Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes of 08/21/06

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    08/21/06     
Approved 10/16/06
        
The Planning Board met in the Small Conference Room of Town Hall on Monday, August 21, 2006.

Present:        Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, Brendan Halligan, Jim Kimball, Harold Moody.

Absent:         Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff:  Christine Stickney, Planning Director; Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant

The meeting was called to order at 7:33 PM.

OPEN FORUM
Freeman Farms: Mr. Wadsworth noted that staff is investigating installation of a street light that was shown on approved subdivision plans but not yet applied for. Neighbors would like to see the light installed.

ANR PLAN OF LAND, 465 AND 467 CONGRESS STREET / ERIKSSON
Mr. Dick Eriksson of 467 Congress Street and surveyor, Mr. Joe Webby, were present for the discussion proposing to revise three existing lots located on Congress Street into two lots. Mr. Webby displayed the plans, explaining that Mr. Eriksson owned 467 Congress Street before purchasing 465 Congress Street and a vacant parcel, which is predominantly wetlands. He said that the purpose of the ANR is to reshape the lot to correct its frontage. He noted that the current driveway would continue to be used by the Erikssons, as well as the owners of 471 Congress Street (Joseph and Kathryn Subina).

Ms. MacNab asked if there was any intention of changing the driveway, and Mr. Webby stated that there was not. Ms. MacNab advised Mr. Webby that each house needs a driveway access, and Mr. Webby stated that he was aware of this. Mr. Wadsworth confirmed with Mr. Webby that the legal access was 18.51 feet wide, and noted that the owners of 471 Congess Street would continue to have access but no frontage.

MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to endorse the plan entitled, “Plan of Land in Duxbury, Mass. Prepared for Richard & Anna Ericksson” dated 08/04/06, stamped by Joseph E. Webby (RLS) – Webby Engineering Associates, Inc. - 1 sheet, as not requiring approval under subdivision control laws, noting that the existing driveway will continue to provide access for 471 Congress Street.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
The Board signed the ANR plan.


OTHER BUSINESS
Because it was not yet time for the 8:00 PM public meeting, the Board addressed other business on the agenda.
Engineering Invoice:
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to approve Mainstream Engineering invoice #20823 dated July 31, 2006 in the amount of $476.00 for services related to the Duxbury Senior Center. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).

Duxbury Estates Planned Development (PD), Summer Street: Ms. MacNab noted that staff had provided fiscal impact data from three previous PDs (Ocean Woods, Summerset and Southscape) for the Board’s review. Mr. Bear noted that Ms. Sara Wilson from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) said she had a model. Discussion ensued over who should provide the fiscal impact study. Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Kimball suggested that the ZBA should handle it. Ms. MacNab and Scieszka felt that the Board should oversee the report production. Ms. Scieszka suggested that Horsley Witten Group, Town consulting engineers for this project, should be contacted.


CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
TOWN OF DUXBURY COUNCIL ON AGING, 10 MAYFLOWER STREET
The public meeting opened at 8:00 PM. Mr. Wadsworth had departed during “Other Business” at 7:50 PM to attend a Board of Selectmen meeting and was not present for the discussion. Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Scieszka to read the correspondence list into the public record:
§       Letter from Tom Daley dated 7/10/06 re: Request to extend 7/10/06 meeting
§       Mutual Extension Form signed at the 07/10/06 meeting.
§       Memo from Tom Daley dated 7/31/06 submitted with revised plans and drainage calculations.
§       Copies of Planning Board Minutes 4/24/06, 5/8/06, 5/22/06 & 6/5/06
§       Memo from Mainstream Engineering dated 8/14/06 re: Peer Review
§       Memo from C. Stickney dated 8/16/06 re: staff review and comments.

Present for the discussion were Mr. Tom Daley, DPW Director; Ms. Joanne Moore, Council on Aging Director; and Mr. Tom Sexton, Town consulting engineer. The applicant proposes to expand the existing parking lot to add 48 parking spaces to the current 42 spaces. With the loss of four spaces for an entryway, there would be a net total of 86 parking spaces at the Senior Center. Mr. Daley presented the current plans and commented that the drainage had been revised after feedback from Mr. Sexton. He noted that a walkway had been added from the new section to the old section of the parking lot, at the Board’s suggestion. He also noted that plantings had been added to sheet 3 to increase the number of existing bayberry bushes.

