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.
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, November 29, 2004.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, John Bear, James Kimball and Rob Wilson. Also present was Associate Member Harold Moody (non-voting.)
Absent: No members were absent.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM.
OPEN FORUM
GIS Digitizing Project: Ms. Scieszka asked for an update on the digitizing project. She would like to use the data for mansionization research. Ms. Stickney said that the project is near completion.
Local Housing Partnership (LHP): Ms. MacNab, absent for the Planning Board meeting of 11/22/04, said that she was disappointed to read the discussion about the LHP in the minutes. She said that the LHP is under the auspices of the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen, with the clear goal of providing a certified housing plan. She does not think that sending the Community Development Plan, as it is currently written, to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is a substitute for developing a certified plan. She suggested a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen (BOS) in order to get the committee back on track.
(Mr. Al-Zaim arrived at this point.)
Ms. Scieszka agreed with Ms. MacNab. She said that if the LHP does not develop a certified plan, that the Planning Board should do it. Mr. Wilson, who is also a member of the LHP, said that one member of the BOS is on the LHP, and is a major proponent of having the committee be action-oriented, rather than plan-oriented. Ms. MacNab said that one member of the BOS cannot unilaterally change the direction of the LHP. Mr. Al-Zaim agreed with Ms. MacNab.
Ms. Stickney said that the LHP has discovered that the development of a certified plan is very complex. Actual numbers must be provided with housing proposals. This will be easier to do if some projects are actually in the development stage. She said that certification is a two-step process. First, a plan must be approved. Then, the Town has one calendar year to produce the required number of units (37 for Duxbury). Only after the second step is completed, is the Town considered to be certified. She said that the Community Development Plan, with some modifications, would probably suffice for the first step.
Mr. Wilson said that there are two types of affordable housing plans. First, there is a real comprehensive housing plan for the Town of Duxbury. This would be very difficult to accomplish, because of all the parties that would have to agree to it. This would not be accomplished by the Community Development Plan. The second kind of housing plan would be a plan meant to protect the Town from Chapter 40B submissions. This could be accomplished by the Community Development plan.
Ms. Scieszka, Mr. Al-Zaim, and Ms. MacNab emphasized their preference for a comprehensive, realistic housing plan. It was agreed to set up a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING: ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW PERIWINKLE R.T. (BAYSIDE MARINE): Washington Street
Present for the applicant were:
Jackson R. Kent, applicant
Jackson R. Kent, Jr.
Frank Colpoys, Jr., Attorney for the applicant
George Morgan, Construction Consultant
Present for the Town was:
Thomas Sexton, Principal, Mainstream Engineering
Ms. Scieszka read the correspondence list into the record:
· Mutual extension form signed 10/25/04 extending public meeting to 11/29/04
· Minutes from 10/25/04 PB public meeting
· Transmittal from C. Stickney to Mainstream Engineering dated 10/26/04 re: Land Court plans
· Memo to ZBA/PB dated 11/8/04 from J. Dalrymple re: BOH issues
· Revised Site Plans, pictures of boat storage and signage submitted by Bayside Marine – submitted 11/16/04
· Memo from Mainstream Engineering dated 11/18/04 re: CC review
· Development Review Team Minutes dated 11/19/04
· Memo to PB from C. Stickney dated 11/24/04 re: staff review
· Letter from Fire Chief Nord dated 11/29/04 re: concerns of Fire Dept.
The Board began with the Planning Director memorandum of 11/24/04 in which Ms. Stickney commented that it is difficult to understand how the applicant’s engineer is calculating the building coverage and impervious surface. Mr. Kent said that it is difficult to know how to measure the lot area, especially with regard to the easterly side. Should the measurement be taken from the coastal bank? From the mean high water line? Should we consider impervious areas that exists underwater? Since this question is difficult to answer, a reasonable approach, according to Mr. Kent, would be to look at the existing square footage of impervious cover, and compare it to the proposed amount. Mr. Kent provided a handout showing these calculations. The net result is that the proposal will have
approximately 1,050 less square feet of coverage, which reduces the amount of coverage by two percent. Mr. Kimball said that he would like to have seen the changes in lot coverage shown on one plan. This plan would show what is being demolished, and what the structures are being replaced with.
Ms. MacNab commented that the current allowance for impervious cover in Neighborhood Business District 2 (NB-2) is fifty percent. She asked whether, despite the difficulties in measuring lot area, the ZBA is asking the applicant to come close to the fifty percent allowance. Mr. Kent said that this has not been asked of him. Ms. MacNab questioned why other applicants in similar situations have been required to do this. Mr. Sexton suggested that some other applicants are seeking a change in use, while Mr. Kent is not.
