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 8/30/04
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, August 30, 2004.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, and James Kimball.
Absent: Aboud Al-Zaim and Rob Wilson.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM in the Small Conference Room of Town Hall. It was agreed to move the meeting down the hall to the Mural Room in order to have additional space for the public. A notice was placed on the Small Conference Room door regarding the change in meeting location. The meeting reconvened at 7:31 PM in the Mural Meeting Room, Duxbury Town Hall.
OPEN FORUM
Mr. Kimball announced that he would be leaving the meeting when the matter of the Administrative Site Plan Review application for the proposed medical building at 104 Tremont Street was taken up, since he will be recusing himself from all discussions and votes on the matter, due to a conflict.
Ms. MacNab thanked staff for providing newly published copies of the Zoning Bylaw.
SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: DECKER/ 105 Gurnet Road
This matter was previously discussed by the Planning Board on June 28, 2004. A recommendation was sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals following that meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Decker requested to come before the Board to address the Planning Board’s comments.
1) Building Coverage: Mrs. Decker said that she felt that the Planning Board misunderstood the proposed change in building coverage. Board members reviewed the calculations. Board members agreed that it appears that 1,125 SF would be allowed on this property, while 1,192 SF are shown on the plan. Board members pointed out that the doorway overhang must be included in the building coverage calculations. The Board advised the Deckers to get documentation from their surveyor regarding how his lot coverage calculations were obtained.
2) Sideline Setbacks: The Planning Board explained how the proposed addition increases the nonconformity of the sideline setback on both sides. Board members explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals will determine whether this is a detriment to the neighborhood.
3) Bathrooms: The number of existing/proposed bedrooms and bathrooms were provided by the applicants. The applicants explained that they have been in contact with the Town of Marshfield Water and Sewer department and there were no concerns.
4) View & Vistas: The Planning Board had stated that the height of the proposed structure may negatively impact the views and vistas in the neighborhood. However, the Board noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals will determine the relative impact after hearing input from neighbors, and after comparing the project with other structures in the neighborhood.
Planning Board members agreed to write a follow-up letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals, detailing the above points.
ANR PLAN OF LAND: CHASE/ West Street
Mr. Mark Casey, Principal of South Shore Survey, was present to represent the applicant.
The applicant is Mr. Edward Chase, DBA West Street Family Trust.
Ms. MacNab asked whether the Planning Office has received anything from Mr. Jaycox, authorizing the ANR application. Planning Staff said that nothing has been received. Mr. Casey said that his client feels he has a valid Purchase & Sale Agreement for the property, even though the Town of Duxbury voted to exercise its right of first refusal on the property at the Special Town Meeting in June 2004.
Ms. MacNab cited MGL Chapter 41, Section 81L – Definition of Applicant: “Applicant” shall include an owner or his agent or representative, or his assigns.
Ms. MacNab made a motion to deny without prejudice endorsement of the ANR Plan due to the unclear issue of the property owner’s authorization of the application before the Planning Board. Mr. Kimball provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
PUBLIC MEETING: ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW/ DEESUL, LLC/ 104 Tremont Street
Mr. Kimball left the meeting at this point, and did not return. He has recused himself from all votes and discussions on the Deesul proposal due to a conflict.
The Clerk read the list of correspondence:
· Site Plan Review Application, Fee, Purchase & Sales Agreement, Certified Abutter’s list, Traffic Report and plans submitted 8/5/04.
· Letter to Walter Amory dated 8/6/04 from Planning Director requesting Peer review services.
· Public Meeting notice to run in Clipper 8/11 & 8/18.
· Corrected public meeting notice revised to run in Clipper 8/18 and 8/25
(Correction was a “three story” building rather than one story).
· Re-notification to abutters with corrected description – August 12, 2004.
· Notice of DRT Meeting on 8/19/04 to Department Heads.
· Letter from Paul Anderson, Water Superintendent dated 8/19/04 re: need for a hydraulic evaluation for fire protection.
· Memo from Jennifer Dalyrmple dated 8/19/04 re: lack of information.
· Minutes of DRT meeting of 8/19/04
· Letter from Jon Parziale – Boy Scout Troop 62 of Duxbury received 8/23/04 expressing opposition to the proposal.
· Letter from the Fire Department dated 8/23/04 re: concerns with access, fire suppression and recommendations for ambulance access.
