Approved 10/06/08
Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 08/11/08
The Planning Board met in Duxbury Town Offices, Mural Room, lower level on Monday, August 11, 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; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant
Ms. MacNab called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Economic Advisory Committee: Mr. Bear reported that Ms. Elizabeth Sullivan of the Board of Selectmen advised him just prior to tonight’s meeting that the Board of Selectmen intends to re-activate the Economic Advisory Committee. Mr. Bear informed Ms. Sullivan that he intends to continue serving as Planning Board representative.
APPOINTMENT: ELIZABETH & MATTHEW RADZEVICH, 485 KEENE STREET
Ms. Radzevich was present for the discussion of a potential ANR for a non-conforming lot. Ms. Stickney explained that the Radzeviches would like to purchase more land in order to increase the size of their lot from its current .18 acres. Their current lot also does not meet the frontage requirement of 200 feet. Ms. Radzevich showed Board members the area of land which she would like to purchase from her neighbor, Mr. Forlizzi, of 723 Union Street.
Ms. MacNab noted that with an ANR a new non-conforming lot would be created; although the frontage and lot size would be improved, the lot would not meet current standards. Members agreed to review the ANR Handbook to decide if an increase in lot size that does not affect the frontage would be allowed under the ANR process. Ms. Radzevich agreed to continuing the discussion at the next Planning Board meeting.
ENDORSEMENT OF LAND COURT PLAN: 84 MARSHALL STREET / LOJKO
Ms. MacNab referenced a letter dated August 6, 2008 from the applicants’ representative, Seacoast Engineering, stating that Land Court would not accept the wording proposed at the Board’s meeting of July 28, 2008 that would allow the Board to endorse the ANR plan. Ms. Stickney added that Mr. Brogna of Seacoast Engineering advised her that the applicants would be filing an 81X plan through Land Court.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to accept the withdrawal of an ANR plan of land entitled, “Plan of Land, Lot 44, 84 Marshall Street, Duxbury, MA” dated 03/07/08, revised 06/25/08, prepared by Millbrook Survey, stamped and signed by Thomas J. Sullivan (PLS) – 1 sheet.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
AS-BUILT APPROVAL: 11 WASHINGTON STREET / TRIEBEL
Board members reviewed As-Built plans submitted by Crowell Engineering, and Ms. Stickney confirmed that the handicapped parking space had been painted as depicted on the plans.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve As-Built site plan entitled, “As-Built Site Plan, 11 Washington Street, Duxbury, MA Prepared for Oliver & Jennifer Triebel, 715 Tremont Street, Duxbury, MA,” dated 08/08/08, stamped and signed by Robert W. Crowell, RPE – one sheet.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Board members signed two copies of As-Built plans. Ms. Stickney noted that the applicant also has requested release of escrow funds since the project is complete.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to release all escrow funds for consulting engineer fees for 11 Washington Street / Triebel, at the applicants’ request.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ZBA REFERRAL: SR PERIWINKLE REALTY CORP., 433 & 441 WASHINGTON STREET
The applicant, Mr. J.R. Kent, was present for the discussion of a proposed modification of a special permit issued in 2005 for Bayside Marine on the waterfront. The Board had reviewed the application at its July 28, 2008 meeting and requested to see documents referenced within the application. Board members reviewed the requested correspondence, including a letter dated June 18, 2008 from Ms. Elizabeth Lewis, former Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) member, objecting to the obstruction of views and vistas against the conditions of the original special permit. This letter had prompted the applicant to request a modification of his special permit to remove the views and vista condition.
Ms. MacNab noted that in her letter Ms. Lewis objected to activities at Bayside that obstructed a 60-foot wide “view corridor” between May 1 and October 30 as conditioned in the special permit. Mr. Kent noted that a boat rack that currently obstructs the view had been there before and after the special permit was granted. He recalled agreeing not to obstruct the view between the new boat racks within the chain link fence, not including the existing boat racks. Since he needed a clear area in order to move boats, he agreed to the condition. He also noted that the original special permit process had been drawn out and he was anxious to close it out to avoid additional costs that were mounting due to the delay in getting the project underway. He stated that he should be able to utilize his property as he wishes.
