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, and Malcolm MacGregor
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
April 29, 2013*
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to approve the minutes of April 29, 2013 as presented; Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Site Plan Review – Home for Little Wanderers
894-912 Ship Pond Road, Map 68, Lot 9A
Construction of new education building
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
e-mail from Michael Whitmore dated May 15, 2013
Building square footage table
Locus Map
Site Plan dated April 22, 2013
Building Elevations
Michael Whitmore, Roundel 47 Architects, presented an aerial view of the site showing a number of existing structures on the Home for Little Wanderers (a.k.a. Baird Center) property that have been previously renovated. A single, 4285 sq. ft. educational facility containing five classrooms will be constructed centrally on the site and replace two buildings that total 3,454 sq. ft. The single story building will have a varied roofline and the façade will be covered in cedar shingles. Construction will comply with stretch code guidelines and exterior lighting will comply with the dark sky bylaw.
Valerie Massard noted that the property is a non-profit child and family service agency which is exempt from zoning. The total building square footage comprises approximately 2 percent lot coverage.
Ken Spink, 68 Timberlane, was concerned with the word “proposed” as a previous building was constructed too close to his property line. He wanted assurance that the building would be constructed in the location that was shown on the plan.
Mr. Whitmore stated that they are committed to the location shown on the plan.
Ms. Massard noted that the Planning Board would be making a recommendation to the Building Commissioner that references the plan being presented. She also stated that she would notify Mr. Spink if there were any changes. Ms. Massard also noted that site plan review does not require public notice.
Lynda Garrity, 58 Timberlane, stated she was never notified of the dormitory building that was built near her property line. Ms. Garrity cited several incidents of inappropriate behavior of residents from the Home for Little Wanderers that have affected the nearby neighborhood. She stated that the facility has an open door policy and would not install fencing to contain the residents. Ms. Garrity stated that the line of communication between the neighbors and the facility needs to remain open. She asked if there would be an increase in the number of students serviced by the facility.
Kate Brosnan, Program Director, stated that the facility is licensed for 38 residential students and 24 day students and that will not change.
Lee Hartmann suggested that the facility should work together with the neighbors.
Marc Garrett was concerned that the two uses are incompatible and the facility should be at the minimum a physical barrier to protect the neighborhood.
Mr. Whitmore stated that several evergreens were planted to screen the sight lines of the dormitory and for noise mitigation. He also stated that the boys programming in that building has been relocated to another building on the site. He agreed that there should be communication between the neighborhood and the facility.
Paul McAlduff recommended working with the abutters.
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to notify the Building Commissioner that the site plan complies with zoning subject to the conditions in the staff report and with an added condition requiring vinyl coated chain link fencing that has protective edges; Malcolm MacGregor, second.
Mr. Garrett clarified his motion as follows:
For the Board to notify the Building Commissioner that the site plan will comply with the reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements after the following issues are addressed:
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit a Registered Professional Engineer must certify that the drainage system, drive ways, curbing and parking areas have been installed according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the approved site plan.
Compliance with ADA requirements must be documented.
The Applicant has agreed to voluntarily comply with the Prevention of Light Pollution Section of the Bylaw.
The Applicant is strongly encouraged to engage with the residents to construct a mutually agreeable physical barrier between the facility and the residents living at the end of Timberlane on abutting land to the southwest, in the interest of public safety, based on public comment received at the Planning Board meeting.
The vote was unanimous (4-0).
Conceptual Review – Garland Holding Co. LLC
Off Bourne Road, Map 129, Lots 10A and 11
Rural Density Development (RDD) for 27 residential lots with open space
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Locus Maps
Conceptual Conventional Subdivision Plan dated April 12, 2013
Conceptual RDD Subdivision Plan “A” dated April 25, 2013
Conceptual RDD Subdivision Plan “B” dated April 25, 2013
Conceptual RDD Subdivision Plan “C” dated April 29, 2013
Handout: Assessors Map 129
Atty. Robert Betters began a presentation of a conceptual review for a Rural Density Development (RDD) subdivision. They would like the Board’s input before filing.
