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 10/30/06
Approved 12/04/06
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Town Offices on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 7:30 PM.
Present: George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, Brendan Halligan, and Jim Kimball.
Absent: Amy MacNab, Chair; Harold Moody; and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Mr. Wadsworth called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Bay Farm Montessori Academy Appeal: Mr. Kimball asked if there was any update from the scheduled October 26, 2006 intervening parties court date. Ms. Stickney replied that Town Counsel, Atty. Robert Troy, had not heard from the courts yet. Mr. Moody reported that an abutter who attended that court date notified him that Town Counsel was not present and that no hearing was held because Land Court had not fulfilled its notice requirement. Mr. Wadsworth stated that the Board of Selectmen may have advised Town Counsel not to make unnecessary court appearances.
Local Housing Partnership (LHP): Ms. Scieszka reported that the LHP had met last Thursday, October 26, 2006, and that OKM Associates had been hired as Housing Consultant. Ms. Stickney added that Mr. Phillip Mayfield of OKM would begin work on November 1, 2006. Ms. Scieszka stated that Mr. Mayfield would be attending a future Board meeting.
Ms. Scieszka said that the working group from the LPH and Board had met and revised proposed strategies and priorities, and the Board has not seen the prioritized list as of yet. Mr. Kimball noted that the Planned Production Plan should be the primary focus. Ms. Scieszka asked if the Board wanted to review the prioritized list, and Mr. Wadsworth stated it would be a good idea.
Ms. Stickney clarified that the prioritized list would be for developing the Planned Production Plan. She suggested that the Board invite Mr. Mayfield to attend a future meeting after he has started work on the plan. Ms. Scieszka suggested that the Board have an initial meeting with Mr. Mayfield as he is doing with the LHP. Mr. Kimball recommended less talk to maximize Mr. Mayfield’s productive use of time, suggesting that Mr. Mayfield could meet with the Board when the plan was halfway completed. Ms. Scieszka stated that the Board should at least review the housing strategies. Mr. Wadsworth stated that he was fine with an initial meeting with Mr. Mayfield, although he did not want to see duplication of efforts between the Board and the LHP. Mr. Bear suggested that the strategies should be reviewed by the Board. Mr.
Bear, Mr. Kimball and Mr. Halligan indicated that a joint introductory meeting would not be necessary.
Duxbury Estates Planned Development: Mr. Wadsworth reported that he had been working with Ms. Sara Wilson from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the fiscal analysis for Duxbury Estates. He distributed a spreadsheet showing the results of their calculations. He said that if a standard subdivision with fifteen houses had been constructed on the site, the Town would have experienced a tax loss of $68,000. With the planned development, he and Ms. Wilson estimate an expected $134,000 in tax revenue.
Mr. Wadsworth stated that using 1973 Comprehensive Plan data, the Ocean Woods planned development resulted in a tax loss to the Town because children raise the cost. Ms. Scieszka asked if Ocean Woods is age-restricted and Mr. Wadsworth stated that, to his knowledge, it was not.
SCENIC ROAD AND PUBLIC SHADE TREE HEARING: VICINITY OF 1010 CONGRESS STREET, DINGLEY DELL LANE
Mr. Wadsworth opened the public hearing at 7:45 PM. Mr. Roman Striebel, Dingley Dell Estates developer, was present for this public shade tree hearing on removal of five trees. Ms. Scieszka read the public meeting notice into the record. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the tree hearing was called because, although Congress Street is a state-numbered road (Route 14), the Town of Duxbury has control over it. He added that the Tree Warden has no objection to the tree removal.
Mr. Striebel stated that the project road construction is underway, and that they are making an effort to conserve trees where possible. He noted that two pine trees subject to this hearing cause a safety issue regarding sight line, and that the Tree Warden, Mr. Peter Buttkus, had given preliminary permission pending this hearing, for tree removal to begin the next day.
Mr. Bear asked if the Tree Warden provides a permit, and Mr. Wadsworth replied that he does not, although he will oversee tree removal. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the Board of Selectmen need to review the request as well, and Ms. Stickney responded that, to her knowledge, they would not be involved. Ms. Scieszka asked if tree removal had been a part of the subdivision approval, and Ms. Stickney replied that, although some tree removal may have been a part of the subdivision approval, a hearing is now required because the trees in question are located on a Town-controlled scenic public way.
