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 02/06/06
Approved 02/27/06
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building, Monday, February 6, 2006.
Present: George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; Aboud Al-Zaim, John Bear, Jim Kimball and Harold Moody. Associate Member Douglas Carver arrived at 7:42 PM.
Absent: Amy MacNab, Chair.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director (arrived at 8:05 PM); and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:37 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Mr. Wadsworth announced that Ms. MacNab would not be attending tonight’s meeting due to family illness. Ms. Grant reported that Ms. Stickney would be attending the Board of Selectmen’s meeting and would be arriving late. No other items were presented for open forum.
AS-BUILT APPROVAL / PRATT CIRCLE
Atty. Robert Galvin and homeowner Mr. Henry Oheim were present for the discussion regarding three lots that had been released before a Homeowners’ Association had been recorded. Atty. Galvin noted that in January he had sent a re-draft of the Homeowners’ Association to the three homeowners, with a copy to the Planning Office. He reported that Mr. Oheim had sent a response to Atty. Galvin’s re-draft including a recommendation that the Town should be responsible for the roadway and drainage. Atty. Galvin noted that the subdivision was created under conditions that the roads and drainage would not be a responsibility of the Town. He noted that Mr. Oheim requests to review the Planning Department’s records regarding Pratt Circle.
Mr. Wadsworth responded that not only does Mr. Oheim have a right to review public files, he should review them in order to become better informed of the history of the subdivision’s approval process. Mr. Wadsworth advised Mr. Oheim that public roadways need to meet Town specifications, and Pratt Circle does not meet those specifications. Ms. Scieszka noted that the Board waived certain roadway regulations that were requested by the applicant.
Mr. Wadsworth asked Atty. Galvin who is currently listed as the roadway owner, and Atty. Galvin offered to contact the Town Assessor’s office to confirm the answer.
Mr. Moody advised Mr. Oheim that he had reviewed the subdivision plan on record with the Registry of Deeds, and confirmed that the plan indicated that the roadway would remain private. He noted that Homeowners’ Associations serve to help homeowners, not as a detriment, and recommended that Mr. Oheim review the Pratt Circle files in the Planning Office.
Mr. Oheim stated that only after speaking with Ms. Stickney recently did he learn that concessions were made to the developer. He stated his opinion that the Board waived requirements without telling the homeowners. Ms. Scieszka responded that it has been recorded that the roadway is to remain private and that drainage is the responsibility of the homeowners as well.
Atty. Galvin suggested meeting next month after he has had more time to reach an agreement with the three homeowners regarding the Homeowners’ Association. A meeting date of March 20, 2006 was suggested, and staff agreed to confirm the date and time with Atty. Galvin.
PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING ARTICLES FOR ANNUAL TOWN MEETING 2006
Mr. Wadsworth opened the public hearing at 7:53 PM. Ms. Scieszka read the legal public hearing notice into the record.
§ Amendment to Zoning Bylaw Section 609.2 (Definitions) for new text relative to defining “demolition/substantial”: Mr. Wadsworth asked Ms. Barbara Kiley of the Historic Commission to speak to the article, and she introduced other Historic Commission members present, Ms. Nancy Bennett, Mr. Terry Vose and Mr. Norman Tucker. Ms. Kiley stated that the Inspectional Services Department requested the Historic Commission sponsor this article in order to clarify the meaning of “substantial” from the Demolition Delay bylaw regarding structures of historic significance. She said that there is constant controversy with applicants over the
interpretation of this term.
Mr. Bear asked if clarification of the term “substantial” would have applied to applications in the past year or so, and Ms. Kiley responded that in almost every case there was an issue over the term, referencing projects on Bay Road, Chapel Street, King Caesar Road, Landing Road, Tremont Street, and Winter Street. Ms. Bennett added that the only way the Historical Commission became aware of some demolition projects was by driving around Town, because there were cases where the Building Inspector may not have considered demolition to be substantial and the Historical Commission did. Ms. Kiley noted that in almost every case referenced, the Building Inspector and the applicant had issues concerning the definition of “substantial.”
Mr. Al-Zaim asked why the article proposes that only the front elevation of a structure would be considered when determining extent of demolition, and Ms. Kiley replied that the Historic Commission works with homeowners to attempt to maintain the character of historic properties with the understanding that compromise is optimal, and that they have found that most modernization projects take place in the rear of the structure. She further explained that the twenty percentage figure was chosen because under 20% demolition would not dramatically alter the character of each side.
Mr. Al-Zaim asked if windows and doors would be included in the calculations, and Ms. Kiley responded that it would. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the roof would be part of the calculations as well, and Ms. Kiley responded that it would. Ms. Scieszka asked if the Historic Commission’s intent was to avoid facadism – or false fronts – and Ms. Kiley replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Bear asked if other towns use the 20% calculation, and Ms. Kiley replied that other towns do use it and that figure has not been challenged in court to her knowledge.
