Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 12/03/07
Approved January 7, 2008
The Planning Board met in Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chair; Brendan Halligan, Clerk John Bear, Harold Moody and Angela Scieszka.
Absent: James Kimball.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Mr. Wadsworth called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Economic Advisory Committee (EAC): Mr. Bear reported that the Board of Selectmen is considering disbanding the EAC. He reported that Mr. Andre Martecchini, Selectman who serves on the EAC, hopes it will keep going. If the Board of Selectmen decides to disband the EAC, it would need to be approved at a future Town Meeting.
Community Preservation Committee (CPC): Mr. Bear reported that the CPC is pursuing some potential land acquisitions.
Ms. MacNab noted that the artificial turf field project has switched location for its initial turf replacement from the high school to the middle school. Mr. Bear reported that the decision was made between the turf proponents (Duxbury PRIDE) and the school administration, because the high school fields are more expensive to replace and the PRIDE group has not met its fund raising goals. Mr. Wadsworth added that a greater number of residents would be affected with the replacement of the middle school turf because of youth football programs. Ms. MacNab suggested that the CPC should have been involved in the decision. Ms. Sciezka noted that this project provides a cautionary tale that agreements and discussions made on town meeting floor are meaningless unless the specific wording is contained in the motion.
Duxbury Farms: Ms. MacNab reported that she would be departing tonight’s meeting to attend a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with Duxbury Farms on the agenda. She commended the Board and Town Counsel for performing their review work to ensure that Subdivision Rules and Regulations that had not been waived in the comprehensive permit are in compliance.
Later in the meeting Ms. MacNab reported that she had attended the ZBA meeting, and further discussion regarding Duxbury Farms was scheduled for December 11, 2007.
Chapter 40B Reform: Mr. Wadsworth reported that the citizen’s petition to put a Chapter 40B repeal on a future election ballot had received a sufficient number of signatures, and the petitions are being sent to the Secretary of State.
Local Housing Partnership (LHP): Mr. Wadsworth stated that he had attended a recent LHP meeting in place of Ms. Scieszka, reporting the following:
§ The LHP is considering a land purchase that would be used for affordable housing at a location that cannot be disclosed at this time. The LHP will be discussing the issue with the CPC within the next two weeks.
§ The LHP has compiled a list of Town Meeting initiatives, including an allocation plan and a number of initiatives that would be funded from a proposed Affordable Housing Trust fund.
§ The LHP has decided to keep land located on Lincoln Street and may put the project out to bid.
Ms. Scieszka noted that the housing consultant, Mr. Phillip Mayfield, had stated that portions of the Planned Production Plan were simply a template and the true plan would be revealed in a future housing allocation plan. Mr. Wadsworth noted that an allocation plan provides a housing focus for the coming year. Ms. Stickney noted that the Board members had received a copy of the proposed allocation plan, and further noted that there are no funds in the Affordable Housing Trust at this point. She also noted that the Board of Selectmen would be involved in any future affordable housing through the proposed Housing Trust, currently a warrant article for 2008 Annual Town Meeting.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND (CONTINUED): BAY ROAD, SUMMERHOUSE, SANGER, AND SPRUCE / ZERO BAY ROAD REALTY TRUST (HAMADEH)
Mr. Chafik Hamadeh was present as the applicant. Mr. Wadsworth noted that it appeared the applicant had done everything required to present an acceptable ANR plan. He noted that an existing shed is too close to a proposed lot line, and should be set back fifteen feet. Mr. Hamadeh stated that he would resolve the situation privately with the shed owner, Mr. Charles Rourke of 63 Soule Avenue.
Mr. Bear confirmed with Ms. Stickney that the perimeter survey had been reviewed. He asked if there would be any potential future access to Lot C from Torrey Lane. Ms. Stickney stated that Summerhouse Lane is shown bisecting the property on old maps; however, when Torrey Lane was built, a restriction prohibiting access was recorded on the title. Mr. Hamadeh confirmed that the non-buildable parcel would be conveyed together with Lot C.
Ms. Scieszka questioned whether Lot C is a buildable lot, and Mr. Moody confirmed that it is because Summerhouse Lane is a way in existence prior to Zoning Bylaws that went into effect in August 1950. Ms. MacNab agreed that evidence exists from Town Counsel and Town Clerk that the way exists although it has not been built out. However, she noted that the Board needs to ensure that ANRs are created from ways that are safe and adequate. She asked Mr. Hamadeh if Sanger Road is a safe and adequate way. Mr. Hamadeh stated that Sanger Road is 12 to 13 feet wide access is acceptable according to Deputy Fire Chief Carrico. The road needs grading per the Director of Inspectional Services, Mr. Scott Lambiase. The road is not maintained right now. Mr. Hamadeh stated that he intends to pave Sanger Road in the future, although with
the uncertainty of the housing market right now, he cannot say when he will do the paving.
