Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2014
June 9, 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:  Robert Bielen
Staff Members:   Lee Hartmann and Robin Carver
Recording Secretary:  Eileen Hawthorne

Administrative Notes:

Minutes:
        None
                
Appointment:
        B536 – Sherman Woods
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that the developer has been working with Staff to address issues within the subdivision.  

Site Plan Review - Frank C Dunlap Jr
        20 Holman Road/Map 89, Lot 34G-9
        Proposed 60’x125’ warehouse/storage building
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff memo
Letter from Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. dated May 7, 2014
ZBA Decision 2916
Locus Map Site Photographs
Site Plan of 20 Holman Road dated May 6, 2014
Handout:  Revised landscape plan
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. presented the site plan for a proposed one-story, five-bay, 60’x125’ warehouse/storage facility at 20 Holman Road.  The site is located in the Highway Commercial District and the Aquifer Overlay Zone.  The structure would be located at the northern corner of the 6.2 acre site and accessed off Natalie Way.  Parking consists of four exterior spaces with five interior spaces.  An existing 14 space parking area located on the site would handle any overflow needs.  Utilities will include septic systems and Town water.  A 2-6 ft. retaining wall will be constructed along Natalie Way and will have landscaping along the street side.  Mr. Flaherty handed out a revised landscape plan detailing the proposed plantings along Natalie Way.
Robin Carver noted that the Building Commissioner will review each proposed tenant to insure that the use is compatible with the Area 2 Aquifer Protection District.  Ms. Carver stated that the revised landscape plan shows more in depth plantings than the arborvitaes that were originally proposed.  
Marc Garrett stated that the revised landscape plan detailing the variety and numbers of plantings was a great improvement.  
Malcolm MacGregor asked if a floor drain would be required as the project is in an aquifer protection area.
Mr. Flaherty replied that there will be floor drains tied into a tight tank.  
Paul McAlduff was concerned with the access and turning radius for large tractor trailer trucks on the site.  
Mr. Garrett asked if the tight tank will be lined as it might be prudent because the site is in the Aquifer Protection District.  
Mr. Flaherty replied that a lined tight tank is not required, but could be installed.  
Tim Grandy stated that he has installed double walled tanks with an alarm recently.  He asked if the building would be a space metal building.
Mr. Flaherty stated that it most likely would be a space metal building.  
Michael Hatten stated that he spoke to the contractor today and that there is an epoxy coating that is sprayed on the interior of the tank once it is installed.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to notify the Building Commissioner that the plans will comply with the Zoning Bylaw once the following issues are addressed:
The Building Commissioner is to review proposed and any future uses for compliance with the Aquifer Protection District Bylaw.
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; and a registered landscape architect or other qualified licensed professional must certify that the landscaping has been installed; all according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the approved site plan.
Lighting is to comply with the Light Pollution Bylaw. Compliance with the Prevention of Light Pollution Zoning Bylaw must be documented.  Light poles should not exceed 12 feet.
The Town Engineer must approve the drainage design and system.
Marc Garrett, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).  

Form A Plans*:
A4500 – South Meadow Property Trust, Map 97, Lot 5-5 – Divide to create Lots 5-6 and 5-7
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to determine that A4500 was entitled to endorsement; Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).  

ZBA 3749 – 146 Court St. LLC
        146 Court St/Map 14, Lot 2
        Modification of Special Permit 3722 and Special Permit if needed, in order to add a second bedroom to one of the permitted one bedroom apartments and convert the ground floor commercial space to a studio apartment
Staff Report
Fire Dept. Comments dated May 20, 2014
ZBA Decision 3722
Environmental Impact Statement dated August 7, 2013
Locus Map
Architectural Schematics dated March 4, 2014
Atty. John Wyman presented a request to modify a special permit granted in November (No. 3722) in order to convert a one-bedroom unit to a two-bedroom unit and to convert the existing commercial space in the basement to a studio unit.  The reason for the change is a staircase has to be constructed to address code issues.  
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to recommend approval of the modifications to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to all conditions previously approved and the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit:
  • A Zoning Permit must be issued;
  • Evidence of payment of any back taxes owed to the Town, if any, in the form of a  Municipal Lien Certificate, shall be provided to the Building Commissioner;
  • Evidence of recording of this Special Permit at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be presented to the Building Inspector;
  • Construction plans must be submitted to the Plymouth DPW for final review and approval of proposed connections to public water. Construction plans must show adequate detail on the size and material of the proposed water mains and fire service lines, including valves, fittings, hydrants, post indicator valves and other related appurtenances. Locations of existing mains and services must be shown on the plans;
The trash dumpster is not permitted to be moved, it is to stay at its present location.
Marc Garrett, second the vote was unanimous (4-0).  

