Approved 11/03/08
Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 10/06/08
The Planning Board met in Duxbury Town Offices, Mural Room, lower level on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; Brendan Halligan, Clerk; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chair; John Bear, and Cynthia Ladd Fiorini
Absent: James Kimball and Harold Moody
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant
Ms. MacNab called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The Conservation Department intern, Elizabeth Nollner, who has also helped the Planning Department, was introduced to the Board. Elizabeth was observing a Planning Board meeting for a graduate program class assignment.
OPEN FORUM
Open Forum was deferred until later in the evening.
WORK SESSION: LOT COVERAGE WORKING GROUP
Present for the discussion were three members of the working group that has met during the past several months to draft a proposed revision to Zoning Bylaws regarding lot coverage for commercial buildings within Neighborhood Business Districts: Mr. Joseph Grady, Conservation Administrator; and Mr. JR Kent and Dr. Scott Oliver, local business owners. Mr. Bear and Ms. Ladd Fiorini represent the Planning Board on this working group, and Ms. Stickney and Mr. Scott Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services, also serve to represent Town departments. Ms. MacNab noted that a proposed revision to parking bylaws is relevant to the lot coverage proposal and will be presented at another Board meeting.
Mr. Bear noted that the working group developed a concept of open space to define space that is not covered by a building and then fit the open space requirements into the lot coverage formula, rather than the previous approach which relied upon determining whether an area was pervious or impervious. Open space was defined as “any portion of the lot including courts and/or yards that are open and unobstructed from their lowest level to the sky…[and] free of automotive traffic and/or parking.”
Mr. Bear reported that the group had reviewed a number of properties within business districts in the Town, and also coverage in other comparable Towns in the area. Based on this research, the group recommends maximum building coverage of 20 percent, with a minimum of 20 percent open space. The maximum site coverage would be 80 percent. He noted that the revised parking bylaw will play an important role in lot coverage as well because businesses have changed since the original parking bylaw was created.
Ms. Stickney noted that she had done some calculations on a hypothetical 15,000 SF lot. With 20 percent set aside for open space, it would allow for a 2,400 SF building and 9,600 SF for parking, aisles, etc. Ms. MacNab asked what the building coverage is, for example, at Dr. Oliver’s medical building at 95 Tremont Street, and Ms. Stickney replied that it is at 11 percent building coverage; however, that project has issues other than building coverage that have created their current parking shortage.
Ms. MacNab and Mr. Wadsworth questioned the benefit of 20 percent building coverage, with Mr. Wadsworth pointing out that in Neighborhood Business districts, it may encourage parking to be maximized. Mr. Bear responded that the 20 percent open space requirement would protect from that happening. Ms. Stickney added that this bylaw applies only to Neighborhood Business districts, which comprise three percent of the total area of the Town. With a 15 percent building coverage for residential areas, the working group believes that 20 percent coverage for businesses is appropriate for the Town, and is actually conservative compared to other comparable Towns they researched.
Ms. MacNab expressed concern that more parking is needed in the Town, and 20 percent lot coverage may not provide for enough parking area. Mr. Grady noted that the working group believes that most new applications could not meet the 20 percent lot coverage with the new open space requirements. Ms. Stickney added that currently there is only a lot coverage requirement (50 percent) and no building coverage requirement in Neighborhood Business districts.
Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Halligan pointed out that it is crucial to consider parking regulations in conjunction with the proposed lot coverage regulations. Ms. MacNab recommended that a minimum number of parking spaces should be determined in a revised parking bylaw. Ms. Stickney confirmed that the proposed parking bylaw revision will separate and define uses to reflect current standards. Mr. Wadsworth cautioned that the developer needs constraints to prevent a change in use from increasing parking demands and traffic. Mr. Kent noted that if a business is successful enough to have a parking issue, then the business must be benefiting Town residents. Ms. MacNab noted that although intentions may be good, 20 percent lot coverage may lead to eventual issues.
Mr. Kent stated, and Mr. Wadsworth agreed, that building coverage should be calculated from the total lot area, including the open space. Ms. MacNab and Ms. Stickney disagreed, stating that the building coverage should be based on the percentage of area excluding the open space. Ms. MacNab stated that if a lot has 20 percent wetlands, for example, the building coverage should take into account both the wetlands area plus the open space allotment.
