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 06/19/06
Approved July 24, 2006
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Senior Center, Ellison Room, on Monday, June 19, 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 7:30 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Planned Development (PD) process: Ms. MacNab referenced a memo from Ms. Scieszka that had been distributed at the June 12, 2006 Board meeting, and stated that while the process is specific as to the Board’s role, clarification is needed on how to execute the approval process. One issue is whether the review should be more technical or subjective. Ms. Scieszka stated that the process requires a good amount of negotiating. She said that it is important to determine if the site can support the number of units proposed, and that justification should be shown in graphic and narrative forms. Mr. Bear stated that the Zoning Bylaws are not clear on Board review of clustering or other general layout issues, but only as the layout relates to density, infrastructure services, and septic requirements. Ms. Scieszka stated
that the layout comes from other elements. Ms. MacNab agreed, saying that the layout may be one of the last components of the process as a result of reviewing all the other elements.
Mr. Moody referenced Section 806.3 of the Zoning Bylaws regarding intensity ranges, and noted that until the layout is finalized it is difficult to determine the use intensity, and stated that he bases density on the Town’s comprehensive plan. Ms. Scieszka stated that a comprehensive plan is an important part of the application, rather than using calculations to lay out the project. She asked if there is a mechanism for an applicant to file a preliminary plan after they have filed a definitive plan. Ms. Stickney advised that the applicant has the discretion of submitting a preliminary application versus a definitive one based on topography of the site and other issues. She stated that so far applicants have chosen to go straight to the definitive review. Ms. Scieszka noted that other issues are considered besides
topography, including soil quality, drainage impact, and open space considerations.
Ms. Scieszka stated that narratives are key to PD application review because they justify the plan. Mr. Bear stated that it is up to staff to determine whether an application is complete or not. Ms. MacNab suggested that Board members review the PD section of the Zoning Bylaws and make note of areas that could be revised.
Ms. Scieszka asked about how setbacks are determined on a PD plan, and Ms. MacNab stated that the setback is 125 feet plus the height of a building. Ms. Stickney stated that she consulted with the Building Inspector in determining the setbacks. Mr. Moody referenced Sections 700 and 703.1 and asked which is used, and Ms. Stickney replied that both sections are utilized.
Ms. Scieszka asked about the definition of a garden apartment, and asked if it is considered a multi-family dwelling. She stated that if it were, it should contain a shared entrance. Ms. Stickney responded that the term “garden apartment” is not defined in the Zoning Bylaws, and therefore the interpretation is discretionary.
Mr. Wadsworth stated that he sees the Board’s role as providing information to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) regarding technical issues. Unlike other reviews requested by the ZBA, he said that the PD review is more in-depth. All issues are on the table, although it is the ZBA that makes the final decisions.
Ms. MacNab summarized that it appeared that everyone was on the same page, and noted that the mix of building size and footprint need to be clearly defined, as Ms. Scieszka suggested in her memo.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW /
BAY FARM MONTESSORI ACADEMY, INC., 145 LORING STREET
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 8:00 PM. Present for the discussion:
§ Atty. Robert Marzelli, representing the applicant
§ Mr. Al Vautrinot, surveyor
§ Mr. Chris Doktor, architect
§ Mr. Hauke Kite-Powell, President of the Academy’s Board of Directors
§ Mr. Garth Hoffman, who serves on the Campus Development Committee of the Academy’s Board of Directors
§ Ms. Marcia Gardere, Head of School
§ Mr. Walter Amory, Town consulting engineer
§ Atty. Brian Cook, representing abutting neighbors who oppose the proposed project.
