Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-30-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 30, 2007 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in Estabrook Hall at Cary Hall, and called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Zurlo, Hornig, Galaitsis and Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of May 16, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously 5-0 to approve the minutes as amended. **************************BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS******************************* Mr. Canale said that under regional issues the state had reaffirmed the smart growth principles of the previous administration. Ms. McCall-Taylor will e-mail the Board the governor’s sustainable principles. Mr. Hornig reported that the Conservation Commission met last night but continued the Grove Street subdivision hearing to June 12, 2007. Mr. Zurlo attended a breakfast where Mr. Greg Bialecki, permitting ombudsman and Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, spoke advocating that towns look at setting a policy to put the infrastructure in place first and then have developers come, rather than responding to development proposals. ************************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT***************** SUBDIVISION OF LAND PUBLIC HEARINGS Hazel Road, Subdivision Rescission: At 7:45p.m. Ms. Manz opened the public hearing. Attorney Ed Grant was present representing Ashok Patel and he said that he was expecting Attorney Brian McMahon who has represented Mrs. Sharkey in the subdivision process since its beginning in 2001. Mr. Patel is under a purchase and sale agreement to buy Ms. Sharkey’s land, but cannot receive good title without the rescission being sought by the applicant. Mr. Grant reviewed his letters of 12/20/06 and 3/16/07 and the map showing the registered and recorded land, which were recently submitted to the Planning Board and Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of May 30, 2007 Town Counsel. A lot with frontage on Winter Street is registered land and it was combined in 2004 as part of a special residential development with seven proposed units. The plan was approved and a Certificate of Action was filed. Mr. Grant claimed that since construction had not started within two years, the Certificate of Action has lapsed. Shortly after the plan was approved, a suit was brought to Land Court by neighbors claiming the subdivision overburdened the easement for use of Hazel Road. That issue has been settled. The registered land was never filed with Land Court and now Mrs. Sharkey is requesting a rescission of the recorded land in order to give good title to Mr. Patel. Attorney Brian McMahon who represents Mrs. Sharkey said it has been a long ordeal. In 2001 Mr. Ron Lopez had a Purchase and Sales Agreement with Mrs. Sharkey who had extended the Agreement to purchase her property pending the Planning Board approval. After the approval and Certificate of Action was filed, it was appealed in Land Court in 2005. Once again Mrs. Sharkey extended the Agreement to November 30, 2005; there was still no resolution on this matter by the end of 2005. She agreed again to extend to March 2006, and then declined to extend it further and decided to put her land on the market. Mrs. Sharkey now has a purchase and sale agreement contingent upon obtaining a rescission on this subdivision. Mr. McMahon claimed that the special permit lapsed in 2006. Attorney Dan Harrington represents both Mrs. Elizabeth Weiss and North Shore Construction owned by Ron Lopez. Mr. Harrington said both Mrs. Weiss and Mrs. Sharkey signed the proposal with Ron Lopez to construct eight units (one affordable) and did not record the registered land as allowed under Chapter 186A, Section 16. It was expected that the plan would be recorded when they had the Condominium Master Deed and then Land Court would make it all registered land and record it. The issue of the overburdened easement in which declaratory relief was sought was settled with the neighbors. Mr. Harrington said that he found ten rescission cases that state that if the Planning Board and the Board of Health requirements are met then the subdivision plan cannot be rescinded. Mr. Harrington said the Planning Board should deny the request to rescind because it does not have Mrs. Weiss’s or Mr. Lopez’s signatures. Mr. Harrington argued that Mrs. Sharkey had joined in the subdivision application and did not enter into this agreement blindly, and in fact she had attended and participated in the Planning Board Meetings and Court hearings. It was decided by the Board not to vote on this matter until they consulted with Town Counsel. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-1 (Mr. Hornig opposed) to continue the public hearing to July 11, 2007 at 8:30 p.m. at the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building. Minutes for the Meeting of May 30, 2007 Page 3 Grove Street, Cluster Subdivision Revisions: At 8:45 p.m. Ms. Manz opened the public hearing. The height restriction on the proposed homes appeared to be the only issue that needed to be addressed as the Conservation Commission had not completed its deliberations and therefore had not required any changes. Attorney Donald Borenstein and Mr. Doug Lees were in attendance to represent the applicant. Mr. Borenstein stated there are a number of conditions the applicant was not happy about, but could live with, except for special condition nine concerning the overall height restriction of 30 feet. Mr. Borenstein said the zoning bylaw, provides a 40-foot maximum based on the existing grade. He is requesting the 30 feet maximum height restriction imposed