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 08/08/05
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building, Monday, August 8, 2005.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk, Robert Wilson, James Kimball, John Bear & Doug Carver (associate member)
Absent: Aboud Al-Zaim and Harold Moody (associate member)
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Administrative position: Ms. Stickney informed the Board that Diane Grant has been hired to replace Ms. Ripley beginning August 15, 2005 and she will be present to take minutes at the next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Approval of Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Wilson motioned to accept the 7/25/05 minutes, seconded by Mr. Kimball – unanimously voted.
Local Historic District Fact Sheet:
Members continued to want to pursue a discussion with the Historic Commission on the creation of a local historic district – Ms. Stickney will contact Norman Tucker and make arrangements.
Song Sparrow – Protective Covenant:
Ms. MacNab had reviewed the covenant and with the exception of the duration language previously inserted in the Delano Drive Covenant they appeared the same. Staff will have that language added.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson motioned to accept the Declaration of Protective Covenant for Song Sparrow as revised today, seconded by Ms. Scieszka – unanimously voted
Release of remaining escrow funds for Brook Drive:
Ms. Stickney reported that now that As-Built Approval has been granted and the surety released, the Planning Board should now also release any remaining escrow funds. Mr. Wadsworth questioned if we received all the items needed and Ms. Stickney responded yes.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson motioned to release any remaining escrow funds for Brook Road, seconded by Mr. Bear – unanimously voted
PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION FOR INGALL’S GROVE OFF BAY ROAD:
Present: Mr. Chris Gallagher, Engineer
Mr. Stephen Denyer, property owner
Neighbors from Wadsworth and Bay Roads.
Ms. Scieszka read the public hearing notice advertised in the Duxbury Clipper – 7/13 & 7/20/05. She also read the following list of correspondence entered into the file and the public hearing record:
Application, plans, drainage calculations and EIR report received 7/5/05
Memo from Gallagher Engineering, Inc. dated 6/30/05 (rec’d 7/5/05)
Transmittal sheet to departments dated 7/11/05
Public Hearing Notice (advertised in the Duxbury Clipper 7/13 & 7/20)
Memo from the Blanchard & Nightingales dated 7/20/05 re: rights of access across proposed subdivision.
DRT Minutes of meeting 7/22/05
Letter from Mainstream Engineering dated 7/22/05 re: Peer review
Memo from P. Buttkus, Director of Natural Resources dated 8/3/05 re: tree removal.
Letter from C. Stickney to K. Pillsbury, Town Historian re: proposed street name.
Chris Gallagher made a short presentation of the plan and the changes from the last filing, a preliminary plan, that the Planning Board had review earlier this year. The proposal is for a two lot subdivision that will consist of the existing dwelling and seasonal cabana on one lot and a new lot that will be for a new dwelling.
Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Gallagher about the comments from the Director of Natural Resources as to the need to remove trees. There is no problem with providing replacements. Mr. Wadsworth questioned Mr. Gallagher about the elimination of the cul-de-sac and the new proposed “T” design of the road layout. Mr. Gallagher noted in the preliminary plan the cul-de-sac was shown and the direction from the consulting engineer and the Board was to minimize the amount of pavement and go with “T” design.
The issue of the seasonal cabana was raised by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Gallagher explained how it is used by Mr. Denyer during the summer months. Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Denyer if he uses the cabana as a residence, and Mr. Denyer replied that he did. Ms. MacNab expressed her concerns as two dwellings on one lot and the Planning Board’s ability to create such a situation. Ms. Stickney pointed out the issue was raised in the DRT meeting and the minutes pointed out the Building and Health Inspector’s role in making such a determination of the structure as a dwelling unit. Mr. Sexton’s memo had suggested it is something the applicant should seek a waiver however Ms. Stickney provided her opinion that it is two different issues, zoning and subdivision control law. Mr. Gallagher will speak with the
Inspectional Service Department as to how to proceed.
David Blanchard of 22 Wadsworth Road noted to the Planning Board a letter that he and his neighbors the Nightingales had sent with regards to deeded rights they have to cross the Denyer property to reach Duxbury Bay. Discussion pursued as to this issue and each parties belief that they existed through different instruments. In the end, Mr. Gallagher said he and the applicant would research the issue and if necessary obtain legal advice as to the legalities of the abutters claim. The matter will be discussed further at the next public hearing.
Ms. Peggy Dostie of 31 Woodridge Road asked the Planning Board about the trees to be removed. Members explained the significance of the scenic road and shade tree act which this application had been advertised under and the need to remove the trees to obtain an adequate line of sight. Mr. Gallagher added that trees will be replaced on the property to accommodate the Tree Warden’s request.
Mr.& Mrs. Glenn Brodie, direct abutters to the west of the property, provided their opinion that the mutual lot line shared by them and the applicant should be staked out. Ms. MacNab noted the normal process is that during review the surveyed plan is assumed accurate because of its preparation by a registered surveyor. During construction the four perimeter corners of the lot are staked in addition to a line of work limit established by the applicant and approved by the Planning staff and the Planning Board’s consulting engineer before any work is commenced. The Brodies expressed their past experience with another abutter on the other side and problems they encountered with encroachment. They also asked the Planning Board to verify the location of their driveway, because they felt it may
be on the Denyer property. Mr. Gallagher said he found no evidence of such in his survey. Ms. Scieszka suggested the Brodies could retain their own survey of their property if they felt there was an issue with the identification of the property line.
