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
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
The Board observed a moment of silence in remembrance and honor of those lost in Sandy Hook, CT.
Marc Garrett announced that the Board would take no action on the Town Meeting article for Site Plan Review.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: To discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation related to Map 123, Lot 1P-1282, Gunning Point Road
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to enter into Executive Session pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 21 in order to discuss the release of minutes from a previous executive session that was held to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation related to Map 123, Lot 1P-1282, Gunning Point Road; Malcolm MacGregor, second. A roll call vote was taken: Tim Grandy – yes; Paul McAlduff – yes; Malcolm MacGregor – yes; Bill Wennerberg – yes; and Marc Garrett – yes.
Mr. Garrett announced that the Board would return to open session.
The Board returned to open session.
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes of December 3, 2012* as presented.
The Board determined that that the Following Form A plans were entitled to endorsement:
A4443 – Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Plympton Road, Map 103, Lot 14E (4.61 A) and Map 104, Lot 14F-2 (1.52 A) – Lot line adjustment to create Lots 14E-1 (3.72 A) and 14F-3 (2.41 A) on Map 103
A4445* – Town of Plymouth, Ryder Way, Map 37A, Lots 291, 292, 293, 318, 319, 349, 350, and 351 – Lot Line Adjustment to create lots 352 (0.63A) and 353 (4.14A)
A4446* – Salvelinus LLC/Cronin, Hat Trick Drive, Map 27, Lots 62D-7, 62D-8, 62D-9, 62D-10, 62D-11 – Lot line adjustments to create lots 62D-12 (0.12A), 62D-13 (0.13A), 62D-14 (0.12A), 62D-15 (0.12A) and 62D-16 (2.39A)
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to approve the minutes of December 3, 2012 and A4443, A4445, and A4446; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0)
Plan Endorsement:
B437 – OSMUD Subdivision Modification: Mainstone, Boatwright’s Loop, Etc.
B437 – OSMUD Subdivision Modification: Painted Cottage
Lot Releases:
B437 – Ridgeview – Lots 10-524 through and including 10-528
B437 – Boatwright’s Loop – 15-258 through and including 15-268 and A238 through and including A-244
B437 – Painted Cottage – 10-529 through and including 10-535
The Board determined that that the Following Form A plan was entitled to endorsement:
A4444 – Pinehills LLC, Painted Cottage, Map 77D, Lots 10-529 (0.14A), 10-530 (0.12A), and 10-441 (2.86A) – Lot Line Adjustment to create Lots 10-537 (2.84A), 10-538 (0.16A) and 10-539 (0.13A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to endorse the plans for Mainstone, Boatwright’s Loop, Etc. and Painted Cottage; the B437 Lot Releases listed above, and A4444; Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was (4-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
Site Plan Review
Cordage Park – Medical Office Building
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Plans and schematic renderings dated December 14, 2012
Staff Report
Letter from Vanasse & Associates Inc., dated December 10, 2012
Letter from Engineering Dept. dated December 10, 2012
Plan dated July 12, 1995
Plan of Loring Blvd
Plans and schematic renderings
Seaport at Cordage – Phase 1 Plans
Sean Roberts, Summit Smith Healthcare Facilities, presented a site plan for a proposed medical office building at the former Wal-Mart site within Cordage Park. The site is approximately 8.4 acres. The two story structure with a partial basement will be approximately 76,000 sq. ft. and have a red brick façade similar to other Cordage Park buildings. There will be a covered drop off canopy with a large clerestory entrance. The site has been designed for future expansion of the building. Existing parking and landscaping will be retained to the extent feasible. The utility and sewer lines will be relocated. They would like to break ground in April, 2013 with completion in Spring, 2014.
Lee Hartmann stated that the medical office building is an allowed use. This project will move forward separate from Cordage Park. A traffic study shows that less traffic will be generated from the proposed medical office use than the Wal-Mart use. Mr. Hartmann noted that the applicant will have to return with a landscape plan and to address all the issues outlined by DPW.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if there were any green energy aspects to the construction.
Mr. Roberts replied that they will not pursue Leeds Certification, but will incorporate green energy construction practices.
Paul McAlduff stated that he was pleased to see activity at Cordage Park and this project would create positive growth.
