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 06/26/06
Approved September 18, 2006
Amended pages 2, 4, 5 and 6 on March 7, 2007 to correct landscape architect name on Duxbury Estates Planned Development to Mark Cooperman / EcoTerra Design Group, LLC
The Planning Board met at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, on Monday, June 26, 2006.
Present: George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Brendan Halligan; Jim Kimball and Harold
Moody. Amy MacNab, Chair, arrived at 7:55 PM.
Absent: John Bear; and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Open Forum was deferred so that the Board could meet for a work session with Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald. After the work session ended, Open Forum began.
Bay Farm Montessor Academy, Inc.: Mr. Kimball suggested that the Board consider a work session with the applicants. He said that he believed the project was being engineered without design thought, and he stated that he could provide design recommendations. Ms. Scieszka suggested that Mr. Kimball could submit his comments in writing prior to the next public meeting.
Duxbury Farms ANR: Ms. Stickney noted that the applicants had requested ANR approval be placed on tonight’s agenda. She advised the Board that she had put the item on the July 10, 2006 Board agenda because she wanted to review the plans carefully because of the lot size.
WORK SESSION
Mr. Richard MacDonald, Town Manager, distributed his evaluation of the Planning Director, Ms. Christine Stickney, which was formulated with input from the Planning Board. Mr. MacDonald and the Board discussed the performance review and follow up to resolve any outstanding issues.
AS-BUILT APPROVAL: DEESUL MEDICAL BUILDING, 104 TREMONT STREET
Mr. Mark Sullivan and Mr. Bob Deely were present as the applicants. Mr. Kimball recused himself from the discussion. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that Town consulting engineer, Mr. Walter Amory, had no outstanding issues, and that the As-Built was ready for the Board’s approval. She noted that this was the first Administrative Site Plan Review project to reach As-Built. She stated that Ms. Scieszka, as clerk, could sign the As-Built certificate, and noted that long-term conditions would survive. A signed As-Built certificate is required to release the ASPR decision from the property file.
Ms. Scieszka asked why the As-Built would be needed and not a certificate of occupancy. Ms. Stickney responded that once the As-Built is signed it would be recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds before the Inspectional Services Department could issue a certificate of occupancy.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to grant As-Built approval for the DEESUL Medical Building, 104 Tremont Street, with surviving conditions as outlined in a staff memo dated June 22, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to notify the Inspectional Services Department that As-Built approval has been granted for the DEESUL Medical Building, 104 Tremont Street, and that the Board recommends that occupancy permits be issued. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
Ms. Scieszka signed two copies of the As-Built certificate, and Ms. Stickney noted that the applicant should give one copy to the Town Clerk and one to the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Kimball re-joined the meeting at this point.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, DUXBURY ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, VICINITY OF 411 AND 451 SUMMER STREET (ROUTE 53)
Ms. MacNab arrived just prior to the public meeting. Present for the discussion to represent the applicants were Atty. Robert W. Galvin, and Mr. Rick Grady and Mr. Kevin Grady of Grady Consulting; and Mr. Mark Cooperman, landscape architect. Representing Horsley Witten Group, Town consulting engineers, were: Ms. Christine Wallace, project manager; Evan Waters, wetlands engineer; and Ms. Leslie Grant of Conley Associates, traffic engineer.
Ms. Scieszka read the correspondence list into the record:
§ Mutual Extension Form to continue meeting signed 5/22/06
§ Letter to Conley Associates dated 5/31/06 re: Transmittal of materials
§ Revised Plans and Cover memo from Grady Consulting dated 6/12/06
§ Memo from Chief Nord dated 6/13/06 re: Fire dept recommendations
§ DRT Minutes from 6/16/06 meeting
§ Letter from Conley Associates dated 6/19/06 re: Traffic review
§ Letter from Horsley & Witten dated 6/21/06 re: Consultant review.
Ms. MacNab welcomed the participants and suggested that the review focus on the big picture questions regarding the use of land before addressing the detailed engineering issues. Mr. Waters asked if the electrical easement area depicted on the plans is available to include in density calculations. Mr. Rick Grady stated that easements and wetlands in Residential Compatibility zoned areas were not included in density calculations. He said that the upland area is within the Planned Development 1 district. Ms. MacNab asked if electrical easements were utilized in determining the setback and buffer, and Mr. Rick Grady stated that they were. Ms. Scieszka asked if wetlands were used in calculating the buffer and open space, and Mr. Rick Grady confirmed that they were. Ms. MacNab stated that she did not believe electrical
easements should be used toward any part of the application. She referred to Section 707.2 of the Zoning Bylaws and calculated 104.5 estimated persons by 1,000 square feet would equal open space of 104,500 square feet. She asked why this information was not included.
