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 08/07/06
Approved 10/16/06
The Planning Board met in the Ellison Room of the Duxbury Senior Center on Monday, August 7, 2006.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; John Bear, Brendan Halligan, Jim Kimball, Harold Moody.
Absent: Angela Scieszka, Clerk; and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Warrant Articles for 2007 Annual Town Meeting (ATM): Ms. Stickney noted that it is time to consider which warrant articles the Board would like to see included for ATM. The Board agreed with her suggestion to set aside time at future Board meetings in September and October for work sessions to discuss possible warrant items.
ANR PLAN OF LAND, 495 KEENE STREET AND 723 UNION STREET (AKINS, FORLIZZI)
Ms. Stickney explained that this ANR represented a simple lot line change, with Mr. Dennis Akins (495 Keene Street) proposing to purchase approximately 7,840 square feet of Mr. Forlizzi’s lot (723 Union Street). Both lots are located on accepted ways in a Residential Compatibility zone. She noted that the ANR approval would provide 213 linear feet of frontage for 495 Keene Street, which previously did not have the required 200 feet of frontage. Mr. Wadsworth asked if minor corrections staff had requested had been made, and Ms. Stickney replied that they had.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to endorse the plan entitled, “Plan of Land at 495 Keene Street and 723 Union Street, Duxbury, MA” dated 07/27/06, Revision 1, stamped by William Sylvia (RPLS) – 1 sheet, as not requiring approval under subdivision control laws. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
The Board signed the ANR plan.
OTHER BUSINESS
Duxbury Yacht Club: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the Yacht Club intends to submit an administrative site plan review application for a storage building to be constructed on the Club’s golf course. She stated that the applicant had requested that, due to the small scale of the project, the use of a consulting engineer be waived. The Board’s consensus was that a consulting engineer should be used for any administrative site plan review, regardless of any unique considerations.
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve Horsley Witten Group invoice #22993 dated July 31, 2006 in the amount of $3,156.00 for services related to the Duxbury Estates Planned Development.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Wadsworth suggested that a detailed description of work performed should be included with invoices. Ms. Stickney stated that she could provide Horsley Witten’s review letter describing the work.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
40B Wildlife and Wetlands Preservation: Ms. MacNab referenced a Boston Globe article dated July 16, 2006 submitted to the Planning office by Marguerite Davis of P.O. Box 302, and stated that some of the techniques and practices described in the article could be adopted by Town boards. She expressed appreciation for public input.
Streamlined Permitting Process Approved by State Legislature: Ms. Stickney referenced a Boston Globe article dated July 29, 2006 and stated that recent legislature would affect the special permitting process. She stated that new provisions would simplify the permitting process by shortening the act-on date and legal appeals processes. It would also create a new division of Land Court to focus only on land use and environmental disputes. Ms. Stickney noted that the legislation was enacted on August 2, 2006.
Commonwealth Capital Application: Ms. Stickney noted that the Town’s score had gone down from 71 last year to 61 this year. She stated that changes to the application process that focused more on housing and the lack of long range planning on water issues contributed to the lower score. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Town has a water conservation plan, but Ms. Stickney said that it does not meet state standards. She did note that the Town of Duxbury’s score was similar to other comparable towns. Ms. MacNab suggested that the Town’s comprehensive plan needs to be reviewed.
WORK SESSION
Housing Consultant Selection: Ms. Stickney noted that only one applicant had submitted a proposal to date, although 28 RFP requests had been distributed. She stated that Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, would make the final hiring decision with input from a sub-committee’s recommendation. Mr. Kimball agreed to serve as Board representative to the selection sub-committee. Mr. Bear and Mr. Wadsworth offered to serve as back-ups.
