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 07/24/06
Approved 11/20/06
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level, on Monday, July 24, 2006.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; John Bear; and Harold Moody.
Absent: Angela Scieszka, Clerk: Brendan Halligan; Jim Kimball; 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
Planning Board meeting schedule: Ms. MacNab suggested that the Board consider meeting every other week rather than weekly during the summer, depending on submittals.
Planned Development (PD) process: Mr. Wadsworth asked Ms. MacNab to update the Board on her discussions with members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) regarding the PD process. Ms. MacNab stated that she had called ZBA members Jim Lampert and Sara Wilson and received the same message from both: the ZBA would open the initial hearing to allow the applicant to set the stage, but would look to the Planning Board to iron out and solidify the application. Any items not agreed upon would be handled by the ZBA. She noted that the first ZBA hearing is scheduled for July 27, 2006 and noted that it would be beneficial for Planning Board members to attend. Mr. Wadsworth stated that he could attend. Ms. MacNab advised Board members to notify staff if they plan to attend.
ANR PLAN OF LAND: 873 AND 907 TREMONT STREET / NASS, MILES
Present for the discussion was Mr. Loren Nass of 873 Tremont Street. Ms. Stickney introduced the application, stating that two neighbors would like to create a third lot. She noted that the parcels are located within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District but that the application meets all zoning requirements. She recommended that the Board endorse the ANR plan.
Ms. MacNab asked about Mr. Miles’ property at 907 Tremont Street, and Ms. Stickney stated that the lot contains a guest house in back and currently has 3.17 acres. Ms. MacNab reviewed the plans and noted that the guest house is labeled as a barn. Discussion followed over whether the building is a guest house or a barn, and Ms. Stickney noted that it is heated. Mr. Nass agreed that it is more of a guest house than a barn, currently containing a big room with a loft and a bathroom. Ms. Stickney noted that the guest house is included in square footage calculations. Ms. MacNab noted it may be a labeling issue that could be corrected easily.
Ms. MacNab also noted that the applicants have only 60 square feet beyond the minimum square footage required. Board members also noted an existing 25-foot right of way and driveway on the proposed new lot. Mr. Nass stated that the right of way would be off a state road that is already a right of way for other neighbors. Mr. Nass confirmed that a common driveway would be built. Mr. Wadsworth stated that the Board does not recommend common driveways. Mr. Moody noted that Lot 1C narrows and asked if it would be subject to “pork chop” regulations, and Mr. Wadsworth stated that the lot line would need to maintain its width. Mr. Bear questioned calculations and Ms. Stickney confirmed that she had checked figures including corners relative to compliance with the definition of lot shape.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to approve the Plan of Land entitled, “Plan of Land, 873 & 907 Tremont Street, Duxbury, Mass.,” dated July 5, 2006, stamped by Thomas J. Sullivan (PLS) - 1 sheet, subject to removal of the word “barn” and addition of the appropriate Lot 1C designation. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried (4-0).
Ms. Stickney noted that a revised plan would need to be submitted before the Board could endorse the plan.
OTHER BUSINESS
Because it was not yet time for the continued public meeting, the Board addressed other business.
Millbrook Crossing: Ms. Stickney noted that a filing was expected for administrative site plan review for the Railroad Avenue project known as Millbrook Crossing. Ms. MacNab noted that Mr. Halligan is currently reviewing the Rules and Regulations for Administrative Site Plan Review in order to suggest revisions that would direct future applicants more efficiently.
Local Housing Partnership working group: Ms. MacNab asked about the status on selecting a Housing Consultant, and Ms. Stickney replied that she was waiting for comments from the Board.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING: DUXBURY ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, VICINITY OF 411 AND 451 SUMMER STREET (ROUTE 53)
The continued public meeting opened at 7:58 PM. Present for the discussion were Mr. Tom Giachetto of By Design Construction; Atty. Robert W. Galvin; Town consulting engineers Ms. Christine Wallace and Mr. Evan Waters of Horsley Witten Group; and Mr. James Lampert, Zoning Board of Appeals chairman. Mr. Rick Grady of Grady Consulting, surveyor, arrived at 8:50 PM. Mr. Wadsworth read into the record the correspondence list:
§ Mutual Extension Form to continue meeting signed 6/26/06
§ Memo and revised plans filed by Grady Consulting dated 7/12/06
§ Memo from C. Stickney dated 7/12/06 re: NSTAR conversation
§ Memo from Grady Consulting dated 7/17/06 re: elevation tables
§ Memo from Horsley & Witten dated 7/19/06 re: peer review
§ Memo from C. Stickney dated 7/20/06 re: items to be addressed
§ Memo from Abend Associates dated 7/20/06 re: traffic issues
§ Memo from Conley Associates dated 7/24/06 re: peer review of Abend’s traffic memo
Ms. MacNab welcomed the participants, and noted that the Planning Board is concerned with “big picture” items. Mr. Bear stated that they have been addressed. Ms. MacNab stated that the buffers remain an issue, noting that units 1 through 13 appear to be mostly affected.
