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, January 10, 2005.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, John Bear, and James Kimball. Also present was Associate Member Harold Moody (non-voting.)
Absent: Rob Wilson.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at PM.
OPEN FORUM
Affordable Housing Trust: Ms. Stickney reported that Governor Romney signed a bill for a statewide Affordable Housing Trust. In order for towns to participate, the measure must be adopted at their individual Town Meetings. Ms. Stickney will inquire about whether this can be done on the Special Town Meeting agenda within the 2005 Annual Town Meeting, since the 2005 ATM warrant has already been closed.
Traffic: Ms. Stickney said that she would like to apply for a PWED (Public Works Economic Development) grant to be used to study and implement solutions for some of Duxbury’s traffic problems. Mr. Al-Zaim expressed doubt that Duxbury could be successful in obtaining these funds. He said that other communities have more glaring economic needs. It was decided to table the discussion to a future date.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION/DINGLEY DELL ESTATES/ Off Congress Street
Present for the applicant were:
Roman Streibel, Applicant (arrived late)
Mark Flaherty, Applicant’s engineer
Jeffrey Angley, Applican’t attorney
Present for the Town was:
Mr. Walter Amory, Consulting Engineer
Ms. MacNab read the correspondence list into the record:
· Mutual Extension form signed 7/26/04
· Planning Board minutes of 7/26/04
· Copy of site visit done by W. Amory & J. Grady on 8/13/04
· Letter from Atty. Jeffrey Angley dated 9/8/04 requesting continuance of public hearing to 10/18/04.
· Mutual Extension form signed 9/8/04 by applicant and 9/13/04 by PB
· PB Minutes from 9/13/04
· Land Court notice dated 9/14/04 re: continued conference date to 12/2/04
· Copy of correspondence to the Conservation Commission dated 9/22/04 re: concerns with use of consultant.
· Copy of Duxbury Conservation Commission Order of Conditions dated 10/6/04 – Denial of project.
· Mutual Extension form signed on 10/18/04
· PB Minutes of 10/18/04
· Request for information from Mark Sotir (abutter) dated 10/25/04
· Copy of Pembroke Conservation Commission Order of Conditions – Approved with conditions issued 11/16/04
· Letter from Atty. Jeffrey Angley to R. S. Troy dated 12/9/04 re: status of the project
· Environmental Impact Assessment dated 12/15/04
· Page 2 – Dingley Dell
· Letter from M. Flaherty dated 12/20/04 re: revised plan, waiver request, EIA and abutter notification.
· Re-notification of abutters of upcoming 1/10/05 hearing given substantial amount of time from last hearing in July.
· Memo from Amory Engineering dated 12/28/04 re: Peer Review
· DRT Minutes of 12/30/04
· Memo from C. Stickney dated 1/4/05 re: staff concerns
· Copy of Duxbury Order of Conditions issued 1/6/05 – Approved with conditions.
Mr. Angley said that the applicant has been occupied with the Conservation Commissions of Duxbury and Pembroke. Orders of Conditions have been issued from both towns.
Mr. Flaherty gave a brief description of the current stage of the project. The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 22 acres, located in Duxbury and Pembroke, into three lots. Lot One would remain undeveloped. Lot Two would contain Mr. Striebel’s existing home. Lot Three would provide a building lot for Mr. Striebel’s son.
Ms. MacNab asked whether the applicant would be willing to put a deed restriction on Lot One to prevent any further development. She noted that the applicant is requesting several waivers from the Rules and Regulations. She said that these waivers are easier to grant if there is some benefit to the Town, such as a permanent deed restriction on part of the property. Mr. Angley said that he would have to ask Mr. Striebel about that (he had not yet arrived at the meeting).
Ms. MacNab asked whether the proposed house on Lot Three would straddle the Duxbury/Pembroke town lines. Mr. Flaherty said that it would. Ms. MacNab asked whether there is a way to avoid this, since it causes complications in both towns for building permits, inspections, assessments, etc. Mr. Flaherty said that it is very important to the applicant that the proposed house have a Duxbury address, but that it would be impossible to fit the entire house in Duxbury, given the restrictions of the property. Ms. Stickney noted that the property address comes from the frontage (access). School attendance and voting rights come from where the bedrooms are actually located. Mr. Angley said that this discussion is probably irrelevant to the subdivision approval process.