by the Planning Board be revised to 37 feet. Ms. Manz said the design seems to utilize a very tall roof, and wondered why it needed to be so high when it is not habitable space? Mr. Lees said it was for aesthetics. Mr. Hornig stated the original plan had a flatter roof and was 9 feet floor to floor. The original houses were 32 feet tall and now they are even larger. Mr. Borenstein said these current home designs are 36 feet high. Mr. Borenstein heard that the Board did not want the homes to look like 3-4 stories and that is what the current plans reflect. He said that a 12/10-pitch roof has a historic precedent on a traditional two-story home. He argued that the applicant is not asking for extraordinary relief, and is, in fact, reining it in from the 40-foot height permitted in the zoning bylaw. Mr. Zurlo wanted to know why the requested 37 feet is so far off from the 30 feet in the decision. He remembered that there was another number in between, which had previously been discussed. Ms. McCall-Taylor said it was 27 feet above the finished first floor. That would be equivalent to 31.8 feet on tonight’s handout. Mr. Borenstein said he understood the bulk issues and the use of dormers and can live with those restrictions, but after looking at a number of plans found that the height issue would be too difficult to make a saleable house for an upscale market. Mr. Zurlo ran through existing slopes and stated that these seemed rather generous based on the first floor heights. There are other options and he felt that there is a lower number that can get the applicant to where he needs to be. Ms. Manz asked if this is a standard pitch for a roof, and would a lower pitch be unusual to use. Mr. Zurlo stated there are other options and that 32 feet to 34 feet for that neighborhood would seem reasonable. Mr. Galaitsis said he keeps thinking of the earlier photographs, which showed a building 32 feet high and wondered if a less steep roof might not seem so massive. He had also hoped for a smaller footprint; while this particular model needs the height, there are other styles of houses that would not require that height. He would be comfortable with 32 feet height restriction. Ms. Manz would be satisfied with some restriction, perhaps 34 Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of May 30, 2007 feet. Ms. Leticia Hom of 175 Grove Street read a letter, which was submitted to the Board and placed on file. Mr. Lees said he could probably work with 34 feet to 35 feet. Mr. Zurlo asked if there is an expectation that the conventional subdivision plan would go through. Ms. Manz said it would have to be approved if it complies with all the requirements. Ms. Manz asked for a straw poll of acceptable height restrictions from each Board Member; Ms. Manz said 34 feet, Mr. Canale said 34 feet, Mr. Hornig said 30 to 37 feet, Mr. Zurlo would be comfortable with 34 feet with a revision to the grading to eliminate the walkout at rear on lot 3 so it does not look like three stories, and Mr. Galaitsis still had reservations about the 32-foot restriction. Mr. Borenstein does not want to deal with the change of grading and going back to the issue of a three-story appearance. Ms. McCall- Taylor said that they could grade up or drop from the top to deal with the appearance of three-stories. Mr. Galaitsis said that, having just realized the conventional and cluster plans are not on the same scale and that the structures in the cluster plan had smaller footprints than he thought, he would accept a 34-foot height restriction. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to close the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously but reluctantly, 5-0, to revise the special permit with site plan review height limitations from 30 feet to 34 feet. Grove Street, Continued Public Hearing of the Conventional Definitive Subdivision Plans: At 10:10 p.m. Ms. Manz opened the continued public hearing. Ms. Manz asked the Board if they wanted to proceed with the hearing on the conventional definitive subdivision plan. Mr. Hornig said they should allow statements and questions from the audience since they do not have the extension of time from the Court in hand and he is concerned about waiting until the hearing scheduled for July 11, 2007. Mr. Borenstein said they filed the conventional subdivision plan and believes it complies with all the requirements and should be approved. He is willing to have the time for a decision extended to August 11, 2007; he prefers not to take the Board’s time with the conventional subdivision plan at this point. Ms. Manz said they do not have to make a full-scale presentation, but Mr. Hornig has some questions and then the audience will have their opportunity to speak. Mr. Hornig had questions regarding drainage issues. Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that Mr. Hornig submit the questions and the applicant will be Minutes for the Meeting of May 30, 2007 Page 5 prepared to address them if the conventional hearing occurs. Mr. Martin from the audience represents a neighborhood group and said they have many concerns about the conventional subdivision plan, as well as the cluster subdivision plan that is currently before the Conservation Commission, but that he will bring them up at the July 11, 2007 meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to July 11, 2007 at 9:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building. Ms. McCall-Taylor discussed the need to meet regarding the cluster bylaw and the Board agreed to meet Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 8:00 a.m. in the Planning Office, Town Office Building. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Gregory Zurlo, Clerk