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 05/01/06
Approved 06/05/06
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Senior Center, Ellison Room, on Monday, May 1, 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 7:36 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Town Applications versus Private Applications: Mr. Kimball stated that he was uneasy with how differently the Bayside Marine project was handled at last week’s meeting in comparison to the approach on the Town of Duxbury Council on Aging project. He stated that the Town should go through the proper channels of approval just as any applicant would.
Audience Conduct at Planning Board Meetings: Mr. Kimball also commended chairperson, Ms. Amy MacNab, for effectively handling disruptive behavior by an audience member at last week’s meeting. He stated that he would not let behavior like that happen again, and that if it did happen he would move to adjourn and call the police. Ms. MacNab, Mr. Wadsworth and Ms. Scieszka expressed agreement with both of Mr. Kimball’s comments.
REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION
Hillside Lane Subdivision / Kevin Sealund: Mr. Sealund was present for the discussion on extending the June 21, 2006 deadline for subdivision approval. He requested an extension until June 21, 2007. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that everything should be completed by that date or before. Mr. Sealund added that they want to wrap up the project within the next sixty days. Mr. Moody asked if Mr. Sealund was requesting a reduction of surety, and Mr. Sealund replied that he would in the future.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to extend the deadline for completion of the Hillside Lane Subdivision until June 21, 2007. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
Bayside Marine, 433 Washington Street: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the applicant, Mr. J.R. Kent, had posted a $49,000.00 bond on April 28, 2006, for completion of renovations under Administrative Site Plan Review, an amount suggested by Town consulting engineer, Mr. Tom Sexton. She added that the final blacktop coat had been laid down and striping had been painted on the parking lot in preparation for an open house.
OTHER BUSINESS
Duxbury Bay Maritime School Traffic Flow Proposal: Ms. Stickney noted that School Director, Mr. Ned Lawson, had submitted a proposed traffic flow improvement plan for this school located at 457 Washington Street. She referred Board members to review the plans which were included in their packet, and noted that the plans called for two queuing lines that would help keep cars off Washington Street. She noted that, although the plans are not final, they provide a good start.
Ms. Scieszka asked about the extra lane, and Ms. Stickney said that the two lanes would eventually merge into one. Mr. Kimball asked if the lanes would be marked, and Ms. Stickney replied that, because some of the lanes are gravel, they could not be marked. Mr. Moody asked who would direct the traffic flow, and Ms. Stickney replied that college-age staff would be assigned traffic duty.
Summer Street PD Engineering Consultant: Ms. MacNab noted that from five requests for proposal, two had been received by the Planning office. Ms. Stickney added that a third consultant responded that they were too busy to take on the proposed project. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the first public meeting for this Planned Development would take place on May 22, 2006, and that the public meeting notice would be published in the Duxbury Clipper on May 3, 2006 and May 10, 2006. She added that the public hearing and abutter notification would be done through the special permit process.
Ms. Scieszka asked if any of the responding consultants had worked in nearby towns, and Ms. Stickney replied that Mr. Larry Koff had worked on projects in Scituate and Plymouth, and his sub-contractor, Ms. Judi Barrett, was very familiar with the Town of Duxbury.
Mr. Bear asked if it may be possible to obtain a proposal from any other consultants, and Ms. Stickney replied that the public meeting was only three weeks away and that she would like the consultant to attend a May 12, 2006 Development Review Team meeting regarding the project. Ms. Scieszka asked about Plymouth-area consultants, and Ms. Stickney replied that Lisa Davis Associates had worked in Plymouth.
Ms. MacNab asked the Board if members felt comfortable with either of the two proposals. Ms. Scieszka noted that Mr. Koff had pulled together a large group of resources. Ms. MacNab noted that many of Ms. Davis’s projects referenced in her proposal were out of state, and Ms. Stickney agreed but advised the Board that she was aware of local projects that Ms. Davis has worked on.
