Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 11/19/07
Approved December 17, 2007
The Planning Board met in Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level on Monday, November 19, 2007 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chair, Brendan Halligan, Clerk; John Bear, James Kimball, and Harold Moody.
Absent: Angela Scieszka.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Ms. MacNab called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.
OPEN FORUM
There were no Open Forum items reported.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW: 766 TEMPLE STREET / INDUSTRIAL TOWER & WIRELESS, LLC
MOTION: Mr. Moody made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to continue the public meeting for Administrative Site Plan Review of 766 Temple Street, at the applicant’s request, until January 7, 2008 at 8:00 PM, with revised plans and materials due by December 27, 2007 and a decision date of February 7, 2008.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
The Board signed a mutual extension form that had been signed previously by the applicant’s representative, Atty. Edward Angley.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND (CONTINUED): BAY ROAD, SUMMERHOUSE, SANGER, AND SPRUCE / ZERO BAY ROAD REALTY TRUST (HAMADEH)
The applicant, Mr. Chafik Hamadeh, explained that although he has signed a mutual extension form to continue this ANR discussion, he would like to clarify some minor issues that would affect the plan presented. He stated that his legal counsel, Atty. Robert E. Galvin, and Town counsel appear to have different interpretations regarding Sanger Road and he would appreciate the Board’s direction.
Ms. MacNab advised Mr. Hamadeh that the Board has not reviewed any information regarding this situation. Mr. Hamadeh explained that the question is whether to keep Sanger Road as part of a proposed lot as the current plan depicts, or to move the lot line to not include Sanger Road, which is owned by Zero Bay Road Realty Trust. If the lot line is moved it would affect the area and amount of frontage due to an angle at the base of the lot (definition of lot shape). However, the lot would continue to have adequate frontage and area for an ANR lot.
Ms. Stickney noted that Town Counsel, Atty. Troy, suggests showing the lot line to not include Sanger Road. However, the road may then be considered a parcel although it would not meet ANR requirements because of its narrow width. The plan would need to notate that the parcel was non-buildable.
Ms. Stickney also noted that Town Counsel had no issue with a proposal by Mr. Hamadeh to create another non-buildable parcel near Bay Road with this ANR plan. Mr. Bear asked if the bound issue with surveying had been resolved, and Ms. MacNab noted that it is being addressed.
Ms. Jeannie Horne and Mr. Kenneth Horne of 20 Sanger Road asked why Sanger Road would be considered a non-buildable lot. Ms. MacNab clarified that a parcel would be created, not a lot, so nothing could be built on it. Mr. Moody added that current access easements would still be in effect.
Ms. MacNab reminded Mr. Hamadeh that plans need to be submitted with matching surveyor’s stamps for the plan and certification.
MOTION: Mr. Kimball made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to continue the discussion of an Approval Not Required Plan of Land for Bay Road, Summerhouse Lane, Sanger Road and Spruce Lane / Zero Bay Road Realty Trust, at the applicants’ request, until December 3, 2007 at 7:45 PM, with revised plans due November 26, 2007 and a decision deadline of Janaury 9, 2008.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
The Board signed a mutual extension form that Mr. Hamadeh had already signed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Because it was not yet time for the posted public meeting, the Board addressed other business.
Mainstream Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to pay the following Mainstream Engineering invoices dated October 31, 2007:
§ Invoice #21038 in the amount of $957.00 for services related to the Duxbury Yacht Club maintenance building
§ Invoice #21039 in the amount of $130.50 for services related to Berrybrook School.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Planned Production Plan: Ms. Stickney noted that the Department of Housing and Community Development verbally approved the Planned Production Plan on November 7, 2007. Written approval is forthcoming.
Duxbury Farms Special Permit Amendment ZBA Decision: Ms. MacNab reported that no motion or vote was taken at the public hearing for this amendment. The decision was signed by one ZBA member.
Meeting Minutes: The Board agreed to defer approval of meeting minutes for September 24, 2007 (executive session), October 29, 2007, and November 5, 2007 until a future meeting.