Ms. Scieszka noted that there had been some instability on an existing slope after initial clearing, and Mr. Daley stated that the slope will be stabilized with wood chips. Mr. Bear asked about possible lot line delineation of the Council on Aging lot from the adjacent Town-owned cemetery lot, and Ms. MacNab noted that Condition 6 of the draft decision would require submittal of an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan for endorsement by the Board. Ms. Stickney noted that the DPW would be handling the construction.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, the close the public meeting for the administrative site plan review of the Town of Duxbury Council on Aging, 10 Mayflower Street. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6-0).

MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve the administrative site plan review of the Town of Duxbury Council on Aging plans entitled “Town of Duxbury Department of Public Works” stamped by Thomas E. Daley  – 4 sheets, dated July 25, 2006 with conditions dated August 21, 2006. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6-0).

The Board signed the administrative site plans.

After the close of the public meeting and vote, Ms. Ruth Rowley of 546 Washington Street stated although she had not been able to view the current Senior Center parking lot plans, those plans now appear to be complete as they should have been at the beginning of the process. She suggested that the Board consider establishing a policy of not acting on incomplete applications, and not engaging a consulting engineer to review until the application is complete. She noted that she had discussed the matter with the Board of Selectmen also regarding ANR plans. She said that better administration helps everyone.


CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
21 CHESTNUT STREET / GRIFFIN
The public meeting opened at 8:30 PM. Present for the discussion were the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Kevin and Colleen Griffin; Atty. Philip Markella; Mr. Mark Casey of South Shore Survey; and Town consulting engineer, Mr. Walter Amory. Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Scieszka to read the correspondence list into the public record:
§       Mutual Extension form signed on 7/10/06 continue meeting to 8/21/06
§       Email dated 7/18/06 re: Mr. Perenick an abutter sending comments
§       Memo from Gary Russell of South Shore Survey dated 7/26/06 with revised site plans and drainage calculations
§       Notice of DRT Meeting dated 7/31/06
§       Letter received 8/1/06 from Charles Perenick/24 Chestnut St re: concerns
§       DRT Minutes dated 8/9/06
§       Memo from Walter Amory dated 8/15/06 re: latest revised site plans
§       Memo from C. Stickney dated 8/16/06 re: staff comments
§       Letter from Deputy Fire Chief West dated 08/21/06 re: driveway size and access.

Ms. MacNab noted that it appeared that the Town consulting engineer had no outstanding issues. Mr. Casey stated that he had worked with Mr. Amory, as well as Town departments. He noted that the current plans reconfigured the parking lot, addressed stormwater issues, and added a handicap accessible parking space and apron in front of the building. He stated that the plans for the retaining wall would be stamped by a structural engineer, and that the project now complies with all zoning and subdivision rules and regulations.

Mr. Bear asked how the applicant had dealt with the northwestern entrance, and Mr. Casey replied that he had sent an engineer to meet with the Deputy Fire Chief on site. The results of their review were incorporated into the present plan. Mr. Casey said the issue had been regarding lateral access obstacles such as wires and trees along Chestnut Street, requiring rear access. Mr. Moody noted that the driveway now has been widened to twelve feet, which is sufficient for emergency apparatus to reach the rear of the building.

Ms. Scieszka noted the handicap accessible parking space, and Mr. Casey stated that they are including an ADA-compliant ramp as well. Ms. MacNab asked if the front of the building was the only place possible to locate the handicap space, and Mr. Casey said that it was, due to the site topography.

Ms. MacNab asked about landscaping, and Mr. Casey stated that their primary concern was the sight line. Ms. Scieszka asked if two trees presently on the site would be cleared, and Mr. Casey confirmed that they would, due to sight line issues, although if there were any way to save the trees that would be preferable to the applicants. Ms. MacNab confirmed with Mr. Amory that the sight line triangle was adequate. He stated that the apex of the triangle would be 30 feet from the center line, and about 20 feet back from the pavement. Mr. Amory suggested including a condition in the decision that the applicant would consult with the Fire Chief and Police Chief regarding clearing of the two trees.

Mr. Wadsworth returned to the meeting at this point (approximately 8:40 PM).

Ms. MacNab referenced a letter from an abutter, Mr. Charles Perenick, who had concerns with traffic, pedestrian safety, and crosswalks. She noted that this was not part of the administrative site plan review. Ms. Stickney stated that she had met with Mr. Perenick and advised him that the Board could ask the Police Department to review the issues. Ms. MacNab suggested that staff forward Mr. Perenick’s letter to the Department of Public Works (DPW).