Ms. Stickney offered to attempt to find additional potential consultants. Mr. Wadsworth stated that he would like to interview both Mr. Koff and Ms. Davis. Ms. Scieszka asked if they could interview these two candidates while still searching for additional ones, and Mr. Wadsworth agreed that it made sense. Mr. Kimball noted that responses may not come back within the short time frame. Ms. MacNab suggested that the Board should consider the services of a landscape architect/engineer rather than a planning consultant.
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW / BAY FARM MONTESSORI ACADEMY, INC., 145 LORING STREET
Present for the discussion were:
§ Surveyor, Mr. Al Vautrinot
§ Mr. Garth Hoffman, who serves on the Campus Development Committee of the Academy’s Board of Directors
§ Atty. Elizabeth Zimmer from the law office of Atty. Robert Marzelli, representing the applicant
§ 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 people also were in attendance for this public meeting. Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Scieszka, Board Clerk, to read the public notice and correspondence list into the record:
§ Administrative Site Plan Review Application, plans and supporting documentation submitted on 3/27/06.
§ Memo from Vautrinot Land Surveying Inc. dated 3/27/06 re: agreement to extend meeting date beyond required time frame.
§ Memo from Planning Department dated 3/28/06 transmitting copies of plan to various departments, boards and commissions for comments.
§ Notice of DRT Meeting dated 4/10/06 to all depts. for meeting to be held 5/1/06.
§ Assessors’ Property card for all Bay Farm Montessori properties of campus .
§ Memo from J. Dalyrmple dated 3/29/06 re: Board of Health issues.
§ Public Meeting notice advertised in the Duxbury Clipper 4/12/06 & 4/19/06. Also mailed to abutters on 4/11/06.
§ Email dated 4/5/06 from Garth Hoffman with jpeg attachments photos of similar projects, superimposed and interior view of structure.
§ Memo from Walter Amory dated 4/6/06 re: peer review.
§ Minutes from 4/10/06 Development Review Team.
§ Copy of Conservation Commission “negative” Determination of Applicability issued on May 25, 2004.
§ Memo from Chief Kevin Nord dated 4/19/06 re: comments and recommendations for the project.
§ Letter from Seldon and David Tearse of (#704 Bay Rd) dated 4/25/06 re: concerns with proposal.
§ Letter from Scott and Linda Hartz (#703 Bay Rd) dated 4/25/06 re: concerns with the proposal.
§ Letter from James and Kimberly Cook (#700 Bay Rd) dated 4/26/06 re: concerns with the proposal.
Ms. MacNab advised the audience that the Planning Board is concerned with Section 615 of the Protective Bylaw of the Town of Duxbury, and stated the order of events for this public meeting. First would be a presentation from the applicants, then the Town consulting engineer, followed by Planning Board questions and then public comments. She advised that the Planning Board expects the public meeting to be continued due to planning issues that need to be resolved. In addition, Ms. MacNab recommended that any public comments should be mailed to the Planning office so that the Planning Board members could review them prior to the next public meeting.
Mr. Hoffman introduced the project, stating that the Academy wishes to improve the school in order to make it competitive in the South Shore, and also to help the aesthetics and traffic flow at the school. He added that the Academy is inviting the public to a project walk-through on Saturday, May 6, 2006.
Mr. Vautrinot described the proposed project, displaying plans that his firm had prepared. He stated that the Academy proposes to build two new buildings on the campus, one to replace an existing building. The Academy has 235 students currently enrolled, with a potential of 290 students. With the new building the enrollment could potentially expand up to 350 students. The Academy currently employs a staff of approximately fifty, with parking recently expanded to accommodate sixty vehicles.
With the proposed expansion, fifty spaces would be added to the northwest side of the main campus and there would be a total of 100 parking spaces on the lower campus. Mr. Vautrinot described the proposed revisions to traffic routing. He stated that currently there are two entrances to the school with one exit, and the Academy proposal includes only one entrance expanded to two lanes. The entrance near the house would be closed off, and the current exit would remain.
