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 05/22/06
Approved 07/24/06
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Senior Center, Ellison Room, on Monday, May 22, 2006.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, Brendan Halligan, and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Absent: Jim Kimball and Harold Moody.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Mainstream Engineering: It was agreed that Mr. Tom Sexton, principal, would be invited to attend a future Board meeting to resolve billing issues. Mr. Halligan also offered to review and clarify a form letter to consultants regarding Board policies.
Bay Farm Montessori Academy, 145 Loring Street: Mr. Wadsworth stated that three members of the Board had attended a recent public site walk. He commented that the administrative site plan review process seems to be working as intended, judging how receptive the Academy’s administration was to neighbors’ concerns.
Accessory Apartments: Ms. Beverly Walters of 422 Washington Street, a member of the Duxbury Housing Authority, requested that the Board look into creating an accessory apartment bylaw, because she feels it is an effective way to provide affordable housing to the community. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board was looking into several options for affordable housing through a working group with the Local Housing Partnership, and noted that a meeting would be taking place the following night at the Senior Center. Ms. Ruth Rowley of 546 Washington Street asked if this meeting had been posted, and Ms. MacNab stated that it had.
Planning Director Performance Evaluation: Ms. Stickney noted the department head evaluation timelines that had been included in the Board’s meeting packet. Ms. MacNab advised that Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, had requested that the Board complete one evaluation form as a group. She noted that the meeting would be in executive session and Ms. Stickney could choose to attend or not. Ms. Stickney stated that she preferred not to be in attendance, and she preferred an open meeting to executive session. It was agreed that staff would research whether executive session was allowed in this situation.
Prior Farm Road Stop Sign: Ms. MacNab thanked Ms. Stickney for following up on a comment at an earlier meeting that no stop sign was in place at the intersection of Prior Farm Road and Tremont Street.
Mullin Rule: Ms. Stickney noted the ruling had passed allowing Planning Board members to vote on projects when they may have been absent for meetings but had reviewed the record.
Horsley Witten Planned Development Consultants: Ms. MacNab noted that the consulting team had provided further subcontractor information within the past week.
Duxbury Senior Center Parking Lot: Ms. MacNab noted that she had met with Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald; Ms. Joanne Moore, Council on Aging Director; Mr. Tom Daley, DPW Director; and Ms. Stickney regarding the Senior Center parking lot administrative site plan review. She advised the Board that the original site plan is on file at the Town Clerk’s office and that now the review could move forward. Mr. Bear asked if the entire site, including the Town cemetery, would be included in the review, and Ms. MacNab replied that only the 3.5 acre site filed with Town Clerk would be reviewed. She added that an ANR would be filed, although Ms. Stickney questioned if that had been the final conclusion.
PUBLIC MEETING: DUXBURY ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, VICINITY OF 411 AND 451 SUMMER STREET (ROUTE 53)
Present for the discussion:
Atty. Robert W. Galvin, applicants’ attorney
Mr. Chuck Giachetto and Mr. Tom Giachetto of By Design Construction, applicants
Mr. Kevin Grady of Grady Consulting, civil engineers
Mr. Mike Abend of Abend Associates, traffic engineers
Mr. Mark Cooperman of EcoTerra Design Group, landscape architects
Mr. Evan Waters from Horsley Witten, Town consultants.
Ms. Scieszka read into the record the public meeting notice and correspondence list:
§ Application, plans and supporting documentation submitted on 3/10/06
§ PB Minutes of 3/27/06 re: submission of application
§ Copy of letter to ZBA dated 3/28/06 from Atty. Robert W. Galvin Jr. re: extension of time frame.
§ PB Minutes of 4/3/06 re: progress of consultants
§ PB Minutes of 4/10/06 re: progress of consultants
§ Subsequent submission of additional material dated 4/14/06 transmitted from ZBA; Letter dated 4/13/06 from Grady Consulting, Abend Associates Traffic Impact Assessment and additional site plans.