Consulting Engineer RFQ: Ms. Stickney noted that to date 35 firms had requested copies of this RFQ, and asked the Board how they wished to carry out the selection process. After some discussion on whether current Town consulting engineers should be required to submit a proposal, it was agreed that they should. Mr. Kimball noted that it would put all proposals on a level playing field, and would provide the Board with more information on the extent of the current engineers’ capabilities.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW / BAY FARM MONTESSORI ACADEMY, 145 LORING STREET
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 8:02 PM. Present for the discussion were
§ Atty. Robert Marzelli, representing the applicant
§ 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
§ Mr. Al Vautrinot, the applicants’ surveyor
§ Ms. Marcia Gardere, Head of School
§ Mr. Walter Amory, Town consulting engineer
§ Atty. Brian Cook, representing abutting neighbors who oppose the proposed project.
Approximately 80 members of the public were present for the discussion as well.
Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Wadsworth to read the correspondence list into the public record:
§ Planning Board meeting minutes dated 05/01/06
§ Planning Board meeting minutes dated 05/08/06
§ Planning Board meeting minutes dated 05/22/06
§ Development Review Team dated 06/16/06
§ Planning Board meeting minutes dated 06/19/06
§ Mutual extension form dated 06/19/06
§ Continued public meeting notice due to change of meeting date
§ Architectural drawings and floor plans of proposed activity building, along with supporting documentation, submitted by BFMA architect at 06/19/06 Planning Board meeting
§ Letter from Atty. Brian Cook, representing 400 abutters and other residents, submitted at the 06/19/06 Planning Board meeting re: concerns with proposed plans
Letter from W. & M. MacQuarrie submitted after 06/19/06 Planning Board public meeting re: concerns with proposed plans
§ Petition submitted 06/20/06 by Bay Farm area residents re: concerns and objections to proposed plans
§ Letter from M. & E. Heap (7 Seabury Point Road) dated 06/22/06 re: concerns with proposed plans
§ Letter from C. Loring (100 Parks Street) dated 06/26/06 re: concerns with proposed plans
§ Undated letter from H. Kite-Powell/Bay Farm Montessori Academy to Bay Farm Association Trust submitted 06/30/06
§ Letter from B. & J. Linehan (50 Stoney Brook Circle) dated 07/07/06 re: concerns with proposed plans
§ Letter from Bay Farm Association Trust to H. Kite-Powell/BFMA dated 07/11/06 re: response to Mr. Kite-Powell’s 06/30/06 letter
§ Letter from T. Dobyns (200 Crescent Street) dated 07/21/06 re: Planning Board criteria clarification
§ Revised plans and materials submitted on 07/24/06
§ Undated letter from H. Kite-Powell/BFMA to Bay Farm Association submitted 07/27/06
§ Letter from M. MacQuarrie (214 Parks Street) dated 08/02/06 re: concerns with proposed plans
§ Letter from L. Leclerc (50 South River Lane West) dated 08/02/06 re: copies of letters to Duxbury Clipper, H. Kite-Powell stating concerns with proposed plans
§ Letter from S. & D. Tearse (704 Bay Road) dated 08/02/06 re: concerns with proposed plans
§ Email from Atty. Brian Cook to C. Stickney with attachment draft letter to S. Liambase dated 08/05/06 re: Dover protection and project review
Ms. MacNab advised the public that the Planning Board’s role on administrative site plan review is outlined in Section 615 of the Town’s Zoning Bylaws. She added that the application comes before Chapter 40A, Section 3 of Massachusetts General Laws, which carries certain exemptions. She said that in the Town of Duxbury, the administrative site plan process is fairly new, voted in at Annual Town Meeting 2003. She continued that although some correspondence received in the Planning office was not relevant to the Board’s review, this is the forum for the public to express their opinions. She noted the order of presentations for tonight’s discussion:
§ The applicant, focusing on changes to the plan
§ Atty. Cook, representing the abutters who oppose the plan
§ Consulting engineer to review revised plans
§ Questions by Board members were encouraged at any time
§ Members of the public with new areas of concern .
Ms. MacNab asked who would speak on behalf of the applicant, and Mr. Kite-Powell said that he would. He outlined his presentation as follows:
1. How Bay Farm Montessori Academy (the Academy) has met the requirements of Section 615 of the Zoning Bylaws. He stated that the Academy has worked with the Town Fire and Water Departments and made revisions to their plans accordingly, especially regarding parking and lighting. He added that the Academy has provided a written supplement that describes why revisions were made.