· Letter from Walter Amory dated 8/23/04 re: Peer review of plans and studies
· Letter from C. Stickney dated 8/24/04 re: concerns with plans and studies
Present for the applicant were:
Thomas Tucker, Attorney
Mark Sullivan, Principal of Deesul, LLC
Bob Deely, Principal of Deesul, LLC
Elizabeth Sullivan, spouse of Mark Sullivan
Eric Eby, P.E., Traffic Engineer with Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Thomas M. DiCicco, P.E., Civil Engineer with Carter-Burgess
William Fornaciari, Architect (Fornaciari & Noseworthy)
Present for the Town of Duxbury was:
Walter Amory, Principal of Amory Engineering, PC
Mr. Tucker began the presentation by describing the current conditions. The property is in the Neighborhood Business-1 Zone. It is across the street from the Oliver Medical Building, and next to Jack Conway Real Estate. The proposed medical building will have three stories, and a mansard roof. Mr. Tucker said that the building has been designed to fit in well with the Town of Duxbury. It will be 60-feet wide and 80-feet deep. The front door is for aesthetics only. The parking will be in the back, and so patrons will enter from the back as well.
Fifty parking spaces are planned, and ten medical offices. Valet parking is planned as a convenience to patrons. The first floor will have four offices. The second and third floors will have three offices each.
Mr. Tucker said that the applicant is mindful of the Town’s objections to the previous application which came forward for the same property. He said that the current proposal has a smaller footprint, and is designed for a single use, rather than multiple uses.
Mr. Tucker said that only one access is planned. This eliminates the need to chop down vegetation on the easterly side of the property.
Ms. MacNab asked why the applicant referred to the building as a medical office building in some parts of their application, and in other parts referred to a general office building. Mr. Sullivan said that having a medical office building is their goal, but that they need to apply for all uses so they are not denied by being too specific with just one use. Mr. Sullivan also explained that the valet parking idea is planned as a marketing tool, not as a way to get around any requirements or regulations.
Mr. DiCicco explained that the building exceeds the front setback requirement by four feet. It will set a little further back than the existing house, but extend a bit further back than the existing house in the rear. Fifty-percent site coverage is allowed, approximately 45% is proposed. Mr. DiCicco said that it is a disadvantage to the applicant to put the parking in the rear, because it necessitates the construction of a driveway to the back. However, the applicant thought it would look a lot better to have the building in the front.
Ms. MacNab cited ZBL 603.11 which states the requirement for a separate loading area, for which no other parking can be used. Mr. DiCicco said that no loading area is on the current plans, but that one can certainly be provided.
Mr. DiCicco described existing drainage conditions. He said that there is very little run-off from the site. He said that the plan will be to collect run-off from the parking lot into two catch basins in the back. These will flow to a manhole, and then to sumps. The basin will be very permeable. The applicant has made every effort to stay away from the buffer zone to Conservation land in the rear. This will cause there to be an approximate 3-foot pitch to the drainage area. Nonetheless, water quality should be excellent. No discharge is even expected until a 100-year storm event.
Town of Duxbury consultant, Walter Amory, said that this site should not pose any kind of drainage problem. There is a lot of sand and gravel. The steepness of the drainage basin can be stabilized with matting. Mr. Amory noted that there is a well within 100-feet of the proposed detention basin at the rear of the property. It appears that the well is only used for irrigation. If it were to be used for potable water, it would have to meet the separation guidelines by DEP Stormwater Management Policy. Mr. Sullivan said that he had spoken with the owners of the well, the Bakers, and that the well is not intended for a potable water supply. Ms. MacNab said that she would like something in writing from the Bakers to that effect.
Mr. Amory said that test pit data has been provided. However, a hydrograph is still needed.
Mr. DiCicco described the proposed septic system. He said that it will be a pressure-dowsing system, designed to handle 2,500 gallons per day. It will flow to an 8,000 gallon tank. He said that once flow exceeds 2,000 gallons per day, that a standard D-Box design cannot be used. The system is equipped with an alarm. Ms. MacNab said that a generator should be required. Mr. Sullivan said that a generator will be required anyway for the medical use of the building.
Attention turned to the memorandum from the Fire Department, dated 8/23/04. The Fire Department requires access to all sides of the building, and is concerned that this is not possible on the northerly side of the structure.
Mr. Wadsworth commented that the sprinkler system and fire hydrant will be sharing the same water connection. The applicant should ascertain that there will be enough flow for both.
Mr. Bear reminded the applicant of the other issue from the Fire Department, which is that the Department would like a dedicated ambulance parking space.
Comments from the Public:
Ms. Jean Clark (88 Surplus Street): Opposed to mansard roof. Said that mansard roofs often have a very undesirable appearance.