Open Meeting Law Presentation: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the Attorney General’s office will make a presentation on December 11, 2007 to all Town Boards and Committees regarding conflict of interest, open meeting law, and public records. Ms. MacNab encouraged all Board members to attend, and the Board of Selectmen is requesting an RSVP as soon as possible.
WORK SESSION
Discussion with Zoning Board of Appeals Members Regarding Proposed Zoning Bylaws: Mr. James Lampert was present for the discussion as chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Ms. Stickney noted that three proposed articles had been tabled at the 2007 Annual Town Meeting (ATM), related to building height, projections, and grade.
Ms. Stickney noted that Conservation Administrator, Mr. Joseph Grady, is interested in the bylaw amendment regarding projections to move forward again for ATM 2008. She has advised Mr. Grady to review proposed changes at a future ZBA meeting. Mr. Lampert noted that Director of Inspectional Services, Mr. Scott Lambiase, had some practical issues with the proposed changes. Ms. MacNab noted that ZBA members first voiced concerns with this amendment at a Board of Selectmen presentation in March 2007. She suggested that issues should be resolved earlier in the process. She agreed that Mr. Grady should work with the ZBA on this proposed amendment.
Mr. Lampert suggested that building height should be a ZBA decision case by case. Ms. MacNab reminded Mr. Lampert that he recommended last year’s amendment to height. He stated that he has reviewed other Town’s zoning bylaws and believes that other towns may have a better approach.
Ms. MacNab noted that Mr. Grady is seeing projects where grade is raised in order to raise building height. Mr. Lampert agreed that it is a legitimate concern. Mr. Wadsworth agreed that it is difficult to establish what the true natural grade is. He asked if the ZBA looked at dwelling height and grade relative to other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Lampert replied that the ZBA does with a special permit. Ms. MacNab stated that the Planning Board is seeing applications that would have a negative impact on neighbors for drainage and views.
Mr. Lampert stated that he would work with Ms. Stickney regarding his concerns with proposed revisions to inclusionary housing fees in lieu of affordable housing construction.
Ms. Stickney confirmed with the Board that they do not plan to file warrant articles that were tabled at last year’s Annual Town Meeting. Ms. MacNab agreed that it would be counterproductive for the Board to move forward without broad based support.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Local Housing Partnership (LHP) is introducing warrant articles regarding an Affordable Housing bylaw for nonconforming lots; establishment of an Affordable Housing Trust; and Accessory Apartments. Ms. MacNab recommended that the ZBA review these proposed warrant articles with LHP members. Ms. Stickney noted that the LHP does not intend to go forward with the proposed Accessory Apartment bylaw.
Ms. MacNab suggested that the ZBA consider requiring plans that are stamped by a registered surveyor to ensure that plans are accurate. Mr. Lampert stated that he is unsure a stamped plan should be required in all cases. He would prefer the flexibility to require stamped plans in some cases but not others. Ms. MacNab noted that most special permits have a nonconformity, and it would add time to the special permit process if the Planning Board requests stamped plans. She noted that most applicants already submit plans but they are not always stamped. Mr. Wadsworth noted that it is especially important to have a surveyor’s stamp on plans where site coverage is an issue. Mr. Halligan suggested that stamped plans could be waived at the ZBA’s discretion.
Mr. Halligan submitted his suggested revisions to staff regarding proposed Zoning Bylaw revisions and also proposed Local Initiative Program guidelines.
INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW: DUXBURY BAY MARITIME SCHOOL, 31 MATTAKEESET COURT (A/K/A 457 WASHINGTON STREET)
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 8:20 PM. Present to represent the application were Mr. Ned Lawson of Duxbury Bay Maritime School; Mr. Shawn Dahlen, builder; and Mr. Pat Brennan of Amory Engineers. Also present was Town consulting engineer, Mr. David Glenn of Fay, Spofford and Thorndike. Mr. Halligan read the public meeting notice and correspondence list into the public record:
§ Administrative Site Plan Review application, plans and supporting documentation submitted on 10/23/07
§ Email from C. Stickney dated 10/24/07 to J. Carnuccio of Duxbury Bay Management Commission re: invitation to Development Review Team meeting
§ Public meeting notice posted 10/25/07 and advertised in the Duxbury Clipper on 10/31/07 and 11/07/07
§ Development Review Team notice dated 10/26/07
§ Memo from J. Carnuccio to C. Stickney dated 10/27/07 re: Duxbury Bay Management Commission comments regarding proposed plans
§ “DBMS Stormwater System Maintenance Plan, 06/28/02, Updated 9/27/07,” submitted by Amory Engineers on 11/02/07
§ Email from T. Baugous to C. Stickney dated 11/08/07 re: septic concerns
§ DRT minutes of 11/09/07
§ Letter from Deputy Chief Carrico dated 11/13/07 re: Fire Dept. concerns
§ Section 7 of Sewerage Rules & Regulations submitted by P. Anderson 11/14/07
§ Letter from D. Glenn of Fay, Spofford & Thorndike dated 11/15/07 re: peer review
§ Staff memo dated 11/15/07 re: project review.
Mr. Lawson presented a slide show showing historical photographs of the site dating from 1937 to present. He noted that in 2001, before Administrative Site Plan Review was adopted by the Town of Duxbury, site plans were approved by the Inspectional Services Department as part of the residential building, but the project was only partially built. Those plans included a larger building than is currently proposed. A stormwater management plan was also approved at that time.
He presented the proposed plans and elevations through the slide show as well. The applicants propose 74 new parking spaces and a queuing line of up to 29 vehicles. With the school facilities all located on the east side of the property, pedestrian traffic crossing vehicle traffic will be minimized.
A utilities plan shows a new utility pole in addition to the current one. NStar will not allow any other risers on existing poles. The new pole will allow underground services to the building. Office spaces will continue to be leased out in the new building, although they may use that space for their own programs in the future. An existing travel lift will be eliminated. A wind turbine was considered but is not proposed at this time with the current plans.
Mr. Lawson provided building coverage history for the property:
§ 1990: 29,642 square feet
§ 1998: 20,027 square feet
§ 2002: 17,740 square feet
§ 2007: 15,811 square feet (current proposal).
The perecentage of impervious coverage, including buildings and pavement:
§ 1998: 87%
§ 2002: 70%
§ 2007: 49% (current proposal).
Mr. Lawson itemized requirements from MGL Chapter 40A, Section 3 (educational use) and Town of Duxbury Zoning Bylaws, and noted that the applicants plan to comply with all requirements, including bulk, setbacks, height, lot area, building coverage, and parking.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if the parking area is proposed to be not impervious. Mr. Lawson explained that the travel lanes would be paved with asphalt and the parking spaces would be crushed seashells in order to keep the site as light in color as possible to reflect heat rather than absorbing it. Mr. Lawson stated that although the project will not be LEED certified, the school’s goal is for low environmental impact.
Ms. MacNab confirmed that Mr. Lawson’s figures regarding impervious coverage do not include the proposed ground shells as impervious material. Ms. MacNab asked if there might be an alternative such as a light-colored asphalt or pavement that could be used, and Mr. Lawson replied that any other light-colored material would be extremely expensive. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that the asphalt could be painted, and Mr. Lawson replied that it would not be a viable solution.
Ms. MacNab asked about proposed expansion of current educational services. Mr. Lawson replied that the school is planning to expand its weekend offerings.
Ms. MacNab asked for comments from Mr. Glenn, the Town consulting engineer. Mr. Glenn stated that the presentation was informative, and it would have helped to have some of the background information submitted with the application.
Ms. MacNab noted that future plan submittals should be stamped by a licensed surveyor. Mr. Dahlen assured the Board that they will do so. Mr. Lawson showed the Board surveyed plans from 1992 (stamped by Vautrinot Associates) and 1997 (stamped by South Shore Survey).
