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 02/05/07
Approved May 7, 2007
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Town Offices on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Brendan Halligan,
Jim Kimball, and Harold Moody.
Absent: Angela Scieszka, Clerk; and John Bear.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Ms. MacNab called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Community Preservation Committee (CPC) Turf Proposal: Mr. Wadsworth advised the Board that he had been notified by Town Manager, Mr. Richard MacDonald, and Board of Selectmen members Mr. Andre Martecchini and Ms. Elizabeth Sullivan regarding allegations that the Planning Board violated open meeting laws and violated ethics. Ms. MacNab confirmed that she had been notified as well. Ms. MacNab advised the Board that although minutes had not been transcribed for approval to the Board as of yet, she believed they would provide evidence that open meeting laws had not been violated.
Mr. Kimball asked what the allegations were, and Ms. MacNab replied that some members of the public had mistaken a Planning Board discussion of opinion to be a vote. She noted that the Board members had provided their input to Mr. Wadsworth so that his vote as a Board appointee to the CPC would reflect the Board’s collective opinion. All of the discussions of the Board were within the public meeting; however, minutes had yet to be transcribed. Mr. Wadsworth stated that he felt these allegations represented an attempt to distract the CPC from its mission of deciding on the merits of the turf proposal.
AS-BUILT APPROVAL / HILLSIDE LANE AND AMADO WAY
Ms. Stickney reported to the Board that both subdivisions are ready for as-built approval, release of surety, and release of escrow accounts. Ms. MacNab noted that references of deeds and easements were missing from the current as-built plans for Amado Way. Mr. Wadsworth asked if Hillside Lane was fully built out, and Ms. Stickney replied that two houses are being built and a third house is expected to be constructed.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if heavy equipment would be working on the third lot, and Ms. Stickney replied that it most likely would. Mr. Wadsworth asked if road damage might be anticipated, and Ms. Stickney responded that the street opening permit includes a bond to protect the road. Ms. MacNab suggested that the Board could advise the Inspectional Services Department to notify the Department of Public Works (DPW) to obtain a performance bond.
Ms. Stickney noted that if the Town accepts the road at Annual Town Meeting in March 2007 as proposed, the Town would be responsible for the road. Ms. MacNab asked if surety funds could be held after a road was accepted, and Ms. Stickney noted that in the case of the Deer Run subdivision, a surety bond ($10,000.00) was held until Annual Town Meeting. Ms. MacNab suggested that the same amount of surety funds be held back, but Ms. Stickney suggested that the bond release be tabled because a partial amount cannot be held on a performance bond.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to accept as-built plans for Hillside Lane off of North Street. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Wadsworth asked if the layout was complete on the roadway, and Ms. Stickney replied that it is finished.
MOTION: Mr. Kimball made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to release the remaining escrow balance of approximately $1,743.00 for the Hillside Lane subdivision off of North Street. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Release of the Hillside Lane performance bond surety was deferred until a later date. As-Built approval for Amado Way was deferred until later in the meeting due to a scheduled public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNUAL TOWN MEETING 2007 WARRANT ARTICLE: PETITION TO REZONE THREE PARCELS LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 414 KINGS TOWN WAY (BONGI REALTY TRUST) FROM RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY / PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1 TO NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS 1
Ms. MacNab opened the public hearing at 7:45 PM. Mr. Wadsworth read the public hearing notice. Present for the discussion were the petitioner, Mr. Tom Pierce; his son; and Atty. Bob Galvin, Sr.
Atty. Galvin noted that Mr. Pierce has decided to withdraw two of the three lots from his petition, retaining only the parcel which includes his present commercial operation located at 414 Kings Town Way. Atty. Galvin stated that he intended to amend the motion at Annual Town Meeting in March. The remaining parcel (assessor’s lot 672-000) is 4.85 acres in area. The reason for the petition to rezone is to tie into the existing Neighborhood Business district which is adjacent to it.