Mr. Vautrinot continued that another major component to the proposed project is an activity center, which would be a multi-purpose space for special events such as a science fair or Halloween party. He stated that it is considered an activity center, and not a sports dome as had been previously referenced. In addition to the activity center, an outdoor soccer field also is proposed for the upper campus. He added that they propose a screen of Eastern red cedars to be planted along the property lines.
Mr. Vautrinot described that the applicants propose a one-way entrance off of Bay Road to the activity center and soccer field, with 46 paved parking spaces. He stated that these spaces would be in addition to the 100 parking spaces in the lower campus. Vehicles would exit onto Loring Street. He explained that the property access from Bay Road is a previously approved subdivision that was never built.
Mr. Vautrinot stated that traffic counts have shown approximately 80 cars per hour, with up to 145 cars at peak hours, between 8:00 and 9:30 AM. At noon and at the end of the school day, the traffic count was 70 to 75 vehicles. One bus comes to the school and does not enter the campus, although with the proposed revisions a bus would be able to drive onto the campus.
Mr. Vautrinot noted that he is still working with the Town consulting engineer, Mr. Walter Amory, on drainage issues, and that all work would be performed according to stormwater management policies. He stated that the drainage plan may be a combination of underground and a retention pond that would not necessarily retain water.
Ms. MacNab then asked Mr. Amory for any comments, referencing his memo to the Planning office dated April 6, 2006. Mr. Amory outlined current issues:
§ Site distance of the proposed exit at Parks Street and Loring Street, which Mr. Amory noted may be difficult to resolve due to the configuration of the site. He stated that more information is needed regarding parking at the site, especially for special events, and that the dimensions of the proposed parking areas should be delineated.
§ Drainage is a major issue that it is being addressed. Originally nine underground infiltration systems were proposed, but Mr. Amory has asked Mr. Vautrinot to review, suggesting that a surface infiltration basin would be a superior alternative because it provides a way to see how the drainage is working.
§ Operation and maintenance plans - Mr. Amory expressed his concern that without a pre and post-construction maintenance schedule, there would be no way to guarantee that there would be proper maintenance.
§ Fire Department issue with emergency vehicles maneuvering the northwestern entrance to the campus. Mr. Amory stated that this issue is being addressed.
§ Drafting details that are fairly routine, and Mr. Amory said that he expected they could be resolved.
Ms. MacNab opened the floor to the Planning Board members. The following issues were identified as requiring follow up:
§ Architectural renderings are needed, including elevations and floor plans of the proposed buildings.
§ Specify intended use of proposed buildings.
§ Identify square footage of buildings for calculating parking spaces.
§ Proposed seating capacity of the activity center.
§ Details on insulation and sound barriers for activity center.
§ Walkways and access and egress doors need to be delineated.
§ Lighting plans should be completed (including detail of light pole).
§ Drainage from Bay Road access road. Mr. Amory stated that the drainage plan for this area is not clear yet. Mr. Kimball stated that it needs to be shown that surface runoff will not flow onto Bay Road.
§ Full-size plans were requested because the half-size plans were difficult to read.
§ Subdivision roadway – Ms. Scieszka stated that the Planning Board approval of the original roadway off of Bay Road was in order to facilitate frontage for one or two houses, and does not create access for other uses. Mr. Vautrinot stated that the applicants plan to submit an ANR application if the site plan review goes forward. Ms. Stickney reminded Mr. Vautrinot that Town Counsel would need to be consulted regarding this matter.
§ Existing parking delineation – Mr. Vautrinot confirmed that the existing 45 parking spaces in a gravel lot would remain. Ms. MacNab noted that the Planning Board only recognizes paved parking.
§ Grading of new roadway off of Bay Road – Mr. Amory noted that the grade of the proposed roadway is approximately ten percent, and Subdivision Rules and Regulations recommend a grade not over six percent.
§ Potential staff numbers for determining parking capacity.
§ Possible retrofitting of existing buildings for safety.
Planning Board questions that were answered and for which immediate follow-up was not requested include:
§ Clarifying number of buildings proposed -- one new school building and one activity center.
