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 06/05/06
Approved July 24, 2006
The Planning Board met in Town offices, Small Conference Room, on Monday, June 5, 2006.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, Brendan Halligan, Jim Kimball, and Harold Moody.
Absent: Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:28 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Planning Director Performance Evaluation: Ms. MacNab informed the Board that their review of Ms. Stickney’s performance would take place at next week’s meeting, and noted that it would take place during open meeting rather than in executive session.
Discussion with Historical Commission: It was noted that tonight’s discussion would be postponed at the Historical Commission’s request.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND / PATTEN LANE (341 STANDISH STREET), REED
Present for the discussion was Mr. Mark Casey of South Shore Survey. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that she had reviewed the ANR plans presented at last week’s meeting after Ms. Scieszka pointed out that they did not match the assessor’s map. Ms. Stickney said that there was an error on the assessor’s map and that the plans presented were correct. Mr. Casey stated that the applicants wish to install a greenhouse on the property and need to eliminate a lot line between two properties they own so that the greenhouse would be considered an accessory building.
Mr. John Duffy of 68 Goose Point Lane stated that he had not been notified about this application and he has a right of way to Patten Lane. Ms. MacNab explained that the ANR process does not require abutter notification, and explained that the applicant is simply seeking to combine two lots to make one larger one. Mr. Wadsworth added that this application would not take away the abutters’ right of way.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to endorse the ANR plan of land entitled, “Plan of Land Lots 1 and 2 Patten Lane, 341 Standish Street” dated May 9, 2006, stamped by William P. Sylvia (PLS) – South Shore Survey Consultants, Inc. – 1 sheet, as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
MEETING RECESS
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to recess the Planning Board meeting in order to attend a portion of the Board of Selectmen’s meeting in the Mural Room to hear a report from the Economic Advisory Committee regarding five business area forums held within the past year. There was no discussion over the motion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
The Planning Board meeting went into recess at 7:39 PM. The Board returned into session at 7:45 PM.
WORK SESSION
Planned Development (PD) Discussion: Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Stickney to report on contract discussions with the Town consulting engineering firm, Horsley Witten, for the Duxbury Estates PD on Summer Street. Ms. Stickney stated that although no contract was required, Horsley Witten requested one. Mr. Halligan noted that Towns usually do not enter into this type of contract because it is biased toward the consultant, and he suggested revisions that would provide more balance. Ms. MacNab commented that putting a price tag on specific activities limits the scope of the project review. Mr. Bear noted that there would be no site inspections without Planning Director approval, and that the Board cannot define the scope of review. It was agreed that Ms. Stickney would forward the revised contract to Board members the
following day.
Discussion then turned to the PD process. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that Horsley Witten engineers had met with the applicants’ engineers regarding buffers and provided useful feedback. Ms. Scieszka stated that she would like to discuss how the Board interacts with the applicant regarding general engineering comments. Ms. MacNab agreed that a standard process should be developed.
Later during the meeting, the subject of the Planned Development process continued. Ms. MacNab posed the question of how the Board should direct its engineering consultant in the definitive process when the preliminary process has been passed over. Mr. Wadsworth noted that in the subdivision process, when the preliminary approval has been omitted everything from the preliminary process is reviewed during the definitive phase. Therefore, he suggested, the Board should consider a thorough review in the Planned Development process as well, granting extensions in order to complete the review. He added that everything was open for review, including design.
Ms. MacNab stated that the Board needs to clearly define to an applicant what they are looking for, and clearly convey that the process is a negotiation. Ms. Scieszka stated that she and Ms. Stickney have different interpretations regarding the amount of narrative and graphical information to be provided in a PD process, and asked for the Board’s input. Ms. MacNab suggested the Board members thoroughly review the Zoning Bylaws in order to become familiar with its content.
Railroad Avenue Proposed Commercial Development: Mr. Bear stated that the Economic Advisory Committee (EAC) proposes a briefing with all land use boards before the applicants file, to provide general feedback before plans are submitted. Mr. Halligan questioned if this type of meeting could be held under the open meeting law. Mr. Wadsworth expressed concern that the public would not be notified about a proposed land use meeting and therefore would have no opportunity to participate. He suggested that the applicants confer with Town departments individually before submitting their application. Mr. Bear responded that the applicants’ intent is to streamline the process. Ms. Stickney noted that a Development Review Team (DRT) meeting would be scheduled before application submittal due to the scope of the project
and because there are potential water issues. The Board agreed that any change to the process should go through Annual Town Meeting.
At a later point in the meeting, Mr. Bear asked about the status of the Railroad Avenue project, and Ms. Stickney responded that the applicants were dealing with the Conservation Agent over potential wetland issues.
