on the premises, shall be exposed at any time.
Excavation of materials shall be allowed for a period of two (2) years from the start of excavation. The applicant shall notify the Building Commissioner prior to the commencement of work. Upon completion of the two (2) year period, the applicant shall have sixty (60) days to submit a written request to the Board of Appeals for an extension of the excavation period. The Board of Appeals may deny the request of the extension for any of the following reasons:
(a) Violations of any of the conditions of the original permit.
(b) The work site has been deemed abandoned by the Building Commissioner.
(c) Proper stabilization methods are not maintained.
(d) Documented violation of agreed upon truck routes.
The Petitioner has offered a gift towards the repair of the roadways in the vicinity of the project. A gift of $0.10/cubic yard of material removed for road repair in the vicinity of the project, to the Town of Plymouth, shall be offered prior to removal of more than 100,000 cubic yards from the property subject to this special permit (aka Phase III).
Prior to commencement of excavation: (1) evidence of recording of this Special Permit at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be presented to the Building Inspector, and the plans shall be recorded with the Special Permit; and (2) a Municipal Lien Certificate shall be provided as evidence of payment of any back taxes, fees or penalties owed to the town, if any.
The Petitioner shall submit an erosion control plan (and dust suppression measures if needed) to the Building Commissioner. Any exposed banks created by the excavation should be hydro-seeded or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the Building Commissioner and maintained for three years.
The excavation and trucking of material and/or noise generated by the excavation, operation, engine start-up and trucking of material shall be limited to Monday through Friday. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No excavation activities shall be permitted on holidays.
The Petitioner shall be responsible for the clearing of any sand that accumulates on the heavy equipment route as a result of the excavation of material on a daily basis.
The Petitioner shall provide an “as-built” survey which verifies that no more than 256,000 cubic yards of material were removed.
The Petitioner shall provide temporary signs warning traffic of truck entry for safety, as determined by the Police Department and will be approved by the Director of Inspectional Services, if needed.
A limit of 40 heavy equipment trips per day will be the maximum allowed for all earth removal operations for the projects. Every effort shall be made to phase the heavy equipment trips with the other local projects. A heavy equipment trip is defined in the Bylaw as a total of one heavy equipment vehicle entering and exiting the site (Section 205-18G6).
A heavy-equipment route shall be designated and approved by the Board of Appeals.
No excavation shall be larger than five (5) acres for earth removal, storage, and/or processing at one time. Prior to the commencement of excavation of any subsequent areas the preceding five (5) acre operation the preceding five (5) acre operation shall be stabilized either temporarily or permanently.
The Petitioner shall permanently stabilize any portions of the site that are not under construction after earth removal activities have ceased for a period of six (6) months.
A performance bond determined by the Town, and directly tied to the restabilization of the work site, shall be required in an amount equal to a documented, verifiable estimate of cost to vegetatively reclaim the work site according to the site plan and existing conditions site plan. The estimate shall include an adjustment for projected inflation or other predictable factors over the term of the permit plus one year.
Planting required for stabilization shall occur no later than October 31st.
The Building Commissioner or its duly authorized agent shall have access to the excavation site at all times in order to inspect the site to insure compliance with the approved site plan and conditions of this special permit.
Monthly statements are to be submitted to the Building Commissioner from a Registered Professional Engineer stating that the conditions of the Special Permit are being followed, and providing tallies of earth removal to accurately determine the amount of gravel being removed.
Integrated Pest Management Techniques (outlined in the Department of Agriculture's guidelines entitled “Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Techniques Required for Regulations Governing Protection of Groundwater Sources of Public Drinking Water Supplies from Non-point Pesticide Contamination”) are to be utilized on the bogs.
If any or all of the above noted conditions are not adhered to, the Building Commissioner may cause all excavation work to cease until the problems identified are corrected.
Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
The Board took a five-minute recess.
