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 April 26, 2004
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, April 26, 2004.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, John Bear, and James Kimball.
Absent: Rob Wilson
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Planning Board:
Ms. MacNab: The recent rainfall has led to flooding problems in the Allen’s Lane area and the Elm Street area. She has been getting phone calls from residents. Staff was asked to check on drainage improvement plans with the DPW.
Mr. Al-Zaim: Announced that he will be working outside of the country for two weeks in May, and six weeks in July/August, and will therefore be unable to attend Planning Board meetings.
Public:
Andresen/Franklin Street: The Andresens are seeking to create an additional building lot on their property. Mr. Al Vautrinot, Surveyor was present to describe a concept plan for the property. Mr. and Mrs. Andresen were present. The Andresen’s attorney, Mr. Glenn Wood, was also present. Mr. Vautrinot said that they wanted to get an idea from the Board of whether this was worth pursuing before undergoing the expense of a subdivision application.
Mr. Wadsworth commented that a similar plan had come before the Board as an ANR, and had been denied by the Board. The matter was litigated, and the Town prevailed. He also said that he is unwilling to commit favorably or unfavorably because it is not an application. He said that there are many things that get worked out through the application process, and that it would be unwise to comment outside of that process.
Ms. MacNab agreed that many things get worked out in the subdivision process. However, she said that if there are significant “showstoppers”, that it is only fair to let the applicant know before they spend significant amounts of money on the application. She said that there are three major issues with developing this property. First, the land is Forestry Land under Chapter 61. Therefore, the Town has the right of first refusal on any potential sale of the property. Second, there are significant wetlands on the property. Third, access to a property must be across the legal frontage.
Mr. Al-Zaim said that he would not comment on the concept, since there is no application.
Mr. Wadsworth explained that if the Andresens decide to go forward with an application, it would be necessary for the Andresens to explain their rights over the land they intend to take access from.
OTHER BUSINESS
South Shore Coalition Meeting re: CPA Funds: Mr. Wadsworth repeated his concern that the amendments proposed to the Community Preservation Act will divert money from CPA communities to non-CPA communities. He plans to draft a letter to Duxbury’s state legislators on behalf of the Planning Board.
Site Walk for Duxbury Crossing (Chapter 40B application): Mr. Kimball, Mr. Wadsworth, and Ms. MacNab plan to attend. Staff will post as a meeting, just in case a quorum of the Planning Board does indeed attend.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED HILLSIDE LANE SUBDIVISION/ Off North Street (123 Washington Street R.T.)
Present for the applicant were:
Mr. Kevin Sealund, Principal – Washington Street R.T.
Mr. Roger Sealund, Principal – Washington Street R.T.
Mr. Matthew Dacey, Principal – Champion Builders
Mr. Richard Grady, Grady Consulting (Project Engineer)
The Town’s consulting engineer, Mr. Walter Amory, was also present. One member of the general public was present, and one reporter from the Duxbury Clipper.
The clerk read the correspondence list:
A Mutual Extension form dated 3/22/04 - extend hearing to 4/26/04
Minutes from PB hearing of 3/22/04
Soil Evaluator Forms from Amory Engineering received 4/7/04
Letter from Grady Consulting dated 4/12/04 addressing concerns and providing revised plans and drainage calculations. Transmitted to consulting engineers - Amory Engineering for review.
Letter from Amory Engineering dated 4/20/04 comments to revised plans
Staff report from C. Stickney dated 4/20/04 comments on revised plans
Letter from Grady Consulting dated 4/21/04 re: Proposed grades
Development Review Team (DRT) Minutes of 4/23/04 -project discussed
Mr. Grady summarized changes to the plan made since the last hearing on March 22, 2004. These changes are described in a memorandum from Richard Grady to the Planning Board, dated April 12, 2004. The only addition to the memorandum is that the applicant is considering requesting a fifth waiver per direction from the Town’s consultant. This waiver would have to do with the swale adjacent to North Street. The applicant would like to reduce the required cover over the pipes. In turn, this would allow for the depth of the swale to be less.
Comments from the Board:
Ms. Scieszka commented on Waiver request #4, which would allow a portion of the vegetated drainage buffer to be located on Lot 3 (as an easement), rather than as part of the separate drainage lot. She asked why the buffer area could not be subtracted from Lot 3, and made part of the separate drainage lot. Mr. Grady explained that this would leave Lot 3 without the required 60,000 SF of upland. Mr. Wadsworth commented that an easement is not the same as ownership. It is much more difficult to prevent a resident from disturbing a buffer which is an easement on their property, than from disturbing a buffer which is part of Town-owned property.
Ms. MacNab said that she is concerned about the drinking water well across the street from the entrance. She noted that the separation between the well and the drainage swale is only 80 feet. Mr. Amory explained that Best Management Practices are guidelines from the Department of Environmental Protection. These guidelines suggest that the separation should be 100 feet. However, the applicant has proposed pollutant mitigation measures that will prevent the migration of contaminants to the well. These include the deep sump catch basins, the downstream defender, and the grass bottom of the swale (from which the water seeps into the ground). Mr. Amory said that he is satisfied that these proposals will be adequate to protect the well. Ms. MacNab said that she is still concerned that
if the residents have a problem with their well, that the Planning Board could be blamed for not insisting on the 100-foot separation. Mr. Al-Zaim said that he agrees that the 100-foot standard is important. The Board, he said, might have difficulty defending why they did not follow DEP guidelines. Mr. Amory repeated that the grass-lined swale more than makes up for the twenty feet. Mr. Wadsworth said that it might be worth investigating whether the well could be moved.
