July 14, 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, Malcolm MacGregor, and Ken Buechs
Planning Board Alternate: Robert Bielen
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Robin Carver
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
The Board approved the minutes* of June 30, 2014 as presented.
The Board endorsed the release of covenant* for lots A-257, A-258, A-259, S-260 and S-212 in the Chadwick Corner neighborhood of B437 – Pinehills Development.
The Board endorsed the covenant* and mylars for B543 – AD Makepeace – Use Area 1 Definitive Plan. The Board also endorsed a Tri-Party Agreement* and Lot Release*. The Lot Release will be held until the full execution of the Tri-Party Agreement is completed.
Form A Plans: None
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; Ken Buechs, second, the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Appointment
Horsley Witten Group/De-nitrification Systems
Handout: Schoolhouse Pond Watershed Delineations
Neal Price, Horsley Witten Group, presented information regarding the effects of septic systems on pond water quality. Eutrophication of ponds is a natural process (green algae growth) that is rapidly accelerated by human influence through the input of nutrients (nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus) that cause the algae to grow rapidly. Generally, nitrogen is in the least supply (limiting nutrient) in salt or brackish waters, while phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in fresh water. Nitrogen travels readily in ground water, while phosphorus will bind with other materials. Stormwater run off and water fowl are more likely to carry the phosphorus into ponds. Conventional septic systems consist of a septic tank, distribution box and leaching field where the nitrates travel through the ground water. There are
several types of traditional septic systems: leaching trench, pressure dosing, absorption mound, and drip irrigation. Alternative systems include an anoxic step (a pump chamber) before the final leach field that reduces the production of nitrogen. Composting and urine diverting toilets and low nitrogen gardening products are other options to reduce nitrates. Barnstable County has been monitoring 41 residential alternative systems which shows a number of the systems meet the 19 mg per liter standards set by DEP (25 mg per liter for commercial). The State is testing three systems for approval that all use precipitation filters before the leaching field. The Town of Brewster is in the process of integrating strategies for protecting and restoring water quality: stormwater, fertilizer and septic management programs. The strategies include creation and implementation of a stormwater management bylaw and regulations; surface watershed/septic
system buffer areas, and creation of an aquifer protection overlay area.
Marc Garrett asked if alternative systems are required as part of Brewster’s proposed bylaw.
Mr. Price replied that they are not being required because all of the alternative systems that are currently licensed for use in Massachusetts are designed for nitrogen and not for phosphorus and phosphorus is the more important nutrient for ponds. It is more effective to locate the septic system as far away as possible and maximize the horizontal and vertical travel distance. The alternative systems also require a high level of maintenance to function properly.
Tim Grandy noted that nitrogen affects ponds, streams and rivers.
Mr. Price stated that while nitrogen can affect fresh water bodies, limiting phosphorus is more important.
Mr. Grandy asked if the Cape Cod Commission requires low nitrogen loading septic systems in the Buzzard Bay watershed.
Mr. Price replies that the Cape Cod Commission does require them, but their focus is for protection of the saltwater estuaries.
Lee Hartmann asked if drip irrigation is approved in Massachusetts.
Mr. Price stated that it is approved.
The Board thanked Mr. Price for the presentation.
Committee Appointments
The Board received the following documentation*:
Committee Selection Worksheets
Letters of Interest
Manomet Steering Committee
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to appoint Harry Helm to the Manomet Steering Committee; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Open Space Committee
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to appoint Douglas O’Roak to the Open Space Committee; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Discussion – Planning Board
Adoption of the Manomet Master Plan
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Draft Manomet Master Plan
Lee Hartmann stated that the draft Manomet Master Plan that was in the Planning Board’s packets was the result of a two year process between staff, the steering committee and the community. Staff is recommending that the Planning Board adopt the draft master plan and present to Town Meeting for endorsement.
Ken Buechs moved for the Board to adopt the Manomet Master Plan and present the document to Town Meeting; Malcolm MacGregor, second.
