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, William Keohan, Edward Conroy, 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: Kingstown Corp. – Case #3751
(Continued from August 6, 2014 & September 17, 2014)
Long Pond Road
Special Permit per Section 205-40, Paragraph D(1); and, a Special Permit per Section 205-18, Paragraphs B(4), F and G, subject to EDC for excavation of 250,000 cubic yards of material in order to construct a solar field.
Sitting: Mr. Conner; Mr. Peck; Mr. Keohan; Mr. Main; and Mr. Conroy
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
- Excerpts from September 17, 2014 Meeting
- October 28, 2014 Letter from Atty. Betters RE Incidental
Atty. Betters, representing Petitioner, introduced John Moon, Brad Cushing, and Project Engineer, Bill Shaw. He referred to his October 29, 2014 letter addressing the incidental costs. He then referred to the Blue Wave Capital letter of interest dated July 24, 2014. He discussed an abutting solar facility and discussed a solar field as a viable use for this site.
Dan Pallotta, Plymouth County Commissioner, provided an update on the solar project and stated that the 25I County language requires Department of Energy Resources (DOER) approval. He noted that the County is in the process of selecting a vendor. He closed by stating the County received State approval and the County will be moving forward with solar.
Brad Cushing, Owner, Kingstown Corp., asked Board to consider his employees jobs when considering this project.
Public comment in favor: David Malaguti
Public comment in opposition: No one
David Peck asked if Blue Wave was one of the bidders for the solar use. Mr. Pallotta stated that Blue Wave did not submit an RFP and that he could not discuss the RFQ process.
Edward Conroy summarized past requests for gravel removal Special Permits and the continued complications throughout Plymouth. He referred to the Planning Board recommendation and noted concerns as to why just this particular 10 acres when the entire parcel is 106 acres. He believed there could be another feasible and less invasive means to complete this project and that the Petitioner failed to consider less invasive areas within the 106 acres pursuant to 205-9©(4)(a). Additionally, he had safety concerns about the location itself because the location is across the street from PCIS and the trucks will be a safety hazard to the children and teachers. He did not support the request for the Special Permit.
He noted that pursuant to Section 205-9B(C), the proposed sand and gravel removal activity is not appropriate for this specific site and that this commercial gravel operation and associated trucks when entering and exiting the site will be a hazard to pedestrians as set forth in Section 205-9B1(C). Further, the commercial gravel operation and associated trucks will create traffic congestion at Exit 5 - which the Petitioner has not adequately addressed.
Mr. Conroy acknowledged that the Petitioner stated that the proposed use is for a solar field to be utilized by Blue Wave Capital but offered no documentation to the same. To that affect, he recapped a Plymouth County Commissioner’s testimony that Blue Wave Capital had not submitted any documentation to be the user at the site. Mr. Conroy concluded that any protection as to the use as a solar field pursuant to MGL Section 40A, Section 3 should not be afforded.
He believed the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the amount of sand and gravel to be removed was “incidental to and required.” The removal of 250,000 is a major undertaking and the project cannot be said to be minor relative to construction of a solar field. The net effect of the volume of earth removed and the scope of the removal project are inconsistent with the use of a solar field. He believed that the Petitioner only selected this particular 10 acres due to the volume of earth to be removed and that this mining activity does not have a reasonable relationship to the construction of a solar facility. He did not support this request for a Special Permit.
William Keohan had concerns regarding overall use of land as it relates to feasible alternatives that would be less aggressive. He was concerned that this Special Permit request to remove only 10 acres of sand and gravel out of the 106 acre parcel may not represent the full scope of work at this site. He believed the end use was not clearly defined and regarded this project as a mining operation. He concluded safety was an issue because of the abutting school. He declined to support.
Michael Main reviewed Sections 205-40 & 205-18 of the Bylaw that pertained to this application. He did believe that ultimately the end use would have been a solar field; however, he expressed concern that there was no firm commitment, and Blue Wave did not respond to the RFP. He would entertain a condition regarding having a firm commitment prior to excavation but was reminded that this parcel is over 100 acres and that it’s public land that was entrusted to the public, the County, and the Town of Plymouth. He did not believe that sufficient documentation was presented to support this request; therefore, he could not support.
David Peck was inclined to support with a condition of procuring an end-use agreement and right- of- way or easement agreements to document and confirm access to the site. He noted solar is a good use and that he would support the request with several air tight conditions.
Peter Conner noted that the Town has had issues with prior gravel operations in the past; however, he did not take issue with this Special Permit request. He commented that the gravel excavation would not be visible and that excavation has been going on for years in that area. He stated that although he believed Blue Wave was committed, he agreed with having a condition for an end-use agreement and a right-of- way condition prior to excavation. He took no exception to the use.
The Chairman closed public comment.
The Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Main motioned to approve Special Permit for Case No. 3751 with conditions as discussed and adding a condition to obtain a signed contract and right of way and clarification of easement. Mr. Peck seconded.
Motion Denied (2-3: Mr. Conroy, Mr. Keohan, and Mr. Main in opposition)
Public Hearing: Yara Montminy – Case #3765
143 Court Street
Special Permit per Section 205-48, Paragraph D4 subject to EDC; Special Permit per Section 205-25, Paragraph A3; and, a waiver of off street parking requirements, if required, per Section 205-23, Paragraph A3.
Sitting: Mr. Conner, Mr. Peck, Mr. Keohan, Mr. Main, and Mr. Conroy
Mr. Keohan, the Clerk, read the legal advertisement into the record.