ZBA 3674 – Sarah Nagle
6 Cedar Oaks Drive, Map 57, Lot 35-12
SP for gravel removal for horse farm within a residential subdivision
B452 – Cedar Oaks (7/18)
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft recommendation dated June 28, 2012
Memorandum received May 23, 2012 from Theodore L Bosen and Jonathan M Graham
Memo from Engineering Department dated June 25, 2012
Memo from Fire Department dated June 25, 2012
Subdivision Vote for B452 – Cedar Oaks Drive dated March 26, 1997
Portion of subdivision plan detailing petitioner’s lot
Environmental Impact Statement
Locus Maps and site photographs
Site Permitting Plans dated January 3, 2012
Bill Shaw, Associated Engineers of Plymouth Inc., presented a request for a special permit in order to remove approximately 85,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards have been removed over the past four years without permits and a cease and desist was issued by the Building Commissioner. The ten acre site has an existing single family dwelling and a horse farm. The property is part of the Cedar Oaks subdivision and is subject to a no cut buffer which has been disturbed by the gravel removal. Mr. Shaw explained that the additional gravel removal has been requested in order to terrace the back area and create a turnout for the horses. Stabilization of the site would include loam and seed installation on the exposed slopes.
Valerie Massard stated that the lot was created under a Rural Residential subdivision special permit with clustering of house lots and a large no cut buffer. Most of the work was done in the no cut buffer area and without notice to the Town. Ms. Massard noted that there has been discussion as to whether this is a violation of the subdivision approval; whether the project should have been reviewed by MEPA; whether this is an agricultural use and what the impacts have been to the neighborhood. Ms. Massard stated that gravel removal is not necessary to a horse farm and there is not a clear tie to the end use. The horse farm is also approaching a commercial use. Ms. Massard stated that a denial has been recommended.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that aside from taking the fill out, the use is not appropriate within the subdivision. He felt the site should be restored.
Paul McAlduff was not supportive of any further gravel removal and stated that the site should be restored.
Tim Grandy asked how long the gravel removal operation has been going on and what company removed the gravel. Mr. Grandy estimated that over 1700 truckloads of material have been removed.
Mr. Shaw replied that the gravel has been removed over a period of four years by the contractor. There has been no exchange of funds and no complaints up until now.
Marc Garrett stated that the sand and gravel operation is not pertinent to the use as a horse farm. He was concerned that the horse farm borders on a commercial operation. He agreed that it would not be practical to restore the site and that the owner has to work out mitigation with the enforcement officers. He was not supportive of any further gravel removal.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
The use, gravel removal, is not appropriate to the subject property, which is located in a residential subdivision, which through its approval expressly prohibits the clear-cutting or disturbance of the portion of the property that is the subject of this petition. The area impacted by the excavation is deemed a no cut buffer as a condition of the approvals of the subdivision in Planning Board Case #452, and is shown as such on the approved subdivision plan. Said no-cut buffer is specifically noted on the Quitclaim Deed granting the subject property to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to the excavation of 85,000 cubic yards of earth. The magnitude of the proposed excavation, and unstated necessary off-site improvements for the proposed heavy equipment route, Cedar Oaks Drive, do not represent a use that is a means clearly incidental to, subordinate to, or accessory to, the agricultural use - horse care and keeping/riding school. The need for an additional 40,000 yards of earth removal to cover the costs to the contractor to clear and stabilize the site have not been documented.
The Board has found that the request, the removal of up to 85,000 cubic yards of gravel/earth material from the property, is not clearly incidental to, subordinate to, or accessory to the care and keeping of horses on the property. The property’s primary use is as a residence. No supplemental information to clearly document the need for gravel removal as incidental to supporting the horse care and keeping/riding school is provided with the Petition. There are other horse care facilities in Plymouth and in Massachusetts that do not excavate gravel in order to be able to support the care and keeping of horses. The Massachusetts Regulations governing the care of horses in 330 CMR 16.00 Horses, Department of Food and Agriculture, make no reference to a requirement of flat land for adequate horse care.
There may be other more suitable alternatives by which stabilization of the site will not further damage existing conditions and will not further encroach on the established no-cut buffer area on the subject property, which have not been explored by the Petitioner.
