10/28/13
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
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
October 7, 2013
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to approve the minutes* of October 7, 2013 as presented; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to determine that the following Form A plans were entitled to endorsement once the note on A4480 was changed to reflect that parcel 29-55 was unbuildable and was to be conveyed to the owner of lot 29-8A:
A4478* – Colburn C Wood Jr Trust 2012, Black Cat Road, Map 90, Lots 18-1, 19, 20-3, and 22B and Map 98, Lot 103-19A – Create lots 18-2 and 20-4
A4479* – Dunham Road Property Nominee and Wendy Siwik, Dunham Road, Map 98, Lots 11-1 and 14-1 – Lot line adjustment to create lots 11-2 and 14-2
A4480* – W. Bruce Livingston, Silent Spring Way/Little Sandy Pond Road, Map 59, Lot 29-48 – Divide to create lots 29-55 (unbuildable, to be conveyed to abutter for septic improvements) and 29-56
Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Lot Releases:
B437 – Pinehills LLC
Lot 10-537 – Summerhouse Drive and Lot 10-548 – Painted Cottage
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to approve the release* of Lot 10-537 and Lot 10-548; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was (4-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.
B562 – Village at South Street (a.k.a. Oak Hollow)
Lot 62D-22 for model home
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to approve the release* of Lot 62D-22; Marc Garrett, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Presentation - Atty. Robert Betters
Plymouth Education Foundation
Atty. Robert Betters presented an update on the activities of the Plymouth Education Foundation. The Foundation is a non-profit organization that works to enhance the education of all students and citizens in the Plymouth school district. The purpose of the Foundation is to solicit, manage and distribute funds for educational purposes and activities that are not funded by the schools. The Foundation has the following goals: to encourage academic excellence, to promote community awareness and education of the Foundation and to support lifelong learning and to ensure the perpetuity of the Foundation with an endowment fund. The Foundation works with other organizations and individuals in the town to provide instructional and educational grants, scholarships, professional enrichment and educational tools. The
Foundation has raised in excess of $160,000 with $25,000 to $30,000 being distributed to various grant programs. The Foundation is moving forward with fund raising events including a Valentine’s Gala on February 8, 2014. The Foundation is seeking individuals interested in serving on the Board or volunteers to work on various programs and projects. There is an application on the Foundation’s website for those interested in receiving funding. The applications are due May 1 and November 1 of every year. Donations may also be made on the website: www.plymoutheducationfoundation.org.
Conceptual Review – Atty. Robert Betters
Copper Cove
Southern Dunes LLC – Water Street Plymouth
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Letter from Withington and Betters dated October 22, 2013
Elevation Drawings
Conceptual Site Layout, Alt. 4 dated October 11, 2013
Site Photos and Schematic Details dated September 5, 2013
Comparison of 2006 project with 2013 project
Board of Appeals Decision Case No. 3379
Site/Unit Plan dated August 7, 2006
Elevation Drawings dated July 24, 2006
Handout:
Zoning, Open Space, & Off Site Photo Inventory Packet dated October 28, 2013
Attorney Robert Betters presented a conceptual plan for a project that was previously granted a special permit in 2006 and has subsequently expired. The original special permit created 30 two-bedroom units on the site at the corner of Lothrop and Water Streets. The conceptual plans show 45 smaller units with a mixture of one and two bedroom layouts. The project will include 4 affordable units on site instead of the “payment in lieu of” that was originally approved. Improvements will be made to the former rail line at the rear of the project. The Conservation agent has indicated that permeable pavers would not be appropriate for the parking areas, but could be used for sidewalks and walking paths.
Jon Henson, Landscape Architect, presented the proposed site and landscaping plans. The proposal includes 45 residential units consisting of 35 two bedroom units and 10 one bedroom units in three structures with a combination of instructure parking and 59 outdoor parking spaces. There will be two 22 ft. wide access/egress drives to allow for two vehicle passage. A step up from Water Street will include two 3ft. retaining walls with seating areas. There will be a central courtyard area for passive recreation, and the decks and patios will face Water Street. The Police and Fire Departments have reviewed the conceptual plan for adequate emergency access.
Lee Hartmann reviewed the history of the site including the removal of a building in poor condition and the removal of hazardous materials. Mr. Hartmann noted that the unit count has increased by 15 units and the conceptual plan is trading building footprint on the site for massing and height. The project will require review under the formal special permit process with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Marc Garrett stated that he was supportive of the concept. Mr. Garrett noted a concern with a sheen coming off the site and suggested that the proponent walk the site to see if there are any issues.
Atty. Betters explained that the site was a Brownfield site that was cleaned up when it was held by the Redevelopment Authority. There was a covenant to protect any future ownership.