Mr. Hamadeh stated that he spoke with Water Superintendent, Mr. Paul Anderson, regarding the installation of a proposed new water main on Sanger Road and a portion of Summerhouse Lane. The two agreed to coordinate the water main installation with the road paving. Ms. MacNab advised Mr. Hamadeh that since he owns Sanger Road, it would be up to him to determine whether to pave it or not. She asked if the road would require grading or importing of gravel. Mr. Hamadeh stated that the materials on-site should be adequate, and the existing rutting could be fixed through grading.
Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Hamadeh about the safety and adequacy of Summerhouse Lane. Mr. Hamadeh stated that a portion of that road is paved. Deputy Chief Carrico had a concern with an oak tree that may prevent fire equipment access, and Mr. Hamadeh has agreed to remove the tree. He also agreed to remove any branches that may hang under fourteen feet high to allow for the ladder truck to pass through.
Mr. Hamadeh showed the Board on the ANR plan how 160 feet of Summerhouse Lane is a gravel roadway. Beyond that the roadway has not been constructed yet but would be used to access the driveway for Lot C, perhaps constructing a circular driveway.
Ms. MacNab expressed concern with endorsing an ANR plan that currently does not provide safe and adequate passage. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that although they cannot put conditions on an ANR, they could withhold endorsement and require a filing through subdivision control law. Mr. Hamadeh reminded the Board that the building permit would be contingent on road grading and adequacy of the way. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the safety and adequacy would be signed off by various departments, including Fire and Health, with the building permit. The Board agreed that endorsing an ANR does not guarantee buildability, as stated on the ANR plans.
MOTION: Mr. Moody made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to endorse a plan of land entitled, “Subdivision Plan of Lad, Bay Road, Summerhouse Lane, Sanger Road, and Spruce Lane, Duxbury, Mass., Plymouth County, Owned by Zero Bay Road Realty Trust,” dated November 26, 2007, prepared by ASEC Corporation and signed and stamped by William J. Montuori, PLS – one sheet, as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Horne expressed concern with Sanger Road becoming an individual parcel and potential paving over property not owned by Mr. Hamadeh. Ms. MacNab assured her that Mr. Hamadeh cannot encroach on other properties when paving.
Ms. Eileen Kelliher of 4 Sanger Road asked who owns Birch Road, which is unconstructed. Mr. Hamadeh replied that it is a fee ownership, where abutters each own to the center of the roadway. He added that it is the same situation on Summerhouse Lane, with each abutter owning to the center of the roadway. Ms. Scieszka pointed out that Sanger Road is owned privately by Mr. Hamadeh. Mr. Hamadeh noted that Spruce Lane is a public way.
Mr. Mike Fortunato of 78 Indian Trail asked if two of the contiguous lots could be sold and then combined again for another potential Chapter 40B project. Ms. Stickney replied that it is possible to combine lots through Chapter 81X of State laws.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Later during the meeting, the Board signed the mylar and two full-sized copies of the ANR plan.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
95 TREMONT STREET (MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING) / STANDISH LLC
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 8:25 PM. Present for the discussion were the applicant, Dr. Scott Oliver, and his representatives: Atty. David Delaney and Mr. Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering. Also present was Town consulting engineer, Mr. Peter Williams of Vine Associates. Mr. Halligan read the correspondence list into the public record:
§ Mutual Extension form signed on 10/29/07
§ Email from N. Shine of Municipal Commission on Disability to C. Stickney dated 11/21/07 re: accessible parking inquiry
§ Email from S. Lambiase to C. Stickney dated 11/26/07 re: accessible parking response
§ Memo from C. Stickney to S. Lambiase dated 11/26/07 re: parking count inquiry
§ Email from S. Lambiase to C. Stickney dated 11/28/07 re: parking count response
§ Letter from P. Williams, Vine Associates dated 11/27/07 re: peer review of plans
§ Email from C. Stickney to S. Lambiase dated 12/03/07 re: confirmation of compliance to original special permit.
Ms. MacNab pointed out that the Board needs a determination from the Director of Inspectional Services regarding confirmation of compliance to the original special permit. She expressed her disappointment that current plans and materials do not completely address concerns and comments raised at the initial public meeting on October 29, 2007. For example, she was hoping to gain insight from any additional education Mr. Brogna could have provided the Town consulting engineer regarding the proposed paving material, since it is a new, untested material. She noted that Mr. Williams, the Town consulting engineer, had not received any information to help him form an opinion.
Mr. Brogna stated that there is very little guidance on the pervious pavement material that the State has jurisdiction over. He assured the Board that if any details were available they would have been provided. Ms. MacNab noted that with such a new technology as the paving material, there appears to be no supporting evidence to provide the Board with a comfort level of its capabilities.
Mr. Brogna noted that stormwater management is not a requirement with this application. He noted that this type of paving material has been used successfully in other parts of the country. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board follows best management practices. Mr. Wadsworth stated that he had reviewed best management practices with the intent of keeping silt from moving into ponds and streams.
Mr. Brogna reported that he had met with Mr. Peter Williams, Town consulting engineer, this morning, and as a result of their discussions Mr. Brogna proposes to add an impervious liner beneath the pervious material that would be sloped to collect runoff at the southwest corner of the parking lot, where it would go through an infiltration system. Mr. Wadsworth asked why the applicants do not choose to pave the lot, and Mr. Brogna responded that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will not permit it due to site coverage issues. Ms. Scieszka added that site coverage cannot go over fifty percent.
Ms. MacNab noted that this is the first time the Board has heard of using an impervious liner. Mr. Williams stated that he came up with the idea of a liner after brainstorming with Mr. Brogna this morning. Mr. Williams continued that Mr. Brogna said that he would need to run the idea by his clients, and that is the last he had heard until now.
Mr. Moody noted that the original system had a silt liner. Mr. Wadsworth asked if any bioremediation would be taking place as stated in some printed materials provided by Mr. Brogna, and Mr. Williams confirmed it would not. He stated that the materials Mr. Brogna submitted referred to grass paved areas, not gravel paved areas.
Ms. MacNab asked if the liner is waterproof, and Mr. Williams stated that it is made of polyethelene, which is waterproof. Ms. MacNab noted that it is a relatively large area and asked what would happen during a particularly rainy season. Mr. Williams responded that water could eventually seep through. Mr. Brogna noted that an impervious liner has been used successfully at Otis Air Force Base. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the liner would be affected by traffic, and Mr. Williams stated that it would not. He stated that the liner would be made from the same or similar material as is used underneath landfills.
Mr. Brogna showed the Board an actual sample of the pervious paving system, demonstrating how water passes through it. He explained the paving layers as two inches of gravel, then the plastic paving system, then twelve inches of stone, then the infiltration fabric. The paving cups hold the stones in place. The stones are small pebbles.
Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Williams if he needed more time to research the proposed paving system with liner. Mr. Williams stated that he is comfortable with this system which would collect runoff at the southwest corner of the parking lot and utilize the drainage system there.
Mr. Bear asked if Mr. Brogna would be performing the drainage calculations, and Mr. Brogna replied that because this is a design element, no drainage calculations would be needed.
Ms. MacNab noted a memorandum from Ms. Nancy Shine, who serves on the Disability Commission and was in attendance. Ms. Shine disagrees with Mr. Scott Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services, who feels that CMR 521 does not apply to this project. CMR 521 defines the types of facilities where additional accessible parking is required. Section 23 of this State regulation provides a formula for determining required parking for non-inpatient medical facilities. Ms. Shine believes the formula applies to this project, but Mr. Lambiase does not. Mr. Halligan stated that he reviewed the Architectural Access Board (AAB) bylaw and agrees with Mr. Lambiase’s interpretation.
Ms. Shine stated that she would like to make sure that the formula is applied correctly, and she agreed to obtain a determination from the AAB regarding parking requirements. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board follows the direction of Mr. Lambiase, and Atty. Delaney offered to obtain a letter from him with a final determination of parking requirements.
Mr. Bear asked if Ms. Shine is concerned with the surface of the proposed new parking area, and Ms. Shine replied that if enough area was paved, the Disability Commission would most likely approve. Ms. MacNab noted that the new parking area is for employees only, and Ms. Shine pointed out that employees could have disabilities also.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that if the Disabilities Commission interpretation applies, up to twenty percent of the parking area would need to be handicap accessible. Mr. Brogna stated that if that were the case, the applicants would most likely choose to withdraw their application.
Mr. Bear asked if the issue of a loading zone had been resolved, and Mr. Williams responded that the applicants will be working with the Fire Department to make sure that they are satisfied. Mr. Brogna added that re-striping and “no parking” signs will be required. Mr. Williams noted that a letter from Chief Kevin Nord will be required.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if the applicants have pursued finding alternative parking, and Atty. Delaney replied that after speaking with his clients, they do not wish to pursue alternative parking for reasons stated earlier. He stated that they would be willing to accept a condition that they would make a good faith attempt to pursue alternative parking opportunities as they arise.