§ Assessors’ property cards and Map 90 for Plots 014-000 and 012-000
§ Memo from Planning Department dated 5/1/06 transmitting copies of plan to various departments, boards and commissions w/ notice of DRT meeting
§ Public Meeting notice advertised in the Duxbury Clipper 05/03/06 and 05/10/06
§ Memo from C. Stickney to A. Scieszka dated 5/8/06 re: progress of consultants
§ Email from Ellen Callendar dated 5/9/09 announcing ZBA public hearing on 6/22/06 at 7:30PM
§ Email from Paul Anderson, Water Superintendent dated 5/8/06 re: comments
§ DRT Minutes from 5/12/06.
Ms. MacNab invited Atty. Galvin to introduce the project. He stated that the project, located near DeLorenzo Drive with access from Summer Street, represented a special permit in a Planned Development District, and emphasized that this was not an affordable housing project or a 40B development. The applicants propose developing a total of 44 units: 28 duplex homes, 7 single family homes, 6 town homes, and 3 garden style units. He referenced Ocean Woods and Southscape as similar existing developments in the Town of Duxbury.
Atty. Galvin stated that the Duxbury Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) had approved the project’s perimeter, and that the Planning Board would be assessing the project’s impact on municipal services and providing comments to the ZBA. He added that the applicants elected no preliminary process as outlined in zoning bylaws in order to expedite the process, and therefore they were submitting their definitive proposal.
Atty. Galvin stated that the project is located within three zoning districts: the Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD), the Residential Compatibility (RC) district, and the Planned Development 1 (PD-1) district. He stated that the project’s density was right at the PD allowance. He continued that the State required site distance approval because the frontage is located on a state road, Route 53 (Summer Street). He said that the applicants were willing to address whatever water quality issues that may be required, and that the application complies with all design standards from Article 700 of the Zoning Bylaws, and requested a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board to the ZBA. Atty. Galvin noted that, regarding the affordability component, Mr. Giachetto is willing to provide funding to the Town to
use as they see fit to apply toward affordable housing pursuant to that option in ZBL, Section 560.11.
Mr. Kevin Grady of Grady Consulting introduced the site, stating that the project is located on 26 acres off of Summer Street, with an entrance across the street from Bravender Road and Birch Street. He said that the topography is relatively flat, with the highest point to the north, gradually sloping down. Soil testing showed well-drained, sandy soils. The applicants propose 44 units for ages 55 and older, including three triplexes, 14 duplexes, and 7 single units. The average distance between buildings is 45 feet. Each unit is accessed by its own driveway and includes two parking spaces and two guest spaces. He noted that a 75 foot open space buffer surrounds the perimeter, meeting or exceeding zoning bylaws. The stormwater design approach is low impact density (LID).
Mr. Grady noted that the applicants propose to recontour the entire area, with a narrow entry driveway of 20 feet to provide adequate access while lowering the impervious coverage. He stated that currently rain infiltrates the entire site, and the drainage design intends to mimic this. Five rentention swales are proposed around the perimeter of the roadway, essentially providing a one-foot ditch to provide stormwater retention. He added that roof drains are designed to handle up to a 100 year storm, nine inches of rain within a 24-hour period.
Mr. Grady stated that the applicants had been in touch with the Board of Health regarding the leaching field and septic design, and also had contacted the Water Department. He noted that gas and electrical plans were included in the site plans.
Mr. Grady noted that this is a low-impact density (LID) project, with between 14 and 15 percent site coverage ratio and everything else greenscape. He stated that they designed the project to maintain as much vegetation as possible, trying to minimize fill with the existing grade maintained for most of the project.
Mr. Mark Cooperman of Eco Terra Design Group spoke next. He stated that the site has been designed keeping the current character of the area in mind, to maintain current hydrology and to reduce or eliminate runoff, enhancing the overall ecological integrity of the site. The low-impact density design maintains the existing treeline and walking trail. He stated that existing pines and oaks would stay where possible, and a meadow area behind the existing gravel road would be restored. Homes are tucked in using existing contours. Turf grass would be minimized and meadows would be restored. Plantings would use native species for a gardenesque character.
Mr. Cooperman showed the Board a drawing of the proposed biorentention area. He noted that the 20 foot roadway minimizes impervious coverage and stated that trees and shrubs would be planted along the banking, with many walking paths and sidewalks included in the design. He noted that the three to five-foot buffer strips on the side of the road would be heavily vegetated. He stated that with a six inch bioswale, water would be held for only a brief time before draining.
