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 08/22/05
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building, Monday, August 22, 2005.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; and John Bear
Absent: Aboud Al-Zaim, James Kimball, Robert Wilson, Doug Carver (associate member), and Harold Moody (associate member)
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, administrative assistant
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Administrative Position: Ms. MacNab welcomed Diane Grant, the new administrative assistant, on behalf of the Board.
Dingley Dell: Ms. Scieszka inquired about when this project will be presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. MacNab reported that the meeting will be Thursday, August 25 at 7:30 PM, and encouraged all Board members to attend.
REQUEST FOR LOT RELEASE/HILLSIDE LANE (SEALUND):
Present: Mr. Walter Amory, consulting engineer for the Town of Duxbury
Mr. Kevin Sealund, project developer
Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Amory to update the Board on the status of the project. Mr. Amory referred to his August 19 memorandum which was handed out at the meeting. Mr. Sealund is requesting Board approval to allow mulch in lieu of the required loam and seed on the roadway slopes. Ms. Scieszka noted that the subdivision is in a wooded area, and asked if the hillside could go natural. Ms. MacNab expressed her concern that mulch would eventually wash off and suggested low growth ground cover as an alternative. Mr. Wadsworth recalled an earlier subdivision with steep slopes, and said that for that plan the Board had set a requirement for low growth ground cover, and the applicant had submitted a landscape plan.
Ms. MacNab pointed out that at the entry way to the subdivision, natural growth could work. Mr. Bear suggested that ornamental grasses could be planted that do not require mowing. Mr. Amory responded with concern about erosion. Mr. Sealund explained that when the septic system was installed mulch had been spread on the area. Before he removes it, he would like to see how well it works. Ms. MacNab responded that she would prefer not to wait because of concerns over erosion. Ms. Stickney pointed out that after a recent rain storm the mulch had not washed away.
Mr. Amory stated that, although he is fine with the entry way including natural grass, he would like to see an alternative landscape plan with low ground cover such as juniper, similar to what Mr. Wadsworth had talked about. Ms. MacNab asked if Mr. Sealund had a clear understanding of what the Board desired. Mr. Amory recommended that the Board could consider leaving the mulch as is, with an $18,000.00 surety to pay for replacement of the mulch with low growth planting if necessary in certain areas. The Board expressed their agreement.
Ms. Stickney pointed out that the Board needs to also address the lot release request. Mr. Wadsworth asked if there is a performance guarantee established, and Ms. Stickney replied that there is, in the amount of $72,975.00, per Mr. Amory’s recommendation. Ms. MacNab asked if Lots A, B and C had any additional restrictions required of them under the condition and Ms. Stickney replied that everything has been done per the Board’s decision.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth moved to release Lots A, B and C conditional upon receiving a performance guarantee in the amount of $72,975.00 to the Planning Office. Motion was seconded by Mr. Bear, and with no further discussion was unanimously voted to approve.
The lot release was then signed by the Board and will be retained until surety is posted.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION FOR CEDAR FARM LANE/OFF CONGRESS STREET (ANDRESEN – APPLICANT):
Present: Mr. & Mrs. Andresen, property owners
Atty. Peter Brooks, applicants’ attorney
Mr. Vautrinot, applicants’ engineer
Mr. & Mrs. Rob Capen, neighbors
Ms. Scieszka referenced new correspondence entered into the file for the public hearing record:
Revised Definitive Plan
PB Minutes of 7/11/05
Stickney email dated 7/12/05 re: BOS approval pole location
Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Andresen dated 08/22/05 from Duxbury Fire.
Ms. MacNab reported that since the last hearing she had met with Mrs. Andresen and the Conservation Agent Joe Grady, and that Mrs. Andresen has proposed establishing a conservation restriction on the property. Ms. MacNab commented that she wants to ensure good communication with the Conservation Commission since they would be working in tandem with the Board on this conservation restriction.
Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Stickney to bring the Board up to speed about the project. Ms. Stickney reported that Mr. Vautrinot had submitted a new plan with a revised roadway layout. The new layout would allow the applicant to access through their frontage with no construction needed if the 81-R waiver was granted by the Board. Ms. Stickney also noted that the Board of Selectmen had approved pole installation and it had been completed.
Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Vautrinot to highlight changes and explain the conservation restriction. Mr. Vautrinot explained using the plan that the applicants propose that the plan be left as it is, keeping the travel road. In exchange, the applicants are willing to encumber a portion of the property under a conservation restriction that would tie into Camp Wing. Mr. Vautrinot reported that Mr. Grady would like to maintain the conservation restriction as follows:
1) No buildings would be allowed to be built.
2) Lumbering would be permitted, with Conservation Commission approval of a forestry/lumbering plan, giving them reasonable control.
3) The applicants are willing to give up current sand rights, so that no sand removal would be permitted.
4) There is a possible way for the town to have passageway access in the future, although the Andresens do not want a walking trail installed because of concerns over trespassing and vandalism to the bogs.
Mr. Vautrinot summarized that the applicants would use the existing gravel drive as access to the lot, with the understanding that they could use the Franklin Street entrance as well.
Ms. Stickney reported that originally she felt pavement should be required but now suggested that it be left as is preferable after talking with Mr. Amory. Mr. Vautrinot confirmed that the road name has been changed to Wamsutta Way.
Ms. Scieszka asked for clarification on the buffer. Mr. Vautrinot provided clarification, that the buffer easement had been widened from 50 feet to 75 feet to keep vegetation around the bogs, at Mr. Grady’s suggestion.
Mr. Wadsworth questioned why the conservation restriction did not go right down to the new dwelling site. Mr. Vautrinot provided clarification on the proposed limits and the use of an existing bound to demark the limit of the conservation restriction.
Ms. MacNab asked for comments from Mr. Wadsworth. He replied that if there are wetlands, he has no problem. Ms. Scieszka added that since a bound exists already, it should work. Mr. Wadsworth pointed out that they would review the plan to enforce the sideline, and when asked by Mr. Vautrinot if he would prefer an additional bound, Mr. Wadsworth replied that he would.
Ms. MacNab reported that Mr. Grady has been working to try to obtain conservation land from the applicants. Ms. Scieszka added that this land would be part of “green necklace” throughout the Town of Duxbury. She added that Mr. Grady did not have an urgent need for a walking plan but potentially may need one. Ms. MacNab said that the Conservation Commission would review the language and provide approval for any conservation restrictions. She stressed that the Board wants to make sure they are on the same page as the Conservation Commission.
Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Amory to discuss his opinion of waiver of a road construction. Mr. Amory replied that in exchange for requiring the applicant to adhere to current regulations, 28 acres of land protected by a conservation restriction is good for both parties. When asked by Ms. MacNab to comment on why it is wiser not to construct it at all, Mr. Amory advised that it should be kept exactly as it is, because if it was paved there would be concerns about runoff. Mr. Wadsworth expressed a potential concern for the Fire Department’s ability to travel the road, with the understanding that it is not a direct concern for the Board. He further expressed that the Board has previously approved gravel roads. Mr. Amory requested a clearer deliberation of rights granted from Franklin Street. Ms. Scieszka
responded that this is not a discussion for the Board, but rather the Building Inspector.
Mrs. Maureen Capen of 680 Franklin Street inquired about earlier Board discussions around the plan, and asked the Board to clarify their intentions. Ms. MacNab responded that the legal frontage is off of Congress Street, but that the applicants would also drive in over a right-of-way adjacent to the Capen’s property. Ms. MacNab added that the matter of where the applicants have a right to have utility poles placed is a Building Department matter.
Mr. Wadsworth pointed out that historically it may have occurred when access is built not over frontage, but that the Building Department may have overlooked that. Ms. MacNab questioned whether the waiver was justified by conservation restrictions. She posed the question of whether the public benefit supports the waiver. Several board members expressed agreement, and Ms. Scieszka added her concern for potential additional construction with conservation restrictions.
Ms. MacNab asked the Board how important public access is with the conservation restriction, and Mr. Wadsworth responded that he did not see a need for public access, although he said there would be a path of some width allowed in the document. Ms. MacNab added that this would provide the ability to create a pathway in the future. Ms. MacNab suggested that the Board could condition their approval on the conservation restriction.
