Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br />MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 2004 <br />A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Room G -15, Town Office Building, was <br />called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Kastorf with members Davies, Galaitsis, Harden, Manz and <br />planning staff McCall - Taylor, and Tap present. <br />****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** <br />Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meetings of September 21 and <br />October 6, 2004. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. <br />* * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** <br />SUBDIVISION OF LAND <br />PUBLIC HEARING: Grant Street at Glen Road South, Definitive Cluster Subdivision Plan, <br />Oberteuffer /Mockett: At 8:00 p.m., Mr. Kastorf opened the public hearing on the Grant Street at GIen <br />Road South definitive cluster subdivision plan dated May 26, 2004 and revised on September 9, 2004. <br />Present were Mr. John Oberteuffer, the applicant, Mr. Richard Waitt of Meridian Engineering and Mr. <br />Robert Phelan, consulting contractor. <br />Mr. Waitt presented a plan showing three dwellings, two proposed and one existing, on the 2.4 -acre site. <br />The new dwellings would face Grant Street. One driveway would enter onto Grant Street and the other <br />onto Glen Road South. No new roadway construction is proposed, especially as the Town very recently <br />paved about 100 feet of Glen Road South from Grant Street. Mr. Waitt described how the current plan <br />responds to the six conditions the Board listed in its approval of the preliminary plan. <br />I. Minimize the extent of pavement. The plans show paving a small portion of Glen Road South but <br />this has been preempted by the paving done by the Town this week. <br />2. Explore the option of having the garage for lot three face Glen Road South, rather than Grant <br />Street. The garage doors face Grant Street while the driveway leads from the garage to Glen Road <br />South. Mr. Waitt said the placement maintains the screening and minimizes the paving of Glen <br />Road South. <br />3. Relate the new houses to the predominant scale of those in the neighborhood on Grant Street. <br />Mr. Waitt had provided the Board with elevation drawings of the proposed homes and said that <br />the accompanying chart provided the correct measurements. He indicated that their floor area <br />ratio is less than that of many surrounding houses and that many large additions to existing <br />houses and large replacement houses are changing the neighborhood scale. <br />4. Include the footprints of the houses on the other side of Grant Street on the plans. This was done. <br />5. Include a breakdown of living area for the new houses. Due to the engineer's misunderstanding of <br />figures provided by the architect, it might appear when looking at the square footage figures that <br />the house sizes have increased, but the only change between the preliminary and definitive plans <br />is a reduction of 250 square feet in the footprint of Lot 2. In the preliminary submission the <br />living area had been mistakenly identified as the gross floor area. <br />6. Provide documents that show the open space will be accessible to and controlled by all three lots <br />Mr. Waitt said that the open space will be part of the owners' lots but a restrictive covenant would <br />ensure its use only as common open space available to all owners in the cluster subdivision. <br />Board Questions and Comments: A majority of the Board strongly questioned the decision to keep the <br />open space in individual ownership, even with a restrictive covenant. Mr. Oberteuffer indicated that he <br />prefers the house lots to be larger for marketing purposes. Ms. McCall - Taylor noted that the definition of <br />common open space in the Zoning Bylaw includes the wording "not in individual ownership ". A variance <br />from that provision would likely be needed. <br />