Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 09/10/07
Approved September 24, 2007
The Planning Board met in Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 7:30 PM.
Present: George Wadsworth, Vice-Chair, Brendan Halligan, Clerk; John Bear, and Harold Moody.
Absent: Amy MacNab, Chairman; James Kimball, and Angela Scieszka.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Mr. Wadsworth called the meeting to order when a quorum was present at 7:55 PM.
OPEN FORUM
CPC Potential Land Acquisitions: Mr. Wadsworth reported that he had attended an Executive Session of the Board of Selectmen earlier that evening, and significant expenditures for land acquisitions were discussed. He advised the Board that more information will be available at a later time.
DISCUSSION WITH BOARD OF HEALTH
Due to the unexpected absences of several Board members, the discussion with the Board of Health regarding land use issues was deferred until a later date when more Board members could be present.
WORK SESSION
King Property Comments Requested by Board of Selectmen: Comments were requested from the Board of Selectmen regarding this property off of Franklin Street that had been foreclosed in May 2005 for unpaid taxes. The former owner, Mr. Thomas King, Sr., is requesting that the Town vacate the foreclosure in return for payment of back taxes because he claims that he was not properly notified of the foreclosure.
Ms. Stickney described the parcel, 16 acres of land off Franklin Street near Congress Street. She stated that Conservation Administrator, Mr. Joe Grady, had suggested that the Town could propose a permanent easement running at the edge of Mr. King’s current residential property, 655 Franklin Street, and through the 16-acre parcel, to provide access to Town-owned conservation land. Ms. Stickney stated that Mr. King and his attorney initially agreed with the concept, but the next day informed the Town that they did not wish to consider the proposed easement.
The Board of Selectmen has requested that the Planning Board and Conservation Commission comment on the value of the land to the Town. Mr. Wadsworth noted that although there is not much potential for development, the Town can obtain wetlands. Ms. Stickney noted that the parcel has a working bog. Members agreed that the land did have value to the Town and that there is no compelling reason for the Town to give up the property. They also agreed that if the Town returns the land in this case, it could set a precedent for other foreclosure cases.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to recommend the Town not sell the property back to Mr. King based on the following:
§ Assuming the foreclosure and Town acquisition were valid, there is no incentive for the Town to sell the property back. The Planning Board believes that there was a fair process of notification made to the property owner regarding the Town’s intentions to foreclose.
§ Selling the property back based on the value of back taxes owed, in the opinion of the Planning Board, establishes a dangerous precedent for future requests by residents in similar situations.
§ There is an inherent value for the Town to retain the property based upon its open space value/ wetland preservation and working cranberry bog. A majority of the lot lies within the Wetland Protection Overlay District and meets its goal to “afford protection to the community’s groundwater and environmentally sensitive areas.”
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
Affordable Housing Bylaw Submitted by the Local Housing Partnership: At its August 20, 2007 meeting, the Planning Board staff agreed to research FAR options. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that she had the results of that research, but the Board deferred discussion until a future meeting when more members would be present.
Birch Street MEPA Environmental Notification Form (ENF): The Board reviewed a draft letter to the MEPA regarding this transfer of conservation land to accommodate a new water tank and distribution system. Ms. Stickney noted that comments were due September 11, 2007. Mr. Wadsworth agreed with staff that the short form should be submitted rather than the long form. A typographical error was corrected.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to approve a draft letter dated September 10, 2007, as amended, to Secretary Ian Bowles of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs endorsing the Birch Street water tank project and supporting the Environmental Notification Form as submitted. There was no discussion regarding the motion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
ZBA REFERRAL: MERRY VILLAGE LLC, LINCOLN STREET
No audience was present for the discussion. Ms. Stickney provided an overview of this application to amend a comprehensive permit to remove the 55+ age restriction and allow multi-family use for the development.
Ms. Stickney reported that the applicants had gone before the Board of Health for informational purposes. They negotiated a different site, near the intersection of Temple Street and Church Street, to be set aside for nitrogen loading.
Ms. Stickney noted that the site is located in the Aquifer Protection Overlay District, and Mr. Wadsworth pointed out that the site is actually located in two different APODs. He stated that there are implications to this application that have not been thought through completely. He noted that school aged children will impact the Town, and that over-55 residents only would be less of an impact to the Town. He suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) should consider requesting lower density of the project.
