2005-04-27-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2005 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Guard Room at the Lexington Police Station was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chairman Harden with members Manz, Galaitsis, Hornig, Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Tapper and Tap present. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2006 TOWN MEETING ************************ Possible Reconsideration of Articles: The Board discussed its position on potential motions to reconsider Article 7, Community Preservation Act (CPA) and Article 10, Accessory Apartments, articles already passed by the 2005 Town Meeting. After some discussion of the possible arguments that might be made against the CPA, the Board, on a motion duly made and seconded, voted to oppose reconsideration of Article 7. Mr. Hornig said that the arguments for reconsideration of Article 10 were both procedural and substantive. Since no amendment had yet been put forward the members decided to wait to respond to a specific proposal if needed. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND Public Hearing: 31, 33, 35 Cary Avenue Definitive Cluster Subdivision Plan, Sheldon Corporation: The public hearing was opened at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Dryden, engineer for the project, had just arrived after being caught in bad traffic. Mr. Todd Cataldo, the applicant, was also present. There were thirty people in the audience. Mr. Dryden presented the definitive plan for a cluster subdivision on land at 31, 33 and 35 Cary Avenue. He said that the process had begun a year ago and that there had been four sketch plans reflecting many changes. The definitive plan however is very similar to the approved preliminary plan. The plan shows four single-family dwellings, one with an accessory apartment, arranged in a cluster served by two driveways. Mr. Dryden had submitted to planning staff a proof plan showing four dwellings were possible using a conventional subdivision. A large specimen tree would be protected during construction and remain as a focal point of the development. Common open space was shown at the rear of the property, adjacent to the wetlands area, the boundary of which had been approved by the Conservation Commission. The plan showed an easement for access to the common open space. As many large trees as possible would be protected during construction. Six test pits had been dug to determine the seasonal high ground water level. Three dwellings would share a drive 18-feet wide, though the Conservation Commission the night before requested that it be 16 feet wide. Mr. Dryden said that the sight distances in both directions when entering Cary Avenue from the proposed driveways are sufficient. Regarding the storm water management plan, Mr. Dryden said that the plan fully mitigates runoff, and exceeds standards for infiltration, retention and TSS removal. He had communicated with Mr. Laurence Hayes, independent reviewing engineer, and addressed Mr. Hayes’s issues. A comprehensive operations and maintenance plan for the drainage facilities has been submitted. Mr. Cataldo commented that he has worked with Mr. Zitkovsky, an abutter, on ground water issues in the area. Mr. Dryden said the following changes would be made on the plans based on the meeting with the Conservation Commission: the wetlands boundaries; the shape of the detention basin, which has been changed to pull it back from the rear property line; and a swale to capture groundwater flows toward the northeast. He said he would submit a full package with the changes to the Planning Board and the Conservations Commission. Board Questions and Comments : Mr. Hornig asked that measurements be taken in the field, to assure that the limit of work line is outside the drip edge of the specimen tree. He also requested that the access easement be delineated such that it is not on the driveway. In response to his question about underground utilities, Mr. Dryden responded that all are underground except for a pump in Unit 4. Mr. Hornig questioned the 13-foot side yard on Unit 2.