Adequate and appropriate facilities are not available to provide for the proper operation of the use, earth removal. No information regarding necessary improvements for the passage over the heavy equipment route has been provided. Cedar Oaks Drive is a private way constructed to residential standards under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the Town of Plymouth, and is not designed to withstand the heavy commercial hauling vehicles and equipment used for earth removal activities. Costs to repair and maintain the road for this neighborhood will be significant as a result of the activities undertaken and proposed, and road damage has already been reported to the Building Commissioner as a result of these activities. The Petitioner’s representatives note that the existing conditions merit some kind of erosion
control measures are needed. No interim measures to control erosion or stormwater runoff are proposed.
There will be a hazard to vehicles because the proposed travel route is not adequate to handle the proposed use without significant improvements to Cedar Oaks Drive, which have not been proposed.
There will be a nuisance and an adverse effect upon the neighborhood if the excavation is permitted because the use is specifically prohibited on this portion of the residential lot through the subdivision approval which created said lot and the remaining lots within the subdivision. Residential dwellings are located immediately adjacent to the proposed heavy equipment route; Cedar Oaks Drive is not of adequate construction to handle the proposed heavy equipment and associated use (gravel removal); and costs to repair any damages to the road are borne by the residents of Cedar Oaks Drive.
If the Board of Appeals determines that it is disposed to grant the petition, the following conditions are recommended, and the Planning Board agrees that it would be unreasonable to ask the Petitioner to restore the earth that has already been removed to try to re-establish pre-existing conditions:
All stationary on-site mechanical equipment shall be placed as far away as possible from existing homes during its operation.
The Petitioner shall provide for the costs, if any, for the Town to retain a review consultant on an as-needed basis for review and construction administration services, including monitoring of ongoing activities and reporting related to this gravel removal special permit (and previous phases as granted through previous permits on the subject property) and any associated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for earth disturbance over a certain square footage) at the subject property as the Building Commissioner’s duly authorized agent.
No more than 5 acres of the entire earth removal activities shall be exposed at any time.
Excavation of materials shall be allowed for a period of two (2) years from the start of excavation. The applicant shall notify the Building Commissioner prior to the commencement of work. Upon completion of the two (2) year period, the applicant shall have sixty (60) days to submit a written request to the Board of Appeals for an extension of the excavation period. The Board of Appeals may deny the request of the extension for any of the following reasons:
(a) Violations of any of the conditions of the original permit.
(b) The work site has been deemed abandoned by the Building Commissioner.
(c) Proper stabilization methods are not maintained.
(d) Documented violation of agreed upon truck routes.
The Petitioner has offered a gift towards the repair of the roadways in the vicinity of the project. A gift of $0.10/cubic yard for all of the material removed ($8,500.00) for road repair in the vicinity of the project, to the Town of Plymouth, shall be offered prior to removal of more than 5,000 cubic yards from the property subject to this special permit.
Prior to commencement of any further excavation:
- Evidence of recording of this Special Permit at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds or Plymouth County Registry District of the Land Court shall be presented to the Building Inspector, and the Approved Plan shall be recorded with the Special Permit;
- A Municipal Lien Certificate shall be provided as evidence of payment of any back taxes, fees or penalties owed to the town, if any;
- Satisfactory evidence of state authorization to proceed with the proposed activity at this property [which is located within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and as such the proposed use, gravel removal, automatically triggers an Environmental Notification (ENF) under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which will determine if further permitting under MEPA is required at the discretion of the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental and Energy Affairs (EEA)];
- A Certified Farm Conservation Plan or similar documentation from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS), or similar documentation of a Best Management Practices Plan from an appropriate branch of the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture for the subject property shall be supplied to the Building Inspector;
- A copy of the required licensing for operations of a Riding School per Chapter 128 of Massachusetts General Law on the property shall be supplied to the Building Inspector;
The Petitioner shall repair, at his/her sole expense, roadway damage already incurred by the previously unpermitted earth removal activities to the satisfaction of the Planning Board with respect to the subdivision roadway requirements as determined by its peer review consultant;
The Petitioner shall provide a performance bond for any further damages to Cedar Oaks Drive in a manner acceptable to the Building Inspector; and
The Petitioner shall install temporary erosion control measures with respect to stormwater erosion at the subject property.
The Petitioner shall submit an erosion control plan (and dust suppression measures if needed) to the Building Commissioner. Any exposed banks created by the excavation should be hydro-seeded or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the Building Commissioner and maintained for three years.
