Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
01/08/07 Meeting Minutes
Approved March 19, 2007
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    01/08/07     
        
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Town Offices on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 7:30 PM.

Present:        Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear,  Brendan            Halligan, Jim Kimball, Harold Moody; and Associate Member Douglas Carver.

Absent: No one was absent.
Staff:             Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.


Mr. Wadsworth called the meeting to order at 7:36 PM. Four members were present to begin the meeting, as Ms. MacNab, Ms. Scieszka and Mr. Moody were attending a meeting with Town Counsel and the Zoning Board of Appeals chairman. Open Forum was deferred until the end of the meeting.

ANR PLAN OF LAND: SUPRLUS STREET & SOUTH STATION STREET / PYLE
Mr. Douglas Bailey was present as surveyor to represent the applicants, Ms. Kathleen A. Pyle and Mr. David E. Pyle. Mr. Wadsworth referenced an ANR plan dated January 2, 2007 and confirmed with Mr. Bailey that land would be transferred from Lot 1 to Lot 2 with no additional land transferred to Lot 2. Mr. Wadsworth noted that both lots have the required acreage and frontage. Mr. Kimball asked if access for Lot 2 would be from South Station Street, the location of the minimum frontage. Mr. Wadsworth noted that frontage does not require access.

MOTION: Mr. Kimball made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to endorse a plan entitled, “Plan of Land, Surplus Street & South Station Street, Duxbury, Mass.” dated January 2, 2007 and stamped by Douglas Bailey, PLS – 1 sheet, as not requiring approval under subdivision control law. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (4-0).

The Board members signed the ANR plan. At this point, the remaining three members of the Board returned to the meeting.


DISCUSSION WITH MR. PHILLIP MAYFIELD OF OKM ASSOCIATES, HOUSING CONSULTANT
Ms. MacNab welcomed Mr. Mayfield as the Housing Consultant hired by Town Manager in November 2006 and asked him to provide a presentation on his contractual agreement with the Town. Mr. Mayfield stated that the purpose of his visit was to introduce himself and to address whether the Town of Duxbury has an aggressive or non-aggressive plan for affordable housing. He suggested that Board members review a recent study titled, “MA Economy: Study of Labor Supply” compiled by MA, Inc. and published in December 2006. Apropos of housing, the study concluded that there is a significant out-migration of young, middle-class families with college education, and a significant in-migration of legal and illegal immigrants, mostly without a high school education. Due to this shifting nature of the labor pool, service industries represent a growing field in Massachusetts and a reshaping of the housing market has resulted. One critical factor is a lack of affordable housing, and the ratio of renters to homeowners is increasing.

In the Town of Duxbury, the impact is beginning to be felt. Mr. Mayfield stated that our children are moving out of state when they may have preferred to remain in state. He continued that while no community wants affordable housing, it is an issue that needs to be addressed rather than passing it off to other communities. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the state of Massachusetts has educated a lot of people, and has always seen an out-migration of educated people. Mr. Mayfield agreed and noted that the current outflux is more dramatic than in past years. He stated that the middle class, which historically has been the mainstay of the state’s economy, is declining.

Mr. Mayfield noted that it is critical that any housing strategy become politically acceptable. In Massachusetts, the most popular affordable housing strategy is inclusionary zoning, which already exists in the Town of Duxbury. Mr. Mayfield suggested a slight reshaping of this housing strategy.

Ms. MacNab noted that residents are concerned with housing density potentially having an effect on the Town’s rural character. Ms. Scieszka asked Mr. Mayfield to clarify whether he was addressing affordable housing for young college-educated middle-class families or subsidized housing for lower income families. Mr. Mayfield responded that a range of needs currently exist for affordable housing, although low-income housing needs to be addressed at the federal level first. Ms. MacNab asked if the discussion would be regarding affordable housing as defined in Chapter 40B, or moderate and diversified housing. Mr. Mayfield replied that he felt both types of housing would be addressed.

Mr. Mayfield suggested that it may not be feasible for the Town of Duxbury to have a Planned Production Plan because current state regulations require a larger number of units to be produced than it is currently possible to meet. Under current regulations, the Town would be required to produce 38 units of affordable housing per year, when the total volume of all housing currently generated in the Town is 40 units annually. Ms. MacNab asked what has happened in other communities facing a similar situation. Mr. Mayfield stated that some communities decide not to pursue a Planned Production Plan, especially if they are close to meeting the ten percent requirement of affordable housing. (The Town of Duxbury is currently at 3.7 percent.) Another approach is to generate a massive production of affordable housing in the first three years and then scale back in order to meet production rules.