Mr. Wadsworth questioned again Mr. Gallagher as to why the applicant felt there was no need to show the cul-de-sac. Mr. Gallagher explained that direction provided by the Board and their consulting engineer during the preliminary process was to eliminate the cul-de-sac and go with the “T” designed layout line. There was some discussion on what members recalled as to conversations during the preliminary process. The cul-de-sac had been shown before and Mr. Gallagher will provide additional justification to the waivers requested. A question was raised as to whether a street light existed at the bottom of Wadsworth Lane – this matter will be looked into by the applicant’s engineer and staff.
It was agreed additional information is needed and the public hearing should be continued.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson motioned to continue the public hearing to September 19, 2005 at 8PM with revised plans due by Friday, September 2, 2005 in the Planning Office, seconded by Mr. Wadsworth – unanimously voted.
A mutual extension form was signed by both the applicant and Planning Board.
MAPC REPRESENTATIVES: DISCUSSION ON HALL’S CORNER SMART GROWTH STUDY
Bill Clark and Mark Racicot, planners from the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission were present for the discussion. Planning Board members were brought up to date by Mr. Clark and Racicot since their last meeting on June 20, 2005. Handouts of the project summary, matrix of options and the excel spreadsheet of scenarios were given to members as the finished product of this brief study. Mr. Racicot explained the hand outs in detail. In summary there is about 160,000 square feet of built space in the Hall’s corner district now. Approximately 139,000 square feet is commercial and the remainder residential uses. Mr. Racicot reviewed the different scenarios using a FAR (finished floor area ratio) ratio of .34 and noted the bottom line that if you have more residential use then more
septic flow is needed but it assumes less traffic than if commercial space. It is primarily a 40/60 split and members noted that we do not have a FAR provision today in the bylaw. Members discussed the scenario of higher structures with multiple floors and the lot coverage requirements, open space and parking needs.
Ms. Scieszka commented on the current bylaw structure of determining parking by use and what happens when one unit is subdivided in to two units of different uses – how does parking work then? Mr. Racicot noted that the analysis begins with the removal of the required 50% open space and then takes the remaining 50% as parking and building footprint. The higher you go the more parking that will be needed – the study assumed 3.3 spaces per 1000 for commercial and 2 spaces for residential however these are only assumptions. Mr. Bear agreed they are only assumptions and if you were to encourage mixed use then you would have to accompany it with some other change like increase septic flow etc. The consensus of the discussion was this was “food for thought” should there be a proposal
for changes.
Mr. Wilson commented that the MAPC findings were interesting and what should we do next? Mr. Racicot suggested grants are available to further refine the study and get a more detailed analysis. Mr. Wilson felt without refinement that you could conclude to bi-polar outcomes of the study.
Mr. Racicot commented on MAPC’s work with other towns. Canton for example has pursued affordable units above the first floor. Ms. MacNab commented that she has advocated for residences on second floors but it also bring with it issues of increased septic concerns.
Ms. Costello a resident of Chestnut Street expressed her concern for the plan and cited past meetings where promises of sidewalks and other infrastructure plans have been made and not followed through. Ms. MacNab explained the differences between this plan and past discussions.
SPECIAL PERMIT REFERRAL/ 7 BAY AVENUE (TEDESCHI)
The Planning Board reviewed the materials submitted by the ZBA for the above petition. Present for the discussion was Mr. Tedeschi, the property owner. He briefly explained his plans, past construction on the property and his application that had been before the Conservation Commission already and given approval. After some minor questions from Board members as to items on the plan the Planning Board made the following recommendation:
MOTION: Mr. Wilson motioned to pass the application along to the ZBA deferring any comments and leaving it to the Zoning Board of Appeals judgment, seconded by Mr. Bear – unanimously voted.
SPECIAL PERMIT REFERRAL/ DINGLEY DELL (STRIEBEL)
The Planning Board reviewed the materials submitted by the ZBA for the above petition.
Ms. MacNab had drafted a recommendation that she distributed to fellow Board members to read and comment. It was agreed that the draft should become the recommendation. Some minor changes were suggested by the Planning Board members; staff will revise the letter and run it by the Chair before submitting to the ZBA.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson motioned to accept the letter as prepared by Ms. MacNab and revised to be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals as the Planning Board’s comment on the petition, seconded by Mr. Wadsworth – unanimously voted.
OTHER ITEMS – PLANNING DIRECTOR
Ms. Stickney discussed briefly the following items with the Planning Board:
· Fall meeting schedule (no meeting on Halloween)
· Duxbury Maritime School – suggestions on traffic circulation.
· Upcoming budget due 8/19/05.
· Next meeting Hillside Lane – members may want to stop by site to view.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, August 22, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