Ms. Scieska noted that she had driven by the site and it appeared reasonable to remove trees at the location, although it looked like more than five trees had been tagged.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to provide Planning Board approval for removal of the following trees in the vicinity of 1010 Congress Street at the request of Dingley Dell Estates, Inc. – Roman F. Striebel:
2 Red Maples – 12” and 23” DBH
1 Black Oak – 12” DBH
2 White Pines – 20” DBH.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Ms. Stickney advised the applicant that the Town Clerk and contractor would be notified the following day.
WORK SESSION: FENCE BYLAW FOR SPECIAL TOWN MEETING
Mr. James Kerkam of 226 Washington Street was present for this follow-up discussion on his proposed fence bylaw. Mr. Kerkam reported that he had reviewed the Zoning Bylaws and the Board’s suggestions, and had revised the proposed bylaw accordingly. Mr. Halligan submitted suggested revisions as well.
Ms. Scieszka stated that she is struggling with the definition of “substantial” in reference to obstructing scenic views, and Mr. Kerkam agreed it was difficult to define. Ms. Scieszka also questioned who would enforce this bylaw.
Mr. Moody questioned if there is a public need for a fence bylaw, and also how it would be enforced. Mr. Kerkam stated that, according to Director of Inspectional Services, Mr. Scott Lambiase, it is becoming a problem, because over thirty permit applications had been submitted for fences over six feet in height. Mr. Moody suggested that it would be helpful to get comments from those who would be affected.
Ms. Scieszka noted that the Board can sponsor an article it does not support. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Board had held public hearings on other proposed Zoning Bylaws, then decided not to support some articles based on input at public hearings. He noted that it is not unheard of to have more than one public hearing on an issue. He stated that his issue is if there is a perceived public need for a fence bylaw, although having a bylaw is not necessarily a bad thing.
Mr. Bear agreed that public need is an issue for him as well. He noted letters to the Duxbury Clipper dated November 15, 2005; November 21, 2005; and December 6, 2005 that referenced a dispute between Mr. Kerkam and a neighbor over a fence, and stated that the Board should not get involved in a neighbor dispute. He also expressed concern over residents’ willingness to allow the Town to regulate scenic views. He suggested that the Board should hear from Mr. Lambiase.
Ms. Scieszka stated that she had heard some public discontent with fences, notably the aesthetics of plastic fences and the concept of property owners walling themselves off from the neighboring community. She noted that, although the scenic view section of the proposed bylaw could prove to be a fatal flaw, most of it offers practical a guideline.
Mr. Wadsworth suggested that Mr. Lambiase should be invited to a future discussion on this proposed bylaw. Mr. Bear suggested that Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, who formerly served as Director of Inspectional Services, should be invited as well.
Ms. Stickney advised the Board that Mr. Kerkam needs to know if the Board will support his proposed bylaw to allow him time to pursue a citizen’s petition. Mr. Kerkam stated that he is in no rush, adding that he is proposing this bylaw to help the Town, not as an individual issue. He emphasized that the bylaw would only pertain to fences that are over six feet in height.
Ms. Scieszka asked if Mr. Kerkam had spoken with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) regarding the issue. Mr. Kerkam replied that he had not. Mr. Halligan suggested that Mr. Kerkam consider further refinining the definition of “substantial” regarding public views. Mr. Wadsworth asked Ms. Stickney to invite Mr. Lambiase to a future Board meeting. Ms. Stickney stated that the next available date on the Board schedule would be November 20, 2006 or November 27, 2006. Mr. Kimball asked if the proposed bylaw would be submitted as an article for 2007 Annual Town Meeting.
Mr. Bear stated that he would prefer to consider the bylaw without the public view restriction, noting that there are too many ways around it. Mr. Kerkam stated he was agreeable to pursue the bylaw without a scenic view provision. Ms. Scieszka suggested that Mr. Kerkam speak with the ZBA regarding wording for the proposed bylaw. Mr. Wadsworth recommended that a fee structure should be established. Ms. Stickney noted that the ZBA would be responsible for holding a permit fee hearing. Mr. Bear asked why pool fencing was added to the proposed bylaw, and Mr. Kerkam replied that it was added at the request of Mr. Lambiase.
Mr. Kerkam stated that he would submit a revised proposal for the fence bylaw in advance of the meeting which Mr. Lambiase would be attending.
