Approved 03/31/08
Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 03/03/08
The Planning Board met in Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level on Monday, March 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chair; Brendan Halligan, Clerk; Harold Moody and Angela Scieszka.
Absent: John Bear and James Kimball.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Ms. MacNab called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
OPEN FORUM
No items were presented for Open Forum.
ANR PLAN OF LAND: TEMPLE AND LINCOLN STREETS / JAMES BROOK REALTY TRUST (GELDMACHER)
The applicant, Mr. Christopher Geldmacher, was present, along with his surveyor, Mr. Douglas Bailey. Ms. MacNab asked why Parcel A and Parcel B were being created, and Mr. Bailey explained that a land swap is proposed that would create more land for an existing bog at 0 Temple Street. It was noted that Parcel A would be combined with Lot 1 and Parcel B would be combined with Lot 2, which is currently 366 Temple Street.
Ms. MacNab noted that Lot 2 would gain frontage to a total of just over 200 feet, and therefore would now meet current zoning requirements. The cranberry bog would lose frontage but the lot also retains adequate frontage on Lincoln Street with no structure other than pump houses.
Ms. MacNab noted a reference on the plan to the “existing traveled way.” Mr. Halligan stated that if the land is conveyed in the future, there may be confusion over right of access. Ms. MacNab requested that the term be removed from the plan. The Board agreed that the term “edge of pavement” would be an acceptable replacement.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to endorse a plan entitled, “Plan of Land, Lincoln and Temple Street, Duxbury, MA” dated February 11, 2008 and stamped by Douglas Bailey, PLS, as amended to remove the term “existing traveled way” and to depict a ‘Z’ instead of arches to show common ownership, as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Mr. Bailey agreed to submit the amended ANR to the Planning office as soon as possible for the Planning Board to endorse.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN OF LAND: STANDISH STREET / REED
The applicant’s surveyor, Mr. Mark Casey, presented the Board with revised plans which corrected a drafting error on the project locus and also a clarification in change of ownership. Two lots are proposed to be combined into one lot. The lots are presently identified as 329 Standish Street and 337 Standish Street. However, one of these lots is listed under the owner’s name, Cynthia L. Reed, and the other lot is listed under “The Cynthia Reed Revocable Trust.” It is intended for both lots to be listed under the trust.
Ms. MacNab asked why the applicant had not gone to the Registry with an 81X plan, and Mr. Casey stated that in his opinion and also the opinion of the applicant’s attorney, Mr. Bristol, that would not be the proper format. He stated that this land was previously part of a subdivision which had been amended. In 1996 a lot had been combined with a vacant parcel. With this application two lots will be combined and existing dwellings on those lots will be razed.
Mr. Moody asked the applicant’s intention, and Mr. Casey responded that the applicant wishes to build a modest structure on the combined lot that would provide storage for lawn and garden equipment, with the upstairs providing housing for a full-time custodian.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to endorse a plan entitled, “Plan of Land at Lot 200-052-012, Standish Street, Duxbury, MA” dated February 12, 2008, revised on February 25, 2008, stamped by Stephen Moran, PLS, as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
The Board signed the ANR plans.
OTHER BUSINESS
Because it was not yet time for the public meeting, the Board addressed other business.
Song Sparrow Engineering Review: At the February 25, 2008 Board meeting, the Town consulting engineer, Mr. Thomas Sexton of Mainstream Engineering, and the applicant, Mr. Jay Woodruff, had met with the Board to discuss As-Built review for this project, as well as the invoices for consulting engineer review. The applicant and engineer were advised to resolve billing issues so that Mainstream Engineering could submit a credit. A February 2008 invoice was subsequently submitted by Mainstream Engineering that did not include a credit. Upon further consideration at tonight’s meeting, Board members agreed that the Board should facilitate an agreement between the applicant and Town consulting engineer. Ms. MacNab requested that staff notify both parties to attend a future Board meeting, and submit proposals for
invoice credits in writing prior to that meeting.
