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.
Minutes 3/1/04
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, March 1, 2004.
Present: Peter Donahue, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, Angela Scieszka, George Wadsworth and Rob Wilson.
Absent: James Kimball.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Postponed to later in the meeting.
ANR PLAN OF LAND: WASHINGTON STREET R.T. (SEALUND)/ North Street
The applicant, Mr. Kevin Sealund was present. The applicant’s engineer, Mr. Rick Grady, was also present.
Mr. Donahue explained that this ANR will create three lots on North Street. A fourth lot, labeled as “not a buildable lot” is the subject of a concurrently filed Definitive Subdivision Plan.
Mr. Wadsworth asked whether the sixty-degree angle created as a road opening for the proposed subdivision will meet Rules and Regulations. Mr. Donahue said that it just makes it.
Mr. Al-Zaim asked about whether access for the existing lots will be taken from North Street or the new subdivision road. It was explained that two of the lots would take their access from the subdivision, if approved, and the third lot would have access from North Street.
Ms. MacNab made a motion to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
ATM Article #28--Gravel Parking: Mr. Donahue said that he would like the Planning Board to reconsider their position on Annual Town Meeting Article #28, relevant to gravel parking. He reiterated his position that parking materials should not be changed without looking at site coverage regulations.
Ms. MacNab made a motion to reconsider the Planning Board vote on Annual Town Meeting Article #28. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion. The vote in favor of the motion was unanimous (6-0).
Ms. MacNab made a motion to re-open the public hearing on Annual Town Meeting Article #28. Mr. Wadsworth provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
Ms. MacNab agreed that more study should be conducted prior to bringing such a controversial article before Town Meeting.
Mr. Wadsworth said that he sees the inevitability of the postponement, but is very discouraged by it. He said that he dearly hopes that the issue will be taken up very soon at a Special Town Meeting in June or in the fall.
Ms. Scieszka said that she has not found evidence to support the arguments against the proposed article. She said that the only way she would agree to postponing the article is if the Planning Board pledges to stay on top of the issue. She pondered whether it would be worthwhile to bring it to Town Meeting anyway, just as a way of hearing the discussion by people of the Town. Mr. Donahue responded that it is better to bring a thoroughly researched article to Town Meeting.
Mr. Al-Zaim said that, for him, the original intention of the proposed article was simply to clear up a discrepancy in the Bylaw. He said that some sections allowed gravel parking, and some did not. Now, he said that he sees that there are larger questions, involved with the issue, but believes that the Planning Board should stick with their original position. He noted that it is unclear whether Mr. Lampert (who has spoken in opposition to the article) was speaking for himself, or for the Zoning Board of Appeals as a whole. Members of the Planning Board gave their opinion that Mr. Lampert was speaking for the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Wilson made a motion to recommend indefinite postponement of Annual Town Meeting article #28, relative to gravel parking. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which carried by a vote of five in favor, none opposed, and one abstention (Mr. Al-Zaim).
Mr. Donahue directed staff to send notice to the Board of Selectmen about the Planning Board’s action, and to put the item on an agenda right after Town Meeting.
OPEN FORUM
Associate Member: Ms. MacNab noted the editorial in the Duxbury Clipper (2-25-04), in opposition to Annual Town Meeting Article #25. The editorial said that the Planning Board (an elected body) should not be moving in the direction of becoming more of an appointed body by taking on appointed associate members. Ms. MacNab stated that her intention was never to move away from having an elected Board. She asked whether the Associate Members could be elected instead of appointed.
Mr. Donahue said that the Duxbury Clipper editorial missed two important aspects of the Article. For Special Permits, he said, members have to be present for ALL hearings. If someone has an illness in their family, or is called out of town for a work commitment, the Town risks being faced with constructive approval. Second, the associate members may ONLY sit on special permits. The associate members cannot vote on standard subdivisions, nor on updating the Rules and Regulations or the Zoning Bylaw.
Ms. MacNab agreed that the associate members would only be involved for tree clearing, certain uses within the APOD, and for Residential Conservation Cluster Subdivisions.
Mr. Al-Zaim agreed that the Duxbury Clipper article “missed the point”. The article compared the actions of the Planning Board to the actions of the Board of Selectmen when they vote on granting liquor licenses. Liquor licenses can be fully handled in one meeting. Planning Board hearings usually continue for months. This puts an enormous strain on an elected Board. Massachusetts General Laws allow for the appointing of associate members for elected Planning Boards. It has worked well in other Towns.
