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, December 6, 2004.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, John Bear, and Rob Wilson.
Absent: James Kimball.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Staff: Ms. Ripley gave some scheduling reminders.
(Ms. MacNab arrived at this point.)
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: FREEMAN FARMS
Mr. Brad Cushing was present. Mr. Mark Casey of South Shore Survey was present. Mr. Cushing requested the meeting in order to talk about the slope easements at Freeman Farms. Mr. Casey explained that the Planning Director had declined to sign off on a building permit for Lot 15. A portion of the leaching area fell within the slope easement. Mr. Casey said that his interpretation of the slope easement is that above ground structures are restricted, but that this would not pertain to leaching areas. He further explained that the problem for Lot 15 has been resolved by a complete site re-design. However, the applicant would like to avoid problems on other lots within the subdivision which are also subject to slope easements.
(Mr. Al-Zaim arrived at this point.)
Ms. MacNab said that the Planning Board’s opinion, and the opinion of Duxbury Town Counsel, is that subsurface structures are not allowed in the slope easement. She asked whether the applicant had considered applying to have the slope easements rescinded. Mr. Casey said that he and the applicant strongly disagree that the easement is intended to restrict subsurface structures. He said that there should be no need to rescind the slope easements.
Mr. Al-Zaim said that “structure” could imply above or underground. Mr. Cushing said that a pipe with stone in it was proposed. He said that gas and water lines are not restricted, so why should the septic pipe be restricted?
Ms. Stickney noted that the original building permit request for Lot 15 included a tank and distribution box. A subsequent request had removed the tank, distribution box, and the leaching field so that they were completely outside the easement, but beneath the driveway. This proved that there had been no need for the leaching field to be in the slope easement. There was plenty of room on the lot to move the whole thing back, and still be in compliance with the 150’setback to the wetlands. Mr. Cushing responded that, in granting the slope easement, he did not intend to give up so many rights to the use of his land.
Ms. Stickney commented that the easement language is somewhat problematic, in that a slope easement, sight easement, and sidewalk easement are all lumped together. She would recommend that these items be separated in future easements accepted by the Town. Ms. Stickney questioned shy the systems should even be located in the slope easement given that it is a new development.
Mr. Al-Zaim asked what some potential solutions to the conflict could be. Ms. Stickney made two suggestions: 1) Modify the plan to eliminate the slope easements; or 2) Modify the easement language.
Mr. Casey and Mr. Cushing said that they would study the plan to see if any of the easements could be eliminated.
PRELIMINARY PLAN OF LAND: JOHNSON’S WAY/ Off Bay Road
The applicant’s engineer, Mr. Chris Gallagher was present.
Ms. Stickney said that she had conferred with the Town’s engineer, Tom Sexton. She is in agreement with him that the conceptual plan is acceptable, and that the preliminary plan should be accepted by the Board.
Mr. Gallagher said that the plans submitted to the Board show the drainage leaching field in the cul-de-sac, because of the excellent permeability of the soil there. However, he would also like the Board to consider a hammerhead road design, rather than a round cul-de-sac layout. This would make for much more desirable lots. This could be done with the condition that there is no further subdivision of the lots. Mr. Gallagher also suggested that it would be beneficial to move the roadway pavement to the west (still keeping the layout the same) in order to save some substantial maple and cedar trees. Board members agreed that they would be willing to consider both ideas at the definitive plan stage.
The existing cabana on Lot One was discussed. The Board was provided with a copy of a 1947 Zoning Board decision which allowed the building (which had previously been used as a boat shop and guest house) to be used as a gun shop. It is currently being used as a dwelling. The applicant is hoping that the ZBA will allow the structure to stay as a second dwelling on Lot One. Ms. Stickney said that, during the definitive process, the status of the cabana will be determined by the Board of Health and the Building Inspector. Mr. Sexton has suggested that, if it is allowed to remain, that it be under the condition of being affordable in perpetuity.
Mr. Wadsworth questioned whether the stormwater management plan meets some of the new criteria being proposed by the Stormwater Management Committee, currently meeting to propose a stormwater management bylaw. Board members agreed that they would not be able to evaluate the proposal under criteria outside of existing Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plan of Land known as Johnson’s Way, off Bay Road, pursuant to the November 29, 2004 memorandum by Mainstream Engineering, all other correspondence in the file, and Planning Board comments as documented in the Planning Board minutes. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
JOINT MEETING WITH THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS/ Administrative Issues
At 8:23, the Planning Board adjourned from the Small Conference Room, and reconvened in the Building Inspector’s Office, for a joint meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Present from the Planning Board were: Mr. Wadsworth, Ms. MacNab, Ms. Scieszka, Mr. Al-Zaim, Mr. Bear, and Mr. Wilson. Present from the Zoning Board of Appeals were: Mr. Lampert, Ms. Pierce, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Moriarty, Ms. Lewis, and Ms. Gregg. Ms. Betsy Sullivan of the Board of Selectmen was also present. Mr. MacDonald, Director of Inspectional Services was present. Ms. Stickney, Planning Director, and Ms. Ripley, Administrative Assistant were also present. Ms. MacNab began the discussion by saying that she would like to see the two boards meet on at least quarterly basis, to improve communication and synergy
between the boards. Members from both boards agreed.
Ms. MacNab said that, especially in the site plan review process for special permits, that the Boards are not always aware of what one another are doing. Mr. Lampert suggested that the easiest way for the Planning Board to give and obtain information would be to send a representative to the ZBA public hearings. Ms. Lewis also said that minutes from Planning Board meetings have also been helpful. Mr. Al-Zaim said that he would want to make sure that the written decisions of the Planning Board are considered the final word of the Board, and not comments made by a Planning Board representative at a ZBA meeting.