Marc Garrett stated that although the master plan was a wonderful document, he did not feel that village center master plans are being utilized by developers or implemented in an appropriate way by the Town. The goal and objectives of the community are not being met.
The vote was (4-0-1) with Marc Garrett in abstention.
Public Hearings: Town Meeting Articles
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Memo to reserve Town Meeting Articles dated June 11, 2014
Article 26, 2013 Annual Town Meeting, Planning Board Report and Recommendation
Map of 2013 proposed Overlay Districts
Map of Overlay Districts proposed by Malcolm MacGregor
Map of Overlay Districts proposed by the West Plymouth Steering Committee
Building Heights
Paul McAlduff read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Tim Grandy, Paul McAlduff, Malcolm MacGregor, and Ken Buechs
Lee Hartmann stated that a 2013 article to create two 75 ft. building height overlay districts in industrial zones, was supported by the Board, Selectmen and Advisory and Finance Committee, but was not approved at Town Meeting. The Board received copies of a map showing the 2013 overlay district areas, a map showing suggested overlay districts submitted by Malcolm MacGregor and a map showing suggested overlay districts from the West Plymouth Steering Committee (WPSC). Mr. MacGregor’s map proposed 75 ft. building height overlay districts along the Kingston/Plymouth border (a portion of the TL Edwards site and along Prestige and World Ways). The WPSC’s suggested map was similar to Mr. MacGregor’s but expanded the area to include a portion of the Plymouth Industrial Park adjacent to Route 3.
Currently the areas are zoned Light Industrial and Mixed Commerce.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that his proposal looks at severely distressed areas of town. He noted that allowing 75 ft. high buildings in these areas would have an economic benefit and benefit tourism of Plymouth.
Marc Garrett requested an acreage comparison between the two proposals and whether the North Plymouth Steering Committee (NPSC) has reviewed the proposal.
Tim Grandy asked if the proposed layout was the same as the 2013 proposal.
Mr. Hartmann replied that the current proposal is approximately 50 percent less than what was presented in 2013. The current proposal does not include Camelot Industrial Park or a large portion of the Plymouth Industrial Park. He stated that the proposal came from discussions with the WPSC and has not been presented to the NPSC yet.
Public Comment:
Russell Appleyard, WPSC Chair, informed the Board that the committee voted unanimously to support either scenario. He stated that the increased building height would address two issues: increasing tax revenue and improving environmental impacts of development.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the Board to adopt his map for the proposed overly district. There was no second.
Marc Garrett moved to continue the public hearing to August 18, 2014 at 7:05 p.m. in order for the NPSC to have a chance to review both options; Tim Grandy, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
ZBA 3752 – Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (JCLDS)
741 – 747 Federal Furnace Road/Map 99, Lots 1-5 and 1-6
Special Permit to exceed height in order to construct a church with steeple
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Staff Report
Project Narrative dated June 19, 2014
Airport Coordinator comments dated July 3, 2014
West Plymouth Steering Committee comments dated June 23, 2014
Letter from Environmental Consulting and Restoration LLC, dated March 19, 2014
Locus Map
Site Plans dated May 27, 2014
Handouts: Engineering Dept. Comments dated July 10, 2014
Traffic Information from Vanasse & Associates, Inc. dated July 11, 2014
Robin Carver clarified a scrivener’s error on item number 14 under Findings, where it should read that a connection to Village Way was not supported by South Meadow Village.
David Martin, JCLDS, noted that the 281 member congregation has been meeting at 430 Court Street and wishes to construct their own church on the Federal Furnace Road site. The building will primarily be used for Sunday worship and Bible studies and used during the week by small groups. There will also be the occasional wedding or funeral. The building will have a security system installed for safety when the building is not in use.
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. presented the request for a special permit to exceed the 35 ft. height restriction in order to construct a 57 ft. high steeple. The 5.5 acre site is in the RR zone adjacent to the entrance to South Meadow Village, residential dwellings, cranberry bogs and across the street from the Souther’s Marsh golf facility.