Ms. Ruth Rowley said that the article which has been published in the Town Meeting Warrant does not match that which was advertised by the Planning Board. The published article is an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw, which is the way Ms. Rowley wanted it to be.
(Mr. Donahue left the meeting at this point. Ms. MacNab assumed the chairmanship of the meeting.)
Ms. Rowley distributed a hand-out to members of the Planning Board regarding other Planning Board sponsored articles. Then, she left the meeting with a comment to be very careful about the Special Act creating an Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON 2004 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES: WATERFRONT SCENIC AREA AND BYLAW AMENDMENTS REGARDING PIERS
Mr. Wilson made a motion to open the continued public hearing for Annual Town Meeting Article #16, relative to the establishment of a Waterfront Scenic District, and to waive the reading of the public hearing notice. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Wilson made a motion to open the continued public hearing for Annual Town Meeting Article #17, relative to Zoning Bylaw amendments related to Piers, and to waive the reading of the public hearing notice. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
Three members of the public were present. Mr. Tenhoor (Chairman of the Piers, Access, and Shoreline Study Committee) and four members of the PASS committee were present. Mr. Tenhoor distributed a memorandum, dated 3/1/04, entitled, “Report to the Planning Board Regarding 2004 Town Meeting Article 16 (establishing a waterfront scenic area overlay district) and 17 (amending zoning bylaw relative to piers)”. Five issues were discussed in the memorandum: 1) Town Counsel has said that the proposed bylaw changes do not put the Town at risk for a civil rights lawsuit with regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA only regulates public facilities, and the proposed pier bylaw is only for residential piers. If a homeowner wishes to build a handicapped accessible pier, the
pier bylaw is superseded by Federal regulations. Mr. Tenhoor requested a written opinion from Town Counsel regarding this matter, but did not receive one; Mr. Al-Zaim expressed disappointment that this was not provided by Town Counsel. 2) The PASS Committee believes that regulating other structures in the wetlands would be beyond the scope of its responsibility, as the Conservation Commission already has an extensive set of regulations in this area; 3) The proposal that piers should be constructed “principally out of wood”, does not preclude the use of metal nails, hinges, etc., but would preclude the use of an aluminum ramp. Mr. Jackson Kent (1351 Tremont Street) said that he would like to see this amended to allow aluminum ramps (or ramps made of other alternative materials) if they were modified to have the texture and/or appearance of wood. He said that aluminum ramps are light enough to be taken in prior to a storm event. The use of aluminum
also allows the homeowner to have a less substantial dock. PASS Committee members indicated that they would be open to a discussion of this at Town Meeting. Mr. Malcolm MacNaught (195 King Ceasar Road) said that large timbers are in short supply, so there is another advantage to considering the use of alternative materials for construction. Mr. John Wisbach (52 Josselyn Avenue) gave his opinion that the proposed bylaw focuses too much on specific materials. The bylaw should be more focussed on reflectivity or color; 4) The intent of the PASS Committee was to address residential piers only, and not commercial or public facilities. The confusion on this issue occurred when the proposed changes were split into two articles; 5) The PASS Committee sent informational letters to property owners within the proposed Waterfront Scenic Area District. Mr. Tenhoor said that, in retrospect, he wished the committee had done so earlier, and that they perhaps
should have included properties which abut the proposed district. Ms. MacNab said that, while she commends the Committee for the notification effort, that the public should be very aware that the issue is before the Town, as it has been well publicized over the last couple of years. Mr. John Wisbach disagreed with Ms. MacNab’s comments, and said that he would have appreciated more notice.
Mr. Wisbach gave his opinion that many things have been overlooked with the proposed bylaw change. He said that it adds more regulations and restrictions to an already over-regulated issue. He added that more could have been done with incentives, rather than restrictions.
