1985-02-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Planning Board Minutes: February 11, 1985 2 Mrs. Nichols suggested that language be inserted in the objectives section about preserving brooks in their natural location and form. Peter Kelley questioned the proposed density of about 5.3 dwelling units per acre in the proposed amendment. His proposed development has about 7 d.u.'s/acre. He asked whether the existing density of 9 d.u.'s/acre would apply, why the density was reduced and whether any density standard should be stated. Mr. Bowyer re- sponded that there were two problems: 1) All petitioners for residential zoning amendments were required to file a petition in December and furnish plans to the Planning Board by the second Monday in January before the planned residential development provisions were released to the public (February 4, 1985). The pro- posed amendments are still being revised and may be even on the floor of the Town Meeting. It is unreasonable to ask developers to continually adjust plans to conform to a "moving target" and there ought to be a mechanism whereby they can be measured against what was known to them at the time they submitted their plans. 2) the reduction of the density to about 5.3 d.u.'s/acre was part of a package in which a density bonus, for affordable housing, would have resulted in a density back at the 9 d.u.'s/acre now permitted in the RD district. Since the Board has decided to defer presenting the affordable housing density bonus until another year, the reduction to 5.3 is difficult to explain. A poll was taken of the Board as to what density should be allowed in the RD district. Mr. Sorensen said it was not necessary to show any density standard since all RD proposals required a two-thirds vote of the Town Meeting. He was ' content with relying on the Town Meeting vote. He pointed out the CD district does not have any density standard or any other dimensional standards. Mr. Cripps agreed with Mr. Sorensen's position. Mrs. Flemings thought the RD dis- trict should have a density standard but wanted to think further on what number should be presented this year. Mrs. Uhrig questioned what the effect of adopting either the 5 d.u.'s/acre or 9 d.u.'s/acre standard this year would be on the inclusionary housing policy or affordable housing. It was agreed to discuss this question further but to leave the proposal at 5 d.u.'s/acre until the time of the public hearing. PLANS NOT REQUIRING SUBDIVISION 39. 917 Massachusetts Avenue, June Augusta, Form A-85/2: The Board reviewed a plan of land located between Massachusetts Avenue and the B&M Railroad right-of- way. The plan showed the division into two lots, one of which, lot Y. did not have sufficient frontage. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously: To disapprove the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.," dated November 16, 1983, by Everett M. Brooks Company, Newtonville, certified by Charles D. Thompson, Registered Land Surveyor, with application Form A-85/2 by June Augusta because it is a subdivision within the meaning of the Subdi- vision Control Law and requires approval because proposed Lot Y does not have sufficient frontage on a street. 40. 148 Wood Street, Augustus Schumacher, Form A-85/3: The Board reviewed a plan of the Schumacher land on Wood Street containing 105,784 square feet. The plan shows land being divided into three lots, each with 150 feet of frontage, each with at least 30,000 square feet of lot area, and each complying with the