Marc Garrett was supportive of the plan and building, but wanted clarification that the landscaping and pedestrian circulation was in keeping with the overall master plan.
Mr. Roberts stated that they worked with the landowners to integrate their project into the master plan. He also noted that they intend to match the existing trees.
Mr. Hartmann stated that a public hearing will be held on January 14, 2013 for a plan modification that Cordage has filed. The modification will show a revised access road from Court Street. Mr. Hartmann noted that this project is on a separate lot and not part of the Chapter 40R Cordage Park Smart Growth District.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to notify the Building Commissioner that the Planning Board approves the site plan subject to the petitioner returning with more detailed plans that will be reviewed in conjunction with the modification of the B547 - Cordage Park subdivision. The Board also finds that the site plans generally conform to the zoning bylaw as depicted, and that the following issues will need to be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any work at the site:
The concerns raised by the Department of Public Works, as outlined in the attached memorandum dated December 10, 2012, must be addressed, with the exceptions of: (1) Miscellaneous item No.1, (2) traffic mitigation or studies – the by right use has demonstrated per the attached Traffic Memorandum that the traffic impacts of the proposed use are substantially less than the traffic impacts of the former use – the Wal-Mart, and (3) any work related to the construction of the subdivision road (those comments will be addressed under subdivision control, and are not under the applicant’s control – they are the responsibility of the current property owners, and the Planning Board has scheduled a public hearing for said subdivision modification in January of 2013. Staff
notes that DPW was asked to comment on the entire Cordage site in order to enable the owners to coordinate with the applicant, and has included all of their concerns into one memorandum).
Final landscaping shall come back before the Planning Board for review.
An erosion control and stabilization plan shall be submitted for approval by the Building Commissioner. Said plan shall include a staging plan for work that will require stockpiling of soils on a temporary basis, and shall include both temporary vegetation, mulching, or other protective measures must be provided for areas that will be exposed for one or more months. These temporary measures must be applied immediately after disruption, and permanent site stabilization measures for any portions of the site that are not under construction after site clearing and grading activities have ceased for a period of six (6) months.
The Conservation Commission shall review any and all work within its purview, if any.
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.
A Street Opening Permit shall be provided for all projects involving a street opening, whether or not Town utilities are involved in the reason for the street opening.
Prior to the start of any construction of the building other than the foundation:
The project is subject to the Prevention of Light Pollution Section 205-65 of the Zoning Bylaw and compliance must be documented.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following must be submitted to the Building Department:
A modified subdivision plan shall be approved by the Planning Board and recorded at the Registry of Deeds showing the final lot size and configuration, which, if reduced from that contained in this report, shall demonstrate adequate area to satisfy the zoning requirements as described herein.
A Registered Landscape Architect or other qualified licensed professional shall certify to the Building Commissioner that the required landscaping has been installed in accordance with an approved site plan, Zoning Bylaw, and acceptable landscape practices.
A report shall be submitted to the Building Commissioner by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying that the drainage system, drive ways, curbing utilities, and parking areas have been installed according to accepted practices and according to the DPW Engineering Department, and in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw.
Satisfactory completion of any curb cut improvements constructed by the Petitioner, including repair of any damaged monuments or benchmarks as noted on the plans if located in the vicinity of the proposed work, shall be performed by the Petitioner.
All requirements of the Town Water Department with respect to water connections, pressure and flow shall be satisfied; and
All requirements of the Town Sewer Department with respect to sewer connections shall be satisfied.
Tim Grandy, second.
Paul McAlduff amended his motion to note that the site plan was preliminary.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearings: Town Meeting Articles
Light Industrial Building Height
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Proposed Change for Section 205-17 of Zoning Bylaw
List of Requirements for 75 ft. height allowance
Map of Proposed Overlay Districts
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Tim Grandy, Paul McAlduff, Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg, Malcolm MacGregor.
Marc Garrett noted that the proposed article to increase the maximum building height in two industrial areas (North/West Plymouth Industrial Park and Camelot Park) was a product of the Industrial/Commercial/Office Land Study Committee (ICO). NStar’s Summer Street property and Entergy’s Rocky Hill Road property are not included in the proposal.
