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
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes of October 15, 2012* as presented.
The Board approved the minutes of October 20, 2012* as presented.
Form A Plans:
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Staff memo dated October 31, 2012
Plan of Land on Bloody Pond dated October 24, 2012
The Board determined that that the Following Form A plan is entitled to endorsement:
A4440 – Dorothy Davis and Seth Harvey, off Long Pond Rd/Bloody Pond, Map 63, Lot 16 (35.4A) – Divide into lots 16-1 (35.22A), 16-2 (0.88A) and 16-3 (0.07A)
Malcolm MacGregor moved to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Conceptual Review
25 Howland Street
Potential Townhouse Style Development
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report dated October 31, 2012
Locus Map Letter from Stasinos Family Series LLC dated September 17, 2012
Schematic Plans
Handout: Revised plans
Atty. Robert Betters began the presentation for a conceptual review of a proposed development of property owned by Stasinos Family Series LLC at 23-31 Howland Street. The conceptual plans have been favorably reviewed by the Historic District Commission. Atty. Betters stated that all technical issues will be addressed at a later date.
Jay McMichael, Coastal Restoration, reviewed the conceptual plans for the site that formerly housed the Plymouth Gas and Light Company. The site is comprised of three separate parcels which will each have a residential structure. Two of the residential structures will have eight units (4-1 bedroom units and 4-2 bedroom units) and one will have six units (3-1 bedroom units and 3-2 bedroom units). The two existing curb cuts will be eliminated and a single curb cut for ingress and egress will be created. The 2.5 story structures will be similar to other structures on the street in regards to setbacks and massing. The structures will step back from the street increasing the green space closer to Water Street. The buildings will have facades that alternate between grey shingles with Cape Cod white trim
and clapboard. Adequate parking and emergency vehicle access has been provided. The structures will have sprinkler systems.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested adding more green space and using permeable pavers in the parking area.
Mr. McMichael replied that green space could be added along the fence at the rear of the proposed parking area.
Marc Garrett stated that he would like to see an appropriate transition to a more open waterfront green space and that he was supportive of using permeable pavers. He was concerned with the aesthetics at the rear of the site that would affect the abutters.
Tim Grandy was also concerned with the abutters to the rear of the site and requested that a cross-section be provided during the filing process. Mr. Grandy asked where the mechanicals would be located.
Mr. McMichael replied that a roof trough has been designed to hide the mechanicals.
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty and Stefani Inc., presented the site layout detailing the proposed parking and emergency vehicle circulation. Utilities will include Town water and sewer.
Atty. Betters noted that under Section 205-23, G, there is a provision for parking spaces with a 1 ft. bumper overhang beyond the curb.
Valerie Massard affirmed that staff will continue to work with the development team to work out the technical issues.
Paul McAlduff encouraged the developer to consider creating affordable housing units.
Ms. Massard stated that if a special permit is applied for, affordable housing will be considered.
Lee Hartmann noted that if the site functions as an overall site, it would be treated as such. We don’t want to create a situation that would require three separate curb cuts.
Public Comment: None
The Board looks forward to further review of this project.
Public Hearing
B437 – Pinehills LLC
Painted Cottage and Shutter Latch Subdivision Modification
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
E-mail between Valerie Massard and Atty. Deborah Sedares dated October 31, 2012
Staff Memo Dated October 31, 2012
Locus Map
Modified Definitive Subdivision Plan, Painted Cottage and Shutter Latch, dated September 24, 2012
Bill Wennerberg recused himself from this public hearing and left the room.
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Atty. Deborah Sedares, Pinehills LLC, presented a modification to the subdivision plan for the Painted Cottage and Shutter Latch neighborhood that would create an additional seven residential lots and reconfigure the road. The modification would reduce the amount of pavement.
Valerie Massard noted that the cul-de-sac will be pulled back and an island turnabout is proposed. The Fire Department is supportive of the proposed modification.
Public Comment:
In Favor: none
In Opposition: None
Tim Grandy moved to close the public hearing; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the B437 – Pinehills LLC, Painted Cottage and Shutter Latch Subdivision Modification as presented; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Mr. Wennerberg rejoined the meeting.
Public Hearing: (cont.)
