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.
Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 05/02/05
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building Monday, May 2, 2005.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, John Bear, and Rob Wilson. Also present was Associate Member Harold Moody (non-voting.)
Absent: James Kimball.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director and Barbara Ripley, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Economic Advisory Committee (EAC): Mr. Wilson, a member of the EAC, reported on the forum sponsored by the EAC regarding traffic issues in the Snug Harbor area. Approximately 25-30 people were present. Short-term proposals include painted walkways on Washington Street, signage, and an increased police presence during high-traffic periods. The most significant problems occur during drop-off and pick-up times at the Duxbury Bay Maritime School (DBMS). The timing of this situation varies with the tides. Several long-term proposals were suggested, including busing the DBMS students from the school parking lot, but no firm action plan was devised. Mr. Wilson said that the forum was very useful for learning about the variety of concerns in the area. Ms. MacNab stated her
feeling that the traffic problem is related to activity at DBMS, so DBMS should pay for the traffic detail, not the Town.
Elm Street Drainage: Mr. Wadsworth said that this problem has been satisfactorily addressed by the DPW.
Snug Harbor Drainage Project: Mr. Wadsworth said that this has been touted in the local media as a very progressive, cutting-edge project. However, he disagreed with this interpretation, because the new system will not treat pollutants in solution.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: SONG SPARROW ESTATES/ Off Forest Street
Present for the applicant were:
Jay Woodruff, Search-Tech
Steve Gioiosa, SITEC Engineering, Inc.
Present for the Town was:
Tom Sexton, Mainstream Engineering, Inc.
Ms. Scieszka read the correspondence list into the record:
· Copy of revised plans
· Letter from SITEC dated 4/14/05 re: revisions
· Peer review memo, Mainstream Engineering, dated 4/27/05
Mr. Gioiosa addressed outstanding items from the Mainstream Engineering memo of 4/27/05:
Roadway #5: Ms. Stickney will confer with the Tree Warden about whether the proposed planting in the bioretention areas will suffice to meet the Town’s requirement for deciduous street trees.
Stormwater Management #2: SITEC Engineering is in the process of addressing Mr. Sexton’s concerns about verification of groundwater separation.
Stormwater Management #5: SITEC is in the process of addressing Mr. Sexton’s concerns about bioretention area capacity. Mr. Gioiosa asked whether the Board would be amenable to having drainage easements on the lots, if they are necessary to create additional capacity. Mr. Wadsworth said that he is uncomfortable with this idea. After further discussion, Mr. Gioiosa said that additional capacity needs could probably be met in the center of the cul-de-sac.
Stormwater Management #10: SITEC will provide spot grades.
Stormwater Management #14: An Operation and Maintenance manual for the drainage system will be provided two weeks prior to the next public hearing date.
Stormwater Management #15: There will be a notation on the plan requiring dry wells for roof run-off.
Stormwater Management #16: Line-of-Sight profiles will be provided. Clearing and re-grading of shoulders/sideslopes within the Forest Street layout may be required in order to maintain a 300-foot clear line of sight at the intersection, in each direction. Ms. Stickney will consult with the Tree Warden about whether any significant trees would be involved. A separate tree hearing will not be required if the Tree Warden deems tree removal to be necessary for public safety. Homeowners in the ANR lots on Forest Street will have to consult with the Tree Warden about any planting in the Town’s ROW.
Stormwater Management #17: SITEC will revise the roadway profile to create a negative grade at the proposed intersection with Forest Street.
Stormwater Management #18 & #19: Mr. Sexton feels that drainage calculations should be revised to include the development of the ANR lots on Forest Street, and that runoff from these lots should be mitigated, for up to the 100-year storm. Mr. Gioiosa questioned whether this information should be included since the ANR lots are not part of the definitive application. Ms. MacNab reminded the applicant about the conditions under which the ANR lots were approved. The Planning Board approved the ANR plan, even though it included a parcel without adequate frontage, because the applicant stated his intention to develop the back lots at the same time. This would give the Planning Board the opportunity to work with the land as a whole. Ms. Stickney cautioned the Board that they cannot
condition the ANR lots through the Definitive Plan process. Planning Board members agreed that while there is no legal requirement to include the Form A lots in consideration of the definitive plan, that this would be the way to promote the success of the development as a whole. Furthermore, it would give the opportunity to the Planning Board to propose solutions to the Building Inspector for potential drainage problems on the ANR lots. Mr. Gioiosa agreed to provide a suggested grading scheme for Lot A, and to see how it works when included in the drainage calculations.
