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, Malcolm MacGregor, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard and Patrick Farah
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Marc Garrett announced that the petitioner for the proposed Town Meeting Article for an amendment to Section 205-47,
Neighborhood Commercial has submitted a request that no action be taken by the Board.
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
August 20, 2012*
The Board approved the minutes of August 20, 2012 as presented.
August 27, 2012*
The Board approved the minutes of August 27, 2012 as presented.
ZBA 3685 – Peter and Barbara Palfrey, Saquish Head, Map 132, Lots S-1 and H-4
Special Permits to waive the front setback requirements in order to demolish an existing accessory structure and deck and reconstruct an accessory structure and deck in a different location
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Memo from Engineering Department, dated August 22, 2012
Unofficial Property Record Card
Locus Map
Architectural Drawings dated 7/26/12
Accessory Building Re-Construction Plan dated May 3, 2012, revised August 15, 2012
Revised Staff Report – Handout
The Board recommended approval of ZBA 3685, subject to the following condition:
The storage building shall not be used for living space.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes as presented, Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing:
B574 – Doten Road RDD
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Decree Allowance of Will, dated September 8, 2010
Affadavit of Notice to Devisees and Legatees dated November 18, 2010
Judgment on Account, dated August 12, 2011
Deed, Book 4180, Page 152
Affidavit Regarding Estate Taxes dated January 19, 2011, Book 39624, Page 55
Deed, Book 3286, Page 780
Plan 66-261, recorded April 15, 1966
Locus Map
Excerpt from minutes of July 2, 2012 (Conceptual Review)
Plan of Land on Doten Road, dated June 28, 2012
Letter from Attorney Robert Galvin, dated September 10, 2012 – Handout
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy, and Malcolm MacGregor
Milton Morris presented a request to divide lot D-1 on Doten Road into two single family lots (one with an existing dwelling) and an open space lot. The Board previously reviewed the proposal under conceptual review. A small cul-de-sac could be constructed to provide access for the two lots, but would have a larger impact to the environment and the area. The proposed RDD with a shared driveway would have less impact. Each dwelling lot would be 40,000 sq. ft. with 0.92 acres of open space. The new house would be sited away from existing abutters. There will be no cutting or clearing along the front of the lot. The open space area will provide a 75 ft. buffer along with a 25 ft. buffer along the western side of the property. There is a steep grade from Doten Road to the rear of the property.
There is a deed restriction on the property which required approval of architecture and materials for any new construction.
Valerie Massard reminded the Board that a conceptual plan was presented on July 2, 2012 weighing the benefits of an RDD compared to a standard subdivision. Staff has not reviewed the potential cul-de-sac plan which was not submitted with the application. Significant grading may be needed. There is no information regarding a common driveway easement, who would hold and maintain the open space. Staff has been contacted by several abutters that have concerns and recommended hearing from the abutters and continuing the public hearing until issues area addressed.
Public Comment:
In Opposition:
Atty. Robert Galvin spoke on behalf of the Nahill and McPherson families and submitted a letter outlining their objections to the proposed development. The abutters feel that the development would detract from the rural character of the neighborhood; the proposed RDD is not consistent with the Village Center Plans, the open space is not contiguous to one of the lots, and if the open space is opened to the public, would encroach on the privacy of the abutters. They were also concerned that the natural feature requirements and environmental design conditions have not been adequately addressed.
Marc Garrett accepted and read into the record a petition submitted by twelve neighbors and a letter from the Lothrop and Dorothy Withington who are not supportive of the proposed development.
Jim Tribble was in opposition of constructing a second house on the lot and expressed his concerns with the survey/boundary lines.
Jack McPherson stated that the original owner tried to subdivide the property 10 years ago and was denied. Mr. McPherson was concerned that the proposed development would change the character of the area and negatively affect property values.
Beth Nahill expressed her concerns with a potential loss of privacy. Ms. Nahill noted that a previous attempt to subdivide was also denied because of inadequate frontage.
In Favor:
None
Malcolm MacGregor asked for further explanation on a by-right subdivision, the slope and grading of the site, and conditions/maintenance of the open space.
Mr. Morris explained that there is a 16 ft. difference. The grade could be cut with a retaining wall in the back where there is an elevation of 80. The existing driveway will remain the same and a 50-60 ft. area of pavement will be extended to service the new dwelling. A portion of the existing driveway is shown within the open space area and could be relocated. The open space would be jointly owned by the homeowners and maintenance would be outlined in homeowner’s association documentation. There are no wetlands or vernal pools on the site and the proposed lot size is what is allowed in the neighborhood.
