HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-06-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2007
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room,
Town Office Building, 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.
*********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE**************
Selectmen’s Goal Setting: Will be discussed at a later time.
*********************ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT*****************
PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW
Form A/2007-1, 19 & 19A Oakland Street: The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan
for land at 19 & 19A Oakland Street. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to endorse
the plan entitled “Plan of Land Located in Lexington, Massachusetts, dated May 17, 2007”,
prepared and certified by Kevin E. Danahy, Registered Land Surveyor, Beverly, MA, submitted
with Form A/2007-1 by James E. & Paula J. Kemler, applicants, as it does not require approval
under the Subdivision Control Law.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
960-990 Waltham Street, Preliminary Special Residential Subdivision Plan: Attorney Richard
LeClair, landscape architect Roger Kallstrom, Joe Porter of VTP Associates, and Charles Navratil,
architect of Architect 2 were in attendance, as well as members of the DeVincent family. The
property is six plus acres, of which one and one half acres are wetlands. There are two existing
homes not in use and 450 feet of frontage on Waltham Street with two existing curb cuts. They
have been working on this townhouse plan since April 2006, which consists of 13 dwelling units,
nine in the lower village and four in the upper village. The townhouses have garages. The wetlands
will be maintained as is. Access will be created to the walking path on the east side, where the
survey remnants of Ricci Lane exist, with signs demarcating the path. Additions to the plan include
two entrances instead of the previously proposed single entrance. Now there is one entrance to the
upper village and another to the lower village.
Page 2
Minutes for the Meeting of June 6, 2007
Ms. McCall-Taylor said the access to the open space is shown over very steep areas and there
appear to be no paths. Mr. Galaitsis said he would like to see the useable open space depicted on
the plans with the area given. Ms. Manz said useable open space must be within 300 feet of the
unit and wondered if that could be done. Mr. LeClair said it could be done, but does not want to dig
up site. Mr. Canale asked what the change of grade is over what distance. Mr. Kallstrom said it is
15 feet over an 80-foot distance and there is a wooded slope across the area. He said they will do
what the Board suggested for a common driveway, but 18 feet seems excessive, the plan shows 16
feet.
Ms. McCall-Taylor asked about underground wiring. Mr. LeClair said they are still looking at the
cost, it does improve the aesthetics, and they are taking that under consideration. Mr. Kallstrom
said they want to grade the island and plant trees there but the Conservation Commission is
suggesting putting the infiltration under the island rather than under the parking lot.
Mr. Zurlo noted that there was no sidewalk to the upper village. Mr. Galaitsis said it is a very long
driveway and recommended a sidewalk, especially with children on bikes on the long driveway
mixed with cars.
Mr. Galaitsis pointed out that the developer was comparing the impacts of his proposed plan to that
of 8.93 units from the formula, as opposed to the maximum number of conventional units he can fit
in the tract, which is 4. Therefore, he felt that the impacts of the development were way in excess
of a conventional subdivision and that they must be reduced. Ms. McCall-Taylor said while Mr.
Galaitsis might feel the impacts were more than he could approve, the projected impacts are within
what is allowed under the bylaw and, by definition, considered to be equivalent to those of a
conventional. Ms. Manz stated that it appears the impervious surface ratio maximum would be
exceeded with an 18-foot driveway and the addition of a pedestrian access. Mr. Galaitsis said all
the buildings have cellars, which would permit construction of an extra floor above ground for each
dwelling and exacerbate the building mass; therefore, he would like the homes to be built with
basements. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that the bylaw defines what is a cellar and what is a basement,
and the Board could not change the definition without going back to Town Meeting. Mr. Zurlo
wanted to know why they are being called a cellar, considering the building height and that they
are walk-outs. Architect Adrian Mercure said using the calculations of the zoning bylaw and
Minutes for the Meeting of June 6, 2007 Page 3
confirming with the building commissioner, they came up with their classification as cellars. The
Building Commissioner agreed with their interpretation. Mr. Zurlo said unit 13 was nine feet above
grade on the east side and it was a challenge to call it a cellar.
Mr. Zurlo asked how they are handling the runoff from the slope behind the wall of units one
through four. He doesn’t want it all pitched to one single drain. He is looking for a design strategy
of draining as all units except 12 and 13, have a sculpted, flat area. Mr. LeClair said each unit has
some private outdoor space, most of which requires grading, except unit 13, which will have a
patio, and unit 12 with a deck. Mr. Mercure said they were trying to maintain the look of a hillside
trail at these two units.