Ms. MacNab asked for public comment, and Ms. Ruth Rowley of 546 Washington Street stated that there may be possible errors on the current assessor’s map. She stated that the lot for the Duxbury Housing Authority appears as Neighborhood Business 1 (NB1) when it is actually publicly-owned land. She continued that the lot at 21 Chestnut Street also appears as NB1 when it should be residential. She suggested the Board consider bringing this matter to Special Town Meeting this fall, and noted that she would be requesting Town Clerk to look into the matter. Ms. Stickney advised Ms. Rowley that Town Clerk had already reviewed the matter and confirmed that the property at 21 Chestnut Street is NB 1. Ms. MacNab asked if she were raising a concern regarding the administrative site plan review application, and Ms. Rowley replied that she simply wanted clarification.

MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to close the public meeting for administrative site plan review of 21 Chestnut Street. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried, 6-0-1, with Mr. Wadsworth abstaining because he had not been present for a portion of the discussion.


MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to approve the administrative site plan review plans entitled, “Site Plan #21 Chestnut Street, Duxbury, MA” dated May 17, 2006, revised on July 13, 2006 and August 15, 2006, and stamped by William P. Sylvia (PLS) of South Shore Survey – 1 sheet, with conditions dated August 21, 2006 and amended to include a condition that the applicant will request the Fire Chief and Police Chief to review and make a recommendation regarding the preservation or removal of existing trees prior to installation of the proposed driveway and handicap parking space. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).

The Board members signed the administrative site plans for 21 Chestnut Street.

A motion was made to recess the meeting in order to relocate to the Mural Room in order to accommodate the large public audience in attendance for the next agenda item. A recess began at 9:03 PM and ended at 9:13 PM.


CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
BAY FARM MONTESSORI ACADEMY, 145 LORING STREET
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 9:13 PM. Present for the discussion were:
§       Atty. Robert Marzelli, representing the applicant
§       Mr. Garth Hoffman, who serves on the Campus Development Committee of the Academy’s Board of Directors
§       Mr. Gordon Hayes, parent of children currently attending the Academy                                                            
§       Mr. Hauke Kite-Powell, President of the Academy’s Board of Directors
§       Mr. Walter Amory, Town consulting engineer
§       Atty. Brian Cook, representing abutting neighbors who oppose the proposed project.

Approximately 80 members of the public were present for the discussion as well.

Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Scieszka to read the correspondence list into the public record:           
§       Memo from Walter Amory dated 8/7/06 re: Peer Review for PB (handout at last PB meeting but not noted as correspondence for the record).
§       Memo from Atty. Cook to Planning Board dated 8/1/06 re: concerns w/ proposal (handout by Atty. Cook at last PB meeting but not noted as correspondence for the record).
§       Comparison of Mass. Montessori Schools no date and no author (handout by Atty. Cook at last PB meeting but not noted as correspondence for the record).
§       Articles of Organization (selective pgs) BF Montessori  (handout by Atty. Marzelli at last PB meeting but not noted as correspondence for the record).
§       Email from H. Morris dated 8/9/06 re: concerns with PB conduct
§       Letter from Jonathan Sager dated 8/11/06 re: opposition to the project
§       Letter from George Millman dated 8/10/06 re: comments on issues w/ project
§       Letter from Hauke Kite –Powell on behalf of BFMA dated 8/14/06 re: responses to questions raised at 8/7/06 meeting.
§       Also attached notes of Vautrinot surveying re: Alden Gym
§       Memo from Garth Hoffman dated 8/14/06 re: balloon test and pictures
§       Letter from Atty. Warren Richards dated 08/15/06 re: opposition to project

Ms. MacNab advised the public that the Planning Board’s role on administrative site plan review is outlined in Section 615 of the Town’s Zoning Bylaws. She noted that the Planning Board is elected by the Town and supported by staff. She thanked Board members and staff for their time and effort put forth on this site plan review application. She noted the order of presentations for this evening’s discussion:
1.      Planning Board/staff comments
2.      New issues or questions from public
3.      Motion to close public meeting
4.      Vote on application.

Ms. MacNab asked the applicants if they had submitted a landscaping plan as requested at the last public meeting, and Mr. Hoffman responded that they had.