Ms. Stickney explained that the state process is lengthier than local, but that it shouldn’t take long. Mr. Wadsworth stated his preference to have a short delay by continuing the public hearing until the Conservation Commission approval. Ms. Stickney pointed out that the decision deadline is September 30. Ms. MacNab asked Mrs. Andresen when she could provide a draft of the conservation restriction, and Mrs. Andresen replied that she could have it by the end of the week.
Atty. Brooks stated that the applicants preferred that no action be taken until Conservation Commission approval. Ms. MacNab proposed that the Board would agree that final occupancy would be contingent. If the Conservation Commission is unable to act, she would hope that the applicant would agree to an extension. Atty. Brooks agreed.
Ms. MacNab asked if there were any other questions. Ms. Scieszka had a question on access to the cul-de-sac, and Mr. Vautrinot provided clarification. Mr. Bear asked Ms. Stickney about the location of the easement off Congress and humane society access.
Ms. Scieszka expressed her opinion for general language as the accessibility throughout the conservation restriction area. Atty. Brooks responded that he would have to think about that. He explained that it would essentially be asking to allow for an easement that has not really been identified, and that he would get back to the Board on that issue.
Mrs. Capen asked about the current access off of Franklin Street, and whether the applicant could hook up an entrance through 700 Franklin Street. Mr. Wadsworth replied that it would be up to the Building Inspector to determine. Atty. Brooks added that there is no intention to do that right now. Mr. Vautrinot explained that the current plan is the one they hope to use, and that he felt that they could work out the wording of locating the conservation easement.
Ms. Stickney pointed out that the waiver request would need to be modified for the new layout. Atty. Brooks replied that he would have it for the next meeting, and would forward it to Ms. Stickney. Ms. MacNab asked about the Conservation Commission’s schedule, and Ms. Stickney suggested that given the upcoming holiday, that a continuance to September 19 at 8:30 PM should be sufficient time.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka moved to continue the public hearing to September 19, 2005 at 8:30 PM. Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, and the vote passed unanimously.
Ms. Stickney requested that Mr. Vautrinot submit paperwork by Tuesday, September 6. A mutual extension form was signed.
SUBDIVISION EXTENSION/DEER RUN (deadline 9/1/05)
Present: Mr. Brian Murphy, JVO Corporation
Mr. Walter Amory, consulting engineer for the Town of Duxbury
Ms. Stickney gave some background, explaining that the completion date was extended to September 1 to allow Mr. Murphy to apply the top coat. She said that she had been assured that the other items would be finished, but recommends another extension. In particular, Ms. Stickney is concerned about giving time for the grass to grow and take hold.
Mr. Murphy responded that he felt this time line was reasonable. He said that he hopes to plant the grass this week, and that it would take another three weeks for the grass to grow in. He said he feels comfortable completing the punch list, and that the only concern would be the grass.
Mr. Amory explained that all these items are routine with one exception: hydroseeding. He agreed that an extension from September 1 to October 1 would allow the grass time to germinate.
Ms. Stickney said that the bond is coming up on October 3, so allowing more time would ensure that the items would be completed. She pointed out that if the hydroseeding is done by September 1, that she would be able to tell the Board on September 12 that all the work had been completed. The bond would be replaced with a cash surety for the amount of hydroseeding rather than renewing the bond for another year. Ms. MacNab stated that a surety replacing a bond would require a motion.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka moved to extend the completion date to
October 1, 2005 with the condition that hydroseeding would be completed by September 1. Mr. Wadsworth seconded the motion, and the vote passed unanimously.
The matter will be on the September 12 agenda for an update.
AS-BUILT APPROVAL/PRATT CIRCLE (Deadline 9/1/05)
Ms. Stickney asked Mr. Vautrinot to stay for the discussion.
Mr. Vautrinot stated that he has a letter from Mainstream Engineering, and that he now has the location for the electric/telephone utilities. Ms. Stickney stated that the only question remaining with the contractor is on the water gate, and Mr. Vautrinot replied that it was all straightened out.