ZBA 3717 Remand – 137 Court Street LLC
137 Court Street/Map 14, Lot 37
Special Permits subject to EDC in order to create a 15 unit, one bedroom residential structure
Staff Report
Letter from Pare Corporation dated May 28, 2014
Landscape Plan dated April 2014
Engineering Dept. Comments dated June 2, 2014
Letter from Pare Corporation dated February 26, 2014
Remand Memo dated May 30, 2014
Order of Remand dated April 24, 2014
ZBA Decision 3717
Stormwater Management and Design Narrative
Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
Operations & Maintenance Manual
Plans for 137 Court Street dated May 16, 2014
Atty. Robert Betters began the review of modifications to special permits (No. 3717) that was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for 15 one-bedroom rental units at the corner of Murray and Court Streets.  The special permits were appealed to Land Court by neighbors.  The judge remanded the case back to the Town for consideration of the following:
Receive and consider the final drainage design, drainage calculations, and plans for the stormwater management system, as appropriate for the 15-unit residential project at 137 Court Street, Plymouth Massachusetts (“Project”), proposed by the private defendant, 137 Court Street LLC.
Receive and consider the updated site plan for the Project which includes the final drainage design.
Clarify what incidental dimensional and off-street parking regulation waivers are or are not necessary and proper for the development of the Project, other than those specifically enumerated in the Decision, including, without limitation, (a) a waiver of Floor to Area Ratio under the Plymouth Zoning Bylaw, Table 5 in a Transitional Commercial Zoning District, and (b) a waiver from the requirement of Bylaw § 205-23H (1) of a 10-foot landscaped buffer strip between the off-site parking area and the street (near Murray Street), and, if necessary; to vote on those waivers.
Reconsider, generally, the Project, or any version of the same modified through the remand process, and to re-notice and re-open the public hearings on the Project, and to receive and consider any comments made or materials submitted by members of the public.
In the event that the Project is re-approved with all necessary zoning relief for the Project:
  • To state and explain the Board's understanding of its legal authority to grant dimensional waivers by special permit under the Bylaw;
  • To identity the provisions of the Bylaw pursuant to which the Board purports to grant, by special permit, dimensional waivers for the Project;
  • To provide its interpretation of the term "impractical" as employed by the Bylaw, § 205-23(A)(3), as a criterion for the waiver of the off-street parking regulations otherwise contained in Bylaw § 205-23; and
  • To issue all findings necessary for the relief obtained per the provisions of the Bylaw identified by the Board, as part of its remand decision.
In addition to the other matters specified in the Order of Remand, the Board of Appeals must review and address the revised plans and other materials submitted for this Project and waivers from the floor area ratio (FAR) requirement in Table 5 and from Section 205-23H (I), which requires a ten ft. landscaped strip between the on-site parking area and Murray Street.    
Atty. Betters noted that if the mandated one Inclusionary Housing unit (690 sq. ft.) was removed from the calculations, the project would be below the FAR requirements (0.5 FAR is required, 0.522 is proposed).  The dimensional requirements can be modified by the Board in order to accommodate the Inclusionary Housing unit.  The ZBA granted a waiver of the 20 ft. setback requirement between the parking area and the right of way.  The decision did not explain the waiver of the 10 ft. mandated landscape area. He felt that the 10 ft. waiver was implicit with the 20 ft. waiver that was granted as the 20 ft. waiver was more inclusive.  The revised plans show a 10 ft. landscape buffer area.   Atty. Betters noted that Page 7 of the recommendation enumerates the sections of the Bylaw that allow the waivers.       
Scott Dunlap, 137 Court Street LLC and project architect, noted that the exterior elevations have not changed and outlined the changes in the revised plan which include:
A reduction in size of the parking lot; modifications to the grading of the parking lot; increased setbacks on three sides of the project; and additional landscaping.  Along Murray Street, the edge of pavement will be 12 ft. from the property line, with 17 ft. from the edge of paving on Murray Street.  This will allow for additional landscaping and retention of the existing privet hedge.  The east edge of the parking lot has been pulled 10 ft. back from the edge of the property line and the parking lot from the northern property edge has been increased from 5 ft. to 8 ft.  The number of parking spaces has not changed.  The elevation of the parking lot has been lowered due to a change in the design of the stormwater system which also allows for a reduction in the height of the retaining wall from 2.5 ft. to 18 inches.  The entrance off Murray Street has been relocated to maintain 55 ft. from Court Street.  The slope of the entrance will now be less than 2 percent.  The applicant has worked with the Town’s Engineering Department regarding all the changes.   