Ms. MacNab stated that clarification was needed in order to move the application forward, and Atty. Galvin noted that in Section 707.2 it was stated that the total site would be used in calculating open space. Ms. Scieszka clarified that wetlands could be included as open space but could not be counted toward the 25 percent calculation of buildable land. Atty Galvin disagreed with this interpretation. Ms. Stickney noted that Section 302 of the Zoning Bylaws states that wetlands cannot be used in calculating open space. Ms. MacNab stated that she did not believe electrical easements should be counted in calculating the total amount or the buffer. She stated that she considers buffers as vegetated areas, and is not sure it is appropriate to use an electrical easement as a buffer. Ms. Scieszka referred to Section 703.2 of
the Zoning Bylaws that states that natural woodlands or landscape is preferred as buffer material.
Mr. Waters referenced the Horsley Witten review letter dated June 21, 2006, and noted that setback distances were noted on the plan, with a 75-foot buffer for single family units and 125 for detached homes. He also noted that clustering of the development continued to present a concern from the initial public meeting. He stated that it had been suggested that the applicants consider siting the houses closer together where possible, reducing the length of the access road, and maintaining a 75-foot buffer near Town conservation land.
Ms. Stickney noted that the Fire Department requires a 35-foot distance between buildings. Ms. Scieszka suggested that if the units were attached, the applicants would retain the desired number of units while maximizing open space. She referenced Zoning Bylaw 706.2, and stated that open space should be defined first, with building placement to follow, rather than the other way around. She stated that the buffer currently looks linear, more like a subdivision.
Mr. Rick Grady stated that the proposed common open space buffer of 282,000 square feet represented three times the required amount. He added that he believes wetlands can be used in calculating open space. Mr. Kevin Grady added that the application meets buffering requirements.
Ms. MacNab referenced Zoning Bylaw 806.2 which states that the Board will evaluate the plans in order to determine the capacity of the site in relation to the services required by the Town. She noted that the Board is considering the financial impact to the Town, and asked the applicants when they would be submitting a financial impact analysis. Mr. Rick Grady stated that all information had been provided. Ms. MacNab asked the Town consultants if they believed the application provided sufficient information in terms of financial impact to the Town. Ms. Wallace stated that financial impact is not typically part of their review, and that they usually defer to Town departments or utility companies to confirm that adequate capacity of services exists. Ms. Stickney referred to Zoning Bylaw 807.4 “Report
Submission,” which states that the applicant shall submit a population and economic impact evaluation report.
Ms. MacNab questioned the landscape plan, and Mr. Giachetto noted that the current design includes an integral swale bioretention system that makes it difficult to cluster buildings. Ms. Scieszka stated that bioretention swales came about for open space clusters. Ms. Wallace noted that she had seen cluster developments so tight that a bioretention swale could not fit, and stated that these swales are designed for a 100-year storm and the applicants could consider designing for a 1-inch or 2-inch storm instead.
Ms. Scieszka addressed the density of the site, noting that the application is at its limit of 2.5 units per acre, and stated that she believed that the number of units could be reduced. Ms. Wallace asked if stormwater to number of units had driven the design. Ms. Stickney responded that the Residential Compatibility portion of the lot cannot be used for any part of the Planned Development’s residences, adding that other constraints exist besides topographical ones. Ms. Wallace stated that the Town consulting engineers are in general consensus that the applicants meet zoning requirements, but suggested that the site could be reconfigured in order to shrink the stormwater drainage.