Mr. Wadsworth asked about the status of the As-Built plans. Ms. Stickney noted that several items were being added to the plans at the Board’s request. She also noted that the lots would not be released until all escrow funds had been submitted to cover outstanding consulting engineer invoices.
Planning Board Meeting Schedule: The Board reviewed and approved a proposed schedule for meeting every other week rather than weekly. Ms. Stickney noted that the Planning office has seen a decrease in applications.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
95 TREMONT STREET / STANDISH LLC (OLIVER)
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 8:15 PM. Present for the discussion to represent the applicants were Atty. David Delaney and Mr. Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering. Mr. Peter Williams of Vine Associates was also present as the Town consulting engineer. Mr. Halligan read the correspondence list into the public record:
§ Mutual Extension form signed on 12/03/08
§ Meeting minutes of 12/03/07
§ Revised plans and cover letter dated 01/10/08
§ Letter from P. Williams of Vine Associates dated 01/11/08 re: review of 01/10/08 plans
§ Fax cover letter from C. Stickney to P. Brogna dated 01/11/08 re: copy of P. Williams review letter
§ Revised plans and cover letter dated 01/15/08
§ Letter from P. Williams of Vine Associates dated 01/17/08 re: review of 01/15/08 plans
§ Revised plans dated 01/19/08 with cover letter dated 01/24/08
§ Letter from P. Williams of Vine Associates dated 01/25/08 re: review of 01/19/08 plans
§ Mutual extension form to continue public meeting to 03/03/08
§ Letter from S. Lambiase dated 02/11/08 re: applicant in compliance with special permit
§ Fax from N. Shine dated 02/11/08 re: Municipal Commission on Disabilities clarification of issues
§ Fax cover sheet to P. Brogna
§ Letter from Dep. Chief Carrico dated 03/03/08 re: no exceptions to proposed parking lot.
Ms. MacNab asked if the applicants had heard from the Fire Department, and Mr. Brogna submitted a letter from Deputy Fire Chief William Carrico stating that he has no exceptions to the proposed plans.
Mr. Brogna stated that the applicants will be posting “No Parking” signs at the turns suggested by Deputy Chief Carrico. Ms. Stickney noted that the signs will provide the Fire Department the ability to enforce the “no parking” area. Mr. Brogna added that hedges will be installed across the front of the property where overflow vehicles currently park. He stated that employees are told to park on the grass to provide more parking spaces for clients until the problem is solved.
Mr. Wadsworth expressed his concerns:
§ Vehicles are currently parking on all grassy areas of the property, not just the front.
§ Vehicles that are parked on the front grassy area sometimes exit the lot by going straight onto Tremont Street rather than using the exit lane. He suggested that a condition should be noted in the Site Plan Review decision that vehicles should enter and exit only through marked lanes.
§ The vehicles parked on the front grassy area are parked on State-owned property. If the applicant is instructing employees to park in that area, he is telling them to do things they should not do.
§ The applicant is not demonstrating an attempt to reduce the number of parked vehicles.
§ The applicant has failed to address the need for up to 140 vehicles, the highest number recorded by the applicant in a September 2007 vehicle count.
Ms. MacNab noted her issue is with the applicant possibly not complying with the uses specified in the original special permit issued in 1998. She referenced a letter dated February 11, 2008 from Mr. Scott Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services, stating that the applicant is in compliance with the special permit. She stated that she believes he may have misinterpreted the question. She noted that the original special permit specified that the second floor would be for professional use other than medical or dental practices. She believes the intent of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) was to lessen the intensity of medical/dental use by allocating space for other types of professionals that would bring less traffic and parking. Presently the second floor includes a physical therapy office, which has a more intense use
than a physician’s or dental practice.
Ms. Stickney advised the Board that she spoke to Mr. Lambiase today to clarify his position, and he said that, although it may have been a point of discussion, the use on each floor was not a condition specifically called out in the original special permit. Ms. Scieszka noted that this Administrative Site Plan Review shows that the site cannot support the current use.
