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 28, 2005.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim and Rob Wilson. Also present was Associate Member Harold Moody (non-voting.)
Absent: Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; John Bear and James Kimball.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:17 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Local Housing Partnership: Mr. Wilson reported that the Local Housing Partnership has decided to go forward with the Town Meeting article for affordable accessory apartments.
Annual Town Meeting Articles: Mr. Wadsworth said that he conferred with Attorney Jon Witten about Town Meeting article timing issues. He said that the Planning Board has twenty-one days from the date of the public hearing in order to make a report to Town Meeting. If the Annual Town Meeting occurs before the end of the twenty-one days, and the Planning Board has not supplied a report (due to insufficient time to study the article, or any other reason), then Town Meeting cannot act on the article. However, if more than twenty-one days elapses, and the Board has not issued a report, then Town Meeting may act on the article without a Planning Board report.
WORKING SESSION OF THE PLANNING BOARD: TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Article 29 (Definitions of Bed & Breakfast Establishment, Guest House, and Kitchen):
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to recommend Indefinite Postponement of Town Meeting Article 29 regarding definitions of Bed & Breakfast Establishment, Guest House, and Kitchen. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: It was noted that the public hearing revealed that further study is needed on these issues.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous in favor of Mr. Wilson’s motion (4:0).
Article 31 (Traffic Study):
Ms. Stickney noted that the article has been placed on the warrant, but that the money has not been included in the Town capital budget. Members agreed that this should not influence their vote.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to recommend approval of Town Meeting Article 31 regarding a traffic study for four areas of Town. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Al-Zaim said that he is not convinced of the need for and the benefits of this article, especially at a time when the Town is cutting school programs and other programs for lack of funds. He also said that the article lumps State roads together with Town roads. He said that the State should pay for traffic studies on their roads. Mr. Wadsworth said that if the Town pays for the study, the Town can define the scope. Also, it can be used in discussions with developers. Ms. Stickney added that the DPW Director and the Chairman of the Highway Safety Committee feel that this article is very important. Mr. Al-Zaim said that the Planning Board does not have the ability to implement any
solutions, but the DPW does. Therefore, perhaps the DPW should pay for a study. Or, perhaps the business community could lobby the State for a traffic study. Mr. Wadsworth acknowledged that the Snug Harbor area is the most problematic, and is the area where the roads are owned by the Town. Perhaps the Town could study that area first. If it were determined that the other areas were less important, that money could be turned back to the Town. Mr. Wilson and Ms. Scieszka spoke in favor of the motion, saying that traffic issues are within the purview and responsibilities of the Planning Board.
VOTE: The vote was 3 in favor of the motion, and one opposed (Mr. Al-Zaim.)
PUBLIC HEARING: ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES RELATED TO A BAY MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Ms. Scieszka read the public hearing notice into the record, as well as a letter from Ms. Ruth Rowley, dated 2/28/05, stating her concerns about the article.
Present for the Bay Management Commission were: Mr. John Carnuccio, Ms. Margaret Kearney, Mr. Shawn Dahlen, and Mr. Ned Lawson.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that there are two Town Meeting articles related to the proposed Bay Management Commission. Article 23 creates the Commission through an amendment to the Town’s General Bylaws. The Planning Board is not required to hold a public hearing on this article, nor to render a report. However, the Board may vote to recommend approval or disapproval if it wishes to. Article 24 establishes procedures through which the Bay Management Commission would make recommendations on Special Permit and Site Plan Review applications, through an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw. The Planning Board is required to hold a public hearing on Article 24, since it proposes to amend the Zoning Bylaw. Therefore, the current public hearing relates to Article 24. However, the Planning Board is
allowed twenty-one days from the date of the public hearing to issue their recommendations. Town Meeting is scheduled prior to the conclusion of the twenty-one days. If the Planning Board is not able to issue its report prior to Town Meeting, Town Meeting will not be able to act on the article. However, he indicated that the Board intended to issue a report.
