HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-25-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JULY 25, 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 Hornig with members Manz, Galaitsis,
Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Zurlo arrived at 7:37 p.m.
************************************* MINUTES **************************************
Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of May 23, 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 May 30, 2007. On a motion duly made
and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 5-0, to approve the minutes as amended.
The Board deferred discussion of the minutes of June 6, 2007 until the meeting of August 15, 2007 in
order to facilitate members’ edits.
************************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT*****************
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
RELEASE OF LOTS COVENANT
Wisteria Lane: The applicant is seeking a release of the remaining two lots from the original covenant
and transfer the surety for the balance of the right of way work, totaling $27,000, to cash via a bank
passbook with Eagle Bank to be held by our Treasurer. The remaining work which still needs to be
completed is as follows:
??
Final top coat on road/walkways;
??
Installation of landscaping in the center island;
??
Installation of granite curbing around the center island; and
??
Contingencies, as-builts, etc.
Mr. Canale also advised the Board that the wisteria planting has not been done.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 5-0, to accept surety in the amount of
$27,000 and to release the covenant and lots.
Page 2
Minutes for the Meeting of July 25, 2007
Grove Street: The Conservation Commission has indefinitely postponed the hearing and will re-advertise
the new hearing date. The applicant is not ready yet. A copy of the joint application submitted to Court
dismissing the remand pertaining to the definitive conventional subdivision plan has been received by the
Planning Department from the applicant.
Mr. Hornig asked that the minutes for the executive sessions on Grandview Avenue and Grove Street be
released.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
88, 92 and 110 Shade Street: Mr. Hornig called the continued public hearing on the Shade Street
definitive special residential subdivision to order at 7:45 p.m. Present for the development team were
Todd Cataldo of Sheldon Corporation, Michael Snow, landscape architect of Meridian Associates, and
Attorney Bill Proia. Mr. Snow presented the changes since the last meeting based on Planning Board
comments, Engineering comments, and feedback from the abutters group. These changes are as follows:
??
Limit of Clearing has been revised on the north side of the development in response to the revised
grading. The grading in the area has been revised to better relate to existing conditions by
reducing the amount of earthwork and preserving more of the existing trees;
??
Pedestrian circulation has been revised within the southern cluster by extending wood chip paths
leading to the common open space;
??
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) has been modified; the visitor parking spaces formerly of gravel
are now pavers and have been included in the ISR. By reducing the building and driveway
footprints they are at an ISR of 17.88;
??
Utility layout has been revised in response to the Engineering Department’s letter, including the
relocation of the water lines in the north campus;
??
South campus driveway intersection has been relocated ten feet north on Shade Street, facilitating
sight lines and preserving the character by relocating the drive and stonewall. Within the right of
way there will be removal of some of the existing ledge and the vegetation that had previously
been removed by DPW but has since grown back; and
??
South campus townhouse building connection, which was originally a trellis, has been modified
to be a central porch.
Board Comments: Ms. Manz asked the applicant to elaborate on the porch. Mr. Cataldo said that it is
screened and accessed from both units on each side. Ms. Manz asked why they only linked two units and
Minutes for the Meeting of July 25, 2007 Page 3
not all eight. Mr. Cataldo responded that you would be looking at a structure of 8,000 square feet the
massing and light issues would not be aesthetically appropriate here. Ms. Manz asked if there were any
emergency access issues. Mr. Cataldo said the Fire Department had no problems with this. Ms. McCall-
Taylor said there would only be an issue of a secondary access if there were more then ten buildings; it is
not based on number of dwelling units but dwellings. She also said that the fire department had no issue
with the degree of separation between the buildings. Ms. Manz asked about the ISR and pavers and
wanted to know if there was an increase in the ISR due to the pavers. Mr. Cataldo said yes, so they
reduced some of the mansion driveway and reduced some building footprints to accommodate the pavers.
Mr. Zurlo said the project looked at attached and detached units. He views degrees of attachment as
moving from a trellis, to a deck, to a covered deck, to something more permanent like a screened in
porch, and then to a conditioned space. Mr. Zurlo said he interprets the Bylaw’s definition of “attached
dwellings” as those which are either connected by conditioned space or space which is not conditioned
but is included in the building footprint calculation when using the “Height and Limitation Table” in the
Building Code 780CMR. He stated this interpretation would help ensure the connecting structure would
be defined the same way during Planning Board approval as it would be when an applicant seeks a
building permit.
