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 07/11/05
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building, Monday, July 11, 2005.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Robert Wilson, Aboud Al-Zaim, John Bear and James Kimball
Absent: Harold Moody (associate member)
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Administrative position: Ms. Scieszka questioned how the replacement process was going and Ms. Stickney responded that she will be interviewing four potential candidates this week.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED (ANR) PLAN: MARSHFIELD COUNTRY CLUB OFF ACORN AND TEMPLE STREETS. (Two applications)
The applicant, Marshfield Country Club was represented by Attorney Robert Galvin and also present was Mr. Steve Atwater, Treasurer of the Marshfield Country Club. Ms. MacNab noted that the applications were signed by both property owners. Attorney Galvin explained that the Country Club and the abutter, Stanley Merry want to swap land to address a long time problem of the green at the 14th hole is located on the Merry property. He further explained that the lots involved consist of both registered and unregistered land and required two plans. Attorney Galvin explained that the existing lots from which land was being swapped has adequate frontage on either Acorn or Temple Street.
Ms. Scieszka questioned why the frontage is not shown on each plan? Ms. Stickney pointed out the frontage on the Merry property at Temple and noted that the Marshfield Country Club lot is landlocked and has no frontage. The Country Club lot receiving the land does have adequate frontage on Acorn Street. Mr. Al-Zaim questioned the frontage
of the lot receiving the 14th hole and if it was entirely in Duxbury or two towns. It was agreed this lot was in two towns and was not shown in its entirety as to the enclosed perimeter.
Discussion among members centered on the difficulty of reading the two plans and the land court requirements. Ms. Scieszka suggested some type of locus may be helpful if it could be added to the plan that shows the land locked parcel.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion to endorse the ANR Plan of Land in Duxbury, MA, referenced as Plan of Land 050b-032-003 off Temple Street Prepared by Millbrook Survey dated 1/19/04, as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law, Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Members returned to the difficulty of understanding the intent of the other plan. It was agreed that the surveyor should add a locus insert on the plan or reduce the temple street plan down to fit on the same sheet. Ms. Scieszka also noted that the date of the wetland delineation should be referenced on the plan. Ms. Stickney noted the options to the Planning Board to either approve for endorsement allowing the clerk, Ms. Scieszka to sign between meetings or request an extension of the decision deadline by the applicant to continue the matter until the next meeting 7/25/05.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to endorse the ANR Plan of Land in Duxbury, MA, referenced as Plan of Land 050b-033-001 off Acorn Street Prepared by Millbrook Survey dated 1/08/05, as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law with the proviso that plan be revised to show additional information as discussed, Mr. Wadsworth provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Attorney Galvin will pick up the mylars for revisions tomorrow at the Planning Office.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN: CEDAR FARM LANE/ DUXBURY BAY CRANBERRIES R.T. / Off Congress Street
Present for the applicant: Present for the Town:
Mr. Al Vautrinot, Engineer Mr. Walter Amory, Amory Engineering
Attorney Peter Brooks, Seyfarth& Shaw
Mr. & Mrs. Andresen
Ms. Scieszka read the correspondence list into the record:
· Mutual Extension Form continuing public hearing until 5/23/05
· Minutes of the 4/11/05 Planning Board meeting
· Memo from C. Stickney to R. MacDonald dated 4/12/05 re: easement
· Memo from W. Amory dated 4/19/05 re: site comments
· Submitted 4/20/05 by the applicant copy of Briggs easement recorded 8/16/66
· Letter to R. MacDonald dated 4/29/05 from Peter S. Brooks, Esquire of Seyfarth & Shaw
· Email to B. Ripley from Tom Johnson, Duxbury Police Dept re: Accident History
· Letter to C. Stickney dated 5/12/05 from Peter S. Brooks, Esquire of Seyfarth & Shaw
· Submitted 5/13/05 by the applicant copy of Quitclaim Deed dated 1/3/90
· Mutual Extension Form continuing public hearing until 6/13/05
· Mutual Extension Form continuing public hearing until 7/11/05
· Submission of revised definitive plans and drainage calculations on 7/23/05
· Memo from J. Dalrymple, Health Agent dated 6/27/05 re: BOH denial
· Memo from C. Stickney to K. Pillsbury, Town Historian re: Weetamoo’s Warpath
· Memo from John Bowser, Acting Deputy Fire Chief dated 7/6/05 re: concerns w/access
· Letter from K. Pillsbury dated 7/8/05 re: Street name
· Letter from W. Amory dated 7/11/05 re: Peer engineering review
· Memo from C. Stickney dated 7/11/05 re: questions from members
Ms. MacNab asked that Ms. Stickney bring the Planning Board up to date on this application. Ms. Stickney reported that last full public hearing was 4/11/05 and in the time between then and now the hearing was continued twice due to lack of revised plans. The plans were recently submitted on 6/27/05 and have been reviewed by Mr. Amory. Additional information on the roadway and drainage design has been provided in these revisions. The engineers continue to review and discuss areas of concern – Mr. Amory will speak to this later. In addition, the Building Inspector has returned his opinion that the right of way/easement off Franklin Street is valid for utilities – this was in response to the memo of 4/12/05 sent by the Board. Also the Fire Department has gone to the site to
review the access via the bog road/driveway proposed to provide access through the frontage to the building area and has some major concerns. Ms. Stickney reiterated that the driveway adequacy is one to be determined by the building inspector in issuing a building permit and it appears the fire department and conservation commission may have to be consulted.
Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Stickney to list the waivers being requested. She read from a memo of 4/11/05 and one waiver was omitted which was on Attorney Brooks memo of 4/11/05. Mr. Vautrinot noted that the waiver regarding the diameter of the cul-de-sac can now be withdrawn because they are able to comply with the 150’ diameter request.
Mr. Vautrinot provided an explanation of the changes made to the plans since the 4/11/05 meeting.
Mr. Al-Zaim questioned the “driveway” as a way in existence prior to the submission of an application. He felt the Planning Board did have review capacity of the driveway, however other members disagreed. Mr. Wadsworth questioned if the property is within the Aquifer Protection District – Ms. Stickney checked and found the property to be outside the district. Mr. Kimball questioned the waiver for the utilities if the right of way/easement permits utilities? It was explained that the Rules and Regulations require them in the road layout. Mr. Vautrinot mentioned that a pole has been approved by the BOS for location within the right of way and a second one will be located within the Andresen’s property. The Chair asked staff to obtain the information from the Town
Manager’s office as to the Selectmen’s approval of the pole location.
Mr. Amory was asked next to provide his comments as to his review. He explained the improvements that have been made since the original submission and that they are still working through the details. He noted that no site triangle has been provided on the plans demonstrating compliance with the required site line distance. He mentioned a few other minor items all of which are listed in his memo of 7/11/05 that has been provided to the Planning Board and the applicant’s engineer.
Mr. Wadsworth questioned the feasibility of a drainage basin to the northwest end of the cul-de-sac rather than the drainage design proposed. Mr. Vautrinot reviewed the issues he sees with such a proposal and felt it would offer nothing to minimize the amount of earth disturbance, tree cutting and may in fact require installation of a retaining wall.
Ms. MacNab next briefly reviewed some of the correspondence that the applicant will have to address. Ms. Pillsbury comments as to the proposed street name, the Fire Department’s comments will need to be worked through with the Building Inspector and the Conservation Commission. Ms. Stickney pointed out that not only are the wetlands on the site in need of review but the proposed road falls within the 100’ buffer of the wetlands across Congress Street and that too needs to be addressed with Conservation.
Attorney Peter Brooks, representing the Andresens, presented his opinion of the waiver requests and interpretation of the zoning bylaw and rules and regulations. He reads the Zoning Bylaw in a different interpretation than the Planning Board and feels there is discretion there with reference to the access through the frontage. He added that it is in the public interest to not construct the roadway and preserve the trees in the area of Congress Street. There is substantial earth movement and tree cutting necessary to accommodate the road that will only serve one house. He mentioned other sites in Town were applicants have not constructed the roadway but been allowed to build a home. Ms. MacNab reminded Attorney Brooks that each application is looked on its own and previous actions are not
precedent for the application before the Planning Board. Attorney Brooks feel if the waivers are not granted there is a “step back design” that may be more palatable for the project.
Ms. Scieszka provided her comments on the waivers and that she has found no compelling over all reason for the waivers to be granted. She felt such a waiver could not guarantee a prohibition of any future development. Mr. Vautrinot pointed out a note on the plan that no further extension of the roadway is permissible. Ms. Scieszka noted other plans have had such notes and that yet there have been additional lots and further development. At the last meeting the issue of a Conservation Restriction was discussed – is this still a consideration. Mr. Vautrinot and Attorney Brooks agreed the applicants would be willing to do this. Ms. MacNab noted nothing has been proposed by the applicant in a written format and if it is truly a consideration then something should be presented to the
Planning Board.
Ms. MacNab also asked the applicant’s about their recent conversation with the Planning Director and their intent to enter into a tree clearing proposal. She explained that the Town has a tree clearing bylaw that prohibits clearing over 30,000 unless a forest management plans has been approved by DEM and the local Conservation Commission. Ms. Andresen responded she was aware of the process.
Elizabeth White – 670 Franklin Street (new occupant of McHugh residence) – she asked about the underground utilities. Ms. MacNab explained a building permit has been issued for barn under the agricultural use and no permit for a residential structure has been issued to date. Ms. White said that she is an attorney and reviewing the right of way/easement she agreed it appears they have the right to install utilities – she is more interested if they could be installed underground than with poles in the right of way.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to continue the public hearing for the definitive subdivision plan for Duxbury Bay Cranberries R.T. to August 22, 2005 at 7:45 PM, with plans due to the Planning Office no later than August 8, 2005 and an act on date for a decision deadline to September 30, 2005, Mr. Wadsworth provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
The applicant signed a mutual extension form with the above dates referenced.
ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP - MR. DOUGLAS CARVER
At the invitation of the Planning Board, Mr. Carver has submitted a letter of interest and resume for consideration as an associate member. Ms. MacNab noted the Planning Board currently has an associate member, Harold Moody but the action of Town Meeting allowed for two positions. Mr. Carver ran against Mr. Bear in the last election and was unsuccessful in his bid for the position. The associate membership is an opportunity for him to experience the Planning Board without being committed to a 5 year term. It was explained that he would participate as a voting member in the Special Permits for land clearing, APOD and clusters.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to approve Mr. Carver as a new associate member of the Planning Board, Mr. Bear provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
The Associate member is a two year term which will expire in 2007.
SPECIAL PERMIT REFFERAL/38 LANDING RD (BINGHAM)
Mr. & Mrs. William Bingham were present along with Attorney Tom Tucker, standing in for their attorney Brian Cook. Attorney Tucker gave a brief history on the process before the ZBA and what the Bingham’s hope for in this new petition. Mr. Bingham had brought along color sketches in effort to help the Board with their review. Members felt they should only look at those materials referred by the ZBA which included three potential scenarios and two site plans.
Mr. Bingham explained the differences between each scenario and returned to the “preferred scenario” which decreases the overall height of the structure. There was some discussion as to which site plan was the most current – in the end the Planning Board felt the 16.7% coverage plan was the most current. The Bingham’s went through each issue previously listed in the Planning Board’s denial. Among the information provided was that an Order of Conditions was issued by the Conservation Commission, the Board of Health does make reference to 3 bedrooms which is all that is proposed and the height was decreased to 25 feet.
Mr. Wadsworth questioned why the house could not be designed to sit within the required setbacks? Mr. Bingham explained trying to turn it actually made it more non-conforming and to move it towards the back of the lot could not be achieved due to the conservation issue of the 50’ buffer.
Members generally expressed their concerns with tear downs being down on small lots and then replaced with larger homes. Ms. MacNab commented that the Planning Board’s position has been that larger homes belonged on larger lots. Mr. Al-Zaim expressed his opinion that the Planning Board needs to take a more proactive approach to what people want to do rather than always saying no. After much discussion on the issue of aesthetics, Mansionization and non-conforming structures Ms. MacNab stated that she feels this is a discussion needed with the Zoning Board of Appeals on how the bylaw may be improved.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motioned that although many issues were resolved from the original application now with the “preferred” current application, the Planning Board would defer making a recommendation on the application but rather note to the Zoning Board of Appeals the following concerns/comments the Board had relative to the applicant’s latest application:
1. The issue of demolition of an existing non-conforming structure and the rebuild of a new structure and should be required to meet current zoning;
2. That the proposal’s footprint continues to be non-conforming and violates setbacks on several sides of the property;
3. That the increased building coverage has the potential of 3% above the required 15% continues to be a concern that is allowing larger houses on smaller lots;
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wadsworth – discussion - Mr. Kimball offered an amendment to the Motion to delete the first issue with regards to the demolition. On the amendment motion, the vote was 2:5 (Mr. Al-Zaim and Mr. Bear for the motion). The motion failed to receive the majority vote.
On the Main Motion the vote was 5:1:1 (Mr. Al-Zaim voting against the motion and Mr. Bear abstaining).
REVIEW & APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION COVENANTS – DELANO DRIVE AND SONG SPARROW:
Ms. Stickney reported that only the Delano Covenant was received in time for the meeting tonight. Members felt that there had not been sufficient time to review the Delano Covenant they would like to hold it over to the July 25th meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Members briefly reviewed the following items:
ZBA decision - 52 Ocean Road N (Fisher) –FYI
Habitat for Humanity Invitation 7/23/05 -FYI
MLURA update from Legislative hearing 6/29/05
Lincoln newspaper articles (G. Wadsworth) re: Heck House
Duxbury Crossing, LLC (Tringale) endangered species permit – Members found the permit very difficult to read. Ms. Stickney pointed out the petition is still before the Zoning Board of Appeals and no decision has been rendered.
Fax from R. Troy re: Dingley Dell case – Ms. MacNab informed members of her discussions with Richard MacDonald today, acting Town Manager and the Planning Board’s feeling this should be dismissed right of way. Mr. AL-Zaim questioned if staff has been able to get an answer on the endorsement of a 40B plan that is to be recorded and whom may or may not sign. Ms. Stickney will look into the matter.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson motioned to accept the 6/20/05 minutes, seconded by Mr. Wadsworth – unanimously voted
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:50 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, July 25, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
