Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 2, 2014
These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting – Open Meeting Law – Section III.

Members present:  Peter Conner, David Peck, Michael Main, Edward Conroy, William Keohan, James Simpson, and Mike Leary

Director of Inspectional Services:  Paul McAuliffe

Recording Secretary:  Tracey McCarthy

Mr. Conner called the meeting to order and explained the procedures for the evening.

Public Hearing:         VFW – Case # 3750
                        22 Severn Hills Road
                        Special Permit to modify original Special Permit #899 in order to                               
                        erect a 42’ x 38’ addition to the existing VFW Post; and, a Special                             
                        Permit per Section 205-23, Paragraph A3 to modify parking                               
                        requirements

Sitting:  Mr. Conner, Mr. Peck, Mr. Main, Mr. Conroy, and Mr. Simpson

Mr. Main read the legal advertisement into the record.

The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:  
  • Notice of public hearing
  • Inspectional Services Denial dated April 15, 2014
  • ZBA Petition Application
  • Deed recorded in BK 9146, PG 110
  • June 24, 2014 Planning Board comments
  • May 28, 2014 Engineering comments
  • June 2, 2014 Fire Dept. comments
  • ZBA Case No. 899
  • ZBA Case No. 1438
  • ZBA Case No. 1523
  • ZBA Case No. 2893
  • Proposed Addition Plan prepared by Michael J. Koska & Associates, Inc. and dated March 5, 2014
Ken Howe, representing VFW, explained request for the Special Permit and stated the VFW is looking to expand the size of their game room.  He noted the VFW is a private club and for members only.  He addressed Engineering comment regarding storm water run-off and addressed matter regarding access to property by the Fire Department.  
Public comment in favor:  No one

Public comment in opposition:  No one

The Chairman closed public comment.

The Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Main motioned to approve Special Permit for Case No. 3750 with no conditions.  Mr. Peck seconded.  

Granted unanimously (5-0)

Public Hearing:         Airamee McMahon – Case # 3717R (Continued from June 18, 2014)
                        137 Court Street
                        Remand from Land Court

Sitting:  Mr. Conner, Mr. Main, Mr. Conroy, and Mr. Simpson

The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:  
  • Revised Plans dated June 24, 2014:
  • Sheet L1.0 – Landscape Plan
  • Sheet C3.0 - Site and Utility Plan
  • Sheet C5.2 – Site Details 2
  • June 25, 2014 Opposition letter
Atty. Betters, representing Applicant, re-capped Remand Order.  He also stated the recently submitted Site Plan now shows the correct scale.  

Scott Dunlap, Applicant, stated original Site Plan was printed at 95% and has now been re-printed at 100%.  He explained the parking spaces now show the actual size.  He discussed the trees on the East side of the property and based on some revisions, the trees won’t get too large and would provide good coverage to the parking area.  He referred to the section that shows 3 levels of landscaping.  He referred to graphics showing the new landscaping and outlined buffers and trees that would be planted.  

Public comment in favor:  No one

Public comment in opposition: Kelli Coulthard, 5 Murray Street; Ellen Slaney, 20 Lothrop Street; Jill O’Brien, 8 Murray Street.

The Chairman closed public comment.  

Atty. Betters addressed intention of the Remand and noted that no where in the Remand does it address safety or density.  He referred to the Planning Board findings and discussed FAR requirement.  He also stated that the Applicant has discussed this project with some of the abutters.  

Peter Conner asked if the Applicant was ok with the recommended conditions from the Planning Board.  

Ed Conroy referred to the Remand Order.  He questioned the language about safety and stated he believes that this Remand does allow for reconsideration of the project and the Board can choose to reverse their decision.  

Michael Main said language in the Remand has always been somewhat broad and doesn’t necessarily mean that you must change your decision.  Mr. Conroy said this is a very broad brush and he believed the court was clear that they wanted the Board to look at everything.

James Simpson stated the focus of the original hearing was more to water runoff which he believes was addressed.  He believes the focus now seems to be in the number of units.  He asked the Applicant what the minimum number of units would be in order for this project to be economical.

Scott Dunlap stated decision for number of units was based on bank financing.  He explained bedroom and parking count.   He discussed economics of number of units.  He explained reason for 15 units is due to demographics and the demand in the Town of Plymouth and its need for one bedroom units for young professionals.  He noted another demographic is seniors and that Plymouth has the fastest growing demographics for the senior population and their need is for a 1 bedroom.  He summarized it all has to do with need, demographics, and financing.  

The Chairman closed the public hearing.  

Mr. Main believes language in the Remand Order was so that the Board would provide a clear statement that they do have the authority to do what was done.  He believes Mr. Hartmann, in the Planning Board recommendation, answered precisely and Mr. Main is in favor.  He discussed parking and believes the Board has authority.  He noted the parking is private and assigned and not intended for the public.  

Mr. Peck expressed that he studied the allowed uses and Special Permit uses in this zone, Transitional Commercial.  He believes the evolving concern has to do with the capacity of the street and safety.  He noted if you look at allowed uses within the existing building, the number of parking spaces if converted, the parking would be the same. He stated adding density is consistent with allowable uses.  He commented that the plan is architecturally appealing.

Mr. Simpson commented on landscaping program and believes this will be a great improvement in the area.  He stated that although he would like to see the number of units reduced, he still supports the 15.