Mr. Galaitsis said a porch is not an attachment; he wants to see the same amount of overlap in the living
space as the other units. Therefore he considers the two buildings detached so there are eleven buildings
and a second access is needed. Mr. Cataldo said he could make it living space for one of the units. Mr.
Galaitsis said he needs more details and was also concerned about the impervious surface. The long
driveway to the mansion is stone dust, was it counted as impervious? Mr. Snow said yes it is.
Mr. Canale asked about the screened porch construction. Mr. Cataldo said there is a crawl space with a
frost wall and roof. Mr. Canale said that the eight units appear as one dwelling. On the locus map all the
properties to the north are zoned CD. Ms. McCall-Taylor said it was rezoned with restrictions. Mr. Snow
said sheet five reflects that it is a CD zone. Mr. Canale asked if there is a table showing each unit’s
number of bedrooms. Mr. Cataldo said they are listed.
Mr. Canale said he would like to see a sense of what the dwellings would look like. Is he to assume they
would all be two and one half stories and 40 feet high? Mr. Cataldo said there are not any drawings at this
point, the units have not been designed but he doesn’t believe the units closest to Shade Street are near the
maximum. Mr. Canale asked about elevations. Mr. Cataldo said that he has rough floor plans, but does
Page 4
Minutes for the Meeting of July 25, 2007
have actual footprints. They will be shingle style with dormers, similar to the units on Cary Avenue, and
he will try to keep the roofs down. Mr. Canale is concerned with the massing and scale and the possibility
that every unit will be two and one half stories and 40 feet tall.
Mr. Canale than asked if the one-bedroom units are all on the second story? Mr. Cataldo said the living
area in those units would all be above the garage. Mr. Canale asked about the entryway. Mr. Cataldo said
the unit would be 40 feet wide, 36 feet for the three garages and then the residence door. Each unit has its
own garage. Mr. Canale said there is not a lot of private space and no nearby play areas. Will there be any
play structures? Mr. Cataldo said that that would be up to the Condo Association but they tend to shy
away from play areas due to liability concerns.
Mr. Canale asked about the calculations for cut and fill. Mr. Snow said at this point the excess cut appears
to be approximately 2800-3000 cubic yards, which will be removed. Mr. Canale said that said it seems
that they are taking away more then they are putting in, how many truckloads would that be? Mr. Snow
said about 100 truckloads. Mr. Canale asked if they spoke with the postal service regarding central
delivery. Mr. Cataldo said he would do that once they have an approved plan. Mr. Canale asked about
cable service and underground utilities. Mr. Cataldo said they are all on Shade Street and they will bring
in underground conduits, but Verizon only allows three conduits and there are four providers. Mr. Canale
was concerned with the number of trees in the Right of Way (ROW). Did they speak with DPW or the
tree warden and is there a scheduled hearing? Mr. Cataldo said there are three trees to the left of the drive
as you leave the site -- one will be removed, one is dead and the fate of the last one depends on the sight
lines after the ledge is gone. There is no scheduled hearing with the DPW or tree warden at this point. Mr.
Canale asked about the big tree on the north side that has an “X” through it. Mr. Cataldo said it was taken
down at an earlier time. Mr. Snow said it is in the rounding of the pavement. Mr. Canale said if it is not in
the sight line, move the pavement to save the tree. Mr. Cataldo said safety is first and he will donate trees
to the Town to plant wherever they want. Mr. Canale said he was concerned with the back of lot 2 where
they are clearing trees almost to the property line. Mr. Cataldo said they would keep the healthy trees and
allow them to grow. Mr. Canale wants a transition area, they can do their own buffer area once they do
the re-grading work more in keeping with the natural undisturbed areas. Mr. Snow said they could go
back in and plant after.
Mr. Hornig said the preservation restrictions were redone after the Historic Commission Meeting and
questioned some of the changes. Attorney Proia said he would review any questions and language after
reading the original model. Ms. Manz asked who is the Grantee? Mr. Hornig said the Town of Lexington
Minutes for the Meeting of July 25, 2007 Page 5
and the grantor is Shade Street, LLC.