Next, Mr. Michael Abend of Abend Associates spoke. He referenced his technical memorandum dated March 28, 2006, and stated that existing conditions on Route 53 included a flat, straight roadway with a 45 mile per hour speed limit. His figures estimated 8,300 cars per day, with slightly more going southbound than northbound. Heaviest traffic times were 8:00 to 9:00 AM (550 cars) and 5:00 to 6:00 PM (750 cars). He stated that 85 percent of traffic moved at approximately 50 miles per hour. Regarding accident history, Mr. Abend referenced the most recent study done in 2001-03, noting that six accidents had occurred at the Birch Street intersection, all occurring from 1:00 to 4:00 PM on weekdays during wet driving conditions. He stated that perhaps drivers had not adjusted their speed to the wet conditions. He said there was
no indication of specific safety hazards.
Regarding the expected traffic from the proposed development, he said that although 44 units would be added, the age restriction reduces the expected traffic flow compared to a non-age restricted development. He estimated 18 vehicle trips during the morning peak hours, with 4 entering and 14 leaving. Between the afternoon peak hours of 5:00 and 6:00 PM, he estimated 22 vehicle trips, with 8 outbound and 14 inbound. Overall, he estimated 45 vehicles entering and 145 exiting the development per day. He noted that during the winter months when some residents may be away, the traffic flow would be reduced. He estimated one trip every three minutes during the busiest part of the day, with a majority (80%) traveling southbound.
In conclusion, Mr. Abend stated that the project impact on traffic is low, keeping the Route 53 traffic flow below its capacity of 900 cars per hour. Site distance is calculated at 410 feet from the south, and 450 feet from the north. He noted that he will ensure that there is no blocked visibility from the main entrance, stating that the project must meet Massachusetts state highway standards.
Atty. Galvin noted that a boulevard-style entrance was considered but that the applicants do not believe it would improve safety and it would go against the low impact desired for the project. Emergency access would be provided through a gravel driveway around the perimeter of the development, possibly extending parallel to the entrance. He stated that information was being submitted to the Conservation Commission with orders of condition expected.
Ms. MacNab noted that Board comments would come next, followed by public comments. Ms. Scieszka noted interesting ideas and elements had been included in the plans, but she wanted to address the project from a bigger picture. She stated that planned developments allow up to 2.5 units per acre based on the capacity of the land with an opportunity to cluster and provide a variety of housing. She stated that the current plans looked more like a subdivision except that buildings were closer together. She said that with a flat site, the roadway needs to be built up. She suggested clustering buildings to minimize cuts and fills and to allow for larger areas of open space.
Ms. Scieszka questioned if the buffer zone allowed should be 75 feet or 125 feet, and asked if the area beneath power lines abutting the property was included as part of the buffer calculations. Mr. Grady responded that the power line area was considered as part of the buffer. Ms. Scieszka stated that the power line area is wide open space and should not be considered as a buffer, and also should not be part of the calculations because it is not considered developable land. Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Grady which lands were included in calculating open space, and Mr. Grady responded that no easement or wetlands areas were included, just the area of the PD1 only to his recollection. He agreed to review this further.
Ms. Scieszka noted that the graphical submissions were all grouped together instead of separating them out, and suggested that separate sheets be submitted for easier review of the character of the land and soils. She also suggested that more narrative descriptions would provide more detail and rationale for the design. She commented that the unit mixes seem heavily in one direction, where the zoning bylaws appear to suggest maximizing the variety of housing, and that the applicants had not addressed adequately the multi-family aspect of the bylaw.
Mr. Grady responded that the proposed design includes predominately 40 to 45 feet of setback, up to 60 feet, where the minimum is 35 feet. He stated that they are not able to get the buildings closer together, and that the roadway radius also prevents further clustering. He agreed to review the graphical submissions and narratives and to consider separating the layers, although he commented that separating the elements would not necessarily provide him with a clearer picture of the project. Ms. Scieszka noted that much of this would have been vetted out if the applicant had gone through the preliminary process. Mr. Grady replied that the plan was fairly standard.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that Board approval would take some time because the application represented the final plan. Atty. Galvin stated that the applicants have a year-end deadline for a purchase and sales agreement, and expressed that he hoped that the Board review would not delay the applicants from going before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), noting that the first hearing date with the ZBA would rely heavily on the Board’s comments.
