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, March 7, 2005.
Present: George Wadsworth, Chairman; Amy MacNab, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, John Bear, James Kimball and Rob Wilson. Also present was Associate Member Harold Moody (non-voting.)
Absent: No members were absent.
Staff: Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Affordable Housing: Mr. Kimball said that the Planning Board needs to be more proactive on affordable housing. The Local Housing Partnership initiatives would be more successful if they were part of an overall plan.
ANR PLAN OF LAND: NASH/Surplus Street
Ms. Ripley noted that Town Counsel had asked for the words, “Not a Buildable Lot” to be added to the plan. The engineer had written “Not a Building Lot” instead. Ms. MacNab said that the two statements could have different meanings, in her opinion. Mr. Moody said that he felt that the difference in language could make a difference.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to endorse the ANR Plan of Land in Duxbury, MA, prepared for John B. Nash, carrying the original date of February 10, 2005, provided that the notations on Parcel 2 and Footnote 9 are changed from “Not a Building Lot” to “Not a Buildable Lot”, and provided that Mr. Nash agrees to an extension of the decision date to 3/22/05. Mr. Bear provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
ARTICLES 23 & 24 (BAY MANAGEMENT COMMISSION)
Article 23: Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Planning Board did not hold a public hearing on this article, because it is not a zoning change. This article simply amends the Town’s General Bylaws to allow for the creation of the Duxbury Bay Management Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to recommend approval to Town Meeting of Article #23, the Establishment of the Duxbury Bay Management Commission. Ms. Scieszka provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Wadsworth noted the existence of the Government Study Committee. This committee has been working for one year, and is due to present its recommendations at the 2006 Annual Town Meeting. One of the comments that keeps arising at the meetings is that there may be too many committees in Town. Should the Town be establishing yet another one right now? Ms. Margaret Kearney, of the Duxbury Bay Management Study Committee, said that she feels this new commission should be grandfathered. The Study Committee worked for three years to do the background work for creating the proposed commission. In addition, it is believed that the Waterfront Advisory Committee will no longer be needed if the Duxbury Bay Management Commission is in place.
Ms. MacNab asked whether the Board of Selectmen has been petitioned to remove the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Ms. Kearney said that this had not yet happened. Ms. Kearney also said that there has been much discussion over whether the new commission should be charged to “develop” the Bay Management Plan, or to “finalize” it. To use the word develop implies that the plan is not already in existence, while in fact, a substantial draft has been prepared by the Study Committee. To use the word “finalize” is inappropriate for a plan which will be a “living document” and updated at least every five years. This issue has not been fully decided.
VOTE: The vote in favor of the motion was unanimous (7:0).
Article 24: Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Planning Board opened and closed a public hearing on February 28 for this article, which amends the Zoning Bylaw to allow for the newly formed Duxbury Bay Management Commission to make recommendations on Special Permits and Site Plan Review.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to recommend approval of Article 24. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Scieszka reminded the Board of Ms. Ruth Rowley’s comments during the public hearing. Ms. Rowley is concerned that the Town should not be amending the zoning bylaw to include a commission that has not yet received Attorney General approval. Mr. Wadsworth repeated the Study Committee’s response that the Attorney General would be approving the establishment of the Commission and its procedures at the same time.
VOTE: The vote in favor of the motion was unanimous (7:0).
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR SONG SPARROW ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL
Present for the applicant were:
Mr. Jay Woodruff, Search Tech
Mr. Bill Devine
Mr. Devine said that the estimate by Horsley & Witten to perform a limited peer review of the Song Sparrow Estates proposal ($6,800.00) is very high. This is the same amount that it cost to develop the plans in the first place. Mr. Devine and Mr. Woodruff asked whether the Board would consider returning to Mainstream Engineering, which already has familiarity with the project. Mr. Devine and Mr. Woodruff said that the peer review process is very expensive for applicants. They feel that if an engineer knows there is $3,000 in the escrow account, that they will spend exactly that much.
Mr. Al-Zaim took objection to the approach that the Planning Board is not vigilant on the process. Ms. MacNab agreed with Mr. Al-Zaim. Board members agreed that the cost of using Horsley & Witten for this project would be too high.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to request that Mainstream Engineering perform the peer review for the Song Sparrow Estates subdivision. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Al-Zaim said that staff should request an Order of Magnitude for the project, and emphasize that general recommendations are not needed outside of the Planning Board Rules and Regulations.