Ms. Marilyn Fenollosa of the Lexington Historic Commission said the revised draft reflects most of the
Historic Commissions issues. The secretary’s standards in any modification of the condemnation
language can be provided. The Grantee does have an interest in condemnation. Attorney Prioa said the
State Agency would not sign off on any “façade” restriction so he did not include the signature blocks. It
is for a term of 999 years, which is permissible. They will just need to record extensions every 20 years
and extend before 50 years expire. Ms. Fenollosa said before they go that route she wants to speak with
Michael Steinitz at Mass. Historical Commission. She believes that the state prefers some easement as
opposed to no easement. She will call Mr. Steinitz tomorrow and if he agrees they can add a signature
block for the Mass. Historical Commission secretary to sign.
Audience Comments: Janet Needham resides at 84 Shade Street and was concerned about the safety of
Shade Street. Shade Street heading south is very narrow and the ledge is dangerous for pedestrians. If
they open up the sight lines and straighten the drive to make it safer, she will support the project for its
diversity of housing. Mr. Hornig said that the Board just received two letters and a petition and the Board
has not had time to review them.
Francis Alspek resides at 64 Shade Street and said to put the driveway in a blind area is “insane”. He also
said that many trees have died on Shade Street and that the trees to be donated by the applicant should be
planted on Shade Street. Another concern of Mr. Alspek is that the 100 truckloads of dirt is a lot and he
doesn’t want the piles just sitting on the site.
Eric Blair residing at 75 Shade Street asked why not extend Cary Avenue to use as the entrance and have
a four-way stop. Mr. Hornig said the project has gone through a long process and the location of the
driveway was considered and this is where it ended up. Mr. Hornig asked the Board if they are ready to
close the public hearing and what are the outstanding issues besides historic preservation concerns?
Mr. Canale said there are two major issues, first is the street landscaping program along Shade Street. The
second issue is that more information about the height and bulk of the buildings is necessary to make a
decision. He is reluctant to close the public hearing without this information, especially regarding the
elevation of the two units at the top of the hill closest to Shade Street.
Mr. Zurlo asked what projects require perspective drawings? Selecting the correct perspective is a
Page 6
Minutes for the Meeting of July 25, 2007
challenge as the units are scattered and selecting the appropriate angle to satisfy competing interests
would be helpful regardless. He suggested a perspective looking north which captures a portion of the
Needham’s property.
Mr. Cataldo said to require full-scale drawings at this late stage is time consuming and costly. Mr. Canale
said that mass and scaling information on a dwelling basis was what was required for the last few cluster
subdivisions. Mr. Zurlo said would be fair to require the applicant to show the massing of the building,
not actual renderings. A line drawing showing rooflines, fenestrations, scale and mass would be
sufficient. Mr. Cataldo said if he knew this in advance he could have had it ready for tonight.
Mr. Galaitsis said he wants a table with the units’ gross floor area, living area, etc. and he wants to think
about the attachment issue. He would like to vote for the subdivision plan, but needs more information.
Mr. Cataldo asked the Board members to please relay all the information they require to the staff. Mr.
Zurlo said the staff would need clear direction. He wanted to see modeling of mass but without the trim,
etc. Mr. Hornig said each member of the Board is to send in writing to the planning staff exactly what
they are looking for. Mr. Zurlo said on the issue of the attachment, he looked at the zoning bylaw
definition of a townhouse and it doesn’t include common area so the applicant may wish to make the
connecting structure livable space, which may satisfy Mr. Galaitsis concerns. Mr. Cataldo said he could
make the attachment living space and a four-season room.
Mr. Zurlo said that the location of the road was determined by working around the existing ledge but now
it is being leveled down to create a shoulder. With the ledge gone, perhaps the road can be revised for
safety issues, moving it over within the right of way. Mr. Canale said you cannot swing the road too much
because of its intersection with Cary Avenue. They are only removing the ledge partially and the new
rock wall will go from the new street to the original estate driveway. Ms. Manz said the new drawings
should reflect the changes. Mr. Cataldo said the addresses for the 20 units would be on Journey’s End
Circle while those on the north campus would have Shade Street addresses. Mr. Cataldo said it would
take more than two years to complete the project and he asked that the special permit be granted for more
than two years. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that he should just ask to renew the special permit before it
expires.
A motion was duly made, seconded and voted to continue the hearing to August 22 at 8:45 p.m. in the
Selectmen’s Meeting Room.
