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 7/26/04
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, July 26, 2004.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, James Kimball and Rob Wilson.
Absent: Aboud Al-Zaim.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director. (Ms. Ripley was absent.)
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Mr. Wadsworth provided information about average local rainfall. Written material will be provided to the Board in next week’s packets. Mr. Wadsworth also presented the names of the members of the Town Government Study Committee.
ANR PLAN OF LAND: FOREST STREET/ Estate of Clarence Kent
Mr. Jay Woodruff was present to represent the applicant. He explained that, prior to a decision on the ANR application, he would like to have an informal discussion with the Board about development possibilities for the entire parcel. Mr. Woodruff also reviewed prior activity with the parcel: Two 40,000 SF ANR lots were approved, and a six lot subdivision was proposed for the remaining land. The six-lot subdivision plan was subsequently withdrawn. Also, a Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit application was made, and subsequently withdrawn. Another subdivision plan was filed in order to lock in zoning, because a number of zoning changes were being proposed in Town. However, this plan was withdrawn because it was too late to preserve the zoning on the ANR lots. So, current
proposals are being made under the provisions of the 2003 Zoning Bylaw, as amended to the present day.
Mr. Randall Parker, a surveyor who has worked with Mr. Woodruff on the project, was also present. Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Parker presented four sketches of possible land configurations: 1) 2 ANR lots and 2 large lots accessed by cul-de-sac roadway, and one drainage lot; 2) 2 ANR lots and 2 large lots accessed by a common driveway; 3) 2 ANR lots, 2 lots accessed by a cul-de-sac, and one large lot intended for public use; 4) 2 ANR lots, three lots accessed by a cul-de-sac, and one drainage lot.
Ms. MacNab said that her interpretation of the bylaw is that the applicant must show a cluster design as one of the possibilities. Mr. Woodruff said that Option #3 is as close to a cluster design as possible. This creates a buffer from the highway. Yet, it allows for 60,000 SF lots, as are required in the APOD. Ms. MacNab, Ms. Scieszka, and Mr. Wadsworth explained that with a cluster design, square footage and number of bedrooms are considered for the parcel as a whole. Therefore, smaller lots would be allowed, so long as the number of dwellings and bedrooms does not exceed the maximum allowable for the whole parcel. Mr. Woodruff said that smaller lots would not preserve the economic value of the property. Ms. MacNab said that the Planning Board cannot concern itself with economic
value.
In answer to a question by Mr. Wadsworth, Ms. Stickney said that her review of the bylaw reveals that this application is subject to the provisions of the Residential Conservation Cluster bylaw, because the parcel is greater than ten acres. It does not matter that the applicant plans less than five lots. However, the inclusionary housing provisions of the new bylaw would only apply if six or more lots were planned.
Mr. Parker said that he is delighted to hear that there is now an option to develop a subdivision which buffers the neighborhood from the highway, and would allow for a wildlife corridor. He said that Town Meeting should be applauded for approving these amendments.
Mr. Woodruff said that his bottom line is that he would like four 60,000 SF lots. He said that he will do whatever the Board wants with the rest of the property. Ms. Scieszka agreed that Option #3 is the closest approximation to a cluster design. She said that a cluster design would require that 50% of the property be open space. (This number was later corrected.) This would occur if the four lots were made slightly smaller.
Mr. Parker asked whether the subdivision could be constructed under condominium ownership, rather than individual lots………to maximize flexibility without restrictions for setbacks, etc. Ms. MacNab said that condominiums would be allowed, but that height restrictions would probably not be waived. She directed the applicant to study the provisions of 540.5.
Mr. Billy Devine, partner to Mr. Jay Woodruff, said that the Kent Estate will not come back with a cluster design involving any kind of attached housing. It is very important to the neighborhood to maintain the economic value of their homes. The Kent Estate would like to have four lots, and not have the requirement to build a roadway. A common driveway would be preferred. So, the point of being before the Board is to find out whether the Board will allow four lots and a common driveway.
Mr. Wadsworth commented that it might be impossible to get 60% open space, a roadway, and four 60,000 SF lots.
