Approved March 31, 2008
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 02/25/08
The Planning Board met in Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:30 PM.
Present: George Wadsworth, Vice-Chair; Brendan Halligan, Clerk; Harold Moody and Angela Scieszka.
Absent: Amy MacNab, Chairman; John Bear and James Kimball.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Mr. Wadsworth called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM.
OPEN FORUM
There were no Open Forum items.
DISCUSSION WITH MR. J.R. KENT RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZBL SECTION 425 REGARDING BUILDING AND SITE COVERAGE IN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS
Mr. Wadsworth invited Mr. Kent to present an update to his citizen’s petition for Annual Town Meeting 2008. Mr. Kent advised the Board that he would be making two amendments on the Town Meeting floor:
1. An amendment to the proposed section of the Zoning Bylaws to be amended, to read Section 425.1.5.e
2. An amendment to the proposed building coverage at 20 percent, and an amendment to the proposed site coverage at 80 percent.
The original citizen’s petition had a typographical error on the referenced Zoning Bylaw. The original building coverage was proposed at 30 percent, and the original proposed site coverage was 90 percent. Mr. Kent stated that Town Counsel’s advice was to begin with higher numbers that could be adjusted downward.
Mr. Kent read from a memorandum dated February 21, 2008 with information that led him to adjust the proposed building and site coverage percentages. He stated that building coverage would be driven by the minimum number of parking spaces required and the maximum building size the applicant would be allowed to build. If a developer allows for the minimum number of parking spaces, on most NB lots the coverage would become self-regulating. For instance, on a 15,000 square foot lot (minimum commercial lot size), 80 percent site coverage would allow for a 3,000 square foot building, 9,000 square feet of parking and travel access, and 3,000 square feet of setback and landscaping. With 500 square feet per parking and travel access per vehicle, 18 parking spaces would be allowed. Thus, site coverage could not go over 80 percent.
Ms. Scieszka asked about larger lots. Mr. Kent reported that several volunteers had looked at commercial properties in Town that represent the type of commercial buildings that would typify what they would like to see in the Town. Five commercial properties were identified. Mr. Kent then walked the properties to estimate the site and building coverage figures. The results were building coverage of 13 to 35 percent, and site coverage of 71 to 87 percent. From this research, he believes that 20 percent building coverage would provide enough parking area.
Ms. Scieszka stated that 80 percent site coverage sounds ambitious and is a significant change to the current 50 percent site coverage limit. She suggested that the Board consider the ramifications of these proposed changes. She did agree with the value of including a maximum building coverage percentage in the Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Kent noted that the proposed site coverage is comparable to other Towns.
Mr. Kent stated that parking requirements should not be based upon proposed use, because use can change over time. A better approach, in his opinion, would be to put a cap on building size through building coverage.
Mr. Kent noted that he had put forward the proposed amendment to save the Planning Board time discussing coverage, which ultimately results in the applicant paying more in engineering fees. His research has resulted in numbers that he believes both the Town and business owners can support. He stated that if the Planning Board does not support his proposed amendment, he would consider withdrawing the article and allowing the Board to do their own research and make their own proposal.
Mr. Wadsworth stated that, although he supports the article going forward, he would not support 80 percent site coverage, and might support site coverage at 60 percent.
Mr. Halligan stated that he would support the current proposal as amended, stating that it should go to Town Meeting floor. He stated that the Town needs to decide the direction they wish to go regarding commercial development.
Mr. Moody stated that he also would support the amended proposal, stating that it represents a significant difference from the original petition at 90 percent site coverage and 30 percent building coverage. He also noted that this would affect only a small percentage of NB-zoned land in the Town.
Ms. Scieszka stated that although she supports the concept, she cannot support the proposed percentages at 80 percent site coverage and 20 percent building coverage. She suggested that the Town needs to decide what kind of businesses they want and create coverage maximums from there. She requested a list of Towns that allow 80 percent site coverage, and Mr. Kent offered to provide her with a list.
Mr. Kent then departed to attend a Board of Selectmen’s meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
766 TEMPLE STREET / INDUSTRIAL TOWER & WIRELESS, LLC
The applicants had signed a mutual extension form to continue the public meeting. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is working with the applicant on two potential sites. The applicant requires a variance from the ZBA before proceeding with the Administrative Site Plan Review.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to continue the public meeting for Administrative Site Plan Review of 766 Temple Street / Industrial Tower and Wireless, LLC until March 31, 2008, with revised plans and materials due March 17, 2008 and a decision date of April 30, 2008.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
Board members signed the mutual extension form.
PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
11 WASHINGTON STREET / TRIEBEL
Mr. Wadsworth opened the public meeting at 8:32 PM. Present for the discussion were the applicants, Mr. Oliver and Ms. Jennifer Triebel, and their engineer, Mr. Robert Crowell. Mr. Halligan read the public meeting notice and correspondence list into the public record:
§ Planning Board meeting minutes of 11/05/07, 01/14/08, 01/28/08, and 02/04/08
§ Administrative Site Plan Review application, plans and supporting documentation submitted on 01/23/08
§ Public meeting notice:
- posted at Town Hall on 01/24/08
- mailed to abutters 01/28/08
- published in the Patriot Ledger 01/28/08 and 02/04/08
- published in the Duxbury Clipper 02/06/08
§ Staff memorandum dated 02/07/08 re: plan review
§ Fax cover letter from C. Stickney to R. Crowell dated 02/08/08 re: copy of staff memo
§ Mutual extension form signed by the applicant and PB members on 02/11/08, continuing the public meeting to 02/25/08
§ Draft conditions prepared by staff dated 02/25/08
§ Email from D. Grant to R. Crowell and J. Triebel dated 02/21/08 re: copy of draft decision.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that in previous discussions the Board had determined that a consulting engineer was not needed for this application because there were no changes proposed to the site. He directed the Board to review the draft decision.
Ms. Scieszka stated that she believes a consulting engineer is needed. She stated that this is the Board’s first opportunity to review the proposed site plan. She asked the applicants what the proposed use of the building would be. Mr.Triebel stated that the upper floor would remain apartments, and the first floor would be retail and office space. Ms. Scieszka noted that the first floor use would change from a dental office to retail space. She asked how many parking spaces were required for retail use. Mr. Crowell showed the Board a revised plan and noted how the eight parking spaces had been allocated:
§ four parking spaces were required for the two apartments
§ one parking space was required for 1,200 feet of proposed office space on the first floor
§ three parking spaces were required for the retail space.
Mr. Crowell noted that he had revised the proposed site plan to change the parking layout. Ms. Scieszka asked about accessible parking, and Mr. Crowell noted that “space 8” on the plan is handicap-accessible. Mr. Triebel noted that Mr. Scott Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services, had suggested that space as the accessible one. Ms. Scieszka stated that parking looks tight. Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Halligan noted that they had previous experience parking in the lot when it was a dentist office, and stated that they had no difficulty with parking. Mr. Halligan noted that the demand for parking will be lower for a retail operation than it was for a dentist office.
Ms. Scieszka asked how an earlier drainage issue had been corrected. Mr. Crowell stated that a drainage area had been constructed between this property and the abutting property. Additional gravel had been added before the first coat of asphalt had been laid before the property changed ownership. An additional 1 ? inches of asphalt will be placed on the parking lot, and parking lines will be painted and the handicap-accessible space will be delineated as well.
Ms. Scieskza noted that topographical elevations need to be added to the plans. Mr. Crowell agreed to add them to the mylar. Mr. Wadsworth requested that Mr. Crowell depict the handicap-accessible parking space and the gravel drainage area on the plan. Mr. Crowell agreed to review the mylar with Ms. Stickney to make sure that the plan is complete.
Ms. Scieszka reiterated that she believes engineering review needs to be engaged to ensure safe and adequate conditions. She stated that the parking area looks awkward, especially the handicap-accessible space, and drainage lines need engineering review. She noted that a surveyor’s stamp should be added to the site plan. Mr. Crowell noted that no engineering work is proposed to be done on the site. The drainage work was performed before the property changed ownership. A ten-foot landscape buffer will be added against an abutting residential property, and an arbor will be added. He agreed to add the surveyor’s stamp to the plan.
Mr. Moody stated that he is ready to move forward with site plan approval. Mr. Halligan agreed, stating that he is familiar with the site and noting that only the use is changing. With the change in use there will be less traffic. He also noted that the Town had signed off on the drainage work.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the change in use was driving the current application. No parking or exterior changes are proposed. The proposed parking meets requirements.
