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, Larry Rosenblum, Bill Wennerberg, and Tim Grandy
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard and Elizabeth Sullivan
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
January 11, 2012
Larry Rosenblum moved to approve the minutes* of January 11, 2012 as presented; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Form A Plans: None
B426 – Little Hios Hills (a.k.a Ship Pond Estates)
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the transfer of $255,000 from the executed Tri-Party Agreement to a Performance Guarantee account held by the Town of Plymouth; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Larry Rosenblum reopened the discussion regarding the next steps that the Plymouth Redevelopment Authority (PRA) should take regarding the 1820 Courthouse project. Mr. Rosenblum felt that the Planning Board should take a leadership role in moving the project forward.
Lee Hartmann stated that in order to move forward, the PRA needs to have a direction with consensus from the main boards in the town and from the community. Currently, there are competing ideas on what should happen with the buildings and site.
Tim Grandy stated that the Planning Board already voted to support a corridor concept. The next steps would be to get support from the Board of Selectmen for a corridor concept and for Town Meeting to approve the transfer of the school property to the Board of Selectmen. It will be difficult for staff to begin working on an RFP until those steps have been taken and without a clear direction regarding the proposed use of the buildings.
Paul McAlduff stated that the Town does not have control of the “corridor” yet, therefore it would be difficult to write an RFP.
Lee Hartmann stated that staff would draft the scope and selection process for an RFP and then the Procurement Officer would execute the RFP.
Bill Wennerberg suggested that workshops, charettes, and an open dialogue need to be held to determine what ideas the leadership of the Town and the community would support.
Marc Garrett stated that the Planning Board would be willing to work with other groups, but the PRA needs to work with the Board of Selectmen, Town Meeting and CPC for their support. Mr. Garrett suggested continuing the discussion after the Public Hearings.
Spring Town Meeting Articles
Article 31 - Amend Zoning Bylaw
Sections 205-17 and 205-58, Flood Maps
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Draft Planning Board recommendation
Marc Garrett read the public hearing noticed and opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Sullivan presented Article 31 which if approved by Town Meeting will update Sections 205-58 and 205-17 of the Zoning Bylaw and adopt the revised flood maps for the Town of Plymouth. The flood zones on the revised maps have not changed. The State has mandated adopting a county wide format for flood maps which has changed the numbering and labels on the maps. Residents that have flood insurance receive a 5 % discount because the Town participates in the National Flood Insurance Program.
The language in the Zoning Bylaw would change as follows:
* Underlined text added
Strikethrough text deleted
§ 205-58.Floodplain District (FP).
A. Intent. The purpose of this section is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed:
(1) To protect human life and health;
(2) To minimize expenditures of public money for costly flood-control projects;
(3) To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding;
(4) To ensure that those who occupy areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions.
B. Scope and authority. The Floodplain District is herein established as an overlay district. Any uses permitted in the portions of the districts so overlaid shall be permitted subject to the provisions of this district, as well as those of the Massachusetts State Building Code dealing with construction in floodplains.
C. Delineation of district. The Floodplain District includes all special flood hazard areas within the Town of Plymouth, designated as Zone A, AE, AO, and VE on the
Town of Plymouth County Massachusetts, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. The map panels of the Plymouth County FIRM that are wholly or partially within the Town of Plymouth are panel numbers 25023C0244J, 25023C0263J, 25023C0342J, 25023C0352C, 25023C0353J, 25023C0354J, 25023C0356J, 25023C0357J, 25023C0358J, 25023C0359J, 25023C0361J, 25023C0362J, 25023C0363J, 25023C0364J, 25023C0366J, 25023C0367J, 25023C0370J, 25023C0376J, 25023C0378J,
25023C0379J, 25023C0386J, 25023C0387J, 25023C0388J, 25023C0389J, 25023C0391J, 25023C0393J, 25023C0394J, 25023C0477J, 25023C0479J, 25023C0485J, 25023C0487J, 25023C0491J, 25023C0492J, 25023C0494J, 25023C0505J, 25023C0506J, 25023C0507J, 25023C0508J, 25023C0509J, 25023C0511J, 25023C0512J, 25023C0513J, 25023C0514J, and 25023C0516J,
to be dated December 19, 2006 July 17, 2012. The exact boundaries of the District may be defined by the 100-year base flood elevations shown on the FIRM and further defined by the Plymouth County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report dated July 17, 2012. The FIRM and FIS report are incorporated herein by reference and are on file with the Town Clerk. These maps and the accompanying Plymouth, Massachusetts, Flood Insurance Study (FIS) are incorporated herein by reference.
Base Flood Elevation and Floodway Data
- Floodway Data. In Zones A and AE, along watercourses that have not had a regulatory floodway designated, the best available Federal, State, local or other floodway data shall be used to prohibit encroachments in floodways which would result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence if the base flood discharge.
- Base Flood Elevation Data. Base flood elevation data is required for subdivision proposals or other developments greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, within unnumbered A zones.
Notification of Watercourse Alteration
In a riverine situation the Flood Coordinator shall notify the following of any alteration or relocation of a watercourse:
- Adjacent Communities
- NFIP State Coordinator
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite
Boston, MA 02114-2104
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region I
99 High Street, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Wetlands, as defined and regulated by § 205-39, shall be built upon only in compliance with regulations contained therein. Where low spots exist which do not fall within the definition of § 205-39 but which are subject to occasional flooding as defined on the Plymouth County Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reference Section 205-58 Floodplain District
by the one-hundred-year flood limits of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, where such data exists, no principal structure shall be built on any such portion of any lot unless the lowest floor elevation is a minimum of one foot above the elevation of said flood limits. Where such floodplain limits cannot be established, the Building Inspector shall determine the lowest buildable floor elevation,
which shall not be less than five feet above the lowest point of the floodplain.