Mr. Sexton left the meeting at this point.
Comments from the Public:
Mr. Jeff Fiedler (21 Forest Street): Requested and received additional information about sight-lines on Forest Street.
Planning Board members asked Ms. Stickney to prepare draft conditions for the next meeting with the applicant, in anticipation of a vote on the project.
MOTION: Mr. Wilson moved that the public hearing for Song Sparrow Estates be continued to June 6, 2005 at 7:45 PM, with all revised plans and documentation (including a Homeowner’s Association document, Covenant, and O&M Manual) being provided to the Planning Office by May 23, 2005, and with an extension of the decision date to July 7, 2005. Mr. Wadsworth provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Engineering Invoice:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion to pay Mainstream Engineering Invoice #20548, for $1,867.00, for services related to Song Sparrow Estates. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0).
Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion to accept the minutes of 4/25/05 as amended. Mr. Wilson provided a second for the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0).
WORKING SESSION OF THE PLANNING BOARD: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Planning Board began by looking at the Housing Strategies & Action Plan (Section 4.0) of the Community Development Plan. It was agreed that Strategy One has been implemented through the creation of the Local Housing Partnership.
Mr. Al-Zaim stated that the primary question is: Who are we trying to serve? There are different groups, sometimes with competing interests. Ms. Scieszka answered that there are two distinct needs: 1) Affordable Housing; and 2) Diverse Housing.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that lot size does not affect price that much. A mansion on a half-acre lot does not sell for half the price of a mansion on an acre lot.
Mr. Wilson said that there are two groups we should be serving: 1) Older people who want to downsize, but are finding that hard to do in Duxbury. So, their tax dollars are going to other communities. (He did not have the opportunity to list the second group.)
Mr. Wadsworth noted that there is a cost to the taxpayers of affordable housing, in terms of lowered property values.
Ms. Stickney said that most communities have more than one residential zone. Perhaps more density could be allowed in certain areas of Town.
Mr. Bear said that he is against “re-classifying” as a solution to affordable housing need. The reclassification of illegal units to legal units does nothing to actually increase the stock of affordable housing. He is also against encouraging multi-family housing in single family neighborhoods. Mr. Bear said that the Town does not need to create an Affordable Accessory Bylaw to allow people to have their parents live with them.
Ms. Wilson noted that the Lincoln Street project is re-surfacing. It is estimated that the land could support thirty-five units, and they could all meet State requirements for affordability, since the land would be considered the subsidy.
Ms. Scieszka said that she has been trying to develop an Affordable Accessory Apartment bylaw that she could live with. She said that she has thought of four criteria which would be important to her: 1) It should be by-right; 2) It should be allowed for affordable units only; 3) Units should be a minimum of 900 SF; and 4) They must be maintained as affordable units for a minimum of fifteen years.
Mr. Wadsworth said that the criteria for affordable accessory apartments (proposed as by-right) and market rate accessory apartments (by Special Permit only) should be the same, such that if one wants to move from one status to the other, the size and access issues would be met for both categories.
Mr. Bear questioned why anyone would want to go to the expense of creating an accessory apartment only to limit their income by making it affordable. The costs of the Special Permit process would easily be recovered over a few years of obtaining market rate rents instead.
Ms. Stickney reminded the Board that, under current zoning, Administrative Site Plan Review would also be necessary for Special Permits on accessory apartments.
Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Moody suggested that the demand for condominiums must not be very high, otherwise the market would have dictated that they be built.
Ms. Stickney and Ms. Ripley disagreed, saying it is zoning that prevents the development of condominiums in Duxbury. Ms. Stickney said that the majority of available Planned Development land is in the APOD, which severely limits density. Several people have inquired about developing condominium projects recently, but have found that it would be uneconomic given the APOD restrictions.
It was agreed that the focus of the Board should be on the creation of affordable, subsidized units. It was also agreed to continue the discussion at the next available opportunity. Ms. MacNab suggested that members study the Action Plan for a strategy they can support. She said that it is important that the Board take a positive approach, rather than being seen as just poking holes in every idea. Ms. Stickney encouraged the Board to take a look at the Community Development Plan as a whole. The CDP provides statistics to support many of the proposed strategies.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, May 9, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