2. How the Academy has addressed concerns beyond the requirements of Section 615. Mr. Kite-Powell stated that the Board had asked the Academy to address its long-term plans, and noted that the supplemental material addresses this request.
He stated that there are currently two phases of the Academy’s long term strategic plans: Phase I is reflected in the current proposal to add a new academic building and field house; Phase II represents future plans, including physical removal of the current administrative building to be replaced by an arts center.
Mr. Kite-Powell said that the intended uses of Phase I include a new academic building to move classes currently taking place in an older building, and also a field house for student performances, all-school events and physical education. He stated that an outdoor field is proposed as part of Phase I to provide space for outdoor physical education. He said that all of the proposed plans are led by the Academy’s mission statement.
Other areas that Mr. Kite-Powell stated the Board had requested the Academy to address include:
§ Parking – The current plan includes 130 dedicated spaces to provide ample parking for all school events. He said that parking plans had been scaled back in order to increase the buffer around the lots.
§ Curb Cuts – He stated that curb cuts had been moved and they had also moved the driveway away from an abutter’s property, restricted by the Fire Department not allowing the Academy to move the driveway to the center of the property.
§ Landscaping buffers and fences
§ Drainage – The current plan reflects a combination of open surface retention basins and underground systems.
§ Field House relocation.
3. How the Academy has addressed issues raised by the public.
§ Field House - The size of the proposed field house relative to other comparable facilities is described in the supplemental material. He stated that the currently proposed size is on the small end of the range for comparable facilities such as Alden School’s gymnasium. The proposed sound insulation qualities are similar to a residential building. The use of facilities by other groups has been addressed, in that the applicants are non-profit and do not intend any commercial use.
§ Lighting – He stated that detailed lighting plans are included, and that parking lot lighting has been indicated on plans. He said that the parking lot lights outside the field house would be controlled by a switch, and the other parking lot lights would be on a timer.
§ Preserving existing oak tree.
Mr. Kite-Powell concluded his presentation by thanking the Board and neighbors for raising legitimate concerns, and requested the Board to take under advisement the information submitted.
Ms. MacNab asked if the Board had any questions for the applicant. Mr. Bear questioned if the Academy’s present enrollment age was comparable to the other facilities referenced in its supplemental materials. Ms. MacNab asked if the numbers presented in the supplemental materials represent current or projected enrollment, and Ms. Gardere responded that the figures reflect current enrollment, although the Academy anticipates growing elementary enrollment.
Mr. Moody asked if the Academy’s sports teams would play at the field house against teams from other schools, and Mr. Kite-Powell responded they would not because the size of the field house does not allow for full-sized basketball games. Mr. Moody suggested the applicants consider that the buffer area in the field house may not be needed since there would not be large crowds attending games, and Mr. Kite-Powell responded that the buffer area would be for other activities as well, such as gymnastics and rock wall climbing.
Mr. Moody asked how the applicants came up with the figure of 8 square feet per person at theater events at the field house, noting that even the supplemental materials described it as “generous.” Mr. Kite-Powell replied that although it was noted that there was ample space for theater seating or sit-down dinners, those types of events did not drive the size requirements. He confirmed that the athletics and stage work drove the size of the field house.
Mr. Moody stated that he is concerned with the height of the field house, and requested engineering documentation to support the statement that visual tests show that the field house would not be visible from Kingston Bay or Standish Shore. Mr. Hoffman stated that their surveying engineer had placed four poles with cloth markers at the corners of the site of the proposed field house, and stated that the markers are still there for anyone to view.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if the applicants have a landscape plan for the open space near the proposed field house, and also for the proposed driveway leading up to the field house. Mr. Kite-Powell replied that a stockade fence is proposed for the northeastern side of the field house, and noted that a vegetated buffer already exists. He said that a landscape plan could be provided if the Board wished.
