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 and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes of November 5, 2012* as presented.
ZBA 3688 – David Glaude and Renee Paquette
224 Manomet Point Road, Map 46, Lot A-112Z (includes Lot A-113)
Special Permit to enlarge a non-conforming structure and to waive the side and front setback requirements
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Comments from Fire Department dated November 6, 2012
Property Record Card
Locus Maps and Site Photographs
Building Elevations
Site Plan dated September 5, 2012
Handouts:
Comments from Engineering Department dated November 29, 2012
E-mail from Valerie Massard dated November 30, 2012
Aerial views of site
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the minutes of November 5, 2102 and to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Case No. 3688, Bill Wennerberg, second.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested that the Conservation Commission should make a determination on the proposed project before the Board makes a recommendation.
Don Bracken responded to the Engineering Department’s comments regarding BOA 3688. Mr. Bracken clarified that a proposed bump out on one side of the house has been eliminated; the wall along the roadway has been there for a long time and is needed to prevent street run off; there is no easement with the abutter but there is a verbal agreement, regarding the steps, as shown (an easement can’t be created due to the size of the lots). ; and a Conservation permit can’t be submitted until there is zoning approval.
Valerie Massard stated that there will be no further encroachment toward the coastal area.
Marc Garrett suggested that a condition of approval be added to the Board’s recommendation that the Special Permit is subject to Conservation Commission approval.
Paul McAlduff amended his motion to include the following condition:
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit:
- The architectural plans should be revised to show correct existing first floor deck configurations, as demonstrated on the Site plan and site photographs;
- The Petitioner’s representative confirmed at the Planning Board meeting that the deck enlargement on the first floor does not extend any closer to the top of coastal bank; therefore the architectural plans should be revised to reflect the Site plan submitted with the Petition;
- The Site plan should be altered to show the correct zoning setback requirements of 20-10-10, as noted in the Findings, and to reflect the proposed second story decks shown on the architectural plans;
- Evidence that a structural analysis of the foundation has been performed.
- The Conservation Commission shall review any and all work within its purview;
- A Municipal Lien Certificate shall be provided to the Building Commissioner as evidence of payment of any back taxes, fees or penalties owed to the town, if any; and
- Evidence of recording of this Special Permit at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court shall be presented to the Building Inspector, and the plans shall be recorded with the Special Permit.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Minutes:
November 19, 2012
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the minutes of November 19, 2012 as presented, Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was (4-0-1) with Malcolm MacGregor in abstention.
Site Plan Review
Cordage Park – Medical Office Building
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Architectural Site Plan
Building Perspectives
Exterior Elevations
Phase I Plans, including:
Title Sheet
Existing Conditions Plan
Schematic Layout and Materials Plan
Schematic Grading and Drainage Plan
Schematic Utility Plan
Valerie Massard announced that the site plan review for Cordage Park - Medical Office Building has been continued to December 17, 2012 at the request of the client who has had a family emergency.
Discussion:
Public Hearing (cont. from 9/10/12, 10/15/12, and Closed on 11/5/12)
B574 – Doten Road RDD
Two lot subdivision with open space
Seated: Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy and Malcolm MacGregor
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Locus Map and Site Photographs
Comments from Engineering Department, dated November 27, 2012
Soils Review and Soils and Flood Hazards Map
Water System and Year Built Information for Dwellings Map
Topographical Map showing Depth to Water Table
Handout:
Plan of Land dated June 29, 2012, revised October 5, 2012
Marc Garrett noted that during the meeting on November 5, 2012 a revised by-right plan was submitted. Staff was unable to review the plan prior to the meeting. The Board closed the public hearing and asked staff to review the plan with the Engineering Dept. to determine if the revised by-right plan met subdivision rules and regulations.
Valerie Massard stated that Staff received a subsequent revised plan which was reviewed by the Engineering Department, which found the plan to be feasible with further engineering design to address several issues identified in their review. The plan included a cul-de-sac, large retaining walls and underground drainage. A soil analysis shows three different types of soil on the site. If approval is granted, there would be series of conditions that require the developer to provide information regarding drainage easements, driveway and open space maintenance, open space access, design conditions for driveway, adequate water pressure, emergency vehicle access and other issues prior to endorsement of a plan.
Paul McAlduff asked if it has been determined who will hold the open space.
