The mission of the Town of Duxbury is to deliver excellent services to the community in the most fiscally responsible and innovative manner while endeavoring to broaden our sense of community and preserve the unique character of our town.
Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 07/10/06
Approved 11/20/06
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level, on Monday, July 10, 2006.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear; Brendan Halligan; and Harold Moody.
Absent: Jim Kimball; and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Merry Village 40B, Lincoln Street: Ms. Scieszka asked about for-sale signs she had seen at this property, and Ms. Stickney stated that she would look into the matter.
LAND COURT PLAN ENDORSEMENT / 154 WASHINGTON STREET (HINKLEY)
Present for the discussion were the applicants, Clark and Jane Hinkley, and their representatives: Atty. Alice Vogler and Mr. Shawn Dahlen. The applicants’ ANR for unregistered land had been approved by the Board at its June 5, 2006 meeting. However, the Board had deferred action on approval of the ANR for registered land at its meeting of June 26, 2006. The Board would not agree to endorse the ANR plan for registered land as submitted because the plan did not depict the ANR for unregistered land that had previously been endorsed.
Ms. MacNab referenced two memoranda received from Town Counsel, Atty. Robert S. Troy dated July 10, 2006, one at 12:37 PM and the other at 5:37 PM. In the first memo, Atty. Troy had recommended that the Board not endorse the Land Court ANR because it appeared to be creating a subdivison. In his second memo, Atty. Troy supplemented his opinion after reviewing the plans to state that the Board could endorse the plan because it appeared to be dividing a tract of land into two or more parcels rather than lots. Mr. Moody suggested that the applicant could get a deregistration if more than fifty percent of the land is non-registered.
Atty. Vogler stated that the property had been scheduled to close on June 30, 2006, and that if the property is not closed within the next day they would lose the sale. She said she believed a compromise exists that would allow the Board to sign the ANR for the unregistered land. Ms. MacNab suggested endorsing the plan referencing the original ANR, noting that this is purely a procedural matter required by Land Court. Mr. Dahlen submitted a newly revised plan which included Land Court engineering notes and provided further definition of the bounds. Ms. MacNab asked if there would be any problem with deleting the term “Approval Not Required” on the plan, and Ms. Stickney responded that she would have an issue because the Board would be amending the plan rather than an engineer.
Mr. Dahlen noted that Land Court plans never leave Land Court, and added that the ANR that the Board approved would be recorded at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds. Atty. Vogler stated that the lot lines need to be certified to the Board’s satisfaction. Ms. Stickney suggested that the engineer revise the plans to add language that would meet the Board’s approval, and Mr. Dahlen agreed. Ms. MacNab advised Mr. Dahlen that language should reference the original ANR, and should also include verbiage suggested by Atty. Troy. Atty. Vogler asked if she could contact Land Court to ensure that such a plan would be acceptable. Ms. Stickney suggested consulting with Atty. Troy as well.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, that the Board sign the Land Court plan of land entitled “Plan of Land being a subdivision of Lot 1 & 2 – L.C. Plan #9092C – 154 Washington Street in Duxbury, MA” dated May 25, 2006 and revised on July 5, 2006, stamped by Douglas L. Aaberg (PLS) – Aaberg Associates Inc. – one sheet, provided that language be added to the plan referencing delineations of an Approval Not Required plan dated May 22, 2006 and signed by the Board on June 5, 2006, and removing “Approval Not Required” language from the current plan.
DISCUSSION: It was noted that the endorsed plan would be held until Aaberg Associates added the required language.
VOTE: The motion carried (6-0).
The Board endorsed the Land Court plan.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND: FRANKLIN, HIGH AND VALLEY STREETS (DUXBURY FARMS) / BRAINFRANK NOMINEE C/O KOPLOVSKY
Present for the discussion were the applicant, Mr. Edward Koplovsky; his attorney, Edward Gottlieb; Mr. Peter Tuttle, surveyor for Merrill Associates; and Atty. Robert Shelmerdine representing Mr. Michael Iantoccia, president of Duxbury Farms Corporation. Mr. Tuttle stated that the revised plan submitted at tonight’s meeting creates four new lots from a series of existing parcels that total close to 150 acres and extend into the Town of Pembroke, with frontage in the Town of Duxbury. The purpose of the plan is to create the lot upon which the Comprehensive Permit known as Duxbury Farms would be located as approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
Ms. Stickney stated that she had emailed Mr. Jack O’Leary of Merrill Associates on July 5, 2006 regarding revisions needed to the original plans, and that the plans submitted tonight address the nine points she had included in her email. Mr. Tuttle added that one issue had been the frontage on Lot F due to ambiguous language in the Zoning Bylaws, and that the current plans meet both the “Definitions” section and Section 400 of the bylaws.
