1984-03-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 19, 1984 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. PLANS NOT REQUIRING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 58. 124-128 Spring Street, Beal Company: Form A-84/5: The Board reviewed a plan dated March 13, 1984 of the Ledgemont property at 124-128 Spring Street which showed a Parcel A with 10.023 acres and a Parcel B with 26.208 acres. Land Surveyor Donald Forand explained that the plan had been revised from that approved by the Board on March 5 so that the parcel boundaries would be the same as those Shown on the site plan approved by the Board of Appeals in June, 1983. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously: The plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.," dated March 13, 1984, by Miller & Nylander Company, certified by Donald J. Forand, Reg- istered Land Surveyor, with application Form A-84/5, by Irwin Barkan for Beal and Company Inc., does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law; and That a letter be sent to the applicant notifying him that this plan may poten- tially be in conflict with the floor area limitation included in Article 18 of the 1984 Town Meeting, if adopted. ARTICLES FOR 1984 TOWN MEETING 59. Article 18, CR District, Floor Area Ratio: By a poll of the Board, it was voted unanimously to delete the provision excluding steep slopes from the land that may be used in calculating developable site area. A delegation of representatives of three large properties in the South Lexington CR districts were present to discuss this article. Chairman Smith commented that their presence was outside of the Board's normal process in which arguments pro and con on a zoning amendment are presented at a public hearing. The Board usually does not provide for additional argumentation in its meetings after the public hearing but an exception would be made in this case. Lee Mapletoft and Mario Favarito, counsel for W. R. Grace, said that the adoption of the 0.25 floor area ratio would be a substantial taking of their property. They appealed to the Board's fundamental fairness because under the proposed regulation, W. R. Grace would be able to build less than 50% of what would have been permitted under a master plan approved by the Board of Appeals in 1974. Robert Baker of Ginn and Company said that his company would not be able to expand as originally planned when it bought the property. They have plans for an addi- tional 300,000 square feet of floor area. Irwin Barkan and Michael Manzo of Beal and Company said the exclusion of the steep slopes from the calculation of developable site area was a step in the right direc- tion but the proposal was still unfair to particular owners. Mr. Manzo commented that including residentially zoned land was singularly unfair to Beal and Company. They claimed that the information used by the Planning Board was not substantiated.