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 04/10/06
Approved 05/15/06
The Planning Board met in the Town Office Building, Monday, April 10, 2006.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, Brendan Halligan, Jim Kimball and Harold Moody; and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Absent: No one was absent.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:36 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Joint Planning Board/Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Meeting: Mr. Kimball noted that last week’s meeting went well, and that it validated his thinking. Ms. Scieszka said that she is proud of the Planning Board’s contributions to the meeting, because everyone effectively communicated the Planning Board’s perspectives.
Gurnet Road 81L: Ms. Scieszka asked if Town Counsel, Atty. Robert Troy, had offered his opinion about this approved ANR where lot lines were in question, and Ms. Stickney replied that the applicant is working with Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, to resolve. She said that orders of conditions had been approved to perform drainage work under the road.
Blue River Montessori: Ms. Scieszka noted that this proposed school on Temple Street is featured in the Duxbury Reporter as opening in the fall. She displayed the article and asked if construction of the school is moving forward without an administrative site plan review. She stated that the school should be reviewed and permitted. Ms. MacNab stated that the applicant had applied for a building addition permit, not a school, and that the project had exceeded the permitted construction. She advised the Board that Ms. Stickney would be meeting with the applicant and Mr. Scott Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services, the following day.
DUXBURY RURAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION, ANR / 685 WASHINGTON STREET
Present for the discussion were Mr. Patrick Browne, Executive Director of the Duxbury Rural and Historical Society, and Mr. James Hartford, who serves on the Society’s Board of Directors. Mr. Browne stated that the Society currently stores archival materials on the first floor of the Drew House located on 685 Washington Street, with the second floor remaining vacant. With the Annual Town Meeting approval for the Society to utilize the Wright Building on St. George Street, they would no longer need the Drew House and wish to put it on the market and use the proceeds toward an endowment fund to maintain archives at the Wright Building. He stated that the Drew family descendants support the proposed arrangement.
Mr. Browne stated that of the 3.4 acres, the Society currently proposes to carve off 2.5 acres that they would retain for conservation. Mr. Hartford added that, because there is a minimal amount of upland, they wanted to find out if the plan might be acceptable to the Board. He stated that the plan would be consistent with the Society’s mission to maintain the rural character of the Town of Duxbury. He added that the house would have significant historic restrictions upon conveyance.
Ms. MacNab asked if the applicants intended to propose a Conservation Restriction on the marsh, and Mr. Hartford responded that, at this point, they do not. Ms. Scieszka asked if they had investigated putting a Conservation Restriction on the marsh and selling the entire parcel, and asked staff if this might be possible. Ms. Stickney responded that she was not sure if this would be possible. Mr. Hartford responded that the Society wishes to keep what it can of the parcel.
Ms. MacNab asked if the parcel’s current zoning prohibited piers, and Ms. Stickney replied that, because it is within the Waterfront Scenic Area zone, a pier would be prohibited. Ms. Scieszka asked if the Society intended to protect the unsold parcel in perpetuity, or if they would consider selling it in the future. Mr. Hartford replied that the Society has very few parcels that are deed restricted. Ms. Scieszka noted that the Society would be the steward of any restrictions, and Mr. Hartford responded that, although anything could change, it would be inconsistent with their charter, and that from a practical perspective, there was not much they could do with the land.
Mr. Kimball noted that the new parcel would not have the required 200 feet of frontage, and Mr. Hartford agreed, saying that it would make it undevelopable. Ms. MacNab stated that the Board seeks the public benefit from each application, and Mr. Hartford responded that although the public benefit would be intangible, the entire cluster of Society property should be treated as a whole. Mr. Browne stated that the area around the Blue Fish River looks much the same as it has for many years because of the stewardship of the Society. Ms. MacNab noted that the parcel has grown beyond the Drew family gift due to land purchases around the property over the years.
Mr. Wadsworth suggested that the Society could consider revising their proposal and submitting an ANR with the required 200 feet of frontage. He added that the Board has witnessed other private non-profits selling land that the public considered conservation land. Mr. Hartford responded that the condition of the Drew house is not consistent with the purpose of a gift. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that the house could be offered as affordable housing. Ms. MacNab reminded the Board that the subject is an ANR proposal.
Ms. Scieszka stated her concern that the proposed ANR would result in two non-conforming lots. Mr. Kimball suggested the Society consider moving both lot lines further north, but Mr. Hartford said that would be too complicated. Ms. Scieszka suggested the Society consider a Conservation Restriction, and Mr. Browne responded that it would be a possibility, although it would be preferable to the Society to own it.
Ms. MacNab stated her concern with potentially creating lots that do not meet zoning requirements, and added that to build on the lot would require a variance. She stated that it is unclear whether the Board would accept an ANR application as presented. She added that it is commendable that the Society is trying to protect the land, but that to really protect it would require a restriction.
Mr. Bear asked if there might be title issues that could provide an obstacle to selling the house, and Mr. Hartford replied that their research indicates it would work. Ms. MacNab thanked the applicants for taking the time to come before the Board, and Mr. Browne and Mr. Hartford departed the meeting.