VOTE: The vote in favor of the motion was unanimous (7:0).
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: PROPOSED DINGLEY DELL ESTATES SUBDIVISION/ Off Congress Street
Present for the applicant were:
Mr. Roman Streibel, applicant
Mr. Mark Flaherty, applicant’s engineer
Present for the Town was:
Mr. Walter Amory, P.E.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Public Hearing for this proposed subdivision is closed. The purpose of the meeting is for the Board to work out (with its consultant) the conditions under which the subdivision could come under a vote for approval.
Ms. Ripley noted that Mr. Flaherty has shown the Wetlands and Watershed Protection District on the plan, and that this depiction has been approved by the Conservation agent. It appears that a large portion of the cul-de-sac is in the Wetlands and Watershed Protection District. Construction of this cul-de-sac will require a Special Permit from the ZBA. Mr. Kimball asked if the Planning Board is putting the cart before the horse by approving a subdivision that cannot be built without ZBA approval. Should the ZBA approval have come first? Ms. MacNab said that this case has been litigated. The Court sent it to the Planning Board for subdivision review. The subdivision could have been built with the cul-de-sac out of the Wetlands District, however, this would have forced the house into
Pembroke, which the applicant does not want.
The draft conditions prepared by Ms. Stickney on 3-1-05 were reviewed and amended by the Board. Part of the discussion included the best way to protect the Lot One from future development. This could be done through a Covenant, a Conservation Easement, or a Conservation Restriction. Mr. Striebel has agreed to obtain a Conservation Restriction for the land, and is in the process of getting the language drawn up. In addition, the draft conditions were amended to clarify that no further subdivision shall be allowed for this parcel.
Waivers: The Planning Board voted on the four requested waivers to the October 2002 Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land:
#1: MOTION: Mr. Wilson made a motion to approve a waiver concerning the orientation of the drawings on the plan. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion, which passed by a unanimous vote (7:0).
#2: MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to approve a waiver not to show a water distribution system on the Definitive Plan. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which passed unanimously (7:0).
#3: MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to approve a waiver allowing overhead utility lines. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
#4: MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to approve a waiver from the required diameter cul-de-sac layout to one-hundred twenty feet. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
It was agreed that the Planning Board would vote on the whole subdivision at their next meeting (March 21), which would allow Mr. Flaherty to reflect all comments on a final set of plans.
SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: PRATT/ 353 Washington Street
Ms. MacNab noted that the applicant proposes to increase lot coverage from 15.2% to 16.4%, where the maximum coverage allowed is 15%. Ms. MacNab further noted that this is entirely within the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to defer judgment on this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
WORKING SESSION OF THE PLANNING BOARD: ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Article 31: Traffic Study
Ms. Scieszka and Ms. MacNab said that they would like the Board to reconsider their favorable vote on this Town Meeting article. Ms. MacNab said that the feeling on the waterfront is that the Town would be paying $50,000 for a problem owned by the Duxbury Bay Maritime School. Ms. Scieszka added that this is a tough article to sell in hard financial times.
Mr. Wilson said that the article may not pass, but that the Planning Board has a responsibility to try to address traffic problems.
Mr. Kimball said that the developers and re-developers should have been made to make a financial contribution toward traffic improvements, not the Town. Perhaps the best step to take is to have a public meeting to air concerns about traffic issues.
Mr. Bear said that the Planning Director made good arguments for supporting the article in her memorandum of March 3, 2005.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to reconsider the Planning Board’s vote on Article 31 relative to a traffic study. Mr. Al-Zaim provided a second for the motion, which carried by a vote of (6:1)—Mr. Bear against.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to recommend Indefinite Postponement of Article 31. Mr. Al-Zaim provided a second for the motion which carried by a vote of four members in favor (Al-Zaim, Kimball, McNab, and Scieszka), and three members against (Bear, Wadsworth, and Wilson).
Article 32: Affordable Accessory Apartment Bylaw
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Public Hearing article for this was opened and closed on February 14, 2005. The purpose of tonight’s hearing is to have the Planning Board discuss the issues relevant to the article, and to take a vote.