Ms. Stickney stated that the July 15 completion date was extended to September 1. Ms. MacNab added that they may be forced to extend. Ms. Stickney added that there is about $40,000.00 in a performance guarantee with the Town of Duxbury.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth moved to extend the completion date from September 1 to October 1, 2005 and that the staff send a certified letter to the applicant’s attorney indicating that the As-Builts are not in compliance with Mainstream Engineering’s letter dated 07/11/05 and need to be submitted to the Board as soon as possible. Mr. Bear seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Song Sparrow/Homeowners’ Association:
Ms. MacNab commented that there appears to be no language to ensure the sustainability of the trust and notice to the Town of changes. She pointed out that the document did specify that they have to send a certified copy of any amendments, but that Board approval was not required. She cited as an example in reading Section 8, at first it is not clear but then later it says termination requires Board approval. She further commented that she is not clear about the language or intent of liquidation.
Ms. MacNab asked if the Board could work on a homeowner’s trust boilerplate. Ms. Stickney advised Ms. MacNab to discuss this with Attorney Troy at the upcoming meeting on September 12. Ms. Stickney said she is not comfortable drafting a legal document. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that Board could provide a core document. Ms. Stickney asked if he was referring to guidelines, but expressed concern that every situation is different. Ms. Scieszka proposed that there could be standard language for a roadway remaining private, for example. Mr. Bear commented that there is too much else to do. Ms. Stickney asked the Board if they would consent to discussing this with Mr. Troy and the Board expressed agreement.
Mr. Bear questioned why the development name was changed from Song Sparrow to Forest Street. Ms. MacNab asked if the Board could request that they change the name of the Homeowners’ Association to Song Sparrow, and Ms. Stickney replied, “Yes.”
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth moved to accept the Forest Street Homeowners’ Trust as amended on this date. Ms. Scieszka seconded, and the vote passed unanimously.
Payment of Invoices:
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka moved to approve payment for the Amory invoice #10897A dated 08/03/05 for Cedar Tree Farm in the amount of $1,024.55. Mr. Wadsworth provided a second for the motion, which passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka moved to approve payment for the Amory invoice #10897B dated 08/03/05 for Deer Run in the amount of $344.00, and invoice #10897C dated 08/03/05 for Hillside Lane in the amount of $485.00. Mr. Wadsworth provided a second for the motion, which passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth moved to approve payment for the Mainstream Engineering invoice #20628 dated 07/31/05 for Pratt Circle in the amount of $559.00 and invoice #20629 dated 07/31/05 for Johnson’s Way in the amount of $1,040.00. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which passed unanimously.
Minutes:
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka moved to accept the 08/08/05 Board meeting minutes as amended, with a second by Mr. Wadsworth. The vote passed unanimously.
Neighborhood Conservation District Bylaw:
Ms. Stickney discussed with the Board the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) draft document, “Neighborhood Conservation District Bylaw.” Ms. Scieszka asked for clarification between a conservation district and an historic district. Ms. Stickney replied that a conservation district would apply to areas that had not been designated of historic significance. She continued that it is a response by the MHC to the trend toward “mansionization,” in an attempt to preserve the character of a neighborhood not recognized for historic significance. Ms. MacNab noted that this is a growing trend throughout the country, not just in New England. The Board will review the document in preparation for their meeting with the Duxbury Historic Commission.
Matakeeset Chapter 91 Application:
Ms. Stickney reported that she had signed off on this application and wanted to let the Board know.
Duxbury Bay Maritime School (DBMS) Traffic:
Ms. Stickney reported that earlier today she and Richard MacDonald had met with Mr. Ned Lawson, DBMS Director, to view the traffic which had been identified as a problem. That particular day an instructor was helping to move along the cars dropping off students, so traffic was moving fairly smoothly. Ms. Stickney said that Mr. Lawson is open to changes that would help traffic flow, and is willing to meet with the Board. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that September 26 would be fine for including Mr. Lawson on the agenda.
ABC Contracting:
Ms. Stickney reported that the surety had been released on Mr. Chafik Hamadeh, and that the town Tax Collector notified the Board that they may hold it for back taxes.
Dingley Dell:
Ms. Stickney reported that she had received a telephone call from Town Counsel, Attorney Robert Troy concerning the Board’s letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals about Dingley Dell. Ms. Stickney recommended that Atty. Troy be asked about the litigation at the next Board meeting. Mr. Bear said that the Board needs a suggestion of what the Board should have done. Ms. MacNab recommended that Ms. Stickney confirm that he had received a copy of the letter, and request that he call Ms. MacNab to discuss.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Bear provided a second, and the motion passed unanimously.
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 9:51 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, September 12, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