Ms. MacNab stated that it would be fair to let the applicant know where Board members stand at this juncture. Mr. Wadsworth stated that he is troubled by the fifty percent coverage requirement. He stated that the applicant caused the current parking shortage by building too large of a structure with not enough parking, and in his opinion it is up to the applicant to resolve the problem.
Mr. Bear stated that, no matter whose fault it is, the problem needs to be fixed. This application represents an attempt to resolve an existing parking shortage. Mr. Halligan agreed, as long as the drainage is acceptable. He commended the applicants for proactively trying to resolve the issue.
Ms. Scieszka stated that the site and its use are woven together, and suggested that another way to resolve the problem might be to amend the special permit rather than adding parking. She expressed concern that if the proposed paving material is approved, other applicants could apply for 100 percent coverage with the same “pervious pavers.” Ms. MacNab noted that each application is reviewed individually, so no precedents are set.
Mr. Moody stated that he is keeping an open mind, although he understands Mr. Wadsworth’s concerns. He recognizes that an effort is being put forth by the applicants, and noted that there may be more pollution generated currently with vehicles parking on grass than there would be with the proposed parking expansion.
Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Stickney for her comments. Ms. Stickney responded that the Zoning bylaw regarding parking requirements is flawed. Issues with the project include public safety, economic benefit for the community, and site coverage.
Ms. MacNab summarized follow up required:
§ The two engineers need to get together to work out any remaining issues
§ Letter from Mr. Lambiase regarding whether current use is in compliance with the original special permit
§ Accessible parking resolved between Disability Commission and Director of Inspectional Services
§ Letter from Fire Chief that he is satisfied with current proposal
§ Delineation of subsurface drainage details
§ Lighting plan.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to continue the public meeting for Administrative Site Plan Review of 95 Tremont Street / Standish LLC until February 11, 2008 at 8:00 PM, with revised plans and materials due by January 28, 2008 and a decision deadline of March 18, 2008.
DISCUSSION: Dr. Oliver stated that he originally constructed the building in order to provide health care to Duxbury residents, and most of the physicians in the practice are Duxbury residents. The number of parking spaces complied with current Zoning Bylaws at the time. He appreciates the Board’s willingness to consider his proposal to get vehicles off the grass.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
WORK SESSION – PLANNING BOARD PROPOSED ZONING BYLAWS FOR ANNUAL TOWN MEETING 2008
Ms. Stickney reported that she had spent most of the day working with Town Counsel on Annual Town Meeting warrant articles. December 4, 2007 is the deadline for submitting warrant articles, and everything appears ready to go. Planning Board sponsored articles include:
§ GIS Revolving Account (submitted annually)
§ Amendment to Site Plan Bylaw 906.5 requiring a land surveyor’s stamp on special permit site plans
§ Zoning Bylaw 560 regarding payment if lieu of constructing affordable housing
§ Affordable Housing Bylaw (co-sponsored with Local Housing Partnership).
Ms. MacNab noted that Mr. J.R. Kent is planning to submit a citizen’s petition to revise Zoning Bylaws regarding site coverage, to revise the maximum lot coverage for commercial properties to 90 percent, and building coverage to 15 percent. Ms. MacNab and Ms. Scieszka expressed their concerns that the proposed numbers are too high.
OTHER BUSINESS
Engineering Invoice:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to pay Vine Associates invoice #1404-1 dated November 21, 2007 in the amount of $1,750.00 for services related to 95 Tremont / Standish LLC.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, approve executive session meeting minutes of September 24, 2007 as amended.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of October 29, 2007 as amended.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of November 5, 2007 as written.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Dingley Dell Subdivision, off Congress Street: Ms. Stickney noted that the deadline for completion of this subdivision had been extended until December 1, 2007. However, the Conservation Restriction has not been completed, although in talking with the State, it is in process. Ms. Stickney recommended the applicant be invited to attend a meeting in January 2008.
Song Sparrow Subdivision, off North Street: Ms. Stickney noted that this subdivision deadline also passed on December 1, 2007. She stated that Mainstream Engineering will need to perform an inspection and sign off. This topic will also be scheduled for January 2008.
T-Farm Estates, off High Street: Ms. Stickney noted that the rescission has been recorded.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM. The next meeting of the Planning Board will take place on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 7:30 PM in Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