Approximately 120 members of the public were also present for the discussion. Ms. Scieszka read the correspondence into the public record:
§ Mutual extension form dated 05/01/06
§ Letter dated 04/30/06 and petition signed by eight (8) neighbors of the Bay Farm Montessori Academy re: concerns w/proposal
§ Remarks dated 05/01/06 from L. Hall (175 Abrams Hill Road) re: written copy of her statements at 05/01/06 public meeting
§ Letter and fact sheet from Bay Farm Montessori dated 05/05/06
§ Letter from B. Burnham (30 Stoney Brook Circle) received 05/09/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Letter from B. Sullivan (675 Bay Road) dated 05/11/06 re: concerns w/project
§ Letter from B. Boyd (42 Elm Hill Lane) dated 05/15/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Letter from P. Bucci (675 Bay Road) dated 05/19/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Letter from Bay Farm Montessori Academy Elementary Class II dated 05/19/06 (22 students) re: support for expansion
§ Letter from Atty. B. Cook dated 05/24/06 re: retention of professionals for neighborhood review
§ Letter from R. & J. Hale (81 Elm Hill Lane) dated 05/24/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Letter from K. Pillsbury (101 Tussock Brook Road) dated 05/25/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Petition from residents (43 total) dated 06/01/06 re: concerns and objections
§ Letter from P. Slechta of Caldwell Banker dated 06/01/06 re: impact on 111 Loring Street
§ Revised site plans submitted 06/05/06 by Vautrinot Surveying
§ Letter from C. Nelson (27 Standish Road) dated 06/10/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Letter from J. McGrath (107 Loring Road) received 06/12/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Letter from L. Leclerc (50 South River Lane West) dated 06/13/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Letter from Bay Farm Association Trust dated 06/13/06re: concerns w/ project from 165 households
§ Letter from H. & J. Morris (145 Abrams Hill Road) dated 06/13/06 re: project support
§ Letter from S. & D. Tearse (704 Bay Road) dated 06/19/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Email from T. Snee (56 Bay Farm Road) dated 06/19/06 re: concerns w/ project
§ Letter from M. McCaffrey (600 Bay Road) dated 06/19/06 re: against proposed project.
Ms. MacNab noted that the Board had been able to review only correspondence submitted on or before Wednesday, June 14, 2006, and advised the public to make sure letters are submitted the Wednesday before a Board meeting in order to allow the Board to review them in advance. She also advised the public to review Section 615 of the Zoning Bylaws for Administrative Site Plan Review parameters, along with MGL c.40A, section 3 regarding specific use exemptions.
Atty. Marzelli stated that he would be addressing legal issues raised at the last public meeting, and stated that he would be followed by supporting presentations from Mr. Kite-Powell, Mr. Vautrinot, and Mr. Doktor. Atty. Marzelli stated that the applicant is exempt from review under MGL 40A Sec. 3 and substantiated by the Dover Amendment case that relates to non-profit or educational institutions as being exempt from review. He stated that the applicants have complied with all areas of the law. Ms. MacNab noted that some information has not been submitted according to Section 615 regulations, including soil testing data. Atty. Marzelli stated that the Board would be receiving that information tonight. Mr. Vautrinot added that the lighting information and soil logs are included on plans submitted June 5, 2006 and pointed
them out to the Board.
Atty. Marzelli stated that the applicants have made an attempt to keep in communication with the public, noting their public meetings scheduled on August 23, 2005, January 25, 2006, May 6, 2006, and June 1, 2006. At the latest meeting the Academy shared its modified plan with the public. He also noted that members of the Planning Board had attended the May 6, 2006 public site walk. He said that the applicants’ goal is to come up with a plan that is mutually acceptable to both the Academy and the public.
Atty. Marzelli noted abutters’ references to potential litigation and stated that it would be optimal to resolve any issues without litigation, but that the Academy is ready and willing to defend itself if needed. He stated that there are seven regulations in the Zoning Bylaws that are pertinent to this application:
bulk and height, yard size, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking, and building coverage. He noted that the applicants have addressed issues beyond those regulations in order to respond to the public’s concerns. He provided a list of changes made to the proposed field house since the May 1, 2006 public meeting: size decrease, redesign, additional siding and roofing, change in location to the southwest, 14 parking space removed, two-way access added from Loring Street, lighting plan added, leaching fields relocated, Nathan Drive removed as an access way.
Mr. Hauke Kite-Powell distributed a folder to Board members with additional information. Ms. MacNab noted that materials are usually submitted to the Board prior to a meeting to allow time for Board member review. Mr. Kite-Powell apologized, stating that he was not able to get elevations on time. Mr. Kite-Powell stated that the Academy has seriously considered feedback from the Board and from neighbors. He reviewed modifications to the plan, stating that the field house has been scaled down 40 percent and relocated to allow for a 30 to 60-foot wooded buffer, and also to prevent cutting down some larger trees. He said that clapboard siding and a steel roof have been added to the field house to allow it to blend into its natural surroundings. He added that the size of the parking lot has been reduced, and that the
parking at the north end of the site has been redesigned in order to reduce the effect on an abutting neighbor.
Mr. Kite-Powell stated that the Academy has no intent to operate the field house as a commercial venture. He stated that all proposed plans are consistent with the Academy’s charter as an educational institution that is a good neighbor and citizen.