Mr. Conroy articulated that although it’s a lot of parking, by right, it can be there.  He expressed this was the most difficult case he sat on because he believes it’s tight and when he looks at making a decision there are three reasons why the court would give Remand – granting authority of the Board; whether the granting authority has made findings that are amenable; and, third has the granting authority failed to consider one or more aspects of the matter.  He reviewed reason of Remand and noted dimensional had to be there and that it’s being re-visited for parking; however, he doesn’t think the court is asking to address the parking, but safety.  He commented that when making a decision he will go with the Board and grant, he supported.  

Mr. Simpson motioned to approve Special Permit for Case No. 3717R with conditions presented by the Planning Board.  Mr. Main seconded.  

Granted unanimously (4-0)

Public Hearing:         146 Court Street, LLC – Case #3749 (Continued from June 18, 2014)
                        146 Court Street
                        Need Modification of Special Permit #3722 and a Special Permit per                              
                        Section 205-48, Paragraph D4, if needed

Sitting:  Mr. Conner, Mr. Peck, Mr. Main, and Mr. Conroy

The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:  
  • MOU dated June 25, 2014
John Wyman, Applicant, explained purpose for continuance.  He referred to MOU.  He recapped request for Special Permit.  

Mr. Peck asked how determination was made for the affordable unit and how the State and Town determine which unit will be the efficiency unit.  Mr. Wyman provided answers to the best of his knowledge.  

Public comment in favor:  No one

Public comment in opposition:  Robert Billet, 97 Allerton Street.  

The Chairman closed public comment.  

Mr. Wyman explained current activity on the site.  

The Chairman closed the public hearing.   

Mr. Main motioned to approve Special Permit for Case No. 3749 with conditions proposed by the Planning Board along with the addition of the MOU for the affordable unit.  Mr. Peck seconded.  

Granted unanimously (4-0)

William Keohan, Clerk, arrived.  

Informal Hearing:       MEGRYCO, Inc. - Case # 3741 – 7 Russell Street
        Condition No. 8; Condition No. 9; and Condition No. 10

Sitting:  Mr. Peck, Mr. Keohan, Mr. Main, Mr. Conroy, and Mr. Leary

The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
  • June 1, 2014 letter from Flaherty & Stefani
  • Decision – ZBA Case No. 3741
  • Site Plan dated March 6, 2014 & revised on May 7, 2014:
  • Sheet 1 – Existing Conditions Plan
  • Sheet 2 – Site Plan
  • Sheet 3 – Grading and Utilities Plan
  • Sheet 4 – Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan
  • Sheet 5 – Pre & Post Construction Watershed Plan
  • Sheet 6 – Detail Sheet
  • Sheet 7 – Detail Sheet
  • Planting Plan – Sheet 1 of 2 – Revised 4/23/2014
  • Planting Plan – Sheet 2 of 2 – Revised 4/23/2014
  • Easement Agreement & Easement Plan
  • Turning radius for the Fire Dept. equipment
  • Covenant & Restriction – Condition #10
  • July 1, 2014 Memo from Engineering RE: Condition No. 8c
Atty. Betters, representing Applicant, referred to conditions for the informal hearing.  He also referred to the July 1, 2014 Memo from Engineering and the Covenant.  He discussed the Landscaping Plan.  He noted that the second carport on the westerly side of the site that is being  shown on the plan will not be part of the decision and that he understands they would have to come before the Board for a modification should they decide to add this feature.  

Mark Flaherty, Flaherty & Stefani, reviewed the Site Plan and the location of each item outlined in Condition No. 8 and Condition No. 11.  

Mr. Keohan said striped area (as shown on the plan) satisfied his concern.  

Mr. Flaherty noted that the striped area is ADA compliant.  

Public comment in favor:  Rodney Shonlin

Mr. Leary motioned that Condition No.’s 8, 9, and 10 are hereby satisfied regarding the Special Permit for Case No. 3741.  Mr. Main seconded.  

Granted unanimously (5-0)

Informal Hearing:       A.D.M. Cranberry Co., LLC - Case # 3728 – off Federal Road
        Condition No. 1

Sitting:  Mr. Conner, Mr. Keohan, Mr. Main, Mr. Conroy, and Mr. Simpson

The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
  • June 25, 2014 Letter from G.A.F. Engineering
  • Narrative to Accompany Erosion Control Plans
  • ZBA Case No. 3728 Decision
  • Plans:
  • Proposed Cranberry Bog Development Plan – Erosion Control Plan dated June 25, 2014 – DWG. 1 of 4
  • Proposed Cranberry Bog Development Plan – Erosion Control Plan dated June 25, 2014 – DWG. 2 of 4
  • Proposed Cranberry Bog Development Plan – Erosion Control Plan dated June 25, 2014 – DWG. 3 of 4
  • Proposed Cranberry Bog Development Plan – Erosion Control Plan dated June 25, 2014 – DWG. 4 of 4
Mr. Main motioned to continue Case No. 3728 until there is Applicant representation.  Mr. Peck seconded.  

Granted unanimously (5-0)

Mr. Main opened up nominations for reorganization:  

        Mr. Main nominated Peter Conner as Chair.  Mr. Peck seconded.  All in favor (6).  Peter         Conner accepted the nomination.  

        Mr. Main nominated David Peck as Vice Chair.  Mr. Keohan seconded.  All in favor (6).   David Peck accepted the nomination.  

        Mr. Main nominated William Keohan as Clerk.  Mr. Peck seconded.  All in favor (6).  William Keohan accepted the nomination.  

Mr. Main motioned to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Peck seconded.  Agreed unanimously (7-0)

*On file with the Zoning Board of Appeals in project case files.

Respectfully Submitted
Tracey McCarthy
Administrative Secretary

Approved:  August 6, 2014