Lee Hartmann noted that the Planning Board unanimously supported the original petition and the presentation has addressed the clarifications and modifications to the site.  The Town Engineer reviewed the extensive drainage reports and determined that they will comply with all requirements.   He agreed that if the affordable unit was not required, the project would comply with FAR and they would not need the waiver.  He stated that Staff was supportive of the modifications and clarifications as presented.  
Marc Garrett felt that the clarifications and modifications presented were appropriate.  
Tim Grandy asked if any of the appellants were in attendance.
Robert Coulthard, representing all the appellants, explained that they still feel that the project is too dense, the increase in traffic is a safety issue, and the project does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood.  He was also concerned with runoff impacting his own property.  He stated that the remand is because the permits granted were not sufficient, not just for clarification.  He still feels that the project is too dense.
Paul McAlduff asked for clarification on the revised grading of the parking lot.
Mr. Hartmann replied that the grading was originally at 3 percent and the grade has been lowered to 2 percent.  
Mr. McAlduff stated that the project is in line with the Town’s master plan that calls for increased residential development in the Downtown area.  
Malcolm MacGregor asked if there were any similar structures in the area.  
Mr. Hartmann stated that if the project was proposed as five – three bedroom units, there would be a similar density.
Mr. McAlduff stated that this project is comparable to the renovations to the Armory and the former Registry of Deeds.  
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following:
In accordance with the remand, it is recommended that the following findings be made:
Remand Request:
Receive and consider the final drainage design, drainage calculations, and plans for the stormwater management system, as appropriate, for the 15-unit residential project at 137 Court Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts ("Project"), proposed by the private defendant, 137 Court Street, LLC.
Finding:
The final drainage design, drainage calculations, and plans for the stormwater management system, have been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer as in compliance with Town requirements and appropriate for this site.
Remand Request:
Receive and consider the updated site plan for the Project, which includes the final drainage design.
Finding:
The final site plans have been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer as in compliance with Town requirements and appropriate for this site.
Finding:
Clarify what incidental dimensional and off-street parking regulation waivers are or are not necessary and proper for the development of the Project, other than those specifically enumerated in the Decision, including, without limitation, (a) a waiver of Floor to Area Ratio under the Plymouth Zoning Bylaw, Table 5 in a Transitional Commercial Zoning District, and (b) a waiver from the requirement of Bylaw 5 205-23H (1) of a 10-foot landscaped buffer strip between the off-site parking area and the street (near Murray Street), and, if necessary; to vote on those waivers.
Finding:
Note: the revised plans comply with Section 205-23(H) (1) for a 10 foot strip of landscaping.  A waiver of Section 205-23 (E) for a 20 foot setback from Murray Street was granted in the original Decision in Case No. 3717.
A waiver of Floor to Area Ratio from 0.5 to 0.552 (a 10% increase) is acceptable and actually necessary to meet the Town requirement that 10% of the units be deed restricted as affordable under Section 205-71, Paragraph C1 of the Bylaw, for Inclusionary Housing.  One 690 square foot affordable unit represents a FAR increase of 0.06, slightly more than the 0.052 increase requested.  This waiver should be specifically addressed by the Board of Appeals.
Similarly, the requirement for 1.3 additional parking spaces for the affordable unit necessitates the need for and increased parking area, and thus a reduction in the 20-foot landscaped setback area between the off-site parking area and Murray Street and is therefore acceptable.
Remand Request:
Reconsider generally, the Project, or any version of the same modified through the remand process, and to re-notice and re-open the public hearings on the Project, and to receive and consider any comments made or materials submitted by members of the public.
Response:
Self explanatory.
Remand Request:
In the event that the Project is re-approved with all necessary zoning relief for the Project:
  • To state and explain the Board's understanding of its legal authority to grant dimensional waivers by special permit under the Bylaw;