Mr. Hornig said the following issues remain: trees, unit size, and drainage. The protected trees need
to be addressed as outlined in section 12 of the bylaw. As to unit size, he’d rather have smaller
units then fewer units. The plans should map out sub-catchments and chart the ultimate destination
of storm water. He thought it looked as though there was direct flow into the street. The peak flow
and total volume is higher than pre-development and Mr. Hornig hoped that could be improved.
The applicant will need speak with the Conservation Commission because of the flow to wetlands
and street drains.
Mr. Canale said he did not disagree with anything his fellow Board members had said. He
suggested reducing the total impact by reducing the size of units. He also said to minimize and
soften the profile of the buildings they should consider reducing the size. He wanted to know what
plans there were for snow storage. Mr. Kallstrom said the center island could be used. When Mr.
Canale asked about the mounding in the island, Mr. Kallstrom said it is only three feet high. Mr.
Canale asked about the conservation easement and non-resident access. Mr. LeClair said non-
resident access is only over the walking path, and he can put in language that would be very clear.
Mr. Canale would like it wider then five feet. Mr. LeClair was trying to prevent it from being
driven on or people congregating there. Mr. Canale said perhaps make the easement wider and
keep the path at five feet and to discuss the matter with Recreation and Conservation. Ms. Manz
was concerned about pedestrian access to homes and did not feel crushed stone was adequate. She
realized this might lead to impervious surface ratio difficulties. She would like to see smaller units.
Audience Comments:
Page 4
Minutes for the Meeting of June 6, 2007
Mr. Kasparian of 956 Waltham Street said neighborhood people don’t agree with the plan. Thirty
residents signed a petition saying it is overdeveloped and will bring in more traffic. Why not make
it a single family home? He felt it would look like three and one half stories when standing in the
driveway.
Ruth Super of 354 Concord Avenue submitted a letter stating that she didn’t see the path as a
benefit since there are already trespassers on her property.
Mr. Cannalonga of 942 Waltham Street says the existing house on the property is an eyesore and
should be condemned. He feels this is a good plan and has no objections.
Mr. Zurlo asked what about the nature of the public access path - does it have an end and where
does it go? Mr. Canale said it leads to town-owned conservation land that currently does not have
trails. It may eventually connect to a trail system through town, but not in the immediate future.
Mr. Zurlo said homes 10 and 11, and even 9, take full advantage of the building height and create a
visual imposition on neighbors. He would like a visual from the street. Mr. LeClair said it would be
presented at the next stage.
Mr. Zurlo asked which unit would be the affordable home. Mr. LeClair said it would be one three-
bedroom unit, with a garage, and placed with the other units, he believes it is unit 2. Ms. Manz
asked about the driveway to the upper village. Mr. Mercure said it starts at property line and to
maintain the buffer zone was shifted over five feet from the current driveway location. Mr. Hornig
asked which were the two-bedroom units. Mr. LeClair said while it had not yet been decided, they
would be on the south, and will have the current footprint. Ms. Manz said this townhouse style
offers diversity and variety and she is not looking for single-family homes.
Mr. Galaitsis would prefer to see something else before the definitive stage, due to concerns about
the size and total impacts. Mr. Canale said he would leave it up to the applicant if he wants to do a
mid-term review prior to filing a definitive application. Mr. LeClair said there would be some
changes due to fire department concerns and other adjustments, but nothing radical. Mr. Hornig
said the impervious surface ratio limits what can be done here. Mr. Zurlo was concerned that the
staff comments be addressed and Ms. McCall-Taylor said the definitive plans could incorporate
them. Mr. Hornig proposed approving the preliminary subdivision plan with the following
Minutes for the Meeting of June 6, 2007 Page 5
conditions: sidewalk to the upper village, pathways to open space; driveway with Fire Department
width and turning requirements; renderings as part of the submission; undergrounding of utilities;
drainage peaks equal than or less to pre-development levels. Mr. Canale wanted to know where the
intermittent stream flows goes. Mr. Galaitsis was concerned about parking for guests.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-1 (Mr. Galaitsis opposed) to approve with
conditions the preliminary special residential subdivision plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
Doran Green, Continued Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision: At 9:45 p.m. Ms. Manz opened
the public hearing. Attorney John Farrington said he would address the following issues: affordable
housing, which was back on the table; historic preservation of the two existing houses; and, a grant
of easement to maintain drainage system that will include wording to allow the town to do it. The
affordable housing options include on-site, off-site, or giving money to housing in the amount of
$175,000. Mr. Farrington’s concerns are that in the past the monies went to a general fund and then
it disappeared. Ms. Manz said she shares those concerns, and said there had been talk of combining
the money from Jefferson Union to develop units. Mr. Farrington will do legal work if a unit is
found. He said that the on-site provision is not attractive to them. Mr. Farrington has been
involved in projects that have had problems getting people to buy into affordable units on-site.