Administrative Site Plan Review (ASPR) Process: Ms. MacNab noted that now that the Board has completed several applications under Administrative Site Plan review, it is a good time to review the process. She suggested that changes to the bylaw could help to clearly direct applicants through the ASPR process. Ms. Stickney noted that currently applicants are referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) first for a special permit that specifies business use. When the business use changes, the applicant is required to return to the ZBA for another permit. She provided the example of an office building where one tenant moves out and another tenant opens a different type of business in the same space. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Town of Barnstable has a change of use permit.
Ms. Ruth Rowley of 546 Washington Street commented that she prefers not to look at what other towns do because it lessens the process. She stated that the current public perception of the ASPR process is that “everybody is deciding but nobody is in charge.” She stated that the CPZBIC sub-committee that developed the ASPR intended to simplify the process for the applicant. Ms. Rowley stated that the Planning Board should review an ASPR application first before it goes to the ZBA if necessary for a special permit. She said that it was not necessary to go to the ZBA first because allowed uses are already included in the Zoning Bylaws. Ms. Stickney noted that the use is discretionary by special permit and not a by right. Ms. Scieszka asked if a use had ever been denied, and Ms. MacNab recalled that the applicants
at 104 Tremont Street had originally intended to build a drive-through bank and dry cleaner, but then amended their application to its current use as a medical building. Ms. MacNab noted that, although the intent to streamline the process for the applicant is worthy, time did not allow for further discussion and suggested that future time should be set aside to review the ASPR bylaw.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Halligan offered to review and suggest revisions to update the Administrative Site Plan Review regulations and forms.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW / TOWN OF DUXBURY COUNCIL ON AGING, 10 MAYFLOWER STREET
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting. Mr. Tom Daley, DPW Director, and Ms. Joanne Moore, Council on Aging Director, were present for the discussion. Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Scieszka to read the correspondence list from May 15, 2006 and June 5, 2006:
May 15, 2006 correspondence list:
§ Mutual Extension Form signed at the 4/24/06 meeting
§ Memo to Robert S. Troy from C. Stickney dated 5/2/06 re: concerns of PB
§ Memo from Robert S. Troy dated 5/3/06 re: opinion
§ Revised plans dated 05/10/06
§ Light sample dated 05/10/06
§ Memo from Tom Daley, DPW Superintendent, dated 05/10/06 re: Site coverage.
June 5, 2006 correspondence list:
§ Mutual Extension Form signed at the 05/15/06 meeting.
§ Undated document, “Town Meeting Action Re: Duxbury Senior Center, Chronology of Action by Town,” written by R. Rowley and distributed by A. MacNab at the 05/15/06 Planning Board meeting
§ Site photographs dated 05/16/06 and submitted to Planning office by G. Wadsworth
§ Memo from Health Agent J. Dalrymple dated 05/19/06 re: Septic Variance.
Ms. Scieszka questioned why Town Counsel was consulted regarding whether the Planning Board had authority to request site calculations, and Ms. Stickney referenced her memo to Atty. Troy dated May 3, 2006 which stated that the intent was to clarify whether an ANR needed to be filed. Ms. Scieszka noted that, although Atty. Troy advised that the Board cannot request an ANR, the site needs to be delineated for administrative site plan review. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that she subsequently found the original site plan at the Town Clerk’s office and learned that Annual Town Meeting directed that an ANR be filed. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board was learning of the Town Clerk site plan for the first time.
Mr. Daley stated that the site currently includes the Town cemetery. He distributed 11 by 17 inch copies of plans to the Board and stated that the only revisions made were to address issues brought up at previous Board meetings. He stated that he was able to include the sidewalks the Board had suggested in order to create a walkway between the new parking lot and the old one. He also noted that he planned to use the same type of lighting that is currently used for the proposed new parking area.
Ms. Scieszka asked for the percentage of impervious coverage, and Mr. Daley responded that he is proposing an increase from the current 27% to 39% site coverage, from 40,895 square feet to 58, 922 square feet.
Mr. Daley stated that the proposed drainage system includes natural filtration, which is preferred over artificial filtration because it results in better water treatment. Ms. Scieszka stated that drainage calculations usually need to be reviewed by a consulting engineer. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Board had chosen not to have engineering review, and Ms. Scieszka stated that the scope of the site plan is more complicated than originally believed. Ms. MacNab added that the Board needs to follow best management practices and, due to the 39 percent impervious site coverage, consulting review may be needed.