Ms. MacNab opened the floor to Board question or comments. She noted that at the last public meeting, residents had concerns with the Academy’s potential use of the proposed field house, and that Atty. Marzelli had handed her a mission statement which stated in part that the Academy would have no purpose related to profit. Atty. Marzelli clarified that those were the articles of organization. Ms. MacNab noted that in the first paragraph, it stated that the school was for children aged six to twelve. She stated that this information confused her, because she had thought that the majority of the school population was aged less than six years old at the time. She said that submitted materials stated that Bay Farm Montessori and the Munchkin Montessori had merged in 1998. She looked at the Secretary of State’s web site but could find no clear indication of a merger, although she did find Bay Farm Montessori Academy listed as a non-profit corporation. Munchkin Montessori is listed as a domestic for-profit, and apparently there has been no dissolution of this entity. However, assessor’s data lists their property as a 3.77 acre tax-exempt parcel. She asked if the Academy is currently one entity or if the two organizations remained as one non-profit and one for-profit.

Atty. Marzelli replied that his understanding is that there had never been a formal merger, and that the private corporation continues to be owned by the same owner. He stated that the for-profit organization has nothing to do with the application before the Board, and that all real estate is owned by Bay Farm Montessori Academy, Inc. which retains some assets of the for-profit entity. He said that essentially there is no for-profit entity, and that no reports had been filed for it since 2002 so it will eventually be dissolved for failure to file reports. He stated that the applicant is a non-profit corporation that owns the land.

Ms. MacNab asked if the Munchkin Montessori remained in business for younger children, and Atty. Marzelli replied that Munchkin Montessori was not a part of this application. Ms. MacNab stated that she was simply reading from a document given to her by the applicant. Mr. Halligan noted that he had seen a truck at the Academy with “Munchkin Montessori” lettering on it. Atty. Marzelli stated that the assets of the for-profit had been sold but that the owners are no longer involved with the non-profit corporation or its assets. Ms. Scieszka asked for clarification of who is the applicant, and Atty. Marzelli stated that Munchkin Montessori is not the applicant but an unrelated separate corporation.

Mr. Gordon Hayes of 535 Washington Street explained that the original school was Munchkin Montessori, which was a for-profit corporation that taught toddlers through first grade. He stated that after several years a non-profit entity was formed to take children through the next grade levels. He said that the sole shareholders of the Munchkin Montessori are Pam and Leo Malboeuf, and that all assets currently belong to Bay Farm Montessori Academy, Inc. Ms. MacNab asked if a new charter exists, and Mr. Kite-Powell replied that, although the Academy has revised its mission statement within the past couple of years, its charter was not updated. Ms. MacNab asked for confirmation that the document handed to the Board at the last public meeting was outdated, and Mr. Kite-Powell replied, “That’s correct.”

Mr. Wadsworth asked if the landscaping was shown on one sheet, and Mr. Hoffman responded that it was. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the landscaping plan was agreed to by neighbors, and Mr. Hoffman replied that he couldn’t say. Mr. Wadsworth referred to sheet 5 of the current plans and noted areas of Eastern red cedars, some naturally vegetated areas, a stockade fence and a vinyl chain-link fence. Mr. Wadsworth noted an area of existing pines and asked if they would survive construction, and Mr. Hoffman replied that they would.

Ms. Scieszka noted that some dimensions had not been supplied on new buildings, and Mr. Hoffman replied that he believed the dimensions had been submitted. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the dimensions were laid out to scale, and Mr. Kimball confirmed that they were. Ms. Scieszka noted that there was some question as to the methodology used to calculate seating, and asked if anything had been submitted. the methodology used to calculate seating, and Mr. Kimball pointed out that the information supplied was in the supplemental materials previously submitted by the applicants.

Ms. MacNab opened the floor to public comment:

Mr. Michael Booth (address unknown) introduced himself as an elementary teacher at the Academy for the past three years. He stated that the proposed field house is strictly for the children of the Academy. Addressing residents’ concerns about size and usage, he noted that the Academy’s 35 years of existence provide a sufficient track record of intent. He said that the students need a larger space and are resilient enough to enjoy traveling outdoors to walk from the classrooms to the field house.

Atty. Brian Cook noted that he was unable to obtain a landscaping plan in advance of the meeting. Ms. Stickney responded that Atty. Cook had requested a copy of the plans only this morning, and that his engineer had been able to review the plans today. Atty. Cook stated that questions remain regarding drainage, sight line, fire safety, and landscaping.

