Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-20-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 20, 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 planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Canale was absent. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of June 5, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 4-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of June 11, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 4-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board deferred discussion of the minutes of May 23 and 30 and June 6, 2007 until the meeting of July 11, 2007 in order to facilitate editing members’ comments. ************************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT***************** SUBDIVISION OF LAND Cutler Farm, Sketch Plan #5 Special Residential Development: Present were Mr. Gary Larson, landscape architect, and Mr. Tim Callahan, the applicant. Mr. Larson said the owners had rethought and revised their proposal. The current proposals being presented shows options and they would like to discuss the direction the preliminary phase should go. Mr. Larson gave a quick overview of the property. There are approximately 3.74 acres in the RO zone, with 180 feet frontage on Old Shade Street and 50 feet frontage on Concord Avenue. The limits of wetlands were set over three years ago and will need to be updated, but they are being used for now. There will be no more units on site then the conventional subdivision proof plan allows. The road is a 120 feet long to the cul-de-sac, which is a three quarter circle. There is a large lot that includes a strip along the right-of-way. The area of that strip is needed to meet the 90% developable area requirement for a lot in a conventional subdivision. Ms. Manz asked why not take the needed area from another lot? Mr. Larson stated there is not enough because that would bring one of the other lots to less then 30,000 square feet. Mr. Galaitsis wanted to know if it was three or four lots. Mr. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 20, 2007 Larson said he would have to obtain more data before responding. Mr. Galaitsis said to have it for the next submission. Mr. Hornig had several issues. The first was that the ten-foot wide strip acted as a reserve strip, which is prohibited. It would need to be 25 feet in width unless the requirement was waived. Mr. Larson responded that he was under the impression that the proof plan needs to be as of right, without waivers. The next issue was the three-quarter turnaround, as opposed to a full turnaround, and whether or not it was an as-of-right design option. Mr. Larson stated that he was going on precedent. In addition, the intersection of Barberry Road and right-of-way were offset less than 125 feet, and the roundings at the intersection need to have a 20-foot radius. Mr. Larson said the curb radius for the paved portion could be met, but not for the right-of-way. The next concern was the wetlands on Lot A, which are 211 square feet and would require additional area from another lot, so that lot could meet the minimum of developable area. Mr. Larson said the wetlands will need to be reflagged, but he does have enough area to correct that issue. Mr. Hornig said the waivers required on the north end would bring the possible number of lots down to three, and to correct the dimensional issues at Concord Avenue would require land from the neighbor to allow alignment with Barberry Road. Ms. Manz said it is not clear to her that the applicant can do a conventional by-right and is hesitant to approve this. Mr. Larson asked how this would impact on the cluster? Ms. McCall-Taylor said the conventional subdivision proof plan has to comply without waivers. Mr. Zurlo said the proof plan is a baseline for impacts of a cluster development and help make it a better fit in the community. Mr. Galitsis said there could be no more impact on the site then with a conventional subdivision, and if you cannot build a conventional there, then you cannot build a cluster. Ms. Manz asked would the proof plan be able to comply, given the concerns discussed. Mr. Hornig said that it was suggested in 2005 that the applicant come back with a conventional subdivision, as opposed to a cluster. Mr. Larson said he could add two houses only, but it would not be an environmentally friendly development. Owners are pushing for conventional, but with some flexibility could do better with a cluster. Ms. Manz said the Board has not resolved whether or not a proof plan must be without waivers. Mr. Larson said the former planning director Bob Bowyer had stated that there was no need for a proof plan, as it all came out in the figures in the worksheet. Ms. McCall-Taylor said although in practice a proof plan might not have been required, Mr. Bowyer wrote the bylaw that states that a proof plan must be submitted. Mr. Henry said the Zoning Bylaws in general spell out what the proof plan is. Mr. Hornig maintained that the applicant could show a smaller subdivision of any size and that would be Minutes for the Meeting of June 20, 2007 Page 3 the ticket into a cluster subdivision. Mr. Zurlo said they should respond as a board as to whether or not the threshold is met and should do so before continuing. Mr. Hornig said that the Board had approved one-lot subdivisions in the past, citing Hazel Road. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that was not a one-lot subdivision but a special residential development as allowed under the bylaws. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the two houses could be knocked down and rebuilt, and was told they could. Mr. Zurlo asked why not have three lots with access off of Shade Street. He was told this had been explored in the past and there were issues with the length of a dead-end street, the right of way width to Concord Avenue, and the grade. Ms. Manz asked if the 125-foot separation of intersections could be resolved? Mr. Hornig said only with permission to use the adjacent land. Mr. Galaitsis said if one assumed no houses could be built, there would be zero impacts, but with two houses existing on the property, two could be used as an impact level. Mr. Henry said the table tells what comparable impacts are. Ms. Manz asked if the majority is comfortable with using the multiplier of two. Mr. Hornig asked what the board thought was appropriate for this site. He felt the best use was to include the two adjacent lots on Concord Avenue, which are not owned or under the control of the applicant. Mr. Galaitsis said the applicant could do more units that were smaller using a multiplier of two. Mr. Zurlo said if a waiver is sought they cannot proceed with the cluster and there is no compelling reason to go forward. Ms. Manz suggested considering smaller units and returning with another sketch using two as the multiplier. Mr. Larson said site coverage is 2900 square feet and they propose 1600-1200 square feet units, so that may have some potential. Mr. Zurlo said the impacts are one issue, but the other is that the proof plan doesn’t work, so they cannot do a cluster. Ms. Manz said her preference was a cluster of small units rather than two large houses. Mr. Hornig said he prefers a very small cluster, but a two-unit conventional may save everyone time. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that they must submit a proof plan without waivers in order to be able to do a cluster subdivision. Mr. Hornig said that the proof plan has to be street layout which meets regulations and that can be a single lot with frontage. He does not believe it needs to be a subdivision. Ms. Manz and Mr. Galaitsis believe a proof plan is needed. Mr. Zurlo does not believe that having one lot, or the fact that they can build two houses, is the ticket in to allow a cluster. Mr. Henry said that under Mr. Hornig’s logic you would then have a lot with two houses, which is not allowed in the Zoning Bylaws. The proof plan is important, as one is weighing the cluster against the conventional. Ms. Manz said you could build two houses and so she is keying off that. Mr. Galaitsis said that if two mansions are possible he would much rather have smaller units based on a multiplier of two, provided a valid two unit conventional proof plan Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 20, 2007 were submitted. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked that it would be a multiplier of two, per Mr. Galaitsis, or 5.3, as per the Zoning Bylaws. Ms. Manz said it appeared that there would be three votes to allow the use of a cluster. Mr. Zurlo asked if Mr. Larson disagreed with the need for any of the waivers cited and Mr. Larson said he did not think so. Mr. Galaitsis said he was changing his mind as he did not want to set a precedent of permitting waivers in a proof plan. Ms. Manz said the Board is divided and that there appears to be only two votes to allow the use of the cluster provisions. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that the applicant does not have the four required votes as of tonight and cannot get the cluster subdivision approved. She said that there is a provision that you cannot do a cluster or special residential development if you cannot do a conventional subdivision. RELEASE OF LOTS COVENANT Luongo Farms: The applicant Bob Phelan is seeking a release of covenant and changing the surety from a covenant to a lenders agreement. The estimated cost to complete the roadwork is $138,000, and $150,000 is being held by the lender. There is a Joint Maintenance Agreement that covers the road until it is accepted by Town Meeting, but Mr. Phelan and the owners will still be responsible for the completion and maintenance of the infrastructure and storm-water management system until the last of the units is sold and the Homeowners Association takes over. The subsurface drainage system will remain the responsibility of the Homeowners Association, even if the Town accepts the road. The release of lots will not be recorded prior to the recording of surety and release of the covenant. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 4-0, to execute the release of the covenant and to accept the performance surety. DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 6 Diehl Road, Map 63, Lot 89: The applicant Mr. Ed Cain requested approval of a street construction plan. He said as a developer he wants to do the right thing, and wants to hear the neighbors’ concerns and make sure they are addressed. He wanted the neighbors to comment on his plan. Ms. Manz said that this was not a neighborhood meeting and asked him to present what he was proposing. Mr. Cain said he plans to demolish the existing house at 6 Diehl Road. He will build a new house within the setbacks and will repave the road at his cost, using the contractor that the Town uses. He will grind the street, fix the potholes, use 1½” binder, and a 1½” topcoat. Ms. Manz asked if they are paving the entire road length to the standards of the Town. Mr. Cain said the entire street would be paved. Mr. Zurlo asked if the road would be raised at all. Mr. Cain said no, the grinding makes sure the shape is correct. Mr. Zurlo advised him that in dealing with the replacement of an old road some changes would be required. Mr. Cain said he Minutes for the Meeting of June 20, 2007 Page 5 had spoken with Mr. Wayne Delaney, the Assistant Fire Chief, who had no concerns with the plan and he could get it in writing if needed. Mr. Zurlo wanted a few things cleared up regarding the concerns of Bebe Fallick as put forth in a letter to the Board about the impact of resurfacing of the road on her property, the impervious surface that negatively affects the Bartel’s home, and the trees and shrubs. He also asked if engineering had approved such plans, or did they require correction of existing problems. Ms. McCall-Taylor said in some instances in the past engineering had asked that existing problems be corrected, but in other instances had been satisfied with simple repaving. Engineering had indicated that this plan was acceptable. Other neighborhood concerns were removal of debris from the storm drain, pooling of water that ices in the winter, and wet basements. Mr. Cain said he is willing to pave the street, but if neighbors want to do other improvements he will work with them. He won’t pave if they don’t want it paved, his plan is to come in and do no harm. Mr. Zurlo said that the house will impact drainage; clearly there is a problem and working on the road may not help. Mr. Cain offered half of the $25,000 to fix the problems instead of the paving. Mr. Zurlo says the problem with that is it puts the onus on the neighbors to deal with the issues from the site. Mr. Hornig said let the Board be clear about what is required - the applicant is required to fix both the pavement and drainage, but not for the entire length of the street. He feels drainage is not an optional extra. This is an opportunity for Diehl Road to have proper drainage. Ms. Manz said he is building one house, this is a long-standing problem, engineering says this is adequate and wondered how far the Board should go in trying to correct an existing problem. Mr. Cain said he would fix the drywell. Ms. Fallick wanted to know about the other end of the road where there is an issue with puddling. Mr. Zurlo said more information from engineering would be helpful. Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that there was not enough information to make a decision at this time. Ms. Manz said more specific plans were needed. Mr. Hornig asked where the water is supposed to go and how. He wants to see a plan that shows how it will meet our standards for drainage with no erosion or run-off on adjacent lots. Mr. Zurlo said that the problem needs to be identified first. Mr. Cain is not expected to fix all the problems, but to at least make suggestions on how to resolve them. Mr. Cain said he would pave the street, or do more towards drainage and not pave. Ms. McCall-Taylor reminded those present that Mr. Cain was not doing the Town a favor, but needed to address the issue of the unaccepted street in order to be able to build a house on the lot. Mr. Cain was directed to talk with the neighbors and submit a street construction plan. Abutters will be notified of when this will next be on the Planning Board’s agenda. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 20, 2007 *********************** APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS******************** 1075 Waltham Street: The applicant, Rogers & Company, is requesting a revision and extension of the Special Permit with Site Plan Review from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Commercial Development Zone to modify the building from three-stories to one-story with the same footprint. The Board had no problems with the revisions and extension as requested by the applicant. *************************** REGIONAL INTERTOWN ISSUES************************* Ms. Manz requested that the Planning Board take a stand on the proposed legislation known as bills H58, H59 and H60. H58 calls for the transfer of Lexington’s Lot 1 to the Department of Conservation and Recreation for natural resource purposes. H59 would give the Waltham portion of the lot to the city for their purposes. H60 is a new fast track bill. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 4-0, to strongly support H58. No position was taken on H60 or H59. Ms. McCall-Taylor will send out an email in support of H58, prior to the hearing scheduled for the next morning. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Gregory Zurlo, Clerk