Minutes for the Meeting of July 25, 2007 Page 7
DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS
6 Diehl Road, Map 63, Lot 89: The applicant Mr. Ed Cain highlighted the following updates on the
information provided for the determination on the adequacy of grade and construction of Diehl Road. The
points are as follows:
??
A surveyor was brought in to take points;
??
The driveway heights have been highlighted;
??
The grading where Diehl Road meets Coolidge has been changed (raise the flat area/fill the hole
at the other end dealing with catch basin even though puddling goes beyond 6 Diehl Road);
??
Replace the catch basin. Some work was done and it is now taking more water, but Mr. Cain
wants to do more;
??
2 ½” base coat and 1 ½’ topcoat, while retaining the grade as is except at Coolidge Ave.;
??
Establish a bond, and wants to pave after most of the traffic is gone;
??
The swale between the properties will be maintained and repaired;
??
Ensure not repaving over driveways, while fixing small problems and keeping the street level
lower then the driveways;
??
Double ring the large maple tree with construction fence;
??
On Helen Shi’s property putting up construction fence along the property line, double ring white
birch, barrels to prevent construction parking, and a granite cover for drywell;
??
Flag properties for Dig Safe; and
??
Aronson drywell repair.
Board Comments: Mr. Zurlo said the applicant appears to be improving the conditions and working with
the neighbors and asked to hear from the residents.
Audience Comments: Bebe Fallich asked what the stakes and white flags are on her property? Mr. Cain
said the orange flags are for Dig Safe to look at the area and the stakes are to mark boundary lines.
Dave Pinsonneault has the corrected tree plan, as there was some confusion as to which trees were to be
kept and removed. He now has the correct plan. Ms. Fallick said the trucks would disturb the street,
would he fill the potholes created? Mr. Cain said there will be considerable paving done before winter.
Mr. Hornig reminded the audience that the matter before the Board is the adequacy of grade and
construction of Diehl Road.
Page 8
Minutes for the Meeting of July 25, 2007
Mr. Aronson formerly of 5 Diehl Road was concerned with preserving natural surroundings. He also said
the former owner of 6 Diehl Road was anti-mansionization.
Mr. Zurlo said comments on teardowns are important and the dialog should be maintained with residents
and kept before the public.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 to 0 that Diehl Road will be of adequate grade and
construction when improvements are made.
The current request is to set surety for the original estimated cost to construct the improvements, which in
this case would be $31,155.00. The Engineering Division has reviewed and approved the estimated cost
to construct the remaining improvements.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5 to 0 to set the amount of surety as $31,155.00 and
accept a passbook as the form, for completion of the street and improvements on Diehl Road.
******************************* ZONING INITIATIVES*********************************
Stormwater Bylaw: Mr. Henry wants to get this to the public as soon as possible along with draft
regulations and an explanation of what the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
is, and why it is required. A major change would be to the ISR and how we define and apply it to
developments. Impervious surface is really about water quality degradation. Over time it became a proxy
for land disturbance and development control. It is to be determined if this bylaw will allow for the
continued use of ISR as a proxy or not.
An approach would be to use “effective impervious surfaces” based on mitigation. This might require site
coverage to remain an impact measure in Special Residential Developments to control amount of site
disturbance. Ms. Manz likes the idea of giving credits for the effectiveness of pervious surfaces. Mr.
Galaitsis said that if it will allow more development on site he is not in favor of it.
Mr. Henry is also concerned about the possible creation of a storm water utility. While the bylaw would
mostly affect new developments and teardowns it will also affect some by-right projects. Similarly the
creation of a storm water utility will pique the interest of the average homeowner, making it a tough sell
without a lot of outreach.
Minutes for the Meeting of July 25, 2007 Page 9
Mr. Zurlo said we need to be doing this and are heading in the right direction. Mr. Canale said we are
looking at storm water in isolation instead of what can and should be done regarding conservation and
looking to ensure storm water is disbursed in the right way, and are we looking at all ways to recharge
and not use clean water unnecessarily?
****************************** BOARD MEMBER REPORTS****************************
Mr. Zurlo reports that EDTF is meeting with Appropriations tomorrow evening to discuss Tax Increment
Financing (TIF).
Mr. Canale said that TMG recommended going forward with the re-striping of Hartwell Ave. for the bike
lane.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Wendy Manz, Clerk