Ms. MacNab invited Atty. Cook to speak on behalf of abutters who opposed the proposed plan. Atty. Cook stated that he had hoped that the neighbors and the Academy would have worked out a mutual agreement by now, but felt that the Academy was no longer responding to public concerns. He referenced his memo to the Planning Board and other Town departments dated August 1, 2006, stating that a “Good Neighbor Association” had been formed by approximately 200 concerned individuals in response to the Academy’s statements that they wanted to be good neighbors. He read from his memo about concerns the neighbors continue to have regarding the proposed project:
§ Size and scale of project in a residential neighborhood, especially considering the current graduation rate of six students last year
§ Determination of Dover Amendment applicability to this project
§ Incomplete nature of proposal that seems to be constantly evolving
§ Potential commercial use of the proposed field house.
Atty. Cook stated that his August 1, 2006 memo had also been delivered to Building Inspector, Mr. Scott Lambiase, requesting his opinion as to whether the Academy, which started as a day care, is applicable for zoning relief under the Dover Amendment. He said that the Good Neighbor Association has four questions (also part of his memo) for which they would like a response from the Academy:
1. Would the Academy consider a smaller building if the neighbors supported the project?
2. Would the Academy accept language in the decision that would prohibit it from renting or donating the field house to any outside group?
3. Would the Academy accept language in the decision that would require a 50-foot buffer?
4. Would the Academy agree to language restricting its use of Nathan Drive?
Atty. Cook concluded that although the neighbors are satisfied with proposed plans for the academic buildings, concerns remain especially regarding the proposed field house.
Ms. MacNab noted that potential use of the field house remains an issue for abutters, and asked the applicants if they would consider restricting its use from outside entities. Mr. Kite-Powell responded, “No.” Ms. MacNab noted that she is still concerned about the size of the proposed field house that does not appear consistent with the size of the school and the number of students anticipated, and she asked if the applicants would consider reducing the size of the field house. Mr. Kite-Powell responded that they had already reduced its size.
Mr. Kimball questioned the Academy’s strategic plan, specifically if the Academy was showing enough classrooms to house 150 additional students beyond its current enrollment. Mr. Kite-Powell replied that the classrooms were sufficient for projected growth. Mr. Kimball responded that the Board would like to see the number of classrooms proposed in Buildings A and B. He also noted that Building C is a former residence and requested information on its proposed use.
Mr. Kimball stated that major issues remain with him regarding access to the field house and how the field house would be used. Specifically, he questioned how hundreds of people attending a commencement would access the field house on the upper campus when they would need to park throughout the campus. He expressed a potential safety issue for people having to walk across the campus and up the hill to access the field house, and commented that the buildings and parking appear to have been sited at random.
Mr. Kimball requested plans with dimensions and scale of proposed buildings. He noted that, for example, a 500 square-foot rest room was described in the supplemental material narrative, while drawings show what would be a 1,500 square-foot rest room. He noted that engineering drawings reflect a 66 foot grade at the parking lot and a 70 foot grade at the building, stating that if this were the case a handicap ramp would be required.
Mr. Kimball continued that the proposed classrooms appear to be large, and that seven classrooms were shown although only five were described in the supplemental material. He stated that he would like to see architectural drawings of the proposed Rec Room, noting that it is almost 3,000 square feet in size. He also requested information on proposed materials to be used in the classroom buildings. He commented that overall, the layout plans would require cuts and noted that retaining walls may be required.
Mr. Kimball asked the applicants if they had considered another, more central location for the proposed field house. Mr. Kite-Powell responded that the applicants had considered alternate locations for the field house, and that the currently proposed location was selected based on an extensive planning process for logistic and aesthetic reasons. He added that if the field house were located on the lower campus, it would be more visible to surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if the applicants were anticipating installing lights along the gravel pathway that would lead from the lower campus to the upper campus. Mr. Kite-Powell responded that although they are not currently showing lights along the path, they may add low-level lighting along the path in the future. He added that the path would be used mostly during the daytime.
Mr. Wadsworth questioned the proposed demolition of a building that includes a great room, and Mr. Kite-Powell stated that a detailed plan was not yet available. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the applicants would be submitting a drainage plan for a currently existing gravel parking lot, and Mr. Kite-Powell replied that they did not plan to add drainage to that lot.
