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, February 14, 2005
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman, Angela Scieszka, Clerk, Aboud Al-Zaim, Rob Wilson, John Bear and James Kimball. Also present was Associate Member Harold Moody (non-voting)
Absent: Amy MacNab.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director.
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Rob Wilson reported on last week’s economic development open business forum. Approx. 20 representatives attended and there was a good discussion regarding the permitting process between land use boards.
OTHER BUSINESS/Invoices:
Prior to the zoning public hearing the Planning Board reviewed some engineering invoices. Mr. Wilson made a MOTION to pay Mainstream engineering invoice # 20521 in the amount of $ 225.60, seconded by Mr. Kimball. The vote was 5:0:1 abstention- Mr. Al-Zaim.
Mr. Wilson made a MOTION to pay Mainstream engineering invoice #20471 in the amount of $360.00, seconded by Mr. Kimball, discussion – Mr. Bear questioned why it was late – Christine explained it had to be sent back to the engineer for incorporation of field reports. The vote was 5:0:1 abstention – Mr. Al-Zaim.
7:45PM PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ARTICLES FOR ANNUAL TOWN MEETING 2005:
Affordable Accessory Apartment warrant article – proposed by the Local Housing Partnership:
Ms. Scieszka read into the record the legal public hearing notice as advertised, a portion of a letter from Ms. MacNab (absent Planning Board member dated 2/13/05 expressing concerns with the proposal) and a handout dated 2/14/05 provided by Ms. Ruth Rowley (who was in attendance at the hearing, and had concerns about the proposed bylaw).
Present were members of the Local Housing Partnership: Bill Campbell, Diane Bartlett, Charlie Rourke and Brendan Keohan.
Mr. Bill Campbell, Chairman of the Local Housing Partnership (LHP) made a short presentation. Providing some brief history, Bill explained the LHP was an outgrowth of the Community Development Committee (CDC). The CDC dissolved last June after completing a Community Development Plan that addressed housing and economic development issues in the Town. Explaining the existence of pressure from both the development community and the State, the Town has encountered a housing crisis in accommodating affordable housing. Presently we are at 3.37% out of the 10% required by the State and the land values continue to escalate. In 1999 a lot was valued at $149,000. In 2004 it has doubled to $305,000 and continues to climb. This is a 40-50% increase in assessments which presents a problem for
older residents on a fixed income. An entry level house in Duxbury begins around $500,000 and there are very few at median income that can afford this price. We are seeing a trend of smaller lower cost homes being purchased and demolished for the land to make way for larger homes and the town continues to lose affordable housing stock.
The Community Development Plan provided the Town with a list of options to pursue; one of those options was an affordable accessory apartment bylaw. Other towns have successfully pursued this and so the LHP felt this was a possibility for the 2005 Town Meeting, given the need. Diane Bartlett and Brendan Keohan also mentioned the number of people on waiting lists at Island Creek. They said that the Housing Authority also demonstrates the need for rental housing.
Ruth Rowley – 546 Washington Street - provided the Planning Board with a handout and spoke to her concerns with the organization and flow of the bylaw and many items that were not clear to her. She suggested that the language regarding “blood relative” be removed from the bylaw. She also expressed concern with the square foot limitations for accessory apartments. What assurances are there that these limitations will not be exceeded? She also questioned who would review the income levels and determine the qualified renter? Brendan Keohan, explained that the Duxbury Housing Authority would do this – they presently do it for their tenants. She felt many adjustments were needed to make an understandable bylaw.
Jean Clarke -- 88 Surplus Street -- expressed her concerns with the proposal based on past issues when the town did have an accessory apartment bylaw. There were many problems and it was the Building Inspector who asked that it be taken out of the bylaw, she said. She also expressed her dislike of revenue being used towards paying off large mortgages. She felt that if she was having difficulty understanding the proposed bylaw, that the lay citizen would be lost. She cautioned that the zoning needs to be very detailed in order to prevent the kind of abuse they had in the past with a similar bylaw.