Mr. Wadsworth asked if there were any Land Court issues, and Mr. Lawson replied that, to their knowledge, there were not. Ms. Stickney noted that the latest Land Court plans were 1998. Mr. Lawson stated that the school would be willing to file with Land Court if needed. Mr. Dahlen expressed that they may not need to file with Land Court because the lot lines have not changed and there are no buildings on lot lines. Mr. Wadsworth advised the applicants that there may be an issue if lot lines bisect buildings. Ms. Stickney suggested that the applicants consult with Land Court, noting that interior lot lines as shown on 2002 plans prepared by Vautrinot Surveying have not been eliminated through Land Court. Mr. Lawson stated that he would consult with his attorney.
Mr. Lawson explained the proposed traffic pattern, noting that there will be two traffic lanes that follow the property perimeter. One will be a permanent drop-off lane and the other will be for through traffic. Directional arrows will be painted on the pavement and the handicap accessible parking will be hard surfaced. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that “Do Not Enter” signs or one-way signs be installed.
Mr. Lawson proposed to respond to concerns raised at a Development Review Team (DRT) meeting of November 9, 2007. He distributed a written response as well. He stated that he did not understand DRT comments from Conservation Administrator, Mr. Joe Grady, regarding concerns with the new building’s location within the velocity zone. Mr. Lawson noted that the school had received Orders of Conditions for the project from the Conservation Commission on October 29, 2007. Mr. Lawson stated that the building was sited with safety in mind, to minimize foot traffic across the parking lot. Staff was asked to check with the Conservation Administrator.
Mr. Lawson noted that a question was raised regarding how the proposed 74 spaces were determined. He referenced a table of uses by time of day from the slide show. He noted that the uses were documented by time of day during the morning of a summer session, during the busiest time of year. The maximum demand was estimated to be 62 spaces.
Ms. MacNab asked if a future increase in parking demand is anticipated, and Mr. Lawson replied that the only new classes they are planning are evening or winter classes that would not affect peak demand. Mr. Dahlen added that the parking analysis was performed with the assumption of all office spaces were in use. With three spaces at 1,000 square feet, 60 spaces would be required, so the current application exceeds current standards. Mr. Dahlen stated that he had spoken with Mr. Lambiase regarding the number of parking spaces and believes that Mr. Lambiase is satisfied with the adequacy of parking spaces.
Mr. Glenn noted that parking spaces near Washington Street should be delineated on site plans to determine line of sight and turning radius. Mr. Lawson also noted that a stop line will be painted in that area rather than a stop sign.
Mr. Lawson stated that a concern had been raised regarding ownership of the access road and easement. He stated that an access easement exists into the parking lot. Vehicles are not allowed to park within the easement, other than for temporary loading. He stated that he would like to work with the Fire Department to designate the “no parking” area as a fire lane. Mr. Jack Davis of 50 Possum Run submitted a copy of a plan showing an easement that was not represented on the applicant’s site plan. Mr. Lawson stated that Mr. Davis’ plan shows a limited easement. Ms. Stickney noted that the site plans need to match Land Court plans. Mr. Dahlen noted that it would be easy to resolve the situation through their attorneys.
Mr. Lawson noted that in the Fay, Spofford & Thorndike memo of November 15, 2007, it was recommended that all copies of existing Chapter 91 licenses should be provided. He stated that, to his knowledge, no fill will be required on tidelands. Ms. Stickney advised Mr. Lawson that if any Chapter 91 licenses are applied for, the Board would need to sign off that they have reviewed them.
Mr. Lawson agreed to provide an erosion and sediment control plan. Mr. Glenn noted that the site plans will need more landscaping detail. Mr. Lawson agreed to provide that, as well as architectural drawings and schematics.
Mr. Lawson noted that he does not believe screening is needed for the dumpster. Ms. Stickney asked Mr. Lawson to provide verification from the Board of Health.
Mr. Lawson noted that lighting plans were designed to minimize light pollution.
