May 5, 2014
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 Robin Carver
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes* of April 28, 2014 as presented.
ZBA 3746 – James Doyle and Suzanne Clement
57 Jordan Road, Map 84, Lot 19B-26
Special Permit to waive side setback requirements in order to construct an in-law suite addition
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff report
Letter from Atty. Edward Angley dated April 10, 2014
Easement Plan dated August 17, 2014
Site plan dated October 13, 2014
Engineering Dept. Comments dated April 1, 2014
Locus Map and Site Photographs
Plan dated March 25, 2013, revised through February 16, 2014
The Board recommended approval of ZBA 3746 as outlined in the staff report.
Form A Plans:
The Board determined that the following Form A plan is entitled to endorsement:
A4498* – Town of Plymouth – Airport Commission, Map 97, Lot 10 – Divide to create Lots 10-1 and 10-2 (Lot 10-2 to be conveyed to Piney Wood Cranberry)
Malcolm MacGregor moved to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
ZBA 3744 – MCDE Realty
2240 State Road, Map 54, Lots 14 and 15A
Special Permits to exceed size and to waive location in order to construct and install a permanent identification sign
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
List of Cedarville Pylon Signs
Engineering Dept. Comments dated March 26, 2014
Sign Schematic dated February 26, 2014
Site and area photographs
Pylon Sign Plan dated February 26, 2014
Atty. Edward Angley presented the request for special permits in order to erect a Cape Cod style, 60 sq. ft. - 15 ft. high sign within the setback from a major road. The sign was originally proposed at 100 ft. Atty. Angley noted that the existing signs in the area do not meet the 14 ft. setback requirements. He noted that there is a potential for six tenants in the building and that the sign meets the scale and size for sufficient visibility.
Robin Carver noted that the sign as proposed would be 1 ft. from the right of way of a major road. DPW is supportive of the location of the sign as there are adequate sight lines. Ms. Carver stated that most of the signs in the area are closer to the 20 sq. ft. size requirement with the exception of the signs for Sunoco (54 sq. ft.) and Hedges Pond Crossing (69 sq. ft. with 18 panels for businesses) and most are within the 14 ft. setback.
Tim Grandy noted that the Sunoco sign appeared to be higher than 15 ft. and the Tedeschi sign is 4 ft. 7 in height.
Malcolm MacGregor suggested locating the sign in the corner of the site.
Atty. Angley stated that locating the sign in the corner would decrease visibility.
Paul McAlduff thought the sign was too big for the number of tenants in the building and would prefer to see a smaller sign.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to recommend approval of the proposed location and size of the sign.
Lee Hartmann noted that the Board needed to weigh in on the size of the proposed sign.
Tim Grandy asked if the size of the sign could be reduced to 50 ft.
Marc Garrett agreed with Mr. McAlduff that the sign was too big and too tall for the site and the type of businesses that are there. He noted that the style of the sign was appropriate.
Mr. MacGregor moved to amend his motion to include a reduction in size to 50 sq. ft.; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was (2-2) with Paul McAlduff and Marc Garrett in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Hartmann noted that the vote would include an explanation that although the Board was supportive of the design of the sign, the two dissenting members felt the sign was too large.
ZBA 3745 – Andrea Melville
16 Caswell Lane, Map 12, Lot 62
Appeal of the Building Commissioner’s Findings in ZBA Case 3579 that the building erected at 31 Caswell Lane is inconsistent with and contrary to the special permit granted
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Letter from Mark Flaherty dated April 29, 2014
Letter from Mark Flaherty dated February 24, 2014
e-mail from Paul McAuliffe dated February 26, 2014
Letter from Atty. Robert Kraus dated March 20, 2014
Letter from Atty. Robert Kraus dated February 18, 2014
Board of Appeals decision Case No. 3579
Letter from Paul McAuliffe dated February 24, 2014
Board of Appeals decision Case No. 3579
Site Photographs
Property Record Card
Handout: Filing Packet from Atty. Kraus
Atty. Robert Kraus presented an appeal of the Building Commissioner’s finding that the building under construction at 16 Caswell Lane is not being constructed to the specification of the special permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Case No. 3579. Atty. Kraus handed out a packet of documents he submitted for the appeal. The abutting neighbor at 245 Water Street feels that the plans showed 4 ft. crawl spaces and patios at ground level, not the full basements and elevated decks that are being constructed. The appeal also notes that the design and massing of the structure are not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. She also is experiencing flooding on her property and believes that it is caused by the grading on the site.