The discussion turned to the issue of Snug Harbor Drive and Land Court Lot Lines. Attorney Colpoys explained the process of changing the lot lines in Land Court. He said that the legal aspects are not very complicated. The time-intensive part is the engineering and surveying. Mr. Kent requested that site plan approval be made contingent upon his starting the Land Court process within one month of approval, and completing it within 25 months of approval.
Ms. Stickney also asked about the ownership of Lot 191-762-116. The assessor’s department shows the owner as Talbots, Inc. Mr. Kent explained that the Town has made an error in this case. Mr. Kent is the owner, although Talbots has been paying the taxes. Mr. Colpoys said that he can provide documentation as to Mr. Kent’s ownership.
Ms. Stickney’s memo also cited the issue of whether boat pump-out facilities should be required. Mr. Kent provided a memorandum from the Duxbury Harbormaster, undated, stating that there is not a need for additional pump-out facilities.
The next issue raised by Ms. Stickney concerned traffic circulation and parking. Mr. Kent said that he will be modifying the corner by the 60’ x 60’ building in order to address the Fire Chief’s concern about turning radius. In addition, he has agreed to leave twenty feet open between the boat racks as a fire lane during the winter.
The memorandum from Duxbury Fire Chief Kevin Nord, dated November 29, 2004 was discussed. Among other things, Chief Nord has cited a concern with the high rack storage and its potential combustibility. He said that he cannot require, but would suggest, an early warning device be installed in the storage racks with a line-type heat detector. Mr. Kent said that he will be investigating this. Chief Nord questioned the adequacy of the fire flow in the area. It was agreed that Ms. Stickney would confer with the Water Superintendent, the Fire Chief, Mr. Sexton, and the applicant to address the problem and decide whether the project should be reviewed by the Town’s hydraulic engineering consultant.
Chief Nord has requested an additional hydrant at the back of the property in the rear parking area. This hydrant should have a main size no smaller than 8”. Mr. Kent has agreed to this.
Chief Nord also recommended that all gasoline storage and dispensing operations be updated as part of the project as per 527 CMR 5 (Operation and Maintenance of Buildings used as Garages, Service Stations and Related Storage and Use of Gasoline and 527 CMR 15 (Keeping, Handling and Transportation of Flammable and Combustible Liquids or any of its Products in Harbors or Other Waters. Mr. Kent said that he updates these operations every year, and that the only thing he needs to do is to install a shut-off switch next to the gasoline pump. Ms. Stickney was asked to clarify whether anything else is recommended by the Chief.
With regard to hazardous materials, Chief Nord recommended that Bayside Marine prepare with the Fire Department and any other interested parties a comprehensive plan to handle an emergency spill and to maintain an on-site spill kit upon occupancy. Mr. Kent said that he already has a comprehensive plan. Ms. Stickney was again asked to clarify the issue between the parties.
The discussion turned to drainage. Mr. Kent said that drainage from the entire property will be directed to the swales under the boats. The drainage will be designed to handle a ½ inch storm. Drainage calculations will be provided to Mr. Sexton tomorrow for review. Mr. Kent provided a memorandum, undated, entitled, “Vegetated Swale Maintenance Plan for SR Periwinkle Realty Corp.”.
The property line between Bayside and Battelle Labs was discussed. Mr. Kent plans to have a fence there. He has a problem with teenagers running through the property at night. There is also a ten-foot buffer between the gravel parking lot and the Battelle property. There was some discussion of making this a swale, but it was decided not to change the grading. Grass will be planted there. The grading of the gravel parking lot will be changed to keep run-off from going down the ramp to the water. Mr. Kent agreed to post “No Overnight Parking” signs at the gravel lot.
Mr. Sexton said that there is work remaining to be done on drainage. However, the applicant has been very cooperative. The end result will be a significant improvement in terms of water quality. Mr. Sexton brought up the issue of wheel stops in open parking areas. Mr. Kent said that he planned to use painted anchor chain. However, after discussion with the Board, he agreed to use concrete wheel stops, preferably with open areas on the bottom for drainage.