DISCUSSION WITH HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Discussion was deferred until May 15, 2006 because some Historical Commission members were not able to attend due to scheduling conflicts.
ZBA SPECIAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: 24 SOULE AVENUE / GILBERT
No one was present to represent this Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) application to finish a 740 foot basement area and create an accessory apartment. Ms. MacNab opened the discussion by asking about septic capacity for the current three-bedroom home. Ms. Stickney responded that the septic system was designed for five bedrooms. Ms. MacNab asked if access provided one way in and one way out per zoning bylaws, and Ms. Stickney replied that the application meets all requirements in Section 410.6 (Accessory Apartment Special Permit Regulations and Restrictions) of the Zoning Bylaws.
Ms. MacNab and other members expressed that the plans were confusing to read. Ms. Stickney stated that the site plan they were viewing was actually a septic plan, and her interpretation was that the applicants were proposing to turn an existing family room into a studio apartment.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the lot size and setback from the street were non-conforming. Mr. Wadsworth, Ms. Scieszka and Mr. Kimball had issues with proposed parking. Mr. Wadsworth stated that it appears that another parking space should be required. Ms. Scieszka noted that parking needs to be delineated more clearly on the plans. Mr. Kimball questioned access to the apartment from the parking area.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to defer judgment to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding 24 Soule Avenue, pointing out the following planning issues:
· The existing and proposed parking needs to be shown on the site plan along with their locations in relation to the proximity of the proposed accessory apartment.
· The site plan should show clearly exterior accessibility to the proposed accessory apartment.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Housing Strategies: Ms. MacNab deferred discussion on the Housing Strategies survey because she had not received tonight’s materials in time to review. She asked if there were questions, and Mr. Wadsworth addressed properties purchased with Community Preservation Committee (CPC) funds. He asked if proceeds from potential rental revenue from these properties would go to the CPC, as stated by Town Counsel Atty. Robert Troy at 2006 Annual Town Meeting. Ms. Scieszka asked if that were the case, would the revenue go toward the housing component of CPC, and Mr. Wadsworth responded that the revenue is not necessarily restricted. Ms. Stickney said that she would advise the working group of this information.
Ms. Scieszka stated that clarification is needed regarding the definition of affordable housing, because she believed that the 40B definition differs from the Local Housing Partnership’s (LHP) definition. She said that the LHP, in her view, feels that they have a broader mission to provide diverse housing and not just a strict definition of affordable housing. Ms. Stickney noted that when the LHP was created its mission was not clear, and Ms. Scieszka disagreed, stating that she believes that the LHP mission was set as affordable housing. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Board of Selectmen sets the LHP’s charge. Ms. Scieszka questioned if Annual Town Meeting sets the charge, and Mr. Wadsworth and Ms. Stickney both said it does not.
Regarding the Housing Strategies survey, Ms. MacNab noted that with the Board and LHP members all completing the survey, it would provide initial input for areas of agreement as well as areas to discuss further. Ms. MacNab encouraged all members fill out their surveys and submit them to the Planning office.
Webster Point Village: Ms. Stickney advised the Board regarding this 40B application off of Tremont Street, that the ZBA hearing has been postponed until June 5, 2006 in order for the applicant to perform work that needs to be done.
Duxbury Crossing: Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the ZBA had approved this 40B development off Webster Street for ten units, but the developer had appealed the decision to attempt to obtain twenty units. She added that now the abutters have intervened, and that she will keep the Board informed of its status.
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to pay Amory Engineering invoice #11213A dated 04/04/06 in the amount of $1,281.25 for services related to Bongi’s Turkey Roost. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to pay Amory Engineering invoice #11213B dated 04/04/06 in the amount of $359.75 for services related to Hillside subdivision. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to pay Amory Engineering invoice #11213C dated 04/04/06 in the amount of $187.75 for services related to 104 Tremont. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to pay Amory Engineering invoice #11213D dated 04/04/06 in the amount of $531.25 for services related to Bay Farm Montessori Academy. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried (6-0-1), with Mr. Kimball abstaining.
OTHER BUSINESS
Bay Farm Montessori Academy: Ms. Scieszka asked if an application had been received for potential expansion of this school at 145 Loring Street, and Ms. Stickney advised the Board that they would receive review materials, and that a public meeting had been scheduled for Monday, May 1, 2006, with Amory Engineering as the Town consulting engineer. Ms. MacNab noted that Atty. Brian Cook had been retained by neighbors opposing the proposed expansion. Ms. MacNab recommended that Board members drive by the site, and Ms. Stickney advised them to check in with the school office if they go onto the site.
Summer Street Planned Development (PD): Ms. Stickney advised the Board that she had sent inquiries to five potential planning consultants for an expected PD application, and had received three responses so far. Two were interested and one could not commit the time to the project. She noted that the application had not been received as of yet because the applicant had not filed within 45 days of the Board of Health approval.
Bayside Marine: Ms. Stickney reported on additional work that was being performed at this business at 433 Washington Street. She stated that DPW Director Tom Daley would be inspecting the drain that is being installed, and that Town consulting engineer, Mr. Tom Sexton, would be inspecting, also.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:22 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 7:30 PM in the Small Conference Room of Town offices.
| 