George Wadsworth questioned why it would remain affordable for only five years. Christine Stickney explained the five year provision deals only with the sale of the property not the duration of affordability if the property is not sold. If someone wished to purchase a home that had an affordable unit and it was only year 3 of 5 years since the unit’s creation, the unit would have to remain affordable for at least 2 more years. Then the property owner could ask for revocation. Questions arose as to tenants and issues of eviction. Charlie Rourke provided further explanation as to the deed restriction and annual certification as to enforcement.
Dave Cazeault -21 Elmhill Lane – offered his comments that the intent was agreeable but he explained his personal situation as an abutter to an illegal apartment and his frustration that now the Town can’t seem to do anything. What enforcement would a new bylaw bring to help out in a similar situation? Ruth Rowley added that as a former Board of Health member she is very familiar with the eviction process and it is difficult.
Kay Foster - Surplus Street - added her feelings that the Town has worked extremely hard in protecting its water resources and this could jeopardize that work with greater density. George Wadsworth expressed his agreement and questioned the LHP as to why the APOD was not exempted? Bill Campbell responded that the APOD has regulations in place and that the issue of bedrooms was one handled by Title V. Mr. Wadsworth responded that outside the APOD you could still build a home of any size and that title V did not limit bedrooms. The areas outside the watershed are contributory to the APOD areas and are just as important. Bill Campbell expressed his concern the discussion was losing site of the bylaw’s intent to increase the amount of affordable housing.
Rob Wilson asked to make a statement. He acknowledge that he is the Planning Board’s representative to the Local Housing Partnership and he feels that with the number of concerns and issues raised that these may not be a quick fix. Perhaps the LHP will want to reconsider bringing this forward at a later time.
George Wadsworth asked Christine to report on the numbers she had obtained from the building department – 1 special permit in the last five years and 6 to 7 guest houses/accessory family living areas etc have been issued. George added there has been no planned development since 1986.
David Casezault noted that the proposed bylaw limits the number of new affordable accessory apartments to fifteen per year. He asked how that would affect the Town’s requirement to provide 10% affordable housing. Planning Board members felt that this would provide a minimum contribution toward this requirement.
Jim Kimball shared a number of the concerns previously discussed and wondered if the proposal will just be picked apart on Town meeting floor. He also shares the concern with creating two family homes.
Angela Scieszka itemized her concerns: 1) The bylaw should be allowed for existing structures only; 2) The time frame for affordability is not clear; 3) The APOD should not be included; 4) Allowing two dwellings on one lot is problematic; 5) There is a possibility that a developer could build two new structures and call one affordable for a short time, and then allow it to go to market price; and 6) There is no requirement for site plans.
Mr. Al-Zaim said that he concurred with many of the comments from Ms. MacNab’s memo. He asked Ms. Stickney about her reference to Chapter 41. Ms. Stickney explained that Chapter 41 pre-empts some of the information about planning boards found in Chapter 81. Mr. Al-Zaim said that he is concerned about renters being blood relatives, and about how the qualified renter requirements would work. He is also concerned about the square footage limitations and how they would be monitored. Finally, he expressed concerns with the off-street parking.
John Bear provided his input: 1) The proposed bylaw provides only a minimal contribution to the 10% quota; 2) There may be problems with parking; 3) The APOD should be excluded; 4) The reference to blood relatives should be removed; and 5) There should be rights for abutters built into the bylaw. He cautioned against a big rush to Town Meeting.
Harold Moody added that when something is “by right” it tends to be more difficult to monitor than if there is a special permit that is recorded on the property title. Christine pointed out that although the proposal is a “by right” proposal, that it includes the requirement of a deed restriction which is a built in enforcement.
George Wadsworth questioned the possibility of a sale between spouses with the intent to utilize the provision of the 5 year clause and to get out of the affordability requirement.
Bill Campbell responded there are many situations that could arise; the problem in 2005 is that you can not have lots of land selling for $350,000 and then turn around and try to build an affordable home for $350-$400,000. This just doesn’t work so we are forced to look at other options to address this housing crisis. We continue to loose any potential affordable small housing stock to demolition to make way for much larger homes.
