Planning Board Meeting
February 25, 2013
Minutes
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: Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes*:
February 4, 2013
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the minutes of February 4, 2013 as presented; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was 4-0-1 with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
Form A Plans:
A4450 LC (see also A4439) – Boston Minuteman Council Inc., Little Sandy Pond Road, Map 59, Lots 38, 39 and 40 (58.09A)* – Divide into Lots 38-1 (4.26A), 38-2 (3.52A), 38-3 (3.0A), 38-4 (27.0A), 39-1 (3.03A), 39-2 (2.77A), 39-3 (2.78A), 39-4 (2.79A) 39-5 (2.82A), and 40-1 (5.14A)
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to determine that A4450 was entitled to endorsement; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
ZBA 3697 – Michael Getchell
39 Mayflower Street, Map 22, Lot 139
Special Permit to waive the side setback requirements and to enlarge a non-conforming structure – a post facto filing for addition of stairs and deck
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Letter from Michael Getchell dated December 3, 2012
Fire Department Comments dated January 16, 2013
Engineering Department Comments dated January 22, 2013
Property Record Card
Locus Map and Site Photographs
Site Plan dated January 12, 2013
Michael Getchell presented his request for a Special Permit to obtain approval for a deck that has already been constructed.
Valerie Massard stated that the petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to reduce the side setbacks and enlarge a non-conforming structure. The two family dwelling was built prior to 1900 and had an existing second story deck. A second deck with a set of stairs was added. A common drive is shared with the immediate abutter. The new deck’s encroachment of the side setback requirements is similar to the existing deck. Site photographs show that each deck has different treatments to screen from abutter and doesn’t tie into the architecture of the dwelling. Ms. Massard noted that the stairs provide a second egress. Ms. Massard stated that the staff report includes recommended conditions regarding treatments and screening of the decks and other boiler plate conditions.
Public Comment:
Hadley LeClair, 41 Mayflower Street, stated that he is concerned with safety and privacy issues. He noted that Mr. Getchell had applied in 2007 to the Building Department for permits to construct a deck and install a hot tub but was denied and built the deck without permits. He was concerned that given the close proximity to the driveway, someone may back into one of the posts on the deck and make the deck and hot tub collapse.
Tim Grandy asked if Mr. Getchell previously applied for a zoning permit that was denied.
Mr. Getchell stated that he did apply for a zoning permit and was denied. He stated that the deck was built long before he bought the property.
Malcolm MacGregor was concerned with the height of the deck and the weight of the hot tub on a structure that did not have proper engineering. He stated it was a safety hazard.
Bill Wennerberg stated that any structure built to the height of the deck should have the proper permits and inspections.
Ms. Massard stated that if the deck was allowed, it would have to be brought up to code.
Tim Grandy stated that he would not support the petition unless stamped structural information was provided.
Marc Garrett stated that the Board has been presented with an “as built” condition after the fact on a project that has a questionable history. He was inclined to recommend denial.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following reasons:
The proposed use, a second-story deck and stairs attached to the rear of a two-family dwelling is an acceptable use in this zone, and there is an existing second story deck at this location. The proposed extension of the rear deck at this specific site increases the possibility of a traffic hazard due to the common access drive and the new corner post’s location in relationship to the abutters’ use of the immediate vicinity of this post for backing movements in exiting the property. The additional deck is not in keeping with the intent of the zone, which is compact development within existing village centers in keeping with historical New England building traditions. The architectural aesthetics of the second rear deck subject to this petition are found to be lacking with respect to the existing
architecture of the dwelling and accessory structures.
The Board has found, Per Section 205-25 ¶A3, that the additional upper deck will be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. An additional corner post has been constructed along the shared driveway 11 feet beyond the existing corner post, and within 4 feet of the lot line. The location of this outer post is behind the area where vehicles, which are parked on the abutter’s side of the common access, back up to turn around and exit the property. No stamped plans from a registered engineer or architect have been provided giving evidence as to the structural capacity of the deck to support a hot tub over this post, or whether the deck and stairs conform to current Building Code requirements.