Lee Hartmann noted that the goal of increasing the maximum building height in these two industrial zones to 75 feet by-right was to maximize potential in existing industrial areas, thereby increasing the non-residential tax base and creating jobs. Mr. Hartmann stated that it has been proven that in order to be successful, potential developers should be within a mile of an interchange. Currently building height can exceed 35 ft. within the LI zone with a special permit. The proposed increase in height would not be allowed within 500 ft. of existing residential structures.
Malcolm MacGregor felt that petitions for up to 100 feet of additional height should remain a special permit not be an allowed use. Mr. MacGregor was concerned with the unknown impacts that taller buildings would have on traffic and emergency services. He suggested that the buildings should be LEED certified.
Paul McAlduff was supportive of the increased height as long as on-site parking was sufficient to the use.
Marc Garrett was concerned that we are trying to balance jobs, tax revenue (both residential and commercial), and land sprawl caused by large parking fields against buildings that are state of the art and sustainable. Mr. Garrett was concerned that LEED certification is at the discretion of the Green Building Association, which is not a government organization or a regulator. They make recommendations for building codes. The concept is fine, but it is hard to mandate LEED certification that is not enforceable right now as it is not part of the building code and it may not be appropriate for all types of buildings and uses.
Mr. MacGregor stated that we do not necessarily have to require LEED certification, but should consider requiring LEED standards regarding building design and site design. Mr. MacGregor pointed out that the Town has to have adequate fire apparatus that will be able to handle the height of 75 ft. buildings.
Tim Grandy was supportive of increasing the by-right building heights in the two proposed LI zones to 75 ft. Mr. Grandy stated that the State is working on adopting stretch code that will require sustainable building practices.
Mr. Garrett was supportive of including the goals and objectives of healthy community initiatives and creating campus wide environments.
Mr. Hartmann stated that site plan review design standards are under review by Kopelman and Paige and will be presented at a future Town Meeting. The North Plymouth and West Plymouth Steering Committees reviewed the proposed article and both were supportive. The Fire Department and Department of Public Works have also reviewed the article and are supportive.
Bill Wennerberg was concerned with the density increase and how the existing infrastructure would handle the additional traffic.
Mr. Hartmann noted that existing economic development areas are compact. The only other option to create economic development opportunities would be to expand to other areas of town.
Public Comment:
In Favor:
None
In Opposition:
Everett Malaguti expressed his concern with height impacts and impacts to infrastructure especially along Cherry Street. Mr. Malaguti was also concerned with the safety of the children walking to Hedge School. He noted that the additional building heights in the Industrial Park would create an undesirable city scape visible from North Plymouth.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Garrett suggested that the Board could continue the public hearing in order to consider the impacts and whether any conditions should be added.
Mr. McAlduff withdrew his motion.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to continue the public hearing to January 7, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.; Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Site Plan Review/Design Guidelines
The Board took no action on the proposed Town Meeting article for Site Plan Review and Design Guidelines.
Public Hearing:
B576 Gunning Point Road - special permit request for 5-lot single-family residential development w/open space under Village Open Space Development
Map 123, Lot 1P-1282
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Memo from Valerie Massard dated December 15, 2012
Draft VOSD Vote
Preliminary Plan Evaluation
Draft Subdivision Vote
Letter from Fire Department dated November 28, 2012
Letter from Conservation Commission dated April 2, 2012
Letter from Division of Fisheries and Wildlife dated March 24, 2008
Letter from Division of Fisheries and Wildlife dated April 2, 2012
E-mail correspondence between Atty. Robert Betters and Staff
Locus Maps
Plan of Land dated April 22, 2012
Site Photographs dated November 2004
Letter from Engineering Department dated December 12, 2012
Adequate Facilities Special Permit Petition
Letter from Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. dated September 27, 2012
List of Requested Waivers
Environmental Impact Assessment dated September 2012
Preliminary Conventional Subdivision dated July 26, 2012
Village Open Space Density Plan dated July 26, 2012
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Tim Grandy, Paul McAlduff, Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg and Malcolm MacGregor.