Mr. Moody noted that the proposed article references “front and side elevations…which are visible from a public way,” and suggested it might present an issue if an applicant considered trees or fences as hindering visibility.
Mr. Wadsworth opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Shawn Dahlen of 60 Long Point Lane stated that, although the term “substantial” did need clarification, his objection is with the 20% benchmark. He said that the Town building code defines “substantial” as 50% of the value of an existing structure versus the proposed structure, and suggested that the benchmark should be uniform. Mr. Dahlen also noted that even a small proposed renovation could set off Historic Commission review and cause an unreasonable delay in construction. He said that the Historidc Commission review comes late in the process, after the applicant has already spent time and money on architect’s plans that inevitably need to be revised. Ms. Kiley responded that the term “substantial” is
used differently in the Town building code and does not need to be uniform, and that the Historic Commission is careful to expedite their review process so as to minimize project delays.
Ms. Scieszka asked if the 20% calculation is separate for each side elevation, and Ms. Kiley responded that it is.
Mr. Bear asked if the Historic Commission has a list of other towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that have regulations that include a 20% threshold for “significant,” and Ms. Kiley responded that she is not aware of such a list. Mr. Bear advised that it might be a good idea for the Historic Commission to have that information available for Annual Town Meeting.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to continue the public hearing on the proposed amendment to Zoning Bylaw Section 609.2 (Definitions) for new text relative to defining “Demolition/Substantial” until February 13, 2006 at 9:00 PM. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6:0).
§ Amendment to Zoning Bylaw Section 609.3 (Demolition of Historically Significant Buildings) for new text changing “six months” to “one year.” Mr. Wadsworth asked Ms. Scieszka to read the public notice into the public record, and then asked Ms. Kiley to address the proposed amendment. Ms. Kiley referenced an article in the February 5, 2006 Boston Globe that predicted that within 25 years, Duxbury would experience a 17% population growth. As growth occurs and housing demand increases, the most vulnerable area for demolition is older housing within the village. She noted that since the demolition delay bylaw went into effect in 1999,
there have been three cases that have had a 6-month delay. In all three cases, the structures were razed the next day after the 6-month delay. Ms. Kiley noted that after much research, the Historic Commission has concluded that six months does not provide enough time for a homeowner to make alternative arrangements.
Mr. Bear asked if there were precedents from other towns with a 12-month delay. Ms. Kiley responded with statistics from other towns within the Commonwealth. She said that of 78 towns in Massachusetts with a 6-month delay, 15 are proposing an increase. Twenty towns currently have a 12-month delay, and one town has an 18-month delay. Ms. Scieszka asked if the standard is moving toward a 12-month delay, and Ms. Kiley said that it is, and added that many towns’ Historic Commissions are experiencing difficulties with the current 6-month delay because it is not providing enough of a deterrent.
Ms. Scieszka asked what public benefit will be gained from changing the demolition delay from six to twelve months. Ms. Kiley described the three recent demolition delay cases, one in a Tinkertown home that dated to 1690, and also on Standish Shore and a structure on the King Caesar home property, that were all torn down. Mr. Tucker added that with more time, a solution could be worked out that might incorporate an addition onto an existing historic structure, or an interested party could be found to purchase and relocate the structure rather than losing it to demolition.
Mr. Douglas Carver of 241 Lake Shore Drive, who serves as Associate Member to the Planning Board, asked how the rule applies to someone who has owned a property for many years, expressing his concern over individual property rights. He asked if any grandfathering clauses are included in the proposed demolition delay. Ms. Kiley responded that the demolition delay bylaw applies only to properties that are at least 75 years old, and that although certain individuals may not like rules, society needs them for public benefit. She stressed that each case is approached individually with the intent to find alternatives to losing historically significant structures. Mr. Wadsworth added that the demolition delay bylaw has already been approved by Annual Town Meeting, and it is simply the length of delay that is in
question.
Ms. Colleen Brayer of 116 Tobey Garden Street asked how many dwellings within the Town could potentially be affected by the demolition delay bylaw, and Ms. Kiley responded that currently 263 dwellings out of approximately 5,000 dwellings in town are designated as historically significant.
Ms. Scieszka asked if historic designation adds to the value of a dwelling, and Ms. Kiley replied that although it used to increase the value, it doesn’t seem to be the case at this time.
Mr. Dahlen stated his objection to the delay process in that the current demolition delay bylaw does not distinguish small projects from larger ones. He said that in many cases a homeowner finds that renovations would be too costly and that the existing footprint is impossible to work with. Mr. Dahlen said that a homeowner might consider giving away the existing structure except that it is too expensive to move it. He stated that the demolition delay is a burden to homeowners who have to wait to do what they intend to do anyway.
