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.
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, April 11, 2005.
Present: Amy MacNab,Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, James Kimball and Rob Wilson.
Absent: Aboud Al-Zaim.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 PM.
OPEN FORUM
MBTA: Mr. Kimball said that he attended the most recent meeting of the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. Funding for the Duxbury stop of the Plymouth & Brockton bus has been eliminated by the MBTA. (Other South Shore towns may have had their stops eliminated as well.) There is some hope that the State may provide funding.
Elm Street: Mr. Wadsworth said that there was a storm drain on Elm Street prior to the construction of the Freeman Farms subdivision. It is no longer functioning, and therefore storm run-off is cascading into the adjacent bog. The DPW Director has been alerted to the problem.
Housing Plan: Ms. Stickney reported that this has not yet been completed by Ms. Barrett. Ms. Stickney has requested an update from Ms. Barrett.
Open Space Committee: Ms. Ripley reported that the OSC will attend the Planning Board meeting of May 9, 2005.
Associate Member: Ms. MacNab contacted Mr. Doug Carver about the possibility of joining the Planning Board as an Associate Member. He sounded interested and will contact the Planning Office. (Mr. Carver ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the Board during the March 2005 election.)
Snug Harbor Boatworks: Ms. Ripley reported that a certified letter was sent on March 22, 2005 to the applicant to request immediate payment of an outstanding invoice. The return receipt for the certified letter was received. However, there has been no payment or response to date. Ms. MacNab requested that the situation be reviewed again at the next Board meeting.
Consulting Engineers: Ms. Stickney reported that she has completed a draft RFP for consulting engineers, and is awaiting review by Mr. Al-Zaim.
Brewster Commons: Mr. Bear asked about the status of the Brewster Commons Comprehensive Permit. Approval for this project was obtained shortly before the death of the applicant. Ms. Stickney said that the property is up for sale. The new owner, once determined, will have to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to verify all conditions between the Town and the developer.
Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to accept the minutes of 3/21/05 as written. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0).
PUBLIC HEARING: DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION OFF CONGRESS AND FRANKLIN STREETS/ Duxbury Bay Cranberries R.T.
Present for the applicant were:
Mr. Al Vautrinot, Vautrinot Land Surveying
Mr. Peter Brooks, Attorney
Mr. and Mrs. Andresen
Present for the Town:
Mr. Richard Finnegan, Assessor
Ms. Scieszka opened the public hearing with a reading of the legal advertisement. A list of correspondence was provided:
· Application, plans and supporting documentation submitted 3/8/05
· Letter from Roland Gray III, Trustee and record Titleholder, Duxbury Bay Cranberries Realty Trust dated 2/10/05 re: authorization of application.
· Letter from Vautrinot Land Surveying dated 2/10/05 re: waiver requests.
· Public Hearing Legal advertisement – Duxbury Clipper (ran 3/23/05 & 3/30/05)
· Letter from Vautrinot Surveying dated 3/14/05 re: waiver request
· Letter from B. Ripley to K. Pillsbury dated 3/15/05 re: Town street name
· Copy of 10/28/03 – Determination of Applicability from Conservation Commission
· Copy of Deeds from Vautrinot Surveying received 3/21/05
· Memo from K. Pillsbury dated 3/29/05 re: Street name
· Memo from J. Bowser, Duxbury Fire Department dated 4/1/05
· Memo from C. Stickney dated 4/6/05 re: staff comments
· Letter dated 4/8/05 from the Chairman of the Highway Safety Committee re: Need for additional information
· Development Review Team Minutes of 4/8/05
· Memo from J. Bowser, Duxbury Fire Department, received by Planning Dept on April 8, 2005
· Memo from Walter Amory, dated 4/8/05
· Letter from Peter Brooks (applicant’s attorney), dated 4/11/05
Mr. Vautrinot questioned the content of the legal ad, which said that the property consists of approximately 60 acres. Mr. Vautrinot said that the property comprises approx. 70 acres. Ms. Stickney said that her information came from a plan for the property provided by the same applicant in 1995, and also from the Town’s Assessors’ records. Ms. Stickney said that this issue needs to be addressed by the applicant.
Mr. Vautrinot said that the applicant has three areas of frontage on Congress and Franklin Streets. They would like to put a house on a portion of upland located on the southeastern portion of the property. The plan shows a cul-de-sac off Congress Street, which would provide access to a bog road leading to the house. However, the actual access would be over a right-of-way between two houses on Franklin Street.
Mr. Vautrinot said that he has only shown wetlands where the building and cul-de-sac would be. Admittedly, he said, there are wetlands where the bog road is, but this road is existing, and does not need to be built (since actual access will be over the previously mentioned easement).
Mr. Vautrinot said that the applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to build the cul-de-sac, since it will not be used. It can be built, but does not need to be.
Ms. Stickney reviewed her comments from her two memoranda of April 6, 2005. She noted that many required plan elements are deficient or lacking altogether. In addition, she had two major concerns: 1) She does not see a public benefit to not constructing the cul-de-sac; and 2) The applicant should be aware that creation of the lot would not guarantee the buildability of the lot. Access and buildability issues require other jurisdictional review with the Inspector of Buildings and the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Finnegan reviewed some of the provisions of Chapter 61A land, including the fact that a residence may be built on Chapter 61A, so long as it is occupied by a family member, or by someone who is farming the land. Once land comes out of Chapter 61, rollback taxes must be paid.
Mr. Kimball noted that the locus map is incorrect on the plan.
Mr. Wilson asked whether other homes could be built on the vacant land. Mr. Vautrinot answered that this would not be possible under the proposed configuration, since the cul-de-sac only provides 200 feet of frontage.