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
- Notice of public hearing
- ZBA Petition Application
- Dept. of Inspectional Services Denial dated July 8, 2014
- Deed recorded in BK44373, PG 328
- Environmental Impact Statement
- October 28, 2014 Planning Board comments
- October 14, 2014 Engineering comments
- October 6, 2014 Fire Dept. comments
- Project overview from Petitioner dated September 18, 2014
- Hand drawing of existing 1st floor office
- Hand drawing of proposed 1st floor residence
- Unofficial property record card
- Plan dated September 11, 2014
Yara Montminy, Petitioner, provided and overview of the existing and proposed conditions.
Paul McAuliffe briefly discussed the Transitional Commercial Bylaw.
Mr. Conroy and Petitioner reviewed existing and proposed parking conditions.
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. 3765 with two conditions. Mr. Peck seconded.
Granted unanimously (5-0)
Public Hearing: High Rock Cranberry Crescent – Case #3764
(Continued from October 15, 2015)
100 Plympton Road
Special Permit per Section 205-19, Table 205-19-1, for signs that exceed size requirements; and, a Special Permit pursuant to Section 205-19, Paragraph D(4) to vary location of two (2) pylon signs.
Sitting: Mr. Conner, Mr. Peck, Mr. Keohan, Mr. Main, and Mr. Conroy
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
- ZBA Petition Application
- Dept. of Inspectional Services denial dated September 5, 2014
- Deed recorded in BK 38404, PG 143
- October 8, 2014 Planning Board comments
- September 19, 2014 Engineering comments
- September 17, 2014 Fire Dept. comments
- Overall Site Layout Plan C-1 (Revised 10/6/2014)
- Signage & Lighting Package Plans dated September 2, 2014 (28 Pages)
- ZBA Case No. 2946 Decision
- December 12, 2013 Letter from ZBA RE December 4, 2013 Informal Meeting
- February 14, 2014 Letter from ZBA RE February 12, 2014 Informal Meeting
Atty. Betters, representing Petitioner, presented the revised signage plan and discussed setbacks and highlighted proposed location of pylon signs.
Kevin Dandrade, Principal with TEC, reviewed the site plan and showed where the proposed pylon signs would be located. He provided specs of the pylon signs and the benefits of their size.
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. 3764 with condition that the pylon sign on Carver Road be reduced by 5’ in elevation. Mr. Peck seconded.
Granted unanimously (5-0)
Informal Hearing: Best Chevrolet - Case #3762
264 Cherry Street
Review for satisfaction of Condition No. 3 – “Final site and architectural plans will address all comments raised in the Department of Public Works Engineering Division review letter dated September 8, 2014, and shall be presented to the Board of Appeals for review.”
Sitting: Mr. Conner, Mr. Peck, Mr. Keohan, Mr. Main, and Mr. Conroy
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
- Excerpts from public hearing on September 17, 2014
- Case No. 3762 Decision
- September 8, 2014 Engineering comments
- October 14, 2014 Bracken Engineering response letter to September 8, 2014 ENG comments
- Approximate Sewer Flow Calculations
- Supplemental Site Plan dated October 15, 2014
- October 17, 2014 Preliminary Traffic Impact Assessment Memorandum prepared by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc.
- October 22, 2014 Engineering Memo RE response to October 14, 2014 Bracken Engineering response
- October 27, 2014 Bracken Engineering response letter to October 22, 2014 ENG comments
- October 28, 2014 Engineering Memo RE response to October 22, 2014 Bracken Engineering response
- Plans:
- A-0 Architectural Site Plan dated October 15, 2014
- D-1 Demolition Plan dated October 15, 2014
- D-2 Elevation Demolition Plan dated October 15, 2014
- A-1 Floor Plan dated October 15, 2014
- A-2 Reflected Ceiling Plan dated October 15, 2014
- A-3 Services Outlet Plan dated October 15, 2014
- A-4 Roof Plan dated October 1, 2014
- A-5 Exterior Elevations dated October 15, 2014
- A-6 Enlarged Plans & Interior Elevations & Details dated October 15, 2014
- A-7 Schedules & Partition Types dated October 15, 2014
- Sheet 1 of 1 – Supplemental Site Plan dated October 15, 2014
Atty. Betters, representing Petitioner, reviewed the condition requiring final site & architectural plans.
Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, reviewed final site plan and utilities that the Engineering Department wanted added to the site.
Mr. Main motioned that Condition No. 3 for Special Permit Case No. 3762 has been satisfied. Mr. Keohan seconded.
Granted unanimously (5-0)
Informal Hearing: Ivo Coll - Case #3763
2 Wood Fern Path
Review for satisfaction of Condition No. 2 – “Petitioner is to return for an informal session to present for review & approval from the ZBA the final plans and elevations for the garage.”
Sitting: Mr. Conner, Mr. Peck, Mr. Keohan, Mr. Main, and Mr. Conroy
The Board received the following documentation* for review of this case:
- Excerpts from October 1, 2014 public hearing
- 5 pages of plans including elevations
Ivo Coll, Petitioner, presented the final site & elevation plans.
Mr. Main motioned that Condition No. 2 for Special Permit Case No. 3763 has been satisfied. Mr. Conroy seconded.
Granted unanimously (5-0)
Other Business: Approval of October 1, 2014 ZBA Meeting Minutes
Mr. Main motioned for the Board to approve the October 1, 2014 Meeting Minutes as presented. Mr. Peck seconded.
Agreed unanimously (7-0)
Other Business: Approval of October 15, 2014 ZBA Meeting Minutes
Mr. Main motioned for the Board to approve the October 15, 2014 Meeting Minutes as presented. Mr. Leary seconded.
Agreed (5-2: Abstention: Mr. Conner and Mr. Peck)
Mr. Conroy motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Main seconded. Agreed unanimously (7-0)
*On file with the Zoning Board of Appeals in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted
Tracey McCarthy
Administrative Secretary
Approved: November 19, 2014
| 
