Planning Board minutes 02-27-1995

Browse Search

1- PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 1995 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall was called to order at 7.40 p.m. by Chairman Davison, with members Canale, Domnitz, Grant, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Marino and Secretary Tap present. Mr. Merrill arrived at 7 46. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 1995 TOWN MEETING ************************ 38. Article 25 (A). Frontage Reduction. PUBLIC HEARING: Mrs. Davison opened the hearing at 7.47 p.m. There were 25 people in the audience. Mr. Merrill explained that the Planning Board is seeking authority to reduce the required frontage on a street for some small subdivisions. It is initiating this change to the Zoning By-Law because: 1) it will decrease the amount of open land that has to be paved, and 2) the construction of small stub streets for one or two lot subdivisions creates problems for the Department of Public Works which has to maintain the streets. If a property owner can first demonstrate he/she meets the requirements for a conventional subdivision, the Planning Board can grant a special permit to reduce the "frontage" requirement, permit a house to be constructed on a separate lot serviced by a driveway off an existing public street, and waive the requirements to construct a new dead end street. Debra Cary, 110 Grove Street, who owns land that would be affected by this amendment, showed how the proposed amendment would affect the use of her land. Marianne Lazarus, 22 Woodland Road, observed that the amendment allows Mrs. Cary to spend much less money to develop her land than if she had to build a street. She worried that this would enable more people to subdivide and build on land that would otherwise be too expensive to develop. Several other people expressed similar concern. Mr. Canale commented that while this may be true for some properties, the waiver to reduce the frontage is entirely discretionary and would not be granted in every case by the Planning Board. Mr. Merrill added that the proposed amendment would improve development that is happening anyway Mr. Bowyer estimated that 50 to 70 lots in town would be affected by the amendment. Edith Sandy, 353 North Emerson Road, suggested that the wording of the amendment be tightened with reference to house demolitions in case a complying plan is submitted that presupposes the demolition of an existing house. Others attending the public hearing expressed a concern that land that theoretically might be developed, i.e. meets the test of a fully complying preliminary site development plan, would now be developed because it would be less expensive to do so. Several attending the public hearing questioned whether an applicant could submit a theoretical preliminary site development plan, showing a subdivision that could not be approved in reality For instance, the preliminary plan might show a proposed roadway where an existing house is located, or so close to an existing house that normal yard setback requirements would be violated. Residents expressed appreciation to the Planning Board for taking the initiative on this issue. They believe the land saved from paving should be donated to the Town for open space so that residents would derive the use of it. Developers in attendance testified from experience that the Planning Board would extract public benefit from them in the negotiating process. One suggested that the land in the right of way be used as conservation land. 1 David Williams, one of the Trustees of Public Trusts and a former Chairman of the Planning Board, suggested that developers be given the option of donating money to one of the Town's trust funds. There