Ms. MacNab clarified that the zoning bylaw requires the developer of ten or more acres to present the Board with two scenarios: 1) A standard grid subdivision design; and 2) a cluster design. The cluster design would be the default preference of the Board, unless there are compelling reasons to stay with the standard grid subdivision.
Mr. Parker clarified what he meant about the condominium issue. He said that he is not talking about attached dwellings. He is talking about free-standing units that are not restricted by lot lines. This adds to the flexibility of what can be done with the land.
Mr. Wadsworth explained that the Board wants to decide if the parcel is better served by a Residential Conservation Cluster design or by a traditional subdivision. The reason for laying out a standard design is to establish the maximum number of allowable lots.
Mr. Devine said that since it would be impossible to get 60% open space, plus a roadway, plus four 60,000 SF lots, that it would be a fruitless and expensive undertaking to design a cluster subdivision. He said that Option #3 creates the least amount of problems for the Town and the neighborhood.
Mr. Kimball and Ms. Scieszka encouraged that applicant to show that the cluster requirements can be met, albeit with slightly smaller lots. This will allow the process to go forward. Only a sketch is necessary.
Mr. Woodruff asked what it would take to make Option #3 work. Mr. Randall interjected that it might work if the lots were 50,000 SF. Mr. Randall asked whether the Planning Board would be the Special Permit granting authority, which the Board answered affirmatively.
Ms. MacNab brought the Board’s attention back to the fact that there is still an ANR plan before it. The applicant agreed to withdraw the plan, and to put their intention to withdraw in writing.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if any members of the public wished to comment. Mr. Ronan Ryan (41 Forest Street) identified himself as a member of the Northwest Duxbury Neighborhood Association. Mr. Ryan said that the neighborhood association has met with the developer several times. The neighborhood would like to see four lots. The last thing the neighborhood would like to see is another Chapter 40B application.
Mr. Randall pointed out that the neighborhood lots were created under 40,000 SF zoning, so there should not be a negative impact on the neighborhood if the new lots are under 60,000 SF.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to accept the withdrawal of the ANR Plan for Forest Street. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (5-0).
PUBLIC HEARING: DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION/DINGLEY DELL ESTATES:Off Congress Street
Ms. Scieszka, Clerk, read the public hearing notice and correspondence list into the record. The correspondence list was as follows:
· Definitive application and plans submitted 6/15/04
· Letter from Flaherty and Stefani, Inc. received 6/15/04 re: application
and list of waiver requests.
· Abutters list from both Duxbury and Pembroke (certified)
· Public Hearing notice that ran in the Clipper July 7th and July 14th
· Letter to Walter Amory from Christine Stickney dated 6/22/04 re:
consulting services for peer review of the project
· Development Review Team Minutes of 7/15/04
· Memo to Robert S. Troy dated 7/16/04: Transmittal of DRT minutes
· Note to File from B. Ripley dated 7/19/04 re: mis-labeling of parcels
· Fax transmittal to Attorney Angley 7/19/04 re: DRT Minutes 7/15/04
· Memo from BOH agent dated 7/19/04 re: conditional approval
· Memo from C. Stickney dated 7/22/04 re: staff’s review of major
issues with the application.
· Fax transmittal from Phillips & Angley dated 7/23/04 – attached is a
letter from Attorney Edward Valente dated 7/22/04 – stating representation of Peter and Elaine Winquist and their assent to the proposed subdivision roadway.
· Copy of Forest Management Plan for Dingley Dell Lane – from the
Assessors’ office.
Present were:
Walter Amory, Consulting Engineer for the Town of Duxbury
Jeffrey Angley, Attorney for the applicant
Roman Streibel, Principal for Dingley Dell Estates (applicant)
Mark Flaherty, Engineer for the applicant
Mr. Angley said that Dingley Dell Estates is the owner of 22+ acres, located primarily in Duxbury, but partly in Pembroke. Access is by the privately-owned Dingley Dell Lane. Dingley Dell Lane currently serves two homes: 1) Mr. Streibel’s home; and 2) Mr. and Mrs. Winquist’s home.
