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
The Board held a moment of silence in honor of all the victims of the Marathon Bombing and Officers Sean Collier and Richard Donovan.
Administrative Notes:
ZBA 3708 – Tobin Williams, 1 Lewis Street, Map 22, Lot 35
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Letter from Mary Ellen McLane dated March 31, 2013
Locus Map and Site Photographs
Plot Plan for Porch dated March 21, 2013
The Board recommended approval of ZBA 3708 – Tobin Williams, 1 Lewis Street, Map 22, Lot 35 – Special Permits to enlarge a non-conforming structure and to waive front and side setback requirements subject to the following condition:
The porch shall not be improved for year-round use, or altered, without additional review by the Board of Appeals.
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
E-mail correspondence dated April 10 and April 18, 2013
Draft Release of Covenant
Covenant recorded in Land Court, on May 29, 1990
The Board approved endorsement of lot releases for the following lots in the B296 – Ponds at Plymouth subdivision:
Lots 924 through and including 1067 and Lot 1027
Form A Plans*:
The Board determined that the following Form A Plans are entitled to endorsement:
A4454 – Pinehills LLC, Cobblestone, Map 77D, Lots A230 and A-231 – Divide into 10-542, 10-543, 10-544, 10-545, 10-546 & 10-547
A4455 – Pinehills LLC, Boatwright’s Loop, Map 77E – Detail of right-of-way for emergency access, portion of road not to be constructed
A4456 – Beal Nominee Trust and Steven and Jacqueline McArdell, Marion Street, Map 96, Lots 62-12 and 62-13 – Lot Line Adjustment to create lots 62-12-1 and 62-13-1
A4457 – Keith A. Whitaker, 5-7 Sever Street, Map 17, Lot 66-1 – Divide into lots 66-3 and 66-4
Bill Wennerberg moved to approve the above-listed Administrative Notes with the exception of the Pinehills Form A plans; Tim Grandy second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to determine that the Form A Plans for Pinehills LLC (A4454 and A4455) were entitled to endorsement; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was (4-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
Appointment:
ZBA Case NO. 3359 – Jeffrey Fischer
Informal review of architecture
Sandwich Street, Map 24, Lots 10C and 10D
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Memo from Valerie Massard dated April 18, 2013
ZBA Decision Case No. 3548
Site Layout Plan dated December 8, 2008
Memo from Design Review Board dated April 17, 2013
Site Plan, Grading and Utility Plan and Landscaping Development Plan for Holmes Point Condominiums dated March 19. 2013
Architectural Renderings dated March 7, 2013
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc., presented the revised landscape and architecture plan for an approved project that is under agreement by Eric Pontiff. The site was previously approved for seven residential units under ZBA Case No. 3359. The proposed architecture was also presented to the Design Review Board who was supportive. The gambrel style buildings will have Misty Grey wood shingles with a Dark Grey Slate color roofing shingle and white trim.
Malcolm MacGregor questioned who would be responsible for the landscaping maintenance and whether a bond would be appropriate.
Mr. Flaherty stated that the condominium association would be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping.
Lee Hartmann suggested holding a performance guarantee for two growing seasons to insure the plantings are established.
Valerie Massard was concerned with the proposed Colorado Spruce which can grow quite large and may block the view shed from houses across the street.
Bill Wennerberg suggested using a privet hedge in place of the Colorado Spruce.
Marc Garrett suggested a low story conifer such as a juniper in place of the Colorado Spruce.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to find that the landscaping plans and the architectural plans are acceptable provided:
A privet hedge or low canopy evergreen plantings will replace the proposed Colorado Spruce to screen the buildings at the road.
Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Public Hearing – B576 – Gunning Point VOSD
Gunning Point Road, Map 123, Lot 1P-1282
Special Permit request for 5-lot single-family residential development w/open space (cont. from 12-17, 1/7, 2/25, and 3/25)
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Letter from Beals & Thomas dated April 12, 2013
Letter from Mark Flaherty, P.E. dated April 17, 2013
Subdivision Plans dated April 17, 2013
Handout:
Letter from Atty. Stephen A. Schatz dated April 22, 2013
Atty. Robert Betters, Withington & Betters P.C., noted that the remaining issue to be discussed by the Board for this project is whether to pave or not pave the proposed accessway for B576 – Gunning Point Road. The Town’s consultant, Beals & Thomas Inc. has evaluated two alternatives and provided a matrix comparing the cost and advantages/disadvantages of each.
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani Inc., presented the site plan showing five residential lots with open space. The current plan has been reviewed by Natural Heritage and they feel it is consistent with the recommendations that they made for the 2008 plan. The two alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1 – 6” dense graded crushed stone, 2.5” hot mixed asphalt binder course and 1.5” HMA top course. ($90/ton)
Alternative 2 – 6” bank-run Gravel, & 4” cold-placed recycled asphalt pavement tailings ($35/ton).
Mr. Flaherty stated that the preferred alternative would be to use the recycled asphalt (Alternative 2). Currently there is a 16 ft. wide gravel road with no runoff issues. Shoulder grading will be needed with either alternative.