  • To identity the provisions of the Bylaw pursuant to which the Board purports to grant, by special permit, dimensional waivers for the Project;
  • To provide its interpretation of the term "impractical" as employed by the Bylaw, 5 205-23(A)(3), as a criterion for the waiver of the off-street parking regulations otherwise contained in Bylaw 5 205-23; and
  • To issue all findings necessary for the relief obtained per the provisions of the Bylaw identified by the Board, as part of its remand decision.
Response:
The following sections of the Bylaw clearly give the Board of Appeals the ability to grant dimensional waivers.
Section 205-3 Definitions, of the Bylaw states:
“SPECIAL PERMIT — A permit which may be issued by the special permit granting authority to authorize a use which would not be allowed generally or without restriction throughout any particular zoning district but which, if controlled as to number, area, location, relation to the neighborhood and other characteristics, would not be injurious to the public health, safety, welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, prosperity, or general welfare. A special permit is not a variance but may include a waiver of dimensional and similar requirements incidental to the special permit (emphasis added).”
Section 205-9(C) (6), Environmental Design Conditions states:
“Modification of criteria for excellence of design. The environmental design conditions described herein embody the basic goals of the Zoning Bylaw. They are intended to minimize the possibility of poor design and site planning and therefore to ensure that the character of specific developments is, in fact, consistent with the overall development objectives of the Town and the particular neighborhood. These principles are intended as general tools for use by the Board of Appeals and Planning Board in reviewing projects and are not to be seen as inflexible standards. These guidelines are not to be applied in a manner which will place undue restraints upon the design of a project because of unforeseen conditions peculiar to such project. If a particular development is proposed which departs from the general criteria in basic concept or in detail, the Board of Appeals may waive or modify the general criteria upon a demonstration that the proposed design is of high standards and that any departures from the general criteria will not violate the intent of the Zoning Bylaw or the environmental design conditions (emphasis added).”
Section 205-27(A)(1) states:
“All uses authorized under this bylaw by special permit shall conform to all minimum lot, yard, setback and open space requirements of the district in which they are proposed and all maximum bulk, height and coverage requirements of the district in which they are proposed and shall provide parking and loading space in accordance with §§ 205-23 and 205-24 as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals, except as specifically noted herein or as required by the Board of Appeals (emphasis added).”
Section 205-71(C)(4) (a) Inclusionary Housing states:
“The Special Permit Granting Authority shall have the authority as part of the Special Permit provided in this Section to waive the dimensional, intensity and other applicable regulations of the Bylaw to implement the creation of the Affordable Units required herein (emphasis added).”
Section 205-23(A)(3) states:
“The Board of Appeals may… grant a special permit making such modifications in the standards or prescribe safeguards and conditions as it shall warrant appropriate, provided that it finds that it is impractical to meet the standards and that such modifications are appropriate by reason of the proposed use and will not result in or worsen parking or traffic problems in the district.”
Merriam Webster defines impractical as “not easy to do or use” or “not suitable for the situation.”
It is recommended that the Board of Appeals finds that:
  • The requested waivers are minor and incidental to the proposed use.  It is impractical to meet the 20 foot setback from Murray Street required by Section 205-23E of the Bylaw, as it is more critical to satisfy the required number of off-street parking spaces and provide adequate and safe access and turning radii for fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles.  
  • The proposed design is of high standards and the granting of such minor waivers will not violate the intent of the Bylaw
  • The waivers are necessary to implement the creation of the required Affordable Unit.
  • In light of the required affordable unit and the nature of the Transitional Commercial Zone (transitioning to higher intensity commercial uses), the requirements for a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 and a 20 foot parking area set back are impractical and are not suitable for this proposed use.
CONDITIONS:
  • The Petitioner shall satisfy the requirements of Section 205-71 with respect to Inclusionary Housing by constructing one affordable unit on site as part of the Project, or offer a suitable alternative as outlined in the Bylaw under this Section, and in the event of such alternative, enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with the Town of Plymouth, which shall be subject to approval by the Board of Appeals and which shall be presented to the Building Commissioner.  