Mr. Halligan stated that his concerns are similar to those of Mr. Kimball, and that he was mystified by the location of the field house, noting that it would require a long hike for young students to access it from the classroom buildings. He added that he would like to see more landscape plans regarding the buffer.
Mr. Halligan questioned the applicants’ true intention for the field house in the future. Ms. MacNab noted that if the applicants rented out the field house in the future it would be a zoning violation. Atty. Marzelli referred to the Academy’s corporate charter, which he distributed to the Board, stating that it would not be operated for profit, and that it could not have any use outside of education. Ms. MacNab noted concerns that the Academy could get around this by claiming that outside use would not be for profit but instead collected to cover operating expenses and costs.
Ms. MacNab invited Mr. Al Vautrinot to address the revised plans. He stated that for open retention ponds, two areas would provide drainage under the parking lot on the upper campus, and would be maintained by an outside firm. He stated that the applicants propose a catch basin on the lower campus. He added that the only revisions to the site plans during the past two weeks were regarding drainage and were in response to comments from Town consulting engineer, Mr. Walter Amory. Mr. Vautrinot stated that the plans now conform to Mr. Amory’s comments and suggestions.
Mr. Amory commented that there had been substantial changes to the drainage plans, and emphasized that the drainage systems need to be properly maintained to avoid drainage issues with abutting properties. Mr. Wadsworth requested further definition of areas that would be fed into swales and where those swales would be located. He asked if there were any possibility of including more swales, because they effectively catch pollutants from infiltrating the groundwater. Mr. Vautrinot stated that the upper campus is the only area that does not have swales, and has two catch basins and leaching areas instead. He described where other proposed swales were located on the lower campus, and concluded that the current drainage plan meets stormwater regulations.
Ms. MacNab opened the floor to public comment at approximately 9:35 PM:
Ms. Janice M. Linehan of 50 Stoney Brook Circle – Stated that her house abuts a parking lot belonging to the Academy, and noted that her property had sustained $17,000 in damage due to drainage problems off of Parks Street. She was concerned that the swales that the Board was recommending might interfere with any landscape screening. She would like to ensure that ample screening is shown on the site plan. She also expressed concern with the retention ponds and possible standing water that might cause an issue with mosquitoes. She objected to the amount of lighting shown on the current plans and also to the statement that they would be put on timers, stating that this would disrupt neighbors. She requested information on the applicants’ plans for 63 Parks Street. She concluded with the statement that
with this proposed project, her neighborhood would be losing open space and gaining traffic congestion. Ms. MacNab advised Ms. Linehan that staff could provide her with more information on the proposed drainage system.
Mr. Jack Knight of 71 Tussock Brook Road – Commented that it appeared that the project was moving ahead without much planning.
Mr. Bob Kavanaugh of 90 Humprhey’s Lane – Said that he was speaking as a trustee of the Bay Farm neighborhood of 165 residential units, abutters to the proposed project. He expressed two major issues: 1) the project is too large for the lot size and location, and 2) potential use may lead to issues with traffic, noise, lighting and safety. He also expressed concern that the cost of operating the field house may create a need to rent it to control costs.
Mr. Mark Dunn of 187 Parks Street – Stated that the Board had been generous in allowing the applicants three chances to revise their proposed plans to meet zoning requirements, and expressed disappointment that the field house would not be further reduced in size. He cited Section 615 of the Zoning Bylaws and noted that its purpose is to protect the Town and neighborhoods. He objected to the size and scope of the project, based on current and projected enrollment.
Mr. Gordon Hayes of 535 Washington Street – Introduced himself as the father of three Academy students. He expressed support for the proposed project, stating that the applicants have listened and responded to neighbors concerns by reducing the size of the field house significantly and by eliminating Nathan Drive as an access road. He stated that most schools are in a neighborhood setting, and that the proposed field house is not visible at its current location and is best sited there. He expressed opposition to restricting the use of the field house, stating that although the Academy will keep to its mission, its needs may change over time. He added that no other schools that he is aware of have taken on similar restrictions.