B574 – 30 Doten Road RDD Special Permit
Request for one additional lot
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report dated November 1, 2012
Letter from Milton Morris Dated October 6, 2012
E-mail between Milton Morris and Valerie Massard dated September 18,2012
Working Plan dated June 21, 2012
Plan of Land on Doten Road dated June 28, 2012
By-Right Subdivision dated October 8, 2012
By-Right Subdivision Roadway Plan and Profile dated October 8, 2012
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 10, 2012
Memo from Valerie Massard dated October 11, 2012
Letter from James Tribble dated October 8, 2012
Plan of Land dated March 30, 1966
Plan of Land dated April 25, 1956
Deed recorded in Book 3286, Page 780
Decree Allowance of Will dated September 8, 2010
Judgment on Account dated August 12, 2011
Affidavit regarding Estate Taxes Dated February 2, 2011
Excerpt from Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2012
Locus Map
Handout: Revised By-right Subdivision Roadway Plan and Profile dated November 5, 2012
Milton Morris handed out a revised By-right Subdivision Roadway Plan and Profile for a Rural Density Development (RDD) to create a single additional residential lot on Doten Road. The By-right subdivision plan detailed an 80 ft. roadway with a 120 ft. wide cul-de-sac with retaining walls. This plan would require substantial clearing of the lot and provide no open space or protection for the neighbors. In the RDD plan, the proposed common driveway has been moved away from the open space. There is an 81 ft. open space buffer to the abutting McPherson property and a no cut buffer between the existing house and the new lot will provide a visual buffer for the abutting Tribble property. A maintenance plan has been submitted for the open space. Mr. Morris noted that staff has not had a chance to review the
revised grading plan that was handed out at the beginning of the public hearing.
Charles Woodward, Professional Land Survey Associates, stated that the By-Right subdivision plan meets all rules and regulations for grading. The By-Right plan would require a series of retaining walls and cuts. The original RDD plan showed two 40,000 sq. ft. residential lots and 40,000 sq. ft. of open space.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if the legal issues have been resolved.
Mr. Morris noted that the deed for the property states that any architecture and materials for future buildings on the property have to be approved by a neighbor and that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. A reference to restrictions of record has been noted on the plan.
Tim Grandy asked what the width between the retaining walls would be.
Mr. Woodward replied that width between the retaining walls is approximately five feet. The bylaw allows for 12 ft. cuts and this is proposed at 10 ft.
Valerie Massard stated that the plan being presented has not been reviewed by staff and may be approaching something that could be potentially approvable. The maintenance plan for the open space and a management plan for the driveway have been submitted. Staff was concerned with the 50 ft. width of the driveway lot which is wider than normally approved, but the petitioner is trying to adhere to State requirements. We do not have full documentation regarding the title issue Malcolm noted.
Marc Garrett asked how many outstanding issues remain.
Ms. Massard explained that staff would have to review the new plan and draft final conditions that would be addressed under approval.
Mr. Garrett questioned whether there would be adequate access for the proposed lots given the retaining walls that were shown around the cul-de-sac and whether there could be a practical, feasible subdivision.
Mr. Morris stated that access could be provided by cutting returns in the retaining walls for driveways.
Bill Wennerberg felt that it was reasonable to subdivide the lot and suggested creating building envelopes with buffers that are “no disturb” open space. He wanted to insure protection for the neighborhood.
Mr. Hartmann stated that separate open space is easier to regulate and building envelopes could be shown on the plans.
Public Comment:
In Favor: None
In Opposition:
Atty. Robert Galvin, representing the abutting 0Nahill and McPherson families, expressed concern that the cuts and fills could impact ground water; the access through proposed retaining walls has not been demonstrated, and that the proposed plans do not meet the objectives of an RDD.
Atty. John Wyman, representing Mr. Tribble, stated that the boundary lines between his client’s property and the subject lot have been confirmed. Atty. Wyman stated that the proposed RDD does not meet the intent of the bylaw and that there is no benefit to the Town.
Jack McPherson stated that the proposed RDD does not meet the intent of the bylaw, will detract from abutter properties, will set a precedent for further subdivisions in the area, and will change the character of the area.
Dr. Robert Nahill was concerned about setting a precedent for future development, changing the character of the area, diminishing the value of the existing home, and drainage issues. Dr. Nahill noted that the soil in the area is clay.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing; Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
The Board requested that the plan that was handed out be reviewed by the Engineering Department and staff to determine the adequacy of the subdivision, that the petitioner provide documentation of whether the rights to develop have expired or are still in effect and that staff provide a list of what is required in an RDD and how this project complies.
The Board continued this review to Monday, December 3, 2012 at 7:15 p.m.
Appointment
B536 - Sherman Woods (off Standish Ave)
Revised Grading Plan
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Design Revisions to Sherman Woods dated June 29, 2012, revised October 24, 2012
Unit Designs dated August 7, 2012
Planting Plan dated March 15, 2008
Sherman Woods VOSD dated February 1, 2006, revised September 15, 2008
Marc Garrett recused himself and left the room.
