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 04/09/07
Approved June 25, 2007
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Town Offices on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Brendan Halligan, Clerk;
John Bear, Jim Kimball, Harold Moody, and Angela Scieszka.
Absent: Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Ms. MacNab called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. Open Forum was deferred.
DISCUSSION WITH HOUSING CONSULTANT AND LOCAL HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Present for the discussion regarding a draft of the Planned Production Plan were Mr. Phillip Mayfield, Housing Consultant; and the following members of the Local Housing Partnership (LHP): Ms. Diane Bartlett, chairperson; Barbara Kelley; Mr. William Childs; Mr. William Campbell; Mr. Charles Rourke; and Mr. Brendan Keohan. Ms. Pat Loring, chair of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was also present for the discussion.
Mr. Mayfield reported that the LHP members had reviewed and approved the current draft of the Planned Production Plan, noting that it follows the format that the state requires. He noted that three sections are mandated: 1) a needs assessment, 2) affordable housing goals and strategies, and 3) use restrictions.
Ms. MacNab asked if the Planned Production Plan would be used as a goal or a step-by-step plan, and Mr. Mayfield responded that it is up to the Board. He stated that the State assumes a good-faith effort and noted that once the plan is approved, the Town of Duxbury would be protected if they could produce38 units per year from unwanted 40B developments. Ms. MacNab expressed concern that some of the language may be roping the Town into goals that would overwhelm the Town if all were carried out. Ms. Bartlett stated that the plan should be considered a guideline and goal, considering the Town is not going to reach the 38-unit goal soon. Mr. Bear stated that the plan represents a start as a prerequisite, and noted that the specifics can go in various directions.
Ms. Bartlett noted that although Mr. Jon Witten, Selectman, stated that the Island Creek’s status as an affordable housing development will expire in 2012, the court has ruled that it will not expire. This will keep 106 affordable units in the Town.
Ms. Scieszka reported that at a recent LHP meeting it was agreed that the requirement of 38 units per year is an impossible challenge to meet. Discussion focused on whether to submit numbers that represent goals versus more realistic numbers, and the consensus had been to present realistic numbers that would represent what the Town is actually striving toward. Ms. Scieszka asked Mr. Mayfield if the State would accept the plan if it shows that some goals may not be met. Mr. Mayfield replied that he did believe the State would accept the plan and noted that during years that the plan could be met, the Town would be protected from 40B development. He stated that the plan would provide some breathing room for the Town. Ms. Scieszka asked about a statement in the plan that the Town would have 44 affordable housing units per
year by the end of 2012. Mr. Mayfield noted that number represents a cumulative five-year production average.
Ms. Scieszka suggested reviewing the Planned Production Plan matrix showing strategies and implementation. They discussed the following strategies:
Activate Affordable Housing Trust - Mr. Mayfield noted that the plan has a twofold purpose: obtaining protection from 40B development with State approval, and the allocation plan. Mr. Wadsworth asked what role the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) would play, and Mr. Mayfield provided a procedural recommendation. He advised that the proposed project should first go to the LHP for evaluation and approval. Next, the applicant should go to the Housing Trust. If the Housing Trust does not have funds to allocate, then go to the CPC. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that CPC funds could be allocated for general affordable housing uses, which would require Annual Town Meeting approval. Mr. Rourke stated that another tactic would be to earmark funds by project, such as inclusionary revenue that would go directly into a housing
account. Mr. Wadsworth noted that this tactic would leave Annual Town Meeting out of the approval process.
Ms. Loring noted that for conservation projects, applicants need approval from the CPC, the Planning Board, and the Board of Selectmen. She suggested that affordable housing projects could be set up in a similar manner. Ms. Bartlett noted that the funding would need to be allocated, and Mr. Mayfield suggested that Annual Town Meeting could approve an allocation plan. He stated that as long as the allocation plan is being followed, there is no need to go to Annual Town Meeting on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Wadsworth expressed concern that affordable housing might not receive full allocation at Annual Town Meeting because there are other needs competing with it. Ms. MacNab noted that a portion of CPA funds are required to go toward affordable housing.