Paul McAlduff inquired whether the road would be crowned.
Mr. Flaherty stated that the road would have a crown.
Tim Grandy asked if low nitrogen loading septic systems were considered as he felt it was important to protect the ponds. Mr. Grandy also asked what the annual cost of road maintenance would be for the five home owners.
Mr. Flaherty replied that the State and the Town of Plymouth do not require Title V systems to be denitrificaton systems and that the approximate cost per home would be $1,000 annually.
Valerie Massard noted that if the open space is to be gifted to the Town, the drainage areas will need to be shown on the plan. Ms. Massard stated that the Engineering Dept. recommended that the road be fully paved.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if there was any cost benefit analysis for a denitrification system.
Mr. Flaherty replied that when a denitrification system is designed, DEP requires a period of monitoring and test samples are sent to a laboratory. They are usually installed on small lots with wells in order to increase the number of bedrooms. The cost would double the price of a standard septic system, plus there would be monitoring fees.
Michael Mulligan, the petitioner, stated that he would restrict the homes to three bedrooms and he offered $5,000 to the homeowner’s association for gravel road maintenance.
Marc Garrett asked if the Engineering Department has changed its opinion on having the road paved.
Lee Hartmann stated that they have not.
Mr. Grandy as a member of the Roads Advisory Committee was supportive of the Engineering Department’s recommendation especially if the road were ever to be accepted by the Town.
Mr. Garrett was not supportive of either alternative proposed by the petitioner and he agreed with Mr. Grandy and Mr. MacGregor on the nitrogen loading septic systems to protect the pond.
Bill Wennerberg moved to approve Alternative 2; require denitrification septic systems for dwellings with four or more bedrooms and accepting the offer of a $5,000 gift to be given to the homeowner’s association for road maintenance; Paul McAlduff, second.
Mr. Grandy was concerned that once a road becomes a public safety hazard, the Town becomes responsible.
Mr. Wennerberg was supportive of both gravel and paved roads within the Town especially in the rural areas.
Mr. MacGregor agreed with Mr. Wennerberg regarding the roads, but suggested that all the homes should have the denitrification septic systems in order to maintain the integrity of the pond.
Bill Wennerberg amended his motion to include denitrification septic systems for all dwellings; Malcolm MacGregor, second.
The vote was (3-2-0) with Marc Garrett and Tim Grandy in opposition. The motion failed.
Tim Grandy moved for the petitioner to pave the road to the Town Engineer’s standards with an adequate drainage system and install denitrification septic systems for all five dwellings; Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was (2-3-0) with Bill Wennerberg, Paul McAlduff and Marc Garrett in opposition. The motion failed.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve paving the entire length of Gunning Point Road and to include denitrification septic systems for all dwellings. There was no second.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the motion to approve did not pass it would be deemed denied, therefore, the Board would have to state reasons for denial.
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to deny without prejudice. There was no second.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the Special Permit with paving the entire length of Gunning Point Road and to include denitrification septic systems for all dwellings subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS
Gunning Point Road from Raymond Road to the western end of the subject property shall be widened and paved to a minimum of eighteen (18’) feet with proper shoulders and shall include a hammer-head turnaround. The drainage calculations, design, roadway profile, cross section, grading plan and construction details shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and approved by the Planning Board.
The Petitioner has agreed to define a 44-foot layout along the subject property’s frontage on Gunning Point Road. The 44-foot layout, turnaround, and open space areas shall be defined by setting bounds.
Low nitrogen septic systems shall be installed for each dwelling.
Available safe stopping sight distance and intersection stopping sight distance at Gunning Point Road and Raymond Road intersection must be shown on the plans. Selective clearing may be necessary to create the necessary sight distances.
Construction detail and grading plan for the retaining wall at the turnaround area shall be submitted by the Petitioner and approved by the Planning Board.
The dimensions of the emergency turnaround area shall be shown on the plan.
Vegetation overhanging the hammerhead turnaround shall be trimmed to fourteen (14’) feet height.
A performance guarantee in the form of a covenant prohibiting the sale of lots or the construction of buildings shall be executed and recorded with the Plymouth County Registry District of the Land Court. Said form of guarantee may be varied from time to time by the Petitioner with mutual agreement on the content of said guarantee by the Planning Board.
The Petitioner agrees that it will guarantee to protect, repair, replace, and where necessary, and upon written acceptance by the Planning Board, redesign the works constructed and submit revised plans and profiles for the Planning Board's approval so that said works actually carry out the purposes for which they were intended.
The Petitioner agrees to record a covenant or other instrument detailing the creation of a homeowner's trust or association, and to provide the imposition of easements or rights for the benefit of the homeowner’s trust with respect to drainage facilities and appurtenances, drainage lots and roadway areas to be maintained by the homeowners trust or association in a form acceptable to Town Counsel. Said covenant or instrument shall be in place prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
The Petitioner agrees to provide a maintenance program for stormwater facilities at the road, drainage lots and roadway areas to be maintained by the homeowner’s association on said plan or revised plan detailed as an exhibit to the homeowner’s trust documents referenced above.