Mr. Garrett requested that in future reviews of the project, more detail regarding front façade, streetscape, building height and structured parking be provided. He was supportive of using the pervious pavers on the walkways.
Tim Grandy stated that the previous proposal was 32 units with either a payment of $600,000 in lieu of affordable housing on site or 3 onsite affordable housing units and the current proposal is for four affordable units on site. He was concerned that there was only one affordable unit added when the unit count has increased to 45. He encouraged the proponents to provide an additional affordable unit. Mr. Grandy asked if the proponents were working with architects and civil engineers on this project.
Mr. Henson replied that the proposed plans have been a collaborative effort with architects, engineers, and with Sid Kashi and Jonathan Beder from the Town’s Department of Public Works.
Mr. Grandy asked what the height of the proposed buildings would be. He noted that the previous approval had site improvement and traffic mitigation funding of $10,000 which should be updated to reflect today’s costs.
Mr. Henson stated that with the pitched roofs, the buildings would be 2 ft. 9 in. above the 35 ft. height limits, but that they are still exploring options that may comply with the Town’s height requirements.
Bill Wennerberg commented that he had no issues with the proposed density, but had some concerns with the height and scale within the surrounding area. Mr. Wennerberg requested that detailed elevations be provided during the formal review process.
Malcolm MacGregor asked how the elevation of the lowest point fits in with the flood elevations. Mr. MacGregor was supportive of the conceptual design with the pitched roof line.
Mr. Henson replied that the current flood elevation is 10 ft. and the proposed building elevation is 14 ft.
Ken Buechs noted that the project would be a welcome addition to Water Street.
Paul McAlduff felt that the current proposal was a great improvement over the previous submission.
The Board looks forward to further review of the project.
Conceptual Review – Atty. Donald Correa
Dublin Drive
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Memo
Excerpt from the minutes of September 26, 2005
Plan of Land dated August 12, 2013
Grading and Utilities Plan
Handout:
Letter from Abutters dated September 30, 2013
Lot layout plan dated October 8, 2013
Plan of Land dated October 8, 2013
Atty. Donald Correa began the presentation for a proposed Village Open Space Development (VOSD) on Dublin Drive. Atty. Correa noted that the plans have been reviewed by the Cedarville Steering Committee. The options detailed a five unit development with open space (two duplexes and a single family) and a “by-right” plan.
Steve Kotowski, Webby Engineering, presented the “by-right” plan showing a mixture of single family and multiple dwelling units on three lots with two duplex structures on lots of over 30,000 sq. ft. and a single family dwelling on a lot consisting of 24,630 sq. ft. The VOSD plan showed five single family lots varying in size from 6,382 sq. ft. to 9,110 sq. ft. with 49,930 sq. ft. of open space. The units would have individual septic systems.
Lee Hartmann noted that the last time the Board reviewed the conceptual plans they requested that the plans be presented to the Steering Committee. Mr. Hartmann stated that the single family dwellings were preferable to the duplexes and single family dwellings.
Marc Garrett asked what the square footage of the open space is on the as-of-right plan.
Mr. Kotowski replied that the total open space would be approximately 20,000 sq. ft.
Tim Grandy stated that the permanently protected open space should be delineated with concrete bounds and clearly marked.
Malcolm MacGregor noted that the Conservation setbacks are not 25 ft, they are 50 ft. He stated that the homeowner’s would not have much of a yard. Mr. MacGregor was not comfortable moving forward with the plans unless there was a bond.
Mr. Kotowski stated that the 50 ft. no building line was shown and they are respecting that.
Bill Wennerberg felt that the plans did not qualify for a VOSD special permit.
Paul McAlduff expressed a concern with the delineation of the wetlands.
Mr. Kotowski stated that the last delineation was done in 2006 and may need to be updated.
Mr. McAlduff read a letter of concern that was submitted by abutters requesting that the proponent not use Janet Street or Nameloc Road for truck traffic.
Mr. Garrett requested that future plans show the topography of the site.
Atty. Correa summarized that he could submit a Form A plan for the “by-right” lots, but the VOSD is an option that is more compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that he would present the plans to the Conservation Commission regarding the wetlands. He also noted that he is only interested in obtaining the necessary permits and then plans on selling the property.
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
1820 Courthouse Update
Lee Hartmann noted that the next 1820 Courthouse meeting on November 13, 2013 will include a presentation of financing and impacts.
Correspondence:
Letter of Support – Mayflower II Restoration
Malcolm MacGregor moved to for the Board to endorse a letter of support for the Mayflower II Restoration; Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Letter from Blue Wave Capital Re: Solar Project – Raffaele Road
The above-mentioned letter was informational only regarding a proposed donation to the Conservation Commission.
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.; Bill Wennerberg, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted:
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: November 18, 2013
Administrative Assistant
| 