Mr. Moody asked what the benefit would be in reducing the stormwater, and Ms. Wallace replied that the site could be clustered more. Mr. Moody asked what the benefit would be in more clustering, and stated that he would be more comfortable with 100-year stormwater versus more clustering. Ms. Scieszka stated that with more clustering there would be more open space and less impact on the site. Mr. Cooperman, the applicant’s landscape architect, stated that the project’s goal is to maintain as much natural landscape as possible, and that although there may be two ways to achieve that goal, he wasn’t sure one way would be better than another. Ms. Wallace noted that it is up to the Board’s preference.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the essential issue is low impact versus clustering, and noted that the drainage has an excellent design. He also referenced Zoning Bylaw 802.2 that states that the Town will maintain and provide information regarding fiscal information, and also Bylaw 803.5 which states that the Planning Board shall include findings regarding fiscal information. Ms. MacNab noted that Section 803.5 addresses preliminary plans, which the applicant has chosen to skip over, and that Section 806.2 applies to the current application.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Board needs to review the environmental impact, and that he believes there may be a water supply issue. Ms. MacNab replied that booster pumps may provide adequate water supply, and Atty. Galvin added that Water Superintendent, Mr. Paul Anderson, told him that one booster pump would address the issue, and also that the Town may be proposing a water tower on that side of Town in the future. Ms Stickney offered to provide a Dufresne & Henry hydraulic study report that would address potential fire flow issues.
Ms. MacNab questioned whether the electrical easement should be utilized toward the buffer from abutters. Mr. Cooperman stated that the electrical easement does provide a vegetated buffer, and Mr. Giachetto noted that it is a no-touch zone. Ms. Scieszka asked how wide the narrowest part of the buffer is, and Mr. Cooperman stated that it is 35-feet wide. Mr. Waters pointed out that if the applicants were not able to use vegetation as a buffer, that they could consider using fencing.
Ms. Scieszka questioned whether the Residential Compatibility area could be used toward determining open space calculations. Mr. Kimball raised the issue of the distance between buildings, noting the current plans show 31 and 32 feet distances when the Fire Department requires 35 feet. Mr. Rick Grady stated that the minimum distance between buildings is 30 feet. Mr. Wadsworth noted a setback of 15 feet. Mr. Kimball asked if the community center design is a work in progress. Ms. Stickney noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals has jurisdiction over project design.
Ms. MacNab invited Ms. Christine Wallace to address engineering issues on behalf of Town consulting engineers, Horsley Witten Group. Ms. Wallace referenced the bulleted list from her letter dated 06/21/06. Ms. Scieszka noted that plans reflect a 4 to 6 foot above-ground foundation. She asked how long the proposed road is, and Mr. Rick Grady responded that the road length is 2,563 in total length, but that it is 1,500 feet from Summer Street to the furthest point before it loops back.
Ms. Wallace addressed the feasibility of the proposed infiltration systems, noting that seasonal high ground water information is needed, and also stated that you cannot infiltrate in fill. She said that the information is needed in tabular form. Ms. MacNab confirmed with Mr. Rick Grady that he is agreeable to respond to Ms. Wallace’s concerns. Mr. Kevin Grady noted that the modeling was lower than the water table. Ms. Wallace stated that infiltration chambers should be shown on the plans, both in number and positioning.
Mr. Wadsworth confirmed with Mr. Rick Grady that the proposed structures would have basements. Mr. Wadsworth stated that if the infiltration system were clogged, there would be no danger to abutting homes or properties. Mr. Rick Grady stated that all issues in Ms. Wallace’s letter would be addressed by the applicants. Mr. Cooperman added that eventually a management plan would be submitted as well. Mr. Giachetto added that the management plan would be included in a homeowners’ agreement.
Ms. Wallace advised the applicants to avoid compacting natural soils. Mr. Kevin Grady stated that utilities would most likely need to be placed underneath the garage slabs. Ms. Scieszka asked if mounding would be used because of high groundwater, and Ms. Stickney advised that Health Agent, Jennifer Dalrymple, had stated that she would oversee all septic issues. Ms. Stickney asked if a groundwater flow issue exists, and Atty. Galvin replied that Mr. Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering had recently performed a groundwater study. Ms. MacNab acknowledged that a groundwater study had been performed at Bongi’s Turkey Roost at 414 Kingstown Way.
Ms. Scieszka asked why fill is proposed to be used, and Mr. Rick Grady responded that it would be used to bring the elevation of basements above the water table. Mr. Giachetto added that they would try to grade downhill from the front of each structure to allow for walkout basements. Mr. Waters noted that the gravel path in the center of the property may be low, and advised the applicants that mud may be a potential issue. He suggested continuity in the gravel paths.
Ms. Leslie Grant, traffic engineer, stated that because traffic volumes would be higher in the summer month, an average traffic flow would be required. She commented that the current numbers appear low. She also stated that an accident analysis would be needed.
