Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-10-ZBA-min MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals — February 10, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Associate David G. Williams sitting in for John J. McWeeney and Associate Carolyn C. Wilson sitting for Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: 75 Concord Avenue The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions relative to the Petition. There were comments received from Conservation and the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Letters were received from the Communication Advisory Committee and the Lexington Design Advisory Committee. Adam F. Braillard, Esq., representing Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., presented the petition. Dave Ouelette, Communication Specialist for T- Mobile was also on hand to answer questions. The relief sought is for a special permit to install a wireless communications facility on an existing tower as well as place support equipment at the base of said existing tower. Such proposal is permitted per Article 15, Section 15.3.1, Section 15.3.3 and Section 15.6.5 of the Lexington Zoning By Laws. Questions from the Board: Carolyn Wilson: The period of time for the license under section 8 is 7 years and then an additional 5 years? Answer: 7 years is referring to the memo of lease of property. The section on fees and terms is listed in section 4.2 of master agreement. The primary term for license date is 5 years for 5 times. David Williams: When they talk about power density levels in section 2, what's that saying? Answer: Must be below FCC regulations. Power density must be put on application. This is well below the FCC regulations. David Williams: How can you tell if you are above. Answer: Simple calculations that they do tell them. David Williams: Who owns the property? Answer: American Tower owns the property and Belmont Country Club own the property to the North. Judy Uhrig: The CAC said that you could put 3 antennas on each tower; you have the potential to add 6 more? Answer: In referencing site schedule agreement with American Tower they could go to 9 but because of the radio frequency people's stand there will only be 3 antennas and if they were to add more they would need to come before BOA again. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor. No speakers in opposition. Hearing was closed at 8:02 pm. Decision on Special Permit: On a Motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Carolyn Wilson the board voted 5 -0 to grant the special permit with the condition that there would only be 3 panels installed for a period of 30 years. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals — February 10, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Associate David G. Williams sitting in for John J. McWeeney and Associate Carolyn C. Wilson sitting for Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: Grandview The Chairman continued the hearing at 7:54 PM by reading the new information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions relative to the Petition. Attending with David Burns were Doug Miller, Engineer, Gary Johanson, Architect and Kenneth Kimmell, Attorney. Atty. Kimmell addressed 11 questions proposed to them from the board during previous meeting. They would accept changing the proposal to 10 units if the board would approve. Gary Johanson, architect for the project showed the plans with the differences for the reduced plans. • Building A will be shortened by 21 feet to 84 feet long. • Building B will be shortened by 15 feet to 74 feet long with 5 units. • Building C will have no changes. • Building A driveway will be pulled away from property line. Children's play area next to driveway • Building B driveway will also be pulled away from line. • Both buildings A and B are within variance requirements. In addressing parking spaces they are proposing 18 spaces. Zoning requirements requires only 16 spaces; since they are meeting the off street parking in the driveways, they feel the concern for parking on Grandview Avenue has been eliminated. By making the buildings shorter they won't have the need to cut as many trees down. Gary Johanson also showed the elevation plans that follow the grade of the land. Questions from the Board: Judy Uhrig: Are sprinklers needed? Answer: Yes, they will be in full compliance of the building code. Nyles Barnert: Unit B has 5 units and 4 tandem garage spaces? Answer: Yes, tandem garage spaces are done all the time in condo complexes. David Williams: Has a concern with tandem parking. Carolyn Wilson: You have space for 2 handicapped parking and only 1 handicapped unit? Answer: That will be reviewed. David Williams: Will the homeowners association be responsible for the street. Answer: It would be the landlord's responsibility. Carolyn Wilson: Raising the low income rent qualifications from 50% to 80% will have an impact. Carolyn Wilson: Questioned what requirements were needed for handicapped unit. Answer: Not sure a handicapped unit is even needed because of the size of the development. Martha Wood: Would like to see plantings along the edge of buildings. Answer: We will have full detail design elements for landscape. Martha Wood: Where are the sidewalks? Answer: 5 feet on both sides of the street. Nyles Barnert: Shouldn't the street be wider? Couldn't you accomplish this by taking away one of the sidewalks? Answer: Yes. Arthur Smith: As he drives around Lexington he notices a lot of big houses that could house 2 or 3 families. Could you do a comparison of what a single family home on lot could be? Answer: We can go no lower than 10 units. As we went thru plans we lowered height of buildings to 30- 32 feet. Arthur Smith: These are all buildable lots? Yes, according to land court. Arthur Smith: Why redo street? Answer: It was part of the improvement plan the Planning Board had as conditions for the original sub division. David Williams: Not sure there is a need for 2 sidewalks. Carolyn Wilson: Concern with road only being 20 feet. Judy Uhrig: We need to know where subsidized units are. Lawyer answer: Not sure why you need to know that. It hasn't been determined as of yet where the 25% subsidized units will be. Judy Uhrig: Each unit has to carry it's own weight. Will check with law, she thinks each unit must have subsidized unit in each building. David Williams: The reason for the law is so that no unit is less desirable; we assume that would be your intensions. Answer: Absolutely, no way anyone would know, each unit would be the same on the outside. Mike Jacobs: No regulations other than that the subsidized units are evenly scattered within buildings. Arthur Smith: There is nothing in regulations that says single 40B development has to be on same lot? Answer: Mass Development felt they met the requirements. Arthur Smith: You've changed the income qualifications from mid ground 50% to 80 %? Answer: Not feasible to go any lower on income. Mike Jacobs: Will prepare financial analysis. Engineer, Douglas Miller: Made a presentation answering some of the concerns of the board from previous meetings. • Number of school children expected from the Development: 5 or 6 • Infiltration beds being to close to building: No they aren't to close. Basements will be waterproofed. Building code requires them to be damp proof. • Sprinklers: There is a pressure problem up the street. Analysis will have to be done to check within the houses to check pressure. If needed they will install a booster pump to increase pressure. This is a fairly standard practice. • Traffic for children on the street: They estimate 70 -100 vehicles per say. 10 -11 trips during peak time. • Hayes letter on drainage: Went thru very long process with engineering about 5 years ago for original development. They were dictated by engineering and town consultant as to the way the road and catch basins were to be constructed. No test pit has been done but they would do it if it were a condition. David Williams: What will the catch basin look like in 10 years? Answer: The filtration system is below ground; you won't see it. Questions /Comments from the audience: John Clough, 19 Grandview: Hope the board was aware that what was presented to us tonight was not on the plan. How did you come up with 10 -11 trips during peak hours? Answer: Estimate came from the National Traffic handbook for this size development. US studies different uses and put all the information together to come out with these estimates. This is nationally accepted information. Emily Sample, Attorney representing Neighborhood Association: Will the board be making a decision tonight? Looking at the time and the abutters has not had a chance to yet speak. Answer: (Judy Uhrig) The hope would be to have 1 more meeting and then to close hearing to start deliberations. John Clough: There are a lot of things that were asked for by the board that have not been presented by Mr. Burns as of yet. Such as: Building coverage, floor plans, landscape design with 10 unit plan and buffer information. Answer by Mike Jacobs: Schematic plans need to comply with what the board votes on. We have no information on square footage for units. Atty. Sample: • Unclear on plans for development. Some plans from the 2000 and some for 2004. Plans inconsistent. 2000 plans don't apply to this project. Approval from planning was for 2000 sub- division, not this project. Road owned by all abutters not just from David Burns as was stated at one of the meetings. Planning board exceeded authority when approved road for 2000 sub- division. • Another major concern is the ability of fire apparatus to get up the street. Fire trucks need 18 feet for a fire lane. The street is only 20 feet meaning that there could be no on street parking allowed by the fire department. Also there is a very limited amount of garage and outside parking. • Not a lot of space for snow removal. Having 9 -10% slope doesn't give much room for open space. There is approximately a 9 -foot difference from garage to handicap ramp to front door. Maximum slope for handicap ramps should be 8.3 %. • Commented on Hayes reports. Looking for preliminary drainage for this project, not 2000 project. • Suggests condition of approval be that they do test pits before permits issued. Positions of the pits have moved substantially since first submitted. • Problems that were addressed in the 2000 project resurfaced in the 2004 project. • 15 Grandview and 19 Welch will be impacted by infiltration systems. Gary Larson on behalf of Neighborhood Association: When planning board approved the road it was for the 2000 project. Regulations read for more than 4 units a 24 -foot road is required. Another concern with multi - family dwelling was the ability of having access around buildings. There is currently no provision for walk way around building. Also old plans show stone retaining wall to build road, new plans don't have anything on them about retaining walls. Jim Lamarca, 9 Welch Road: Concern with the density of 16.6 %. 10 unit plan 89% higher than all 4013s in Lexington. Susan Newlands, 49 Grandview: She has been fighting this developer since 1999. Someone in the building department had told them these lots were unbuildable when they had looked into acquiring them. Karen Pedrotti, 39 Grandview: Grandview must be maintained as a private road; what do you consider part you'll be maintaining? Answer from Mr. Burns: The part in front of the development. Howard Silva. 19 Welch: Don't understand Mr. Smith's confusion on why they are redoing road. There is no road there now; it's just a path. William Lyons, 20 School Street: Two points that he would like the board to consider. 1. 10 -11 young children's safety will be impacted 2. The project's size and scope is too big for the neighborhood. Speakers in Favor: None Comments from Petitioner: Ken Kimmell, Lawyer: Opposes continuation of hearing, would like to see it close tonight. Feels the planning board has had ample time for review; the town engineer's minor design change and the zoning officer `s concern on drainage could be a condition. Feels it is unfair to continue hearing again. Nyles Barnert: Wants to hear from abutters. The problem with closing meeting tonight is that the clock starts for decision when hearing closes. With schedules the way they are; the board would not have time to deliberate. DECISION: On a motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Arthur Smith, the board voted unanimously to continue the hearing until March 10, 2005 at 8:00 pm. The following is a list of what is needed for next hearing: • List of waivers you are requesting from our zoning by -laws. • Police and fire review • Mr. Jacob's financials/Performa review. • Size of road addressed by the planning department. • Units plan with dimensions. Hearing continued until March 10. 2005 at 8:00 pm. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 pm Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk