The mission of the Town of Duxbury is to deliver excellent services to the community in the most fiscally responsible and innovative manner while endeavoring to broaden our sense of community and preserve the unique character of our town.
Minutes 05/24/04
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, May 24, 2004.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, and Rob Wilson.
Absent: Aboud Al-Zaim and James Kimball.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:37 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Duxbury Crossing: Ms. Scieszka commented that the applicant for this comprehensive permit engaged in tree-clearing last week. When it appeared that the amount of tree-clearing approached the 30,000 SF threshold for requiring a special permit, the Building Inspector issued a Stop Work Order.
Mr. Wadsworth said that he attended the ZBA hearing which was held on the evening of the day the Stop Work order was issued (May 20, 2004). He said that it appears that the amount of clearing may have been greater than 40,000 SF. Some neighbors have indicated that he has cut right up to their property line, eliminating the ZBA’s ability to establish a buffer zone. Mr. Wadsworth also said that neighbors report that the Eastern Box turtles (endangered species) are prevalent in that area. However, he said, the State’s ability to follow up on the spotted turtle sighting is hampered by a severe staffing shortage.
Mr. Wadsworth said that the ZBA would like to establish a negotiating team to work with the developer. Mr. Wadsworth has been asked to serve, and requested the Board’s concurrence. Ms. MacNab cautioned that the Planning Board is sometimes erroneously blamed for the prevalence of comprehensive permit applications, with assertions that there would not be so many if the Board were more flexible. She said that she would not want Mr. Wadsworth to be in the position of being pressured to make concessions. Mr. Wadsworth said that he knows that he cannot act without the approval of the Board. Mr. Wilson said that Mr. Wadsworth would be an excellent representative for the negotiating team. It was the consensus of members present that Mr. Wadsworth act as the Planning Board’s
representative for the Duxbury Crossing negotiating team, should one be formed.
Ms. Scieszka objected to the characterization of the Planning Board as inflexible. She pointed to the Residential Conservation Cluster option, which allows for great flexibility. However, no developers have taken advantage of this option to date.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that there are extensive wetlands on the Marshfield portion of the site. Also, he said that the applicant has written a memo to the ZBA, stating that the ZBA can waive any Town requirements, except those that mirror State law. Mr. Wadsworth said that he is assuming that the applicant is referring to the Town’s assertion that it cannot waive the density limitations in the APOD.
Ms. Scieszka added that the site has 21-E problems, high tension wires, and wetlands. She hopes that the Department of Housing and Community Development has been made aware the punitive nature of this applicant.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN/HILLSIDE LANE—Off North Street
Present for the applicant were:
Richard Grady, Principal of Grady Consulting, LLC
Kevin Sealund, Principal of 123 Washington Street R.T.
Roger Sealund, Principal of 123 Washington Street R.T.
One member of the general public was also present.
The clerk read the correspondence list into the record:
· A Mutual Extension form dated 4/26/04 - extend hearing to 5/24/04
· Minutes from PB hearing of 4/26/04
· Revised Plans and a Letter from Grady Consulting dated 5/10/04 addressing concerns with the following attachments:
Revised waiver requests
Stormwater Management Form
Operation and Management Plan
Nitrogen Loading Analysis
Groundwater Analytical results re: water
· Fax from Grady Consulting, dated 5/11/04 with attached “draft” restrictive easement (drainage buffer) and Protective Covenant (individual lots).
· Amory Engineers review of revised plans and documents dated 5/18/04
· Memorandum from Duxbury Town Counsel, dated 5/24/04, regarding proposed protective covenants.
Mr. Grady was asked to present an update on the subdivision. Mr. Grady reported that Mr. Sealund attempted to access neighborhood wells in order to study the direction of groundwater flows. While Mr. Sealund was able to obtain samples from the wells, he was unable to perform flow tests. So, Mr. Grady met with the Water Superintendent in Marshfield, and discovered that the groundwater flow in that area is easterly/northeasterly.
The water samples were tested for nitrogen content. Each sample was below the reporting limit of 0.5 ppm for total nitrogen. The applicant has revised the nitrogen loading calculation to assume five bedrooms and 60,000 SF of lawn for each lot. The resulting nitrogen loading was calculated at 4.20 ppm. If 0.5 ppm is assumed for the existing nitrogen concentration, the combination is still below the Board’s requirement of 5.0 ppm.
Mr. Wadsworth commented that he has never seen a nitrogen sample to test below reportable levels. He expressed surprise that the water in this area is more pure than in other areas. However, he said that the testing firm, Groundwater Analytical, has a good reputation.
Mr. Grady said that the applicant is prepared to comply with all comments in the letter from the Town’s reviewing engineer (Amory Engineers, P.C.), dated May 18, 2004.
Ms. MacNab asked about the private well across the street from Infiltration System #1, and whether the distance is still 80 feet (while DEP Stormwater Guidelines suggest 100 feet). Mr. Grady said that the distance is 80 feet. However, there are advanced systems in place that will make up for this shorter distance. These include the grass-lined swale, the Downstream Defender, and the Class Five pipes. Ms. MacNab asked whether the well-owner had been approached about having his well moved. Mr. Sealund said that he spoke with the resident. The resident reported that his well was working very satisfactorily. Mr. Sealund explained that he is very reluctant to change a well that is performing satisfactorily. A new well may not function at the same level.
Ms. MacNab said that the distance between the Infiltration System and the well is a definite sticking point for her. She said that she feels that the Board would be putting the Town at risk by not sticking to the DEP Best Management Practices Guidelines. Mr. Sealund said that he will talk with the resident about moving the well. He indicated that this could be a cost-savings for him, since it will eliminate the need for the Downstream Defender.
Ms. Stickney asked whether the Downstream Defender would remove pollutants that could potentially be a problem for the neighbor’s well. Mr. Wadsworth said that the Downstream Defender will remove solid pollutants, but not pollutants in solution. He said that viruses are examples of pollutants that would not be removed by the Downstream Defender.
It was agreed that Mr. Sealund would ask the resident about moving the well. If this is found to be a possibility, the Town’s consulting engineer will be asked for his opinion.
Mr. Bear commented that he would like the Board not to “close the door” on the 80-foot separation.
The discussion turned to Restrictive Easement and the Declaration of Protective Covenants. Ms. MacNab said that the Restrictive Easement language looked fine. However, she agreed with the Town Planner and Town Counsel, that the Declaration of Protective Covenants should not limit the protections to ten years. She said that there is a law against perpetuity, but that the protections should last for 99 years.
Ms. MacNab said that Clause #1, in the Covenants, says that no lot shall be further subdivided without the permission of the Planning Board. She said that this is always the case anyway. She would like the clause to explain the intention of the Board that the lots should never be subdivided.
Mr. Wadsworth asked whether the Town could purchase development rights. Mr. Sealund said that this process is even more onerous than obtaining Conservation Restrictions. However, Mr. Sealund agreed that the Covenant should be revised to show the intent of the Planning Board. Also, he agreed to separate the restrictions that are meant for builders from the restrictions that pertain to the land.
Ms. Rose Mallard, (19 Presidential Drive, Wilmington, MA---family member of an abutting property owner), asked about how protective covenants work. Board members explained that they are recorded with the subdivision plan.
Mr. Bear asked about whether the island in the cul-de-sac would be landscaped. Mr. Sealund said that existing trees and vegetation would remain.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to continue the public hearing to June 21, 2004 at 8:00 PM. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0).
It was agreed that the issue of the 80-foot separation to the well would be discussed at that time, and that the Covenants would be revised in advance of the meeting. Furthermore, the Planning Director will provide draft conditions of approval. A mutual extension of the public hearing form was signed by the applicant and the Board.
PRESENTATION BY THE WILDLANDS TRUST: O’NEIL FARM
(Ms. Pat Loring, of the Wildlands Trust, explained that she is also a member of Duxbury’s Community Preservation Committee, but has recused herself from all votes and discussions on the O’Neil Farm by the CPC, due to her involvement with the Wildlands Trust. Also, Ms. Scieszka recused herself from Ms. Loring’s presentation and the ensuing discussion, because of her efforts on behalf of the Citizens to Save the Farm----Get Out the Vote effort. Ms. Scieszka left the room.)
Ms. Loring provided a video presentation of the plans to purchase the development rights for the O’Neil Farm. She explained that revenue for the purchase will come from three sources: 1) Existing CPA Funds; 2) The Mass. Dept. of Agricultural Resources; and 3) Private donations and grants. The money will then be given to the Wildlands Trust, who will purchase the farm from the O’Neil Farm owners. The Wildlands Trust will then transfer Conservation & Agricultural Restrictions to the Town of Duxbury and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These restrictions will ensure that the property remains a working farm and that the land is never developed. Also, the Wildlands Trust will transfer the farm ownership to a charitable corporation. The charitable corporation will be endowed
with $1,000,000.
Ms. MacNab commented that the Planning Board has been concerned with this land for many years, and its preservation is actually part of our current Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion that the Planning Board recommends the acquisition of Conservation and Agricultural Restrictions for the O’Neil Farm, noting that the property has been under consideration by the Planning Board for many years, and is mentioned in our Comprehensive Plan. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (4:0).
Ms. Scieszka returned to the meeting at this point.
OTHER BUSINESS
Brewster Commons Comprehensive Permit Application (Revised Plans): The applicant, Mr. A.J. Duffy was present. It was noted that Ms. Stickney provided the Board with her review of the revised plans in a memorandum, dated 5/17/04. She indicated that significant modifications have been made to the original application. The total number of units has been reduced from 52 units down to 44 units. Building coverage and impervious coverage have increased. Open Space has decreased. Mr. Duffy explained that this is because the buildings have been reduced from 2 ½ stories to 1 ½ stories. The buildings are less tall, but more spread out. This was done because of concerns by the ZBA and the abutters about height.
Mr. Duffy also said that he had met with the Fire Chief about the revised plans. He said that the Fire Chief was satisfied, except that he would like to see the island area of the cul-de-sac reduced, to allow more room for maneuvering fire apparatus.