Laura Doherty of 90 Stoney Brook Circle asked if the Planning Board was the only Town board that the application would go before, and Ms. MacNab replied that it was, although the Board of Health would also review a septic plan which would supersede administrative site plan approval. Ms. MacNab noted that before the administrative site plan review was put into place three years ago, no forum existed for public comment. Ms. MacNab added that the Inspectional Services Department would make sure that the project would be built to code.

Mr.  Bob Burnham of 30 Stoney Brook Circle commented that it was disappointing that an environment had developed where the applicants and abutters were at odds. He stated that Bay Farm residents feel that they are not being listened to by the applicants.

MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to close the public meeting for the administrative site plan review application for Farm Montessori Academy, Inc.

DISCUSSION: Ms. MacNab advised the audience that they would need to refrain from comment after the public meeting is closed.

VOTE: The motion carried (7-0).

The public meeting closed at approximately 10:15 PM. Ms. MacNab advised the audience that the Board would now be crafting its decision.

Mr. Bear stated his concerns with the proposal, including the specific activities planned for the field house and their impact on traffic, parking and septic. He noted that the proposed field house is not easily accessible to preschoolers or kindergarteners, especially in the winter months. He stated that, with 100 students in grades one through six as the most likely users, the size is still disproportionate compared to enrollment at other schools. He expressed his preference to deny the application as incomplete or approve it with conditions as to the size based on use. He noted that the project’s scale may have harmful effects on the surrounding area.

Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Board is limited because of exemptions due to educational use. He stated that he looked at balloons the Academy had placed as markers to show the height of the proposed field house, and had also driven around Town, but could not see the markers from various points. Therefore, he stated, he does not believe the proposed field house would affect the sight line. He said that although the proposed expansion would have an impact on neighbors, the Board is limited in what it can do because it is an educational use.

Mr. Wadsworth stated that he believes that the Academy’s administrators will set up the proposed pathway from the academic campus to the field house at the upper campus so that students would be out of harm’s way, because it is in the Academy’s best interest to provide a safe environment. He stated that if the field house were moved to the lower campus it would be closer to the road and more visible, where its location on the hill would affect only two to three neighbors. He stated that this is a valid educational use, and advised that the Board should be careful in denying or providing substantial conditions.

Ms. Scieszka noted that it was unfortunate that the administrative site plan review had begun with incomplete information, and commented that the Board should not have accepted the application until it was complete, but had hoped to see information evolve. She questioned the proposed children’s house and its potential use. She noted that although the use was protected by its educational status, the magnitude of the proposed project still needed to be in proportion to the needs of the school and in harmony with the neighborhood, which is residential.

Ms. Scieszka noted that Section 615 of the Zoning Bylaws is in place to protect the neighborhood, to minimize harmful effects from the surrounding area, and to ensure safety. This project would have an impact on the neighborhood. She recommended that the Board consider approving the application with conditions to reduce the size.

Mr. Kimball stated that he has many concerns because of open issues and poor planning. He stated that although the applicant took the time to create a ten-year strategic plan, he didn’t see that planning reflected in the proposal. He stated that he reviews plans as a part of his professional occupation, and he sees fundamental flaws in the Academy’s plans, which are inadequate and incomplete.

Mr. Kimball stated that access to the proposed field house is separate from other areas of the campus. He stated that two areas of mature pines would be cleared and a 22-foot graded access road would be unsightly and devastating to the surrounding area.

Mr. Kimball summarized other inconsistencies and areas of concern:
§       Proposed plans are needed  for Turner House
§       Plans for demolishing Building E, including its proposed use before demolition
§       Traffic plans do not reflect where drop-off and pick-up areas would be located
§       Thirty spaces near field house do not appear an adequate number, and could cause potential traffic and safety issues during all-school events
§       Parking count is not clearly defined
§       He would prefer to see consolidated parking that would be safer and more functional
§       Inadequate drawings for the proposed academic building, where five classrooms are presented in narrative but seven are shown on plans
§       The purpose of the proposed 2,900 square-foot rec room is unclear and may be a redundant use
§       Height of the classroom building is drawn as 64 feet with the front at 44 feet
§       No sidewalks shown, conflicting with the landscape plan
§       Egress from the classroom buildings is not shown
§       Two mechanical rooms are shown, but only one is needed
§       No architectural plans are shown for one of the buildings. Restrooms are described as 1,500 square feet but plans show 500 square feet
§       The field house is shown at a 70 foot elevation and the parking lot near it is shown at a 66 foot elevation, with no stairs or ramps for handicap access shown, and a ramp would take up a lot of area that was not shown on the plan
§       Environmental plan for field house access road would destroy the existing landscape and its steep grade would require guard rails.