Atty. Galvin continued that during administrative site plan review and special permit review for recently proposed renovations to the existing buildings, the applicants’ lender had concerns with the current zoning. He stated that the applicants were requesting support from the Board and would require a two-thirds vote of approval at Annual Town Meeting. He noted that the business had been in operation since 1938. Atty. Galvin stated that it is not the applicant’s intention to change the existing Bongi’s Turkey Roost operation.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if the existing parcel was located within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD), and Ms. MacNab noted that it was entirely within the APOD. Mr. Wadsworth asked where the adjacent Neighborhood Business district was located, and Atty. Galvin stated that they were parcels 721-003, 721-004 and 721-093. Ms. Stickney identified these parcels on zoning maps for Board members to review.
Ms. Stickney advised the Board that Town Counsel, Atty. Robert Troy, has confirmed that APOD restrictions would supersede the base zoning. She is pursuing with Town Counsel the question of whether the agricultural use of the parcel and another adjacent parcel would supersede APOD restrictions. Ms. Stickney noted that the parcel in question has a lot line that cuts across the current commercial operation and the one next to it. She questioned what would happen to the building that is located between two different types of zoning. She noted that agricultural use can only be applied to lots over five acres.
Ms. MacNab stated that although she understood the applicant’s intent, she is concerned that with a change in zoning the applicant may lose some protections. She stated that within the APOD, coverage is limited to 15 percent. Mr. Pierce replied that he understood that limit and stated that he is unsure how close they are to the 15 percent limit. Ms. MacNab noted that the petitioners would be re-establishing a lot line that straddles an existing building. Ms. Stickney noted this may present an issue with future renovation proposals.
Mr. Wadsworth questioned whether a new lot line was being created, and Ms. Stickney responded that the applicant may lose grandfathering because the APOD restrictions would supersede its current RC zoning. Mr. Wadsworth stated that, at the request of the Board chairman, he contacted the Water Department and State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding rezoning within the APOD, and had been told they were not aware of any difficulties. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Board requests that monitoring wells remain for potential future monitoring if needed. Ms. MacNab stated that she would prefer to not jeopardize the APOD, and she would like to see the DEP’s statement in writing.
Ms. Stickney advised the Board that she had contacted Mr. Allen Bornheimer, Town Moderator, regarding the proposed amendment to the warrant article. If Atty. Galvin submits an amended article this week, the warrant can be amended.
Ms. MacNab asked for public comment. Mr. Laurence King of 376 Autumn Avenue asked for clarification regarding the location of the parcels, and staff showed him the location on an Assessor’s map. There was no further public comment.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to close the public hearing regarding the proposed rezoning of parcels located in the vicinity of 414 Kings Town Way. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Ms. MacNab closed the public hearing at 7:52 PM. She noted that the Board could choose to make a recommendation or not. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that a report needs to be submitted to the Moderator for Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Moody noted that loose ends remain regarding the DEP and obtaining a written opinion from Town Counsel. Ms. MacNab stated that she is not sure Town Counsel will submit a written opinion. She stated that she does not see a clear benefit or detriment to the Town. She stated her preference is to let Annual Town Meeting decide.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that the parcel in question is an odd-shaped lot. He stated that the three lots together would provide a more clear-cut layout for zoning. He also noted that rezoning would allow commercial activity on Kings Town Way and Autumn Avenue, because the lot has frontage on both public ways. Mr. Halligan agreed that commercial zoning with frontage on Autumn Avenue would be an issue for him as well.
Ms. MacNab advised the applicant that although a report would be submitted for Annual Town Meeting, the Board may or may not choose to make a recommendation tonight.
AS-BUILT APPROVAL / AMADO WAY
Ms. Stickney noted that this subdivision off of Laurel Street was approved in 2000, when there was no two-year time limit for subdivision completion. She reported that all residential construction has been completed.