Richard Tabaczynski, P.E., Atlantic Design Engineers, handed out an Assessors Map with the property outlined. The property is located near the Bourne/Plymouth town line and is in the RR zone. The wetlands have been flagged and the property is being surveyed. A conventional subdivision plan shows an allowable density showing 28 residential lots with provisions for drainage, roads and emergency access. Mr. Tabaczynksi presented at great length three RDD options. All three options show thirty lots (two inclusionary housing) with three lots with a 100 ft. buffer along Bourne Road that can be divided through the Approval Not Required (ANR) process and two curb cuts onto Bourne Road. The options are as follows:
A. A common driveway for the two southerly ANR lots, with access for the remaining ANR lot off a 1900 linear feet roadway with a 400 ft. cul-de-sac; lot sizes ranging from approximately 20,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft., flanking the roadways with 90-100 ft. of frontage; a 30 ft. wide emergency access looping behind the westerly lots back to the proposed roadway; and 67 acres of open space.
B. A common driveway for the two southerly ANR lots, with access for the remaining ANR lot off a single, 1,800 ft. roadway with lots of varying frontage on the western side and staggering behind lots with wider frontage on the roadway; a 30 ft. wide emergency access looping behind the westerly lots back to the proposed roadway; and 64 acres of open space.
C. A single driveway for the southern most ANR lot; driveways off the proposed 1,800 ft. roadway for the two other ANR lots; lots of varying frontage with some staggering behind lots with wider frontage on the roadway; a 30 ft. wide emergency access from the southeastern side of the roadway out to Bourne Road; and 64 acres of open space.
The site is not serviced by Town water or sewer; is in the Buzzards Bay watershed; and will require a DEP permit.
Valerie Massard noted that a portion of the property is under Chapter 61 – Forestry, and if developed will be subject to a right of first refusal by the Town. She stated that the developer would like to create the Form A lots prior to developing the remainder of the subdivision. The lots along Bourne Road require 200 ft. of frontage as it is classified as a major street. The property is at the southern town line next to the Mann cranberry bogs; is near the “1,000 acres”; and is not within Natural Heritage or Zone 2. The key issue is the emergency access road. The proposed emergency access running behind the residential lots back out to the roadway doesn’t work in terms of maintenance and the topography would make it difficult to create a “U” shape. Ms. Massard agreed
that the yield of 28 with an additional 2 units for inclusionary housing was appropriate.
Tim Grandy asked where the location of the land that is held under Chapter 61 was on the site and if the Nye Reservoir was owned by the Town. He suggested using low nitrogen loading septic systems. Mr. Grandy stated that the emergency access in Option C was more favorable. He noted that the section of Bourne Road in the area of the proposed development has no layout or drainage. It is used and maintained by the Town. He asked if there were any existing trails on the property.
Mr. Tabaczynksi replied that they have not determined the location of the Chapter 61 land and that there are a number of dirt roads and trails that exist on the property but may not be part of a public trail system or tied to any system. The Nye Reservoir and Weeks Pond are part of the Mann property.
Lee Hartmann suggested looking at the possibility of a trail system.
Marc Garrett suggested looking at groundwater mounding/draw down based on each concept. He was concerned with the hydrological and wetland impacts.
Mr. Tabaczynksi replied that the DEP permit process and the Board of Health will address the hydrological and nitrogen loading issues.
Malcolm MacGregor asked what the status of the property to the southeast was. Mr. MacGregor suggested that the topography of the land merited further design consideration; that recreational facilities should be provided; and that the layout of Bourne Road should be wide enough to include provisions for bicycle and pedestrian use.
Mr. Tabaczynski replied that the property is an open space lot but is not conservation land.
Paul McAlduff stated that he preferred option C with a potential to eliminate the emergency access easement. Mr. McAlduff suggested relocating some of the lots to fit in better with the topography of the site.
The Board looks forward to further conceptual or formal review of the proposed RDD.
Conceptual Review – 500 Colony Place LLC
500 Colony Place, Map 104, Lot 26-9
Re-use of Sam’s Club site for automobile dealerships
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Locus Map
Schematic Conceptual Drawings
Site Layout Plan (page 2 of 2) dated April 15, 2013
Architectural Site Plan dated April 29, 2013
Floor Plan dated April 26, 2013
Atty. Robert Betters reviewed the history of the Sam’s Club site which was purchased by the current owner in 2010. The site was on the market for an extended period of time for retail use, but was not successful. Town meeting adopted an aquifer protection bylaw and rezoned the area to allow for new car dealerships by special permit. The original concept was to utilize the existing building for car dealerships, but it was determined that the best option would be to demolish the existing building and redevelop for three separate automobile dealerships with associated parking and vehicle storage. The traffic projections for automobile dealerships are less than the previous retail/warehouse use. The location of the proposed new buildings will have less of an impact on the adjacent residential homes and will abut
property in Kingston owned by the Wildlands Trust.