(Ms. Scieszka arrived at this point.)
Mr. Amory reviewed outstanding items from his memorandum to the Planning Board, dated December 28, 2004.
First, Mr. Amory noted that the cul-de-sac diameter is shown to be 120 feet vs. the 150 feet required. Mr. Flaherty responded that this was done in order to keep the cul-de-sac right-of-way out of the wetlands. If the cul-de-sac was moved out of the wetlands, but remained 150-feet in diameter, it would push the cul-de-sac frontage for Lot Three into Pembroke, which the applicant does not want. Mr. Wadsworth noted that a waiver to the 150-foot cul-de-sac diameter is not one that has been given in the past.
Other deficiencies and comments on the plan noted by Mr. Amory pertained to:
· Base-length of the sight-distance triangle does not meet Rules and Regulations.
· Roadway berm radii have not been specified.
· Water quality ponds have not been incorporated into separate land parcels.
· Fifty-foot buffer between basins and adjacent uses or structures is not shown.
· Headwall is needed for each end of the box culvert located between the water quality swale and the water quality pond.
· The box culvert should be designed for AASHTO H-20 loading.
· A crushed stone apron should be installed at the roadway entrance to prevent tracking debris on Congress Street during construction.
· Water quality pond embankment slopes should not exceed a 3:1 gradient.
· The Fire Department should be consulted regarding fire protection requirements.
· The applicant should be requested to devise a means for ensuring that snowplowing does not block the flow in the swale adjacent to the roadway.
(Mr. Striebel arrived during Mr. Amory’s presentation.)
Mr. Striebel commented that the snow can only be stockpiled on the easterly edge of the roadway (opposite side from the swale), because otherwise, he would be stockpiling snow onto someone else’s property. It has always been stockpiled on the easterly edge, and this practice will continue. Mr. Striebel noted that the paved portion of the roadway is placed all the way to the left of the right-of-way, in order to stay as far away from the Winquist property as possible. This is part of the agreement he has made with the Winquists in order to gain their support for the subdivision, and in order to resolve issues regarding ownership of a portion of the property. In addition, this placement of the roadway serves to save several very large trees.
Mr. Wadsworth said that it may be advantageous to have a shoulder on the left side of the roadway, between the pavement and the swale. A post and rail fence could be placed on this shoulder, to prevent the issue with stockpiled snow. Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Amory agreed that they would have to study whether the swale would function as designed if the shoulder were added.
Fire Chief Nord’s comments as reported in the minutes of the Development Review Team (DRT) meeting of 12/30/04 were discussed. Chief Nord would like to see an 18-foot width for the paved roadway, so that two fire trucks could pass one another. However, the Subdivision Rules and Regulations (Appendix D, Figure 4) only require a 14-foot width. Ms. MacNab said that, given that this roadway will only serve two homes, the 14-foot width should be adequate.
Ms. Stickney commented that an important outstanding issue is that the Wetlands Protection Overlay District should be shown on the plan. It will have to be determined whether the house and roadway will require a special permit.
Mr. Flaherty provided the Planning Board with a memorandum, dated 1/10/05, which gave responses to Mr. Amory’s memorandum of 12/28/04. Planning Board members did not discuss this memorandum, since they had not had advance time to review it. However, attached to this memorandum was a revised list of waivers for the application. Planning Board members reviewed this list. After discussion, Mr. Flaherty said that he would recommend that the applicant withdraw the request for a waiver to Section 7.3.7.6 (f) which requires 3:1 side slopes for the water quality pond.
A general discussion of the waivers followed. Ms. MacNab said that the Planning Board does not grant waivers that render property developable if it would not be developable without the waivers. She said that the Board would also need to see a clear benefit to the Town of Duxbury in order to grant a waiver or waivers. She said that allowing waivers so that a house can have a Duxbury address is not a clear benefit to the Town.
Mr. Striebel responded that there is a clear benefit to the Town of granting this subdivision. The benefit is the large non-buildable parcel (Lot One). Currently, if the Town were ever to want to acquire this parcel, they would have to acquire it with an existing house on it. However, with the subdivision, the large wetland area exists as a separate parcel. Mr. Striebel would like to retain control over it at this time, and keep it under a Forestry plan. He said that he would definitely be willing to place a deed restriction for no further development of the parcel.
Next, Ms. Scieszka commented on the steep slope next to the driveway. She asked whether there was a way that the applicant could move the pavement away from the pond.