Mr. Wadsworth asked about the definition of “open space,” noting that the current definition would allow an impervious courtyard. Mr. Kent noted that the definition should be revised to preclude impervious areas. Ms. MacNab recommended using another term such as “green space” or “vegetated area” to infer that no pavement would be allowed. Dr. Oliver noted that a previous definition the group had used defined open space as “vegetated or organic matter that remains.” Mr. Wadsworth recommended using the term “vegetated open space.”
Mr. Grady pointed out that one goal of this proposed bylaw is to make Zoning Bylaws concerning coverage consistent with Conservation Commission rules and regulations, although few business areas in Town have wetlands issues. He noted that currently Business Districts have no regulations regarding building coverage.
Ms. Stickney recommended that the discussion continue at the October 20, 2008 Board meeting, when the proposed parking revisions will be introduced. Mr. Kent offered to gather further lot coverage and building coverage information from various business areas in Town. Mr. Bear emphasized that the proposed lot coverage and parking bylaws will remove the controversy of permeability, will help eliminate street parking, and will include all parking in coverage calculations.
Ms. MacNab requested more information regarding current average coverage percentages in business areas. Mr. Kent listed areas of interest as Doran Insurance and the Duxbury General Store on Tremont Street, and the mixed use area on Railroad Avenue. Mr. Grady noted that it would be ideal if funds were available to perform a study, and commended Ms. Stickney and Mr. Kent for the lot coverage research they have performed to date.
ANR PLAN OF LAND: 30 MARSHALL STREET / BURNHAM
Present for the discussion were the applicant, Mr. Bill Burnham, and his engineer, Mr. Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering. Mr. Brogna presented the plan, noting that the purpose of the ANR is to create two lots from one existing lot of 4.2 total acres in order to reflect Land Court plans that depict the property as two lots. The current Land Court plan shows the lot with the existing dwelling as having 225 feet of frontage and the other vacant parcel as having 175 feet of frontage. The applicant proposes to revise the interior lot line on Land Court plans so that both properties will have 200 feet of frontage. The lot with the dwelling would have 2.1 acres of land, and the vacant parcel would have 2.11 acres. The Land Court plan will be revised upon ANR endorsement by the Board.
Ms. MacNab asked if the Doctrine of Merger would apply in this case, with two lots under common ownership automatically merging the lots. Mr. Halligan asked Mr. Burnham if the two new lots would be held under the same name, and Mr. Burnham replied that they will not be under the same name. Ms. Stickney advised the Board to base their decision only on lot area and frontage.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to endorse a plan of land entitled, “Plan of Land, Lots 9 & 14, 30 Marshall Street, 200b-078-011, Duxbury, Mass.” dated February 1, 2007, latest revision August 5, 2008, stamped and signed by Thomas J. Sullivan, PLS – one sheet, as not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Board members signed the mylar and two paper copies of the ANR plan.
OTHER BUSINESS
Because the Zoning Board of Appeals members had not yet arrived for their scheduled discussion, the Board addressed Other Business.
Freeman Farms Subdivision: After making minor revisions, Board members approved sending a follow-up letter from the Board’s discussion with the applicant on July 28, 2008.
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Ms. Ladd Fiorini provided a second, to pay Mainstream Engineering invoice #21154 dated August 31, 2008 in the amount of $511.00 for services related to Berrybrook School.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0
Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of August 11, 2008 and September 22, 2008 as amended.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
MEETING WITH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Present from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) were Mr. Dennis Murphy (chairperson), Mr. Joseph Maher (vice-chair), Ms. Judith Barrett, Mr. Michael Gill, and Mr. David Marsocci. Ms. Danielle Brandon was present as Board of Appeals staff, also. After introductions, Ms. MacNab started the discussion by suggesting that the two Boards meet periodically throughout the year.