Ms. MacNab asked if the lots were outside the Aquifer Protection Overlay District, and Ms. Stickney replied that they were. She added that some land is within the Wetlands Protection Overlay District, but that the applicant had addressed any wetlands issues.
Mr. Bear asked if the Lot G acreage had been resolved (from Ms. Stickney’s email), and she stated that the acreage had been clarified by the applicant. Mr. Wadsworth asked if Lot E is a new lot with frontage on High Street, and Mr. Tuttle replied that it was. Ms. MacNab asked if there had been closure on the large lot into Pembroke to the east, and Mr. Tuttle responded that the current plan reflects Ms. Stickney’s recommendations.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to endorse the Plan of Land entitled, “Plan of Land, Franklin Street, High Street & Valley Street, Duxbury, Massachusetts” 1 sheet – dated March 27, 2006 and revised on July 10, 2006, stamped by Peter E. Tuttle , P.L.S. as not requiring approval under subdivision control law.
DISCUSSION: Atty. Gottlieb, representing Mr. Koplovsky, requested that the Board withdraw or table the plan for one week in order to resolve changes to the plan presented this evening that Mr. Koplovsky had been unaware of. Mr. Tuttle responded that the applicant is Duxbury Farms Corporation, but Ms. MacNab noted that the owner of record is Mr. Koplovsky. Ms. Stickney stated that both Mr. Koplovsky and Mr. Iantoccia (owner of Duxbury Farms Corporation) signed the ANR application, and that Mr. Iantoccia had received no notice of the request to withdraw or postpone.
Atty. Shelmerdine, representing Mr. Iantoccia, stated that he had attempted to contact Mr. Iantoccia with no success, and that he had no authority to agree to a continuance. Ms. Stickney advised the Board to consider delaying its decision until the following Monday, July 17, 2006. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board does not have mutual agreement from both parties to proceed.
MOTION WITHDRAWN: Mr. Wadsworth withdrew his motion, and Ms. Scieszka withdrew her second.
It was agreed to continue the discussion later in the meeting to allow Atty. Shelmerdine an opportunity to contact Mr. Iantoccia.
Later in the evening the discussion resumed. Ms. Stickney advised the Board to approve the ANR plan. Mr. Moody asked who the endorsed plan would go to, and Ms. Stickney responded that it would go to Mr. Koplovsky. She added that usually the engineering firm obtains the endorsed ANR plan from the Planning office. Ms. MacNab stated that endorsing the plan would provide a record that the plan had been endorsed. Ms. Stickney responded that the plan is of no value until it is recorded at the Registry of Deeds. She cautioned the Board, given the circumstances, that it would be more difficult to prove an appeal on approval than denial. Mr. Bear asked if one more day could be granted to allow the parties to resolve their differences, and Ms. Stickney replied that a decision would need to be filed with Town Clerk by the next day.
Atty. Gottlieb stated that the plan submitted at tonight’s meeting is different than the one that Mr. Koplovsky originally submitted with the ANR application. Atty. Gottlieb reiterated his request that his client be allowed one week to review changes to the plan. Atty. Shelmerdine stated that the modifications to the plan were minor, and added that the mylar owner is Merrill Associates. Ms. Scieszka noted that the change in size and frontage to Lot F is a significant change. Ms. Stickney urged the Board not to deny the application. Atty. Shelmerdine restated that he had no authority to extend the decision, and added that he did not believe the Board had grounds for denying the ANR application.
Ms. Stickney noted that if the Board took no action, Town Clerk would grant constructive approval and would request Town Counsel opinion. Atty. Gottlieb suggested the Board consider returning the mylar to the owner before making the decision of whether to approve the plan or not. He stated that the only person who can record a plan is the owner or owner’s representative. Ms. Stickney suggested the Board take no action and allow the matter to go to constructive approval by exceeding the 21-day time frame. She stated that the mylar would go to Town Clerk, who would then confer with Town Counsel as to her ability to issue constructive approval. The decision of who would get the mylar lies with the Town Clerk.
The Board decided to take no action. Ms. Stickney agreed to contact Atty. Robert S. Troy, Town Counsel, to advise him of the situation that occurred tonight.
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC MEETING:
21 CHESTNUT STREET / GRIFFIN
Present for the discussion were the owners, Kevin and Colleen Griffin; their attorney, Philip Markella; and Town consulting engineer, Mr. Walter Amory. The public meeting opened at 8:10 PM, and Ms. Scieszka read into the record the public meeting notice and the correspondence list:
§ Administrative Site Plan Review Application, plans and supporting documentation submitted on 6/16/06
§ Memo from Planning Department dated 6/16/06 transmitting copies of plan to various departments, boards and commissions for comments.