Ms. MacNab noted that a proposed expansion of the Island Creek development off Tremont Street may produce a number of units that would count toward affordable housing production. Mr. Wadsworth added that the Merry Village development that is under construction off Lincoln Street will add further affordable housing units. Ms. MacNab stated that Town residents may not wish to meet the ten percent requirement but the anticipated increase in affordable housing is the right direction at least. Mr. Mayfield stated that the Planned Production Plan will provide an assessment of what is achievable in the Town of Duxbury, and also will provide a guideline for the creation of an affordable housing trust fund. He stated that having the Planned Production Plan and an affordable housing trust will put the Town in the right direction.

Mr. Mayfield noted that the Town of Brookline has shifted to “friendly 40B” permits and uses affordable housing trust funds only for friendly 40Bs. Including a project such as the proposed Island Creek expansion in a Planned Production Plan may leave a positive impression with the state even if they cannot approve the Plan. Ms. MacNab asked if Mr. Mayfield was saying that the Planned Production Plan most likely would not be accepted by the state, and Mr. Mayfield replied that the Town cannot meet the state’s production goals. He suggested that the Plan could be filed but not utilized as a realistic strategy. He suggested that, once the Plan had been filed, the Board could raise the issue with their state legislators that the production goals are unrealistic for a town like Duxbury. Ms. MacNab expressed that she felt the Plan was optimistically achievable, and that even if the goals were not achieved within the three year time limit, it would still provide a workable goal. Ms. Scieszka stated that she believes the Town should submit a realistically achievable plan to use as a starting point.

Mr. Mayfield suggested that there are tools available if the preferred strategy is to preserve affordable housing, although some may be politically challenging. He noted that the existing Island Creek development is a site specific, and suggested that the Board consider less controversial planning tools such as in-law apartments that would improve affordable housing while keeping the character of the Town. In addition, he recommended that the Board consider adding a smart growth overlay district to areas such as Island Creek if future expansion is planned. Mr. Wadsworth noted that some towns have been more successful than others at implementing smart growth areas and cautioned that care needs to be taken on this issue. He stated that he prefers the approach of taking non-affordable housing and making it affordable. He agreed that meeting a goal of 38 units of affordable housing is difficult, but recommended that the Town should work toward it. Ms. MacNab noted that rental units count 100 percent toward affordable housing. Mr. Mayfield noted that it may be difficult to implement rentals in an historically homeowner community. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that a co-operative could be formed.

Mr. Mayfield noted that multifamily housing could be considered that converts existing homes into condominiums. He stated that the Town of Duxbury has a large constituency of residents who are elderly people living in single-family homes and who would prefer to remain in Town. He suggested that accessory housing could add to the affordable housing count without a burden on the school system. Ms. Scieszka noted that the Town already has an accessory apartment bylaw, and Mr. Mayfield suggested that other Towns allow accessory apartments as by-right and permit within additional structures.

Mr. Bear asked if the Town could meet affordable housing production numbers by augmenting the existing affordable housing at Island Creek. Mr. Mayfield noted that 96 units of the 106 housing units at that location are under a federal subsidy that is due to expire after a five-year term and needs to be addressed. After the five-year term, the developer can renew the subsidy or choose to convert the units to market rate housing or condominiums. He recommended that the Town consider offering a voucher program that would allow the Town to purchase existing homes for affordable housing.

Mr. Wadsworth questioned the census numbers regarding an increase in elderly people, and asked if these could afford housing or not. He questioned why housing prices are going up if people are less able to afford housing. Mr. Mayfield stated that although there are sub-markets that are increasing in price, he asked the Board to consider the lowest house price sold in the past year compared to the median income of a young family home buyer. He stated that there are three constituencies in the Town that affordable housing could help: 1) cash-poor, land-rich elderly, 2) Town employees, and 3) first-time employees who are currently moving out-of-state. Ms. MacNab stated that she is in favor of discussing ideas that will maintain the Town’s character such as accessory apartments and conversion of existing housing to affordable. In addition, she would like to see a resolution of keeping small houses on small lots. Mr. Mayfield stated that he hoped strategies could be developed for which the Board could provide leadership. Ms. MacNab thanked Mr. Mayfield and stated that she looked forward to a future update.


PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
DUXBURY YACHT CLUB / HARRISON STREET
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 8:50 PM. Ms. Scieszka read the public meeting notice and correspondence list into the record. Present for the discussion were Mr. Shawn Dahlen and Mr. Carter Lyon, representing the applicant; Mr. Freeman Boynton, contractor; and Mr. Peter Lanman, Yacht Club groundskeeper; and Mr. Tom Sexton of Mainstream Engineering, Town consulting engineer.