Ms. Scieszka asked whether, since several waivers are requested, the owner had considered placing some kind of conservation restriction on the remaining land. The applicant’s attorney said that they would have to think about it, but that it would be something they would consider.
Mr. Wilson asked about the easement from Franklin Street, and whether it would be paved. Mr. Vautrinot said that it could be paved if necessary.
Ms. MacNab said that she visited the property and found that the easement is currently in a very muddy state. There has been some fresh cutting of trees in there. She said that there would have to be a determination from the Building Department about the easement. She emphasized that the Rules and Regulations (later corrected to Zoning Bylaws) require access over frontage.
Mr. Wadsworth asked whether there are any wetlands in the easement area. Mr. Vautrinot and Ms. Stickney said that there are not. Again, Ms. Stickney emphasized that the suitability of the easement for access would have to be a Building Department determination.
Mr. Peter Brooks, attorney for the applicant, said that this easement dates to 1969. In “the old days”, he said, all you had to do was show an easement on a plan, and then it was conveyed. No special easement document was required. He said that the Andresens definitely have rights of access over the easement, as well as the right to improve it for access. Mr. Brooks also said that there is a definite benefit to the Town of not building the cul-de-sac. The benefit is that the trees will not be cut down, and the land will not be disturbed, in an area that will not be used for access anyway.
Mr. Michael Gill, 41 Allen’s Lane, introduced himself as an attorney who is representing Mr. and Mrs. McCuin of 670 Franklin Street. They own half of the property on which the Andresen’s have the easement. He said that while a right-of-way was granted in 1969, that no express rights are given with the easement. The easement is just a reservation; nothing is written. The right-of-way is for access only. It is not for utilities, and it is not for paving. In addition, he noted that the subdivision plans are extremely deficient. Drainage calculations are not even provided. Finally, he said that frontage must be used for access. The Town of Duxbury won a case against R.H. Burpee regarding that exact issue, he said. He suggested that the Town would not want
to decide differently in a case where the Town itself had created the precedent.
Mr. Bear asked about the existing septic system and foundation. Ms. Stickney said that the applicant had previously obtained approval for a barn on the property.
Ms. Stickney asked the applicant to clarify from which portions of Section 5.3.2.1 of the Rules and Regulations are waivers being sought.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to continue the public hearing to May 23, 2005 at 7:45 PM, with revised plans and documentation due at the Planning Office by May 9, 2005, and with the decision date remaining 7/21/05. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0).
A mutual extension form was signed by the applicant and the Board.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN/ TERAVAINEN/ Off High Street
A list of correspondence was provided for the record:
· Mutual Extension form signed 2/7/05
· PB Minutes of 2/7/05
· Certified Letter to Teravainen dated 2/18/05 re: replenishment of funds
· Letter from K. Pillsbury dated 3/1/05 re: Delano Dr. road name
· Mutual Extension form signed 3/28/05
· PB Minutes of 3/28/05
· Letter from Webby Engineering dated 4/5/05 re: O& M schedule
· Letter from Webby Engineering dated 4/5/05 re: additional waiver request
· Memo from Mainstream Engineering dated 4/7/05 re: Peer review
Present for the applicant were:
Steve Kotowski, Webby Engineering
Kelly Teravainen, Applicant’s Daughter-in-Law
Present for the Town was:
Thomas Sexton, Mainstream Engineering
It was noted that the subdivision roadway will be named: Delano Drive. This name has received the approval of the Town Historian.
Mr. Kotowski described changes to the plans. The roadway has been moved in order to address line-of-sight problems. Also, language appears on the plan stating that a restrictive covenant will be recorded on Lot A, to prohibit any further development of that land.
Outstanding items from Mr. Sexton’s review of 4/7/05 were reviewed:
Grading Profile Plan:
2) Applicant’s attorney, Mr. James Pye, will provide language for the drainage easement description.
4) Additional information is needed regarding existing conditions.
Roadway:
1) Some trees will have to be removed for line-of-sight. However, there is a telephone pole which will be very difficult to re-locate. It was agreed that Mr. Sexton would visit the site in order to assess the impact of the telephone pole on the line-of-sight.
5) A driveway apron construction detail will be provided.
Stormwater Management:
3) Homeowners’ Association documentation to be provided by Mr. James Pye.
6) It was agreed that the roadway material should be ¾” – 1” washed crushed stone. The separation between the crushed stone roadway and the drainage swale shall be labeled as a grass strip.
16) It was agreed that test pit data will be provided prior to construction.
18) Roof drywell design still needed, either prior to approval or as a condition of any construction permit for Lots A and B.
21) The drainage easement for swale overflow must be shown for Lot A on Sheets 2
and 3.
Wetlands Resource Areas:
1) Lawn size will be limited as a condition of subdivision approval.
7) Silt-fencing of a double-haybale line will not be required since it has not been required by the Conservation Commission.
Water Supply:
2) The Fire Department has indicated that the fire flow to the site is adequate. Written documentation is pending.
5) Information about existing private wells is pending Water Department confirmation.
Next, the Board reviewed Ms. Stickney’s review dated 4/8/05. It was agreed that the applicant’s engineer should gather all the revisions and incorporate them into a final set of plans, and that the applicant’s attorney is to develop a restrictive covenant for submission to Duxbury Town Counsel for approval. Staff will prepare a draft decision (with conditions) for the next meeting.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson moved that the public hearing for Delano Drive be continued to May 9, 2005 at 8:00 PM, with revised plans and documentation due to the Planning Office by April 25, 2005, and with an extension of the decision date to June 7, 2005. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0).
A mutual extension form was signed by the applicant and the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be on Monday, April 25, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