§ Types of events to be held in the activity center – Mr. Hoffman stated that school plays are the largest events.
§ Type of activities proposed for activity center – Mr. Hoffman stated that there will be a multi-functional surface on the floor that will allow for a variety of activities, including soccer, kickball, volleyball and dodge ball. In addition, he stated that the activity center would have an auditorium.
§ Outside groups to be invited to activity center – Mr. Hoffman stated that traveling teams could potentially be invited to compete against Academy students, but only up to grade six.
§ Leasing out of activity center – Mr. Hoffman stated that the Academy did not have specific plans to lease out the activity center at this point, although they are open to leasing to local groups at reasonable compensatory rates as they currently do in the lower campus. He stated that they were not looking at the activity center as a revenue generator.
§ Projected school growth – Mr. Hoffman stated that there would be a maximum capacity of 350 students.
§ Breakdown in number of current students – Mr. Vautrinot stated that there are 41 toddlers, 105 preschoolers, and 95-100 elementary students.
§ Will students use the proposed activity center and soccer field during the school day? Mr. Hoffman said they would.
§ How will students get from school to activity center? Mr. Vautrinot stated that a gravel pathway is proposed.
§ Stormwater runoff except from Bay Road – Mr. Amory stated that all stormwater runoff except from Bay Road would go into an underground infiltration system.
§ On-street parking – Mr. Hoffman stated that currently at less than ten events per year, overflow parking occurs along Loring Street, with up to twenty cars. Mr. Vautrinot assured the Planning Board that 150 total parking spaces would be adequate for future use and would eliminate on-street parking. Mr. Moody noted that five or six cars were parked along the street today, and Mr. Vautrinot replied that this is due to old habits rather than lack of parking space.
§ Adequacy of tree screening – Mr. Vautrinot stated that although the Eastern cedar trees proposed to be planted are ten feet tall, they will grow up to 75 feet.
§ Materials to be used on proposed activity center – Mr. Hoffman described a rigid frame with fabric skin. The building would have square sides that come up at an angle to form a dome that would reach up to 30 or 35 feet at its peak.
§ Visibility of the activity center from the bay – Mr. Hoffman stated that from Bay Road the activity center would not be visible.
Ms. MacNab summarized that the Planning Board comments consistently highlighted a lack of information, and advised the applicants that there may be additional information required as more feedback comes from various Town departments.
Ms. MacNab then invited comments from Atty. Brian Cook, who stated that he was present to represent 240 neighborhood residents who oppose the proposed project. Atty. Cook asked audience members to stand if they oppose the Bay Farm Montessori Academy project, and a majority of the audience stood.
Atty. Cook stated that residents have a number of concerns with the proposed activity center, including its size, the location, grading, use and parking. He stated that the largest building in Duxbury outside of the school system is the Senior Center, which is half the size of the proposed activity center.
Other issues outlined by Atty. Cook regarding the proposed activity center:
§ Building material – Atty. Cook stated that tent fabric would not muffle noise effectively, and suggested a noise study.
§ Building size – Atty. Cook suggested that the proposed size is inappropriate for the neighborhood, and that a single gymnasium might be more appropriate for the 95 elementary-age students who might be using it.
§ Height – He stated that, at a height of 30 feet, the dome is comparable to a three-story building, and would rise 14 feet above a two-story roofline.
§ Location – Neighbors would like to know the exact proposed location of the activity center.
§ Drainage Flow – Neighbors are concerned about runoff.
§ Conflict with Town boards’ mission – He stated that the proposal is out of character with the Town’s mission.
§ Belmont and Dover case law relative to local control and exempt uses – He stated that he hopes these issues can be resolved.
Requests from Atty. Cook for the Academy’s consideration regarding the proposed activity center:
§ Prohibit commercial use in a covenant.
§ Abandon construction of roadway off of Bay Road.
§ Perform a traffic study of the six entrances and exit points.
§ Locate the activity center as close to the center of the property as possible.