Mr. Wadsworth invited public comment. Ms. Marcia Solberg of 278 Washington Street stated that she supports the application.
Mr. Wadsworth asked for any final comments from the Board. Mr. Moody asked if a dumpster is planned for the property, and Mr. Oliver replied that because they will be recycling as much as possible, they will only need a trash barrel. Mr. Moody asked if lighting would be added to the exterior, and if those lights would be on timers. Mr. Oliver replied that no additional lighting is proposed, noting that adequate lighting exists in the area already. Mr. Moody asked for the hours of retail operation, and Mr. Oliver responded the hours would be 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the following items need to be added to the site plan:
1. Contour elevations
2. Drainage area delineation
3. Handicap-accessible parking delineation
4. Surveyor’s stamp.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to close the public meeting for Administrative Site Plan Review of 11 Washington Street / Triebel.
VOTE: The motion carried, 3-0-1, with Ms. Scieszka abstaining.
MOTION: Mr. Moody made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve plans entitled, “Proposed Site Plan, 11 Washington Street, Duxbury, MA” dated January 20, 2008, to be revised as agreed at tonight’s meeting, and to approve conditions as drafted.
VOTE: The motion carried 3-1, with Ms. Scieszka voting against.
Mr. Wadsworth advised the applicant that a corrected mylar needs to be submitted before the decision would be signed.
SONG SPARROW AS-BUILT APPROVAL
Present for the discussion were the applicant, Mr. Jay Woodruff, and the Town consulting engineer, Mr. Thomas Sexton of Mainstream Engineering. Staff distributed As-Built plans for the Board’s review. The Board also reviewed Mr. Sexton’s As-Built review letter dated February 19, 2008 and the response submitted today from the applicant’s engineer, Mr. Steven Gioiosa of Sitec Engineering.
Issues discussed:
§ Magnetic north depicted on site plan – Ms. Stickney noted that in 2002 the magnetic North was required. The subdivision was approved under 2002 Subdivision Rules and Regulations. It was agreed to add the magnetic north to the As-Built plans.
§ Benchmark for infrastructure elevations is not indicated – Ms. Stickney noted that Land Court is referenced for registered land but usually the Land Court manual is not used for unregistered land as is the case with this plan. Mr. Sexton had suggested that the source benchmark is not indicated, and it is not indicated whether the benchmark elevation is assumed, NAD88 or NGVD1929. Mr. Sexton noted that 2002 Subdivision Rules and Regulations require NGVD benchmarks. The benchmark information could affect elevation data. It was agreed that assumed benchmarks should be noted on the As-Built plan.
§ Watermain gate valve location appears doubtful – Ms. Stickney reported that the Water Department is satisfied with the location as depicted on the As-Built plans. Mr. Sexton noted that he had contacted the Water Department but had not received a reply. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Water Department should have on file the type and size of pipes utilized.
§ Not all lot subdivision lot lines are shown on As-Built plan – Ms. Stickney stated that she is satisfied with the depiction of lot lines and acknowledged that Mr. Sexton does not agree. Mr. Sexton noted that it can be waived.
§ Size and material for perforated subdrains need to be shown on As-Built plan – Ms. Stickney stated that certification has been submitted by the applicant’s engineer that the drainage was installed properly. It was agreed that a dotted line should be added to the As-Built plan to depict subdrains at station 0+50 and station 1+100.
§ Final cleanout of stormwater management system (from Approval Condition 19) – Mr. Wadsworth questioned how a closed system can be cleaned out. Mr. Sexton noted that at the most recent inspection, January 9, 2008, silt fences were still in place. Mr. Woodruff stated that he received a telephone call from Mr. Sexton that day reporting that no bounds or street sign were in place. Mr. Woodruff said that bounds and the street sign were all in place at that time, and he questions if a site inspection was actually made by the Mainstream Engineering representative. Mr. Sexton clarified that bounds were in place but were not observable at grade. He also questioned
if the street sign was placed in a bucket of cement beneath the ground instead of properly anchored in the ground. Ms. Stickney reported that when she made a site inspection that same day both items were complete. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the street sign should be depicted on the As-Built plan.