Atty. Galvin apologized that Mr. Chuck Giachetto could not attend tonight’s meeting because he recently underwent surgery. Atty. Galvin read the definition of “buffer” from the Section 725 of the Zoning Bylaws and noted that open space or woodlands both could be considered buffers. He also referenced Section 703.2, noting that natural vegetation is a preferred buffer and precludes development within 200 feet of an easement. Ms. MacNab stated that she did not agree that the intent of the bylaw is to preclude development, but rather to provide screening for noise and privacy. Atty. Galvin responded that a ten-acre field might provide a better buffer than most, stating that the topography is fairly level but that the applicants desire to screen undesirable elements of basements from their
project.
Discussion followed regarding how to measure the buffer and the distance of certain units to the easement buffer. Mr. Waters noted that the shortest distance to the buffer is 21 feet from Unit 10. Mr. Wadsworth noted that NStar reserves the right to clear across the easement. Mr. Waters commented that the proposed buffer plan does not appear to satisfy the definition of “preferred” buffer material. He suggested a compromise of 100 feet of meadow along with as much vegetation as can be established.
Atty. Galvin referenced Section 703.2 of the Zoning Bylaws regarding grass and mounds as acceptable buffer material. Mr. Wadsworth pointed out that same bylaw continues to say that using grass and mounds is acceptable provided that suitable indigenous shrubs and other plant material are used for screening, and noted that NStar advised staff in Ms. Stickney’s memo of July 12, 2006 that the applicants have no right to plant within the easement. Atty. Galvin stated that the applicants intended to use fencing and shrubs.
Mr. Lampert of the ZBA asked what the history of clearing had been on the other side of the easement, and Ms. MacNab replied that Ms. Stickney’s memo confirms that NStar intends to clear more of the easement than they have in the past, and that the Planning Board is attempting to lessen the impact to abutting neighbors. Mr. Wadsworth added that the utility easement is 200 feet wide and the Board is determining whether that 200 feet provides an adequate buffer. Mr. Waters suggested that it should be assumed that the easement will be cleared based on NStar information.
Ms. Stickney noted Zoning Bylaw Section 703.3 that says that setback should be measured from the property line, not the easement line. Mr. Waters noted that the property line is the center of the easement. Ms. Stickney stated that the applicants meet setback requirements but questioned whether the screening is adequate. She said that any screening would need to cover the 20 feet from the building to the property line, not the entire 125 feet to the center of the easement. She suggested that fencing may be needed along Units 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Ms. Wallace cautioned that some Fire Departments require a 20 to 30 feet setback for fencing to prevent grill fires from spreading. She suggested that reconfiguring the decks in Units 1, 9, 10 and 11 may provide a possible solution. Atty. Galvin stated that the applicants would work it out and possibly eliminate decks on those units. Mr. Waters commented that on some of the units that are closest to the property line, there may be space for fencing only with no vegetation. Mr. Bear asked if more information was needed on the screening approach, and Atty. Galvin apologized that the landscape architect was not there to answer questions.
Ms. Stickney noted that there are potential issues reflected on sheet 11 of 25, and Mr. Waters stated that the plans reflect possible removal of trees in order to install fencing. Atty. Galvin stated that it may be overkill to plant something in the utility easement because there is a possibility that NStar might clear it. He stated that he is comfortable with the 100-foot NStar easement plus 25 to 30 feet of evergreens. Mr. Lampert noted that emergency vehicles may need a 16-foot access and typically require 30 feet of space between buildings. Mr. Wadsworth agreed, stating that a house on the edge of the woods could be in a position to spread a fire easily. Mr. Lampert stated that with a triplex sprinkler systems are required, but with a duplex a sprinkler is not required. Mr. Wadsworth asked what the Fire Chief’s
requirements were regarding setback from the woods. Ms. Wallace added that it should be clarified if the setback would be measured from the deck or from the building.
Ms. Stickney asked if the applicants had contacted the Water Department regarding water flow. Atty. Galvin replied that they will utilize Dufresne Henry, adding that they are aware that water pressure is an issue although capacity is not a concern. Ms. Stickney emphasized that fire flow is an issue.
Mr. Lampert asked if the Subdivision Rules and Regulations address the minimum distance from buildings to forest land. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the electrical easement may pose a lightning concern, which may set off a grass fire. Ms. Stickney noted that Chief Nord was aware of a previous fire that jumped across Route 53 from Bravender Road.
Mr. Moody asked if it was appropriate to ask Town Counsel about setbacks and easement buffers. Mr. Lampert noted that for calculating setback it is appropriate to use the easement, but the question is if the buffer should include the easement or not.
