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 10/02/06
Approved 11/20/06
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Town Offices on Monday, October 2, 2006 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; John Bear, Brendan Halligan, Jim Kimball, and Harold Moody.
Absent: Angela Scieszka, Clerk; and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Freeman Farms: Mr. Wadsworth reported that he had spoken with the Freeman Farms builder, who said that the developer was laying out the roads in anticipation of Town acceptance. He said that the developer had done as-builts but had not submitted them yet. He added that sidewalk installation was a condition of the subdivision approval, and advised staff that the Town sidewalk committee should be notified.
Administrative Site Plan Review (ASPR) Process: Mr. Wadsworth stated his concern that Board members do not have a clear understanding about Board rights for exempt organizations. He suggested that the Board meet with Town Counsel or Atty. Jon Witten to better understand their rights, especially with the prospect of a future administrative site plan review for Duxbury Bay Maritime School.
Ms. MacNab noted that staff was scheduling Town Counsel, Atty. Robert S. Troy, to attend a future Board meeting regarding the Bay Farm Montessori denial appeal, and requested that staff schedule Atty. Witten for a separate future meeting as well to discuss the ASPR process.
Planning Department Intern: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that Atty. Witten recommended one of his Tufts graduate students as an intern, and she will be starting as an unpaid intern soon.
Proposed Stormwater Bylaw: Ms. MacNab noted that Conservation Agent, Mr. Joe Grady, would like to meet with the Board regarding this bylaw proposed for Annual Town Meeting 2007. It was agreed that Mr. Grady would be scheduled to attend the October 23, 2006 Board meeting.
Duxbury Estates Planned Development: Ms. MacNab reported that she and Mr. Wadsworth had attended a recent Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) hearing on this planned development, and noted that architectural materials had been submitted to the ZBA. She stated that Ms. Christine Wallace, Town consulting engineer, also attended. Ms. MacNab stated that the applicants have changed the location of the clubhouse back to its original location against the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Whitepine Lane Escrow Refund Request: Dr. Robert LoNigro, subdivision developer, has requested return of escrow funds for this two-lot subdivision. Ms. Stickney reported that three accounts currently exist:
§ Performance guarantee of approximately $1,500.00 to ensure completion of the road
§ Engineering inspection fee account of approximately $1,352.00
§ Homeowners’ escrow account of approximately $5,000.00 per condition #11 of the December 23, 1998 certificate of notification, posted for maintenance of the subdivision road and/or drainage, to be held for a period of ten years.
Ms. Stickney reported that, upon inspection, it appears that the conduits have been covered. She stated that she had sent a letter to Dr. LoNigro requesting clarification of which funds he is requesting to be returned. Mr. Halligan recommended that the Board defer any action until Dr. LoNigro submits a request signed by both homeowners. She confirmed with the Board that the homeowners’ escrow funds would not be released at this point.
WORK SESSION
Discussion on RFQ Engineering Proposals: Mr. Kimball noted that, with ten proposals, a good number of responses had been received. He suggested that four criteria be used in reviewing proposals: location, experience on the South Shore, project manager hourly rate, and experience with 40B projects and site plan review. Mr. Bear suggested that breadth of experience should be considered. Mr. Wadsworth added that traffic and water expertise are important, and stated that it is crucial to know who will be performing the work. Ms. Stickney recommended that a professional engineer perform the work. She suggested a two-year contract be signed with each consulting engineer to provide some stability. After further discussion, seven candidates were selected for interviews. Ms. Stickney stated that she would schedule the
interviews for Monday, November 6, 2006.
Status Report on Housing Consultant Selection: Ms. Stickney reported that interviews were held with four candidates on September 22, 2006. The top two candidates appear to be OKM Associates and Shapiro. She advised the Board that she would be conferring with Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, for the final decision.
Town Meeting Articles: Ms. Stickney noted that a resident, Mr. James Kerkam of 226 Washington Street, has submitted a proposed fence bylaw and is requesting to come before the Board to discuss it. Other possible items for Annual Town Meeting include street acceptance of Amado Way, and updating Zoning Bylaws to reflect the recent MGL Chapter 39 update, the Mullins Law, which allows Board members to vote on applications without perfect attendance at public meetings.