With respect to the proposed waiver of setback per Section 205-43 (Table 5), the Board has found that the conditions for granting of such approval have not been satisfied. Although the deck does not further encroach on the side lot line, it does add an additional corner post along the shared driveway 11 feet beyond the existing corner post, and within 4 feet of the lot line. The location of this outer post is behind the area where vehicles, which are parked on the abutter’s side of the common access, back up to turn around and exit the property. No stamped plans from a registered engineer or architect have been provided giving evidence as to the structural capacity of the deck to support a hot tub over this post, or whether the deck and stairs conform to current Building Code requirements.
The Board has found that there will be an increased hazard to vehicles. The proposed extension of the rear deck at this specific site increases the possibility of a vehicular hazard. The location of this outer post is behind the area where vehicles, which are parked on the abutter’s side of the common access, back up to turn around and exit the property.
Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing (cont from 12/17 & 1/28)
B577 – VOSD, 204 Sandwich Street, Map 24, Lot 9A
Special Permit request for 4 single-family residential condo development w/open space
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Memo dated February 18, 2013
Excerpt from Minutes of December 17, 2013
Site Photographs
E-mail correspondence dated November 29, 2012
FAX to Webby Engineering dated November 21, 2012 (2)
Engineering Department Comments December 10, 2012
Memo from Marine and Environmental Affairs Director, dated November 29, 2012
Fire Department Comments dated November 26, 2012
ZBA Decision No. 3583
Environmental Impact Statement
Locus Map
Site Plan dated May 22, 2012, revised through October 5, 2012
Planting Plan dated September 12, 2012
Perspective plans dated September 12, 2012
Elevation plan dated September 12, 2012
Handouts:
Staff Report
E-mail from Atty. Robert Kraus dated February 25, 2013
Letter from Creative Land & Water Engineering, LLC dated January 6, 2013
Wetland Border Report dated January 7, 2013
Valerie Massard reviewed the history of the proposed subdivision which was submitted in November 2012 with the public hearing opened December 17, 2012. The public hearing was continued to January 28, 2013 at the request of the applicant in order to have additional time to address technical issues that were raised. At the continued public hearing on January 28th, the applicant requested another continuance to February 25, 2013 due to the lack of a full Board. Ms. Massard noted that until this afternoon, staff had not received any of the technical information that was requested. A wetlands delineation report that does not address the setbacks was received this afternoon. Staff has still not received the requested information regarding drainage, ownership of the open space, proposed and existing parking,
density calculations, and actual buildable land which could be limited by the stream. Staff has been unable to determine whether the project meets the intent of the VOSD and density and therefore recommends a denial without prejudice.
Atty. Joseph Kelleher requested a 30 day continuance in order to obtain the technical information from the engineer.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that he was not sure that the project meets the intent of the VOSD bylaw and that there is no usable open space.
Paul McAlduff stated that similar projects have been proposed for this site and have failed. He also felt that there was no usable open space.
Ms. Massard noted that they did file for 10 units a few years ago and were denied and a request for a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals is under appeal.
Marc Garrett stated that the Board requested information regarding the riverfront issue two months ago and that the report submitted today was dated the beginning of January. The report does not mention looking at the river. At a minimum the riverfront issue needs to be addressed because it could make this land unbuildable.
Public Comment:
In Favor: None
In Opposition:
Brian Clark expressed his concerns with the proposed elimination of existing parking spaces and how the proposed project would affect existing condo owners.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to close the public hearing for B577 – 204 Sandwich Street VOSD; Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to Deny Without Prejudice B577 – 204 Sandwich Street VOSD for the following reasons:
The Planning Board has found that the Petitioner has not provided adequate information to make determinations under the VOSD Bylaw as to whether the petition satisfies the density, site layout, lotting and open space requirements of the VOSD.
