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 04/23/07
Approved August 6, 2007
The Planning Board met in the Ellison Room at the Duxbury Senior Center on Monday, April 23, 2007 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Brendan Halligan, Clerk;
John Bear, Jim Kimball, Harold Moody, and Angela Scieszka.
Absent: Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Ms. MacNab called the meeting to order at 7:31 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Boston Chamber of Commerce – Mr. Kimball reported that he attended a recent Boston Chamber of Commerce meeting, and a new permit czar in Boston is working toward reducing the comprehensive permit process to six months. Mr. Kimball suggested that it may be time for the Town to update its Comprehensive Plan as a proactive measure rather than waiting to react to State mandates. For example, the Town could choose to define a mixed use area. Ms. MacNab and Ms. Scieszka agreed that the time may be right to update the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Stickney suggested inviting Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, to a future meeting to discuss the update process.
Local Housing Partnership (LHP): Ms. Scieszka reported that the LHP is hosting a workshop to educate the public about the Planned Production Plan. Ms. Stickney noted that the draft Planned Production Plan has been made available at the public library and on the Town web site.
OTHER BUSINESS
Because it was not yet time for scheduled items, the Board addressed other business.
Hillside Lane / Sealund Performance Bond Release Request: Ms. Stickney noted that Hillside Lane had received As-Built approval from the Board and had been accepted as a public way at Annual Town Meeting in March 2007. The applicant is now requesting release of his performance bond which had been retained until street acceptance.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to approve releasing the Bond Safeguard Insurance Subdivision Performance Bond originally retained as surety ($72,975.00) for Hillside Lane subdivision.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Wadsworth asked who will inspect the drain and monitor road conditions, and Ms. Stickney replied that the Department of Public Works has been responsible since Annual Town Meeting street acceptance.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Duxbury Crossing, Enterprise and Careswell Streets: Ms. MacNab noted a letter had been sent from Mr. Scott Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services, to the attorneys for the Duxbury Crossing 40B project assessing a $55,000.00 fine for failure to obtain a Site Alteration Special Permit for tree clearing that occurred in September 2004. She commended Mr. Lambiase’s follow up.
Engineering Invoice: Ms. Stickney noted that Town consulting engineer, Mr. Tom Sexton plans to speak with the Board in the future to resolve a difference of opinion regarding invoicing.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to pay Mainstream Engineering invoice #20932 dated February 28, 2007 in the amount of $374.50 for services related to Millbrook Crossing. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Planning Director Evaluation: Ms. MacNab advised Board members to each complete the form to submit to her at the next Board meeting. She would then compile results.
Commons at Tarkiln, off South Street: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that a site eligibility letter had been submitted for this 40B project which is proposed for 75 units that would straddle the Duxbury/Kingston Town line. One building with fifteen units would be located in the Town of Duxbury.
DUXBURY FARMS 40B ENDORSEMENT / IANTOCCIA
Attorney Robert Shelmerdine was present to represent Duxbury Farms Corporation, which is requesting endorsement of a lotting plan for recording at the Registry of Deeds to create lots for conveyance for this project located off of High Street and Franklin Street. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board is unable to endorse the plans submitted for endorsement because MGL Chapter 41, Section 81 does not recognize lotting plans.
Atty. Shelmerdine explained that the applicants had received comprehensive permit approval for 20 single family dwellings, not condominiums. He referenced a memorandum from Town Counsel, Atty. Robert Troy, dated November 1, 2006, stating that the Planning Board is the proper authority to sign plans under Chapter 81P. Mr. Halligan noted that Atty. Troy was responding to a completely different question from the Town Manager. Atty. Shelmerdine stated that the plans before the Board represented an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan of land. Ms. MacNab noted that the plans before the Board do not meet ANR requirements.
Atty. Shelmerdine referenced Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) regulations, and noted that CMR 71 states that, “all local boards shall issue all necessary permits and approvals after reviewing such plans to insure that they are consistent with the comprehensive permit, the final written approval, and applicable state and federal codes.” He stated that once the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) issues a comprehensive permit, the plans are not subject to subdivision control law. Ms. MacNab responded that the plan before them represents a subdivision, not an ANR, and therefore the plan is subject to subdivision approval and as such requires endorsement by the Planning Board for recordation.