Atty. Robert Betters presented the request for a VOSD that would create 5 single family residential lots with open space. The site consists of 24.03 acres of which 18.87 acres will be offered as open space to the Conservation Commission with an endowment of $15,000 for care and maintenance. The endowment will be paid in increments of $3,000 prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Atty. Betters presented the site photographs which showed the location between two ponds with access (an existing gravel road) off Raymond Road. A previous submission for this property showed eight residential lots. Atty. Betters showed a plan that detailed a seven lot by-right subdivision with waivers could be constructed. A letter of approval with conditions from the Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife for the
previous eight lot rendition was presented. Atty. Betters read a letter from the Conservation Commission to the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife/Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program in support of the creation of the five residential lots with open space as the open space “would enable the Town to connect and expand the existing public and privately owned Conservation Land and open space in the South Plymouth area. This area is particularly valuable as it is one of the larger undeveloped tracts in a highly developed area. Furthermore, the potential open space is ideally located in close proximity to a state boat ramp on Big Sandy Pond, which is a great Pond.” The Board received copies of e-mails between the engineer and Natural Heritage who have worked together to create a plan that shows restricted areas on the house lots and land to be transferred to the Conservation Commission.
The Board suspended the public hearing temporarily.
Public Hearing:
B577 204 Sandwich Street - special permit request for 4 single-family residential condo development w/open space under Village Open Space Development
Map 24, Lot 9A
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
E-mail correspondence between Atty. Robert Kraus and Staff
Copies of Fax Cover Sheets to John Veracka/Joseph Webby, Jr.
Letter from Engineering Department dated December 10, 2012
Letter from Marine and Environmental Affairs dated November 29, 2012
Letter from Fire Department dated November 26, 2012
Board of Appeals Decision # 3583
Environmental Impact Statement
Locus Map
Site Plan dated May 22, 2012, revised through October 5, 2012
Planting, Perspective, and Elevation Plans
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Tim Grandy, Paul McAlduff Marc Garrett, Bill Wennerberg and Malcolm MacGregor
Lee Hartmann stated that a number of technical issues need to be addressed and the applicant has agreed that additional time is needed to submit the information for review by staff and the Board.
Atty. Robert Kraus, representing the applicant, agreed that additional time was needed and was supportive of a continuance.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to continue the public hearing for B577 204 Sandwich Street to January 28, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
The Board resumed the public hearing for B576 – Gunning Point VOSD.
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc., reviewed the site plans for the five residential lots which vary in size from 26,900 sq. ft. to 40,000 sq. ft. The proposed lot sizes, setbacks and open space exceed the requirements of a VOSD. An existing 16 ft. wide gravel road is approximately 2,300 ft. and is relatively flat with one sloped area near Blueberry Road. A layout of 40 ft. to 44 ft. has been created and there are no existing drainage issues. Mr. Flaherty stated that a waiver of dead end street requirements has been requested. Mr. Flaherty stated that he worked with the Fire Department to create a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles near the gated portion of Gunning Point Road. The Homeowners Association will be responsible for plowing and maintaining the emergency access. The open
space borders White’s Pond at the request of Natural Heritage to preserve the environmentally sensitive area. The residential structures will have individual septic systems and private wells.
Lee Hartmann stated that two requests are before the Board; a definitive subdivision for the road layout and a VOSD for five residential units with open space. The two previous proposals for eight units on this site resulted in 26 public hearings. This proposal is for five units. The Conservation Commission is supportive. The Fire Dept. and DPW have requested that the road be paved to some degree for maintenance and public safety.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested given the nature of the road that a buffer along the front of the lots be provided.
Mr. Flaherty replied that they would provide as much preservation as possible.
Mr. Hartmann suggested identifying yard area, septic and well areas and building area.
Michael Mulligan, property owner, agreed to leave as much vegetation as possible.
Tim Grandy asked if low nitrogen loading septic systems have been considered rather than the standard SAS. Mr. Grandy also asked if the applicant intends to pave the road.
Mr. Flaherty stated he would look into the low nitrogen systems and that they would like to keep the rural character of the neighborhood by keeping the hard packed gravel road. He was concerned that pavement would create run off areas and require more tree removal.
Mr. Grandy was concerned with the cost and maintenance of the gravel road.
Mr. Flaherty stated that he could create designated easement areas for drainage in case the Town paves the road in the future.
Public Comment:
In Favor:
None
In Opposition:
John Dill stated that although the proposed plan is better than the previous submittals, the plan is still deficient. Mr. Dill stated that lot 4 does not meet the depth requirements under the R25 requirements and that depth requirements cannot be waived. The developer has to demonstrate that the VOSD is superior to a by-right subdivision. There is no pedestrian circulation provided. The open space has no relationship to a village plan, there is no direct connection to existing open space and there is no public benefit. Mr. Dill also mentioned that there will be Title V issues.
