The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, February 7, 2005.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, and Rob Wilson. Also present was Associate Member Harold Moody (non-voting.)
Absent: John Bear and James Kimball.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Proposed Affordable Accessory Apartment Bylaw: Ms. MacNab repeated her concern that this significant bylaw change was not proposed in time to allow for sufficient review and public education. She said that while the proposal may have met the minimum requirements for advertising, that such a significant change requires substantial study. She said that she will be absent for the public hearing on the article, due to a family vacation. She said that she hopes that the Board will take her concerns into account.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING: ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW/ SNUG HARBOR BOATWORKS---FORMER GOODRICH LUMBER SITE/ Railroad Avenue
Present for the applicant were:
Jeff Grey, Principal, Snug Harbor Boatworks
John Daley, Snug Harbor Boatworks
Paul Brogna, Seacoast Engineering
Present for the Town was:
Mr. Tom Sexton, Principal of Mainstream Engineering, Inc.
Ms. Scieszka read the correspondence list into the record:
· Mutual Extension Form signed 1/10/05
· Planning Board Minutes of 1/10/05
· Email B. Ripley to T. Sexton dated 1/18/05 re: stop work due to depletion of escrow account
· Certified Letter to Snug Harbor Boat works dated 1/18/05 re: replenishment of escrow account
· Letter from Seacoast Engineering dated 1/18/05 re: plan transmittals, responses and including the following:
Copy of a letter to Goodrich Realty Trust dated 1/17/05 re: easement
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Operation and Maintenance Plan
· Fax to Snug Harbor Boat works dated 1/20/05 – included previous 1/18/05 letter and note the consulting engineer has been halted until funds are received.
· Conservation Commission’s Order of Conditions dated 1/31/05
· Letter to ZBA from J. Grady dated 1/31/05 requesting two conditions be incorporated into their decision.
· Letter from Fire Department dated 2/4/05 – response to access, sprinkler system and water supply.
· Hydraulic Analysis from Dufresne-Henry dated 2/4/05 received 2/7/05
The applicant, Mr. Grey, said the owner of the property (Goodrich) is refusing to extend the lease to the applicant, stating that the applicant has not yet obtained his approvals. Mr. Grey said that he is still trying to work with that situation, but does not know how it will turn out. In the meantime, he expressed frustration over how difficult the Administrative Site Plan Review process has been for a small business owner. He said that he has felt caught between Boards that disagree on how to interpret the Zoning Bylaw. He said that three issues that have really caused him a lot of time and money are: sidewalks, impervious vs. pervious coverage, and water pressure. With regard to water pressure, he believes that the Planning Board should simply have made it a condition of approval that the
building has a sprinkler system that meets the building code. Then, it would have been up to the applicant to determine whether he could afford to go forward with the project if water system improvements were needed to obtain adequate water pressure. He said that if he ran his company the way the Town is running the Special Permit process, that he would be unable to stay in business. Mr. Grey said that he may be forced to withdraw his application at this point.
(Mr. Wadsworth left the meeting at this time, in order to attend a portion of the Board of Selectmen meeting.)
Ms. MacNab said that she is very sorry about the position that the applicant is in. She said that she feels that the Planning Board has been supportive of the project, but that it definitely takes time to iron out all of the issues. Nonetheless, she said that the Board would work to take his comments into account as it continues to work with applications for Administrative Site Plan Review. Mr. Al-Zaim agreed. He said that government does not work like private business. The process is much different. However, he agreed that the Board should work to streamline Administrative Site Plan Review to the extent possible.
Mr. Sexton said that, although he was told that there were insufficient funds in the engineering escrow account to pay for additional peer review, that he put an additional six hours into the project at his own risk. He said that the project is very close to meeting the Board’s requirements. Just a few issues remain to be worked out, he said.
Ms. MacNab outlined three possible courses of action: 1) The applicant could withdraw the application; 2) The Board could render a decision on the application; 3) The Board and the applicant could continue the hearing to allow time for a possible resolution with the property owners. Board members and the applicant agreed that the problem with the first option is that if the applicant decided to go forward after all, it would have to be a completely new application, including new fees. The problem with the second option is that the Board is not ready to provide a decision, because the engineering review has not been completed due to a lack of funds from the applicant. Everyone agreed that the third option was the best option. Mr. Grey stated that he will pay outstanding engineering review
bills (approximately $1,000.00) regardless of whether he is able to go forward with the application. If he intends to go forward, he will deposit an additional $2,000.00 into the engineering review escrow account.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to continue the public meeting for Administrative Site Plan review of the proposed Snug Harbor Boatworks facility until March 21, 2005 at 8:30 PM, and to extend the decision date for the application to April 1, 2005. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (4-0).
CONT. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OFF HIGH STREET/
Teravainen
Present for the applicant were:
Steve Kotowski, Webby Engineering
Nancy Teravainen, applicant
Mrs. Chuck Teravainen, Daughter-in-law of applicant
Present for the Town was:
Tom Sexton, Mainstream Engineering
Ms. Scieszka read the correspondence list into the record:
· Mutual Extension form signed 8/9/04
· PB Minutes of 8/9/04
· Letter from K. Pillsbury dated 8/23/04 re: proposed name “Teravainen Way”
· Fax transmittal from Mainstream to Webby Engineering dated 8/31/04 re: arrangement of meeting.