Ms. MacNab stated her concern with the proposed crushed shell parking area. She stated that it is important to pave parking areas in order to catch pollutants, particularly in sensitive areas such as the waterfront. Mr. Lawson replied that the Conservation Commission had no problem with the crushed shell material. He noted that the shells are relatively impervious. Mr. Dahlen added that the Town had recently built a new stormwater drainage system. Runoff would flow into the storm ceptor, then into a sand filter. Ms. MacNab asked for Mr. Glenn’s opinion of the adequacy of the stormwater management plan, and Mr. Glenn replied that as long as the runoff is pitched appropriately, it should work. He noted that he had not yet reviewed drainage calculations.
Ms. MacNab asked how the parking lot would be plowed, and Mr. Lawson replied that the shells would need to be raked in the spring. Mr. Wadsworth asked where snow removal will be placed, and Mr. Lawson responded that he would probably place it in a gravel area in a swale that is pitched away from the building.
Mr. Bear asked if drainage exists in the back of the current Sweetser’s commercial lot, and Mr. Lawson replied that the school is taking care of the Sweetser’s drainage.
Ms. MacNab opened the floor to public comment:
Mr. Jack Davis of 50 Possum Run stated that he owns the Sweetser’s properties and he supports the application. He stated that he and his wife are among the founders of Duxbury Bay Maritime School. He stated that he has an issue with the way the drawings were presented, because he would like to see the vehicle easement and view easement added to the site plan. Mr. Dahlen and Mr. Brennan stated that these omissions would be corrected. Mr. Davis noted that the vehicle easement allows access for the dumpster removal. Mr. Davis also recommended that a stop sign should be placed where the school exit and parking lot intersect. Mr. Lawson suggested that a sign could be placed on the utility pole.
Mr. Davis noted that he rents office space at his building and was not aware that the maritime school would be renting office space as well. Ms. MacNab stated that a delineation is required of the projected commercial space which is not exempt under Chapter 40A. Mr. Dahlen responded that all existing uses would remain indefinitely.
Mr. Wadsworth asked about a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decision in 2002 regarding the proposed building’s second floor. Mr. Dahlen responded that the ZBA recognized that they had no jurisdiction over the office space. He noted that 87% of the proposed building will be used by the maritime school and 13% would be rented for office space. Ms. MacNab advised Mr. Dahlen to obtain a written confirmation from the ZBA, and Mr. Dahlen responded that it has nothing to do with Administrative Site Plan Review. Ms. MacNab noted that with the proposal of additional office space that is not exempted, current and proposed uses are required in order to determine adequacy of parking spaces. Mr. Dahlen agreed to provide a parking table.
Ms. MacNab advised Mr. Lawson that the applicant’s engineer needs to get together with the Town consulting engineer to resolve any issues that had arisen regarding the site plans.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to continue the Administrative Site Plan Review for Duxbury Bay Maritime School until January 7, 2008 at 8:30 PM, with revised plans and materials due by December 21, 2007 and a decision date of February 7, 2008. There was no discussion regarding the motion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Mr. Dahlen and the Board signed a mutual extension form. Ms. Stickney advised that ten copies of revised plans would be required.
OTHER BUSINESS
LIP Guidelines: Ms. Stickney requested that the Board review proposed guidelines for Local Initiative Projects (LIP) and return comments to her by November 26, 2007.
Merry Village: Ms. MacNab reported on a recent Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) hearing regarding a proposed amendment to this comprehensive permit located on Lincoln Street. She stated that the ZBA closed the public hearing and a denial was drafted for this proposed amendment to remove the age restriction that was granted with the original permit at age 55 and over. At a later administrative meeting the vote to remove the age restriction was tied at three for and three against and therefore did not pass. Mr. Lampert, who was not sitting on the ZBA for this hearing, questioned why the three members voted against removing the age restriction. Without reopening the public hearing, the applicant was contacted, and then after motion to reconsider, the vote to remove the age restriction passed by a vote of four to two. Ms.
MacNab advised the Board that this information had been passed along to the Town Manager.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:33 PM. The next meeting of the Planning Board will take place on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 7:30 PM in Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