Mr. Wadsworth stated that he was not happy with looking at houses with garage doors facing the road. He also noted that earlier that evening he was crossing Route 53 heading southbound and it had taken awhile to get onto Route 53, and asked if the applicants were expecting a left turn lane in the southerly direction. Mr. Abend stated that they did not foresee adding a left turn lane because state regulations require a turn lane for 40 vehicles per hour and his firm predicts only 3 vehicles per hour. Mr. Wadsworth responded that, with vehicle speed approaching 50 miles per hour, drivers do not have much reaction time and it is an area of concern for him.
Regarding bioretention areas, Mr. Wadsworth asked if the applicants anticipated a system that would remove water before it runs off onto the roadway, in case the swale is not working properly. Mr. Cooperman responded that the 9 inch standpipe should take care of runoff. Mr. Grady added that all bioretention swales were interconnected and would be maintained as well, so he did not expect the swales to fail.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if basements were included in the building design, and Mr. Grady replied that they are including walk out basements to the rear of the buildings, which would provide storage and utility space for homeowners. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that before and after contours could be included on the plans. Mr. Grady responded that all contours were already shown.
Ms. MacNab noted that groundwater direction would need to be determined. Mr. Grady stated that groundwater comes to the surface on the southerly side of the property and that no test wells were planned. Ms. MacNab asked if the property was located within the APOD, and Ms. Stickney stated that the front part of the property is located in the APOD and also in the RC district, although she agreed that more groundwater information would be helpful.
Ms. MacNab noted the building design with double garages facing the road, and asked if the applicants had considered mixing up structure style variations. Atty. Galvin responded that Mr. Giachetto had built a similar 55 and older project in Marshfield and it was well received, adding that homeowners prefer the garage be attached to their home for easy access. Ms. MacNab noted that a varied type of housing is characterized in the Town of Duxbury. Mr. Chuck Giachetto offered to bring the architect to the next public meeting, and stated that they attempted to vary the housing style by adding interesting dormers. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that the applicants could reconsider the garage design if they plan to stay with a garage facing the street.
Ms. MacNab summarized that she is sure that the current design is fully marketable, and applauded the applicants for their LID methods, utilizing existing vegetation, and the design including dormers and rooflines. She stated that an issue remains with the required buffer, whether 75 feet or 125 feet are required, and noted that Ms. Stickney would be researching the matter. She also stated that the open space calculations need to be researched further. Ms. MacNab also stated that she prefers a boulevard-style roadway, although she understands that it increasing the amount of paving. Ms. Stickney clarified that Chief Kevin Nord of the Fire Department was more concerned with the first 300 feet of the roadway rather than the entire 700 feet, and is primarily concerned with emergency vehicle access.
Ms. MacNab then opened the floor to public comment:
§ Mr. Paul Costello of 91 DeLorenzo Drive stated that his neighborhood which includes a figure-eight drive is located on the other side of the power easement. He stated that the buffer zone depicted in the plans includes his neighborhood land. He also expressed concern over traffic, stating that many vehicles utilize DeLorenzo Drive as a shortcut from Exit 11 off of Route 3 to Route 53. He stated a concern with potential clubhouse noise, and objected to the possibility of further clearing which would reduce any noise buffer. He suggested a wider buffer of trees so that DeLorenzo neighbors would not see the new development from their houses. Further, he
expressed concern with the water table and the planned emergency access road going across the back of the neighborhood.
Ms. MacNab asked about the ownership of the power easement, and Atty. Galvin stated that it was an electric company easement, and that all measurements were taken from the center of the easement. Atty. Galvin stated that with the age restriction there would be no young children living in the homes, so he considers noise a non-issue. He said that with no yard or outdoor pool, the clubhouse will be quiet. He stated that there is no possibility of flooding, and that there is no additional risk of fire damage or danger.