Mr. Wilson made a MOTION that we approve the idea of the Affordable Accessory Apartment bylaw but that the Planning Board not recommend approval for the moment to Town Meeting, seconded by Mr. Al-Zaim for discussion:
Mr. Wadsworth explained that the only way to change the proposed bylaw now would be from the Town Meeting floor. However, care would have to be taken that the changes are not so extensive as to be considered substantive changes. Substantive changes could be determined to be beyond the scope of the original proposed bylaw. He also noted that normally the Planning Board closes the public hearing first and then discusses it among them as to a recommendation to Town Meeting. He advised the Board that it is an up or down recommendation. Ms. Stickney pointed out that Indefinite Postponement is another option to recommend – if Town Meeting were to vote to IP then the sponsor could come back at any time with revisions. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that the LHP needs to make that decision as to
IP.
Jean Clark commented that she does not mean to be cynical. However, she said that the isses of water supply protection and community health are important. She cited the current situation of Landing Road. She said that there were restrictions as to the number of bedrooms placed when the shared system was done that are now being ignored. She advised that bylaws need to be carefully crafted and developed in respect to abutters.
Tim McCluskey – Tremont Street - Spoke to his intent tonight in supporting the bylaw because of a personal need for his mother. However, he stated that he would not be in favor of two dwellings on a lot. He believes an existing structure with the apartment within it is more suitable.
Additional remarks from the audience as to IP the article were offered and Mr. Wilson withdrew his MOTION and the second was withdrawn by Mr. Al-Zaim.
Mr. Al-Zaim made a MOTION to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Kimball – unanimous vote (6:0). The Planning Board will discuss later what will be recommended to Town meeting and the public was thanked for attending.
Duxbury Bay Management Commission proposed article – sponsored by the Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Duxbury Bay Study Committee
Mr. Wilson, acting pro-tem clerk, read the legal notice for Ms. Scieszka who stepped out of the room and then a statement was read “Although this article was advertised for 2/14/05 due to an omission by the sponsor of a reference to a section in the ZBL discovered in the text, it was re-advertised for 2/28/05 (7:45PM) – no discussion will go forward tonight.”
Proposed Article for a $50,000 appropriation for a traffic improvement and mitigation plan for the Bennett’s Business area, Snug Harbor business area, Cox Corner and Bailey’s Corner intersection:
Ms. Scieszka read the legal public notice of the hearing, the remaining portion of Ms. MacNab’s February 13, 2005 letter, and comments from Ms. Rowley 2/14/05 handout.
Ms. Stickney explained the article and how the amount of $50,000 was derived to address concerns of the four areas in Town. She noted, in response to Ms. Rowley’s concern, that this is not a zoning article, however it was advertised for public input.
Mr. Ned Lawson, representing the Duxbury Maritime School was present and spoke to the seasonal traffic situation at Snug Harbor. He acknowledge the school is a major contributor and that this year they have purchased a number of new launches that will hopefully have the kids brought in sooner. The problem seems to arise with the mid day tide changes and the two sessions overlapping. He is willing to work with the Town and noted his support for the traffic study.
Jean Clarke noted three of the four areas are under state jurisdiction and she feels the state will do whatever they want. Ms. Stickney said that in the process of the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) proposals, that a readiness to proceed and ideas are given preferential consideration. This is the Town’s opportunity to proactively address the traffic the way they would like to see it done.
John Bear questioned why Cox corner was included? Ms. Stickney explained that previously the Webster Point Chapter 40B, with the Snug Harbor Tile building and the proposal for Duxbury Crossing collectively were a concern.
Aboud Al-Zaim questioned Ms. Stickney as to when the Planning Board discussed and approved the submission of this article. He did not recall any discussion of such an article for Town meeting. He does not support the article and that it is not the best use of funds.
Anglea Scieszka expressed her concern that if we did this that the State would back us into a corner – would we be tied to things that may not actually solve the problem. Ms. Stickney said that the Town develops the scope of the contract that drives the review.
Mr. Al-Zaim made a MOTION to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Wilson – unanimously voted. The Planning Board will discuss at a later time.
Proposed Warrant Article to amend the Zoning Definitions of Guest House, Bed & Breakfast Establishment and Kitchen:
Ms. Scieszka read the legal notice of the public hearing, and noted correspondence from Ms. Rowley (2/14/05 handout).
