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 9/20/04
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, September 20, 2004.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, John Bear, James Kimball and Rob Wilson.
Absent: No members were absent.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Slope Easement at Freeman Farms: Ms. MacNab commented on a letter that was included in a previous packet, where Mr. Edward Chase criticized actions taken by the Planning Director. Ms. MacNab said that those actions had been taken by the Planning Director at the direction of the Planning Board. She asked the Board whether the Planning Board should send a letter to that effect. Ms. Stickney said that the matter of the slope easement at Freeman Farms has been largely resolved, and so a letter might not be needed at this point. Mr. Al-Zaim commented that developers should always direct their written comments to the Planning Board.
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: CLARENCE KENT ESTATE
Representing the Clarence Kent Estate were:
Mr. Jay Woodruff, Search Tech
Mr. Billy Devine, Search Tech
Mr. Steve Gioiosa, SITEC Engineering
Mr. Woodruff explained that the applicant had withdrawn an ANR plan on July 26, 2004, in order to make it possible to discuss the possibilities for the parcel as a whole. He said that the best possibility and the one that the neighbors would be happiest with, is a four-lot subdivision. He said that his engineer has developed a conceptual plan, and now the applicant is looking for guidance from the Board about whether this will be acceptable.
Mr. Wadsworth said that while a four-lot standard subdivision may well be the best solution for this property, that the Zoning Bylaw requires that the Board be presented with a cluster option and a standard subdivision option before deciding which way to proceed. He cited Z.B.L., Section 540.2.
Mr. Devine said that there is no way that the applicant would go forward with a cluster subdivision on this site.
Ms. MacNab reiterated Mr. Wadsworth’s position that while a standard subdivision may be the best use for this site, that the Zoning Bylaw requires the Planning Board to consider a cluster option. Mr. Al-Zaim agreed, saying that the default design for a lot of ten acres or more is a Residential Conservation Cluster. Mr. Wadsworth cited Z.B.L. 540.4 which says that a sketch plan of a cluster development is required.
Ms. Stickney said that, in fairness to the applicant, that he had shown her sketches of cluster developments. However, in her opinion, they were not workable designs. Therefore, she advised him to bring the subdivision plan to the Board. Mr. Woodruff provided the Board with the cluster sketches he had shown to Ms. Stickney.
Mr. Kimball said that these sketches were not an adequate attempt to demonstrate a cluster design. He said that they were of “high school” quality. He said that he took great offense to these sketches being provided as a sincere attempt to show a cluster alternative.
At this point, Mr. Gioiosa described the four-lot subdivision plan. He said that the placement of the road was an important consideration. He said that the proposed placement has the advantage of not being located directly across the street from an existing home, so that the existing homeowner will not be impacted by headlights. He also showed that a 50-foot buffer around the perimeter of the parcel would be provided for the protection of the neighboring homes, and as a buffer from the Southeast Expressway for homeowners in the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Gioiosa said that 18-foot wide pavement is planned for the subdivision road. However, he is hopeful that the Board would consider reducing the required pavement width since only two homes would be using this road for access. In addition, he said that he hopes the Board will consider waiving the sidewalk requirement, since the existing neighborhood does not have sidewalks.
Mr. Kimball reiterated his concern that no attempt was made to present a cluster option. He said that this parcel could support five lots in a cluster design.
Ms. Scieszka emphasized that it is not the prerogative of the Board to waive the requirement to be shown a cluster design. This is required by the Zoning Bylaw.
Mr. Wilson said that the point of the Cluster provision in the new Zoning Bylaw is to get the best use of the land, and to get open space. However, he said that the only open space that would be available for this parcel is backed up against the highway. Therefore, he said that he would like to go forward with considering the subdivision design.
Mr. Wadsworth cited Z.B.L Section 540.3, which includes a section on how to determine if the land is NOT suitable for a cluster design. Ms. MacNab cited Z.B.L. Section 540.8 which walks the Board and the applicant through the process of deciding between a cluster and a standard subdivision design.
Mr. Wadsworth asked whether the proposed standard subdivision plan is a two-lot subdivision, or a four-lot subdivision. Mr. Devine responded that it is actually a two-lot subdivision, with two ANR lots in addition. The ANR lots would take their access from Forest Street. There would not be enough frontage on the proposed roadway for all four lots to take their access. Mr. Wadsworth said he would prefer to see all four lots take their access from the subdivision road. Since the cluster design allows for reduced frontage, this could be an advantage.
Mr. Bear questioned whether the Zoning Bylaw actually DOES require the presentation of a cluster design for fewer than six lots.
Linda Quinlan (72 Forest Street): Ms. Quinlan, as a member of the Northwest Duxbury Residents’ Association, asked how the cluster design benefits the Town. Mr. Wadsworth responded that a standard subdivision can result in significant cuts in parcels of land, in order to maximize the number of lots. One benefit of a cluster is that the developer can achieve the same number of lots, without necessarily having the same amount of negative impact on the land.