David Klennert, Collins Engineering, reviewed the revised grading plan for B536 – Sherman Woods which include looping the water and eliminating forced mains, installing a sewer gravity feed out to Route 3A. Retaining walls have also been revised to show that the highest point will be 15 ft. (previously 25 ft.) and will gradually decrease to 2 ft. Units 8-12 will have drive under garages. The parking spaces along the roadway will be eliminated. One sidewalk has been moved up to the edge of the asphalt with a six inch reveal and the other side will have Cape Cod berm. A 50 ft. radius has been provided for turn around of fire equipment. Mr. Klennert stated that they are looking for an acceptance of the proposed changes and a waiver of granite curbing.
Mike Guimares, Spectrum Homes, worked with the Town to limit the amount of the retaining wall and will construct a stone seawall-type wall that will have a gradual elevation instead of a vertical elevation.
Tim Grandy asked how many feet of granite curbing are being eliminated.
Mr. Klennert replied that approximately 1,000 ft. will be eliminated and the Fire Department prefers to have a 12 ft. grass strip to drive on if needed.
Paul McAlduff asked if the no parking zones will be striped and labeled no parking.
Mr. Klennert stated that there will be striping with no parking on both sides of the road.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if the sloped stone wall be used for all the retaining walls and suggested using vegetation to fill in some of the voids in the stone wall.
Mr. Klennert replied that the only retaining wall that was changed was the one that runs behind units 6-12. He stated that deep root vegetation is not good for the wall, but a shallow rooted vegetation might work. They will be chinking the wall and there will be fabric behind to keep water from getting underneath the wall.
Mr. MacGregor asked how a crane would access the site and if the Cape Cod berms will be keyed to the road.
Mr. Klennert explained that there is adequate room on the site to accommodate the crane and that the berm and the binder course are poured as one.
Valerie Massard stated that the revised plans are being presented as a condition of approval. The looping of the water and sewer mains was added at the recent request of the Town. The revised plans have been presented to the Design Review Board, DPW and the Fire Department. The redesigned retaining wall is a big improvement and there will be more permeable surface. The landscaping has been changed to accommodate the drainage. The only outstanding issue is addressing the affordable unit prior to application for any building permits.
The Board received a letter from Thomas Jaeger outlining his concerns that the project does not comply with the VOSD intent in the bylaw.
Tim Grandy moved to approve the revised grading plan with ability of staff to approve any minor adjustments; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0)
Marc Garrett rejoined the Board.
Discussion
B560 – Hillside Estates (off Shallow Pond Lane)
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Excerpt from the minutes of October 1, 2102
E-mail between Valerie Massard and Nick Sivieri dated September 19, 2012
Site Inspection Memo dated September 19, 2012
Excerpt from Special Permit Vote dated February 23, 2012
Locus Map and Site Photographs
Marc Garrett recommended continuance of this discussion as Mr. Sivieri’s representation was unavailable for tonight’s meeting due to a family health issue.
Valerie Massard stated that Mr. Sivieri had hoped to have a report by this meeting, but staff has not received anything to date. Ms. Massard stated that staff expects the report in time for the November 19th meeting.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the discussion regarding B560 – Hillside Estates to November 19, 2012; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
Discussion:
Potential Zoning Article for Spring Town Meeting
Light Industrial Height Overlay District
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Excerpt from Section 205-17 of the Zoning Bylaw, (I. Height)
Map of Potential Overlay District
Lee Hartmann stated that the Industrial, Commercial, Office Land Study Committee has identified the need to increase revenue through commercial development. The Planning Board will be reserving an article for the Annual Spring Town Meeting and will hold a public hearing to create an Light Industrial Overlay District which would allow an increase in building heights to a 75 ft. height maximum. The increase in heights will maximize potential in existing industrial areas. A 500 ft. setback from residential neighborhoods will be included in the proposal.
Malcolm MacGregor thought the increase in height would be important for commercial growth within the Town. Mr. MacGregor suggested that design standards would be an important component of increasing building height.
Paul McAlduff recommended checking with the Fire Department to see if they have the ability to reach a 75 ft. building.
Paul McAlduff handed out a map showing a 500 ft. radius around the Camelot Park wind turbine. He stated that during a recent visit to the site, the highway traffic noise and noise created from trucks backing up was more intrusive than the noise generated by the wind turbine.
The Board had a short discussion on the intent of the RDD bylaw.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 9:45 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: December 3, 2012
Administrative Assistant
| 