Mr. Costello also asked about the access road located in the woods behind the property. He expressed concern with the possibility of adding gravel to the driveway to use as emergency access. Ms. MacNab noted that the administrative site plan review related only to the delineated site.
§ Mr. Kevin Hamilton of 75 DeLorenzo Drive asked if the Board had considered that the property is closer to Exit 11 than Exit 10 off of Route 3. He questioned the traffic accident study and noted that it is outdated. Mr. Abend responded that the data used was the latest available from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Mr. Hamilton later asked if architectural plans were available, and Ms. MacNab confirmed that they could be viewed at the Planning office.
Mr. Bear asked the applicants if they had used the same architectural plans in other developments, and Mr. Giachetto replied that they were used in Marshfield. Mr. Bear asked what constitutes a garden unit and Mr. Giachetto responded that garden units are one-story. Ms. Scieszka asked if there would be a maximum of three attached units and asked about the setback requirements. Ms. Stickney agreed to research further to confirm the setback requirements.
§ Mr. Dave Coonan of 57 DeLorenzo Drive expressed concern over the buffer zone and the leaching field that may require additional tree clearing. He also suggested that the applicants consider moving the clubhouse to a more centralized location that would prevent any noise issues for surrounding neighborhoods.
§ Ms. Diane Bartlett of 200 Franklin Street, a member of the Highway Safety Committee, asked if the Summer Street frontage is a traffic passing zone. Mr. Wadsworth agreed that it could be a safety issue. Ms. Bartlett noted that Birch Street has a history of many accidents. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that the applicants consider applying to widen Route 53 at the development entrance. Mr. Grady stated that shoulder work is being planned.
Ms. Bartlett asked if screening would be included around the clubhouse, and Mr. Cooperman responded that the existing treeline would be kept and new evergreens would be added. Ms. Bartlett also noted that she has seen the applicants’ similar development in Marshfield, The Maples, and expressed that it would be a nice addition to the Town of Duxbury.
Ms. MacNab then invited comment from Mr. Evan Waters of Horsley Witten consulting engineers. Mr. Waters asked for clarification regarding the proposed stormwater drainage system and noted that it provides a nice example of drainage techniques. Mr. Waters stated his concern with underground infiltration chambers, stating that although the concept was good, infiltration cannot be placed under fill because it could pose a conservation issue. Mr. Waters also asked if any provisions would be included regarding children because of potential wastewater concerns. Atty. Galvin noted that age restriction would be a condition of the special permit. Ms. Stickney suggested that this issue could be addressed at the next public meeting, and Atty. Galvin agreed.
Ms. Scieszka stated that it had been an excellent first presentation, and summarized outstanding issues, with Mr. Wadsworth also adding to the list:
§ Open space clustering
§ Reducing amount of pavement
§ Adding narrative to provide more background and detail
§ Water table issues regarding walkout basements
§ Garage door design.
Mr. Grady asked for the Board’s recommendation of other planned development projects in the Town of Duxbury that he could view, and the Board suggested he look at Oceanwoods off Bay Road, Southscape off Lincoln Street, Bay Farm off Parks Street, and Summerset off Summer Street (Route 53).
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to continue the public meeting regarding Duxbury Estates Planned Development in the vicinity of 411 and 451 Summer Street to Monday, June 24, 2006 at 8:00 PM, with revised plans due on Wednesday, July 12, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED (ANR) PLAN, PATTEN LANE / REED
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to accept the combination of Lots 1 and 2 as part of the approved plan for Patten Lane entitled, “Plan of Land Lots 1 and 2 Patten Lane, 341 Standish Street” dated 5/9/06 stamped by William P. Sylvia (PLS) – South Shore Survey Consultants, Inc. – 1 sheet.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Scieszka noted that lot lines on the assessor’s map appeared to be different than the lot lines depicted on the plans. Ms. Stickney offered to re-check the lot lines and suggested that the assessor’s map may not be accurate.
MOTION WITHDRAWN: Mr. Wadsworth withdrew his motion.
Ms. MacNab suggested the matter be placed on next week’s agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:28 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, June 5, 2006 at 7:30 PM in the Small Conference Room at Duxbury Town offices.
| 