Technical information needed to evaluate this petition is incomplete, and more information is needed to determine whether the proposed use is appropriate in the R25 zone through a VOSD special permit. The intent of the VOSD is to encourage compact development and thus to discourage haphazard sprawl or scattering of development further into rural areas, and to provide permanent open space and an increased variety of planned cluster and planned residential development, as proposed. The VOSD is intended to encourage a mix of attached and detached housing types and designs. There is insufficient information to evaluate whether the proposed VOSD development is consistent with the intent of the VOSD, and therefore it is not possible to evaluate the appropriateness of this site for the proposed use at this
time.
It cannot be determined, with the information provided, whether there are or will be adequate and appropriate facilities in place for the proper operation and use of the site for dwellings.
It cannot be determined, based on the information provided, if the project will create a hazard for pedestrians or vehicles.
It cannot be determined, based on the information provided, if there will be an objective nuisance or adverse effect upon the neighborhood.
With the information provided, it cannot be determined if the proposed VOSD plan is superior in design and land use to a conventional development, which must be determined in order for the Planning Board to grant a special permit under this Section.
Paul McAlduff, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing
B578 – Waverly Oaks – Definitive Subdivision; RDD Modification; Inclusionary Housing and Transfer of Development Rights
Create approximately 113 units of residential housing
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Letter from Atty. Edward Angley dated February 21, 2013 requesting withdrawal.
Marc Garrett read a letter from Attorney Edward Angley requesting to “withdraw without prejudice” B578 – Waverly Oaks. As the public hearing had not been opened, no formal action was necessary. The Board acknowledged the request to “withdraw without prejudice”.
Public Hearing – (cont. from 12/17 & 1/7)
B576 – Gunning Point VOSD
Off Gunning Point Rd/Map 123 Lot 1P-1282
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Memo dated February 18, 2013
E-mail from Bruce Hutchinson dated January 28, 2013
Excerpt from Minutes of December 17, 2012
Gunning Point VOSD/Town of Plymouth Comprehensive and Open Space Plan Goals
E-mail from David Webber dated February 19, 2013
Letter and attachments from Atty. Stephen A. Shatz dated February 15, 2013
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
Handout: revised VOSD Density Plan dated July 26, 2012
Valerie Massard stated that the public hearing was opened on December 17, 2012 and was continued to January 7, 2013. On January 7th, there was not a full Board, so the applicant requested a continuance to February 25, 2013. The petitioner has requested a density of five dwellings with open space and minimal gravel road improvements to meet gravel road standards. The Engineering Department wants the road paved because of the cost of maintaining gravel roads. If the road is to be paved, the drainage would have to be redesigned and further reviewed by the Conservation Commission and Natural Heritage. Due to the cost of paving additional density may also be requested.
Atty. Robert Betters, representing the applicant, stated that the current issue is whether the road should or should not be paved. The applicant would like to retain the gravel road as the area is environmentally sensitive. The Engineering Department has not identified any safety issues, but has concerns with the maintenance costs of a gravel road. The applicant only controls a portion of the road (from Raymond Road to the gate) and there is a question as to whether the neighbors would support paving. If pavement is determined to be the best alternative, the applicant would have to assess drainage implications and meet with Engineering. In order to offset the cost of paving, additional density may be requested.
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty and Stefani, Inc., handed out a plan detailing a hammerhead turnaround that would meet the Fire Department’s turning radii, the building envelopes with screening from road, and an18 ft. gravel and recycled asphalt roadway. Mr. Flaherty hoped that the compromise of using recycled asphalt would be supported as paving with the necessary drainage would disrupt the environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Flaherty noted that rain garden drainage swales could be added to the recycled asphalt road. A homeowner’s association would be responsible to plow the roadway and keep the hammerhead accessible for emergency vehicles. Mr. Flaherty felt that the recycled asphalt would be appropriate to maintain the rural characteristics of the road.
Malcolm MacGregor asked about durability and maintenance of the road.
Mr. Flaherty replied that maintenance would be the homeowners association’s responsibility and that Emerald Excavating used the recycled asphalt in their parking lot and they feel it is durable.