Mr. Al Vautrinot, surveyor, stated that considerable revisions were made to the plan, with most supporting information included on the sheets, such as septic and lighting. He noted that the field house had been redesigned three times, this time repositioning it 100 feet from the property line in order to increase the buffer on the north side of the field house by retaining a large stand of existing white pines. In addition, an oak tree was saved after a public site walk that included Board members. He stated that Eastern red cedars would be planted along the east side of the property line. On the street side the current natural vegetation will remain, possibly with more plantings.
The field house has been reduced in size by 40 percent. Fourteen parking spaces have been eliminated by the field house near abutting neighbors, and the entrance off of Bay Road has been eliminated with the revised plans. The entrance from Loring Street will now be two-way.
Parking on the north side of the campus has been redesigned after discussions with abutters, and a driveway which was once the north entrance has been closed to provide 40 to 50 feet of additional open space. The entrance to the field house will be separate from the entrance to the rest of the campus.
Mr. Vautrinot stated that soil evaluations have been performed, and that the drainage plans are still being reviewed to include some open drainage swales. He stated that in the upper campus he was considering installing the drainage system under the parking lot, because open drainage swales in that area would require tree clearing. Mr. Chris Doktor then addressed the project’s architectural plans, stating that the currently revised plans are consistent with other schools of a comparable size.
Ms. MacNab asked for comments from Mr. Walter Amory, Town consulting engineer. Mr. Amory stated that his comments were related to plans dated June 5, 2006 and did not include review of materials handed out by the applicants at tonight’s meeting. His review noted:
§ The current sports dome/activity center/field house plans show a reduction from 21,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet in size, and that Loring Street would provide the access.
§ Mr. Amory has been in contact with Mr. Ben Gilmore and Mr. Vautrinot, working on the drainage system. Mr. Vautrinot stated that his office would be inspecting the existing drainage systems on the property and submitting a report to ensure that all drainage issues are resolved.
§ Mr. Amory is awaiting revised infiltration system plans for parking areas at the field house and north side of campus, and stated that the subsurface infiltration systems need to be resolved.
§ The driveway entrance to the field house is currently shown with no sag curve, which also needs to be addressed by Mr. Gilmore. He stated that a sag curve would slow traffic onto Loring Street in the wintertime.
§ The radius curbing at Parks and Loring Streets is less than the required 30 feet, and the access road on the north side of campus also has an undersized radius.
§ More information is needed on operations and maintenance procedures during the construction phase.
Mr. Vautrinot clarified that the proposed field house total of 17,000 square feet in area includes an entryway. Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Vautrinot if architectural drawings were available for Building F, and Mr. Vautrinot stated that they were not yet available. Mr. Hoffman stated that elevations would be forthcoming. Ms. MacNab summarized information that still needs to be included:
§ Specifications regarding Building F
§ Architectural renderings of the field house
§ Intended use of the proposed buildings
§ Seating capacity of the field house
§ Details regarding insulation in the field house
§ Delineation of walkways and access and egress doors
§ Full size plans should be submitted in the future.
Planning Board comments included:
§ Mr. Wadsworth asked about the materials and architectural intent for the proposed field house, and Mr. Doktor stated that the building would have clapboard siding with trim and a seamed metal roof.
§ Mr. Kimball expressed his frustration with being presented new information at the public meeting, with no chance for the Board, staff, engineers, or public to review in advance. He stated that the overall plans are lacking in cohesiveness, and recommended the applicants take a step back and start over. He suggested the applicants develop a master plan before the Board reviews the details of a site plan.
Mr. Kimball noted that the plans show access to the field house by vehicle only, and asked why the field house is not connected to the rest of the campus for pedestrian access except by a gravel walkway. He also asked why most of the parking is located on the other side of the campus from the field house, where most of the all-school activities are proposed to take place. He commented that the applicants are proposing to double the footprint of the site on sensitive areas, with seven curb cuts. He had issues with the access to the field house off of Loring Street, stating it could pose issues for the abutter.
Mr. Kite-Powell responded that he could answer any questions on the master plan, but the Board had not requested that information. Ms. Scieszka stated that that the Board needs the complete picture in order to evaluate the entire project in context of the proposed use. She said it is important for the Board to understand the intended purpose of each building in order to gauge if the proposed parking is adequate.