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to recommend disapproval of Article 32 as presented in the warrant. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Kimball said that it would take a lot of convincing to have him vote in favor of such an article. He wondered why anyone who needed additional income from a rental would volunteer to limit that income by making it affordable. Mr. Bear said that he objects to the provision being made “by right”. He said that we already have a Special Permit process for developing accessory apartments. The advantage of the Special Permit process is that it allows for the notification of abutters.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (7-0).
Article 32—Affordable Accessory Apartment Bylaw (as amended on 3/3/05):
Ms. MacNab said that while the Local Housing Partnership has clearly done a great deal of work on this issue, and is well-intentioned, that this would be a big change for the Town. More time is needed to study it properly.
Ms. MacNab questioned the proposed change to the definition for Affordable Accessory Apartment, which separates the use by low or moderate-income persons from the use by relatives. Ms. Scieszka explained that the Local Housing Partnership was responding to concerns that people would like to be able to house relatives without having to have them qualified under the Local Initiative Program. Then, the feeling is, that once these relatives move on, the apartment would be there, and eligible to become part of the Affordable Housing Inventory.
Mr. Al-Zaim agreed with Ms. MacNab that the proposed amendments to the warrant article are so extensive that the land-use boards should have more time to review them.
Mr. Wadsworth said that the Town Moderator plans to allow the consideration of the proposed amendments, saying that they are within the scope of the original article. However, Mr. Wadsworth wondered aloud whether the public is served by not having enough time to understand the proposed changes. Ms. MacNab said that it will be important for the Planning Board to make the point at Town Meeting that there has not been enough time for the public to understand all the relevant issues with this bylaw.
Mr. Wilson said that the proposed bylaw would only allow for fifteen units in the first year. This is not a significant change for the Town. The bylaw could be changed next year if it is found that there are problems with it.
Mr. Wadsworth called the Board’s attention to Section 406.7 (Density Regulations within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District): “Residential dwellings shall be permitted at a density not to exceed one(1) dwelling unit per 60,000 square feet of upland lot area as defined in Section 300………” He said that this provision of the Zoning Bylaw would not allow accessory apartments within the APOD.
Mr. Bear said that he is against the bylaw on principal. People should not be able to create multi-family dwellings by-right.
Ms. Scieszka said that there are simply too many inconsistencies in the proposed bylaw, and not enough time for public review.
MOTION: Mr. Al-Zaim made a motion to recommend disapproval of Article 32 as amended on 3/3/05. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: Ms. MacNab suggested that it might be better to recommend Indefinite Postponement, to allow for an improved accessory apartment bylaw to come before the Town within two years.
WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION: Mr. Al-Zaim withdrew his motion for disapproval of Article 32. Ms. MacNab withdrew her second for that motion.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion to recommend Indefinite Postponement of Article 32. Ms. MacNab provided a second for the motion.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Bear repeated his concern about the by-right nature of the proposed bylaw, which does not allow for abutter notification.
VOTE: The motion passed by a vote of 5 members in favor (Al-Zaim, Bear, MacNab, Scieszka, Wadsworth) and two against (Wilson, Kimball).
Mr. Kimball indicated that he did not vote in favor of Indefinite Postponement because he would have liked to see the article denied outright.
It was agreed that Ms. MacNab would speak about the Planning Board’s position on Article 32 at the Annual Town Meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
ANR Correction (Desmarais): This ANR plan was originally endorsed by the Board on 1/3/05. The applicant’s engineer provided a letter to the Board, dated 2/24/05, stating that when the applicant’s attorney was preparing the deed, it was noticed that the plan inadvertently omitted a 2.45 feet distance along the easterly line of Lot 940-001. The applicant is requested endorsement of the corrected plan. No one was present for the applicant. Board members expressed confusion about the plan, and asked that the applicant’s engineer be present at the next meeting to provide an explanation.
Consultant Invoice:
MOTION: Ms. MacNab made a motion to pay invoice #20518, in the amount of $670.00 from Mainstream Engineering for work performed for the Brook Road subdivision. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried by a vote of six in favor, none opposed, and one abstention (Mr. Al-Zaim).
Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Wilson provided a motion to amend the minutes of 2/28/05 as amended. Ms. MacNab provided a second for this motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Saturday, March 12, 2005 at 8:30 AM, in conjunction with the Annual Town Meeting.
| 