Tim Grandy stated that the submission did not include the “by-right” plan which makes the application seem incomplete.
Mr. Morris stated that the plan was presented during the conceptual review.
Valerie Massard stated that a more detailed subdivision plan showing the detailed construction of a cul-de-sac should be submitted.
Marc Garrett agreed that the petitioner needs to start with an as of right plan to show as a comparison and the staff and Board need time to review the proposed benefits and impact to the neighborhood.
Ms. Massard stated that the petitioner should submit the following information: soil boring; building and yard envelopes on both plans; a subdivision plan that conforms to the Rules and Regulations with detail regarding waivers requested; plans showing grading cuts and fills; cross easements for the driveway; relocation of the driveway out of the open space; an open space management plan and a response to the question Mr. Tribble raised on the survey/boundary line.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to continue the Public Hearing for B574 – Doten Road to October 15, 2012 at 7:15, Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearings: Town Meeting Articles
Neighborhood Commercial Bylaw Update (Petitioned)
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Letter of request for no action, dated August 28, 2012
Copy of Petition for Town Meeting Action
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy, and Malcolm MacGregor
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to take no action at the request of the Petitioner, Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Note: The Board reviewed the following two petitions for Map 104, Lot 14F-2 simultaneously.
Light Industrial Rezoning of Map 104, Lot 14F-2 (Petitioned)
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Copy of Petition
Copy of Zoning Map
Memo from West Plymouth Steering Committee, dated August 16, 2012
Copy of Existing Light Industrial Bylaw, Section 205-51
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy, and Malcolm MacGregor
AND
Transitional Commercial Rezoning of Map 104, Lot 14F-2 (Petitioned)
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Copy of Petition
Copy of Zoning Map
Copy of Existing Transitional Commercial Bylaw, Section 205-48
Locus Maps
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy, and Malcolm MacGregor-
Atty. Edward Angley began the presentation on the requests to rezone Map 104, Lot 14F-2 to Light Industrial. Atty. Angley requested a withdrawal of the request for Transitional Commercial rezoning. The owner of the abutting property is in the process of purchasing lot 14F-2 which is a 2.15 acre site at the intersection of Rte 80 and Commerce Way. The parcel would be incorporated into his site which has already to been approved for two office buildings and would be used for additional parking. It would be appropriate to rezone the land to Light Industrial as it abuts an existing industrial park. The potential owner is amenable to providing a sewer easement to the proposed development on the opposite side of Rte 80. Landscaping would be installed similar to the plans for the abutting lots.
Lee Hartmann noted that the Board would have to take action on both articles. Maps showing the various zones of the surrounding areas were presented and the existing language for LI an TC were included in the Board’s packets. The property is outside Zone 2 for wells. The West Plymouth Steering Committee (WPSC) is supportive of the zoning change, but raised two issues that would not be addressed by Town Meeting. The WPSC was not supportive of any curb cuts from this site to Rte 80 and providing an adequate buffer along Rte 80.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested adding a similar buffer along the residential area that has already been approved for the adjacent sites.
Henry Stout noted that his lot would begin 53 feet from Plympton Road. Mr. Stout reserved comment on additional curb cuts.
Marc Garrett was concerned that if the parcel was rezoned and kept as a separate lot, it could be sold at a later time and become another use.
Public Comment:
In Favor:
None
Opposition:
Russel Appleyard was not supportive of a curb cut onto Rte 80 as there are poor sight lines, the speed limit is 40 mph and there is a right turn only lane. A curb cut would also have the potential to become a short cut to the industrial park.
Jonathan Denham, Megansett Drive, was concerned on the impact of the abutting lots which look like a moonscape. The proposed office buildings will have limited weekend activity and he was not supportive of TC.
Elizabeth Denham was not supportive of any further development in the area.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if there was a mechanism that could be imposed to limit additional curb cuts onto Rte 80 in order to protect the residential neighbors from any additional impacts.
Atty. Angley agreed to draft language that would limit curb cuts onto Rte 80.
Tim Grandy moved to close both public hearings; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to recommend approval of the proposed zoning change for Map 104, Lot 14F-2 to Light Industrial with the following language:
Safety at the intersection of Commerce Way and Route 80, which is signalized, is of concern, and the intersection itself is being improved to accommodate an anticipated (and permitted) commercial development in the area. The Planning Board desires safe management of traffic. The Planning Board has requested and the petitioner has agreed to put in place prior to Town Meeting a stipulation that no curb cut access to the property, will be requested or allowed on Route 80 (aka Plympton Road).
Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to take no action on the petition to rezone Map 104, Lot 14F-2 to Transitional Commercial; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
The Board took a five-minute break.
Wind Turbine Moratorium (Petitioned)
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Public Hearing Discussion List
Copy of Petition
Letter from Kopelman & Paige, dated August 23, 2012
Packet with Appendices 1-6 submitted by petitioner, dated August 2012
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy, and Malcolm MacGregor
Lee Hartmann stated that the petition language is very broad. Town Counsel has reviewed the proposed petition and determined that much of the language is beyond the scope of what Town Meeting can act on. Town Meeting can act on a moratorium on wind facilities through the zoning bylaw which would only apply to future proposals for wind facilities (anything previously permitted would be grandfathered). The moratorium would only apply for up to 2 years for future wind facilities. Town Counsel suggested that the petitioner should be able to answer the following questions regarding a moratorium:
- What is the harm alleged to be caused by wind energy facilities?
- What evidence is there of the harm caused by wind energy facilities?
- Given the harm that is asserted by allowing wind energy facilities to continue, is temporarily prohibiting wind energy facilities be justifiable (does the end justify the means)?
- Can any problems that have been identified be addressed by a less restrictive measure? (Such less restrictive measures might include, for example, an amendment of another type, such as adding special permit conditions for approval or shortening the period of the moratorium)
Kerry Kearney stated that the current setback protection for residents is one tower height and that the turbine will not detract from visual quality of neighborhoods. The existing bylaw is lacking. The Energy Committee has been reviewing the bylaw for several years, but has not brought forth any amendments for town meeting action. A two year moratorium would allow for further review. Plymouth has permitted several turbines recently. Mr. Kearney reviewed the documents he submitted to the Board regarding turbine issues in surrounding towns: Falmouth, Scituate, Fairhaven, and Kingston. The British Medical Journal notes that setbacks from wind turbines are insufficient. Mass DEP report recommends more noise study for wind turbines to determine siting criteria. Canada will also be studying
noise effects of wind turbines including elevated blood pressure, sleep deprivation, and any other health problems. Mass CEC is studying sound predictions vs. results. Mr. Kearney stated that the existing bylaw is defective.
Lee Hartmann outlined the following options to be considered and sections of the bylaw that could be amended:
Options:
- Length of moratorium - 0 to 2 years.
- All zoning districts or identify specific districts (i.e. only residential zones).
- Moratorium could apply to all facilities or only those in excess of a certain height.
- Moratorium could apply to facilities in excess of a certain power output.
- Moratorium could apply to facilities within a specified distance from residential dwellings.
Sections of the Zoning Bylaw:
205-17 (I) Height
Wind energy facilities under 35 feet in height – an allowed use.
205-17 (I) Height
Structures may exceed 35 feet in “height” as defined in §205-3, by special permit after a finding by the Board of Appeals that there is no feasible alternative to the proposed height, that is the minimum necessary, that there is a clear and specific public benefit which may be realized only by exceeding 35 feet in height and that the proposed structure will not in any way detract from the visual character or quality of the adjacent buildings, the neighborhood or the Town as a whole.
205-27 Special permit uses (I Wind energy conversion system -WECS)
- Maximum height of WECS (tower and rotor): 100 feet.
- Production of power principally for sale to the public utility grid shall be prohibited.
205-73 Wind Energy Facilities
Wind facilities shall have a maximum height of 350 feet, as measured from the natural grade to the top of the hub were the rotor attaches.
Public Comment:
In Favor of supporting the moratorium
Betsy Hall felt that results of ongoing research would help the town to strengthen the existing bylaw and protect residential areas.
Darren Mansfield was concerned with the setback limits and safety/noise considerations.
David Doherty, Scituate, stated that he lives 3,100 ft from a turbine and experiences noise, pulsating pressure, low grade headaches, listlessness, sleep deprivation and shadow flicker effects. He suggested moving slowly until further siting criteria can be established.
Neil Anderson and David Moriarty, Falmouth, stated that he was forced to quit his business from health effects of the turbines including headaches and inability to focus. They felt that industrial size wind turbines do not belong in close proximity to residents.
Joanne Laveque, Duxbury, was supportive of reviewing the bylaw once the ongoing research has been completed and conclusive answers regarding health and safety issues are available.
Mark Kenney, Treetop Way, stated that he was scared by the comments of Mr. Doherty.
Adam Newell, Dyer Pass, felt that waiting for the research results would help the town in locating turbines where appropriate.