Mr. Richard Quigley - Powderpoint Road --spoke to the article as the owner of a Bed & Breakfast. He presented the board with regulations from the Department of Public Health that defined a Bed & Breakfast Home and a Bed & Breakfast Establishment. He pointed out various contradictions in the DPH regulations as to the two definitions. He is concerned that his current special permit issued under Guest House could be in jeopardy if a new definition of Bed & Breakfast is added to the bylaw. He has had to recently return to the ZBA for adding a catered evening meal to his operation which he felt could have been handled administratively. Each time he returns there are costs for filing and time needed to go through a public hearing process which is detrimental to a small
business.
Ms. Rowley pointed out that the current bylaw Section 410.3 lists Bed & Breakfast/Guest House. However, in Section 300 there is only a definition for Guest House. She feels there should not be a separate definition section in the bylaw. She points out the assumption that if it is defined as a use it can go in any district.
Mr. Al-Zaim said that he sees an initial problem with the article because it does not delete the existing definition of Guest House – Ms. Stickney agreed the wording does not include a definition deletion and that was an oversight in wording it but she could check to see if it can be amended from the floor. He also added that there is a problem with the current DPH definitions provided by Mr. Quigley that are contradictory. He feels the proposed definitions do nothing to clarify the situation; he sees the number of bedrooms as the deeming factor.
Ms. Rowley suggested eliminating “establishment” and have it just say Bed & Breakfast.
Mr. Quigley again expressed his concern for his personal situation. Mr. Kimball said you need to put aside his relief and not try to zone as such – take out guest house.
Mr. Wilson made a MOTION to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Scieszka – unanimously voted (6:0)
A proposed warrant article relative to the acceptance of the Flood Rate Insurance Maps (FIRM) and amendment to the Zoning Bylaw:
Ms. Scieszka read the legal public hearing notice, Ms. Rowley’s comments of 2/14/04 hand out were so noted – she questioned the citation reference – which was deemed correct as 202.2 .
Ms. Stickney explained the article and the need to adopt the revised FIRM maps to stay in compliance with the requirements of the Flood Management Program.
Mr. Al-Zaim made a MOTION to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Wilson – unanimously voted (6:0).
Mr. Al-Zaim made a MOTION to recommend approval to Town Meeting on this article, seconded by Mr. Wilson – unanimously voted (6:0).
Members discussed how to proceed with recommendations to Town Meeting. Members had a number of reservations with the Affordable Accessory Apartment bylaw and wondered whether to IP or deny it. Mr. Al-Zaim said we should deny because the LHP could just ignore the Board again and continue on to Town Meeting. Ms. Stickney noted that the LHP has a meeting on Thursday the 24th just before the next Planning Board meeting. She said they may reconsider pursuit of the article based on the hearing tonight. If the LHP chooses to IP then perhaps the Planning Board would recommend IP also. If Town Meeting approves an IP, then the LHP could return at a later date. Members went back and forth on their options – no consensus was reached.
Mr. Al-Zaim noted that the Board is to appear before the Board of Selectmen on 2/28/05 with regards to articles the Planning Board will need to be prepared with its opinions. Mr. Wadsworth suggested we deal with the warrant article recommendations first thing on the 28th prior to any of the other business.
Other Business: Given the late hour, only those necessary items were discussed.
Minutes of 2/7/05 – Ms. Scieszka made a MOTION to accept the minutes of 2/7/05, seconded by Mr. Wilson unanimously voted (6:0)
Remaining Engineering Invoices:
Mr. Wilson made a MOTION to approve payment of Amory Invoices #10667B in the amount of $270.00 and Invoice #10667A in the amount of $210.00, seconded by Ms. Scieszka – unanimously voted (6:0)
Mr. Wilson made a MOTION to approve payment of the Mainstream Invoice #20519 in the amount of $1581.00, seconded by Ms. Scieszka – vote 5:1:0 (Mr. Al-Zaim opposed)
Meeting adjourned at 11:20PM
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Stickney
Planning Director
| 