Marc Garrett noted that the original concept showed the existing building used for three car dealerships. Mr. Garrett asked if there were any users identified yet.
Atty. Betters stated that Mazda has been identified for one of the dealerships.
Richard Tabaczynski, Atlantic Design Engineers, presented the existing condition plan showing a 15.7 acre site with a 137,811 sq. ft. building, 704 parking spaces with landscaped islands, drainage and utilities. The concept plan showed three separate buildings to the rear of the property with a 30,800 sq. ft. building for the Mazda dealership and two 25,000 sq. ft. buildings for other dealers. The concept plan showed 1,100 parking spaces for employees, customers, vehicles being serviced and new/used vehicle storage. A management plan for hazardous materials on site will be provided and a long-term monitoring program will include several monitoring wells.
Malcolm MacGregor was supportive of the use as long as it has adequate buffering. He suggested that it would be a great location for solar panels over all the parking.
Marc Garrett felt that the proposed parking was excessive for three buildings. He agreed that an alternative use such as solar panels or a broader pervious area for water infiltration would be appropriate.
Tim Grandy agreed that the parking fields needed to be broken up a little more with landscaping. Mr. Grandy asked if there would be interior storage of vehicles.
Mr. Tabaczynski stated that there would be display vehicles inside the buildings as well as an area for servicing vehicles.
Ken Buechs asked if there would be any additional parking spaces off site.
Mr. Tabaczynski replied that the layout shows 1,100 spaces which should be sufficient to store all vehicles on site. There are not plans for satellite vehicle storage.
Paul McAlduff reminded the representatives that the plans would need to be presented to the Steering Committees.
ZBA 3712 – Ecolaw for Appellants
600 Rocky Hill Road, Map 44, Lot 1B
Appeal of the Dept. of Inspectional Services March 27, 2013 granting of Zoning Permit #Z20130196 and the denial of Ecolaw’s March 25, 2013 request for enforcement
Staff Report
Zoning Application 40571
Letter from Ecolaw dated April 25, 2013
Handout: Presentation Information with appendices from Ecolaw
Atty. James Lampert, representing Ecolaw, reviewed the appeal of the Building Commissioner’s zoning approval and denial of a request for enforcement for a dry cask storage facility (a.k.a. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation – ISFSI) on property owned by Entergy, located at 600 Rocky Hill Road. The facility will be used to store up to 6,000 spent fuel rods. Ecolaw believes that the project should have required review under the special permit process and not be considered an accessory use to the existing nuclear power generating plant that was the subject of a special permit granted in 1967.
Lee Hartmann stated that staff and the Building Commissioner consider that spent fuel rod storage is an accessory use to the existing nuclear power generating plant and that the rods have to be stored on site until the Federal government provides an alternative. The use has existed for 40 years and will continue. The storage of the rods is already a permitted use on the site and therefore, a secondary storage structure can be considered accessory. Mr. Hartmann stated that staff recommends upholding the Building Commissioner’s decisions.
Atty. Lampert did not agree that an outside storage structure was an allowed use.
Atty Lawrence Winokur, representing Entergy, stated that there is a fundamental difference of opinion. Atty. Winokur stated that the actions by the Building Commissioner were appropriate as the use has been in effect since 1967. He felt that the dry cask storage is a valid, subordinate accessory use to the main use and does not require a special permit. He noted that there are over 500 dry cask storage facilities throughout the world and they are more stable than the existing interior pool storage. He stated that the Federal government has been mandated to provide spent fuel rod storage by the year 2025.
Atty. Richard Latimer, Falmouth Planning Board, stressed to the Planning Board that their role was to review projects for consistency with the language and application of the Zoning Bylaw. He stated that the pools were meant to be temporary storage areas with the Federal government providing permanent storage elsewhere. Atty. Latimer did not believe that the dry cask storage was an accessory use and therefore should require a special permit. He stated that once the nuclear plant is gone, the dry cask storage will become the primary use for the site and it will be a nuclear waste dump. He stated that the Planner is doing a disservice to the Board and the citizens of the Town.