The excavation and trucking of material and/or noise generated by the excavation, operation, engine start-up and trucking of material shall be limited to Monday through Friday. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No excavation activities shall be permitted on holidays.
The Petitioner shall be responsible for the clearing of any sand that accumulates on the heavy equipment route as a result of the excavation of material on a daily basis.
The Petitioner shall provide an “as-built” survey which verifies that no more than 40,000 cubic yards of additional material were removed.
The Petitioner shall provide temporary signs warning traffic of truck entry for safety, as determined by the Police Department and will be approved by the Director of Inspectional Services, if needed.
A limit of 40 heavy equipment trips per day will be the maximum allowed for all earth removal operations for the projects. Every effort shall be made to phase the heavy equipment trips with the other local projects. A heavy equipment trip is defined in the Bylaw as a total of one heavy equipment vehicle entering and exiting the site (Section 205-18G6).
A heavy-equipment route shall be designated and approved by the Board of Appeals.
No excavation shall be larger than five (5) acres for earth removal, storage, and/or processing at one time. Prior to the commencement of excavation of any subsequent areas the preceding five (5) acre operation the preceding five (5) acre operation shall be stabilized either temporarily or permanently.
The Petitioner shall permanently stabilize any portions of the site that are not under construction after earth removal activities have ceased for a period of six (6) months.
A performance bond determined by the Town, and directly tied to the restabilization of the work site, shall be required in an amount equal to a documented, verifiable estimate of cost to vegetatively reclaim the work site according to the site plan and existing conditions site plan. The estimate shall include an adjustment for projected inflation or other predictable factors over the term of the permit plus one year.
Planting required for stabilization shall occur no later than October 31st.
The Building Commissioner or its duly authorized agent shall have access to the excavation site at all times in order to inspect the site to insure compliance with the approved site plan and conditions of this special permit.
Monthly statements are to be submitted to the Building Commissioner from a Registered Professional Engineer stating that the conditions of the Special Permit are being followed, and providing tallies of earth removal to accurately determine the amount of gravel being removed.
If any or all of the above noted conditions are not adhered to, the Building Commissioner may cause all excavation work to cease until the problems identified are corrected.
Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
A4429 – Mulligan Family Inc.,
Gunning Point Road, Map 123, Lot 1P-1282
Divide into Lots 1P-1339 (0.98A), 1P-1340 (1.2A), 1P-1341 (1.14A), 1P-1342, (1.15A), 1P-1343 (1.14A), 1P-1344 (2.45A), 1P-1345 (1.34A), and 1P-1346 (31.7A)
Review of Form A 4429 has been rescheduled to July 16, 2012 at the request of the petitioner.
Conceptual Review – RDD plan
Edward Kennedy, Doten Road
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft staff review report
Locus Map
Plan dated June 21, 2012
Plan dated April 5, 1966
Bud Morris and Charles Woodard presented a conceptual RDD plan for dividing lot 19B-D on Map 42 into a lot with an existing single family dwelling, a new buildable lot and open space. A trail easement has been provided should there ever be a need for public access or a trail. The site is adjacent to Plymouth Country Club.
Valerie Massard noted that the proposal will require further research and review when the special permit application is filed. The conceptual plan meets the special permit requirements and exceeds the open requirements. A public hearing will be required. Ms. Massard suggested that the open space could be configured to create a meaningful buffer or use.
Malcolm MacGregor was supportive of the trail easement.
Marc Garrett summarized that the Board is comfortable with the conceptual plan with the following comments:
The Applicant should be aware that the Planning Board’s comments are made without the benefit of a public hearing. When rendering a formal decision, the comments of Town agencies, the abutters and the public in general will be taken into account.
To maximize the amount of open space, the 50-ft. wide lot segments should be reduced to the minimum necessary.
A single common driveway will be required.
The proposed ownership of the open space must be documented.
The trail easement area should be eliminated and the land included as part of the open space lot.
The Board looks forward to further review under a formal filing.
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
Valerie Massard reminded the Board that the next meetings are scheduled for July 16th and July 23rd and will not be meeting on July 30th.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 9:38 p.m.; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: July 23, 2012
Administrative Assistant
| 