Mr. Al-Zaim said that none of the requested waivers bother him. However, he would like to see a detail on the box culvert.
Mr. Kimball said that if the applicant were able to get a waiver of the 150-foot cul-de-sac diameter to 100-feet, that the entire proposed house would probably fit in Duxbury. In addition, the hammerhead turnaround would still fit into the 100-foot diameter.
Mr. Bear said that he does not see a negative impact to granting the waiver on the 150-foot cul-de-sac. There were going to be two lots anyway. Ms. MacNab disagreed, saying that more density would be allowed in Duxbury than would otherwise be allowed under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
Mr. Angley said that the entire purpose of the application is to provide a home in Duxbury where Mr. Striebel’s son’s children could attend Duxbury schools. If this will not happen through the subdivision process, Mr. Striebel’s best course of action will probably be to return to the legal appeal of the Board’s denial of his ANR application. Ms. MacNab and Mr. Al-Zaim commented that it was very unfortunate to hear the applicant’s attorney use the threat of litigation as part of the negotiating process.
Board members instructed the applicant to demonstrate that the subdivision could be built without the requested waivers. Then, the Board would discuss the benefits to the Town of granting or not granting those waivers.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to continue the public hearing for Dingleydell Estates to February 28, 2005 at 9:00 PM, with revised plans due to the Planning Office by February 14, 2005, and with the deadline for the decision date to remain at March 31, 2005. Mr. Bear provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
PRESENTATION BY THE LOCAL HOUSING PARTNERSHIP: Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Bylaw re: Accessory Apartments
Representing the Local Housing Partnership were:
Bill Campbell, Chairman
Diane Bartlett, Vice-Chairman
Mr. Wadsworth opened the meeting by thanking the Local Housing Partnership (LHP) for its work on affordable housing to date.
Mr. Campbell said that the LHP is hoping to gain the support of the Planning Board for this proposed amendment to the Zoning Bylaw. He also said that there is room for input from the Planning Board before the proposed amendment reaches its final form. For example, he said that the LHP would like to have the Planning Board’s input on proposed Section 410.7.5(b) which deals with the maximum allowable living area for accessory apartments. Also, the LHP would like the Planning Board’s input on proposed Section 410.7.6(d), which deals with the entity which would provide annual certification for affordable accessory apartments.
Ms. Stickney clarified that accessory apartments are currently allowed in Duxbury by Special Permit only. Mr. Bear asked how the proposed amendment is an improvement to the current situation. Mr. Campbell responded that the Special Permit process is seen as an impediment to many people who might otherwise apply to provide an accessory apartment.
Mr. Al-Zaim commented that the definition of “self-contained” should be made clear within the definition of Affordable Accessory Apartment.
Ms. MacNab and Ms. Scieszka expressed concerns with these apartments being located in separate structures. They said that people in Duxbury have been reluctant to allow two separate dwelling units on single lots.
The time-frame for the affordable housing use restriction was discussed. It was generally agreed that five years was an insufficient time to require that the accessory apartment units remain affordable (rather than market rate). A longer period was suggested.
Mr. Campbell said that the benefits of having this amendment would far outweigh its potential for abuse.
Board members suggested that the second sentence under proposed Section 410.7.1 be eliminated.
Mr. Wadsworth said that his primary concern is with the Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD). The Town has taken the major step of down-zoning in order to protect the APOD. Allowing increased density in this district would seem to negate the benefits of the down-zoning. Ms. MacNab questioned whether the amendment would actually allow increased density, since the number of bedrooms would still be restricted to 1:10,000 SF by the Zoning Bylaw, whether or not an accessory apartment exists.
Mr. Wadsworth suggested that there be additional dialogue between the Planning Board and the LHP, before the proposal enters the public hearing stage. It is preferable to make adjustments to the proposal in advance, to avoid making amendments on the Town Meeting floor. Ms. Stickney was asked to set up another meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING: ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW/SNUG HARBOR BOATWORKS---FORMER GOODRICH LUMBER SITE/ Railroad Avenue
Representing the applicant were:
Paul Brogna, Applicant’s engineer
Jeff Grey, Principal, Snug Harbor Boatworks
Jon Daley, Snug Harbor Boatworks
Present for the Town was:
Tom Sexton, Consulting Engineer
Mr. Brogna presented the revised plans. He said that site coverage has been reduced to 44%.