Mr. Wadsworth referenced pictures he had taken on May 16, 2006 and noted that the riprap had moved already during construction, even before the project had been completed. He stated that there appears to be a slow movement of sand down the slope and, although there is no standing water, there is no vegetation. Mr. Wadsworth recommended that more riprap be installed because the current slope is very unstable. He further suggested that more low level vegetation needs to be planted at the basin to catch pollutants. He also recommended a barrier at the end of the parking lot, and Ms. Moore responded that a guard rail is proposed.
Discussion followed regarding the need for a consulting engineer to review the project, and it was concluded that Mainstream Engineering would be contacted. Mr. Daley was also asked to submit a full set of site plans with five sheets, including existing and proposed conditions on the site. Ms. Stickney asked if the Mainstream invoices should be billed directly to the Council on Aging, and Ms. MacNab confirmed that they should.
Ms. MacNab opened the floor to public comment.
Ms. Ruth Rowley of 546 Washington Street stated that the deed and plan voted at March 2001 Annual Town Meeting need to be recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds. She stated that a special permit is required from the ZBA due to the increase in density coverage. She also expressed her agreement with the Board that independent review was called for, and asked if the septic system would be changed. Mr. Daley replied that it would not. Ms. MacNab clarified that there would be an administrative reclassification of the septic system to accurately reflect the usage at 250 gallons per day, rather than the 2,600 gallons per day currently listed.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to continue the public meeting for administrative site plan review of the Town of Duxbury Council on Aging, 10 Mayflower Street, until Monday, July 17, 2006, with plans due by July 3, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
A mutual extension form was signed by the applicant and Board.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND / 154 WASHINGTON STREET, HINKLEY
Mr. Bear recused himself from the discussion. Present for the discussion were Mr. Doug Aaberg of Aaberg Associates, and project manager, Mr. Shawn Dahlen. Mr. Dahlen presented a new mylar with a minor revision of the lot line delineation for Lot 2. Ms. MacNab asked if the Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD) had been indicated, and Mr. Dahlen showed the Board the APOD delineations.
Mr. Dahlen introduced the application, stating that it covers a 30-acre parcel in the center of Town. It had been on the market as one large parcel, but the applicant would like to divide it in order to provide more marketing flexibility. The lots have frontage on South Station Street, Partridge Road and Washington Street. Mr. Dahlen stated that Health Agent, Ms. Jennifer Dalrymple, had agreed to approve septic plans for Lots 1 and 3 after the lots were formed by the Planning Board’s ANR approval.
Ms. Scieszka asked if the applicant intended to subdivide the parcel with frontage on Washington Street, and Mr. Dahlen replied that the applicant had not decided. Ms. MacNab noted that creating a sixth lot would trigger an affordable housing component. Ms. Stickney referenced Zoning Bylaw Section 530.2 which states that if an ANR proposes division of land for six or more lots, then the Board shall enforce Section 560 (Inclusionary Housing). Mr. Wadsworth also noted Section 530.2.2 that states that if over ten acres are subdivided into five or more lots, an affordable housing component is triggered. Ms. MacNab stated that Town Counsel should be consulted for his opinion on whether the creation of five lots or six lots triggers Section 560.
Mr. Kimball noted that the plan included both registered and unregistered land. Mr. Moody stated that the major difference is where the land is recorded. Ms. MacNab confirmed with Mr. Aaberg that he had surveyed the land depicted in the plan.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to endorse the ANR plan of land titled, “Plan of Land, 154 Washington Street in Duxbury, MA” dated May 22, 2006, stamped by Douglas L. Aaberg (PLS) – Aaberg Associates, Inc. – one sheet. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Bayside Marine, 433 Washington Street: Ms. MacNab referenced an email the owner, Mr. J.R. Kent, had sent to Ms. Stickney regarding street parking, noting that a condition of his Administrative Site Plan Review approval was to participate in improving traffic flow in the Snug Harbor area of Washington Street. Ms. Stickney stated that Mr. Kent believes that the layout of Washington Street could support parking on one side. Mr. Bear suggested that Mr. Kent be advised to contact the Board of Selectmen if he wishes to pursue marking the east side of Washington Street for public parking.
Staff Update: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that Ms. Jennifer Dalrymple had resigned as Town Health Agent effective July 1, 2006.
Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve the meeting minutes of April 24, 2006 as amended. There was no discussion. VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve the meeting minutes of May 1, 2006 as amended. There was no discussion. VOTE: The motion carried 6-0-1, with Ms. Scieszka abstaining.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve the meeting minutes of May 8, 2006 as amended. There was no discussion. VOTE: The motion carried (7-0).
Housing Consultant RFP: Ms. MacNab noted that the request for proposals for the Housing Consultant position is in the drafting stages.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:51 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, June 12, 2006 at 7:30 PM in the Small Conference Room at Duxbury Town offices.
| 