Ms. MacNab said that the maintenance of the downstream defender will become the responsibility of the Town, since this is intended to become a public road. If the apparatus is not adequately maintained, the well is again threatened.
Mr. Wadsworth disagreed that an 80-foot separation threatens the well. He said that contaminants will die out much more quickly than the 80 feet. The contaminants will not be able to go across the road, much less across 80 feet. However, he suggested that the catch basin could be raised up a bit so that infiltration occurs before the catch basin.
Mr. Kimball suggested that the applicant double-check the actual location of the existing well, since the plan only notes that well as “proposed”.
Mr. Wadsworth said that his understanding of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations is that a 50-foot vegetated buffer is also required for the swale at the entrance to the subdivision. Ms. Stickney disagreed, saying that these are only required for drainage basins. It was noted that the Board has recently approved other subdivisions (Pratt Circle, Deer Run) with drainage swales that do not have vegetated buffers. Mr. Al-Zaim said that this may have been a mistake, and that his interpretation is that the 50-foot buffer is required.
Ms. MacNab questioned the nitrogen-loading calculations. Mr. Grady explained that he knew that the Subdivision Rules and Regulations only allow for 5 ppm of nitrogen. He said that he calculated how big the lawns can be, and still allow for less than 5 ppm. Mr. Wadsworth said that each lawn would have to be somewhere around 220,000 SF in order to exceed the nitrogen limit. It is unlikely that residents would want that much lawn. Mr. Amory cautioned that the applicant has not taken existing conditions into account. He recommended that the Board required the applicant to do this. Mr. Amory asked how limitations on lawn size and lot clearing will be enforced. Mr. Wadsworth said that there would have to be some kind of conservation easement. The applicant stated that he
would be agreeable to a deed restriction, but not to a formal Conservation Restriction.
Comments from the Consultant:
Mr. Amory commented on the road grade. He said that the applicant has worked with the road grade as much as possible, but that there is still a short length of 10% road grade. The sag curve helps to reduce the problems associated with it. However, if the applicant tries to reduce the road grade any further, there will have to be deep cuts into the hillside, and it will become difficult to access the existing homes.
Mr. Amory then reviewed the comments in his letter to the Planning Board of April 20, 2004. Mr. Grady said that he agrees with Mr. Amory’s comments, and intends to comply with them.
Mr. Amory added that he would like to see separate Operations and Maintenance Schedules for the construction phase and the post-construction phase.
Further discussion by the Board:
Ms. MacNab returned to the discussion of whether a 50-foot buffer should be required around the swale at the entrance. She asked whether the swale is no longer just a swale, but a basin, because of the adjustments made to it to protect the well across the street. Mr. Amory described a “swale” as a channel, and a “basin” as a device for retaining water. He said that the drainage at the entrance to the subdivision should be considered a swale.
Ms. MacNab asked the applicant to provide a sample deed which calls for no further subdivision of the lots, and no further extension of the roadway.
Mr. Grady explained the fifth waiver request that the applicant would like to make regarding cover. The applicant would like to raise the drainage pipes at the entrance. He said that the applicant would increase the quality of the drainage pipe to withstand the load (Class Five pipes). Mr. Amory confirmed that Class Five pipes could withstand the additional load caused by being closer to the road.
Ms. MacNab said that she would like to see the restrictive language for the vegetated drainage buffer, and the language for the driveway slope easements.
Ms. Stickney said that, at this point, the Board should indicate their preferences with regard to Waivers #1 and #2. If these waivers are not allowed, a complete re-design will be necessary. Mr. Bear indicated that he would be inclined to approve those two waivers, as did Ms. MacNab. Mr. Al-Zaim said that he still has questions about them.
At this point, discussion turned to continuing the public hearing to another date. Ms. MacNab made a motion to continue the public hearing to May 24, 2004 at 8:00 PM. Mr. Kimball provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0). The applicant agreed to have all new plans and application materials to the Planning Office by 4:00 PM on Monday, May 10.
Mr. Al-Zaim left the meeting at this point.
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION RE: FUTURE PLANNING BOARD INITIATIVES
Planning Board members agreed that the following items would be priorities for the Board in the near future: Mansionization, Site Coverage/Building Coverage, Gravel Parking, Housing Plan, Residential Conservation Cluster Design Process, and the CPZBIC Exit Report. Later, the Board plans to address the following items: Comprehensive Plan Update and Planned Development Zoning.
OTHER BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
Invoice: Ms. MacNab made a motion to pay Invoice #10295 from Amory Engineering in the amount of $1,699.13 for work on the Hillside Lane subdivision proposal. Mr. Kimball provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
Minutes: Ms. MacNab made a motion to accept the minutes of 4/5/04 as written. Mr. Kimball provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
DRT Meeting: It was agreed to try to set up a Development Review Team meeting with members of the Planning Board in order to discuss road and drainage design.
Joint Meeting with ZBA: Ms. Stickney told the Board that the Chairman of the ZBA has requested a meeting with the Planning Board in order to discuss Chapter 40B applications. She will try to set one up.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be on Monday, May 3, 2004 at 7:30 PM in the Town Office Building.
| 