Mr. Kimball recommended that the applicants withdraw their application and take the time to analyze the site before resubmitting. He stated that, as the largest project in Town in a long time, everyone would suffer if the proposal is not rethought.

Mr. Moody stated that considering the limited role of the Planning Board regarding administrative site plan review, he didn’t understand why lines appeared to be drawn in the sand when the abutters and the Academy seemed not to be that far apart. He suggested another attempt at discussion between the Academy and abutters.

Discussion ensued over the merits of approving or denying the application. Mr. Bear suggested the Board consider denying the application as an incomplete submission and asked how that would go forward.   Ms. Stickney advised that in that case, the applicants could apply for a building permit with the Inspectional Services Department where the Director of Inspectional Services would deny it due to no site plan approval, and then the project would go before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

Ms. MacNab summarized the options: approve the administrative site plan with conditions, or deny the application and risk the entire case being appealed. Mr. Kimball asked what would happen if the Board approved the plan with conditions that were unacceptable to the applicant, and Ms. MacNab responded that it could also be appealed. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the appeal would be for a building permit denial, and that Section 17 of the Chapter 40A allows an appeal directly to court. Ms. Stickney advised the Board to address Section 615 of the Zoning Bylaws rather than making a decision based on fear of appeal. Mr. Halligan noted that the Board needs to decide what is in the best interest of the Town.

Mr. Halligan stated his concerns with the project layout. He also wanted more information on the intended use of the house located at the front of the campus. He expressed a concern with the field house having only one way in and one way out as a safety concern in event of an emergency.

Mr. Wadsworth stated that he hoped his colleagues would choose not to deny the application and suggested working on conditions. Ms. MacNab noted that the neighbors and applicants are not far apart, although the size of the proposed field house remains a concern. Discussion ensued over how the Board could condition the size of the proposed field house in their decision. Ms. Scieszka noted that although she came to tonight’s meeting expecting to recommend approval with conditions, she is seeing more unresolved issues than might be conditioned. Ms. MacNab stated that she would prefer to approve with conditions, noting negative ramifications of a denial.

Ms. MacNab suggested reopening the public meeting in order to find out if the applicants would agree to a continuance or withdrawal of their application.

MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to reopen the public meeting for Bay Farm Montessori Academy, Inc. for the purpose of asking if the applicant wishes to consider withdrawal or a continuance to allow them time to revise and resubmit plans.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Kimball stated that he was not sure this would be the right course of action.

VOTE: The motion carried (6-1), with Mr. Kimball voting against.

The public meeting reopened. Ms. MacNab asked Atty. Marzelli if the applicants wished to continue the public meeting or withdraw their application. Mr. Kite-Powell responded that the applicants did not wish to continue or withdraw, stating that they had already gone through an exhaustive process and wish to proceed.

The Board then continued their discussion. Ms. MacNab recommended that the Board consider approval with conditions, such as referencing correspondence from the Fire Department regarding the adequacy of the access road, Board of Health issues, and safety concerns. Mr. Wadsworth added that the Board could consider conditioning the road as subject to the approval of the Fire Chief. He said that although as far as he knows the Fire Chief had signed off on the proposed plans, Mr. Wadsworth would like to ensure that fire flows were adequate.

Ms. MacNab suggested additional conditions, such as lighting stanchion height maximum of fifteen feet, and restricting hours of operation and prohibiting commercial use of the field house. Ms. Scieszka noted that a subdivision road (Nathan Drive) had been approved but never built on the site of the proposed field house. Ms. MacNab stated that it may not need to be addressed in the conditions, and could be addressed  in a separate action by the Board at a later date. Mr. Bear suggested a condition that an unused cul-de-sac will never be activated, and Ms. MacNab noted that this issue was addressed already in draft conditions, and confirmed with Ms. Stickney that there are possible recordation issues with the covenant of the approved Nathan Drive subdivision.

MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second for discussion purposes, to approve the administrative site plans for Bay Farm Montessori Academy, Inc. as shown on plans with a revision date of August 7, 2006, with conditions noted in a draft dated August 21, 2006.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Scieszka amended the motion to add “and more conditions to follow,” and Mr. Wadsworth agreed to the amendment. Ms. MacNab asked if additional conditions should be added now, or if the Board wishes to be polled as to their current opinion on the application.