Mr. Joe McGrath of 107 Loring Street – Expressed concern that the Academy’s neighbors are losing potential real estate value with the current proposal, and urged the Board to consider including a restriction on commercial use of the property.
Mr. Scott Hartz of 703 Bay Road – Stated that although the project appears to be moving in the right direction, he continues to be concerned about the distance of the field house to the lower campus, questioning its potential use.
Ms. Selden Tearse of 704 Bay Road – Objected to the small markers used for the sight line test, suggesting that helium balloons or spreading a tarp similar in size and height would be a better test tool.
Ms. Kimberly Cook of 700 Bay Road – Stated that trust is a major issue, referencing a flier distributed by the Academy that stated that a detailed policy on use was expected by June 2006, and she has seen no evidence that the policy was ever published.
Ms. MacNab said that she hoped the applicants would agree to continue the public meeting. Atty. Marzelli stated that the applicants would like the Board to close the public meeting and make a decision. Ms. MacNab noted that the decision deadline was August 31, 2006, and commented that the Board needs time to digest all the information from tonight’s meeting, including verbal comments and materials submitted. Mr. Wadsworth stated that if the public meeting closed tonight, the landscape plan he had requested would not be part of the public record. He stated that the Board needs to see what the buffer would look like, and also needs to see the plan for pathway lighting.
Mr. Kimball objected that the applicant wants to close the public meeting without addressing issues the Board has expressed at tonight’s meeting. Atty. Marzelli asked for direction on the level of detail required in the landscaping plan, and objected to coming to another meeting to discuss plants. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board is looking for compliance with Section 615 of the Zoning Bylaws, and stated that another meeting would allow an opportunity to address issues beyond the landscaping and buffers.
Atty. Marzelli asked what the larger concerns were, and Ms. MacNab stated that there were concerns over the size of the building compared to the size of the school, and also stated that she has serious concerns regarding potential use of the field house. She added that Mr. Kimball has been looking for architectural plans. Mr. Moody noted that height issues remain, and that a report should be submitted addressing that issue.
Mr. Kite-Powell stated that the applicants would agree to continue the public meeting in order to provide a landscaping plan. Mr. Bear stated that a larger issue remains over the scale of the proposed field house and its potential use, noting that it is a large building for 40 students.
Atty. Cook requested the Board to close the public meeting and vote to deny the application because it is incomplete. He asked if an incomplete application is the same as a denial, and Ms. Stickney responded that if the application were deemed incomplete and denied, the applicant could still apply for a building permit. She said that if the Building Inspector’s decision is to deny based on a lack of an approved site plan, an appeal would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Ms. Stickney also suggested there could be an appeal made under Section 17 of Chapter 40A.
Atty. Marzelli suggested that it is futile to continue the public meeting because no one has suggested what would be a reasonable size for the proposed field house. Ms. MacNab suggested continuing the public meeting to August 28, in order to allow more time for Board review. Atty. Marzelli asked if discussion could be limited to the landscaping plan, and Ms. MacNab responded that there was no reason to limit the discussion.
Ms. Jeanne Clark of 88 Surplus Street asked if any of the Academy’s fund raising monies had been allocated to the proposed field house, and Mr. Kite-Powell replied that he could not speak to that issue. Atty. Marzelli stated that this topic is not relative to tonight’s discussion. Atty. Cook noted that he would be submitting his own review of plans and materials for the Board’s review.
Ms. MacNab granted the applicants a short recess to discuss their response. A recess took place from 10:41 to 10:49. The meeting was called to order once again.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to continue the administrative site plan public meeting for Bay Farm Montessori Academy, Inc. to Monday, August 21, 2006 at 9:00 PM, with a decision deadline of August 31, 2006, with plans and materials to be submitted to the Planning office by Monday, August 14, 2006.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Tearse of 704 Bay Road asked if time would be allotted for the public to speak at the August 21, 2006 continued public meeting. Ms. MacNab noted that she anticipated that a decision would be made at that meeting, and encouraged public comments to be submitted beforehand for the Board’s consideration.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
A mutual extension form was signed by the applicant and the Board. The public meeting closed.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:55 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, August 14, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
