2004-02-04-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes for the Meeting of February 4, 2004 the original owner. He said the clause was meant to only limit who is required to fulfill the obligations, not what is limited. Mr. Galaitsis said he wanted bullet -proof language so there would no be any confusion in the future. Mr. Kenny said he would work to clarify the language, not the concept. Mr. Garber said legal counsel had felt that the second phase was unnecessary and confusing. The Town needs standing to enforce the covenant with language such as "Town of Lexington has the right to enforce ". Mr. Kenny said that was not a problem. Mr. Galaitsis wanted to set the maximum square footage allowed and for there be no provision to exceed it without coming back to the Planning Board. Audience Questions and Comments: The neighbors were concerned about the effects of this development on the heavily traveled Pleasant Street. They argued that any decision made here would be a precedent that could change the entire community. They urged the Board to use the ASHTO standards and require longer sight distances than the current Town regulations. They also wanted the Board to turn down the proposal as they felt the development would change their neighborhood and put too much traffic on Pleasant Street. One neighbor requested that the construction site be surrounded by an 8' high fence. The Board expressed their desire to see a cluster on this site but recognized the right of the developer to do it as a conventional subdivision. They said that they were forced to work with what had been proposed and felt that they had negotiated a number of mitigations. They reminded those in the audience that they were working within the bylaws that had been adopted by the community, and if the residents were unhappy with these regulations they should work to have them changed, however, in the meantime those were the regulations in effect. On the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Mr. Davies, the Board voted 5 to 0 to approve the subdivision. On the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted to continue the hearing on the special permit to a date certain, that date being February 26 at 6:30 p.m. Hazel Road Special Residential Development, Preliminary Plan Public Information Session -- Planning Board member Karl Kastorf recused himself due to his standing as an abutter and left the room when this item came up. Ron Lopez, Dan Harrington, Dylan James and Michael Dryden were present as the development team Area residents, who had been informally notified of the agenda item by mail, were in attendance. Concerns were expressed about blasting, storm water runoff and traffic. The Planning Board members raised questions about the size and location of the dwellings on a topographically challenging site. There was considerable discussion about the provision of affordable housing. • On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to disapprove the preliminary plan due to the following issues: • The right of the applicant to incorporate the right of way of a portion of the unaccepted street into development tract needs to be established. • There are too many units for a difficult site. (The proof plan shows four units.) • Location of dwelling units and storm water infiltration units to the southwest of the interior drive on a steep area of the site requires excessive grading and fill. • Dwellings are too massive, and loom over downhill houses. The prominently peaked roof design exacerbates the problem. • Retaining walls located too close to existing trees will compromise the trees' chances for survival. • The steep grade on existing Hazel as it ascends from Winter Street could increase risk with more units added to the way. The Planning Board suggested that the development plans be modified to reduce the scale of the project in both the number and size of units, and that the applicant continue to explore whether one or more affordable housing units can be incorporated, the mode and details of which shall be determined in