§ Assessors’ Property card for 21 Chestnut Street
§ Copy of Deed recorded 5/2/06 showing the Griffins as the current owners
§ Public Meeting notice advertised in the Duxbury Clipper 6/21/06 & 6/28/06. Also mailed to abutters on 6/16/06
§ ZBA Referral for Special Permit received 6/6/06 – materials
§ Memo from Jennifer Dalrymple to both ZBA & PB dated 6/7/06 re: septic
§ Memo from C. Stickney to PB dated 6/14/06 re: ZBA review and site comments
§ Memo from Chief Nord dated 6/19/06 re: recommendations for the site
§ Recommendation dated 6/20/06 from the PB to the ZBA on the Special Permit
§ Memo from J. Grady dated 6/21/06 re: no wetlands concerns
§ Memo from Walter Amory dated 6/23/06 re: peer review
§ Memo from Attorney Markella dated 6/26/06 to J. Dalrymple re: floor plans.
Ms. MacNab noted that the proposal is to renovate a previous dwelling into office space for a publishing business. She invited Atty. Markella to present the plans but he declined in order to expedite the discussion. Ms. MacNab then invited comments from the Board.
Mr. Bear referenced the memo from Chief Nord, and asked what the guidelines are regarding retrofit driveways. Ms. Stickney replied that usually a 24-foot aisle is required, but the current driveway was built for a dwelling. She said that now that an office space is proposed the review has changed. Mr. Amory noted that the current driveway width is approximately 10 feet. Ms. Stickney added that Chief Nord is not requiring a revision to 24 feet, but that more width is required for emergency vehicle turning radius. Mr. Wadsworth asked if sprinklers were required and Ms. Stickney stated that would be an Inspectional Services issue; however, no change to water service is proposed.
Mr. Wadsworth asked how wide Chief Nord is requesting the driveway should be, and Ms. Stickney replied that the applicant should speak to the Chief regarding this matter, and added that a 10-foot buffer would be required from the neighboring property line. Ms. Scieszka confirmed with Mr. Amory that he recommended a 15-foot radius at the end of the driveway. She asked if a large tree on the property would be lost in order to achieve the desired turning radius, and Mr. Griffin replied that they did not believe the tree would have to go.
Ms. MacNab noted that Zoning Bylaws require that paved parking spaces be included. Mr. Bear asked if paving is required, and Mr. Amory replied that paving helps control stormwater. Atty. Markella asked if paving would create a need for drainage rather than help control it, and Mr. Wadsworth and Ms. MacNab stated that it would not.
Ms. Stickney noted that handicap accessible parking could easily be added, and that the applicant should consult with the Director of Inspectional Services. Mr. Wadsworth asked if a loading area was required, and Ms. Stickney replied that it was up to the Board’s discretion, noting that it was an electronic publishing business with minimal public interaction. Ms. MacNab noted that if the use changed, a special permit may be required, and Ms. Stickney suggested that a condition could be noted in the site plan approval.
Ms. MacNab asked Atty. Markella if his applicant was clear on Mr. Amory’s suggestion on sight distance, referencing Mr. Amory’s letter of June 23, 2006. Atty. Markella said that he took clear sight photographs earlier today for Board review.
Atty. Markella noted that the nearest fire hydrant was located at 59 Chestnut Street, and Ms. MacNab advised him to consult with the Fire Chief to determine if this was an acceptable distance. Regarding signs and lighting, Ms. MacNab noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) would be reviewing plans. Ms. Scieszka suggested that the applicant indicate on the site plan where the lighting would be placed, and Ms. MacNab added that the Board needs to see a photo sample of the proposed lighting.
Ms. MacNab asked for comments from Mr. Amory, Town consulting engineer. Mr. Amory stated that the main outstanding issue at this point is the adequacy of the septic system. Ms. Stickney advised that the Director of Inspectional Services would be handling the septic system as part of the building permit process, as there was no Health Agent at the time. Mr. Amory stated that he would like to see the septic plans to ensure that the capacity is adequate.
Ms. Scieszka noted that the driveway would be widened and would cover the septic system. She asked Mr. Amory about his written recommendation that the driveway be widened by two feet, and he referenced Zoning Bylaw 603.10 which states that driveways shall not be less than twelve feet wide. Discussion ensued over how the driveway could be widened, and Atty. Markella noted that there would be ample room on both sides of the driveway to widen it.