Mr. Carnuccio said that Ms. Rowley is concerned that the Bay Management Commission is not officially established until Article 23 is approved by Town Meeting, and also approved by the Attorney General. Therefore, she feels it is premature to establish procedures for the Commission in Article 24. Mr. Carnuccio said that this issue is taken care of by the fact that Article 23 precedes Article 24, and that both articles must be approved by the Attorney General. Ms. Kearney added that Ms. Rowley is also concerned about the fact that the Bay Management Plan has not been completed and circulated to Town boards for review. Ms. Kearney said that the Plan is currently in draft form. The proposed Bay Management Commission will complete the Plan. However, it will be a “living” document
that will be updated at least every five years. She said that the Town should not wait until the first iteration of the Plan is prepared in order to establish the Commission, and allow it to review land use proposals.
Mr. Al-Zaim and Mr. Wilson asked whether the Commission would be receiving a referral on all applications, even the applications which are not near the Bay. Mr. Dahlen responded that they did not want to try to change special permit referral procedures, which require the ZBA and Planning Board to notify referring boards and commissions on all applications.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to close the public hearing on Article 24. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: No discussion.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (4:0).
Ms. Stickney left the meeting at this point.
JOINT MEETING WITH THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN: TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
At 8:40 PM, the Planning Board left the Small Conference Room, and joined the Board of Selectmen in the Mural Room, in order to discuss certain Town Meeting articles.
Article 29 (Definitions of Bed & Breakfast Establishment, Guest House, and Kitchen): Mr. Wadsworth informed the Selectmen that the Planning Board voted (4:0) today to recommend Indefinite Postponement of Article 29. The Board of Selectmen voted unanimously (3:0) to support Indefinite Postponement of Article 29.
Article 30 (Revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps): Mr. Wadsworth informed the Selectmen that the Planning Board voted (6:0) on February 14 to recommend approval of Town Meeting Article 30. The Board of Selectmen voted unanimously (3:0) to recommend approval of Article 30.
Article 31 (Traffic Study): Mr. Wadsworth informed the Selectmen that the Planning Board voted (3:1) today to recommend approval of Article 31. Mr. Longo said that he thought that a majority of the entire seven-member Planning Board is required to recommend approval of a Town Meeting article. Mr. Wadsworth said that since this is not a zoning article, only a majority of the members present would be required. It was agreed to consult Town Counsel on this issue, and that the Planning Board would take another vote if required. Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. Wilson, and Ms. Scieszka outlined the reasons for their support of the article, and Mr. Al-Zaim presented his objections. The Board of Selectmen vote for Article 31 was zero in favor and three opposed (0:3).
Article 32 (Affordable Accessory Apartment Bylaw): Mr. Wadsworth informed the Board of Selectmen that the Planning Board has not yet voted on this article. Mr. Campbell, Chairman of the Local Housing Partnership, said that the public hearing for this article revealed that some changes should be made. The LHP is working on some amendments to the article that they will propose at Town Meeting. Mr. Al-Zaim said he believes that there are enough language problems with the article that it should never have been approved by Town Counsel for inclusion in the warrant.
The Planning Board meeting was re-convened at 9:10 PM.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR DINGLEY DELL ESTATES/ Off Congress Street
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to recess the public hearing briefly, in order to consider another application before the Board. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: No discussion.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (4:0).
ANR PLAN OF LAND: NASH/Surplus Street
Present for the applicant were:
Mr. and Mrs. John Nash (applicants)
Mr. Jonathan Nash (son)
Mr. Al Vautrinot (applicant’s engineer)
Mr. Bruce Issadore (applicant’s attorney)
Ms. Ripley provided the Planning Board with a memorandum from Town Counsel dated February 28, 2005, stating that he would recommend approval of the application, provided that the notation, “not a buildable parcel” were moved from a group of notes on the side of the plan to a spot within the outline of the parcel itself. Mr. Al-Zaim and Ms. Scieszka said that Town Counsel’s recommendation for approval seems to conflict with his previous advice not to approve plans which show parcels without sufficient frontage. Mr. Wilson and Mr.Wadsworth said that this plan could be approved because of the common ownership of the lot and the parcel. Mr. Issadore explained the Bloom (1983) and Criccones (1995) decisions that allow for the approval of such a plan. Ms. Scieszka said that she would
prefer to consult with the Town Planner prior to voting on the plan because of the prior advice by Town Counsel. It was agreed to consider the application again on March 7, 2005.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR DINGLEY DELL ESTATES/ Off Congress Street (Re-convened)
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion to re-convene the continued public hearing for the proposed Dingley Dell subdivision. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: None.