Ms. MacNab then opened the floor to public comments:
§ Mr. David Tearse, 704 Bay Road – Stated that he supports the proposed new school house and parking improvements, but objects to the proposed activity center, noting that it is in the backyard of several neighbors and he feels it is beyond the size and scope of the school and the Town. Mr. Tearse stated that he also opposes the proposed tree cutting, grading and new roadway, and the additional parking spaces on the hill.
§ Ms. Jeanne Clark of 88 Surplus Street – Stated that this is a Town-wide issue because this is where Duxbury’s origins are located. She recounted history of the area to 1640, when Stephen Tracy was granted 60 acres of land that included part of what is now Bay Farm Montessori Academy. She stated that the topography of the land has remained pristine. She objects to trees being taken down and called the plans for a sports dome “outlandish.”
Ms. Clark stated that it may pose a legal issue to remove the bounds of the acquisition of land. She said that in 2001 there was a purchase of 2.5 to 3 acres of land from a real estate trust, and that at the time that land was zoned Residential Compatibility. She questioned why the land is now part of an administrative site plan review, and recommended that the Board consider putting into place a procedure to change zoning when land is purchased and zoning is changed.
Other concerns expressed by Ms. Clark included potential rental of the activity center and its effect on traffic and noise, potential reduction in abutters’ property values, the scale of the proposed dome, economic feasibility, and potential commercialization by a non-profit organization.
§ Ms. Jane Hale of 81 Elm Hill Lane – As an “abutter to an abutter” she complained that she had not been notified about this public meeting. Her daughter had attended the Academy and Ms. Hale had positive statements regarding the academics. She stated that, with one classroom empty and up to one-third of the students leaving, she believes that the Academy would have to look to commercial use to support the school.
§ Ms. Janice Murphy-Linehan of 50 Stoney Brook Circle – Commented that she had not been notified about this public meeting, and also was not notified when trees were cut down in prior years for what is currently a sports field. She objected to the proximity of the proposed new parking lot to abutting neighbors, and also expressed concern about hours of operation, and increase of mosquitoes from the proposed retention pond. She questioned why there were no architectural plans for proposed renovations to an existing building, and observed that the Academy’s property at 163 Loring Street is currently used only as a parking lot. She stated that,
although her child had received a wonderful education there, with the proposed expansion she is concerned about traffic volume and speed in the area.
§ Mr. Mark Dunn of 187 Parks Street – Noted that he abuts the proposed activity center, which was once inhabited by Native American Indians and currently remains a pristine, wooded area that is home to deer, turkeys, owls and other wildlife. He expressed that the proposed activity center would be an embarrassment to the Town of Duxbury no matter where it was located. He stated that there are approximately 15 square feet per student in the Duxbury Public School system, and there would be 100-200 square feet per student at the Bay Farm Montessori Academy. He noted that Duxbury High School has two access roads, not six as the Academy is proposing. He
expressed concern for potential commercial use of the proposed activity center, and also for potential light pollution.
§ Mr. Brian Linehan of 50 Stoney Brook Circle – Asked Mr. Dunn, who is a public high school teacher and sports coach, if he had ever seen a sports dome similar to the proposed activity center at any other public school, and Mr. Dunn replied that the closest one he is aware of is located in Minnesota.
§ Mr. Scott Hartz of 703 Bay Road – Stated that he would have liked to have been notified about the public meeting. He objected to the size of the activity center in proportion to the needs of the school size. He also expressed concern regarding drainage, potential parking on Bay Road, and the potential for improved access for teenage drinkers who currently use the hill as a party area.
§ Mr. Jack Knight of 71 Tussock Brook Road – Noted that he is a trustee at Bay Farm condominiums, and stated that the Board should keep in mind that a 42-unit development project has been approved near Bay Farm Montessori.
§ Mr. James Cook of 700 Bay Road – Objected to the potential view of a “three-story quanset hut,” and expressed concern that if the business is losing students, they may need to expand commercially to recover revenue. He objected to potential rental outside of school hours, and also objected to the sound impact of the cloth dome and light pollution from the dome and parking lot.