Mr. Angley explained that Dingley Dell Lane was the subject of an ANR application in September 2000. The intention of the ANR plan was to create an additional buildable lot on Dingley Dell Lane for Mr. Streibel’s son, and to create another non-buildable parcel which could be conservation land. The Planning Board cited two reasons for denying the application: 1) That Dingley Dell Lane was not a way in existence prior to Subdivision Control Law; and 2) That Dingley Dell Lane was not adequate to provide access to another building lot. Mr. Angley said that the applicant was prepared to demonstrate that Dingley Dell Lane was a way in existence prior to Subdivision Control Law. However, at the trial in December 2003, it was agreed between Mr. Angley and Duxbury Town Counsel that
it might be better to try to accomplish the objectives of the plan as a subdivision, rather than through the ANR process; thereby saving the time involved in litigation. Certain waivers are being sought, and they will be explained by the engineer. The intention is to keep Dingley Dell Lane small and private. A large subdivision road is not desired. The applicant is aware of conservation issues. There will be a hearing with the Conservation Commission on August 10, 2004. The applicant will also have to file with the Pembroke Conservation Commission and the Pembroke Planning Board. Also, the planned house will require a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals because of the wetlands.
Mr. Angley clarified for Ms. MacNab that the current subdivision application is not a remand from the Court, rather it is an attempt between the two parties to settle the lawsuit regarding the ANR denial. He said that the trial has been continued from December 2003, and that there is a status conference scheduled for September 9, 2004.
Mr. Mark Flaherty explained that Dingley Dell Lane is a ten-foot lane which is partially graveled, and partially paved. He referred to the lane as a driveway, rather than a road. There is an extensive wetland area to the right of the “driveway”. The wetland area has been delineated over time by the Garrett Group in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The Wetland Protection Overlay District also comprises some of the property. Mr. Flaherty said that he has shown an approximate location of that District on the plan. The parcel of land is not located in either a flood hazard area or the Aquifer Protection Overlay District. Both existing homes on the “driveway” are served by well water. The applicant would like to shift the “driveway” westward about 30
feet in order to give the Winquists more privacy. The applicant also plans to pave the entire “driveway” and improve it to a width of fourteen feet. The runoff from the “driveway” would be pitched to a water quality swale. Then the runoff would be directed to a sedimentation pond, at which point it would overflow back into the ponds and eventually overflow into the wetlands adjacent to Keene Brook. A number of waivers are requested from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, simply due to the fact that the applicant would like to construct a driveway, rather than a road, to serve the one additional lot. The new lot will be bisected by the Town line. The lot would have over 85,000 SF. The plan shows where the house would be sited, and shows the septic system and well. Most of the house would be located in Duxbury. The driveway would come off the new Dingley Dell “driveway”. So, there
would be a total of three homes served by the Dingley Dell “driveway”. The applicant intends to donate the large parcel on the plan, designated as “Lot One”, to the Town of Duxbury.
Mr. Wilson asked whether moving the lane westward would require tree-cutting. Mr. Flaherty responded that some trees would have to come down, but there will be a large buffer of trees between the “driveway” and the abutting properties.
Ms. MacNab asked whether the lane will meet the standards for a three-lot subdivision under the Rules and Regulations. Mr. Flaherty said that the plan does not show a berm, but shows drainage pitched to a water quality swale.
Mr. Wadsworth asked about ownership of the land intended for the lane. Mr. Angley said there is a disputed claim on a strip of land adjacent to the Winquist property. Both Dingley Dell Estates and the Winquists claim ownership of the property. Mr. Angley described the history of the dispute. Part of the problem arose from a 1978 taking of the land by the Town of Duxbury. He said that the parties are working it out at this time, but that regardless, the Winquists have agreed to the proposed layout of Dingley Dell Lane.
Mr. Peter Winquist (21 Dingley Dell Lane) said that the current proposal for Dingley Dell Lane is preferable to any other proposal they have seen from the applicant, so they support this plan. If everything goes the way the applicant is proposing, the land dispute should be settled.