Mr. Dahlen introduced the project to the Board. He stated that the applicants propose to demolish two existing maintenance buildings and replace them with one new structure. In order to maintain a low site profile, they plan to excavate into the site. When viewing the new building from Harrison Street it would appear similar in height to how it looks now. A new egress driveway would go around the rear of the building. Additional utilities would be placed underground and a new septic system is proposed. In addition, new water service from Harrison Street is proposed to take the place of a currently used private well. Changes are proposed for an existing bridge that would require directional boring under an existing stream. Parking and drainage are proposed as part of the site improvements. A defined parking area with catch basins on the west side would replace the current informal parking area. Mr. Dahlen stated that there are no proposed changes in use, and the intention is to provide a better maintenance facility.

Ms. MacNab asked if the existing facilities include offices, and Mr. Dahlen confirmed that they currently include an office and a rest room. Ms. MacNab asked about the proposed building height, and Mr. Dahlen stated that the eave height is 8 feet, and the height goes to approximately 16 feet as the building is approached from the street side. Ms. Scieszka noted that the height in the back of the building is shown as 25 feet. Mr. Wadsworth asked if the property was located within the Wetlands Protection Overlay District, and Mr. Dahlen replied it was not.

Mr. Sexton, the Town consulting engineer, referenced an email from DPW Director, Mr. Tom Daley, and a revised letter from Deputy Fire Chief William Carrico regarding Town department review of the proposed water service. Mr. Dahlen stated that if it is not possible to work with the water main, they would use a well instead. Ms. MacNab noted that there are issues to work through.

Mr. Sexton noted that the Fire Department is looking for on-site storage for fire protection equipment. Mr. Wadsworth noted that a water source exists on the street. Mr. Dahlen stated that, according to his discussions with the Fire Chief, the building size does not require a sprinkler system.

Mr. Wadsworth asked how far the building is from Harrison Street, and Mr. Dahlen responded that it is 400 to 500 feet away. Mr. Sexton asked where the nearest hydrant was located, and Mr. Dahlen replied that it is located at the access. Mr. Dahlen referenced Development Review Team meeting minutes that stated that the water flow is 750 gallons per minute. Ms. MacNab asked staff to ensure that the Fire Chief approves the current design.

Mr. Sexton asked which hazardous materials would be stored on site, and Mr. Dahlen stated that they intend to store wet and dry fertilizer in an approved self-container located outside the building. Mr. Dahlen noted that a gasoline pump is located approximately 100 yards from the building as well. Mr. Halligan asked if boats would be stored in the building, and Mr. Dahlen responded that the building may be used for short-term storage for working on boats in a heated building, but that long-term storage would be in another building. Mr. Wadsworth asked if epoxy would be used in the boat work, and noted that the water pressure needs to be adequate for fire safety reasons.

Ms. MacNab asked how parking spaces were calculated. Mr. Dahlen distributed a letter from Mr. Peter Lanman on behalf of the Yacht Club providing details on the proposed parking space design stated that 16 spaces are proposed based on a maximum number of 15 employees during the peak summer season. Mr. Wadsworth asked about visitors, and Mr. Dahlen replied that visitors would be rare. Ms. MacNab asked about employee overlap, and Mr. Lanman stated that there would be no more than 15 employees total at any time.

Mr. Moody asked about the proposed square footage of the new maintenance building, and Mr. Sexton stated that the new construction would result in a 1,500 square-foot increase in building size. Ms. MacNab asked why no telephone service would be required but did not receive a response.

Ms. MacNab asked if perc tests had been performed in the area of the proposed drainage basin, and Mr. Boynton replied that there had. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Fire Chief needs to understand the type of work that is being done, and Mr. Dahlen stated that he would be happy to meet with the Fire Chief again. Mr. Halligan stated that the Board would like to see a letter from the Fire Chief stating that he has no issues with the proposed plan.

Mr. Charles (Cap) Kane, Jr. of 251 Harrison Street introduced himself as an abutter who is also a member of the Yacht Club. He stated that he has an issue with the proposed building height as viewed from the rear of the property. He noted that construction would result in a substantial alteration of existing terrain, and that the applicants are proposing a slight change in use of building to now accommodate boat maintenance. He questioned the amount of vegetation that would be removed with the roadway excavation, and asked if lighting would be required on a 24-hour basis.