The discussion returned to the issue of property lines. Mr. Kent would like to see the project approved with the condition that he applies to Land Court to combine all of the lots under the control of Periwinkle/Bayside, excluding 441 Washington Street. If Land Court denies his application, he said that the problem will be his, because he will have built an illegal building (straddling lot lines). Ms MacNab countered that this becomes a problem for the Town as well. It was agreed to consult with Town Counsel about the advisability of proceeding with building prior to a final recording at Land Court. Mr. Kent stated that the fact that the boat racks will straddle lot lines is not an issue, because they are not considered structures.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to continue the public meeting to January 3, 2005 at 8:00 PM, with an extension of the decision date to January 11, 2005, and with revised plans and supporting materials due in the Planning Office by December 20, 2004. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7-0).
(Mr. Kimball left the meeting at this point.)
SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: H T S REALTY TRUST/ 36 Landing Road
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing one-story non-conforming single family dwelling and to construct a new three story dwelling unit within the existing foot print. Ms. MacNab said that she completely agrees with the memorandum from the Board of Health agent, dated November 8, 2004, which states that this property is restricted to two bedrooms, but five potential bedrooms are proposed. Ms. MacNab said that there may also be a height problem with the structure. Mr. Wadsworth added that, with a teardown, the new structure should comply with setback requirements. Ms. MacNab said that it is important to remind the ZBA that, when Town Meeting approved the shared Bay Road septic system, that it was with the understanding that there would not be expansion of the existing homes.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion to send the following statement to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the Special Permit Application for 36 Landing Road:
The Planning Board finds serious planning issues with the application and recommends denial for the following reasons:
1) The Planning Board concurs with the findings stated in the Board of Health agent’s memorandum, dated November 8, 2004, stating that the property is restricted to two bedrooms, yet the proposal includes five potential bedrooms. The Planning Board recalls that Town Meeting approval of the Bay Road shared septic system was given with the understanding that there would be no substantial expansion of existing properties.
2) Site coverage calculations are not indicated. The Planning Board estimates site coverage in excess of twenty percent.
3) It is unclear, from the plan submitted, as to whether the proposed structure fits within the existing footprint.
4) In the event of a teardown, the new structure should comply with current zoning setbacks.
5) A height calculation, which should be measured from the average grade of the front yard, is not included in the application materials.
Furthermore, the Planning Board notes that Demolition delay review and approval by the Historic Commission is necessary given that the structure is over 80 years old and to date none has been issued. In addition, given the adjacent resource area and flood zone issues, the applicants will have to file with the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: LANDING ROAD REALTY TRUST/ 38 Landing Road
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to recommend denial of the Special Permit Application for 38 Landing Road due to the following significant planning issues:
1) The proposed structure should meet setback requirements.
2) The Planning Board concurs with the determination by the Board of Health agent in her memorandum of November 18, 2004, that the structure should be limited to three bedrooms. Yet, the plans appear to depict more than three bedrooms.
3) No information is given as to building coverage.
4) No height calculation is provided. The Planning Board’s opinion is that the height calculation should be taken from the average grade of the existing front yard, not from the proposed raised grade near the structure.
5) Demolition delay review and approval by the Historic Commission is necessary given the structure is over 80 years old and to date none has been issued.
Furthermore, the Planning Board notes that, given the adjacent resource area and floodzone issues, the applicants will have to file with the Conservation Commission.
Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Annual Town Meeting 2005 Articles: Ms. Stickney said that the deadline for submission of warrant articles is December 6, 2004. She requested confirmation from the Board that they would like to go forward with the proposed articles discussed last week. It was agreed that there were no issues with the articles related to the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Ms. MacNab said that she has some concerns about the proposed definitions for Kitchen, Guest House, and Bed & Breakfast Establishment. She said that she wasn’t sure that these definitions would address the issues with pool houses. It was agreed to submit the warrant article for consideration, and to request the Building Inspector’s presence at the public hearing.
With regard to the article being proposed by the Local Housing Partnership regarding Affordable Accessory Apartments, Mr. Wadsworth and Ms. Scieszka said that they have problems with the use of detached buildings, and accessory units within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District. Ms. MacNab agreed with Mr. Wadsworth and Ms. Scieszka and added that the Town is unlikely to favor multi-family zoning.
Agenda for Joint Meeting with the ZBA: It was agreed to propose the following agenda items for the joint meeting to be held next week:
1) The synergy between the two boards and ways to improve communication.
2) The administrative site plan review process and special permit process - understanding our respective roles.
3) The issue of lot coverage and the amendment made in 2003 re: increased building coverage with non-conforming lots
4) Increased building sizes and the burden on the shared/public sewer systems
5) Planned developments - modifications to the original decisions
Minutes of 11/22/04:
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to approve the minutes of 11/22/04 as written. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, December 6, 2004 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