The subject of Humphrey’s Lane was introduced. Mr. Duffy said that he will only improve the portion of Humphrey’s Lane which is on his property. This is not intended to be a second means of egress for his property. He explained that there is an emergency entrance/exit from the subdivision, onto Bay Farm Road. This will have a breakaway gate.
Ms. MacNab commented that a new Proforma will be required. She said that while the State allows a maximum profitability of twenty percent, that it has upheld approvals which only allowed for twelve percent. She would like to see more affordable units negotiated, which will bring the profitability closer to twelve percent.
A memorandum from the Highway Safety Committee, dated May 22, 2004 was noted. The memorandum explains the idea of relocating a school bus stop off Tremont Street and onto Woodridge Road. This could be made possible in conjunction with the proposed development.
Planning Board members noted that while moving the bus stop would take the stop away from a highly-travelled road, that when the bus stops, it actually slows traffic. If the bus is taken off Tremont Street, there will not be a slowing of traffic. This could increase difficulty for any children who actually need to cross Tremont Street. Nonetheless, it was determined that the idea was worth investigation.
Ms. Scieszka noted that she agreed with all of the comments by the consulting engineer to the ZBA, (Tom Sexton), in his memo dated May 19, 2004.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to take the following actions with regard to the comprehensive permit application for Brewster Commons:
1) To forward the Planning Director’s memorandum of May 17, 2004 for their consideration;
2) To express their concurrence with the memorandum of Thomas Sexton, dated May 19, 2004;
3) To recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals review the revised Pro forma and the potential for increasing the number of affordable units;
4) To express their concern with the comments from the Highway Safety Committee in their memorandum of May 22, 2004 and recommend that the ZBA work with the proponent to address safety concerns at the Woodbridge and Tremont Street intersection;
5) To note that the Planning Board makes the above comments without the opportunity for a comprehensive review of all application materials.
Ms. MacNab seconded the motion and the Planning Board voted (5:0) to forward the above recommendation.
Jaycox Property on West Street: Mr. Wadsworth explained that the Board of Selectmen needs a recommendation from the Planning Board on whether to exercise the Town’s right-of-first refusal on the property. In addition, the Planning Board should vote on whether to recommend that Special Town Meeting approve the use of Community Preservation Committee (CPC) funds for the purchase.
The Board was provided with a map of the area, which showed all of the Town-owned property. Mr. Wadsworth showed how the Jaycox property is a complementary addition. He also said that the CPC has recommended that the Town exercise its right-of-first refusal on the property, provided that it can be shown that two buildable lots can be carved out of the property. If it is determined that only one buildable lot can be formed, the purchase price of $600,000 is too high, according to the CPC. Mr. Wadsworth noted that if the Town exercises its right-of-first refusal on this Chapter 61A land, that it would be the first time that the Town has done so.
Mr. Bear asked why this property is a good purchase for the Town. He commented that the value seems to pale in comparison to the value of the O’Neil Farm purchase. Mr. Wadsworth explained that the Town has had its eye on the property for many years to complete the greenbelt along with other Town-owned land in the area.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion that the Planning Board recommends to the Board of Selectmen and to the Special Town Meeting, that the Town exercise its right-of-first refusal on the Jaycox property, contingent upon the determination that two buildable lots could be formed on the property. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried by a vote of 4:1 (Mr. Bear against).
SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: DUXBURY REALTY TRUST FOR COLDWELL BANKER/Sign Permit
The Planning Board determined, by consensus, that the revised application did not resolve any of the issues that the Board had with the original application, and that the original recommendation for denial should be reiterated to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: PAUL & JOAN O’NEILL/31 & 33 HARDEN HILL ROAD/ Proposed Reconstruction
The Planning Board discussion is reflected in the following motion:
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to send the following recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals:
The Planning Board recommends Denial of the Special Permit, as we believe in the event of a teardown, compliance with the Zoning Bylaw for only one dwelling per lot would apply and the reconstruction of a new second dwelling would therefore require a variance. In the event the Board of Appeals should consider favorably the relocation of the second dwelling, it would be the Planning Board’s recommendation that only an affordable unit be permitted. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0).
OTHER BUSINESS (CONT.)
Brewer Lane:
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to approve the As-Built plan for the Brewer Lane Subdivision, as prepared by Orwig Associates, dated 10/5/03, and revised through 11/3/03, and to release all remaining surety funds and engineering review escrow funds associated with the subdivision. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0).
Song Sparrow Estates Subdivision:
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to return all remaining engineering review escrow funds associated with the proposed Song Sparrow Estates subdivision application, which was withdrawn by the applicant on June 2, 2003. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0).
.0Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to pay Amory Engineering Invoices #10331A for Hillside Lane, #10331B for White Pine Lane, and #10331C for Deer Run. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0).
Minutes: Ms. Scieszka recommended an amendment to page 3 of the minutes for 5/10/04.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to approve the minutes for 5/10/04 as amended. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, June 7, 2004 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