Ms. Stickney advised the Board that the reviewing engineer, Mr. Tom Sexton of Mainstream Engineering, had reviewed the As-Built plans according to current Subdivision Rules and Regulations rather than the 1996 regulations in effect at the time of subdivision approval. She advised the Board that in order for the plans to meet current (2005) rules and regulations, the applicant would need to incur the significant expense of revising elevations from NGVD to NAD88 standards. Ms. MacNab stated that it would not be fair to require the applicant to convert to current rules and regulations. Mr. Halligan agreed that the applicant should only be required to comply with 1996 Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Mr. Moody agreed that the applicant should not submit revised elevations.
Ms. MacNab asked if any surety was being held, and Ms. Stickney replied that $46,000.00 cash surety was being held. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that As-Builts should be approved first. Ms. Stickney advised the Board that escrow funds for engineering review would be retained until all bills are paid.
MOTION: Mr. Moody made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, for As-Built approval for the Amado Way subdivision off of Laurel Street with NAD88 not required because the subdivision was approved under 1996 Subdivision Rules and Regulations. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING ARTICLES FOR ANNUAL TOWN MEETING 2007
Ms. MacNab opened the public hearing at 8:15 PM. Mr. Wadsworth read the public hearing notice for all articles into the record. Ms. MacNab noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals members had requested to discuss these articles with the Planning Board but were unable to attend tonight’s public hearing. She noted that Ms. Stickney had invited the ZBA to submit written comments, and that she recommends that the public hearing remain open to allow the ZBA members to attend a future discussion. Ms. MacNab stated that the zoning articles presented tonight were initiated by the Inspectional Services Department, the Planning Board, and/or the Conservation Commission.
Amendment to Zoning Bylaw Regarding the Definition of Coverage: Ms. Stickney stated that this amendment proposes to clean up the two definitions of coverage from current Zoning Bylaws. The Zoning Bylaws provide definitions for coverage and site. She stated that although no building coverage is required in Neighborhood Business Districts, building coverage has been defined.
Ms. MacNab suggested that changes related to “building” be addressed first, noting that the intent was a clarification on projections. Ms. Stickney agreed, noting that although projections are currently referenced in current Zoning Bylaws, they currently are not included in coverage calculations and should be added to the building coverage definition.
Ms. Stickney noted that the amendment proposes to include accessory units on slabs such as air conditioner units and generators in building coverage calculations. In addition, impervious materials were clarified to fit with the definition of “impervious” elsewhere in Zoning Bylaws. She noted that the definition of impervious will not change. Ms. MacNab confirmed that there is no proposed change in interpretation. Mr. Moody and Mr. Halligan suggested wording changes to the proposed bylaw, including references to “other impervious materials.”
Ms. MacNab invited public comment. Mr. Jackson Kent of 1351 Tremont Street questioned the definition of “impervious,” noting that he drives over gravel and it does eventually become impervious. He stated that three Town Boards do not agree on the definition of impervious. He recommended that the Board consider clarifying the definition of impervious before proposing an amendment to Zoning Bylaws regarding coverage. Ms. MacNab stated that she shared Mr. Kent’s frustration.
Mr. John Wisbach of 52 Josselyn Avenue stated his agreement with Mr. Kent’s comments. He stated that the proposed amendments are attempting to define “coverage” but instead define “structure.” Ms. MacNab noted that the Conservation Commission had input on the proposed amendment with a possible intent to clarify the definition of “coverage” so that they can avoid defining “impervious.”
Ms. MacNab asked if patios would count toward coverage and Ms. Stickney stated that she believes it would. Mr. Kimball stated that there is a lot of leeway built into the definition as proposed and asked if the Conservation Commission had received objections to including equipment slabs in coverage calculations. Mr. Wadsworth stated that Conservation Administrator, Mr. Joe Grady, had informed him that the intent was to clarify definitions for the homeowner. Ms. MacNab noted that most equipment slabs are geared toward commercial use.
Mr. Kimball stated that the Board needed to hear from the ZBA regarding this proposed amendment. Ms. Stickney offered to invite Mr. Grady as well. Ms. MacNab stated that the three boards can come to an agreement regarding the definition of “impervious.”
Mr. Wadsworth referenced the definition of “projections” from Zoning Bylaws Section 302. Ms. Stickney pointed out the definition was slightly different in Section 410 (Residential Compatibility).