The Planning Board waives the dimensional standards for the R25 zone as shown and finds that this is consistent with the VOSD Special Permit and the subject property as a whole are configured in a manner consistent with the VOSD Special Permit for this project.
The Petitioner agrees to waive its right to further subdivide the subject property, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 41 and waive its right to any further residential development of the premises that results in a more intense or dense use, regardless of any local, state or federal criteria to the contrary, pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapters 40A and 41, through a Deed Restriction or Restrictive Covenant on the parcels. The term "subdivided" shall include the process of division of the lots into parcels by means of a plan not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. Notwithstanding this provision, the Planning Board may endorse the relocation of any lot lines when consistent with the intent and purpose of this restriction.
A subsequent Approval Not Required Plan under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81P, shall be filed in order to divide the land as shown on the Plan. Prior to endorsement of the Approval Not Required plan:
- Verification of payment of the back taxes, interest and fees owed to the Town for the land shown on the Approval Not Required plan, if any, is to be provided to the Planning Board through a Municipal Lien Certificate.
- The Approval Not Required Plan shall make reference to this Special Permit, and will reflect Condition No. 13 of the Special Permit with said reference; and
- Evidence of recording of this Special Permit at the Plymouth County Registry District of the Land Court shall be presented to the Planning Board, and the plans shall be recorded with the Special Permit.
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit:
- The Petitioner will return with a plan to become the Approved Plan (the “Plan”) once approved by the Planning Board, and which shall be revised to:
- Detail the conditions of the approval, as needed, including appropriate easements for the common areas for maintenance purposes;
- Demonstrate adequate clearance for an emergency vehicle at the hammerhead turnaround;
- Include roadway improvement plans to pave an 18-foot wide road, submitted with drainage calculations in triplicate for final approval by the Plymouth Planning Board, and shall become part of the Approved Plan;
- Include a construction staging and erosion control and stabilization plan, which 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;
- Five (5) sets of full sized copies of all drawings comprising the Approval Not Required plan and the Approved Plan with one complete set of reproducible plans (mylars) will be delivered to the Planning Board and one (1) electronic copy of the plans shall be delivered in a format acceptable to the Town Engineer.
- An initial deposit in the amount of $2,000 shall be deposited with the Planning Board for retainer of a consultant. The Petitioner shall provide for the costs, if any, for the Town to retain a review consultant on an as-needed basis for review and construction administration services related to the construction of the road improvements, which shall be inspected in stages.
- A Zoning Permit must be issued.
As a condition of the granting of the waivers, light sensitive driveway lamps shall be constructed on the individual building lots within 30 feet of the paved way.
Prior to site grading in preparation for the work conditioned herein, the Petitioner shall provide the Building Commissioner and Planning office with the name and contact information for the individual(s) overseeing the work at the site.
Installation of site stabilization measures as shown on the erosion control and stabilization plan must be performed in a timely manner, and failure to do so shall be reason for the Building Commissioner to issue a cease and desist order until such time as the erosion control and stabilization measures are installed according to said plan.
Minor modifications to the design and location of buildings, parking, landscaping and other site elements may allowed by the Building Commissioner and Planning staff (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:
- A report must be submitted to the Building Commissioner and Planning Board by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying that the drainage system and paving have been installed as shown on the Approved Plans;
- Planning staff shall inspect the property prior to ensure compliance with the conditions of this special permit;
- Concrete bounds shall be set at each lot corner, turning points and every 500 feet along straight property lines; and
- The dedicated open space on the Approved Plan shall be offered to the Town of Plymouth Conservation Commission, with an endowment as noted in the findings above, under the conditions of Article 97.
If after a period of two (2) growing seasons any of the installed landscaping has failed to thrive, the Petitioner shall replace said failing landscaping materials to the satisfaction of the Planning Board.
Tim Grandy, second; the vote was (4-1-0) with Malcolm MacGregor in opposition.
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
1820 Courthouse Update
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
E-mail correspondence from Town Manager dated April 16, 2013
Marc Garrett informed the Board that the Town Manager is moving forward with the RFP process for the feasibility study regarding a potential municipal use of the 1820 Courthouse. The RFP should be completed by April 30, 2013, with responses due by the middle of May with a three month window for findings and Fall Town Meeting action.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that the Urban Land Institute’s recommendations for a public/private project should be pursued.
Lee Hartmann stated that the study will look at whether town hall and the school administration offices would fit in the 1820 Courthouse and how much it would cost to renovate the structure to accommodate the municipal use.
Mr. Garrett suggested that language could be added to the RFP that if there is surplus space there could be other uses.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: To discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation related to B574 – 30 Doten Road RDD, Map 42, Lot 19B-D
In open session, Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to enter into executive session pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 21 in order to discuss strategy with respect to pending litigation regarding B574 – Doten Road RDD; Tim Grandy, 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 not return to open session.
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: May 13, 2013
Administrative Assistant
| 