§ Mr. Bill Boyd of 42 Elm Hill Lane – Objected to the size of the proposed activity center, stating that it is the same footprint as the Kingsbury Club tennis courts in Kingston. He also objected to the location of such a large building in a residential area, and stated that the applicants were not sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood.
§ Mr. Gordon Hayes of Washington Street – Stated that he has three children attending the Academy. He is a proponent of the project, stating that, with half of the Academy’s students from Duxbury, it eases the residents’ tax burden. He stated that the impetus for the project is not commercial gain, but to build a gymnasium. He added that the proposed plans for improved traffic flow would enhance children’s safety.
§ Ms. Marcia Gardere of 145 Loring Street – Introduced herself as the head of the school, and stated that the primary purpose of the proposed plan is to provide for the current and potential education of children, with no inflammatory intentions. She stated that there is no plan to take down every tree, and that the Academy wants to be a good neighbor and wants to listen to people’s concerns.
§ Mr. Joe McGrath of 107 Loring Street – Objected to the project, stating that the applicants have not clarified their intentions. (Ms. MacNab responded that the application is in a preliminary stage, and assured Mr. McGrath that all required information will be provided eventually.) He noted that it is a one-fifth of a mile walk for students going from the classroom to the activity center. He objected to the scenic views that would be disrupted. He also objected to potential light pollution, stating that it would be similar to the mall in Kingston. He expressed concern that the applicants are spending on new renovations when the current facility is
in need of repair. He also expressed concern over potential drainage issues with the increase in impervious coverage, and also the success rate of transplanting Eastern red cedars, the screening material introduced by the applicants. He stated that preliminary materials from the Academy made it clear that they intend to rent out the athletic facilities.
§ Ms. Joyce Maclellan of 721 Bay Road – Objected to the project, expressing concern over potential increase in traffic, and also the potential traffic danger of turning left from Bay Road into the new entrance of the proposed activity center. She stated the increased activity may trigger a need for a traffic light at the corner.
§ Ms. Theresa Courtiss of 111 Loring Street – Objected to the proposed renovations, taking issue with Ms. Gardere’s statement that the Academy is a good neighbor. She complained about lack of property maintenance, litter and disrepair of a barn on the property, and expressed concern over maintenance control. She stated that she is selling her home because of its proximity to the Academy.
§ Mr. Art Keefe of 3 Bay Farm Road – Objected to the proposed renovations, and also took issue with the characterization of the Academy as a good neighbor, complaining about parking along Parks Street. He suggested that the current plans need to show elevations, contours, and existing conditions for parking. Ms. MacNab advised Mr. Keefe that detailed plans are available at the Planning Office.
§ Mr. Joe Maher of 61 Bayridge Lane – Suggested that the parties come together to negotiate the needs of the school versus the needs of Town residents. He also expressed concern with the break in vegetation that would be apparent in viewing the site from the bay.
§ Ms. Lorrie Hall of 175 Abrams Hill Road – Stated that while the Academy fits with the Town’s character, the proposed activity center is an aberration and urbanizes the Town. She recommended that the project be downsized. She also suggested that there should be a 50 to 75 foot buffer around the property line, and that a thicket of trees should remain so that neighbors won’t see the dome. She suggested that fuller trees should be planted instead of the proposed cedars. She questioned if the Academy would lose its tax exempt status if it rented use of the buildings. She asked where the septic plan was.
Public comments concluded at approximately 10:30 PM. Ms. Scieszka summarized outstanding issues from the public discussion:
§ Traffic study may need to be performed
§ Site line and visibility issues need to be addressed
§ Misinformation due to lack of information and communication with abutters
§ Tax exempt status related to rental of buildings.
