Planning Board Minutes, 1991-05-29

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES OF MAY 29, 1991 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 04 p m. by the Chairman, Mrs Wood, with members, Davison, Domnitz, Grant, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Marino and Secretary Peters present ***************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************ SUBDIVISION OF LAND 121. PUBLIC HEARING, Lot 16 Orchard Crossing Mrs. Wood opened the hearing by describing the Board's procedure for conducting its hearings. She intro- duced Attorney John Farrington, who represented the applicant, Sterling Bank, and who presented the plans. Mr. Farrington introduced Architect Mark Margulies, of Margulies and Associates, who assisted in the presentation Mr. Farrington noted that Sterling Bank obtained ownership through foreclosure of one of the previous developers of Lot 16 who was unable to finance and develop a condominium development in the changed real estate market. Under the cluster provisions of the Zoning By-Law, Lot 16 was originally granted a special permit for four semi-attached dwellings (two dwelling units, side by side, separated by a party wall) , to be owned by a condominium association made up of the owners of the dwellings. Sterling Bank proposes to remove the condominium restrictions contained in the previously approved plan. Mr Farrington noted that the Bank will address what it perceives as the legitimate concerns of the rest of the Orchard Crossing neighborhood -- that the completion of Lot 16 blend with what has already been built. Removal of the condominium restrictions will allow the developer to subdivide Lot 16 into four lots, each containing a building with a principal dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit. The exterior appearance of each building will be that of a single family home Documents, requiring the maintenance of the footpath easement and the center island of the cul-de-sac by the individual owners of the lots, and to ensure that the design of the dwellings and the landscaping will be compatible with other dwellings in the development, are proposed to be inserted into the deeds of each lot Mr Margulies and Mr. Farrington reviewed the site plan They noted that the footpath easement has been relocated to provide a more direct access to the conservation land at the rear of the property. Waivers are requested to provide for better siting of the buildings on the lots, respecting the existing topography and existing road. Mrs. Wood asked and was told that the lots would be sold with design restric- tions within the envelopes shown on the plan. Mrs Davison expressed concerns that all of the buildings would look the same, and asked that the amount of pavement be as little as possible. Mr. Williams asked that one of the garage spaces be designated for use by the accessory unit occupant He also asked that the footpath be described as a 10 foot wide easement, covered with crushed stone, with a post and rail fence on one side Mr Grant noted that