Attorney Delaney stated that no one could have anticipated in 1998 that there would be a parking shortage ten years later. He noted that the applicant is attempting to alleviate the problem through the current applications through the ZBA and the Planning Board. Mr. Wadsworth stated that there are alternative solutions that do not require an expansion of parking. Atty. Delaney responded that the applicants have researched alternatives such as satellite parking and purchasing abutting property, and they have not found a feasible alternative. He noted that medical practice has changed significantly since 1998, with more procedures being performed in the office rather than at the hospital.
Ms. Stickney asked if medical practices at the building are subleasing space, and Atty. Delaney responded that two practices are using the same space but are not both using the space at the same time. He also noted that the ZBA has no conditions on the special permit that would preclude subleasing.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the applicant has 111 parking spaces today, and Ms. MacNab noted that 129 spaces are proposed, adding that this number is short of the spaces they need as demonstrated by Ms. Oliver’s calculations at peak times. Mr. Moody noted that with this application, the applicant is making an attempt to alleviate the parking shortage.
Ms. MacNab expressed a concern that even if the site plan were approved, the illegal parking may continue. She stated that the decision could include a condition to urge the ZBA to monitor future changes in use. She confirmed with Atty. Delaney that there is no proposed expansion of use for the building. He noted that the third floor will continue to be for storage only.
Atty. Delaney noted that, according to current Zoning Bylaws, the office is required to have five spaces per physician. With 15 to 16 physicians in practice, the applicant is in compliance. He agreed that the current parking requirements are not sufficient for today’s medical practices.
Mr. Wadsworth asked how the applicant will discourage vehicles from parking illegally in the future. Mr. Brogna noted that hedges will be planted in the front of the parking lot and “no parking” signs will be placed in the lanes. With approval from the Board of Selectmen and the Highway Safety Committee, vehicles parked illegally can be ticketed. Ms. MacNab suggested that this should be added as a condition to Site Plan approval.
Ms. MacNab asked about enforcement of illegal parking, and Ms. Stickney replied that, according to Police Department traffic safety officer Maryellen Vidito, the property owner needs to agree to enforcement. She added that the Fire Department can ticket vehicles parked in a marked fire lane.
Mr. Moody suggested that fencing could be installed that would provide a physical barrier to deter illegal parking. Mr. Brogna expressed a concern if fencing would make it infeasible to snow plow. Mr. Wadsworth recommended that fencing be placed around the site, excluding the hedged area and the HVAC and dumpster areas. Mr. Brogna stated that he would consult with the Fire and Police departments regarding the feasibility of fencing along the perimeter of the parking and travel lanes. Atty. Delaney stated that the applicants would most likely agree to some fencing unless the cost became prohibitive.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that he is concerned with the proposed site coverage of 56.2 percent, not including the porous pavers. He distributed a hand out that he compiled with the definition of “coverage” from the Zoning Bylaws. He stated that the proposed liner may deem the new parking area impervious. He stated that he does not believe the parking area can be approved as proposed. Atty. Delaney disputed that the liner renders the proposed parking impervious.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that if the Board approves the Administrative Site Plan Review, they would need to notify the ZBA that a variance would be required. Ms. Stickney noted that the definition of “impervious” coverage under ZBL Section 300 should also be considered. Mr. Halligan noted that the Board requested the liner to capture water for treatment. If the applicant had not filed, the runoff would remain untreated. Atty. Delaney asked what would happen if the ZBA had the opinion that a variance is not required. Mr. Wadsworth informed him that the ZBA is the final authority on variances.
Ms. MacNab noted that the Board needs more time to consider the issues and for staff to draft conditions. Atty. Delaney asked if the Board members not present for tonight’s meeting could participate in the decision. Ms. MacNab responded that members who are absent from a public meeting can review minutes and participate in a vote. Ms. Stickney added that a simple majority is required for a vote to pass.