§ Ms. MacNab noted that seating capacity in the field house is needed. Atty. Marzelli replied that parking guidelines are only required for restaurants and taverns, and he saw no direction in the Zoning Bylaws to provide seating capacity information. Mr. Wadsworth stated that, while nothing in the bylaws specifically requires that information, it is important in this case to resolve the current issue of street parking. Atty. Marzelli offered to provide a description of how the parking lot numbers were calculated, but it is also up to the Academy’s discretion. He added that, although the current parking is adequate, some people park on the street out of
habit. Ms. MacNab noted that the current building code dictates per person parking capacity. Mr. Kite-Powell offered to provide documentation of the Academy’s conceptual theme that led to the proposed campus layout from which the parking capacity was calculated. Ms. MacNab replied that it would be useful.
§ Ms. MacNab asked if use of the soccer field would be excluded when the field house is in use, citing safety concerns. Mr. Kite-Powell responded that the field house parking area adjacent to the soccer field would be used only for large school events such as the commencement exercise, and would rarely be used during the school day. Staff parking and student drop-off would take place in on the lower campus.
§ Mr. Moody stated that the Board is required to review all aspects of the Zoning Bylaws Section 615.4 (Contents of Site Plan), and noted that complete information is still needed regarding 615.4.10 (Location, height, elevation, interior and exterior dimensions and uses of all buildings); 615.4.13 (Complete parking and circulation plan); and 615.4.15 (Landscaping plans). He suggested the applicants review Section 603.8 regarding landscaping parking areas, especially considering the lower parking lot’s proximity to the street and abutting neighbors.
Ms. MacNab then opened the floor to public comment:
§ Mr. Robert J. Kavanaugh of 90 Humphrey’s Lane stated that he is a trustee of Bay Farm Condominium Association representing 165 units, a significant abutter to the Academy. He said that his comments reflect remarks from the association’s June 6, 2006 annual meeting. Issues he delineated include traffic; parking lot drainage; potential commercial use of the property; and pedestrian safety along Parks Street and Loring Street. He suggested that the Board consider a condition of approval that there would be no commercial use of the property.
§ Ms. Theresa Courtiss of 111 Loring Street stated that her husband is homebound due to a stroke. She expressed concern over a two-way street access to the field house proposed to be located next to their property.
§ Mr. David Tearse of 704 Bay Road expressed concern with the size of the proposed field house in a residential area. He compared the Chandler gymnasium at 6,000 square feet for 800 students to the proposed 17,000 square foot field house for 235 students. Other issues: potential commercial use; setbacks; drainage swale location 100 feet in distance, six feet above grade from his front door. He urged the Board to consider the neighbors’ objections and reject the application and send the applicants back to the drawing board. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the drainage swale is important because it catches pollutants from flowing into Kingston Bay.
§ Mr. Warren Richards of 195 Parks Street expressed disagreement with Atty. Marzelli’s interpretation of the Dover amendment. He stated that because the use of the buildings is not clear, it is not known whether the use will be harmonious to the residential area surrounding it. He requested the Board to adjourn the meeting so that complete plans could be prepared and presented.
§ Mr. Richard Greenwood of 1 Glass Terrace stated his concern for potential commercial use and objected to the potential strain on police, fire, and water departments for a property that is tax-exempt. He suggested the applicants consider turning the proposed field house into classrooms instead.
§ Ms. Mary Jane Fiske of 19 Flint Locke Drive asked if the Academy could consider payment to the Town in lieu of taxes. Atty. Marzelli stated that this subject is not applicable to tonight’s discussion.
§ Ms. Kathy Dunn of 187 Parks Street stated her concern with the project’s financial impact on real estate values in the neighborhood. She said that the proposed project would change the scope and shape of the existing neighborhood. She objected to the size of the field house in relation to the school enrollment, and stated that it is out of character with the residential neighborhood.
§ Ms. Holly Morris of 145 Abrams Hill Road asked participants to reflect on the Academy’s intentions relative to the needs of the neighbors. She stated that the school needs a children’s house, a playing field, and an activities building, and as a business they need to remain competitive to attract students. She stated that schools are typically located in neighborhoods, and stated that the Academy’s neighbors are trying to regulate the use of their facilities. She said that the school has listened to neighbors’ concerns, and that if the Academy is unable to utilize the upper campus area, it could be sold to build a high-density
development with considerable tree clearing.
§ Ms. Jane Hale of 81 Elm Hill Lane suggested that since the applicants state that Nathan Lane would not be constructed “for now,” the Board should restrict its future use as well.
§ Ms. Ruth Rowley of 546 Washington Street suggested that the Board consider rescinding the subdivision approval since it does not meet current subdivision rules and regulations because the two lots do not have frontage on a public way, in order to restrict future access.