Atty. Shelmerdine stated that the plans fall under Chapter 81P, and Mr. Wadsworth noted that Chapter 81P requires frontage for each parcel. Atty. Shelmerdine responded that the lots do contain the required frontage. Ms. MacNab noted that although the Board has had no communication with Town Counsel, Atty. Robert Troy, regarding this specific application, the Board had sought his opinion on the role of the Planning Board as the sole entity that can endorse a plan creating individual lots, and the Board feels comfortable with its role in this matter.
Ms. Scieszka advised Atty. Shelmerdine that it is up to the applicant to decide if they wish to apply under Chapter 41 or 40B, and since they submitted under Chapter 40B, rules for Chapter 41 are not applicable. Ms. MacNab stated the Board does not have a valid application to review because they do not recognize lotting plans and the plans do not meet subdivision control law. She distributed a draft letter stating the Board’s position and requested that the letter be filed with the Town Clerk and mailed to the applicant. Atty. Shelmerdine asked for the Board’s recommendation on how to proceed, and Ms. MacNab replied that it is not the Board’s position to guide the applicant; however, she directed him to the staff that could provide him information for appropriate submission.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to accept a draft letter from the Planning Board to Mr. Paul Cusson and the Duxbury Farms application team regarding the plans submitted and work performed on the project without authority, to be filed with the Town Clerk and copied to Town Counsel, the Director of Inspectional Services, Town Manager, ZBA, MassHousing, and the Inspector General.
DISCUSSION: Atty. Shelmerdine stated that Mr. Cusson has nothing to do with this application. Mr. Halligan and Mr. Moody suggested that Town Counsel be consulted regarding the Board’s authority to sign the lotting plan. Ms. MacNab stated that although Atty. Troy has not addressed this specific application, the Planning Board has met with Town Counsel on this issue. She stated that the applicant has a choice to lay out the lots in condominium form rather than creating a subdivision as current plans depict.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
BOARD OF SELECTMEN REFERRAL: WEST BAY LANDING LOCAL INITIATIVE PROJECT (LIP) / HAMADEH
Mr. Chafik Hamadeh was present as the applicant for this proposed LIP project proposed off of Soule Avenue that requires Board of Selectmen endorsement before submittal to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Approximately 40 members of the public were present also. Mr. Hamadeh had made a presentation at an April 9, 2007 Board of Selectmen meeting, and Planning Board members could be present for only a portion of the discussion due to their meeting on the same evening. The Board of Selectmen asked the applicant to present his plan to the Planning Board for their review and recommendation.
Ms. MacNab stated that she had hoped that guidelines could have been put into place providing criteria for accepting an LIP. She noted that plans appeared to be very preliminary and asked Mr. Hamadeh to explain his proposal. Mr. Hamadeh stated that the proposed project is located at a parcel of land off of Bay Road between Soule Avenue and Torrey Lane. The site is just under ten acres in area, all upland. He stated that plans were developed according to Planned Development (PD) guidelines from Zoning Bylaws, and they currently meet all PD requirements. Waivers may be needed for sidewalks, bike paths and lighting.
Mr. Hamadeh stated that the project has gone before the Development Review Team (DRT), and he has met with each Department head individually. He stated that a potential benefit of the LIP project is that it is half the density of previous 40B developments that have been approved by the Town. West Bay Landing is currently proposed at two units per acre, where other developments average four units per acre. The land is not within a priority habitat area. Six of the twenty units proposed would be affordable, with a resulting 30 percent affordability. Mr. Hamadeh referenced floor plans and noted that Unit A could be built with two or three bedrooms, with a total of ten units and fifty bedrooms. The tax benefit to the Town is estimated at $77,300.00, and with 29 school-age children would add only a small financial burden to
the Town.
Mr. Wadsworth questioned the calculations regarding the number of school-aged children, noting that the only recent Planned Development approved had an age restriction. The West Bay Landing project is not proposed to be age-restricted.
Mr. Hamadeh stated that another benefit of the project would be preference to local Town employees, who would have the right of first refusal, followed by current Town residents, noting that there are approximately 100 people on a waiting list for affordable housing in Town. Ms. MacNab questioned which list has 100 people waiting, and Ms. Stickney clarified that there is a waiting list of over 100 people for housing at Island Creek.