Ms. Stickney stated that she would check with the ZBA to determine if all four blocks of the development had been permitted. She noted that she does not believe the developer has done due diligence in marketing the project, although the developer states that there is no market for 55+ housing. She noted that the applicant had not communicated with the Duxbury Housing Authority. They also had not entered their project in lotteries at CHAPA (Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association) or MassHousing. She noted that the Island Creek development has a waiting list for 55+ applicants, and wondered if the applicants had checked with them. She stated that their sole marketing tool was the Duxbury Clipper. She noted that the applicants appear not to have considered rentals as an alternative.
Mr. Halligan noted that with no landscaping, the model was not properly marketed. Mr. Moody agreed that effort was not put forth to market the development. He stated that, as exemplified in financial impact calculations for the Duxbury Estates Planned Development, the impact to the Town in changing from 55+ to multi-family use would be significant, including traffic around the development. Ms. Stickney noted that the site is dense for family use, with no playground or open space where children can play. Mr. Halligan suggested that because the applicants are proposing substantive changes, they should submit a new application.
Mr. Halligan stated that there appeared to be a lack of good faith effort on behalf of the applicants to sell the property as 55+. Mr. Wadsworth added that there appears to be a lack of marketing on the affordable side as well, which may indicate a lack of marketing overall. He agreed that there were substantial changes in activity that would have a significant impact on Town services. Mr. Halligan noted that a new traffic study and revised septic plans would be required.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second to recommend denial of an amended comprehensive permit for Merry Village, LLC on Lincoln Street because of the following issues:
§ The request of the petitioner, in the opinion of the Planning Board, is deemed a substantial change from the original request upon which the Zoning Board of Appeals issued their decision. Changes to the septic flow, traffic volumes and impact on the Town’s municipal school services need to be analyzed and reviewed in depth through a new Comprehensive Permit filing as to the effects of such a major change with the desired development’s population. No such information appears to be provided.
§ The population characteristics and needs of an age restricted community differ from those of families. The density of the project should be reconsidered to accommodate amenities tailored to families and children such as playground, pools and other outdoor facilities. In addition the development’s public safety both internally and externally should be looked at more closely as to the needs of additional sidewalks and/or a safe bus stop area.
§ The applicant’s proposals to deed restrict additional credit land over on Church Street for the additional septic flow and anticipated nitrogen loading raises the question of geographical distance from the project site. Although both locations are within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD) given their distance they could have the potential of support from two different wells. The applicant should also be required to provide a more in depth analysis to support the proposed land credit location. It should be also noted that the proposed site for the land credit is under different ownership than the applicant and proponents
making the request to amend the Comprehensive Permit.
§ The applicant has not demonstrated a good faith effort to utilize available resources for the marketing of the affordable units. State housing websites that routinely list available lotteries were not used by the applicant nor was the Town’s Housing Authority contacted as to the lotteries and notice of available units, according to the Housing Director, Linda Bacci.
§ In addition, has the applicant considered age-restricted rental in lieu of ownership as a potential strategy for the current situation?
§ The aesthetics of the site with no landscaping seems to deter from possible marketing of units either affordable or market rate. The applicant has made no attempt to improve the appearance of the development.
§ In requesting of the Zoning Board of Appeals such a change, the applicant should also be considering a potential downsizing of the density of the development that may improve its marketability.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Duxbury Farms Plan Endorsement: Mr. Wadsworth noted that the ZBA would be discussing the possibility of signing subdivision plans for this Comprehensive Permit project. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that Ms. MacNab had hand delivered a letter from the Planning Board to the Register of Deeds warning him not to accept plans that were not signed by the Planning Board.
Mansionization: Mr. Bear had submitted a USA Today article dated August 27, 2007 entitled, “Cities Block Bulky Houses that Crowd Little Locations.” He asked staff to follow up on sample bylaws that were mentioned in the article.
Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2007: The Board agreed to defer voting on these meeting minutes until pending litigation had been settled regarding a topic of discussion.
Other Meeting Minutes
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of July 23, 2007 as written.
VOTE: The motion carried, 3-0-1, with Mr. Moody abstaining.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of August 6, 2007 as written.
VOTE: The motion failed by a vote 2-0-2, with Mr. Halligan and Mr. Moody abstaining.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of August 20, 2007 as amended.
VOTE: The motion carried 4-0. .
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM. The next meeting of the Planning Board will take place on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 7:30 PM in Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
