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.
Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 10/24/05
(Accepted 11/28/05)
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building, Monday, October 24, 2005.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear; James Kimball;
and Robert Wilson.
Absent: Aboud Al-Zaim. Also absent were Associate Members Douglas Carver and Harold Moody.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 PM.
OPEN FORUM
MBTA Advisory Board Meeting: Mr. Kimball advised the Planning Board that he is attending the MBTA Advisory Board meeting on Thursday, October 27, 2005.
South Shore Coalition: Ms. Scieszka reported that she has been unable to attend the past two Coalition meetings, and the Board agreed that Ms. Scieszka would email staff if she is aware of an upcoming meeting conflict, so that staff can seek a one-time replacement.
Affordable Housing Plan: Ms. Scieszka also asked about the status of the Affordable Housing Plan. Ms. Stickney noted that Judi Barrett does not have the time to complete the project, and would be forwarding her work to date to staff. Ms. Stickney added that the project may become a Housing Coordinator task. Mr. Wilson reported that the Local Housing Partnership would be discussing the Affordable Housing Plan at its October 27, 2005 meeting.
Duxbury Crossing: Ms. MacNab referenced a letter from Building Inspector Mr. Richard MacDonald that the developer will be fined $50 per day from the date of initial violation for cutting down trees without approval. Since the violations took place in May 2004, Ms. MacNab estimated that approximately $25,000 had accrued in fines to this point. She requested that the Board consider requesting an enforcement by the Building Inspector. After discussion and on motion duly made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Ms. Scieska, it was unanimously:
VOTED: That the Board send a letter to Building Inspector Mr. Richard MacDonald to enforce action regarding tree cutting violations at Duxbury Crossing.
Sun Tavern: Attorney Brian Cook distributed to the Board documents addressing concerns since his September 19, 2005 appearance. He handed them a memo dated October 21, 2005 outlining the applicants’ oversight regarding outstanding matters that the Board was unaware of, including the pending Entertainment/Food and Beverage License and Fire Safety Inspection. He also distributed a copy of a letter dated October 17, 2005 from Fire Chief Kevin Nord indicating that the Sun Tavern is not presently in violation of any fire safety codes.
Ms. MacNab noted that the Board had not received all the materials needed in order to review the proposed project. Mr. Wilson asked when the next Zoning Board of Appeals hearing was scheduled, and Atty. Cook replied that the date is November 17, 2005. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the applicants had submitted an Administrative Site Plan application and Atty. Cook replied that he would shortly.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN/ CROSSROADS FOR KIDS/
OFF NORTH STREET (Vicinity of 245 North Street)
Mr. Mark Casey from South Shore Survey was present to represent the applicant, Crossroads for Kids. He presented the plans to the Board for subdividing three lots with frontage on North Street from the applicant’s 103-acre parcel. Mr. Casey described in detail how the plans meet the Town of Duxbury Rules and Regulations, and said that the applicants are anxious to sell these lots to fund a capital project for their non-profit organization.
Ms. MacNab noted that there appeared to be an error on sheet 2, where “square feet” was listed instead of “acreage.” Mr. Casey told the Board that he could bring a corrected mylar to the Planning Office by 10:00 AM on Tuesday, October 25, 2005. Ms. Stickney asked the Board if members could come to the Planning Office to sign the corrected plans. After discussion and on motion duly made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr, Wadsworth, it was unanimously:
VOTED: That the ANR Plan of Land in Duxbury, MA prepared for Crossroads for Kids by South Shore Survey, Inc. and dated October 12, 2005, does not require approval under Subdivision Control Law.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN/411 SUMMER STREET (MARY TACELLI)
Present for the applicant were Atty. Robert Galvin, Jr. and consulting engineer Mr. Rick Grady. Atty. Galvin presented plans to the Board and noted that the applicant desires to subdivide out a 2.3 acre lot for the existing home to remain and convey a remaining parcel of 12.5 acres that will eventually be combined with another abutting property. Mr. Wilson asked if the frontage is located on Summer Street and Atty. Galvin responded that it is.