ZBA REFERRAL: 56 PLYMOUTH AVENUE / MCGUINNESS
Mr. James McGuinness of 51 Buchanan Road, West Roxbury, was present for the discussion on behalf of owner, Ms. Katherine McGuinness, of 41 Pine Street in Norwood. The applicant proposes to raze an existing non-conforming structure and construct a larger structure. Ms. Stickney stated that the property is located off of Plymouth Avenue.
Mr. McGuinness showed the plans to the Board, and noted that the formula listed on the plan is partially inaccurate. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the applicant is requesting a lot coverage of 15.7 percent. Mr. Bear asked about the height of the proposed structure, and Ms. Stickney showed how the height was calculated. Mr. McGuinness stated that the house has a hill in the back and the grading would not be changed. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the Inspectional Services Department would confirm height calculations.
Mr. Wadsworth confirmed with Mr. McGuinness that the proposed square footage is 818 square feet, and that the property is connected to a Town sewer. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the property is located in Zone X on the FEMA map, so including a basement would be no problem. Mr. McGuinness stated that the proposed attic and basement would be used only for storage. Ms. Scieszka questioned why so many windows were included in the design if the space would be used for storage. Mr. McGuinness stated that a family member with an architecture background suggested that a dormer would provide the most attractive appearance.
Ms. Scieszka asked if a revised plan would be forthcoming, and Ms. Stickney noted that the application will be presented at a ZBA hearing scheduled for December 14, 2006. Mr. Bear stated that the Planning Board could make a recommendation without a revised plan. Ms. Stickney stated that the plan is currently .7 percent over the allowed 15 percent site coverage. Ms. Scieszka asked how much the height would be increasing on the proposed new construction, and Mr. McGuinness stated that the building height is currently 21.3 feet, and 30 feet is the proposed height.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to defer judgment to the Zoning Board of appeals regarding a special permit for 56 Plymouth Avenue, while noting the following concerns and/or issues:
· By virtue of the raising of the house to a new height, the non-conformity of the sideline setbacks is carried upward adding to massing of the structure on such a small lot.
· Compliance with the required height restriction was unable to be determined due to the different existing elevations of the site in determining the average finished grade to the proposed midpoint of the roof line.
· On a complete “tear down” of the non-conforming structure, the Board questions why the new structure would not have to comply with the 15% lot coverage requirement as would a proposal on a vacant undersized lot that is afforded grandfathering under MGL Chap 40A section 6.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Kimball voting against.
ZBA REFERRAL: DORAN REALTY TRUST, 33 ENTERPRISE STREET
No one was present for the discussion of this special permit to install a freestanding 25 square foot street sign at an existing commercial business. Mr. Kimball asked if an existing sign would be replaced or if the applicant is requesting two signs on the property. Ms. Stickney replied that the applicant wishes to add a sign that is larger than the current one. Ms. Scieszka noted that the commercial operation had been constructed in two phases, and second phase had been completed recently. Mr. Kimball noted that it may be confusing to have two signs for one address.
MOTION: Mr. Kimball made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, that the Planning Board recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Doran Realty Trust special permit request for one additional sign at 33 Enterprise Street, noting the following issues:
· In an effort to diminish the proliferation of signs, the Planning Board felt one sign per commercial lot is sufficient.
· After viewing the abutting properties signage, a single sign on the lot is more in keeping with the general character of the commercial neighborhood.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Moody noted that an additional sign may pose a safety issue as well.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Three Percent Rule: Ms. Stickney noted a letter from ZBA chairman, Mr. James Lampert, with his explanation of how Section 410.4 of the Zoning Bylaws is calculated. Ms. Stickney noted some potential flaws in the calculations. Mr. Kimball suggested that the Board consider eliminating the three percent rule.
Engineering Invoice:
MOTION: Mr. Kimball made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to pay Mainstream Engineering invoice #20860 in the amount of $1,686.00 for services related to Millbrook Crossing.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Scieszka asked if her telephone conversation with Mr. Sexton regarding site plan review had been removed from the invoice. Ms. Stickney replied that Mr. Sexton had not agreed to revise his original invoice.
VOTE: The motion carried, 5-0-1, with Ms. Scieszka abstaining.
Engineering RFP: Ms. Stickney asked Board members to bring their copies of submitted proposals to next week’s meeting for interviews. Ms. Stickney offered to email members with a rating spreadsheet.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 9:22 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, November 6, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