Lee Hartmann: Woah, Woah, Woah.
Paul McAlduff asked Atty. Latimer to keep his comments to the subject and not to be disrespectful to the Board and staff.
Atty. Latimer apologized for being disrespectful.
Atty. Theodore Bosen, representing Appellant Diane Buckbee, stated that dry cask storage is not an accessory use and should require a special permit.
Marc Garrett asked if dry cask storage is generally considered more secure storage than the existing storage pools.
Atty. Lampert replied that was true.
Atty. Latimer started to reply to the same question and after repeated interruptions, Mr. Garrett emphatically demanded him to “Stop jousting with me.”
Mr. Garrett asked Atty. Latimer if he stated that nuclear power plants have been storing rods in pools with the intention to store them in dry cask facilities prior to transferring them off site to a designated site.
Atty. Latimer replied yes.
Mr. Garrett commented that he reviewed the zoning application which does not indicate that the dry cask storage proposed by Entergy is intended to be permanent and if they could move it off site, they would.
David Tarantino, a consultant for Entergy, stated that the Federal government was supposed to dispose of the fuel, until then it has to be stored on site.
Mr. Garrett stated that the intention to move the spent fuel rods off site is not being fulfilled because the Federal government has not provided a repository and from a zoning perspective, the dry cask storage is considered more secure than the pool storage.
Tim Grandy suggested that Entergy should meet with the Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, Town Manager, etc to discuss storage options. Mr. Grandy noted that the original special permit for the nuclear power generation plan did not allow outside storage of “supplies”. He felt that Entergy should apply for an amendment to the original special permit.
Mr. Tarantino stated that they have met with the Town Manager and the Police and Fire Chiefs and the new plant leadership will be introduced to Board of Selectmen in the near future.
Malcolm MacGregor agreed that the special permit process would be appropriate for the proposed dry cask storage. He was concerned with geological events that may disturb the site.
Ken Buechs stated that he did not believe the spent fuel rods would ever move from the site and that the special permit should be amended.
Lee Hartmann stated that if the special permit process is required the Town will have to use Federal guidelines.
Paul McAlduff agreed that dry cask storage is the safest solution available at this time.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals not support the Director of Inspectional Services’ decision as geological events may have impacts that could effect or be related to moving spent fuel rods from inside the existing facility to an outside storage facility; Tim Grandy, second.
Mr. Garrett and Mr. McAlduff support the Director of Inspectional Services’ decision for the reasons noted above.
The vote was (2-2-0) with Marc Garrett and Paul McAlduff in opposition.
Lee Hartmann stated that the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals would detail both views of the Planning Board. The Board was in agreement.
Discussion:
Zoning Bylaw Revision Process
including update on Medical Marijuana changes
Zoning Bylaw Process Outline dated February 19, 2013
Lee Hartmann stated that the $80,000 appropriated at Town Meeting for revision of the Zoning Bylaw will become available on July 1, 2013. Mr. Hartmann presented an outline of how to move forward with the process. He stated that staff has already completed a zoning bylaw critique. He suggested using Town Counsel for legal review and hiring a planning firm to review prior to a public process. He also suggested having a small group of people involved in reviewing the revisions. Mr. Hartmann asked if two Board members would be available to meet with staff and prospective planning firms to select the firm.
Malcolm MacGregor and Marc Garrett volunteered.
Medical Marijuana Discussion
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that he attended a staff meeting today with the Town Manager, Board of Health Director, Building Commissioner and Police Chief to discuss potential locations for dispensing facilities for medical marijuana. Only 1-5 dispensing facility per County are allowed. They looked at zoning for General Commercial, Village Centers, Downtown Harbor District, Light Industrial, Airport, Light Industrial/Waterfront and Highway Commercial as areas where a facility would be an allowed use. If someone can prove a hardship to the State, it can be grown at home which can’t be regulated. They recommend looking at the allowed use zones and state regulations for potential locations.
Marc Garrett was concerned that until the State has completed their regulations, it would be premature for the Town to make any determinations as to location. The Board agreed.
Other Business
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
1820 Courthouse Update
Lee Hartmann noted that five groups have submitted proposals for the 1820 Courthouse municipal use report.
Paul McAlduff informed the Board that the Parking Committee is moving forward with plans for a proposed downtown garage behind Memorial Hall.
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted:
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: June 3, 2013
Administrative Assistant
| 