· Letter from C. Stickney to T. Sexton dated 9/21/04 re: invoicing and replenishment
· Mutual Extension form signed 9/22/04
· PB Minutes of 9/27/04
· Email to P. Anderson (Water Superintendent) from Mainstream Engineering dated 10/18/04 re: hydrant locations.
· Fax Cover to Webby Engineering from C. Stickney dated 10/26/04 re: PB minutes
· Mutual Extension form signed 11/1/04
· PB Minutes of 11/1/04
· Email from P. Anderson to C. Stickney dated 10/28/04 re: no hydrant needed at entrance
· Letter to T. Sexton dated 10/29/04 re: continuance to 12/13/04
· Fax from T. Sexton with draft letter to Webby Engineering dated 11/11/04 re: consultant’s comments
· DRT Minutes of 11/19/04
· Mutual Extension Form signed 12/13/04
· PB Minutes of 12/13/04
· DRT Minutes of 12/14/05
· Memo dated 1/18/05 from Mainstream Engineering dated 1/18/05 re: Peer review comments
· CS Memo dated 1/20/05 re: staff comments
· Copy of Conservation Commission’s conditional Order of Resource Delineation
· Email from R. Troy received 2/7/05 – re: approval to Form the draft restrictive covenant and homeowner’s association.
(Mr. Wadsworth returned to the meeting at this point.)
Mr. Kotowski described changes to the plan from the last meeting: 1) The resource areas have been delineated. 2) A gravel driveway is planned, at the suggestion of the Planning Board; 3) The drainage has been changed to “country drainage”; 4) The lawn area of the new lot is restricted to 10,000 SF in lieu of providing a nitrogen analysis; 5) A swale is proposed to take the water from High Street. Mr. Kotowski said that a remaining issue is the line of sight. They are very close to the requirement, but they do not meet it. There are three choices: 1) The intersection with High Street could be changed; 2) The applicant could request a waiver for this requirement; or 3) The applicant could request a line-of-sight easement from the abutter.
Ms. MacNab said that she would be reluctant to grant a waiver for site distance. Mr. Al-Zaim said that he would not see a problem with it.
Mr. Sexton said that the existing hydrant should be shown on the plan. He also said that the Development Review Team would prefer to see a paved roadway, rather than gravel. They said that this would work better for the swale. Planning Board members said that they will accept the gravel in this situation, because the applicant and Board would like to keep a “country” feel to the subdivision. Mr. Sexton said that measurements taken nearby the site indicate that there should be sufficient fire-flow. However, it would be prudent to have memorandum from the Fire Department and Water Department that the fire-flow is adequate.
Ms. MacNab said that she will be looking for restrictions on further extension of the roadway, further subdivision of the lots, and lawn size.
Mrs. Teravainen said that her husband has reached an agreement with the abutter about the line-of-sight easement, and that this easement will be provided.
Ms. MacNab called attention to the fact that the proposed name for the roadway is “Teravainen Way”. However, she said that the Planning Board does not traditionally allow naming streets after the residents. She advised the applicant to consult with the Town Historian for additional name suggestions.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to continue the public hearing to March 28, 2005 at 7:45 PM, with revised plans due to the Planning Office by March 7, 2005, and with an extension of the decision date to April 28, 2005. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: LANDING ROAD R.T./ 38 Landing Road
Ms. Stickney stated that the Board originally considered this Special Permit application on November 29, 2005. However, the applicant, Mr. Bingham, has requested to come before the Board to discuss its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Board had noted five Planning issues. They are listed below, with new comments italicized and underlined.
1) The proposed structure should meet setback requirements. The Planning Board takes the position that if a structure is demolished, the new structure should meet setback requirements.
2) The Planning Board concurs with the determination by the Board of Health agent in her memorandum of November 18, 2004, that the structure should be limited to three bedrooms. Yet, the plans appear to depict more than three bedrooms. The applicant said that the floor plans have been revised to clearly show three bedrooms. Board members urged Mr. Bingham to show these new floor plans to the ZBA. Ms. MacNab noted that this home is tied into the Wadsworth shared septic system. She said that Town Meeting’s understanding in approving funding for the shared system was that there would be no further expansion of the existing homes.
3) No information is given as to building coverage. Building coverage has now been calculated. Board members agreed that the definition for building coverage under ZBL Section 410.4.
4) No height calculation is provided. The Planning Board’s opinion is that the height calculation should be taken from the average grade of the existing front yard, not from the proposed raised grade near the structure. The applicant said the height has been calculated per these instructions, and that it meets bylaw requirements.
5) Demolition delay review and approval by the Historic Commission is necessary given the structure is over 80 years old and to date none has been issued. The applicant is working with the Historic Commission.
The Board said that their recommendation still applies, but that the final decision will be up to the ZBA.
SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: GOLDFARB/ 126 King Caesar Road
Mr. Goldfarb was present. Issues of setbacks and lot coverage were discussed.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to defer judgment on the Special Permit application for 126 King Caesar Road to the Zoning Board of Appeals since there are no planning issues involved. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Correspondence from Mark Casey dated January 7, 2005: Board members agreed that Mr. Casey’s reasoning in the memorandum is incorrect, but that no action is required by the Board at this time.
Minutes of 1/31/05:
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to accept the Planning Board minutes of 1/31/05 as written. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to deem Invoice #919384 from Dufresne- Henry, Inc. (in the amount of $1,100.00 for services related to Bayside Marine) to the Town of Duxbury as a Planning Board invoice, and to pay the invoice from the escrow account established for that purpose.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, February 14, 2005 at 7:30
| 