Lee Hartmann did not want to minimize the impact to the abutter and stated that he reviewed the plans and the vote. The vote states that the height of the building should not exceed 35 ft. and the engineer has submitted a certification that the building is in keeping with the height requirement. Mr. Hartmann noted that the footprint of the building is what was approved and the building elevations that were proposed at 19 ft. at the west end of the building and 17 ft. at the east end of the building were modified during a field change to allow all the elevations at 18.5 ft. A condition does not exist that prohibits full basements and the plans show elevated decks with stairs. The drainage design was peer reviewed by the Town’s consultant and has been designed in accordance with drainage standards.
Staff feels that the building permit is consistent with the special permit granted by the ZBA. He noted that an appeal of the design and massing of the structure should have been filed during the 21 day appeal period of the 2010 Special Permit.
Atty. Kraus asked if the plans were available for what was approved.
Lee Hartmann stated that he would make them available tomorrow.
Andrea Melville, the applicant, stated that the building doesn’t match what was permitted and she has lost her privacy. The structure is larger than other buildings in the area. Ms. Melville also stated that the grade around the property is higher that what was proposed and rain runs onto her property not into the swale.
Atty. Robert Betters, representing the developers, pointed out that the conditions are what dictates what can be done on the property. The first condition limits the height of the building to less than 35 ft. and the second condition indicates that the plans were approved as submitted and the plans are identified in the findings section. The ZBA file contained the plans as well as a site plan that was submitted by Beals and Thomas that showed the proposed elevations. The plans show the decks at the first floor level. Another condition talks about the architecture and landscaping and notes that “Any changes deemed substantially different by the Building Inspector shall be presented to the Board of Appeals for approval prior to construction or installation”. The changes being discussed now were not
deemed substantial changes by staff.
Mr. Hartmann stated that he would speak to the Building Commissioner regarding the current erosion to the abutting property.
Marc Garrett stated that the first issue of concern is the drainage, second, the 18.5 elevation being different than the 19/17 ft. proposed and the basement issue. He asked Atty. Kraus if the elevation and basement difference were causing the drainage issue. He also asked what the distance from Ms. Melville’s windows to the decks on the construction site.
Atty. Kraus replied that he did not know what the cause of the drainage issue was, but prior to this construction project, there were no drainage issues.
Ms. Melville stated that the back of her garage was approximately 11.5 ft to the new building and her windows were probably two car lengths.
Mr. Garrett noted that the plan showed 36 ft. to the decks, the building height is within the context of the bylaw and the basement vs. crawl space is not an issue as long as it doesn’t exceed the 35 ft. height limit. He also noted that there are always field changes during construction.
Tim Grandy asked to hear from the engineer who drew the plans regarding the drainage and the elevation change.
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty and Stefani, Inc., stated that the grading plan is the same plan that was submitted to the Conservation Commission and the grade at the rear of the building is close to what was proposed, but will be further sloped to the swales once the loom and landscaping is installed. Mr. Flaherty stated that he would be happy to look at any drainage issues. He stated that originally the elevation for two units was 19 ft. and two units were at 17 ft. The Building Commissioner approved 18.5 ft. elevations for all units.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that he would like to visit the site.
The Board agreed to visit the site on Saturday, May 10, 2014 with a set of plans.
Atty. Betters noted that there was a petition filed for a five unit structure on 16 Caswell Lane that was denied by the ZBA. Subsequently a four unit building was approved by the ZBA.
Mr. Hartmann stated that he would review all the filings for 16 Caswell Lane and provide any further information to the Board.
Marc Garrett moved to continue the Planning Board’s review of ZBA case 3745 to May 12, 2014 to allow for a site visit; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
Correspondence: None
Marc Garrett suggested that the reference to Town Meeting should be removed from the Site Plan Guidelines.
The Board agreed.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 8:08 p.m.; Marc Garrett, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted:
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: May 12, 2014
Administrative Assistant
| 