§ Mr. Mark Dunn of 187 Parks Street commended the applicants for keeping the large oak tree on the upper campus, and also stated his appreciation for Mr. Kite-Powell’s sincerity in his presentation. He questioned the rationale for the applicants’ original proposal of a 21,000 square foot building, wondering if they aimed higher so that any lower figure would be deemed acceptable. He objected to the size of the proposed field house compared to the current enrollment.
§ Mr. Bill Boyd of 42 Elm Hill Lane suggested that the Board consider restricting use of the facility to Academy use only.
§ Mr. Joe McGrath of 107 Loring Street asked why an access road is needed if students would be walking to the field house through a gravel pathway, and suggested that the parking lot on the upper campus be removed.
Mr. Kite-Powell invited the public to view architectural plans, and stated that the proposed field house is similar to a basketball-court sized facility divided into different areas. He stated that the current playing field is not large enough for soccer or lacrosse games, and that the upper campus parking lot is for the rare days when a school event takes place, and that the Fire Department requires an access road to the field house. He stated that although he appreciates the constructive criticism, the applicants have no hidden agenda.
§ Mr. Andrew Decusati of 70 Stoney Brook Circle stated that a trust issue exists due to the large size of the proposed field house, and emphasized that size is still a concern.
Ms. MacNab closed the public discussion by stating that the application is headed in the right direction, and noted that the applicants are listening to public concerns. She asked Atty. Cook if he had any further comments, and he stated that he did not. Ms. MacNab noted that it is important for the applicant to submit information prior to a meeting in order to allow the Town consulting engineer, the Board, and the Town residents time to review. She stated that next time if they do not have complete information in advance, she will suggest that the public meeting be continued. She asked if the applicants understood her request, and Mr. Kite Powell confirmed that he did.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to continue the Administrative Site Plan public meeting regarding Bay Farm Montessori Academy until Monday, July 31, 2006 at 8:00 PM, with plans to be submitted to the Planning Office by Monday, July 17, 2006, and to extend the decision date to Thursday, August 31, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
ZBA REFERRAL: 21 CHESTNUT STREET / GRIFFIN
Atty. Phillip Markella was present to represent the applicants. Ms. MacNab noted that the ZBA referral related to the change in use to business. Ms. Stickney stated that the applicants have also filed an Administrative Site Plan Review application with the Planning Board, with the public meeting to take place on Monday, July 10, 2006. She said that although the property is located in the Neighborhood Business District 1, it had been used as a residence previously. Atty. Markella added that the current owners would like to use the building for their electronic publishing business that publishes a trade magazine.
Ms. Scieszka asked if any revisions to the current layout were proposed, and Atty. Markella stated that the parking will need to be delineated, but that ample space was already available. Atty. Markella noted that as a publishing business, it is not open to the public as a retail operation. Ms. Scieszka asked if architectural plans were available, and Atty. Markella showed the Board large architectural plans depicting a floor plan than had been revised after the ZBA application submittal.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to defer judgment to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding 21 Chestnut Street, pending the Board’s administrative site plan review. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to pay Horsley Witten invoice #22793 dated May 31, 2006 in the amount of $1,520.00 for services related to Duxbury Estates PD.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Scieszka asked if there was back-up for these invoices, and Ms. Stickney stated that the invoice was for the initial public meeting as well as a meeting with the applicant and staff, and noted that the Board had received their notes and a report would follow. Ms. Scieszka asked who the lead consultant was, and Ms. Stickney replied that Ms. Christine Wallace is the project manager and engineer, and would be working with Mr. Evan Waters.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to approve payment for the following Amory Engineering invoices dated June 2, 2006:
§ Invoice #11204A in the amount of $781.75 for services related to Bongi’s Turkey Roost
§ Invoice #11204B in the amount of $31.25 for services related to Hillside Lane
§ Invoice #11204C in the amount of $718.75 for services related to Bay Farm Montessori Academy
§ Invoice #11204D in the amount of $587.65 for services related to 104 Tremont Street.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
Town of Middleborough vs. HAC Appeal: Ms. Stickney noted that the case challenged the state’s Housing Appeals Committee, although Middleborough did not succeed. Ms. MacNab felt the case was still pending.
Planning Director Evaluation: Ms. MacNab noted that the Board’s evaluation form had been submitted to Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, and that Mr. MacDonald would be attending next week’s Board meeting at 7:00 PM to discuss the review.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:43 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, June 26, 2006 at 7:00 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