Mr. Wadsworth advised the public that the Zoning Bylaws pertaining to Administrative Site Plan Review are available on-line at the Town website. Ms. Holly Morris of 145 Abrams Hill Road invited the Board to attend a public site walk at the Academy on Saturday, May 6, 2006.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to continue the Administrative Site Plan public meeting regarding Bay Farm Montessori Academy until Monday, June 19, 2006 at 8:00 PM, with plans to be submitted to the Planning Office by Monday, June 5, 2006, and to extend the decision date to Monday, July 10, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
A mutual extension form was signed by Ms. Zimmer and the Board. The public meeting closed at 10:40 PM.
ZBA SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: 27 BEECHWOOD LANE / GLEASON
Mr. Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering was present to represent this Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) application to construct an 84-foot pier including a walkway, platform, gangway and float. Mr. Halligan noted that in reviewing the Conservation Commission orders of condition regarding this project, there were no major issues. Mr. Bear asked the distance to the next pier to the west of the proposed pier, and Mr. Brogna stated that it was 500 to 600 feet away.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, that because the Planning Board sees no planning issues, judgment is deferred to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a special permit for 27 Beechwood Lane. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
ZBA SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: 27 ELDERBERRY LANE / DYROFF
Mr. Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering represented this Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) application to renovate an existing pier, including replacement of the platform, decking and rails, as well as a new gangway and float. Mr. Brogna introduced the project, stating that the applicant purchased the property two years ago, and the existing pier was 25 to 30 years old and had not been maintained. He stated that the proposed alterations were an improvement of the pier with minimal impact on the wetlands. The applicant proposes to rotate the gangway and relocate the float further away from the property line. Ten to thirty feet of the walkway would be completely replaced.
Ms. Scieszka noted the current bylaw that mandates a minimum of fifty feet between piers, and asked for more information about the current condition of the pier. Mr. Brogna stated that the pier would need to be raised because there are currently no stringers underneath for support. Ms. Scieszka asked if the applicant could share a float with a neighbor, and Mr. Brogna stated that the Town approved the pier ten years ago and the existing float is in tact enough to justify renovations.
MOTION: Ms. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, that because the Planning Board sees no planning issues, judgment is deferred to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a special permit for 27 Beechwood Lane. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Rob Wilson Relocation: Ms. MacNab noted a letter had been sent to the Board from former Board member Mr. Rob Wilson, who announced that he was moving to Santa Fe, New Mexico. Ms. Scieszka asked if a farewell celebration should include both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Aboud Al-Zaim, whose term on the Board had expired in March. It was agreed that Board members would consider proposed dates for a farewell celebration.
Economic Advisory Committee (EAC): Mr. Bear noted that the EAC has proposed that applicants for upcoming larger projects plan their initial meeting with more than one land-use board. He provided proposed Railroad Avenue project as an example, and said that the EAC suggested that the Zoning Board, Planning Board and Conservation Commission could be invited to attend an initial presentation if the project goes forward. Ms. MacNab stated that applicants are currently encouraged to meet with staff from those departments, and Mr. Bear pointed out that the applicant would still need to educate all boards. Ms. MacNab expressed that the current system works fine, and Mr. Bear agreed that it does for smaller ones, but questioned if the process could be streamlined for larger projects. Ms. MacNab stated that the public
deserves a time set aside to listen to presentations to each board and determine issues that are unique to each board.
Duxbury Rural and Historical Society ANR: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the applicant withdrew its ANR application today without prejudice. She stated that the Society’s Executive Director, Mr. Patrick Browne, has asked her to pass along his thanks for the Board’s guidance throughout the process. Ms. MacNab advised the Board that after last week’s Board meeting, Ms. Stickney had conferred with Town Counsel, Atty. Robert Troy, and had offered Mr. Browne an opportunity to reconsider ANR withdrawal based on information from Atty. Troy. Ms. Stickney stated that Atty. Troy felt that the second lot was not buildable and that it should be considered for a Conservation Restriction.
Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approved Board meeting minutes of March 27, 2006 as amended. There was no further discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approved Board meeting minutes of April 3, 2006 as amended. There was no further discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 11:22 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 7:30 PM at the Duxbury Senior Center, Ellison Room.
| 