VOTE: Unanimous in favor of the motion (4:0).
Ms. Scieszka read the correspondence list into the record:
· Letter from Mark Flaherty, dated 1/10/05, describing changes made to plans for 1/10/05 hearing (distributed at 1/10/05 hearing)
· Mutual Extension form signed 1/10/05
· Planning Board minutes of 1/10/05
· Certified letter sent 2/8/05 to Mr. Striebel requesting escrow replenishment
· Letter from Mark Flaherty dated 2/14/05 responses to public hearing and W. Amory comments – included revised plans.
· Memo to Kevin Nord, Fire Chief from C. Stickney dated 2/15/05 re: transmittal of revised plans and request for meeting to discuss cul-de-sac
· Letter from Walter Amory dated 2/15/05 re: comments from Peer review
· Letter from John Bowser, dated 2/25/05: Fire Dept comments
The applicant, Mr. Roman Striebel was present. The applicant’s engineer, Mr. Mark Flaherty was also present. Present for the Town was Mr. Walter Amory.
Mr. Flaherty outlined changes to the plan since the meeting on January 10, 2005. One major change is that the drainage apparatus is on a separate lot. Mr. Flaherty also presented three options for the diameter of the cul-de-sac R.O.W. (100-foot, 120-foot, and 150-foot). Each option has a paved hammerhead turnaround. The 100 and 120-feet options allow the entire house to be located in Duxbury. However, the water quality swale would be partially located in the right-of-way.
It was noted that the Fire Department recommends a paved 120’ foot diameter cul-de-sac with an island instead of a hammerhead. Planning Board members noted that they prefer a hammerhead turnaround for such a small development. Mr. Wadsworth commented that there is no public water on this street. So, being able to hook up to a hydrant at any particular location on the cul-de-sac is not an issue.
Mr. Wadsworth asked Mr. Amory whether there is anything in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations which would prevent allowing part of the water quality swale to be in the right-of-way. Mr. Amory said that the expectation is that a ROW will be dry, but there is nothing specifically in the Rules and Regulations to prevent it. He sees no problem with it. Mr. Amory also noted that Mr. Flaherty has provided the Planning Dept and Mr. Amory with a set of plans that address all of the issues on his memo of 2/15/05. He is satisfied with this set of plans.
Mr. Al-Zaim commented that he feels badly that this even has to be a subdivision. The owner is simply trying to get one lot for a family member. He commended the applicant and Mr. Flaherty for the improvements to the plan. He said that it is crucial that the house be in Duxbury to prevent a nightmare of problems associated with school attendance. Ms. Scieszka said that while filing a subdivision plan has been cumbersome for the applicant, that it was very important that the applicant go through the same process that other applicants are subject to.
Mr. Wadsworth said that he has no issue with four of the waivers that have been requested. However, Mr. Wadsworth said that he is concerned about allowing the waiver from a 150-foot cul-de-sac to a 120-foot cul-de-sac. He is concerned about the precedent which could be set. Mr. Wilson noted that the benefit to the Town is the Conservation restriction on over 25 acres of land that comes along with this application. Mr. Wadsworth said that he would like to see the language for the Conservation easement. Mr. Striebel said that he would provide that prior to the next meeting.
MOTION and VOTE: Mr. Wilson made a motion to close the public hearing for the proposed Dingley Dell Estates subdivision. Mr. Al-Zaim provided a second for the motion, which was passed unanimously (4:0).
Staff was directed to draft conditions of approval for a vote on March 7, 2005.
OTHER BUSINESS
Comprehensive Permit Application for Merry Village: Mr. Wilson noted that the Planning Board has not been given enough time to do a complete review of the revised plans. However, Board members concurred with the comments provided in a memorandum from the Planning Director, dated February 24, 2005. It was agreed to forward these comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals, on behalf of the Planning Board.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:17 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on March 7, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
