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 10/16/06
Approved 11/27/06
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Town Offices on Monday, October 16, 2006 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, Jim Kimball, and Harold Moody.
Absent: Brendan Halligan and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Bay Farm Montessori Academy Administrative Site Plan Review (ASPR) Appeal: Mr. Kimball asked if Town Counsel, Atty. Robert Troy, could meet with the Board prior to the court date, and Ms. Stickney stated that she anticipates that he will, but he would want to review the files first. Mr. Moody stated that he had heard that enrollment is down at the Academy and they may not be able to fund construction.
Duxbury Estates Planned Development (PD): Mr. Moody reported that he and Mr. Wadsworth had attended the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) hearing on this planned development last Thursday, October 12, 2006, and that the configuration of housing has been re-designed. Mr. Wadsworth added that the size of some buildings had been reduced. Mr. Moody stated that the applicants would make a payment to the Town in lieu of including an affordable housing component. The ZBA has requested a marketing plan from the applicants, and also needs to review a fiscal impact analysis, Design Review Board and Historical Commission recommendations. The ZBA closed the public hearing for deliberation and will likely approve the application.
Ms. Scieszka asked if two new buildings are proposed, and Mr. Wadsworth responded that no new buildings were added, but they changed some buildings from two-bedroom to one-bedroom. Mr. Wadsworth also reported that he is working with ZBA member, Ms. Sara Wilson, to create the fiscal analysis, which should be completed soon. Ms. Scieszka stated that she is looking forward to seeing the results of the fiscal analysis.
OTHER BUSINESS
Proposed Fence Bylaw for Special Town Meeting: Mr. James Kerkam of 226 Washington Street was present to discuss his proposal for a fence bylaw for the Board’s review and potential sponsorship. Mr. Kerkam stated that he has seen fencing up to eight feet in height on Powder Point Avenue and Standish Shore that blocks scenic views. He also disclosed a dispute he had with a neighbor regarding an 8 to 10 foot-tall fence that blocks his views. He asked the Board to consider three points regarding the proposed bylaw:
1. It does not forbid building any fence.
2. It pertains only to fences over six feet high and in certain locations
3. It helps to maintain the rural character and scenic beauty of the Town.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if Mr. Kerkam’s proposed bylaw is driven by potential restriction of views. Mr. Kerkam stated this was partly the reason, but his major concern is the height of fences and the attempt to regulate the process if an applicant wants to build a fence over six feet in height.
Mr. Wadsworth questioned the definition of fence, asking if this bylaw would pertain to walls or hedges as well, and Mr. Kerkam replied that it would only pertain to fences. Ms. MacNab commended this approach to avoid impinging on individual’s property rights. She added that tall fencing is a potential safety concern for the Town as well, noting sight line obstruction from fencing on Soule Avenue and Tremont Street.
Ms. MacNab asked who would enforce the regulations, and Mr. Kerkam responded that the Inspectional Services Department would be the enforcer. Ms. Scieszka noted that the scenic view component of the proposed bylaw may be controversial. She stated that it may be difficult to objectively determine if views are obstructed and questioned how a violation would be triggered. Ms. MacNab agreed, noting that it would be easier to enforce before a fence is built. Both Ms. MacNab and Ms. Scieszka offered editorial revisions.
Mr. Kerkam noted that a good portion of the proposed bylaw was based on an existing fence bylaw in the Town of Natick. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the bylaw pertains to fences over six feet in height or six feet from grade, and Mr. Kerkam replied that he would like the Board’s input on this. Mr. Bear asked about the pool fencing portion of the proposed bylaw, and Mr. Kerkam replied that it was included at the recommendation of the Director of Inspectional Services, Mr. Scott Lambiase.
Ms. MacNab asked if Mr. Kerkam intended to present the bylaw at Annual Town Meeting in March 2007, and Mr. Kerkam replied that he is in no hurry. Ms. MacNab asked for the Board’s initial reaction, and Mr. Bear stated that he is unsure there is a public need for a fence bylaw. Mr. Moody stated that if it is perceived as a public need, he is happy to support it. Ms. Scieszka stated that her main concern is the scenic view component, because triggers are not defined and it may be difficult to enforce. Ms. MacNab agreed, stating that a fence bylaw may be needed for safety issues rather than scenic view obstruction.
Ms. Scieszka asked if the scenic view component could be tied into the current Waterfront Scenic Area (WSA) layer recently added to the zoning map, and Mr. Wadsworth pointed out that the WSA deals with docks and noted that some scenic views are not near the water. Ms. Scieszka suggested that Mr. Kerkam consider removing the scenic view component.
Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Stickney about the process, and Ms. Stickney stated that proposed bylaws can be presented through the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, or by citizen’s petition. She said that Mr. Kerkam is requesting that the Planning Board sponsor this proposed article, noting the deadline for March 2007 ATM is early December. Ms. MacNab requested that the Board be given more time to consider the proposal, and it was agreed to continue the discussion at a future Board meeting on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 8:15 PM. Ms. MacNab thanked Mr. Kerkam for his civic interest.
ANR PLAN OF LAND: CONGRESS STREET / CROWELL
Mr. and Mrs. G. Alvin Crowell, owners, and Mr. Randy Parker, land surveyor, were present for this discussion of a proposal to carve a building lot from a 46.28 acre parcel. Mr. Parker presented the parcel as a system of cranberry bogs and wetlands located on Congress and Lincoln Streets. The proposed building lot would consist of 6.5 acres, with 1.83 acres of upland. He noted that wetlands had been flagged, and the frontage of 320 feet exceeds requirements. Mr. Parker stated that the applicants are hopeful that the Town will purchase the remainder of the parcel through the Community Preservation Act.