Atty. Galvin described the plans in detail and referenced the Subdivision Rules and Regulations that state that approval is not required if one parcel is divided into two lots and one of them is not buildable, and noted that Parcel A on the plan is designated as “not buildable.” Atty. Galvin also referenced a legal case (Criccone) where, as long as additional lots were identified as not buildable, approval would not be required.
Ms. MacNab pointed out it was not as clear-cut as presented because neither parcel has the pre-requisite 200 linear feet of frontage. She noted, and Mr. Wilson concurred, that it is not the Board’s practice to endorse lots that do not have the required frontage.
Atty. Galvin pointed out that the parcel is already non-conforming, and that the applicant is simply looking to convey part of that land to an adjoining parcel. Mr. Wadsworth stated that it has not been the practice of the Board to endorse an ANR that has inadequate frontage. Atty. Galvin responded that the applicant is not intensifying the non-conforming nature of the lot.
The Board continued to discuss with Atty. Galvin possible ways to allow for the ANR plan to be approved, but were unable to come to a mutually agreeable solution. Ms. Scieszka asked Atty. Galvin if he preferred to withdraw the application for ANR in order to obtain a variance from the ZBA, but Atty. Galvin declined. After discussion and on motion duly made by Mr. Wadsworth and seconded by Mr. Wilson, it was:
VOTED: That the plan of land for Parcel 090-014-000 to be a subdivision of land does not meet the prerequisites of Approval Not Required. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion.
The motion carried with five in favor and one abstention from Mr. Kimball.
OPEN FORUM (continued)
Because it was not quite 8:30 PM, the appointed time for the Public Hearing, Ms. MacNab re-opened the floor to Open Forum.
Annual Town Meeting Warrants: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that Annual Town Meeting warrants will close on December 19, 2005, and that this year no place holders will be allowed as in previous years.
Duxbury Affordable Housing Bill: Ms. Stickney also advised the Board that last Thursday Governor Romney had signed the Duxbury Affordable Housing bill. She said that there will be an organization set up as a Board of Directors, in case any Board member was interested or knew of a qualified candidate.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING/DEFINITIVE PLAN/CEDAR TREE FARM OFF CONGRESS STREET (ANDRESEN)
Ms. MacNab opened the continued public hearing. Ms. Stickney advised that Mrs. Andresen has made a request to continue the hearing to November 14, 2005 and to extend the decision date to December 14, 2005, so that both the Planning and Conservation can work with the applicants to reach agreeable language in a Conservation Restriction. After discussion and on motion duly made by Mr. Wadsworth and seconded by Mr. Wilson, it was unanimously:
VOTED: To continue the public hearing on the definitive plan for Cedar Tree Farm/Off Congress Street until November 14, 2005 at 8:00 PM, to extend the decision date to December 14, 2005, and to request that materials be submitted to the Planning Office by November 7, 2005
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING/DEFINITIVE PLAN FOR INGALL’S GROVE/OFF BAY ROAD (DENYER)
Present
Mr. and Mrs. Steven Denyer, applicants
Mr. Chris Gallagher, applicants’ consulting engineer
Mr. Thomas Sexton of Mainstream Engineering, Town consulting engineer.
Ms. Scieszka read the public hearing notice and correspondence list into the public record:
§ Mutual extension form to extend public hearing and decision deadline signed September 19, 2005
§ Copy of a letter from the Fire Department dated July 6, 2005 handed in at the September 19, 2005 meeting.
§ Minutes from the September 19, 2005 meeting.
§ Letter from Mr. Paul Anderson, Water Superintendent dated September 21, 2005 re: water connection.
§ Revised plans and materials submitted October 7, 2005 by Gallagher Engineering.
§ Letter from Mainstream Engineering received by fax October 24, 2005 and dated October 24, 2005 re: Peer Review additional comments.
Mr. Gallagher presented revised plans and noted that the turning radius has been increased. He provided a brief environmental impact report, and noted that the site distance speed had been corrected from 35mph to 30mph. Mr. Gallagher reported that he had talked to Conservation Agent Mr. Joe Grady, who advised him that as long as a 25-foot buffer is maintained, it would be acceptable to the Conservation Commission. Ms. Scieszka told Mr. Gallagher that the information would need to be included in a homeowner’s agreement, and Mr. Gallagher replied that it would be recorded in the title instead.