Mr. Wadsworth asked if Mr. Kent would consider removing the boats between the dates specified, and Mr. Kent responded that he is requesting to remove the condition because he needs that land to perform work operations. Ms. MacNab recalled discussions with the applicant regarding preservation of views and vistas during the Administrative Site Plan Review process in 2004, noting that the final decision was with the ZBA. She and Mr. Wadsworth expressed their preference to preserve views and vistas where possible.
Ms. Stickney noted that photographs submitted with the special permit modification show that the boat rack pre-existed the original special permit. Mr. Bear recalled that during Administrative Site Plan Review, the Conservation Commission advised the Board not to make any changes within the 100 foot buffer zone. He noted that the Bayside Marine business provides access to the bay for recreational enjoyment. He added that neither the ZBA nor the Planning Board restricted views and vistas for an adjacent property, Duxbury Bay Maritime School.
MOTION: Mr. Bear made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second for discussion, to defer judgment to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a special permit modification request for Periwinkle Realty Corp., 433 & 441 Washington Street, recommending that the ZBA look upon the modification favorably.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Wadsworth and Ms. MacNab stated that they would not be in favor of this motion. Ms. Ladd-Fiorini stated that she supported Mr. Bear’s motion, noting that although she supports views and vistas where possible, the view had been obstructed already before the special permit was granted, and the property has a better appearance now than before the special permit. She also stated that she wants to support long-term businesses in the Town.
VOTE: The motion failed, 2-3, with Mr. Bear and Ms. Ladd-Fiorini voting in the affirmative, and Ms. MacNab, Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Halligan voting against.
Mr. Halligan stated that although he leans toward Mr. Bear’s proposed motion, he believes that the main issue might be a disagreement in interpretation of the language in the special permit condition.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Bear provided a second, to defer judgment to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a special permit modification request for Periwinkle Realty Corp., 433 & 441 Washington Street.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ZBA REFERRAL: 174 & 178 MARSHALL STREET / ULICH & PLANK
Board members reviewed this special permit application for a shared pier between two properties. Ms. MacNab asked where the nearest pier was located. Mr. Halligan noted that the Conservation Commission had signed off on the project, so it must have met standards such as location relative to other piers or the channel. Mr. Wadsworth quoted the plans as stating “no pier within 200 feet.”
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to defer judgment to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a special permit for a shared pier at 174 & 178 Marshall Street.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
WORK SESSION
Proposed Amendment to Zoning Bylaws Regarding Parking: Mr. Bear reported that the working group is focusing on defining businesses uses. He stated that this can be a challenge because of varying types of businesses, such as a sit-down restaurant compared to a drive-through. Ms. Stickney stated that the group has developed a use table. Mr. Bear noted that within the Neighborhood Business District zone, applicants need to consider their intended use of the building to allow for adequate parking. In the case of a “professional” building, the property owner does not always know which type of business will succeed. The goal is to ensure adequate parking for a full range of uses. Ms. Stickney reported that the group intends to complete its review by the end of September, and then invite local business owners
to review the proposed revisions, possibly including the Economic Advisory Committee if they are activated.
Proposed Amendment to Zoning Bylaws Regarding Coverage: Ms. Ladd-Fiorini reported that the working group is reviewing definitions, parking size, building size, frontage, buffers and green pavement. Ms. Stickney reported that the group is moving away from the concept of building coverage versus lot coverage and is considering building size versus open space. Mr. Bear described this “open into the sky” approach, that everything that cannot reach the sky going upward from the ground should be considered coverage.
Proposed Revisions to Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Comprehensive Permit Rules: Ms. MacNab informed the Board that a public hearing scheduled for August 14, 2008 regarding the revised rules has been cancelled because the revisions had already been voted in and adopted by the ZBA.
Ms. MacNab noted that a letter had been submitted by the Local Housing Partnership (LHP) to the ZBA objecting to Comprehensive Permit rules that they believe are in conflict with State statutes. Ms. Stickney stated that she agrees with the LHP’s point of view, and also agrees with the LHP that the proposed rules appear to preclude smaller projects.
Ms. MacNab noted that the LHP’s letter demonstrates that they are on the opposite spectrum from the Planning Board regarding comprehensive permits, which she feels are punitive and regressive. She noted that the ZBA has the final authority on any 40B project, large or small, to waive any requirement. She stated that she supports regulations the ZBA can administer to help protect the Town.