Discussion then moved to whether an accessible loading zone would be required. Mr. Wadsworth noted that Zoning Bylaws state that only the ZBA could waive loading requirements. Atty. Markella asked if the loading zone would need to be paved, and Mr. Wadsworth stated that it would. Ms. MacNab added that it is generally the Board’s policy to require paving to control runoff. Although it was not unanimous, most Board members expressed their preference that paving should be required rather than allowing a gravel driveway.
Ms. MacNab asked the applicants if they had any comments or questions, and they replied that they did not. Atty. Markella asked if anything other than grass would be required for the minimum 10-foot required buffer along the northwestern edge of the property, as referenced in Mr. Amory’s June 23, 2006 letter. Ms. Scieszka stated that a line of bushes is sometimes recommended, but there may not be room with the widening of the driveway. Mr. Amory noted that the impact of a buffer to neighbors would be minimal.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to continue the public meeting for Administrative Site Plan Review of 21 Chestnut Street to August 21, 2006 at 8:30 PM, with plans to be submitted by August 7, 2006 and a decision deadline of September 28, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried (6-0).
A mutual extension form was signed by the applicant and the Board.
ZBA REFERRAL: 80 SEABURY POINT ROAD / HARRINGTON
No one was present for this discussion. The proposed plans were reviewed and discussed. Ms. Scieszka noted that the nearest existing pier was located 92 feet away.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to defer judgment The Planning Board voted to recommend deferring judgment to the Board of Appeals, noting the following concerns:
1. The Board of Appeals application states the new walkway is proposed to be (4’x 51’) and the proposed plan references the walkway as (4’x 44’) which is also the length approved by the Conservation Commission.
2. The Planning Board continues to recommend shared piers when proposed in close proximity to another pier.
There was no discussion regarding the motion.
VOTE: The motion carried (6-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
154 Washington Street Zoning: Ms. Stickney noted that she has asked Inspectional Services Director, Mr. Scott Lambiase, for his opinion regarding whether inclusionary zoning would be triggered if the applicants applied for a further subdivision of this land in the future.
Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve the Planning Board meeting minutes of May 15, 2006 as amended. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
Bay Farm Montessori Academy Administrative Site Plan Review Update: Mr. Wadsworth informed the Board that he had attended a meeting with the applicants, staff and Town consulting engineer regarding drainage issues and accessibility. Ms. Stickney noted that because there had been extensive revisions on drainage, she had requested that Mr. Amory and Mr. Wadsworth attend. Ms. Scieszka expressed her concern with Board members present at meetings with applicants, stating that only staff should be present.
Mr. Halligan asked Mr. Wadsworth how he felt about attending the meeting, and Mr. Wadsworth responded that he felt it was relatively productive. Ms. MacNab expressed a concern with a Board member attending a meeting with the applicant and noted that she had been informed after the fact. She stated that the Board should decide if a member should or should not attend a meeting with an applicant. Mr. Bear added that it exposes the Board member to expressing opinions that may not reflect the opinion of the Board as a whole. Ms. Stickney stated that it would not happen again.
Planned Development (PD) Process: Ms. MacNab noted that she had contacted Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) chairperson, Mr. James Lampert, regarding the PD process. She anticipated that after one more Planning Board meeting the Board would be rendering its recommendations regarding Duxbury Estates. She stated that she hoped the Board would have more information from the applicant. She said that although she had no success in reaching Mr. Lampert, she had talked with ZBA member, Ms. Sara Wilson. She said that Ms. Wilson shares in her understanding of the process, with the Planning Board’s role to sift through and hammer out issues for the ZBA’s approval. She noted that the first ZBA hearing on the Duxbury Estates PD is scheduled for July 27, 2006.
Mr. Wadsworth suggested that a Board member attend the ZBA hearings, noting that the Planning Board and ZBA members had agreed previously that one member would always attend the other Board’s meetings. Ms. Scieszka stated that she sees the Planning Board and ZBA working in tandem on the PD process, just as it would have happened in preliminary approval. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the ZBA is the ultimate decision maker, and that the Board has 35 days before its report needs to be submitted. Ms. MacNab stated that she would continue trying to reach Mr. Lampert.
Senior Center Parking Lot, 10 Mayflower Street: Ms. MacNab noted that Highway Director, Mr. Tom Daley, had requested a continuance for this administrative site plan review public meeting.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to continue the public meeting for the Duxbury Senior Center administrative site plan review to Monday, August 21, 2006 at 8:00 PM, with plans due by August 7, 2006 and a decision deadline of September 26, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
The Board signed a mutual extension form.
Deer Run Street Acceptance: Ms. Stickney showed the Board a street layout plan submitted by the applicants. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the street layout had been accepted by voters at March 2006 Annual Town Meeting. The Board endorsed the plan.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, July 17, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