Ms. MacNab asked for any further Board comments. Mr. Wadsworth asked if it were possible to avoid positioning four garage doors together. Ms. Scieszka suggested that it may be more attractive to have a separate shed rather than adjoining garages, as is featured in other Planned Developments. Mr. Giachetto stated that most homeowners would prefer to have an adjoining garage.
Ms. MacNab invited public comment. Mr. Paul Costello of 91 DeLorenzo Drive noted that the applicants had moved the club house further from abutters. He also noted that a walkway path near the electrical easement shown on current plans is not needed, and objected to potential septic venting odors. Mr. Rick Grady responded that no venting is proposed. Mr. Costello stated concerns with potential use of fencing as a buffer, requesting use of trees instead where possible. He also expressed his concern for potential increase in traffic flow on DeLorenzo Drive.
Mr. Halligan noted that if a driver were to turn left from DeLorenzo Drive onto Summer Street, it would be a quick left onto the development. Ms. Agnes Hanna of 15 DeLorenzo Drive expressed her agreement with Mr. Halligan.
Ms. MacNab addressed a proposed triplex near the first intersection and asked about the buffer between it and the property line. She noted that at a minimum, the electrical easement would provide a 92-foot buffer, but with a leaching system it would be difficult to find area for planting trees or any adequate buffer to abutters. Ms. Stickney offered to find out more information from the utility company regarding clearing of the electrical easement. Mr. Cooperman offered to review the landscaping plan further and try to fill in gaps where possible to maximize the buffer. Atty. Galvin stated that the homeowners will prefer as much buffer as possible as the abutters do. He added that the Zoning Bylaws state that ponds and open space can be used as a buffer. Ms. Scieszka noted that natural woodlands and vegetation are
preferred. Ms. MacNab noted that this is an area that needs to be reviewed further.
Atty. Galvin stated that he set a meeting date of July 27, 2006 with Mr. James Lampert of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), and said that the ZBA would need the Planning Board’s report by that date. He said that the application is currently beyond the 35-day window provided in Zoning Bylaws, and that if the process is further delayed it may affect the applicant’s ability to move forward in developing the property. Ms. MacNab noted that she and Mr. Wadsworth had spoken with Ms. Sally Wilson of the ZBA, and that extensions throughout the process were assumed. Atty. Galvin expressed his concern that the ZBA may have further revisions beyond the Planning Board’s recommendations, which would delay the process even further. He stated that the applicants have legal obligations regarding the development which
have a deadline. Ms. MacNab stated that the Board would prefer to provide a thorough report to the ZBA and needs time for review.
Outstanding issues were summarized:
§ Fire flow numbers
§ Traffic report additions
§ Tables for bioswales: Mr. Giachetto expressed concern that the ZBA may have revisions that require recalculation. Ms. MacNab advised him to use his best judgment as to whether tables would be provided or not.
§ Water table information.
MOTION: Mr. Kimball made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to extend the public meeting for Duxbury Estates planned development to July 24, 2006, with revised plans due July 12, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried 6-0.
A mutual extension form was signed by Atty. Galvin and the Board.
LAND COURT PLAN ENDORSEMENT / 154 WASHINGTON STREET (HINKLEY)
Present for the discussion was Mr. Shawn Dahlen representing the applicant. Ms. Stickney noted that this application covered the same property for which the Board had approved an ANR at its June 5, 2006 meeting. Due to the fact that the property involves registered land, the plan before the Board tonight has been prepared in accordance with Land Court requirements for their approval on the division of registered land. She stated that the Land Court manual of instructions requires Board endorsement before submission to Land Court.
Ms. MacNab and Ms. Scieszka questioned why the process was considered an ANR. Mr. Dahlen explained that this plan for the registered land would be recorded at Land Court, and the original ANR would be recorded for the unregistered land. Ms. MacNab noted that the current plan does not depict the previously endorsed ANR plan. She noted that the current plan does not show the required 200 feet of frontage and therefore legally cannot be endorsed as an ANR. Mr. Kimball suggested removing the word “approval” from the plan. Mr. Halligan suggested that Town counsel, Atty. Robert Troy, be consulted. Mr. Halligan asked when the endorsed plan was needed, and Mr. Dahlen said it would be needed within the next few days. Mr. Moody offered to research the matter further, but Ms. MacNab stated that Atty. Troy should be able
to address the question. Ms. Stickney offered to contact Atty. Troy. The matter was tabled.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:56 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