Mr. Brogna noted that a proposed amendment to Zoning Bylaws is going before Annual Town Meeting on March 8, 2008 that would require all paving in Neighborhood Business Districts to be paved. He asked if his application would be grandfathered to provide exemption from this requirement. Ms. Stickney noted that grandfathering applies only after either a special permit of building permit has been issued. Mr. Brogna stated that the entire site would need to be redesigned, and new drainage calculations would be required. Ms. Stickney suggested that the Board could consider providing approval to the Administrative Site Plan Review subject to plans as amended at tonight’s meeting and subject to conditions that will be approved at a later date. She noted that these are standard boilerplate conditions and conditions
unique to each site that would be prepared.
MOTION: Mr. Moody made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve Administrative Site Plan Review for 95 Tremont Street / Standish LLC, subject to amendment of plans and conditions as agreed at tonight’s meeting.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Scieszka noted that approval is subject to conditions to be approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Moody and Mr. Halligan accepted the amendment.
VOTE: The amended motion carried, 4-0-1, with Ms. Scieszka abstaining.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to continue the public meeting for Administrative Site Plan Review of 95 Tremont Street / Standish LLC until March 31, 2008 at 8:30 PM, with revised plans and materials due by March 20, 2008 and a decision deadline of April 30, 2008.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
The applicant and Board members signed a mutual extension form.
WORK SESSION
Annual Town Meeting Articles: Ms. Stickney noted that the Board would have an opportunity to meet on March 8, 2008 before Annual Town Meeting begins, to discuss votes. She noted that Town Meeting may not get to the zoning articles on the warrant until Tuesday, March 11, 2008.
Article 36 – A proposed amendment by citizen’s petition to amend the ZBL maximum lot coverage from 50 percent to 80 percent (as proposed to be amended) and to add building coverage at a maximum of 20 percent (as proposed to be amended): Mr. Wadsworth noted that he had received a telephone call from Ms. Sara Wilson of the Zoning Board of Appeals. She suggested that the proposed coverage figures should be subject to further analysis. In her own research, she discovered that there is no enforcement on site coverage regulations. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board of Selectmen also had raised legitimate issues regarding the proposed coverage limits. She agreed that further study is required.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to recommend disapproval of Article 36 with the 80 percent / 20 percent proposed amendments.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Scieszka noted that, although it is a step in the right direction, it is not prudent to make this amendment without more thorough research to support the percentages proposed.
VOTE: The motion carried, 4-1-0, with Mr. Moody voting against.
Article 24 – CPA funding of Grange acquisition: Mr. Wadsworth explained that the Local Housing Partnership is requesting $70,000 in funds ($50,000 acquisition, $20,000 auxiliary costs) to purchase the existing Grange building at 153 Franklin Street and renovate it for affordable housing. He stated that an RFP was issued for renovation costs, which would be paid for by the developer. Ms. Stickney noted that the South Shore Habitat for Humanity submitted the only response to the RFP. Ms. MacNab asked if the unit would count toward the State-mandated requirement for ten percent affordable housing, and Ms. Stickney replied that it would.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to recommend approval of Article 24, requesting $70,000 in Community Preservation Act funds toward purchase of the Grange building at 153 Franklin Street.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Article 25 – Establishment of an Affordable Housing Trust: Ms. Stickney noted that, at their February 25, 2008 meeting, the Board of Selectmen had issues with the borrowing capacity of the Trust. The Local Housing Partnership has since voted to remove language regarding borrowing. Mr. Wadsworth noted that this proposed article is fairly complex, and recommended that no formal position be taken by the Board.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, that the Planning Board take no position regarding Article 25, establishing an Affordable Housing Trust.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of November 26, 2007 as amended.
VOTE: The motion carried 4-0-1, with Mr. Halligan abstaining.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of February 4, 2008 as amended.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Cell Tower, 766 Temple Street: Ms. Stickney reported that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance to construct a cell tower at the applicants’ alternative site at 454 Franklin Street. She stated that a decision would be forthcoming, and noted that the applicants have not yet filed for Administrative Site Plan review at the Franklin Street site.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:57 PM. The next meeting of the Planning Board will take place on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 8:00 AM at the Duxbury Performing Arts Center, in conjunction with Annual Town Meeting.
| 