Ms. MacNab asked whether the Town of Duxbury still has an interest in the land. Ms. Stickney said that the parties have been meeting with the Assessor’s office. Mr. Angley said that the matter should be resolved soon. Board members agreed that, if a plan for the land were approved, it would have to be contingent upon a resolution of the land dispute.
Mr. Wilson asked whether there is anything in writing about the offer of Lot One to the Town of Duxbury. Mr. Angley responded that the applicant intends to keep the land under Chapter 61A, which affords the Town the right of first refusal on the property, should it ever be sold.
Mr. Wadsworth and Ms. MacNab noted that a waiver from Subdivision Control Law will be required to create a cul-de-sac greater than 1,000 feet in length.
Attention turned to the July 22, 2004 memorandum from Ms. Stickney to the Planning Board, in which Ms. Stickney noted some major issues with the application. Ms. Stickney said that the first three issues have been resolved, but that the fourth and fifth items should be addressed. The fourth item involved the fact that the proposed building lot straddles the Duxbury/Pembroke line. This raises a number of jurisdictional issues for permitting, taxing and public safety.
Ms. MacNab said that, perhaps if the cul-de-sac length is shortened to comply with the Rules and Regulations, that the shape of the proposed lot will be changed. This might allow for moving the location of the house so that it does not straddle the Town line. Mr. Flaherty said they would look into this.
Ms. Scieszka noted that the cul-de-sac layout is within the wetlands area as flagged by the applicant’s consultant. A discussion ensued about the implications of being within flagged wetlands, which are determined by soils and plant species, and zoned wetlands. It was agreed that the applicant will file with the Conservation Commission for a determination of what will be allowed.
Mr. Amory said that a swale along the westerly edge of the road makes good sense. The road will be super-elevated instead of having a crown in the middle, so the easterly edge will be higher than the westerly edge. Run-off will flow westerly into the swale, and then northerly along the swale into a sediment basin. From there it will be piped into the two ponds. Mr. Amory noted that we will be altering the current flow pattern of stormwater run-off, which presently simply flows in an easterly and northeasterly direction. We will divert that flow into the sediment ponds. A hydrogeologic study will be required to make sure that the swale will not overflow.
Mr. Wadsworth asked whether there might be a risk of automobiles sliding into the swale. Mr. Amory responded that this depends on the soils, which is why a hydrogeologic study is needed.
Mr. Amory noted that there is no public water which is an issue for fire protection. There is also a problem with site distance at the intersection of the access road and Congress Street. The site distance triangle should be shown.
Mr. Wadsworth asked the applicant and Mr. Amory to look into whether the entrance to the subdivision should be flared.
Mr. Bob Linsky (abutter-Mellor’s Walk), said that there is a fire hydrant at Mellor’s Walk.
Mr. Amory said that the biggest issue with the application is whether Mr. Streibel and the Winquists can agree on whether to build the road. Everything else can be worked out. Mr. Wadsworth asked whether he thought the wetlands issues can be worked out. Mr. Amory responded that the important thing will be the actual wetlands. The zoned wetlands are rather arbitrary in some areas.
Ms. MacNab re-capped the issues:
· Address fire-protection issues
· Address site-distance
· Hydogeologic study to show soils as well as groundwater flow
· Have the Director of Lands and Natural Resources look at the trees that will have to come down. Stake the layout so this can be done.
· Address road length issue
Ms. Scieszka requested that the Board review the list of requested waivers:
Section 5.3.2.1: A request to change the orientation of the plan on the plan sheets.
Section 5.3.2.2.1: A request to only show structures within 300-feet of the subdivision on the Duxbury side. Ms. MacNab commented that these will have to reviewed for Pembroke anyway, so why not put them on the plan. Mr. Flaherty said this would be done.
Section 5.3.3: The applicant proposes to serve the subdivision with well water, rather than Town water. Mr. Wadsworth noted that there is a high amount of radon in this area. The Board of Health will require radon mitigation measures.