Ms. MacNab stated that access to the property is a major concern, noting that there is no easy way in or out. She asked if Mr. Hamadeh intends to utilize Sanger Road as an access, and Mr. Hamadeh replied that he would use either Sanger or Spruce Lane. Mr. Hamadeh stated that he owns Sanger Road in its entirety, so he would be able to make any revisions necessary to improve that access. He showed the Board the proposed road layout, noting that the intersection of Sanger and Soule provides 36 feet of access for the Fire Department. Mr. Wadsworth noted that Soule Avenue would be part of that access.
Mr. Hamadeh stated that he is proposing to replace a current two-inch water main with an eight-inch main to the property. Mr. Wadsworth confirmed with Mr. Hamadeh that the water source would be from Bay Road, and that he intends to grant an easement to the Town for a fire hydrant on Spruce Lane.
Mr. Hamadeh stated that he expects sales of the two-bedroom units to be offered at $449,000.00 and sales of the three-bedroom units to be marketed at $529,000.00. Six affordable units would be offered at $180,000.00, with a 14.91 percent profit margin.
Mr. Moody asked if Sanger Road is a 30-foot dirt road, and Mr. Hamadeh stated that it is a 30-foot right-of-way. Mr. Hamadeh stated that Spruce Lane has 18 feet of paved surface with a 20-foot layout. Ms. Scieszka asked why the plans did not contain a surveyor’s stamp, and Mr. Hamadeh replied that ASEC Engineering drew these preliminary plans from an original surveyed plan done by Millbrook Survey. He offered to provide a stamped plan, and Ms. Scieszka replied that it would give the Board a greater level of confidence, noting for example that from the current plans it is difficult to determine how much earth would need to be removed to create the roadway.
Mr. Kimball asked how far along the applicants are in developing drainage and grading plans. He expressed concern with topographical challenges. He noted that it appears that there would be a change in grade of 18 feet where Sanger Road meets the proposed grading. Mr. Hamadeh stated that the engineer can reduce the grade to 7.73 feet with a small retaining wall on the side of the road.
Mr. Kimball noted that with a narrow, rectangular shaped lot, there may need to be a good amount of grading and clearing at the site. Mr. Hamadeh stated that he plans to keep clearing to an absolute minimum. Mr. Kimball stated that with a 30 to 50 foot distance between buildings, trees would need to be cleared for construction access alone. Mr. Hamadeh stated that there would be approximately 35 feet distance between buildings, and three acres of land on the property would be undisturbed. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board usually sees one large area undisturbed. Ms. Scieszka noted that, according to Mr. Hamadeh’s figures, six acres of land would be disturbed.
Mr. Kimball noted that although the current plans are conceptual, drainage and grading will be major issues. He stated that the lots off of Sanger Road would require a lot of cut and fill work. Mr. Hamadeh stated that although he and his engineers were comfortable with the plans at this point, if he finds that he is unable to provide an acceptable grading plan, he would have to withdraw the application.
Mr. Halligan questioned the neighbor’s access to the road from their property, and Mr. Hamadeh stated that he has spoken with the neighbors, the Petersens, who reside at 10 Sanger Road, and together they decided that the new road would be laid out over the existing one. He stated that he is happy to work with the neighbors to design the road to minimize inconvenience for everyone.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the drainage plans are preliminary, and asked if the drainage is expected to be underground. Mr. Hamadeh stated that an above-ground swale would be built that would collect water to go through an infiltration system. He stated that six perc tests were performed and they were able to go 145 inches into the ground with no mottle. Mr. Wadsworth noted that a recent Planned Development, Duxbury Estates off Summer Street, utilized a low-impact design with grassed swales with the environmental advantage of removing pollutants before they seep into the groundwater. A downside is that drainage swales take up land. Mr. Hamadeh stated that he is in favor of using low impact drainage if possible. Ms. MacNab noted that part of the Board’s role is to ensure there is no runoff into the neighbors’
property.