Ms. Massard stated that an arbitration agreement has been proposed, but the open space could also be addressed under a homeowner’s association.
Malcolm MacGregor was concerned with the proposed obliteration of the lot on the by-right subdivision plan and that the RDD plan did not meet the intent of the bylaw. Mr. MacGregor moved for the Board to deny the plan. He then withdrew his motion in order for the Board to further discuss the revised plans.
Bill Wennerberg asked what the legal grounds for denial would be.
Marc Garrett asked if the Engineering Dept. provided written comments on the feasibility of the by-right plan.
Ms. Massard replied that the comments were included in the Board’s packets.
Lee Hartmann stated that if someone motioned for denial they would have to make a finding that the alternative is not of superior design to the conventional subdivision and that the open space provided is not meaningful and has limited use or access. Mr. Hartmann noted that a subdivision is not discretionary while the Board has discretion to approve or deny a special permit. Mr. Hartmann stated that staff agrees that a by-right subdivision can be constructed on this site and that even though the open space is marginal, the RDD is supported.
Bill Wennerberg felt that the RDD did not meet the intent of the bylaw, but that it might be preferable to the subdivision plan.
Tim Grandy noted that there were several issues outlined in the Engineering Department’s comments that need to be addressed and that he was struggling with whether the RDD plan provides any meaningful, usable open space. He stated that although the RDD may be less intrusive, it did not meet the intent of the bylaw.
Paul McAlduff agreed that the open space was not usable.
Marc Garrett agreed that the RDD plan was marginal, but was an alternative to a subdivision in a rural area of town. He stated that the interpretation of meaningful open space could be different for each person. He noted that this RDD proposal does have a legal allowed subdivision alternative. Mr. Garrett felt that the RDD plan at least protected some open space and left vegetation in place as buffers to the neighbors. He felt that by-right subdivision would scar the land and the neighborhood and would change the character less than an allowed use.
Tim Grandy asked what mechanism could be used to control the open space and maintenance of the common elements.
Mr. Hartmann replied that a condition could be added that would require that the open space is owned in common and maintained through a homeowner’s association.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to deny the Special Permit for an RDD based on the fact that the RDD is not of superior design and the open space is not meaningful or usable, Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was (4-1-0) with Marc Garrett in opposition.
Discussion:
MEPA Letter for A.D. Makepeace
EENF – Tihonet Mixed Use Development Project
and Phase C2 Cranberry Bogs (a.k.a. Frogfoot)
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Draft MEPA Comment Letter
Handouts:
Summary of Proposed Cranberry Bogs/Soil Mixing Facility
Phase C2 Site Plan dated October 2012
Valerie Massard reviewed a summary of the proposed cranberry bogs and soil mixing facility for the Tihonet Mixed Use Development which spans Carver, Wareham and Plymouth. The project would eliminate the potential for 437 homes in the Frogfoot area which is the portion of the project located in Plymouth. Approximately 1400 acres would go into permanent conservation land with 300 acres of agriculture. The cranberry bog complex would consist of 35 4-acre cells that would all be linked in terms of water management and separated from groundwater to prevent nutrient loading. The bogs would be phased in over a 10-20 year period. The project will require a Special Permit for gravel removal from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Conservation approval for the new agriculture and water management canal system as it affects
the Frogfoot Reservoir.
Paul McAlduff asked if wind turbines were still being considered for the site.
Lee Hartmann replied that at this point they are not because they would have to be very tall to take advantage of the wind speeds.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if the soil mixing facility was in Carver and if the trails should be shown on the plans now.
Ms. Massard replied that the facility is located on the Carver line and that a comment regarding the trails has been included in the draft MEPA letter.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to support the endorsement of the MEPA letter as presented, 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.”
Paul McAlduff presented an article from the Boston Globe regarding bicycle and walking trails. He noted that he would be presenting the article to the CPC and Marine and Environmental Affairs Department.
Malcolm MacGregor noted that Cordage Park has agreed to continue the bicycle path along the shoreline and that a connection from West Plymouth to Kingston is being investigated.
Marc Garrett stated that the North Plymouth Steering Committee has expressed an interest in trail connections.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 8:03 p.m., Bill Wennerberg, 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 17, 2012
Administrative Assistant
| 