Section 5.3.4: The applicant proposes a water quality swale to a siltation pond in lieu of the requirements of this section.
Section 5.3.5: A request for overhead utility lines. The applicant would like to tie into existing lines.
Section 5.3.8: A request to eliminate many of the plan, profile, and cross-section drawing requirements. Mr. Flaherty said that the need for this waiver may be eliminated after the plans are revised.
Section 5.3.9: A request to waive requirement for and environmental impact study. The Board will postpone a decision on allowing/disallowing this waiver until after the Conservation Commission reviews the application.
Mr. Robert Linsky (abutter-Mellor’s Walk) agreed that a hydrogeologic study would be very helpful. He asked for clarification of the elevation of the sediment pond.
Mr. Mark Satir (abutter-20 Brook Road) asked for clarification of the Chapter 61 Forestry policy. Mr. Wadsworth explained that this chapter allows for reduced taxes, so long as land is kept in forestry use. However, if the property is developed, the Town gets the right of first refusal on the land, and the owner must pay back taxes.
Mr. Flaherty said that an application has been filed with the Conservation Commission, and the hearing will be on August 10.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab moved that the public hearing be continued to September 13, 2004 at 8:00 PM, with revised plans due to the Planning Office by August 23, 2004. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
A mutual extension form was signed by the Planning Board and the applicant.
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: MANSIONIZATION
Mr. Wilson and Ms. Scieszka have been researching the issue of mansionization. Mr. Wadsworth opened the discussion by asking where the Planning Board’s focus should be. Ms. Scieszka suggested that the focus be on large houses on small lots, and teardowns. Planning Board members agreed. Ms. Scieszka also suggested four phases of information-gathering: 1) An inventory of small lots in Town; 2) An inventory of practices tried by other towns relative to mansionization; 3) Public input; and 4) Input from other Town boards and departments (esp. the building inspector).
Ms. MacNab noted that the CPZBIC Committee did do an inventory of small lots. They noted that it was difficult to formulate guidelines because the lots are spread out over Town. Something that would be appropriate for Alden Heights might not be appropriate for Washington Street.
Mr. Wadsworth asked about height limitations on small lots. Ms. MacNab said that height limitations could be related to setbacks (i.e., a tall structure would require a larger setback).
Mr. Wilson said that the Planning Board has to be careful about the perception of limiting property rights. Ms. MacNab said that big houses belong on big lots for many reasons, including environmental reasons, for diversity of housing, for affordability, and for neighborhood character. Sometimes people need to be told that if they want a really big house, they need a big lot.
It was agreed to discuss the issue again on September 20, 2004.
OTHER BUSINESS
Duxbury Crossing Comprehensive Permit Application: The Board was provided with revised plans and with a memorandum (dated 7/21/04) detailing her review of those plans. The applicant is now presenting ten homes on ten lots. It is unclear whether the Zoning Board of Appeals is able to create lots, or whether this would have to be done by the Planning Board.
Mr. Wadsworth commented that the ZBA’s interpretation of 310 CMR 22.03 is that anything can be waived that is not part of the Town’s approved Watershed Protection Plan. Since the Town does not have a Watershed Protection Plan in writing, this means that the applicant can waive anything not expressly prohibited by the State. Mr. Wadsworth said that his interpretation is that we have a WPP, but that it is not in writing.
It was agreed to discuss the matter again on August 9, 2004
Duxbury Farms Comprehensive Permit Decision: Ms. MacNab recused herself from the discussion. Mr. Wadsworth noted his opinion that the ZBA’s decision was well-written. Ms. Stickney added that an appeal is expected.
Lewis Farms As-Built Plan: For housekeeping purposes, Planning Board signatures were required on the as-built plans. (The streets in this subdivision have already been accepted by the Town.) The Board was provided with the memorandum from Amory Engineering, dated 6/12/03, stating that all requirements have been met.
Minutes:
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to accept the minutes of July 12, 2004 as written. Mr. Kimball provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, August 9, 2004 in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