If the Petitioner constructs the one affordable unit, the Petitioner shall file a complete (as deemed by the state) LIP application with the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD).  By filing a completed LIP application, the Petitioner shall satisfy Section 205-71.
2.      Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit:
  • Adequate static pressure and fire flow testing results for the project (as performed through the DPW Water Division or its designee), or a written confirmation that the test is not needed from the Water Division, shall be submitted to the Building Commissioner;
  • The construction apron shall be paved;
  • Evidence of payment of any back taxes owed to the Town, if any, in the form of a  Municipal Lien Certificate, shall be provided to the Building Commissioner;
  • Evidence of recording of this Special Permit and plan at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds shall be presented to the Building Commissioner;
  • A Street Opening Permit from DPW is required for all projects involving a street opening, whether or not Town utilities are involved in the reason for the street opening;
  • A curb cut permit from DPW is required for all new curb cuts on a public street; including from Mass Highway if located on a State-owned road;
  • Construction plans must be submitted to the Plymouth DPW for final review and approval of proposed connections to public water. Construction plans must show adequate detail on the size and material of the proposed water mains and fire service lines, including valves, fittings, hydrants, post indicator valves and other related appurtenances. Locations of existing mains and services must be shown on the plans;
  • Construction plans shall include a submittal of wastewater flow calculations to the Plymouth DPW for review and approval, and construction plans must be submitted to the Plymouth DPW for final review and approval of the proposed public sewer connection.  Construction plans must show adequate detail on the size and material of the proposed sewers, including service laterals, cleanouts and manholes.  Locations of existing mains and services must be shown on the plans; and
  • A Zoning Permit must be issued.
  • Prior to site grading in preparation for the work conditioned herein, the Petitioner shall provide the Building Commissioner 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.
  • The project is subject to the Prevention of Light Pollution Section 205-65 of the Zoning Bylaw and compliance must be documented.
  • Minor modifications to the design and location of buildings, parking, landscaping and other site elements may be allowed by the Building Commissioner (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:
  • An as-built plan shall be submitted to the Building Commissioner which show field conditions of the finished parking area and parking entrance with respect to slope and finished grades, and said plan shall be accompanied by a certification from the Design Engineer that the driveway platform/pitch is within standard engineering practices;
  • A Registered Landscape Architect or other qualified licensed professional must certify to the Building Commissioner that the required landscaping has been installed substantially in accordance with the approved site plan and Bylaw;
  • A report must be submitted to the Building Commissioner by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying that the drainage system, drive ways, curbing, and parking areas according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Bylaw and approved site plan;
  • Satisfactory completion of any curb cut improvements constructed by the Petitioner, including repair of any damaged monuments or benchmarks as noted on the plans if located in the vicinity of the proposed work, shall be performed by the Petitioner.
  • Off-site drainage or parking improvements, as shown on the approved plans, if any, shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and the Building Commissioner;
  • All requirements of the Town Water Department with respect to water connections shall be satisfied; and
  • All requirements of the Town Sewer Department with respect to sewer connections shall be satisfied.
  • 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 Building Commissioner.
Marc Garrett, second; the vote was unanimous (4-0).  

Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
The Board approved and endorsed the following documents:
B582 – Island Pond/Arbor Hill Estates – Covenant
Thank you letters for past service of committee members
The Board discussed a disturbance of a required buffer on Old Sandwich Road.  
Mr. Hartmann stated that a letter was sent to the home owner.
The Board suggested that notification of the violation should also be sent to the subdivision’s homeowner association.  

Tim Grandy moved for the Board to adjourn at 8:00 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:  June 9, 2014
Administrative Assistant