Ms. MacNab asked for Mr. Sexton’s comments, and he brought up the issue of whether or not a cabana on the property is a dwelling. Ms. MacNab reported that she and Ms. Stickney had met with Building Inspector Mr. Richard MacDonald who agreed to require that any appliances be removed from the cabana if the Board requested so.
Ms. Stickney advised that Mr. MacDonald feels the structure is too small to be a dwelling. Ms. MacNab responded that the presence of a kitchen defines it as a dwelling. Mr. Wilson added that the Board cannot approve a plan that has two dwellings.
Mr. Wilson noted that an abutter, Mr. Glenn Brodie, had expressed that it is a dwelling, and that Mr. Wilson would hate to see Mr. Brodie return to the Board to question why the Board had approved a plan with two dwellings. Mr. Bear noted that the question belongs to the Inspectional Services Department, and they say it is not a dwelling. Mr. Bear added that even if the stove was removed from the building, it could be replaced at a later date and the Board would have no protection from that.
Ms. MacNab noted that it is important to clarify the Board’s position, and that she has no problem with it as long as the suggested language is included and as long as the kitchen is removed. She stated that the Board needs to protect its best interests so that it is not creating one lot with two dwellings.
Ms. Stickney advised that she has started to draft conditions and would like to know whether or not to include the suggested language. Mr. Wilson responded that he does not feel the Board needs to include stove removal. Mr. Kimball added that you cannot get around the fact that the Board is creating one lot with two dwellings. Ms. Scieszka stated that she is satisfied with the suggested language, but concerned that Mr. MacDonald does not feel the structure is a dwelling.
Mr. Wadsworth suggested that outside of subdivision approval, the Board could request in a letter to Mr. MacDonald that he review the project again to determine if the structure is a dwelling. Ms. MacNab expressed that this would be an excellent compromise and summarized that the Board was in agreement with Mr. MacDonald’s suggested language and that the dwelling issue would be addressed at a later date.
Mr. Sexton then outlined Mainstream Engineering’s review letter dated October 24, 2005, and reviewed the following outstanding issues:
§ Definitive Plan needs to be stamped by Professional Land Surveyor.
§ Requirement that all existing structures within 300 feet of the parcel be shown: Mr. Gallagher responded that the applicant is requesting a waiver on this, based on the small scale of the development, and the fact that the people most affected would need to go on the abutters’ property which would require the neighbors’ permission. Ms. MacNab asked how many neighbors would not be listed, and Mr. Gallagher replied that three neighbors would not be listed. Ms. MacNab asked if there were any wells located across the street, and Mr. Gallagher responded that there were no wells that he is aware of, and that all the surrounding
neighbors were on Town water and this subdivision would be on Town water as well.
§ Proposed waiver of 170 feet of separation in place of required intersection separation of 200 feet.
§ Layout of roadway expanded for truck turning at turnaround: Ms. Stickney noted that the Fire Department had no problem with the revised radius.
§ Erosion/Sediment Control Plan: Ms. Stickney advised that minimal information is required on Sheet 4 and there would be a condition included.
§ Stormwater management system operation and maintenance plan: Ms. Stickney stated that the applicant’s intent is to sell the additional lot with the one of the two lot owners responsible for all upkeep and maintenance of the road. Mr. Bear noted that it may be easier to find a responsible homeowner than enforcing a homeowners’ agreement. Mr. Gallagher noted that it would be a part of the deed on transfer of the lot, or it could be included on a certificate of action. Ms. Stickney advised that she would like to ask the Department of Public Works to review this proposal. She stated that land on either side could be a potential
issue, with no further extension of the roadway. Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Denyer if he intends to live on one of the lots, and Mr. Denyer replied that he does.