Public Comment: None
Tim Grandy moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to support Article 31 as presented: the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Article 30 - Amend Zoning Bylaw (to be withdrawn)
General Zoning and Aquifer Protection Maps
Marc Garrett announced that Article 30 has been withdrawn.
Lee Hartmann stated that the amendment involves a street by street review of the whole Town in order to adopt in a GIS format and we want to make sure it is 100 percent accurate.
Article 34 - Amend Zoning Bylaw
Off Street Parking – Petitioned
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Copy of the petition submitted by JoAnne Salamone
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann stated that the petitioner was unable to attend. The proposed amendment for an exclusion regarding major recreational vehicles parked in residential areas speaks to a variance process and does not identify the granting authority. Staff raised concern about the proposed language. Staff has proposed alternative language that may address the issue and has proposed an article for special town meeting to address the issue that recreational vehicles are required to be parked behind the building line.
The Board agreed to open the public hearing for Article 16 and hold a discussion on both articles simultaneously.
Article 16 - Amend Zoning Bylaw
Off Street Parking – Planning Board
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Copy of the proposed language change
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice for article 16 and opened the public hearing.
Lee Hartmann stated that the petitioned Article 34 speaks to the variance process and doesn’t limit the number of vehicles. Article 16 would allow one major recreational vehicle to be parked in front of a building line provided that it is screened by landscaping, fencing or both and that the Planning Board would make the determination that the vehicle is adequately screened. Mr. Hartmann stated that in some instances it is difficult to park a major recreational vehicle behind the building line given the topography of the land, and the location of the residence on the lot.
Tim Grandy stated that the petition was the result of residents finding violation notices for parking recreational vehicles in front of the building line. Mr. Grandy noted that during a drive around town, he noted many RV’s campers, boats, trailers, etc. parked in front of building lines and in some instances parked on the street. On some lots, pavement would have to be added or land cleared to accommodate the vehicles. The only other alternative is for owners to store their vehicles off site. Mr. Grandy stated that the language proposed by staff would address the issue.
Paul McAlduff stated that we are a boating and recreational community. He noted that any vehicle parked on the street has to be registered.
Larry Rosenblum asked how many signatures were on the petitioned article.
Mr. Hartmann replied that 10 signatures are required and that a petitioned article can not be withdrawn. He was concerned that Town Counsel would not approve the petitioned language as presented.
Mr. Rosenblum acknowledged that Plymouth is a town with many recreational vehicles which creates an enforcement issue. He supported continuing the dialogue.
Mr. Hartmann stated that as we go through the process we may hear from more people.
Marc Garrett noted that any amendment to the bylaw would have to address recreational vehicles throughout the Town. We have a diverse community and the review needs to be site specific. Mr. Garrett asked what would happen if the Board determines that a vehicle is not adequately screened or in a proper location.
Mr. Hartmann stated that if the Board determined that the screening or location was not appropriate, the vehicle would have to be moved, possibly stored off site. He stated that the process would be similar to site plan review and would add a little flexibility to the bylaw. The proposed language has been reviewed and approved by the Building Commissioner and the petitioner of Article 34.
In Favor: None
Tim Grandy moved to close the public hearing for Article 34; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing for Article 16; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to take no action on Article 34; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to recommend approval of the following amendment to Section 205-23 (J):
Double underlined words added
J. Parking, storage, or use of major recreational equipment.
(1) For purposes of these regulations, major recreational equipment is defined as including boats and boat trailers, travel trailers, pickup campers or coaches (designed to be mounted on automotive vehicles), motorized dwellings, tent trailers, and the like, and cases or boxes used for transporting recreational equipment, whether occupied by such equipment or not.
(2) In residential districts, one major recreational equipment may be parked in front of a building line provided the Planning Board finds that said major recreational equipment is adequately screened from public view with landscaping, fencing or other materials acceptable to the Planning Board. No other major recreational equipment shall be parked or stored on any lot in a residential district other than in a carport or enclosed building or behind the building line of the principal building; provided, however, that such equipment may be parked anywhere on residential premises for a period not to exceed 24 hours during loading or unloading. No such equipment shall be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored on a residential lot, or in any location not approved for such use. All equipment which does not
conform to these regulations shall be considered nonconforming and shall comply in accordance with § 205-25.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
The Board agreed that the above amendment to the bylaw was appropriate as a short term solution for the issue regarding recreational vehicles, but that it might be more appropriate to work to craft language for the General Bylaw to address the issue.
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
The Board continued their discussion regarding the 1820 Courthouse.
Larry Rosenblum felt that the Planning Board should take a leadership role in moving the process forward and should aggressively pursue the planning process by beginning to draft an RFP to find a development partner.
Bill Wennerberg and Tim Grandy agreed that there has to be a discussion with the Board of Selectmen (who are the land owners) prior to the commencement of the planning process.
Larry Rosenblum moved for the Planning Board to engage with other key leadership bodies in the community to discuss the future of the 1820 Courthouse.
Mr. Wennerberg stated that the PRA should put together an opportunity for all the Board and the community to have a discussion regarding the future of the 1820 Courthouse. Paul McAlduff noted that the homeowners of the three properties between the courthouse and the police station should also be invited to any scheduled discussions.
Larry Rosenblum withdrew his motion.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend that the Plymouth Redevelopment Authority and the 1820 Courthouse Consortium work together with the Planning Board, Board of Selectmen and other interested parties; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Marc Garrett reminded the Board about the meeting at the Chamber of Commerce on February 1, 2012 regarding Roberts Rules.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 8:38 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: February 6, 2012