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 04/24/06
Approved 06/05/06
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building, Monday, April 24, 2006.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, Brendan Halligan, Jim Kimball, Harold Moody; and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Absent: No one was absent.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:36 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Railroad Avenue Proposed Business Development: Mr. Bear stated that he had heard about this proposed development on Railroad Avenue from St. George Street to Alden Street. Mr. Wadsworth noted that there may be water table issues with the property. Ms. Stickney stated that she has participated in preliminary meetings with the developers, and that nothing has been filed through Town Hall as of yet. She stated that Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, had suggested that the applicants meet first with the Economic Advisory Committee and Local Housing Partnership as “one-stop” land-use meetings for initial feedback before filing. Mr. Moody asked if this would be a “downtown cluster development,” and Ms. Stickney replied that Duxbury currently does not have this type of zoning, and added that no
Chapter 40B development of this land is under discussion. She said that the former owner, Mr. Ben Goodrich, had approached the developers, and that concept plans currently include two buildings for commercial on the first floors and residential on the second floors.
Swearing In: Mr. Moody noted that he had been sworn in as a newly elected Planning Board member by Town Clerk during the past week.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED (ANR) PLAN OF LAND / 685 WASHINGTON STREET
Present for the discussion were Mr. Patrick Browne, Executive Director of the Duxbury Rural and Historical Society, and Mr. James Hartford, who serves on the Society’s Board of Directors. Mr. Hartford stated that, after the April 10, 2006 preliminary discussion with the Planning Board, the Society’s Board had directed him to apply for the ANR. He said that the fundamental question is whether or not the remaining land, although non-conforming, is sufficiently within its chartered purpose to maintain stewardship. He stated that there is no question of non-conformity because there is very little upland on the property, but that the Society wishes to sell off enough land when they sell the Drew House located on the property to provide the new owner with some amount of land.
Ms. MacNab invited questions and comments from the Board. Mr. Bear asked Mr. Hartford if the Society had considered selling the parcel and setting the remaining parcel under a Conservation Restriction. Mr. Hartford responded that the Society has a number of parcels with unique characteristics.
Ms. MacNab noted her appreciation of the Society’s stewardship of properties throughout the Town of Duxbury. She added that usually ANRs are clear-cut “no brainers,” but this ANR application has one parcel that does not contain the required 200 feet of frontage. She said that Town Counsel, Atty. Robert Troy, has guided the Board on ANR issues in the past, and distributed a copy of a Land Court case regarding the Dingley Dell subdivision, and noted that in this case the lot did not have frontage. She suggested that this case warrants review by Atty. Troy to avoid potential “infectious invalidity” with two main issues:
§ Parcel lacking 200 feet of frontage
§ Creating a non-conformity.
Mr. Kimball recalled another application where a small lot remained, and Ms. MacNab responded that the application he referred to was a subdivision rather than an ANR. Ms. Stickney noted that at some point in time old lot lines had been removed to create one parcel of land, even though the prior lot lines were referenced in deeds.
Mr. Moody noted that each lot needs to have 200 feet of frontage, and Ms. Stickney noted that it was a parcel, not a lot, and there is a distinction between the two. The Board and the applicants agreed to continue the ANR discussion until next week in order to give staff time to consult with Town Counsel.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to continue the ANR discussion on a plan of land at 685 Washington Street until May 1, 2006. There was no discussion on the motion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
Ms. MacNab thanked the applicants, and Mr. Browne and Mr. Hartford departed the meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW / TOWN OF DUXBURY COUNCIL ON AGING, 10 MAYFLOWER STREET
Present for the discussion on proposed expansion of the Senior Center parking lot at 10 Mayflower Street were Ms. Joanne Moore, Director of the Council on Aging, and Mr. Tom Daley, DPW Director. Ms. Scieszka read the public meeting notice as well as the correspondence list:
§ Administrative Site Plan Review Application, plans and supporting documentation submitted on 04/05/06.
§ Cover memo from Council on Aging Director Joanne Moore re: application.
§ Assessors’ property card and map for 774 Tremont Street (Council on Aging).
§ Public Meeting notice advertised in the Duxbury Clipper 04/05/06 and 04/12/06. Also mailed to abutters on 04/05/06.
§ Memo from Planning Department dated 04/12/06 transmitting copies of plan to various departments, boards and commissions.
§ Memo from J. Dalrymple dated 04/13/06 re: BOH no comments.
Mr. Daley provided an overview of the project, stating that there are currently 53 spaces in the Senior Center Parking lot. The expansion would provide an additional lower tier of 44 parking spaces. He stated that the proposed parking lot meets all Duxbury zoning requirements. The parking lot has a gentle grade, and he proposes to add lighting and a wooden guardrail. He stated that all work would be in-house where possible, including drainage, gravel base, and berm installation, although the paving work would be contracted out. He explained that beyond the proposed parking lot expansion a knoll runs down to a kettle hole. He stated that wood chips from the transfer station would be used around the new parking lot, and the drainage would infiltrate into the ground through the kettle hole.