Residential Special Permit applications were discussed. ZBA members said that applicants are often surprised by Planning Board comments at the ZBA hearings. The applicant has an opportunity to correct misunderstandings, and to provide additional information at the ZBA hearing that the Planning Board has not seen. Ms. Scieszka explained that the Planning Board does not notify applicants about when they will be discussing their applications. The Planning Board is not the deciding authority on the applications, and there is no statutory notification requirement. Ms. Pierce questioned whether there could be some notification to the applicant on the ZBA application that would alert the applicant to the fact that the Planning Board will be reviewing the application, and that it is their responsibility
to check the date if they want to attend.
Ms. Lewis said that the ZBA decision often varies from the Planning Board recommendation because the ZBA has the benefit of additional information provided at the public hearing. Mr. Lampert stated that the ZBA tries to clarify why it has departed from the Planning Board recommendation in those cases.
Administrative Site Plan Review (ASPR) was discussed. Mr. Lampert commented that the Attorney General has been clear that the Planning Board may only very rarely deny an application for ASPR. However, the Planning Board can set reasonable conditions for such projects. Ms. MacNab said that the ZBA is more responsible for “use” issues with Site Plan Review, and the Planning Board is more responsible for “site” issues. The Planning Board needs to know how the ZBA is progressing with “use” issues, to see if there is adequate site development for those uses. Mr. Lampert said that the best way to keep apprised of the ZBA’s progress is by attending the hearings. Additionally, he said that he is very willing to discuss progress by telephone after the
hearings.
Mr. Wadsworth directed participants to look at ZBL Section 615.1.7. He said that the Planning Board tries to adhere to this provision of maintaining “harmonious relationships to the terrain and to existing buildings in the vicinity of the development site.” Mr. Lampert said that this is a good idea, but that the Planning Board has very little recourse if the Board perceives a building as unattractive. Ms. Wilson said that the ZBA was a little taken aback when an applicant said that the Planning Board required him to change the type of windows on a structure. Ms. MacNab said that the Planning Board had made no such requirement.
The joint meeting was cut short due to a schedule commitment with the Board of Selectmen.
JOINT MEETING WITH THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN AND THE LOCAL HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
At 9:00 PM, the Planning Board adjourned to the Mural Meeting room in order to attend a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen and the Local Housing Partnership. Present from the Planning Board were: Mr. Wadsworth, Ms. MacNab, Ms. Scieszka, Mr. Al-Zaim, Mr. Bear, and Mr. Wilson. Present from the Board of Selectmen were: Mr. Martecchini and Ms. Sullivan. Present from the Local Housing Partnership (LHP) were: Mr. Campbell, Ms. Bartlett, Mr. Childs, Mr. Partridge, and Mr. Lane. Also present were: Mr. Rocco Longo (Town Manager) and Ms. Christine Stickney (Planning Director). (Mr. Wilson, of the Planning Board, and Mr. Martecchini, Board of Selectmen Chairman, also serve on the LHP.
Mr. Campbell began by describing some of the projects that the LHP is working on. These include: 1) A potential for 100 new rental units at the Island Creek development; 2) A proposal for an affordable housing project on Town-owned land on Lincoln Street; 3) A Zoning Bylaw amendment to allow a limited number of affordable accessory apartments; 4) an investigation of ways to create affordable housing on substandard lots; and 5) seeking ways to allow for moving donated houses so that they may be used for affordable housing. Mr. Martecchini added two additional goals: 1) Public education about housing issues; and 2) submission of a housing plan for DHCD approval.
Mr. Rourke said that recently, one or two homes have been offered to the Town of Duxbury in advance of their demolition. However, the Town has not had the means to move these homes. The LHP would like to use the example of Nantucket, where land has been set aside for the installation of donated homes.
Ms. Stickney explained the process of developing a certified housing plan. The first step is to submit a housing plan to the State for approval. The next step is to produce, within one calendar year, the number of units the State has assigned to the Town (38 for Duxbury). If that goal is met, the Town is “certified”, and will not have rejections of Chapter 40B proposals overturned by the Housing Appeals Court for the next year, and for any subsequent year that the Town continues to produce 38 units.
Mr. Martecchini said that the LHP plans to submit a modified version of the Duxbury Community Development Plan for State approval. He said that resident Judi Barrett, a well-known housing consultant, has agreed to produce the modification. Ms. MacNab said that she is very pleased that there will be a plan.
Mr. Al-Zaim said that he is pleased that there will be a plan, but he would like to see the plan be more specific to Duxbury’s needs. Mr. Rourke and Ms. Bartlett cited the Duxbury Housing Survey completed in 2002, which is included in the Community Development Plan, and which they say is very specific about the wishes and needs of the survey respondents.
Mr. Campbell described the LHP’s perception that there is a dire need for affordable housing in Duxbury, and that people, especially seniors, are being forced to leave the Town because they can no longer afford to live here. He said that in the past five years, there have been substantial open space purchases (Camp Wing, the Delano property, the Jaycox property, and development rights at the O’Neil Farm). Those same five years have only seen the production of only one new affordable unit (Habitat for Humanity home on Tremont Street).
Mr. Wadsworth expressed his preference that affordable housing strategies not result in greater density in the Aquifer Protection Overlay District.
Mr. Al-Zaim contended that the primary charge of the LHP was the development of a housing plan. LHP members strongly disagreed, stating that their charge was to work with the community to produce actual affordable housing units.
OTHER BUSINESS
At 10:00 PM, the Planning Board returned to the Small Conference Room in order to complete the rest of their business.
Minutes:
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to accept the minutes of 11/29/04. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
Accessory Apartments: Board members agreed that they would like to have a presentation by the LHP of the proposed zoning amendment for Affordable Accessory Apartments prior to the public hearing process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, December 13, 2004 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