Ms. Lorrie Hall (175 Abrams Hill Road): Questioned the need for such a “large, hulking” building. Said that it is not in harmony with the little buildings in the area. Wonders why it cannot be two stories, rather than three.
Ms. Kay Foster (134 Surplus Street): Questioned the height of the building relative to its distance from the lot lines.
Board members agreed that they would like to see side elevations. Mr. Wadsworth commented that the building looks like a hotel, and has a “French” appearance.
The applicant agreed to review the possibility of a different roof line.
Ms. Ruth Rowley (546 Washington Street): Said that the applicant has applied under Section 513 of the Zoning Bylaw. Seventeen uses are allowed under that section, so the building could be used for many other things.
Traffic Information:
Mr. Ebee provided traffic information. He said that the proposed project would be expected to generate a total of 542 vehicle trips during a weekday, with 37 vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 56 vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak hour. He said that it would generate less than one-third of the weekday PM peak hour trips that the previous retail project proposal would have generated.
Ms. Stickney questioned whether the peak time for Tremont Street will be the same as for the proposed medical building.
Ms. MacNab said that she would like to see the traffic generation expected if the building were used for general office use, instead of for a medical building.
Mr. Wadsworth commented that the Highway Safety Committee had performed traffic counts at the site, concurrent with the previous application. He asked that the new applicant review this data to see how it compares with their analysis.
Other issues:
Ms. Scieszka asked whether there would be issues with medical waste. Mr. DiCicco said that medical waste would be handled inside the facility, and that its treatment would be regulated by the State.
Additional Public Input:
Ms. Lorrie Hall (175 Abrams Hill Road): Cited ZBL Sections 615.1 and 615.1.7 and the protection of neighboring properties. She said that this building is much too large for the neighborhood.
Ms. Kay Foster (134 Surplus Street): Commented that the difficulties of turning left into a business or residence on Tremont Street should not be discounted. She has been rear-ended on Tremont Street while attempting to make a left turn into an address there.
Ms. MacNab made a motion to continue the public meeting to October 4, 2004, and to extend the decision date by the Planning Board to October 31, 2004. Revised plans will be due to the Planning Office by September 20, 2004. Mr. Bear provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously(4-0).
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: TOWN GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE
Ms. Ruth Rowley, a member of the Town Government Study Committee visited the Planning Board to get its input on matters relevant to Duxbury Town government. Ms. MacNab said that she often hears people in Town talk about whether there should be Representative Town Meeting instead of Open Town Meeting. Ms. MacNab’s opinion is strongly in favor of Open Town Meeting. She said, however, that it would be worth investigating the costs/benefits of having a lottery system for choosing the order of articles at the meeting. She said that another matter often discussed around Town is whether there should be more than three Selectmen. Finally, Ms. MacNab said that she feels that the schools often work separately from the rest of Town government, and that their operations should be brought closer to those
of the Town as a whole.
Ms. Rowley agreed that Open Town Meeting is a good system. However, she said there is a problem with getting the proper information out to the public.
Ms. Stickney said that she would like to see changes in the way Administrative Site Plan Review is conducted. It is difficult to administer, and is confusing and expensive for applicants (due to the numerous plan copies needed – (32)). She also said that inadequate computing capabilities are a problem with the efficient running of Town government. More and more state agencies require on-line submissions for grants, etc. Duxbury is not up to date, technologically.
Ms. MacNab added that she would like to see the status of the Town’s General Bylaw clarified. She said that she has heard Town Counsel refer to it as “garbage”. Ms. Rowley said that, while State law trumps the Town Bylaw, that all proper procedures have been followed in developing the Town’s General Bylaws. They have all been approved by the Attorney General, so it is a very valid document.
Ms. Scieszka said that she would like to see procedures in effect for the recall of elected and appointed officials. She added that she would like better access to Town Counsel, and would like to see an additional special Town Counsel for land use issues.
Ms. MacNab said that the fact that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board so often hold opposing views is a problem for the smooth operation of Town government.
Mr. Wadsworth said that he would like to see a more comprehensive Town Report, including the salaries of public employees.
OTHER BUSINESS
Consulting Engineer Invoices: Ms. MacNab made a motion to pay invoices #10439A-C from Amory Engineering, for consulting services related to Hillside Lane, Deer Run, and Dingleydell Estates. Mr. Bear provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
Plan Endorsement: The twenty-day appeal period for the Hillside Lane subdivision approval has passed. Therefore, Board members endorsed the plans.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, September 13, 2004 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