Atty. Galvin suggested that the applicants could put a restriction on homeowners removing vegetation outside a boundary. Ms. MacNab stated that she had assumed that they would be doing that already. Atty. Galvin noted that the condominium association would be responsible and there would be no individual homeowners cutting down trees.
Mr. Wadsworth asked why three or four units have decks, and Ms. Stickney replied that it may be because of elevations. Mr. Wadsworth noted that they appeared to have similar contour elevations from buildings that did not include decks. Mr. Moody noted that Units 12 to 17 show patios. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the current decks could be patios instead. Mr. Wadsworth recommended revising plans from decks to patios for Units 1, 9, 10 and 11. Atty. Galvin replied that it was a reasonable recommendation. Ms. MacNab noted that the Planning Board does not set conditions. Mr. Lampert suggested that the Board consider including reasons behind its recommendations.
(Mr. Rick Grady arrived at the meeting at this point.) Ms. MacNab asked the Town consulting engineers to review their comments outlined in their memo of July 19, 2006. Ms. Wallace stated the following additional issues that remain:
§ Recommend overflow outlet pipes on bioswales where possible to drain stormwater away from buildings in the event of a large storm. She also noted on Sheet 10 an overflow pipe is shown but it is not clear where it is going to. Mr. Grady stated that the pipe was there because of a grading issue, and Ms. Wallace suggested the applicants consider using rip rap instead.
§ On Sheets 10 and 11 overflow drainage is not shown near Unit 21.
§ Existing grades are missing from plans. Ms. Wallace noted that it is preferred to infiltrate natural soil rather than filling.
§ A soil test may show water weeping through the test pit. She also noted that the plans may not meet the two feet of separation required. Ms. MacNab asked if Ms. Wallace was comfortable with the accuracy of the water table, and Ms. Wallace responded that she still had issues in some areas, and confirmed with Mr. Grady that the Health agent was present during the water testing. Mr. Wadsworth asked who observed the testing, and Mr. Grady offered to provide soil logs. Ms. Wallace asked if there were any monitoring wells and Mr. Grady replied that there were none. He offered to do more soil tests in the area in question. Ms. Wallace emphasized that a Town official
should be witness to the testing. Mr. Grady confirmed with Ms. Wallace that the area of concern was the highest point on the property near an isolated wetland. Ms. Wallace suggested that for now a copy of the test logs may suffice, and if she feels additional soil tests are needed she would recommend someone from her office witness the testing.
§ Detail is needed for utility lines underneath bioswales to show that water is being moved from gas and utility lines. Mr. Grady responded that it would not be a problem to move those.
§ Mr. Waters asked if wetlands were included in open space calculations. He noted that it appeared that wetlands had been included, but even subtracting the wetlands, they appear to meet site coverage standards.
Atty. Galvin summarized the additional information he would gather within two weeks:
§ NStar easement
§ Sample homeowners association
§ Fireflow study from Dufresne-Henry
§ Buffer re-design and materials for units 4, 5, and 6.
Discussion followed over setting the next meeting date. Mr. Lampert noted that the Planning Board report should be submitted by Labor Day or shortly thereafter.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to continue the public meeting for Duxbury Estates planned development to August 14, 2006 at 8:00 PM, with plans to be submitted to the Planning office by August 7, 2006, and a decision deadline of August 29, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
WORK SESSION
Housing Consultant selection: Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Stickney to email the Board with the proposed interview schedule for the Housing Consultant position.
OTHER BUSINESS
40B Regulation Amendments: Ms. Stickney noted that the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is proposing changes to the 40B filing process. The changes would require applicants to apply through the Housing Appeals Committee rather than the local Zoning Board of Appeals. She noted that it appeared the approval for these changes would be through the CMR promulgated by the DHCD rather than through the state legislature. Ms. MacNab and Mr. Moody offered to research the matter further.
Engineering Invoices:
Mainstream Engineering – Ms. MacNab questioned invoice #20805 in the amount of $533.00 for services related to the Duxbury Senior Center, specifically a 20 minute phone call before Mr. Sexton had been assigned to review the project. It was agreed to defer approval of payment so that staff could research the charges. Ms. Stickney stated that after Board approval, the invoice would be forwarded to the Council on Aging.
OtherEngineering Invoices –
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to pay Horsley Witten invoice #22868 dated June 30, 2006 in the amount of $5,755.55 for services related to the Duxbury Estates Planned Development. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to pay the following Amory Engineers invoices:
§ #11252A in the amount of $1,812.50 for services related to Bay Farm Montessori Academy
§ #11252B in the amount of $891.25 for services related to 104 Tremont Street.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to approve the following meeting minutes:
§ May 22, 2006 as amended.
§ June 5, 2006 as written
§ June 12, 2006 as written
§ June 19, 2006 as amended.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:18 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, August 7, 2006 at 7:30 PM at the Duxbury Senior Center, Ellison Room.
| 