Mr. Farrington said he does not have an issue with some sort of historic preservation easement for
the Dorans’ house, but wants to discuss issues of historical preservation regarding the two-family
home, which will be expanded. The house was brought up to code before 1982 and they changed
the windows, hallway, doors and clapboards so the house does not look anything like the original
structure. Mr. Doran said the house at 168 East Street would be left as is. Mr. Hornig spoke with
the Historical Commission and they agreed about the two-family house, but they did request that
the applicants hire a historical consultant to provide information and research on the two homes
and farm, providing deeds and photographs and other documentation. Mr. Farrington said the
owners would not change 168 East Street and accept the restrictions on it. They don’t see the value
in hiring a historic consultant for the other home. Mr. Galaitsis said that he could consider that a
home might be declared to be historic, but he thought it would be wrong to require the homeowner
to pay the bill for conducting the historical research and for drafting a historical restriction on the
house. Mr. Farrington said the property is subject to the Historical Commission jurisdiction, and
Page 6
Minutes for the Meeting of June 6, 2007
could include general language regarding changes only to be made upon the review of the
Historical Commission.
Ms. Manz said the restriction is in favor of the Town. Mr. Hornig said the study was to document
the history, which was the main concern, more so than the preservation. Mr. Farrington said that
part of the structure would be preserved as is. Mr. Canale said that documentation will only be
needed if there will be changes, which there are not at this time.
Mr. Zurlo wanted closure on the affordable housing issue. Ms. Manz said there are three options
available to the developer as discussed earlier this evening.
Mr. Gary Larson discussed the letter of June 1, 2007, which incorporates responses to the items
discussed by the Planning Board at the last meeting. Mr. Hornig asked about the drainage
covenants. Mr. Henry asked about drafts of the landscape covenant.
Mr. Hornig said the size of the V units that are attached are too large, and he wants them the size of
the Z units. Mr. Farrington said it would significantly impact the price the could get, and they were
not prepared to offer less.
Ms. Manz said the units were attached in response to the Planning Board’s guidelines and now
Board members say they are too massive. She did not find 3,500 square feet inordinate given the
size we are seeing throughout town. Mr. Galaitsis said we do see bigger, but not with as many units
on a lot. Mr. Zurlo liked the breezeway and angling of one of the attached units, as it reduces the
sense of scale and is a clever approach. Mr. Canale empathizes with Mr. Hornig, but is not sure it is
a deal killer for him. Mr. Larson said the V-units are set back far from East Street with a lot of
plantings. There are a lot of small units, two units are 900 square feet, two are 1200 square feet,
and there are no large houses anywhere on the site.
Ms. Mildred Rothmel of 4 Burroughs Road requested they elongate the fence from Burroughs
Road to beyond the turn off to the first house. She also mentioned that when sitting on her side
porch it occurred to her that there will be at least six vehicles at the first house and wanted to know
if exhaust is a problem. Ms. Manz said it is a residential street and the additional vehicles are not a
violation. Mr. Zurlo said the natural buffer will help and they could extend the fence to past the
Minutes for the Meeting of June 6, 2007 Page 7
garage of the first house. Mr. Larson said that there is 150 feet between the two-family house and
the Rothmel’s home. They could add a few sections of fence and the existing mature pine trees and
low evergreens would serve as a natural buffer. There should not be a problem.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to close the public hearing at 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Hornig said he is not prepared to support the special permit at this time and wants time to
reflect.
Mr. Farrington said that if they accept Mr. Hornig’s limitation they would be better off going with
the conventional plan instead. Mr. Doran said he made many concessions that have reduced the
value of the property, but chose the best plan for the East Street environment.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 5-0, to defer the vote until June
28, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Estabrook Hall, at Cary Hall.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
Gregory Zurlo, Clerk