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to continue the public hearing on a proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment regarding “coverage” to Monday, February 26, 2007 at 8:15 PM. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Amendment to Zoning Bylaw Regarding Determination of Suitability of Residential Piers and Input from Conservation Commission: Ms. MacNab noted that the chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), Mr. James Lampert, wishes to move forward with this proposed amendment although Town Counsel is being consulted regarding potential issues. Ms. Stickney noted that the amendment was proposed because the best location for a pier is not always the shortest distance. This amendment provides the ZBA some leeway for determining the best location for a pier.
Mr. Kimball questioned the sense of urgency for this proposed amendment. Ms. Stickney noted that a large number of applications have been submitted for piers since the pier bylaw was put into place. She stated that Town Counsel has requested that members from the Conservation Commission and ZBA meet to refine the amendment.
Mr. Jamie MacNab of Old Tobey Garden asked if a pier can be longer than the minimum length.
Mr. John Wisbach of 52 Josselyn Avenue asked if language could be added to the warrant article, and Ms. MacNab advised him that a motion could be made from the floor. Ms. Stickney further advised that Town Counsel may allow an amendment before the warrant is signed by the Board of Selectmen.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to continue the public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to Zoning Bylaws regarding piers. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Amendment to Zoning Bylaw Regarding Information to be Submitted and Time of Submission for Planned Development Projects: Ms. Stickney stated that the Board had requested the Planned Development section of the Zoning Bylaws be revised to make preliminary qualifications mandatory. Ms. MacNab noted that no additional information would be required from an applicant. Ms. Stickney stated that preliminary applications are optional with subdivisions. For special permits the local level can determine if preliminary applications are required or optional.
Mr. Kimball asked if there were any objections to the proposed amendment. Ms. Stickney stated that she sent an email to each ZBA member requesting comments, but had not heard from anyone to date.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to continue the public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to Zoning Bylaws regarding information to be submitted and time of submission for Planned Development projects to Monday, February 26, 2007 at 8:15 PM. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Agreement for Professional Services: The Board reviewed a revised draft of this contract for Reviewing Engineers. Ms. Stickney thanked Mr. Halligan for his efforts in doing the lion’s share of work producing the document.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to accept the Agreement for Professional Services as presented. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Kimball asked if the liability insurance amount could be raised to $1 million. Ms. Stickney stated that she had asked the Town employee who handles insurance to check with the Town’s insurance provider, and they had no problem with the current $10,000.00 liability. Ms. Stickney offered to make a note for when the contract is renewed in 2009. Mr. Moody stated that $1 million is a standard amount for liability insurance, and Ms. Stickney stated that the Town’s insurance company seemed more interested in workers’ compensation.
Local Housing Partnership (LHP) Proposed Joint Meeting: Ms. Stickney noted that as a follow-up to the January 27, 2007 LHP workshop, the Housing Consultant is requesting a two-hour joint meeting with the Board and the LHP to present his draft of the Planned Production Plan.
Board of Health Resignation: Ms. Stickney noted the resignation of Tom O’Regan from the Board of Health, where he had served as chairman.
Wright Building: Ms. Stickney noted that the Wright Building has been accepted for consideration in the National Historic Registry. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the Tarkiln Building is also being considered. He stated that this designation could help obtain historic preservation grants, and could also prevent the federal government from taking the property.
CPC Proposal for Artificial Turf on School Athletic Fields: Mr. Kimball asked if there had been any follow-up to the complaints about possible Planning Board open meeting law violations regarding discussion of this topic. Ms. MacNab noted that although meeting minutes are not available, she believes there is no issue because no vote was taken. She stated that the Board simply wished to have a consensus on the issue so that Mr. Wadsworth could represent the Board in his discussions with the CPC. Mr. Wadsworth stated that he has been opposed to the proposal from the beginning, although he did not wish to comment before the public hearings had been completed. He believes the proponents are seeking too much money.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 9:32 PM. The next meeting of the Board will take place on Monday, February 12, 2007 at Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