Mr. Daniel Orwig of 9 South Pasture Lane suggested that the Town could put into place incentives such as allowing a homeowner to move an existing structure onto Town-owned land at no cost. Ms. Scieszka noted that many historic structures are relocated on Nantucket, and Ms. Kiley added that Nantucket is proposing to change its demolition delay from 12 to 18 months.
Mr. Wadsworth suggested that it may be useful to have information ready for Annual Town Meeting regarding the number of homes in the Town of Duxbury that are 75 years old or older, and stated that this information is available at the Assessor’s Office at Town Hall.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to continue the public hearing for the proposed amendment to Zoning Bylaw Section 609.3 (Demolition of Historically Signficant Buildings) for new text changing “six months” to “one year” until Monday, February 13, 2006 at 9:00 PM. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6:0).
Acceptance of revised Zoning maps to include Waterfront Scenic Overlay District sheets: Ms. Scieszka read the legal public hearing notice regarding this proposed warrant article, and Mr. Wadsworth asked Ms. Stickney to explain it. Ms. Stickney stated that this is basically a housekeeping issue to update two sheets: the Publicly Owned Land District (POL) and the Waterfront Scenic Area (WSA). The POL sheet update corrects discrepancies from the original version and it also adds the Town’s recent acquisitions since 2003. The POL layer has been overlaid on the Town’s new Geographic Information System (GIS) base map completed this year. She further explained that the WSA sheet is the new district as established by Town Meeting in 2004 relative to Piers. The goal is to have the remaining sheets of the Zoning
Map updated in time for the Annual Town Meeting 2007 and ultimately they would be incorporated in the Town’s GIS system. She concluded that the article also amends the appropriate sections of the Protective Zoning Bylaw that reference the Zoning Map dates. She noted that the Board of Selectmen had endorsed this proposed warrant article at their meeting tonight.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to continue the public hearing for an Annual Town Meeting warrant article on acceptance of revised Zoning Maps to February 13, 2006 at 9:00 PM. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6:0).
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN: GURNET ROAD / HUMMOCK LLC
Mr. Daniel Orwig and Mr. Michael Emerson, were present to represent the applicant for discussion on reconfiguring lot lines for proposed development of this property. Mr. Wadsworth noted that there had been a previous ANR application in 1988 that had been settled in Land Court, and asked if the property is exempt from Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the proposed plan has not been approved or recorded and is subject to Subdivision Rules and Regulations. She noted that due to an omission the Board had not received copies of the proposed ANR plan and assured the Board that they would be provided copies in their next packet.
Mr. Orwig stated that the applicant is changing lot lines in order to conform with conditions placed upon them by the Conservation Commission. He contended that since the lots have already been created and are not changing, the plan should be considered as “Approval Not Required.” Mr. Wadsworth noted that none of the lots has adequate frontage. Ms. Stickney suggested that the Board continue their review of the ANR application and confer with Town Counsel. Mr. Orwig agreed to Town Counsel review.
Mr. Al-Zaim asked Mr. Orwig if the existing structures on the property would be subject to demolition delay review, and Mr. Orwig responded that they would not because even though they date back to the 1920s, they are basically shacks. Ms. Stickney suggested that Mr. Orwig consult with the Acting Building Inspector to determine if the structures would be subject to demolition delay.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to continue the Approval Not Required Plan review of Gurnet Road/Hummock LLC until Monday, February 13, 2006 at 8:55 PM, with a decision deadline extended to Tuesday, February 28, 2006. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (6:0).
Mr. Orwig and the Board signed a mutual extension form.
OTHER BUSINESS
Zoning Board Issues:
§ Planning Board Endorsement of Comprehensive Permits: Mr. Wadsworth deferred discussion at the request of Board member Ms. Amy MacNab concerning a copy of a letter from Atty. Robert L. Devin to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated 05/20/04 regarding the Duxbury Crossing Comprehensive Permit. Ms. MacNab would like to be present for the discussion, and Board members agreed to defer this topic until a later date.
§ Zoning Board of Appeals Joint Meeting: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the ZBA has agreed to a joint meeting and requests a list of discussion items. She agreed to email the Board with a list of possible discussion topics for their review and suggestions.
§ ZBA Decision re: Ocean Avenue/Riaz, Rice: The Board was given copies of this decision for review and comment.
§ Comprehensive Permit Status: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the ZBA approval of the Merry Village comprehensive permit was not appealed and the project is moving forward. She also noted that the Duxbury Crossing ZBA decision was appealed by the developer to the Housing Appeals Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 9:33 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, February 13, 2006 at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Town Offices.
| 