Ms. Stickney noted that there is a list of items under the Planned Development section of the Zoning Bylaws that need to be addressed. Ms. MacNab noted that the Administrative Site Plan Review process needs to be clarified. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the definition of “impervious” should be clarified as well. Ms. MacNab responded that it is not currently being challenged. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the Local Housing Partnership would like to meet with them to discuss a potential non-conforming lot bylaw. Ms. MacNab stated that she would like to see more information.
ZBA REFERRAL: 61 ELDER BREWSTER ROAD / DWYER
Mr. Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering presented the proposed project, representing Mr. John Dwyer. He stated that this is a teardown and rebuild of a 75 year-old house. The Historical Commission had determined that the house was of no historic significance. The applicants are attempting to bring the house to compliance with setback and Title V requirements. The current house is 997 square feet in area, and lies 90 square feet over an existing lot line. The septic had been perked with the Health Agent in early 2005 and showed groundwater issues due to a slow perc rate. The applicants are seeking four variances through the Board of Health, although no additional bedrooms are proposed.
Ms. Stickney stated that the existing site coverage is at 17.9 percent. Mr. Wadsworth confirmed that the lot size is 9,597 square feet. He noted that the site coverage is at 16.9 percent if the 90 square feet over the lot line is excluded from calculations. Mr. Brogna stated that the proposed site coverage is 312 square feet in excess of requirements, explaining his calculations. Ms. Stickney confirmed with Mr. Brogna that the house across the street had a fire, and Ms. MacNab noted that in case of a fire, a 25 percent increase is allowed.
Mr. Brogna reported that soil conditions on the site are poor, and submitted a photograph of a neighbor’s mounded septic system for the Board’s review. Ms. MacNab asked about the raised elevation of the house across the street and asked if the proposed construction would include a raised elevation as well. Mr. Brogna confirmed that it would be raised by eight or nine steps and said that it would appear similar to the house across the street. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the height of the house would increase, and Mr. Brogna confirmed that it would be increased by 29.9 feet. Ms. MacNab noted that the 29.9 feet height increase does not include the three feet in raised elevation proposed.
Mr. Bear asked if an existing screened pergola is counted in the lot coverage, and Mr. Kimball said that screening comes from grapevines. Ms. MacNab stated that it should be noted that the screened pergola is not included in the lot coverage ratio. Ms. Stickney asked if the property is over 100 feet from the abutter, the Cousins. Mr. Brogna showed Ms. Stickney that it is.
Ms. MacNab noted that both height and massing are issues. Mr. Wadsworth expressed concern with the increase in footprint, and questioned if compliance with Zoning Bylaws should be required on a teardown with new construction. His concerns with the project include the raised site elevation; the negative impact to the neighborhood; potential height violation; and site coverage.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to recommend denial of the special permit for 61 Elder Brewster Road, acknowledging the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s determination.
DISCUSSION: Members were polled on their agreement with the motion. Ms. MacNab agreed with Mr. Wadsworth’s motion, and Messrs. Bear, Halligan, Kimball and Moody disagreed. Mr. Moody recommended that the Board remain neutral, and Mr. Halligan stated that he hadn’t walked the property.
VOTE: The motion failed (2-4), with Messrs. Bear, Halligan, Kimball and Moody voting against.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to defer judgment to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the special permit for 61 Elder Brewster Road (Dwyer), noting the following issues:
1. The Planning Board is in disagreement with the applicant’s interpretation of ZBL Section 410.4 (coverage). In that the existing lot coverage is 17.9 percent, the ability of additional coverage pursuant to the bylaw should only be allowed to 18 percent.
2. There is a potential issue on the measurement of building height between the architectural renderings and the existing grades of the site plan.
3. The Planning Board questions on a complete “tear down,” why the new structure would not have to comply with the 15% lot coverage requirement as would a grandfathered vacant lot.
4. The raised site grade of the lot provides an adverse impact to general neighborhood as to the massing (height and bulk) of the new structure.
5. The architectural plan shows a “screened” pergola on the northwest side of the new structure and the site plan identifies it as a proposed deck with trellis on sonotubes. Clarification as to this structure having a roof and whether it is subject to building coverage should be addressed.
DISCUSSION: There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Kimball made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to pay Mainstream Engineering invoices #23157 in the amount of $5,802.15 for services related to the Duxbury Estates planned development. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Meeting Minutes: It was agreed to defer a vote on accepting meeting minutes of August 7, 2006 and August 21, 2006 to allow time for further review. Ms. MacNab requested Board members fax suggested revisions to the Planning office before the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:13 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, October 16, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
