Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
November 8,2021 Special Town Meeting#1(2021-1),cont. <br /> 8:44 p.m. The Moderator called debate and questions opened on the Main Motion of Article 12. <br /> 8:46 p.m. A statement was read by Public Information Officer,Sean Duggan. <br /> Joseph Barr,9 Reeves Road,Bedford,stated that he was a local builder,building in <br /> Lexington for 30 years,and he opposed limiting the height of retaining walls near side <br /> and rear lot boundaries,mainly as each lot is shaped and graded differently and did not <br /> feel that one rule could apply to all lots and circumstances. He further noted that in <br /> prior cases,the Building Department would allow encourage walls on lot lines to fix <br /> grading and address runoff. He stated that decisions regarding retaining wall design <br /> should be made on a case by case and not subject to one blanket rule. <br /> 8:47 p.m. Mark Sandeen, Select Board Member,questioned how the safe stopping requirements <br /> were calculated and what expertise is needed to determine them. <br /> James Mallory,Town Manager,stated that while there wasn't an exact standard,it had <br /> been discussed that the AASHTO standard would be utilized,and factors in <br /> consideration would include speed limits,traffic control devices,whether there was <br /> one-way,two-way,or four way stop signs,hills and grades. Triangulation would be <br /> performed to dictate how far back from the street corners it needs to be to allow <br /> adequate sightlines. This would most likely require a person from Engineering to <br /> complete. <br /> 8:48 p.m. Mr. Sandeen asked whether Town Counsel could weigh in on who would be <br /> responsible for safe stopping distances. <br /> Mina Makarious,Town Counsel,stated that it would be the Building Inspector, <br /> although when matters came up requiring other staff,it had been the practice to <br /> consult with other Departments. <br /> Mr. Sandeen asked if the situation were"by right"how the process would occur. <br /> Counsel Makarious stated that it would depend on the type of project. Some matters <br /> arose with tear downs and rebuilds,so it would often happen during the building <br /> permit review phase. He further noted that it was his understanding that for an already <br /> existing structure with a fence,a building permit was not always needed so it would <br /> become a matter for enforcement. <br /> Mr.Kelly asked Mr. Sandeen to clarify the term"by right". <br /> Mr. Sandeen questioned whether a resident could build a fence over a retaining wall <br /> and then be required by the Town to remove it. <br /> Town Counsel and Mr.Kelly stated that if it was new construction,yes,it could be <br /> removed,that would be appropriate enforcement,but not if it predates first notice of <br /> this bylaw,it would have pre-existing nonconforming protection. <br /> 8:51 p.m. David Kanter,Pct. 7,asked whether the language was referring to a sightline. <br /> 8:53 p.m. Mr.Hornig stated that the language in the bylaw referred to"safe stopping sight <br /> distance on a street". He further stated that this meant that the obstruction does not <br /> make it unsafe for someone driving at the appropriate speed limit. <br /> 8:53 p.m. Mr.Hornig noted that this was summation and they were balancing with exceptions <br /> and setbacks handled by a Special Permit and hoped by the new,clearer language to <br /> avoid disputes in the future. <br /> 8:54 p.m. The Moderator opened the voting portal,explaining that a two-thirds vote would be <br /> needed for passage of the Motion. <br /> Following remote electronic vote tallying,the Moderator declared the: <br /> Motion to Approve Article 12 <br /> Adopted on a vote of: <br /> Yes No Abstain <br /> 155 24 4 <br /> MOTION CARRIES BY MORE THAN NECESSARY 2/3RDS <br />