Ms. Moore stated that Senior Center activity saw a nine percent growth last year, from approximately 17,000 visitors to 19,600. She said that original plans called for 100 parking spaces at the Senior Center, but plans were downsized due to funding constraints. She noted that often seniors have to park on Mayflower Street, and she receives calls from residents who tell her that they did not attend an event because they could not find a place to park.
Mr. Halligan questioned concrete steps that were referenced in the plans. Mr. Daley said that there is a 20-foot drop in grade from the existing lot to the bottom of the kettle hole, and the steps are necessary in order to minimize fill requirements. The concrete steps would be located between the existing and proposed parking lots for easy access.
Ms. MacNab expressed concern with spilling pedestrian flow into parking spaces, stating that it may pose a safety issue. She asked if the path of the walkway would be marked with white lines, and Mr. Daley stated that it could be done. Mr. Wadsworth expressed similar concern with no sidewalks in the proposed parking lot, and also suggested that the applicant consider including additional handicap parking. Mr. Halligan suggested a ramp instead of a staircase, and Mr. Daley responded that eight handicap accessible parking spaces on the existing upper level would provide enough access so that a ramp would not be necessary.
Ms. Scieszka suggested that the separation area between the two lots could be utilized as a potential walkway, but Mr. Daley responded that the side slope would be too steep, and a wall would need to be built. Ms. Stickney noted that many of the spaces in the lower lot would remain in use during the day with staff parking, and that the proposal simply extends the current parking lot. Mr. Bear stated that most parking lots do not have walkways, but suggested that Mr. Daley at least look into adding white lines at the base of the steps to the lower parking area.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if any outside engineers would be consulted for this project. Ms. MacNab noted that since the lot in question is within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District, best practices need to be put into place. Mr. Daley responded that runoff would percolate through existing sand, and there is no wetland on the property. Mr. Wadsworth noted that percolation would be more effective if it went through an area of vegetation to catch pollutants before entering soils. Mr. Daley responded that nature may be best able to take care of the runoff, and noted that no existing vegetation would be disturbed with the proposed drainage plan. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board wants to ensure that all projects are treated the same, and that drainage calculations may be required, and Mr. Wadsworth concurred that they would prove
that there is no runoff within the small watershed that the property is located within.
Ms. Scieszka asked if an ANR application would be submitted to add a lot line to delineate the Senior Center property in order to calculate site coverage, and Ms. MacNab stated that it was agreed that an ANR would follow the Administrative Site Plan Review. Mr. Daley stated that if Town Manager Richard MacDonald requests an ANR, he would have no problem submitting it. Ms. Stickney stated that the issue is with the cost of fees to procure a surveyor for the large parcel which currently includes the Mayflower Cemetery. Ms. MacNab stated that Annual Town Meeting appropriated millions of dollars to build the facility and create the Senior Center lot, and that there should be funding to do that.
Mr. Kimball questioned why an ANR would be needed, and Ms. Stickney explained that currently the Senior Center is located on a large lot that includes the cemetery all the way to the First Parish Church on Tremont Street. Mr. Kimball asked if it was all Town-owned land, and Ms. MacNab stated that someone gave the Town the land for the cemetery. Ms. Scieszka stated that she would expect that an ANR should be submitted in order to delineate the Senior Center property line.
Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, joined the discussion briefly to confirm that in preliminary discussions an ANR was discussed as possibly following the ASPR. Mr. MacDonald asked how long an ANR would take, and Mr. Daley replied that it could take anywhere from a couple of weeks to a couple of months. Mr. MacDonald stated that it is a common practice to perform an ANR to delineate lot lines.
Ms. Scieszka expressed that the Board should have some sort of guidelines on soil evaluation and groundwater flow. Mr. Wadsworth added that there is some evidence of an area of elevated iron in that area, and Mr. Daley offered to follow up to confirm. Ms. Stickney asked if the Board would like a reviewing engineer, and Ms. MacNab stated that the Board wanted to find out if a reviewing engineer was necessary. Mr. MacDonald stated that he would not be asking Mr. Daley to do anything the Board did not want, and that he did not believe a reviewing engineer would be necessary in this case.
Mr. MacDonald stated that it may suffice to get a letter or stamp from a professional supporting Mr. Daley’s plans and calculations. Ms. MacNab thanked Mr. MacDonald for his advice, but stated that it may not be the Board’s final conclusion to follow it. Mr. Daley described his background and qualifications and stated that drainage is his area of expertise. Ms. MacNab assured Mr. Daley that the Board was not questioning his abilities. Mr. Halligan stated that he did not believe a consultant is needed, and that the only issue he sees is marking below the three steps in the proposed parking lot to direct pedestrian flow.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if Mr. Daley had considered adding a second exit onto Mayflower Street in order to improve the flow of exiting traffic, and Mr. Daley replied that from a traffic control perspective, additional curb cuts are not preferable. Mr. Moody agreed, saying that it may be a problem especially with its proximity to the fire house.