A single driveway will access the 12,500 sq. ft. church with kitchenette and parking areas. There will be a 5 ft. walkway on site, 78 parking spaces, a hammerhead turnaround, dumpster and a rain garden. Town water and a private septic system will be installed. The project will comply with the dark sky bylaw. Mr. Flaherty reviewed the landscape plan submitted by Jon Henson, Landscape Architect. The landscape plan detailed buffering along Federal Furnace Road and Village Way, planting beds around the building and walkways and a moisture tolerant rain garden. Mr. Flaherty also noted that the site will have balanced cuts and fill.
Malcolm MacGregor asked if the steeple would interfere with the air space.
Mr. Flaherty stated that the airport and Mass DOT had no objections, but the FAA has not replied to date.
Antonia Kenny, Architect, presented the building specifications that will include a red brick façade, panels with artificial stucco, bands of masonry, and asphalt roof shingles.
Mr. Flaherty noted that abutters were invited to a meeting and there was little participation. He noted the Will Stearns, owner of Souther’s Marsh was supportive of the proposal.
Ken Buechs asked if there were any intentions for leasing of the building.
Mr. Martin replied that it is not church policy to lease the building for any political or commercial events.
Tim Grandy asked if the left rear corner of the site which has been disturbed will be stabilized.
Mr. Flaherty replied that stabilization will be done.
Mr. Garrett asked if the proposed signage would meet the size requirements of the bylaw and what the setback was from Federal Furnace Road.
Mr. Flaherty explained that there will be a 3’x4’ granite sign at the entrance which has not been presented to the Town yet and may need a special permit if it doesn’t meet the bylaw requirements. He stated that the building setback from Federal Furnace Road is 185 ft.
Tim Grandy asked what the buffer distance between the abutting Morgan property and the parking lot was.
Mr. Flaherty replied that there is approximately 120 ft. to the proposed parking area, but if the future parking area is constructed the distance would be 45 ft.
Marc Garrett suggested adding a condition that the abutter be notified if the parking lot is to be expanded.
Tim Grandy requested that a condition be added to the recommendation that the rear, disturbed area be stabilized.
Malcolm MacGregor moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
Prior to building permit, the Petitioner shall submit documentation of the Federal Aviation Administration (FFA) approval of the location and elevation of the Church steeple.
The site plans shall be revised to include restabilization and planting of the sand and gravel area in the southwest corner of the site.
The Petitioner agrees to notify the property owner of Lot 1-4 on Plat 99 of the Town Assessors Maps of any future parking expansion plans.
The applicant must provide a deed granting the proposed drainage easement to the Town of Plymouth along with a recordable plan showing the proposed drainage easement. The plan and deed must be review by the Engineering Department prior to recording.
The applicant shall implement the following recommendations outlined in the Transportation Impact Assessment:
- The site driveway should be a minimum of 24 feet in width to accommodate two-way travel, with vehicles exiting the site at Federal Furnace Road placed under a STOP sign control with a marked STOP line provided.
- All signs and pavement markings to be installed within the site shall conform to the applicable standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
- Signs or landscaping along the driveway internal to the site and at its intersection with Federal Furnace Road should be designed and maintained so as not to restrict lines of sight.
- Emergency vehicle accommodations should be afforded as defined by the Town of Plymouth Fire Department.
The applicant’s traffic engineer shall submit a pavement marking and sign plan showing the locations as outlined in the Transportation Impact Assessment. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of implementing the pavement marking and sign plan. The applicant shall consult with DPW Engineering division prior to any work on Town Roads.
The submittal indicates that the proposed site shall be connected to the Town of Plymouth’s water distribution system. The applicant must demonstrate that the water system can deliver adequate fire flow and static pressure to the proposed development. The applicant may wish to realign the proposed 8” DI water main, in order to eliminate the two proposed 6” bends proposed on the hydrant stub.
Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit full size construction plans and meet with the Plymouth DPW for final review and approval of proposed utilities. The DPW Water Division will not sign off on building permits until construction plans have been submitted and approved. 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. All water mains shall be made of Class 52, ductile iron pipe. All valves and hydrants shall OPEN RIGHT. Additionally, the applicant shall coordinate with the Plymouth Water Division to schedule an inspector to oversee the construction, chlorination and pressure testing of water mains, fire protection lines and
services. The applicant is responsible for paying any fees associated with the inspector’s services. Upon completion of water main construction, the applicant shall submit copies of water main as-built plans and service connection tie cards to the DPW Engineering Division (1 copy) and DPW Water Division (1 copy).
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;
- 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;
- The Petitioner shall submit documentation demonstrating conformance with Section 205-65 of the Bylaw, Prevention of Light Pollution, shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector;
Prior to issuance of a Final Occupancy Permit:
- 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 Zoning 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 are according to accepted practices and in compliance with the Zoning 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.
Marc Garrett, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
ZBA 3751 – Kingstown Corporation
Long Pond Road/Map 88, Lot 54
Special Permits subject to EDC in order to excavate 250,000 cubic yards of material in order to construct a solar field
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
Letter from Attorney Robert Betters dated July 10, 2014
A letter requesting a continuance was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals and this review will be rescheduled.
Conceptual Review – EJ Pontiff
417 Sandwich Road VOSD
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
Staff memo dated July 8, 2014
Project Narrative dated July 3, 2014
Plan of Land dated September 11, 2006
Locus Map and Site Photographs
Preliminary VOSD Subdivision Plan dated June 29, 2014
Conventional Subdivision Plan dated June 29, 2014
Atty. Robert Betters began the presentation for a conceptual VOSD. A conceptual subdivision plan for maximum density created five lots with two of those lots large enough for duplexes, thereby allowing seven units. The VOSD proposal shows two existing single family structures, three new single family dwellings, open space and two shared driveways. The back area of one lot is not included in the open space to allow for access to land at the rear of site for potential development. If that area is used for access, the house on that lot would not be constructed. If it is not feasible to develop the parcel to the rear, the open space would be continued to connect with other open space areas.
Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, Inc., reviewed the site plan that would combine two existing lots with single family dwellings (lots 5-1 and 6-1, consisting of 3.15 and 0.57 acres respectively). The shared driveway to both existing dwellings would be eliminated and two new 12 ft. wide shared driveways would access the proposed three new dwellings.
Tim Grandy asked how large the piece to the rear of the site that could be utilized for future development was. Mr. Grandy was concerned that the open space was not contiguous and did not provide any opportunity to create trail connections.
Lee Hartmann stated that the property to the rear was of significant size.
Marc Garrett was also concerned that the open space was fragmented. Mr. Garrett noted that a similar project is proposed in the area and that a comprehensive development plan for this historic corner of Town should be looked at. He felt that the open space should be complimentary to other open space in the area.
Mr. Hartmann expressed the same concerns regarding potential development of this property, the NStar property and the Bramhall property. He noted that staff would be supportive of the five unit VOSD with contiguous open space that would limit access to the property at the rear of the site. If the possibilities for additional development are left open, development of other properties in the area would need to be considered.
Atty. Betters stated that if this site was used for potential access to the property at the rear, it would limit accessibility to Bramhall’s Corner.
Malcolm MacGregor stated that if this project is a VOSD, the open space should be contiguous and provide access to trails.
Ken Buechs agreed with the other Board members and felt that this project needed to be more specific to the site, not future development.
Paul McAlduff and Robert Bielen were not supportive of the fragmented open space.
Mr. MacGregor suggested adding a sidewalk along the front of the property.
The Board felt that the plan needed further design that would show contiguous open space.
Lee Hartmann informed the Board that the Attorney General did not approve the Zoning Board of Appeal’s (ZBA) request to add language to the bylaw that would require signage for projects that have filed with the ZBA.