Ms. MacNab noted that Board of Selectmen endorsement of the LIP plans would indicate that the Town embraces the proposed development. She reported that she had requested through the Board of Selectmen for a consulting engineer to review the plans. Her letter of request was in the Selectmen’s packet for their meeting tonight. She also noted that at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on April 9, 2007, neighbors expressed concern regarding traffic.
Ms. Scieszka noted that the preliminary plans utilized existing information. She stated that the site presents a number of challenging issues. Placement of the buildings and the style of buildings should minimize impact to the abutters’ buffer. Calculations for density figures should be provided. Mr. Hamadeh stated that the buildings were sited on the flattest part of the property, and very little regrading will need to be done. He stated that the units proposed are identical in design to The Meadows in Pembroke. He stated that the Cape style fits well with the style in the Town of Duxbury. The density was decreased after discussions with the Local Housing Partnership but cannot be decreased further without losing the affordability component.
Ms. MacNab questioned numbers that were used in Mr. Hamadeh’s project proforma. Mr. Hamadeh disagreed, stating that the proforma is well developed. Mr. Wadsworth confirmed with Mr. Hamadeh that he would be performing a comprehensive traffic study. Mr. Moody confirmed with Mr. Hamadeh that he ran proforma figures with less than twenty units. Mr. Moody asked at what level he would lose ability to finance the project, and Mr. Hamadeh responded that with fewer than twenty units, he would not be able to build six affordable units. For example, for a proposal with eighteen units of which four or five are affordable, it would not be a desirable LIP plan.
Mr. Bear asked where the affordable units would be located, and Mr. Hamadeh replied that they would be dispersed evenly throughout the project. Mr. Bear asked if the units would be identical to units at The Meadows in Pembroke, and Mr. Hamadeh stated that the affordable units would feature more standard interiors.
Ms. MacNab confirmed with Ms. Stickney that the Development Review Team was based on Bay Road access. Ms. Stickney noted that the Bay Road access was requested by the Board of Selectmen in response to residents’ concerns. Ms. MacNab asked if another DRT would be scheduled, and Ms. Stickney stated that it would be at the request of the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Hamadeh stated that almost all department heads have seen the current plans, and most have responded verbally or in writing, including the Fire Department, Water Department, and DPW. Ms. Stickney noted that all communication had been through the Board of Selectmen’s office, not the Planning Board. Ms. MacNab noted that the DRT reviewed a proposal to connect the drainage across Bay Road. Mr. Hamadeh stated that this is not the case anymore.
Ms. MacNab questioned if there are wetlands on the site. Ms. Stickney noted there is a small drainage kettle hole but Conservation Administrator, Mr. Joe Grady, had not considered it wetlands.
Mr. Moody asked about the width of Spruce Lane, and Mr. Hamadeh noted that the existing road is eighteen feet wide, and the proposed layout is twenty feet wide but would widen once it meets his property.
Mr. Wadsworth confirmed with Mr. Hamadeh that the Sanger Road water main is currently two inches in diameter. Mr. Wadworth asked if Mr. Hamadeh intended to tie into the existing water main, and Mr. Hamadeh stated that because a two-inch main is not adequate for a fire hydrant, he is proposing to replace it with a six-inch water main at his own expense. The Town would cover the expense for replacing the Spruce Lane water main.
Ms. Scieszka stated that, from a “big picture” point of view, she does not see how the current plans are beneficial to the Town of Duxbury. She stated that the scale of the plans is one-fourth, not one-eighth as stated on the plans. Ms. MacNab stated that she continues to struggle with the proposed two accesses, noting that there appears to be a benefit to removing one access if the Fire Department is agreeable. Mr. Hamadeh stated that he would be agreeable to look into it.
Ms. MacNab invited public comment.
Ms. Jeannie Horne of 20 Sanger Road introduced herself as president of the Duxbury Neighborhood Committee, Inc. and read a statement from residents who oppose the proposed West Bay Landing project. She stated that the residents cannot support the current affordability component and recommend three alternatives:
1. Community Preservation Committee (CPC) proposal for a mixed-use development with open space preserved. She noted that an application would be submitted to the CPC this week.
2. Conventional subdivision with four market-rate homes, which would alleviate traffic and safety concerns.
3. LIP for four to six single family homes, although this was the least preferred option due to the impact of a larger development.