Ms. MacNab asked if a change in access was proposed, and Mr. Dahlen pointed out the plans to the Board showing that the driveway would remain the same, but the new parking area would bring changes. In addition, he noted that there is a new driveway loop behind the building and that trees would need to be cleared in order to install the drainage basin. Ms. MacNab asked about buffering, and Mr. Dahlen stated that there is a mass of trees along with a fairway with another swath of trees between the maintenance building and the abutter’s property.

Ms. MacNab noted that more detail is required regarding the landscaping plan, retaining wall, and lighting plan. Mr. Dahlen replied that the lighting plan will be submitted in narrative form, and stated that contours will be added to the site plan and they will depict where trees will be cleared. He noted that ten feet of the building would be going into the ground. Mr. Boynton added that the purpose of the eight-foot retaining wall is to hold back the earth so that the building can be nestled into the hillside. Mr. Dahlen stated that the applicants would remove the least number of trees possible so that the view from Harrison Street would remain the same.

Ms. MacNab asked what the special permit allowed, and Mr. Dahlen replied that as a non-profit organization they did not require a special permit. Ms. MacNab noted the proposed change in use of the building, and Mr. Dahlen stated that the Yacht Club could do whatever they chose as long as it does not involve a business use. He stated that the applicants are only attempting to take care of their own property.

Mr. Wadsworth confirmed with Mr. Dahlen that the applicants would be going to the Inspectional Services Department for a building permit after Planning Board approval. Ms. MacNab asked staff to alert the Director of Inspectional Services of the potential change in use of the building. Ms. MacNab asked how many boats the Yacht Club owns, and Mr. Dahlen replied that they own three or four boats plus some smaller Optis that go directly into storage. Ms. Scieszka recommended that the applicant needs to document the proposed use such as a special permit.

Mr. Warren Skillman of One Fairway Lane noted that as an abutter he has noticed that new lights in the Yacht Club parking lot are left on all night. He asked if the lights could be put on a motion detector. Ms. MacNab replied that the Board can make a recommendation but has no authority over current use. She added that the Board would consider his comments when reviewing lighting plans for the current application.

MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to continue the public meeting for administrative site plan review for Duxbury Yacht Club maintenance building off Harrison Street to Monday, February 26, 2007 at 7:45 PM, with plans due Monday, February 12, 2007 and a decision date of Monday, March 26, 2007. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).

Mr. Dahlen and the Board signed a mutual extension form.


ZBA REFERRAL: 91 GURNET ROAD / WILLIAMS
No representative was present for the discussion regarding a petition from the builder to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) requesting to overturn a Stop Order issued by the Director of Inspectional Services on October 31, 2006. Ms. Stickney noted that the owner had also made an appeal of a Stop Order in June 2005. Mr. Wadsworth questioned why the matter was brought before the Planning Board, and Ms. Stickney replied that the ZBA is requesting the Planning Board’s recommendation on the appeal of the Building Inspector’s opinion.

MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to recommend that the ZBA deny the appeal of the Building Inspector’s Stop Order and to strongly support the Building Inspector’s opinion stated in his letter to the petitioner dated October 31, 2006 that the work completed has greatly exceeded the scope of work outlined in the Amended Building Permit dated October 22, 2004. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.


ZBA REFERRAL: 36 & 18 VILLAGE WAY / 20 PINE LAKE ROAD
ZBA REFERRAL: 36 VILLAGE WAY / RD MATTHEWS CONSTRUCTION CO.
No representative was present for this discussion of two Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) requests to overturn appeals. One is an appeal of a decision from the Director of Inspectional Services dated November 14, 2006 regarding whether three lots are exempt from the 2003 amendment to the Zoning Bylaw regulations for Residential Cluster Developments. The other is an appeal of a building permit denial for one of the properties, 36 Village Way. Ms. Stickney explained that the subdivision, Tinkertown Landing off Elm Street, had originally been a cluster approval for 39 lots with agreement to the type of dwellings and number of bedrooms allowed. Ms. MacNab noted that the number of bedrooms had exceeded the approved amount by 36. Ms. Stickney stated that the applicants wish to build the three remaining lots. She noted that the first referral is not appealable because it is appealing an opinion. Ms. MacNab noted that the number of bedrooms allowed is clearly stated in the special permit decision dated June 16, 1997.

MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to recommend no action toward the appeal of the Building Inspector’s determination regarding #36 & #18 Village Way and 20 Pine Lake Road because the appeal is not eligible for appeal and therefore is improperly before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board strongly supports the opinion of the Building Inspector’s Zoning Determination Letter dated November 14, 2006 that the three lots in question are ineligible for building permits because the total number of bedrooms constructed has exceeded the amount approved in the Special Permit.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Wadsworth made a recommendation regarding the wording of the motion. Ms. Scieszka amended the motion accordingly, and Mr. Wadsworth seconded the amendment.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.


MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to recommend to deny the petitioner’s appeal of a denial of a Building Permit for #36 Village Way and to strongly support the Building Inspector’s denial of the Building Permit pursuant to the Zoning Board decision dated June 16, 1997. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.


OTHER BUSINESS
Millbrook Crossing:
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to continue the public meeting for Millbrook Crossing administrative site plan review until April 2, 2007 at 8:00 PM, with revised plans due to the Planning office by March 19, 2007 and a decision date extended to May 2, 2007. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.

The Board signed a mutual extension form that had been previously signed by the applicant.


Engineering Invoice:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve Mainstream Engineering invoice #20896 in the amount of $1,633.40 for services related to Millbrook Crossing. There was no discussion.

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (7-0).


Sprague Farm Subdivision: Ms. Stickney referenced a letter dated 12/19/06 from the homeowner’s brother, Mr. Eric Carlsen, complaining that the seller had not disclosed to his sister that the subdivision conditions ruled that a second dwelling on the property could not be occupied. Ms. Stickney stated that she and the Director of Inspectional Services, Mr. Scott Lambiase, had visited the homeowner’s brother on site. Ms. MacNab noted that she had been on the Planning Board at the time of subdivision approval and remembers the developer agreeing to remove the kitchen so that the second building would no longer be used as a dwelling. She stated that it appeared to be a civil matter. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that she has requested that Mr. Carlsen produce a letter from his sister authorizing him to act on her behalf. Ms. MacNab stated that the Board cannot rescind the subdivision and is limited in authority at this point.


Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to approve Planning Board meeting minutes of November20, 2006.

DISCUSSION: Ms. MacNab proposed two revisions to the minutes. Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Bear agreed to the amendments.

VOTE: The motion carried 6-0-1, with Ms. Scieszka abstaining.

It was agreed to postpone approval of November 27, 2006 meeting minutes to the January 22, 2007 agenda.


OPEN FORUM
40B Subdivision Approval: Ms. MacNab reported on a meeting that took place earlier that evening regarding subdivision approval on 40B special permit applications. The following people had attended the meeting: Mr. Jim Lampert of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA); Mr. Scott Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services; Town Counsel, Atty. Robert S. Troy; Ms. Scieszka, Mr. Moody and Ms. MacNab.

Ms. MacNab reported that Atty. Troy reiterated his previous opinion that the Planning Board is the only entity that can create a subdivision. In its most recent comprehensive permit, the ZBA had configured fee simple lots on plans. She stated that now it is up to the applicant to pursue subdivision approval because the ZBA will not sign subdivision plans.

Ms. MacNab stated that the applicants would have three options:
1.      Submit subdivision plans for the Planning Board to review under subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Board could choose to endorse, deny, or take no action.
2.      The Planning Board can be asked to endorse the plan as a comprehensive permit under the ZBA in order to move it forward. This would put the Planning Board in a difficult situation, one that they have requested that the ZBA not put them in.
3.      If the Planning Board denies approval of plans, the applicant could appeal or take the plans to the Registry of Deeds to force the issue.

Mr. Moody stated that the Registry of Deeds has been known to accept plans signed by Zoning Boards. He stated that he had spoken with a title counsel who advised him that ZBAs in other towns expect to sign plans in the absence of regulations stating otherwise. Ms. Scieszka stated that Mr. Lampert’s opinion had been that the Planning Board is obligated to sign subdivision plans on a comprehensive permit. Ms. MacNab noted that Atty. Troy advised Mr. Lampert otherwise.

Community Preservation Committee (CPC) Update on Synthetic Turf Field Proposal: Mr. Wadsworth reported that he had advised CPC members that the Planning Board stands opposed to the proposal. He stated that the CPC was interested in the Board’s point of view and some members are skeptical about the proposal as well. He noted that the bond counsel is questioning the legality and may not approve funding. He stated that there are not enough funds in undesignated CPA funds to cover the proposed $1 million turf project.

Annual Town Meeting Zoning Map Articles: Ms. MacNab advised the Board that Ms. Ruth Rowley of 546 Washington Street has requested that parcels should be referenced in Annual Town Meeting warrant articles proposing changes to zoning maps.


ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:38 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.