Mr. Tenhoor then announced that there was a rather dramatic development at the last meeting of the PASS Committee. The PASS Committee voted (4 in favor, one abstention) to recommend indefinite postponement of Articles 16 and 17, recommending that the Selectmen request consideration and future action on the issue by the Bay Management Study Committee, as well as forwarding to the Selectmen the Committee’s fact finding and recommendations in a final report for use by the appropriate Town Committees and Boards. Mr. Tenhoor explained that the original intent of the Committee was simply to forward a report. However, about six months ago, it was decided to promote a Town Meeting article for zoning changes. However, the effort to combine key factors of importance into the proposed bylaw has not
worked to everyone’s satisfaction. The effort seems to be unravelling. Mr. Shawn Dahlen (also a committee member) said that he abstained from the vote just described by Mr. Tenhoor. Upon further reflection, he said that he intends to speak at Town Meeting in opposition of postponing the articles. He explained that the buffers between piers appears to be the splinter issue. However, he believes this can be resolved.
Ms. Heidi Pape-Laird (PASS Committee) said that she is in favor of postponing the article because she agrees with Mr. Wisbach that some incentive approaches should be tried. She said that the Committee had looked at working with easements, and incentives not to build piers, but then dropped it.
Mr. Peter Roveto (PASS Committee) said that a tremendous amount of work has been done by the Committee. He said that he fears that there is so much confusion over the articles, that all the hard work could go to waste.
Mr. Wadsworth said that he would be very disappointed to see the article postponed. He also said that the Bay Management Study Committee has so many tasks, that the pier issue could end up getting lost. He said that he would hate to see Duxbury look like some other Massachusetts towns where one can practically jump from one pier to another.
Mr. Wilson also said that he was disappointed. He said that the PASS Committee did a terrific job and was looking forward to seeing the bylaw changes effected.
Mr. Al-Zaim shared in the disappointment expressed by other members of the Board. He said that zoning is not static. It will never be perfect. He urged the group to go forward.
Ms. Scieszka said that Town Meeting specifically separated out the pier issue from other issues being studied by the Bay Management Committee. The issue was felt to be important enough to warrant its own committee.
Mr. Kent said that he was initially opposed to the work of the PASS Committee. However, he said that the committee has done an excellent job, and he could support their articles.
Ms. MacNab referenced a memo from Mr. Jim Lampert, dated February 25, 2004, and asked whether the PASS Committee had considered the memo. Mr. Tenhoor said that all of Mr. Lampert’s issues were language issues, and all of them could be incorporated if the Committee had decided to go forward.
Mr. Wisbach said he would like to see the articles put off to a future Special Town Meeting, and would like to see the intervening months used to incorporate more positive incentive approaches, rather than regulations. He would like to see more involvement by organizations such as the Wildlands Trust and by the waterfront property owners.
Mr. Wilson said that if the article is postponed, that the Bay Management Committee should be left out of it, since they already have enough tasks.
Mr. Wadsworth made a motion to close the public hearings on Articles 16 and 17. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion. Under discussion of the motion, Ms. Stickney reminded the Board that Town Meeting cannot act on a zoning article without a recommendation from the Planning Board. Board members discussed the merits of recommending indefinite postponement vs. approval of the articles. Ms. MacNab said that if the Board voted to recommend approval of the articles, that the Board should send a memorandum to the Board of Selectmen explaining its position.
The vote was unanimous in favor of closing the public hearing (5-0).
Mr. Wilson made a motion to recommend approval of Town Meeting Article #16, relating to the establishment of a Waterfront Scenic Area District. Mr. Wadsworth provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Wilson made a motion to recommend approval of Town Meeting Article #17, having to do with Zoning Bylaw amendments relative to piers, as amended to incorporate all of the suggestions made in the memorandum from Jim Lampert to the PASS Committee, dated 2/25/04. Mr. Wadsworth provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Webster Point: Ms. MacNab recused herself from the discussion. The Board reviewed a memorandum from Daley & Witten, LLC (attorney for the Marshfield-Duxbury Neighborhood Association) to Mr. Edward Sylvia (attorney for Delphic Associates), dated 2/16/04. The letter, in part, objects to a water line running through a portion of the land along Duck Hill Road. Mr. Wadsworth said that it is very important to the Duxbury Water Advisory Board that this water line be established.
Minutes: Ms. MacNab returned as an active Board member. Mr. Wilson suggested a correction to the minutes. Mr. Wilson made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Wadsworth provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
Duxbury Crossing: It was agreed to postpone discussion of Duxbury Crossing to the next meeting (March 8, 2004).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, March 8, 2004 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