§ System Operation and Maintenance Plan needs to be submitted – Ms. Stickney noted that this has been recorded on the title because it is a unique type of drainage. Mr. Sexton also recommended that a performance bond be obtained as surety against the establishment of bioretention areas and homeowner’s maintenance guarantee fund. Ms. Stickney expressed her opinion that this is beyond the requirements. The Board noted that the Homeowners’ Agreement has been recorded and is sufficient.
§ Permanent pavement to be installed over any temporary trench patch on Forest Street – Mr. Woodruff advised the Board that NStar had made the cut but has not agreed to make the repair. Ms. Stickney noted that NStar obtained a street opening permit from the Highway Department.
§ Demonstration of roof drywell sizing and installation (Condition 12) – Ms. Stickney noted that the drywells are part of the building permit.
§ Concrete bounds need to be installed to finish grade or two inches above finish grade – Ms. Stickney noted that she had observed that all concrete bounds were found and all except one were above grade. It was agreed that the surveyor should be asked to raise the one bound to two inches above grade.
Ms. Stickney noted that the escrow account needs to be replenished because invoices have been received which cannot be covered by the current balance in funds. Mr. Woodruff noted that he is not agreeable to paying for review of 2005 Subdivision Rules and Regulations by Mainstream Engineering when the review should have been for 2002 Subdivision Rules and Regulations as stated in the discussion. Mr. Wadsworth advised Mr. Woodruff to resolve the issue with Mr. Sexton. Mr. Woodruff disagreed, stating that his funds were deposited with the Planning Board, and the Board should take some responsibility in this matter. Mr. Sexton agreed that the Planning Board should be involved with resolving this issue.
Mr. Sexton noted that most of his comments would apply either to 2002 or 2005 Subdivision Rules and Regulations. He offered to give appropriate credit where there would be no overlap.
Mr. Woodruff also stated that he did not feel that he should pay for issues that were not required overall. Mr. Sexton responded that the applicant has not been responsive to some issues that were clearly required. Ms. Scieszka suggested that Mr. Woodruff submit any issues in writing.
Ms. Stickney advised the applicant that escrow funds need to be replenished in order for As-Built review work to continue, noting that any unused funds will be returned with interest. She noted that she had not required replenishment because staff had not anticipated As-Built costs to be as high as they are. Mr. Woodruff agreed to replenish funds so that As-Built approval would not be delayed. Mr. Sexton agreed that he could include a credit on his February invoice which had not yet been submitted.
WORK SESSION
Bay Road Parcel Review: Ms. Stickney explained that the Town Finance Director and Treasurer have been researching Town-owned parcels that could be disposed of to raise revenue. They identified parcel 160-500-039 on Bay Road. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the parcel meets current zoning regulations. Ms. Scieszka noted that the parcel abuts Bay Farm, Town-owned conservation land. Mr. Halligan noted that if the land was sold and a house was built on it and a family with children moved in, the Town may actually lose revenue from the tax burden of school-aged children. Mr. Wadsworth agreed to research the calculations on the potential loss to the Town.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, NOT to recommend the conveyance of this parcel of land because this land abuts Town conservation land, and because the proposed sale may provide a short-term gain but would result in a long-term loss for the Town. The Planning Board will attach calculations that demonstrate that a dwelling on the proposed property similar to the ones on abutting properties would result in a net loss of revenue to the Town.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
Annual Town Meeting Planning Board Votes: It was agreed to defer voting until next week’s Board meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Engineering Invoice:
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to approve payment of Fay, Spofford & Thorndike invoice #3 dated February 15, 2008 in the amount of $589.74 for work related to Administrative Site Plan Review of Duxbury Bay Maritime School.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Scieszka asked why reports were not included with the invoice, and Ms. Stickney replied that the consultant, Mr. David Glenn, was not asked to be present for the latest public meeting which this invoice covers, and he submitted his review via email.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
Meeting Minutes:
It was agreed to review meeting minutes at the next Board meeting.
Potential ANR Plan of Land, Gurnet Road / Hummock: Ms. Stickney noted that the applicant’s representative has another potential rearrangement of parcels for this existing five-lot piece of land. She noted that she has issues with recommending ANR approval and the applicant has requested to speak to the Board regarding the proposal before submitting a formal application. After brief discussion it was agreed that the applicant should be advised to file an application.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 11:02 PM. The next meeting of the Planning Board will take place on Monday, March 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM in Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