She noted that the group would be attempting to defeat the currently proposed plans.
Mr. Michael Fortunato of 78 Indian Trail thanked the Planning Board for being the first group to review the project in its entirety and to consider the impact of the development on the Town. Ms. MacNab noted that the Planning Board has no decision-making authority. Mr. Fortunato stated that he does not want the proposed development in this neighborhood, and a group of residents had hired an attorney to fight it.
Mr. Bruno Zoltowski of 1 Spruce Lane said that he was glad that the Planning Board brought up the subject of a traffic study. Ms. MacNab noted that a traffic study has not been requested by the Board of Selectmen at this point.
Ms. Karen Golberg of 40 Torrey Lane asked who verifies the frontage of thirty feet. Ms. Stickney responded that the applicant had a Chapter 81X plan signed by a surveyor that is available for viewing at the Registry of Deeds in Plymouth. She stated that the 81X plan shows lot lines and measurements.
Mr. Jonathan Sager of 5 Torrey Lane asked if the surveyor provided a legal title on the real estate, and Ms. Stickney replied that the plan only certified lot lines, not ownership. Mr. Hamadeh stated that Millbrook Survey and ASEC Engineering performed survey work, and chain of title was reviewed by ASEC Engineering and Attorney Robert Galvin’s office. The Board of Selectmen has the legal opinion of Atty. Galvin and the two surveyed plans.
Mr. Robert Kearney of 79 Soule Avenue stated that he resides at the corner of Sanger Road and Soule Avenue, and Sanger Road is grown over with tall pine trees. He stated that, with the current proposal, half of his land would become a road and the trees would be cleared. Ms. Scieszka asked if the trees were located on his property. Ms. MacNab noted that any trees would be flagged and that there would be a public hearing to remove any shade trees.
Mr. Scott Parker of 94 Soule Avenue stated that he opposes the proposed project because the area is already built to its threshold and there is no more room for development. Mr. Wadsworth agreed that there is a benefit to retaining a large open space in a dense development, and noted that the Chapter 40B process is inefficient. Ms. MacNab agreed with Mr. Parker that the area proposed is one of the denser areas in the Town already.
Mr. Thomas Parker of 366 Bay Road asked about the affordability component of the proposed project, and Ms. MacNab explained that the Chapter 40B statute requires a percentage of homes to be sold as affordable, with units selling for a lower than market price to qualified buyers. Mr. Wadsworth explained how affordability is calculated. Mr. Parker asked if anyone had done a comprehensive survey of the area. Ms. MacNab urged the public to communicate their concerns to the Board of Selectmen.
Ms. Goldberg asked if the Planning Board would be sending a letter to the Board of Selectmen. Ms. MacNab noted that the Planning Board had sent a letter to the Board of Selectmen requesting a consulting engineer review the plans, noting that the current plans are very preliminary and do not provide a sufficient level of detail. Ms. Goldberg stated that she would like to see her tax dollars used for a more detailed review of the project by the Planning Board. She asked what the Planning Board’s role would be, and Ms. MacNab replied that the Planning Board would submit a comment letter to the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Goldberg asked if the residents’ attorney could request a DRT to review the current plans off of Sanger Road, and Ms. MacNab responded that anyone could make that request to the Board of Selectmen.
Ms. Stickney noted that the West Bay Landing LIP project will go before the Board of Selectmen again on Monday, April 30, 2007. Ms. MacNab requested that staff alert the Board of Selectmen’s office that the Planning Board is in the process of developing a review letter. Ms. Stickney noted that the earliest agenda time for the Planning Board to review and approve their letter to the Board of Selectmen would be Monday, April 30, 2007 at 8:45 PM.
ZBA REFERRAL: DUXBURY YACHT CLUB MAINTENANCE BUILDING / HARRISON STREET
Ms. Stickney noted that the Board had issued a Certificate of Notification regarding the Administrative Site Plan Review application for this project. Ms. Scieszka noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) special permit application was for the building, not for it use as the Planning Board had advised the applicant. Ms. Stickney offered to review the Certificate of Notification and look into the matter. The ZBA referral was tabled until the next Planning Board meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:37 PM. The next meeting of the Board will take place on Monday, April 30, 2007 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, Lower Level.
| 