Public Hearing - Convert Special Permit Uses
Paul McAlduff read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Tim Grandy, Paul McAlduff, Malcolm MacGregor and Ken Buechs
The Board received the following documentation* for this review:
205-46 Waterfront - Map and conversion/additions
205-48 Transitional Commercial – Map and conversions
205-50 Arterial Commercial – Map and conversions
205-51 Light Industrial – Map and conversions
205-52 Airport – Map and additions
205-53 Industrial/Waterfront – Map and conversions
205-55 Mixed Commerce – Map and conversions
Lee Hartmann reviewed the proposed changes to the Zoning Bylaw that would change certain special permit uses in some zoning districts to allowed uses. The changes could limit competitor’s opportunities to appeal similar businesses; encourage economic development; and provide quality employment opportunities in the community. Mr. Hartmann noted that the proposed allowed office uses should read “5,000 square feet of floor area” instead of the “10,000 square feet” as shown.
The proposed allowed uses would be as follows:
205-46 – Waterfront:
Conversion:
Recreational, social or cultural facilities such as theater, playhouse, band shell, outdoor pavilion, nightclub or community center
Added Use:
Professional offices and services such as doctors, lawyers, architects, and design studios, no greater than 5,000 square feet of floor area.
Business offices such as accountants, realtors, insurance, offices of institutions or civic organizations and general offices, no greater than 5,000 square feet of floor area.
205-48. Transitional Commercial
Conversion:
Professional offices and services such as doctors, lawyers, architects, and design studios, no greater than 5,000 square feet of floor area.
Business offices such as accountants, realtors, insurance, offices of institutions or civic organizations and general offices, no greater than 5,000 square feet of floor area.
205-50. Arterial Commercial
Conversion:
Planned office parks and major office buildings.
205-51. Light Industrial
Conversion:
Technical schools or other training facilities on spacious, adequately buffered sites.
Motel or hotels
Commercial or public indoor and/or outdoor recreational uses such as ball fields, soccer fields and other sports fields and courts, swimming pools, tennis and racquetball clubs and the like.
205-52. Airport
Added:
Motels or hotels.
Planned office parks and major office buildings.
205-53. Industrial/Waterfront
Conversion:
Technical Schools or other training facilities.
Recreation, social or cultural facilities, such as a theater, playhouse, band shell, outdoor pavilion, nightclub or community center.
Hotel, motel.
205-55. Mixed Commerce
Conversion:
Technical schools or other training facilities.
Commercial recreation uses such as theaters, bowling alleys, swimming pools, and gymnasium.
Office buildings, laboratory, research facilities, and other campus-type office structures or groups of structures.
Hotels and motels.
Wholesaling, warehousing and distribution facilities.
Malcolm MacGregor felt that the proposed changes might not be appropriate for the long term development of Plymouth.
Paul McAlduff asked if Colony Place has proposed any changes to their development that would require a zoning change.
Mr. Hartmann replied that Colony Place has discussed several ideas, but no proposals have been submitted. He explained also that the proposed changes to the bylaw would create some higher value uses that would not require a special permit process.
Marc Garrett was concerned about the amount of changes proposed given the current review of the zoning bylaw.
Mr. Hartmann noted that the bylaw review is to create a simpler document with no major changes and better definition of existing uses.
Mr. Garrett asked to see a revised Mixed Commerce map and suggested that allowing nightclubs in the Waterfront zone might be problematic and maybe it should be stricken from the proposed language.
Mr. MacGregor asked how a planned office park would be reviewed.
Mr. Hartmann replied that in the industrial park, we allow more than one building on a lot if it creates a unified complex which is reviewed under Site Plan Review.
Mr. MacGregor asked for staff to create a list of allowed and special permit uses in each zone and which ones would be moved over.
Tim Grandy felt that it was important streamline the process and make Plymouth more attractive to businesses. The changes will make under utilized areas more available without having to apply for a special permit.
Marc Garrett moved for the Board to continue the public hearing to August 18, 2014 at 7:15 p.m.; Malcolm MacGregor, second; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to adjourn at 9:33 p.m.; Marc Garrett, 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: July 28, 2014
Administrative Assistant
| 