Holly Alberti-Evans, 181 Hedges Pond Road, agreed with all the previous comments and was in support of the moratorium.
In Opposition:
Monica Mann was not in support of a moratorium on wind turbines. Ms. Mann stated that the special permit process requires an extensive review of individual projects and works toward the best possible outcome. Ms. Mann noted that she spoke to the Town of Kingston about the complaints they have received. She was told that there were a lot of complaints in the beginning, but they have diminished as people get used to them.
Stephen King stated that the battle should be on individual projects, not limiting the town from considering any projects.
Simon Thomas stated that the manufacturers set the specs for siting of turbines.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that a moratorium will not solve the problem. Nuclear power, oil and gas are far more destructive. The developers are not putting in solar panels with huge decimation to our forests. Throwing out wind turbines in favor of solar is not the solution.
Paul McAlduff noted that the Energy Committee has been working on the bylaw for 1.5 years and that time has been productive.
Tim Grandy stated that the bylaw is flawed and needs to be adjusted. He felt that more research is needed and the health and safety of the residents should be paramount. He noted that Senator Therese Murray has stated that large wind turbines do not belong in residential areas.
Bill Wennerberg agreed with Mr. Grandy.
Ken Buechs agreed that they should not be in neighborhoods and that the bylaw needs revisions.
Marc Garrett was in support of limiting wind turbines in residential areas and revising the bylaw. The Board needs to determine if a moratorium is appropriate and define if it would be applicable in all zones, apply to which sections of the bylaw, limit height and size, etc.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing, Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to recommend the following:
To see if the Town will vote to enact a two-year moratorium on wind energy facilities that are greater than 100 feet in height and proposed to be connected to the utility grid filed under Section 205-17 (I) or under Section 205-73 of the Bylaw within the § 205-40 Rural Residential (RR), § 205-41 Large Lot Residential (R-40), § 205-42 Medium Lot Residential (R-25), § 205-43 Small Lot Residential (R-20SL), § 205-44 Mixed Density
Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was (3-2) with Malcolm MacGregor and Paul McAlduff in opposition.
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
Site Plan Review
367 Court Street, Map 6, Lot 61A
Proposed Drive Thru and Parking Modification
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Memo dated September 5, 2012
Proposed Drive Thru & Parking Modification Planting Plan, dated June 22, 2012
Elevation Plan dated August 22, 2102
Requirement of approval for landscaping
Marc Garrett recused himself from this review and left the room.
Bill Wennerberg chaired this review.
Bill Shaw, Associated Engineers, reviewed the landscaping plan which shows screening along the abutting funeral home and of the dumpster with additional augmentation around the outside edge. The existing island remains and the aisles between the parking spaces have been widened to 29 ft.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to notify the Building Commissioner that:
The proposed building and landscaping is acceptable as shown; and
The Planning Board supports the narrowing of the one-way driving lane on the Court Street side of the building in order to landscape and retain the existing island.
Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Aquifer Bylaw Update (Planning)
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Draft Recommendation for Article 26
Revised Table, 205-57
Copy of Existing Aquifer Protection District Bylaw and Table Section 205-57
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy, and Malcolm MacGregor
Valerie Massard informed the Board that staff was approached by DEP for minor changes in the use table. The minor changes do not significantly change the bylaw.
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to close the public hearing and approve the revisions as presented; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Zoning Maps Update (Planning)
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Draft Recommendation for Article 25
Revised Aquifer Protection Map dated October 2012
Revised Zoning Maps (2)
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy, and Malcolm MacGregor
Valerie Massard informed the Board that a complete review of the zoning maps since 1951 has been accomplished. The last time the maps were adopted was 1972. Since that time many edits have been made. The new maps would transition from hand drawn maps to ones that are compatible with AutoCAD and GIS. There are no changes to the zoning. The zoning maps consist of two sheets and the Aquifer Protection Map.
Tim Grandy moved to close the public hearing, Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to recommend that Town Meeting adopt the Zoning Maps and the Aquifer Protection Map; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Discussion:
Zoning – Priority Ranking
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Potential Zoning Article Ranking and matrix
This discussion was postponed to a future meeting.
Marc Garrett announced that the 2012 Energy Expo will be held on September 25, 2012 at Plymouth North High School from 1-5 p.m.
The Urban Land Institute will be presenting an evaluation of the courthouse project to the Board of Selectmen on September 11, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 11:04 p.m.; Paul McAlduff, second; 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 1, 2012
Administrative Assistant
| 