Ms. MacNab opened the floor to public comments, and Mr. Douglas Carver, Associate Board member, asked Mr. Daley to explain the kettle hole that he proposed for drainage. Mr. Daley explained that a kettle hole is a natural formation created by glaciers, where a large chunk of ice sat for many years. Eventually dirt built up around the ice before it melted. Now it is basically a depression. He added that the Town of Duxbury has many kettle holes because of the sandy soil in the area.
Ms. Beverly Walters of 422 Washington Street pointed out that the Senior Center has a drop-off area where people can access the building before the car is parked.
Ms. MacNab asked about lighting plans, and Mr. Daley responded that he would look into it. Mr. Kimball asked about the parking lot grading, and asked if the riprap along the edge of the existing parking lot was for erosion control, and Mr. Daley responded that it was not. Mr. Daley added that where the cost for project like this might cost $200,000 to $250,000 if contracted out, the Town’s cost for this project doing it in-house is estimated to cost between $70,000 and $75,000.
Mr. Kimball asked about traffic flow in the current and proposed parking lots, and Ms. Moore explained it. Mr. Daley added that the 24-foot, two-way aisle meets Rules and Regulations of the Town of Duxbury.
Ms. Scieska asked again about the ANR lines, and how it was determined where the lot line might be placed. Mr. Daley stated that he has an old site plan that depicts a “limit of construction area.” Mr. J.R. Kent of 131 Rogers Way cautioned that the applicant should check the parking lot coverage ratio, and Mr. Daley agreed to review it.
Mr. Wadsworth referred to Subdivision Rules and Regulations and said that they denote that sites within the APOD require special attention with a lot of detail. He stated that he is not sure the Board has those details at this point. Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Daley if he had compared the proposed plans to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and Mr. Daley stated that he had done a rough comparison and would be happy to review it more thoroughly. Ms. Stickney pointed out that the Board had never voted to accept Subdivision Rules and Regulations standards for Administrative Site Plan Reviews.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to continue the Administrative Site Plan Review for the Town of Duxbury Council on Aging, 10 Mayflower Street, to Monday, May 15, 2006 at 8:00 PM, with a decision deadline of June 30, 2006, pending resolution of the following outstanding issues:
§ Delineation of the walking route from the proposed lower parking level
§ Demarcation of the approximate area of proposed lot lines
§ Review of the site plans as meeting current Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Board wants to ensure that the proposed swale will be effective, and wishes to tie the applicant into submitting an ANR. Mr. Daley stated a concern that an ANR may not be legally possible, especially if there was an issue with the land being granted. It was agreed that Town Counsel should be consulted regarding this matter. Mr. Wadsworth agreed that there may be issues with restrictions on the property.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
A mutual extension form was signed by Ms. Moore and the Board.
ZBA SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: 27 BEECHWOOD LANE / GLEASON
No one was present to represent this Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) application to construct an 84-foot pier including a walkway, platform, gangway and float. Because Conservation Commission Orders of Condition were not included with review materials, the Board agreed to defer discussion until the following week’s meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Bayside Marine Certificate of Occupancy: Owner Mr. J.R. Kent was present for discussion of his business at 433 Washington Street that is under Administrative Site Plan Review. He stated that he is seeking a certificate of occupancy. His construction loan for expansion expired on March 30, 2006, and he has assured Land Court that he could complete the project within one month. Ms. MacNab asked if the As-Built is the only outstanding issue, and Mr. Kent replied that it was. Mr. Kent stated that engineering fees alone to remove unnecessary lot lines would cost $27,000, and that was in process. He said that he has to complete the project within two years, and he needs Land Court approval by January 10, 2007 and does not see why that could not be done.
Ms. MacNab confirmed that Mr. Kent needs an As-Built in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Kimball questioned why the As-Built was attached to the certificate of occupancy, and Ms. Stickney replied that it provides leverage to ensure that the project is completed, although no As-Built certificate could be issued until the Land Court case is resolved. Mr. Kent offered to post a surety and proceed with the knowledge that the project is being completed. Mr. Kent stated that he could provide As-Built plans by the next day.
Ms. Stickney advised the Board that Town consulting engineer, Mr. Thomas Sexton, could be asked to recommend a surety amount. Mr. Kimball and Mr. Bear noted that Mr. Kent was asking for temporary approval until the end of the week. Mr. Wadsworth and Ms. MacNab advised that a surety should be required. Ms. Stickney and Ms. MacNab agreed to work out an arrangement with Mr. Kent.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, that pursuant to Mr. J.R. Kent’s request, the Board agrees to an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Bayside Marine at 433 Washington Street, dependent on a surety amount to be determined and received in the Planning office according to Subdivision Rules and Regulations. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 9:48 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 7:30 PM at the Duxbury Senior Center, Ellison Room.
| 