Identify and Commit Municipal Areas/Properties for New Affordable Housing RFPs – Mr. Mayfield noted that resources are available to achieve sub-task #2, Land Swaps Especially with Town Land. Ms. MacNab expressed concern with funding opportunities with strings attached. Mr. Mayfield stated that he was very careful with listing potential funds that may be available. He stated that he is working with a consortium of eight communities in the North Shore that seeks funding as a group. He suggested that it is worthwhile to consider seeking federal funds instead of State funding.
Expand Accessory Apartment Zoning – Mr. Mayfield stated that the Town has a good ordinance that could be expanded. He recommended the Town of Lexington as a good example of an accessory apartment bylaw with a set of controls.
Establish First Time Homebuyer Program – Mr. Mayfield stated that the program involves granting low interest loans in return for deed restrictions. He suggested that this strategy may work well in the Town of Duxbury. An issue would be obtaining affordable status from the State for units developed under this strategy. Mr. Bear questioned why it would involve expanding the role of the Duxbury Housing Authority, and Mr. Mayfield responded that it would provide a mechanism to make sure that applicants are qualified. He noted that he is not sure that the Housing Authority has agreed to take on that role.
Mr. Mayfield also addressed a sub-task under this strategy of Revising the Demolition Permit Delay Ordinance. Ms. Scieszka confirmed that Mr. Mayfield’s suggested approach would be to target certain homes for affordability as well as historical significance. Ms. Scieszka suggested that a survey could be done to catalogue, target or assess potential affordable housing.
Inclusionary Zoning - Mr. Mayfield referred to the sub-task of the Affordable Housing Trust fund from the Duxbury Estates planned development, and suggested that he is leary of accepting cash in lieu of affordable housing units because it would represent a missed opportunity to produce affordable housing. Ms. Scieszka noted that in this particular development with units expected to sell at around $800,000.00, an affordable unit might not fit in. Mr. Mayfield suggested that the decision should be put into the Board’s hands, not the developer’s. Ms. MacNab suggested that the fee could be raised to provide more of an incentive to the developer to build the affordable units.
Comprehensive Permit 40B and Establish 40R – Ms. Stickney noted that the 40B projects currently listed represent those that have moved beyond litigation. Ms. Scieszka noted that this was her least preferred strategy. Mr. Mayfield suggested that a 40R approach could be considered instead. Known as a “smart growth” strategy, it would concentrate an area of Town as a village with a density of housing and mixed commercial uses. This would consolidate multi-family housing to one area in Town. He noted that the Town of Mashpee has utilized this strategy effectively. Mr. Mayfield stated that since several village areas already exist in the Town of Duxbury, the strategy would lend itself easily.
Pursue Development Programs – Mr. Mayfield addressed the Design Moderate Income Housing sub-task of this strategy, stating that although it may not count toward affordable housing units, it is an approach to consider. Mr. Moody noted that the current trend is that moderate income families are leaving the state. Ms. MacNab noted that the Town of Duxbury is losing affordable housing with the sale of smaller homes that are eventually torn down, and she recommended that this be remedied through revising zoning bylaws to increase the floor-to-area ratio.
Mr. Mayfield explained the sub-task Develop a Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Project, as a tax credit to the developer, who in return would agree to provide a certain percentage of affordable housing units. These units would count under a Local Initiative Program. He stated that Island Creek might be the most likely location for a program of this type, possibly under a 40R approach. Mr. Halligan recommended to revise the sub-task to “review the value of” such a program rather than “develop.”
Mr. Mayfield pointed out that another sub-task, Section 202 Housing for the Elderly, is a successful federal program which allocates funds to each state for independent or assisted living facilities. He suggested that Bennett’s Corner provides an ideal location because it is within walking distance of shops and medical offices. Ms. MacNab mentioned Hall’s Corner as a potential location as well. Ms. Scieszka noted that bylaws are in place to accommodate this type of development. Mr. Kimball stated that public education is required for successful execution of this strategy.