Fred Desantis was concerned with creating a cut through from Bourne Road to Raymond Road. Mr. Santos stated that the development will change the character of the neighborhood. He also noted that there is a State Boat ramp off Gunning Point Road.
Ann Crane felt that the proposed open space would not benefit the Town. Ms. Crane asked what the access to the pond would be.
Mr. Flaherty stated that each lot will have a 4 ft. pedestrian access to the Pond which has been approved by Natural Heritage.
Makenzie Manchester asked if there were any mechanism to prevent docks from being constructed on the ponds.
Mr. Garrett stated that a dock would be subject to the State Wetlands Protection Act and the local Wetlands Bylaw and would require a permit.
Brenda LaPierre stated that she owns the gate and will close the gate to prevent Gunning Point Road from becoming a pass through. Ms. LaPierre was concerned with joggers, pedestrians, and wildlife impacts.
Mr. Dill stated that a portion of Gunning Point Road is private and can be blocked. He felt that the hammerhead will be inadequate for the amount of vehicles that would utilize it.
A resident was concerned with the disruption to the eco system of the pond.
Mr. Garrett noted that the Conservation Commission and Natural Heritage have supported the project.
Mr. MacGregor stated that he would like to visit the site.
Atty. Betters stated that the VOSD lot requirements override the R25 lot requirements and the proposed lots exceed the VOSD requirements; a definitive subdivision has been applied for in conjunction with the VOSD application; the Gunning Point Road right of way toward Bourne Road ends over private property, therefore the hammerhead turnaround has been proposed. The preference would be to leave the road as a gravel road in rural condition rather than pave the road.
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to continue the public hearing to January 7, 2013 at 7:30 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
ZBA 3689 – Brian Stuart & Lisa Brini
2 Manomet Beach Blvd
Map 49, Lots 2-264, 2-265, 2-296, 2-297 and 7A
Special Permit subject to EDC to create two 15,000 sq. ft. lots in an R20SL zone
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Locus Maps and Site Photographs
Letter from Flaherty & Stefani, Inc., dated November 3, 2012
Environmental Impact Statement
Unofficial Property Record Card
Plan dated November 3, 2012
Handout: Revised Staff Report
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. presented the request for special permit subject to Environmental Design Conditions in order to create lots less than 20,000 sq. ft. The lot for the existing house would consist of 15,306 sq. ft. and the vacant residential lot would consist of 16,338 sq. ft.
Lee Hartmann stated that in the R20 zone, a two-family could be constructed on the site. Single family homes would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. The proposed conditions require that the applicants return to present landscaping and fencing for buffering between the lots.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit on the new buildable lot:
- A subsequent Approval Not Required (ANR) division of land will be filed with the Planning Board reflecting the proposed lot configuration and shall be recorded with this Decision. Evidence that this special permit and the Plan have been recorded at the Registry of Deeds shall be provided to the Board of Appeals and Building Commissioner;
- 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;
- Construction plans must be submitted to the Plymouth DPW for final review and approval of proposed connections to public water. Construction plans must show adequate detail on the size and material of the proposed water mains and fire service lines, including valves, fittings, hydrants, post indicator valves and other related appurtenances. Locations of existing mains and services must be shown on the plans;
- A Street Opening Permit for connection to the water system and any private utilities is required from the DPW Engineering Division;
- At the present time the Town sands and plows Bradford Terrace, and the DPW Engineering Division identified two catch basins and leaching basins in the immediate vicinity of the property which are buried under sediment and leaves, which has rendered the catch basins inoperable. The Petitioner shall show these drainage structures on the plan, and shall clean the existing debris and overgrowth around these catch basins to make the existing drainage system operable. The applicant should provide a paved driveway apron on the proposed house lot and silt sacks in the existing catch basins to prevent sediment from entering the existing drainage system prior to the start of construction, to be maintained until the site is stabilized.