The water quality swales were discussed. Mr. Kimball said that has concerns with the boat trailers that will be driving back and forth over the swales. He fears that they will cause rutting, and eventually impede the functioning of the swales. Mr. Grey pointed out that the trailers will only move over the swales twice during the season: Once to store the boat for the winter, and once to pull it out for the boating season. He noted that the Conservation Commission has required a maintenance provision for the swales. Mr. Sexton acknowledged that the swales will be maintenance-intensive.
Mr. Sexton was asked to review outstanding items from his memorandum dated January 4, 2005:
Site Plan:
3. No landscaping information provided: Mr. Brogna said this is forthcoming.
4. Existing overhead wires from Pole #3 to the building: Mr. Brogna said that the applicant would like to leave these wires overhead.
5. Construction details for the proposed 1-inch water service and the 6-inch fire service: Mr. Brogna said these are forthcoming.
7. Existing pavement which extends beyond the property line: The Board would like this to be removed.
9. Sidewalks: The Development Review Team recommended that a sidewalk be constructed, with the understanding that other properties would connect to it in the future. Ms. Scieszka said that this piecemeal approach seems undesirable. The idea of putting money in an escrow for a future sidewalk was discussed, but Mr. Wadsworth commented that no mechanism for collecting, saving, and disbursing this money exists. The consensus was that the applicant should build a sidewalk in front of the subject property.
10. Curb cuts: Mr. Brogna agreed to refine the interior turning space.
11. Exit separation from existing intersections: Mr. Brogna commented that this situation pre-existed the proposed site improvement, and the new use will not make this any worse.
12. Structural integrity of existing pavement: It was agreed to follow the DRT recommendation of December 30, 2004, which was that the existing pavement should be leveled, then have 1 ½” of asphalt added.
13. Grass strip along frontage of the property: Mr. Brogna said that these landscaping details are forthcoming.
14. Signage: Mr. Brogna said that the sign will be flush-mounted against the building, and no special permit will be required.
15. Exterior lighting: Mr. Brogna said that a photometric plan is forthcoming.
16. Landscaped buffer along side property lines: Mr. Brogna repeated that landscaping details are forthcoming.
18. Controls on Boat Storage: The applicant would like to reserve the right to have boat racks in the future, so long as they are not seen from the street.
21. & 22: Additional landscaping issues. Forthcoming.
23. Parking spaces: Mr. Brogna said that he has discussed this issue with the Building Inspector. It was agreed that the applicant should take a position on what should be required of him, and make this case before the ZBA.
24. Dumpster area: This is the purview of the Board of Health.
27. More landscaping issues: Forthcoming.
28. Site distance triangle and line-of-sight profile: Forthcoming.
31. Transportation of boats between the facility and Snug Harbor, with regard to traffic and the Bluefish River Bridge: The applicant said that police details would be hired when necessary to assist in traffic control. The issue of load capability for the Bluefish River Bridge was not discussed.
Stormwater Management:
4. Stormwater operations and maintenance plan: Forthcoming.
5. Soil and groundwater conditions at dispersion pad locations: Forthcoming.
Water Supply:
1. Watermain recommended around building perimeter: Not discussed.
3. Adequacy of fireflow: The applicant has agreed to submit to a review and hydraulic modeling by the Water Department’s engineering consultant (Dufresne-Henry), and to include hydrant flow testing.
4. Fire Department concerns: The applicant will address the concerns detailed in the January 4, 2005 memorandum from John Bowser, Fire Prevention Officer.
Wetlands and Groundwater:
1. Pollutant discharge to wetlands and groundwater: Applicant and Mr. Sexton to discuss further.
5. Facilities operations and maintenance plan: Forthcoming.
10. Choice of landscaping species and possible need for NPDES filing: Landscaping details are forthcoming. NPDES issues are purview of the Conservation Commission.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to continue the public meeting for Snug Harbor Boatworks to February 7, 2005 at 7:35 PM, with revised plans and documentation due to the Planning Office by January 21, 2005, and with the decision deadline date remaining as February 10, 2005.
OTHER BUSINESS
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to pay Mainstream Engineering invoices #20505 ($1,086.00----Snug Harbor Boatworks) and #20506 ($1,195.00---- Bayside Marine). Mr. Bear provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6-0).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, January 24, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