MOTION WITHDRAWN: Mr. Wadsworth withdrew his motion so that Board members could be polled.

Ms. MacNab then polled the Board members. Mr. Halligan, Mr. Wadsworth, Ms. Scieszka and Ms. MacNab recommended approval with conditions. Ms. Scieszka added that she was surprised that the applicants chose not to withdraw their application. Mr. Kimball recommended denial because he would be unable to approve the current plan even with conditions. Mr. Bear recommended denial because of lack of information. Mr. Moody recommended denial due to the potential harmful effects of harmonious relations to the surrounding area, citing Section 615.1 of the Zoning Bylaws.

Ms. Scieszka expressed concerns with denying the application as incomplete. Ms. Stickney noted that the decision deadline is August 31, 2006. Mr. Kimball suggested a motion that conditions would be drafted. Ms. Stickney recommended that the Board finalize conditions now, stating that the decision needs to be submitted to Town Clerk in its final form in the near future.  

Mr. Kimball noted that the draft conditions before the Board were standard so far. Mr. Wadsworth suggested addressing the Nathan Drive subdivision within the conditions, and discussion ensued over whether this should be addressed or not.

The Board discussed other possible amendments to draft conditions. Discussion then focused on the size of the proposed field house. Ms. Stickney urged caution to the Board members regarding this issue, and advised the Board to consider the application before them rather than attempting to revise the building size because the use is exempt as an educational institution. Ms. Scieszka disagreed, stating that while the use is protected under Chapter 40A, Section 3, land and structures may be subject to reasonable regulation of bulk, height and parking, and has to be in scale with its needs as a school. Ms. Stickney suggested that the Board consider Mr. Bear’s earlier recommendation of denying the application due to lack of a complete application.

Discussion continued over whether to deny the application or to approve it with conditions. Ms. MacNab suggested moving forward and asked for another informal polling of Board members. Mr. Wadsworth recommended approval with conditions. Ms. Scieszka stated that she was not sure which way she would vote at this point. Mr. Moody, Mr. Halligan, Mr. Bear and Mr. Kimball recommended denial. Mr. Halligan noted his continued issue with the size of the proposed field house. Mr. Kimball stated his concern that the field house does not appear to be designed solely for the use of the Academy. Mr. Wadsworth cautioned that with denial, zoning bylaws may be lost. Ms. MacNab noted that the applicants had come a long way from the initial proposal for a sports dome with an illuminated bubble roof, but that she had hoped that the applicants could have gone further toward resolution of outstanding issues.

MOTION: Mr. Moody made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to deny the administrative site plan entitled “Site Plan in Duxbury, MA, Bay Farm Montessori Academy, 145 Loring Street, Duxbury, MA 02332” dated March 15, 2006, latest revision dated 07/11/06 stamped by Alan C. Vautrinot, Jr. and Benjamin A.Gilmore II – 14 sheets, because the bulk, size and location of the proposed field house violates Zoning Bylaws Section 615.1.1 (protection of neighboring properties against harmful effects of uses on the development site) and Zoning Bylaw Section 615.1.7 (size of the structure does not provide a harmonious relationship to the terrain and to existing buildings in the vicinity of the development site).

AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Ms. MacNab asked if Mr. Moody wished to amend his motion to include reasons provided in a staff memo dated August 21, 2006. Mr. Moody amended his motion to note that applicants have not provided a circulation pattern for safe pedestrian and motor vehicles; and that the proposed 31-car parking lot in the lower campus is not properly buffered. Mr. Bear further amended the motion to note the excessive bulk of the proposal; incomplete submission regarding safe and adequate access, architectural renderings, building height, and sufficient landscape buffers; impact of harmful effects on abutting properties; and insufficient effort to use all alternative locations on site for placement of the proposed field house to minimize site clearing. Mr. Moody agreed to these amendments.

DISCUSSION: Ms. MacNab and Mr. Wadsworth both noted that although they were in agreement with the reasons behind the denial, they disagreed with the best way to get the desired results.

VOTE: The motion carried 4-3, with Ms. MacNab, Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Halligan voting against.


MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to close the public meeting for administrative site plan review of Bay Farm Montessori Academy, Inc. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).


ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 12:15 AM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, August 28, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.