Proposed Zoning Bylaw Revisions Regarding Lot Coverage and Parking: Ms. MacNab informed ZBA members that working groups have been meeting during the past several months to draft a proposed warrant article that would amend Zoning Bylaws regarding lot coverage and parking. The Zoning Board’s representative on these working groups has since ended her term with the ZBA, and Ms. MacNab asked if any ZBA member is interested in joining either working group.
Mr. Bear noted that Mr. Scott Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services, has been sitting in on meetings of both working groups, and that they have very few meetings remaining because their work is almost completed. Ms. MacNab noted that there is still plenty of opportunity for discussion through public hearings for those warrant articles. Mr. Murphy agreed that it would be important to have a ZBA member be a part of the process. Mr. Wadsworth concurred, noting that it would be especially useful to have ZBA input regarding enforceability.
Proposed Zoning Bylaw Revisions Regarding Delinquent Fees: Mr. Murphy noted that two potential revisions to Zoning Bylaws have been brought to the attention of the ZBA. One is from Town Treasurer, Ms. Elizabeth Conway, regarding the ability to deny or revoke a permit if an applicant is delinquent in charges other than real estate taxes, according to MGL Chapter 40, Section 57. Chapter 40, Section 58 imposes a lien on a property if an applicant has not paid an enforcement fee if not paid by the due date.
Ms. Stickney noted that only the Director of Inspectional Services can withhold a building permit due to delinquent real estate tax payment, and the Planning Board cannot withhold approval of a project for that reason, according to Town Counsel’s written opinion.
Mr. Murphy referenced that the Town’s General Bylaw, Number 1.3.2 applies to “any other municipal charge.” Ms. Stickney noted that the Planning Board is not a licensing board, and recommended that the ZBA consult with Town Counsel.
Proposed Zoning Bylaw Revisions Regarding a Cell Tower Overlay District: Mr. Murphy noted that the Town currently has a Wireless Communications zoning bylaw with no overlay district. Without an overlay district, there is no permitted use. He suggested that a working group be formed to propose a wireless district in the Town. Mr. Wadsworth noted that it may be difficult to zone cell towers due to the number of residences in Town. Ms. MacNab expressed concern that it may be a challenge to create a district in time for Annual Town Meeting 2009. Ms. Stickney noted that the Planning Board’s current approach is to focus on use rather than relying on an overlay district. She stated that she has worked on potential revisions to the current Wireless Communications bylaw for a warrant article; however, it is not ready
for submittal at this point.
Comprehensive Permits and Administrative Site Plan Review: Ms. MacNab noted that with a large-scale project upcoming, the Planning Board will be reviewing a comprehensive permit application and providing recommendations. Mr. Wadsworth advised ZBA members that the Planning Board’s position is that the 40B process is not in the best interest of the Town.
Mr. Murphy suggested that the Planning Board should be able to review a comprehensive permit under Administrative Site Plan Review, according to his interpretation that Section 615 of the Zoning Bylaws does not preclude it. He stated that Site Plan Review would allow Town departments an opportunity for review and comment. Ms. Barrett expressed concern that this topic had been raised without initial discussion between ZBA members.
Ms. MacNab noted that a comprehensive permit applicant could bypass Administrative Site Plan Review by requesting a waiver, although it is under the ZBA’s discretion to grant a waiver. Mr. Bear noted that State statute allows only one review under comprehensive permits. Mr. Wadsworth commented that commercial projects are now becoming part of 40B projects. However, he noted that the time frame for comprehensive permits could provide a constraint on Site Plan Review.
Ms. Stickney noted that comprehensive permits stand alone because they fall under a separate statute from other applications. The Planning Board is charged to review projects under Chapters 40A and 41, and Chapter 40B projects fall under a different Board with distinctive jurisdiction. The Planning Board holds a Development Review Team meeting for every comprehensive permit, which allows for review and comment from all Town departments. In addition, department heads are available as a Town Hall resource to the Zoning Board.
Special Permit Applications for Piers and Administrative Site Plan Review: Mr. Murphy suggested that Planning Board should be able to review piers under Administrative Site Plan Review because ZBL Section 615 does not preclude it. Planning Board members questioned if it would be outside of their jurisdiction to do so and more Conservation’s role.