The discussion moved to the more general topic of preservation versus production of affordable housing. Ms. MacNab stated that she would like to see more of an emphasis on preservation. Mr. Mayfield noted that only two or three preservation strategies had been identified and suggested that more could be identified.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that it may be a challenge to fund the strategies listed, especially in administrative costs. Mr. Mayfield stated that certain programs, such as the CDBG, HOME, and ADDI programs, provide administrative costs in addition to hard expenses. He suggested that a fee could be charged through some programs as a part of a filing fee or closing cost. Mr. Wadsworth asked if Mr. Mayfield is suggesting that the Housing Trust Fund is to be used to pay administrative costs. Mr. Mayfield stated that he believes there are no restrictions in the Housing Trust Fund. Mr. Keohan of the LHP suggested that South Shore Housing could be used in conjunction with the Housing Authority for 40B lotteries. Ms. Scieszka suggested that Trust Fund money should be used toward housing and not administration.
Ms. MacNab asked how the Planned Production Plan process would work from this point. Ms. Stickney stated that Board members should submit their suggested revisions for staff to update. The LHP has set up a public workshop for anyone who wants to learn more or provide comments regarding the plan In addition, copies of the current draft are posted at the library and the Town web site. The Board of Selectmen is scheduled to review it on April 30, 2007, and it will be sent to the state by mid-May. A Request for Proposal will be issued within six months of receiving State approval for the Planned Production Plan.
Board members made suggestions to Mr. Mayfield for his presentations to the public and to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Mayfield stated that he intends to summarize the matrix into three general categories: preservation, conservation and production.
ZBA REFERRAL: 91 GURNET ROAD / CARROLL
No one was present to represent the applicants regarding this referral. In addition, Mr. Wadsworth was not present for this discussion. Ms. Stickney noted that the Board made previous recommendations regarding this project in January 2007. Since that time, Conservation Commission issues have been addressed, with Orders of Condition requiring that the applicant build on an open pile foundation. Ms. Stickney noted that the applicant has now complied with those requests and also Inspectional Services requirements. Ms. Scieszka asked if there was any extension in coverage, and Ms. MacNab clarified that the deck is not considered in determining lot coverage.
MOTION: Mr. Moody made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to defer judgment to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the special permit application for 91 Gurnet Road / Carroll. There was no discussion regarding the motion.
VOTE: The motion carried 5-0-1, with Ms. Scieszka abstaining.
ZBA REFERRAL: 71 OCEAN ROAD NORTH, GURNET ROAD / HUMMOCK, LLC
Mr. Wadsworth returned to the meeting. No one was present to represent the applicants regarding discussion of this referral, which had been continued from last week’s Board meeting, for a special permit to demolish existing structures and replace them with single family dwellings.
Ms. Stickney provided an overview of the application, noting that it was flawed. She questioned the validity of the special permit request, noting that the previous 81L endorsement did not certify compliance with zoning. She stated that she would hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) would not issue five separate permits. Ms. MacNab agreed, stating that doing so would create non-conformities.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding special permit applications for #71 Ocean Road North and #195, 207, 213 and 219 Gurnet Road (Hummock, LLC), noting that the submission requirements for these applications are fatally deficient and clarity is required in order to make a decision. Ms. Scieszka noted that the Board suggests that these applications should be withdrawn by the petitioner. If not withdrawn, the Board recommends that the ZBA should refuse to review the petitions due to inadequate and incomplete information. Discussion was related to revising language used in the staff memo for crafting the motion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Mr. Halligan recommended that Ms. Stickney’s staff memo dated April 9, 2007 be submitted to the ZBA for their review. He suggested that the recommendation should note staff’s suggestion for the ZBA to consult with Town Counsel in light of recent court cases the Town has been involved with concerning non-conforming structures.
OTHER BUSINESS
Community Preservation Committee (CPC): Mr. Wadsworth reported that an administrator for a group that represents Town CPCs attended a recent local CPC meeting and reported that because Community Preservation Act funds are being expended faster than expected, the state match is expected to be reduced from 100 percent to approximately 75 or 85 percent within the next three years.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:32 PM. The next meeting of the Board will take place on Monday, April 23, 2007 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, Lower Level.
| 