Mr. Wilson repeated his comment that, given the topography of this particular parcel, that the land is not in need of protection from significant cuts.
Ronan Ryan (41 Forest Street): Mr. Ronan asked whether a cluster design would truly benefit the Town or the land, or whether it was just a “hoop” that the developer is required to jump through. Mr. Kimball responded that the cluster design can also limit the amount of roadway and hard surface on the land. Mr. Al-Zaim added that a cluster design could provide added buffer from the Southeast Expressway, which is due for widening and will therefore produce more noise. Mr. Ryan emphasized that the Residents’ Association has not voted to support any particular design. He said that they are present at the meeting to learn about what is going on.
Mr. Devine thanked the Board for taking the time to look at the proposal. However, he said that if the applicant were to consider a cluster design, it would be a substantially larger one, with 24 or 30 units. Planning Board members said that 24 or 30 units would not be allowed. Mr. Devine said that it would be in the form of a Chapter 40B application. He said that the four-lot plan was the applicant’s best offer. At this point, Mr. Devine, Mr. Woodruff, and Mr. Gioiosa left the room.
Ruth Rowley (546 Washington Street): Ms. Rowley asked for clarification about the status of this application. The Board explained that this is not an official application. It is a discussion with the Planning Board about the appropriate way to proceed.
Mr. Al-Zaim commented that the cluster sketches provided by the applicant did not show topography or land contours.
Ronan Ryan: Commented that he was disappointed in the arrogance of the applicant. However, he commented that the Planning Board meeting was not a friendly atmosphere in which to conduct business. He said that the applicant had, after all, taken direction from the Planning Director before coming to the Board with the standard subdivision design.
Joe Foley (61 Forest Street): Mr. Foley commented that the neighbors on Forest Street are very nervous. It is unclear how this applicant plans to proceed. He has mentioned plans for a condominium development on that site on several occasions.
Jennifer Jagielski (91 Forest Street): Commented that the Forest Street neighbors care very much about what happens on that parcel.
Linda Quinlan: Asked whether, if a cluster design resulted in 30,000 SF lots, that this would cause a problem with the Board of Health, such that only 3 bedrooms might be permitted on such a lot.
Ms. MacNab said that the total amount of land in the parcel would be considered, not the amount on the individual lot. Mr. Wadsworth disagreed, saying that this issue has not been completely resolved to date. Ms. Scieszka said that a shared system could be applied for.
At this point, the abutters left the meeting, after thanking the Board for their time and attention to the matter.
Ms. Stickney and Ms. Scieszka agreed that the Planning Board needs to clarify the process for Residential Conservation Cluster design. It was agreed that the Planning Board would hold a discussion about the process on September 27, 2004.
Mr. Bear commented that he is still not convinced of the applicability of the cluster requirement for the parcel which was discussed this evening.
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: DEER RUN SUBDIVISION
Ms. Stickney said that the developer has had the performance bond updated to be in effect until completion of the subdivision. Plowing, sanding, and erosion control remain the responsibility of the developer. The conditions of approval required substantial completion of the subdivision within two years. Two years have not yet expired.
OTHER BUSINESS
Associate Member: Mr. Harold Moody is the only person who has submitted an application for the associate member position. Ms. Stickney reported that Mr. Moody has some questions about the position. It was agreed to invite Mr. Moody to attend an upcoming Board meeting.
Merry Village: Ms. MacNab commented that the peer review by Mainstream Engineering, Inc. was excellent, especially with regard to the attention paid to the pro forma.
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to pay Amory Engineering invoices #10476 A-C for Hillside Lane, 104 Tremont Street, and Dingleydell Estates. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7-0).
Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion to accept the regular meeting minutes of 9/13/04 as written. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion, which carried by a vote of four in favor and three abstentions. (Mr. Al-Zaim, Ms. MacNab and Mr. Wilson abstained.)
Flood Maps: Ms. Stickney explained that FEMA has provided the Town with revised flood maps. FEMA has advertised the new maps in the Clipper for public review.. The Planning Department and FEMA will hold an informational meeting about the maps this fall. There may be an article in the 2005 Annual Town Meeting about accepting the new flood maps.
Rules and Regulations: Ms. Ripley suggested removing applications and checklists from the Rules and Regulations, and keeping them in a Policies and Procedures Manual instead. She said that the applications and checklists need to be revised from time to time, and this cannot be easily done if they are recorded at the Registry of Deeds and the Land Court as part of the Rules and Regulations. Planning Board members agreed to include this in the upcoming hearing for revising the Rules and Regulations (tentatively scheduled for November 8, 2004).
Ms. Stickney said that she would also like to see a requirement for providing subdivision layouts in CAD/GIS format. It was agreed that this would also be added to the November 8, 2004 hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:49 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, September 27, 2004 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