Ms. MacNab noted a new roadway that had been constructed to access the lot over wetlands, stating that this was an issue for her. Mr. Parker noted that the road had existed previously but was only recently improved to reach a failing flume. Ms. Scieszka stated that the old road was in such disrepair it was almost unrecognizable.
Ms. MacNab confirmed that the applicants intend to continue harvesting cranberries on the large lot. Mr. Wadsworth noted that, as a member of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC), the Town is interested in the bog but a price agreement had not been reached yet. Mr. Crowell stated that if the ANR parcel is approved, they would be in a better financial position to reach agreement on price. He added that the building lot had been removed from Chapter 61, and Ms. Scieszka pointed out that it needs to be off of Chapter 61 for five years.
Ms. MacNab directed the applicant to speak with Ms. Stickney regarding issues noted in her staff memo dated October 11, 2006.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to endorse a Plan of Land entitled, “Division Plan of Land on Congress Street in Duxbury, MA” dated 9/28/06 stamped by J. Randolph Parker, Jr. (RPLS) of Land Management Systems, Inc. 1- sheet, as not requiring approval under subdivision control laws. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
The Board signed the ANR plan.
OTHER BUSINESS
Wamsutta Way / Andresen Escrow Release Request: Ms. Stickney noted that Mr. and Mrs. John Andresen are requesting release of funds for this three-lot subdivision. She stated that the as-built cannot be approved until a Conservation Restriction has been recorded with the state, because it is one of the conditions of approval. She noted that two accounts currently exist: an escrow account for engineering review, and a performance bond to guarantee subdivision completion. She stated that the Andresens had been notified about tonight’s discussion, although they were not present.
Mr. Wadsworth stated that he prefers not to release funds because the Conservation Restriction was a substantive part of the subdivision approval. Ms. Stickney noted that it takes time for the state to process the Conservation Restriction. Ms. Scieszka questioned if it had been submitted, and Ms. Stickney stated that she had a call in to the state to find out.
Mr. Kimball noted that he has seen a “for sale” sign on the property and asked if they could sell the lot, and Ms. Stickney replied that they could not without some difficulty, although they have a building permit and have built a foundation. She said that they can build it but occupancy is tied to as-built approval. Ms. MacNab asked about the expiration date for the building permit, and Ms. Stickney said she would check into it. She noted that the subdivision has a two-year construction deadline. Mr. Bear suggested that staff draft a letter stating that funds cannot be released because conditions have not been met.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to deny a request for return of escrow and performance guarantee funds for the Wamsutta Way subdivision because conditions of approval have not been met. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
OTHER REVIEW ITEMS
Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to approve the meeting minutes of August 7, 2006 as amended. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to approve the meeting minutes of August 21, 2006 as amended. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Inspector General’s Letter Regarding 40B Developers’ Cost Findings: Ms. Stickney reported that a recent audit by the Inspector General’s office has uncovered discrepancies with Chapter 40B profit margins. She referenced a letter from the Inspector General dated September 19, 2006 which highlighted a situation in the Town of Acton where a 40B developer obtained a 57 percent profit over the life of the development and funds had to be returned to the Town. Ms. Stickney noted that the ceiling on profit margins is 20 percent and usually the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) sets a lower margin. Mr. Wadsworth added that the developers of Brewster Commons have returned to the ZBA seeking an increased profit margin. Ms. MacNab added that this is all part of the development game and the pro forma information
needs adequate review during the approval process.
Chapter 40B Development Updates: Ms. Stickney noted that the Merry Village comprehensive permit decision does not include a percentage of affordable units or a requirement for plans to be recorded. She also noted that Duxbury Farms begins work on October 23, 2006, and the ZBA intends to sign the subdivision plans in the near future. Ms. MacNab suggested that staff draft a letter to the ZBA reminding them that Town Counsel has stated that only the Planning Board can approve a subdivision, with a copy to go to Town Counsel, Atty. Robert S. Troy.
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to pay the following Amory Engineer invoices:
§ Invoice #11394A in the amount of $62.50 for services related to Hillside Lane
§ Invoice #11394B in the amount of $125.00 for services related to Bongi’s Turkey Roost
§ Invoice #11394C in the amount of $250.00 for services related to 766 Temple Street / Industrial Tower and Wireless
§ Invoice #11394A in the amount of $625.00 for services related to Dingley Dell.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to pay the following Mainstream Engineering invoices
§ Invoice #20860 in the amount of $1,686.00 for services related to Millbrook Crossing
§ Invoice #20861 in the amount of $238.00 for services related to Ingall’s Grove.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Stickney questioned a phone call from Ms. Scieszka to Mr. Sexton of Mainstream Engineering that had been billed on Invoice #20860. Ms. Scieszka stated that she had made a general call regarding the site review process, not about the project in particular. Ms. MacNab suggested that the Board should have a general policy of placing all questions through staff, and asked Ms. Stickney to speak with Mr. Sexton about this charge. It was agreed to defer payment of Invoice #20860.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth amended his motion to approve only Invoice #20861 in the amount of $238.00 for services related to Ingall’s Grove, and Mr. Bear seconded the amendment. There was no further discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to direct the Planning Director to advise the Inspectional Services Department that the Planning Board is no longer handling escrow invoices for the Duxbury Estates Planned Development review. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, October 23, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