§ Restriction of maximum lawn for each lot: Mr. Wadsworth stated that enforcement is the main issue. Mr. Wilson noted that a 25 foot barrier is included in the most recent plan. Ms. Stickney said that Conservation Agent Mr. Joe Grady has not noted any evidence that construction would affect the bay. Mr. Wadsworth responded that building a house on the bay would certainly have an impact on the bay, with fertilization, septic and pet issues. Ms. MacNab stated that this is a gray area, and asked if the applicant had any problems with the lawn area being limited. Ms. Stickney noted that the applicant is not certain where the house will be
located on the new lot. Mr. Wadsworth commented that it would be a lot of lawn. Ms. Stickney said that it would be difficult for the Conservation Agent to enforce, and that the existing lot has grass up to the edge of the marsh. Ms. MacNab suggested the Board go along with Mr. Grady’s recommendation.
§ Adequate water and fire flow: This issue was addressed with a letter from the Water Superintendent.
Ms. MacNab thanked Mr. Sexton for his review, and then asked if there were any further questions from the Board. Mr. Wilson asked about the right-of-way issue and Ms. MacNab advised him that this was a private issue that is being handled separately. Mr. Bear asked about the neighbor to the west of the applicant who questioned whether the proposed driveway is on his property. Mr. Gallagher responded that he had reviewed the issue and, while it is close, the driveway is not located on the neighbor’s property.
Ms. MacNab noted that Ms. Stickney is working on draft conditions, and Ms. Stickney reported that she could have them ready by November 7, 2005 for an 8:30 public hearing. Ms. MacNab stated that a maintenance/operations plan needs to be presented in lieu of a homeowners’ association. Mr. Gallagher responded that he could provide language to be included in the deed so that one lot owner is responsible for maintenance and operations. After discussion and on motion duly made by Mr. Wadsworth and seconded by Mr. Wilson, it was unanimously:
VOTED: That the public hearing for the proposed Ingall’s Grove subdivision be extended to November 7, 2005 at 8:30 PM.
ZBA-REVIEW AND COMMENTS/WEBSTER POINT (40B)
Ms. MacNab stated that she has attended Zoning Board of Appeals hearings in the past in order to keep up with the project. She presented a 17-point memo to the Board for their review and input. Ms. Stickney commented that she feels that a Design Review Team should meet again because the plans have changed substantially. She also added that the new Fire Chief had not reviewed the plans yet, and Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bear agreed. Mr. Bear asked about a clean-up issue on the other side of the road, and Mr. Sexton confirmed that MTBE had been identified at a site near Millbrook Motors on Tremont Street and that the water flow remained unresolved. Mr. Wilson thanked Ms. MacNab for her work on the memo. Ms. Stickney confirmed that Ms. MacNab would review the final draft before sending it to the ZBA.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sun Tavern ZBA Review: Mr. Bear asked about any follow up that might be required from the abutter who wanted to come to a Board meeting to discuss this project. Ms. MacNab reported that the abutter was advised that she could come and speak during Open Forum, but suggested that it might be a better use of her time to go to the ZBA instead, and then attend the Administrative Site Plan Review with any further issues.
40B Developments: Various proposed 40B projects were mentioned and Mr. Sexton advised the Board that he would be happy to meet with Ms. Stickney to review their current status.
Smart Growth Requirements Workshop: Ms. Stickney informed the Board that beginning January 2006 there would be new requirements on site eligibility letters for Comprehensive Permits.
GIS: Ms. Scieszka asked about the availability of GIS, and Ms. Stickney advised that she is working on two zoning maps for Annual Town Meeting. Ms. Stickney added that by January 2006 anyone looking at a parcel on the Assessor’s Map will be able to get a GIS view of the property. She said that an article will be presented at Annual Town Meeting to set up a revolving account so that the public can obtain GIS digitally formatted zoning maps. She advised that she may be asking for the Board to sponsor this article, and Ms. MacNab expressed her consent to do this.
Stormwater Management Workshop: Mr. Wadsworth advised the Board that he and Ms. Stickney had attended a number of these meetings, and that a proposed stormwater bylaw is needed. Ms. MacNab asked if this was the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, and Ms. Stickney replied that it needs to be determined.
After discussion and on motion duly made by Ms. Scieska and seconded by Mr. Kimball, it was unanimously:
VOTED: To Adjourn
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 9:57 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, November 7, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