Creation of Subdivisions through Comprehensive Permits: Ms. MacNab noted that Town Counsel has made it clear that subdivisions can only be created through the Planning Board and not through the comprehensive permit process. Contrary to this, the Duxbury Farms 40B permit allowed for fee simple lots to be created. She made clear that in future cases the Planning Board would expect that the applicant in a similar situation would be directed by the ZBA to file with the Planning Board for subdivision approval in conjunction with the comprehensive permit.
Consulting Engineer RFP: Ms. Stickney advised ZBA members that two years ago the Planning Department put through an RFP/RFQ for consulting engineers through the 30B process, advertising in the Central Register and local newspaper. Through the process the Planning Board selected five consulting firms to use for various projects. The contracts will be valid until January 2009, and then the process will begin again. According to Town Counsel, each Board has to do a separate RFP/RFQ because of statutory jurisdiction. However, the process could run concurrently for both Boards. Mr. Murphy questioned if both Boards could sit on joint interviews and then each Board could select reviewing engineers that best fit their needs. Mr. Maher asked if the five firms were selected for unique expertise, and Ms. Stickney replied that
they were all general consulting firms rather than specialists. Ms. MacNab noted that the RFP process gave the Planning Board a pool of consultants to draw from. Mr. Maher agreed that it would be useful for the ZBA to have a pool of reviewing engineers.
Ms. Barrett asked the average amount spent on engineering review under the Administrative Site Plan Review process. Ms. MacNab noted that engineers charge an hourly rate and travel and other expenses are negotiated through the contract. Ms. Barrett warned that certain statutes apply for projects with over $25,000 in engineering fees. Ms. MacNab noted that a project of that scope may be an exception, and for most applications the Planning Board has a general pool of reviewing engineers to draw from. Mr. Wadsworth noted that the process helps to standardize billing practices.
Mr. Murphy asked if the ZBA would be able to issue its own RFP. Ms. Stickney recommended that the ZBA consult with Town Counsel due to the ZBA’s unique needs for their particular projects. Ms. Barrett asked how the scope of engineering review is managed by the Planning Board. Ms. Stickney noted that a generic scope is provided in the contract, and the Planning Board may refine that scope further for each project. Mr. Halligan noted that the Planning Board requires detailed reports with each invoice to substantiate charges. This provides a good system of checks and balances. Staff acts as a gatekeeper, communicating with the engineer and applicant. Ms. MacNab invited the ZBA members to let the Planning Board know if they wish to be included in the upcoming RFP process.
Administrative Site Plan Review/Special Permit Process: Ms. Stickney noted that applicants need clarification on whether to file through the ZBA or Planning Board first when both applications are required. She stated that she and Mr. Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services, generally advise applicants to file with the ZBA first for use, and then file with the Planning Board for Administrative Site Plan Review. Current bylaws leave it up to the applicant, and Mr. Murphy agreed that should remain the case. Mr. Maher recommended that it is a good idea to develop a “punch list” of steps with accompanying fees in order to provide transparency to the process. Ms. Stickney recommended that the ZBA consider pursuing increasing their staff beyond an administrative assistant to help guide applicants through
the process.
Zoning Board Consideration of Planning Board Special Permit Recommendations: Mr. Wadsworth requested that the ZBA respond within their decision to explain why the ZBA agrees or disagrees with Planning Board recommendations.
The Zoning Board then departed the meeting.
OPEN FORUM
Local Housing Partnership (LHP): Mr. Wadsworth informed the Board that the LHP does not intend to submit a warrant article this year to revise the Accessory Apartment Zoning Bylaw, although they may do so next year. Some members of the LHP believe that the bylaw should be relaxed to better serve the needs of residents. Ms. Stickney noted that the LHP has not reached consensus on their position. Ms. MacNab recommended that the LHP should focus on affordable housing rather than diverse housing.
Ms. Stickney informed the Board that the LHP may have up to three Community Preservation Act funding requests for this year: housing recycling program, plans and construction specifications for the Camp Wing property purchased at Town Meeting 2008, and purchase of a deed restricted home currently on the market.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM. The next meeting of the Planning Board will take place on Monday, October 20, 2008 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