Paul McAlduff was concerned that crowning of the road would make it difficult to plow and asked if funds could be added by the developer to the homeowners association for maintenance purposes.
Mr. Flaherty stated that maintenance funds could be incorporated into the overall cost of selling the dwellings.
Tim Grandy asked if nitrogen loading septic systems would be installed. Mr. Grandy stated that gravel roads are difficult to maintain and there are safety issues as a result of the maintenance difficulties. He felt it was imperative that a maintenance program be established if the Town allowed the recycled asphalt. He asked if Engineering was supportive of the proposed alternative and how long the recycled asphalt would last. He would support an extended contrast with the contractor rather than place the burden on the homeowners but does not want to give specific direction as to how the issue of long-term maintenance gets resolved.
Mr. Flaherty replied that Engineering wants a full subdivision roadway layout with pavement, berms, shoulders, and drainage. He stated that the nitrogen loading septic systems would cost $10,000 to $15,000.
Atty. Betters stated that they could present the alternative of recycled asphalt to the Engineering Department for their comments.
Mr. Grandy stated he would like to hear from professional staff on whether the recycled asphalt is a viable alternative to paving.
Marc Garrett was not supportive of using the recycled asphalt on a road that is 2,300 ft. long. He did not think that maintenance by a homeowners association would not work here and that in the future the residents would request that the Town pave the road.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that pavement may be a preferable option if the remainder of the road was ever connected through to Bourne Road, but it would make the road a speedway. In order to maintain the character, the hybrid pavement with a viable maintenance program would be appropriate.
Bill Wennerberg was supportive of the recycled asphalt road with a maintenance program.
Paul McAlduff agreed with Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Wennerberg. He would like to see what the Engineering Department’s comments will be.
Ken Buechs was not supportive of a gravel road as it is brutal to the Town-owned safety equipment, which will be destroyed by the plow blades and would be cost prohibitive for the homeowner’s association.
Public Comment:
In Favor: None
Paul Hapgood questioned whether Gunning Point Road connects Raymond Road to Bourne Road.
Marc Garrett explained that Gunning Point Road goes from Raymond Road, 2,300 ft. to a private right-of-way beyond a gate and does not go directly out to Bourne Road.
In Opposition:
Collette Dill was concerned that the plows would pile the snow on the hammerhead turnaround and impede the turning radius for emergency vehicles. Ms. Dill was also concerned with the increase in size of the turnaround from 40 ft. to 50 ft. which would further encroach on the ponds.
Joe Duffy stated that he was opposed to the project.
Thom Hardiman expressed his concerns regarding use of a road material that has not proven to be environmentally friendly in an area that is environmentally sensitive. He was also concerned with damage to the proposed road that would be caused by vehicles trying to access the State boat ramp. The maintenance burden that would be put on the five home owners would be significant.
Jack Dill was concerned with maintenance of the proposed roadway in these soils. He stated that it is not clear whether a conventional subdivision could be built on the site. He felt that granting a concession regarding paving the road would be trading off public protection for a private enterprise.
David Foster felt that it would be cost prohibitive for the homeowners to take over maintenance of the road.
Valerie Massard asked whether Beals & Thomas should be consulted for an opinion on whether the recycled asphalt is a viable option.
Atty. Betters had no objection to a peer review by Beals & Thomas and suggested that the public hearing be continued to March 25, 2013.
Paul McAlduff moved to continue the public hearing to March 25, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
Covenant Extension: B474 – Wadsworth Estates
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Letter from Atty. Robert Betters dated January 9, 2013
Handout: Site Photograph
Marc Garrett reviewed a letter from Atty. Robert Betters requesting an extension of the covenant for B474 – Wadsworth Estates.
Valerie Massard stated that a site inspection was done in July and the site was stabilized, but would need additional stabilization in the spring. She recommended continuation of the covenant.
The Board wanted to insure that the additional stabilization was completed in the spring.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to extend the covenant for B474 – Wadsworth Estates to July 15, 2013; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 9:00 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: March 11, 2013
Administrative Assistant
| 