Ms. MacNab stated that the Planning Board advocates achieving affordable housing through existing housing stock and alternative methods other than 40B. Ms. Stickney suggested that the Board may want to meet with the LHP to discuss alternative vehicles for increased density. She advised the Board that developers have told her that developing housing through Residential Cluster zoning is not economically worthwhile.
Ms. MacNab stated that many developers are using the 40B process to circumvent local regulations, which is detrimental to communities. Mr. Halligan agreed that while 40B projects make sense in more urban communities like Lowell, they do not make sense for suburban communities such as the Town of Duxbury. Mr. Wadsworth stated that although the LHP has done a commendable job of putting together alternatives to comprehensive permits, it is important for them to understand the damage that large 40B projects have done to communities.
Mr. Bear suggested that the Board communicate to the LHP that it is not the mission of the Planning Board to be a proponent of 40B housing in the Town of Duxbury, although it may be a legitimate tool for higher density communities. He suggested Planned Developments as an alternative to the 40B approach. Ms. Stickney noted that PD zoning of tracts of land is required for that type of project.
Ms. Stickney stated that the LHP’s approach is that the 40B option will go away once the ten percent affordable housing threshold is met. Ms. MacNab disagreed with this line of thinking, stating that developers can still apply for 40B projects even once the threshold has been met. Mr. Halligan observed that the Town of Duxbury may not be able to meet even a five percent threshold.
Ms. Stickney urged the Board to communicate their thoughts to the LHP. She asked if the Board prefers to utilize the 81R approach to housing for a project such as the Camp Wing property that was approved by Annual Town Meeting 2008. Ms. MacNab stated that 81R would be a much more palatable approach. She stated that the position of the Planning Board is that they are opposed to 40B developments. Mr. Halligan added that 40B projects are taxing to Town services such as water, sewer and school systems. Mr. Wadsworth, who serves as Board representative to the LHP, suggested that Ms. MacNab draft a memo to the LHP regarding the Planning Board’s position.
OTHER BUSINESS
Proposed Island Creek Expansion Ms. Stickney reported that Mr. Andre Martecchini has requested to meet with the Board at their August 25, 2008 meeting regarding potential rezoning of the property. She will confirm whether Mr. Martecchini, who serves on the Board of Selectmen, is requesting to meet under official capacity or as a citizen.
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve payment of the following Amory Engineers invoices dated 08/04/08:
§ Invoice #12301A in the amount of $32.50 for services related to 454 Franklin Street
§ Invoice #12301B in the amount of $260.00 for services related to Dingley Dell.
VOTE: The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Mainstream Engineering Invoices: Ms. Stickney noted that, at the Board’s direction, Berrybrook invoices dated May 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008 had been returned to Mainstream Engineering to correct construction observer’s fees. Revised invoices have not been received to date.
Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Ladd-Fiorini provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of July 14, 2008 as amended.
VOTE: The motion carried 4-0-1, with Mr. Halligan abstaining.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to approve meeting minutes of July 28, 2008 as amended.
VOTE: The motion carried, 4-0-1, with Mr. Bear abstaining.
Bay Farm Montessori Academy: Mr. Wadsworth asked Ms. Stickney the result of her inquiry to Mr. Scott Lambiase, Director of Inspectional Services, regarding recent curb cuts and driveway installation at this property which is currently in litigation. Ms. Stickney reported that Mr. Lambiase confirmed that the clearing was for a driveway for employee parking during permitted reconstruction of a building that is being renovated due to a fire.
GATRA: Ms. Stickney informed the Board that the Towns of Duxbury and Marshfield have received a federal suburban mobility grant as co-applicants to implement the GATRA local bus system.
Gurnet Road ANR: Ms. Stickney reported that Mr. Daniel Orwig of Hummock LLC has requested an appointment with the Board to discuss a potential ANR on Gurnet Road. Mr. Halligan noted that the applicant has come before the Board several times with plans that have not met ANR guidelines and have received guidance from the Board on how to proceed. He suggested that the applicant file an ANR plan utilizing the Board’s previous guidance.
Comprehensive Plan: Ms. Stickney noted that discussion regarding potential updating of the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for the next Board meeting, August 25, 2008, when the entire Board is expected to be in attendance.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting adjourned at 9:40PM. The next meeting of the Planning Board will take place on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