- Details and locations shall be provided roof drains directed to drywells, as described in the Petitioner’s submission. Location of a rain garden or depression that will capture any additional stormwater runoff caused by site development from reaching the existing drainage system shall be shown on the plans, with supporting drainage calculations, for final approval by the Department of Public Works;
- A Zoning Permit must be issued; and
- Final site plans for the development of the new lot shall be submitted to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation to the Board of Appeals for the Board of Appeals’ final approval. Landscaping mechanisms to provide screening to abutting properties is required, especially with respect to the existing house lot, and the northerly abutter.
Any structures on the two properties shall comply with the environmental design conditions for small lots of less than 20,000 square feet as set forth in §205-43, Paragraph H.
Minor modifications to the design and location of buildings, parking, landscaping and other site elements may allowed by the Building Commissioner (aka Director of Inspectional Services) to accommodate reasonable and/or necessary field conditions which modifications do not amount to a substantial modification of the plans. Such changes as substituting a particular plant material or number of shrubs or trees where it is impractical to do something, or move a building in a manner which does not materially change the project, or slightly reconfigure a drainage area or parking space may be allowed.
Prior to issuance of a Final Occupancy Permit, all requirements of the Town Water Department with respect to water connections shall be satisfied.
Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
ZBA 3690 – Kingstown Corporation
Off Long Pond Road, Map 88, Lot 54 (off of Camelot Industrial Park)
Special Permits subject to EDC in order to excavate 250,000 cubic yards of gravel in a RR Zone
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
E-mail Correspondence between Atty. Robert Betters and Staff
Staff Report
Letter from Engineering Department dated December 12, 2012
Environmental Impact Statement
Locus Maps
Site Permitting Plans dated August 4, 2010
Bill Shaw, Associated Engineers presented a request for a special permit subject to Environmental Design Conditions in order to remove approximately 250,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel in a Rural Residential (RR) zone. The site is known as the “County Woodlot”. The gravel removal operation would encompass approximately 10 acres and would be accessed off Camelot Drive through property owned by Kingstown Trucking Corporation. The average cut is about 16.5 ft. with the maximum cut at 30 ft. The site is remote from any residential neighborhoods and won’t be visible from the street.
Lee Hartmann confirmed that the site is zoned RR and would be 10-12 acres in size. This is not related to an agricultural use. DPW has asked for 10 cents per cubic yard for public road maintenance and the applicant has offered 5 cents per cubic yard provided the start time could be 6:00 a.m. instead of 7:00 a.m. Staff has prepared a positive recommendation.
Malcolm MacGregor was concerned with the number of incomplete gravel removal projects in the Town. He was not supportive of any further gravel removal nor was he supportive of a 6:00 a.m. start time.
Tim Grandy was not supportive of the 6:00 a.m. start time. Typically start at 7 a.m.
Atty. Betters stated that the 6:00 a.m. start time was proposed because this is an industrial area and the trucks would be less likely to interfere with school bus traffic.
Bill Wennerberg asked if there was an end purpose for the gravel removal.
Mr. Shaw stated that it would be a quarry operation that would be loamed and seeded at completion.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to recommend denial as there is no end use proposed and would be a commercial use in a residential zone; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Appointment: Nicholas Sivieri
B560 Hillside Estates
Status Update
Site Inspection Memo dated December 10, 2012
Letter from Atty. Edward Angley dated November 21, 2012
Site Photographs dated December 3, 2012
Excerpt from minutes of October 1, 2012
E-mail Correspondence between Nick Sivieri and Staff
Site Inspection Memo dated September 19, 2012
Special Permit Vote dated February 23, 2010
Locus Map
Site Photographs dated September 18, 2012
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that the developer of B560 – Hillside Estates is making progress. The most important thing is to address the Affordable Housing unit. They have put some wood chips in at the entrance and covered the drainage areas.
Atty. Edward Angley reviewed the outstanding issues and how they have been handled:
All debris has been removed from the site; entrance erosion has been addressed; the original deed for the conveyance of land to the Town was signed; but is missing – a new deed has been prepared; the contingency balance is up to date; the affordable housing unit is being worked on; the covenant has lapsed and an extension has been requested; and communication is improving.
Lee Hartmann stated that staff will continue to monitor, but they seem to be moving forward.
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Paul McAlduff thanked staff for another year of hard work and dedication.
Malcolm MacGregor felt that it is imperative for the Board to work toward creating a solar bylaw in order to specify areas where it would be allowed.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 10:08 p.m.; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: January 7, 2013
Administrative Assistant
| 
