Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-16-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 16, 2014 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig, with members Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, Richard Canale, Timothy Dunn, associate member Ginna Johnson, and planning staff Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. **********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION*********************** Ponybrook Lane, Tripartite Reduction Request: The applicant had secured Planning and Engineering’s approval for the work completed to date and was seeking an approval for a reduction of the amount held under the performance guarantee. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the requested reduction of $237,044.57 from the Tri-Partite Agreement in lieu of the work completed. Oakmount Circle, Lot 186E, Street Determination: Mr. Dan Orwig, representing Copley Design and John Farrington, attorney were present. Mr. Orwig said Oakmount Circle was staked and found that all of the existing travelled way was within the right of way (ROW) and easements would not be required. Mr. Orwig reviewed the updated plans that were submitted to Planning and Conservation. Board Comments and Questions:  There were two trees across from lot 185, a 12 inch oak and 24 inch pine with a two foot cut close to the trunk which could possibly be cutting the roots would the changes shown on the updated plans eliminate those cuts? Mr. Orwig was not sure, but if the trees could not be saved they would be replaced.  What was proposed on the landscape plan for the ROW? The road would be paved to 16 feet wide over the existing travelled way and would only be widened on the side opposite the pond. No trees would be cut except the 16 inch damaged oak which would be replaced as requested.  The paved way only measured 15 feet wide. Mr. Orwig said the pavement was 15 feet with a one foot cape cod berm.  Would the shoulders of the right of way be graded to a maximum of 1:3 toward the pond and the existing vegetation replaced? Yes. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of July 16, 2014  Would the sewer interfere with the roots of the trees since they were within the drip line? Mr. Orwig said any trees that were lost would be replaced in a better location.  How would utilities get to the house? The utilities would be run overhead and one new pole would be installed. The Board would require underground utilities unless there was there a reason that utilities could not be underground? Mr. Orwig said the utilities could be done underground.  How would people be able to get people in and out of the road? The project would be done in sections and people would be able to get by.  What was the size of the trucks to be used for construction? Eight feet wide.  The problem with a 15 foot wide street without parking restrictions would be if a 10 foot wide fire truck had to get around a parked vehicle in an emergency. The preference would be for a 20 foot pavement width, but an 18 foot width would be acceptable. Audience Comments:  There was not 20 feet of pavement currently and the abutters had managed up till now; why would the street need to be 20 feet now? 18 feet was suggested as acceptable.  A poll was taken by the Granny Pond Trust and there were a variety of opinions on acceptable street widths. How far up the way would the paving go? The pavement would stop at lot 184A.  An abutter was in favor of having the road paved all the way around at 18 feet wide and liked the gravity sewer line.  The safeguards taken were good and preferred 16 feet of pavement. There was concern expressed about the part of the road that was not paved and in unstable condition and would be unpassable if not paved.  The re-grading of the new house could be make the road less stable. This was a private way and the responsibility of the land owners. If the land owners worked with the developer possibly on cost sharing with the approval of the Conservation Commission the road could be made better.  There was a dark, quiet, private spot with a pole located there; could there be a condition in the decision that a light be installed on the pole? Mr. Farrington representing the applicant had two issues regarding road width for access and parking and it would have to be landowners who would have to agree on the “no parking” signs design and allow the police to enforce parking restrictions. Mr. Farrington urged the Board to take into account that this was a special area and reconsider the normal standards. The developer was asked if the landowners were met with to discuss parking restrictions. No. Minutes for the Meeting of July 16, 2014 Page 3 Board Deliberation:  Where would the berms be located? Mr. Orwig said they would alternate down line to the water quality inlet to direct the runoff. If this gets paved Conservation would want the sediment to be handled.  Were there other alternative systems that could be used instead of the one foot berm system? Mr. Orwig said an infiltration system could be used.  Trees lost due to construction should be replaced according to the tree-bylaw.  This 16 foot wide paved street would be a safety problem since there would be obstacles such as trees and retaining walls along the side of the road.  Try to get the property owners where the street would be improved to prohibit parking along that 500 foot portion of Oakmount Circle and also from the Granny Pond Trust. Mr. Farrington said that would be very difficult. The Board could put a statement of intent to strongly discourage on-street parking, but could not do anything to require this. The decision should also include that the construction on the way may not begin until after a building permit had been issued, but must be completed before the certificate of occupancy would be issued. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, that Oakmount Circle in the vicinity of lot 186E was not presently of adequate grade and construction. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-1, (Mr. Hornig opposed), that Oakmount Circle would be of adequate grade and construction in the vicinity of lot 186E with the proposed improvements and be subject to the following conditions:  The shoulders of the right of way would have a maximum grade of 1:3.  The utilities to the new house must be underground.  All damaged trees must be replaced according to the tree bylaw and the damaged 16 inch oak tree to be removed would be added as well.  The pavement of the of the travelled way must be paved to a width of 16 feet plus the cape cod berm.  There would be flexibility on storm water drainage modification for low impact development alternatives to the cape cod berm if approved by staff. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of July 16, 2014 Lexington Hills- Waiver of fees for subdivision modification: The Board discussed and agreed to reduce the submission fees for the special permit modification for Lexington Hills from $15,000 to $2,000. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to reduce the submission fees to $2,000 for the Lexington Hills subdivision application for a special permit modification. ***********************ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA)********************** The Planning Board discussed the following applications for the ZBA’s upcoming meeting and had the following comments: 21 Muzzey Street:  There were concerns raised about the transition and screening relief and the potential impact it could have on the area.  The Town was currently focused on parking in the Center and improving the management of the Center’s parking so appropriate mitigation should be required from developers looking for parking relief. There were some new ideas listed in the Nelson Nygaard report, which the developer could consider or make a payment in lieu of parking.  There was no information provided by the applicant how this proposal met the criteria for the sought after variance, which would be how the soil, shape or topography of this lot differed from those in the district. 13 Bedford Street:  If this application was granted it should be conditioned to clarify that this would not be an accessory apartment in an accessory structure there was concern that the addition of this new floor could lead to the space’s eventual conversion. 324 Marrett Road:  The LED pump toppers proposal for Cumberland Farms brought up concerns about light clutter and it was strongly encouraged that any approval of these signs be limited to static text and containing no advertising. ************************PLANNING BOARD VACANCY************************* Review of the Candidates: The Planning Board interviewed the one candidate that applied to fill the vacancy on the Planning Board created by the resignation of Gregory Zurlo. Mr. Hornig recused himself because of a Minutes for the Meeting of July 16, 2014 Page 5 business relationship with the candidate and Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti would run this part of the meeting. The Board Members began by asking questions regarding why Ms. Johnson applied for the position, what skills she could bring to the Planning Board, her background, why she moved to Lexington, and what would be the one thing she hoped the Planning Board would accomplish this year. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to forward Ms. Johnson’s name to the Board of Selectmen for appointment to the Planning Board. *******************************ZONING MAPS********************************* District Boundary Changes: Mr. Henry presented a power point presentation outlining the staff’s progress on the Zoning District Boundary changes, which was part of the Planning Board FY 2015 work plan. *********************************MINUTES************************************ On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes of June 18, 2014 as submitted. ***************************** BOARD SCHEDULING**************************** There will be a meeting on Monday, July 28 at 7:00 p.m. to appoint a candidate to fill the Planning Board vacancy. If there was too much for the July 28 schedule an additional meeting could be added for July 30. The next meeting would be on August 20, 2014. ****************************STAFF REPORTS*********************************** The possible upcoming developments included the land at the end of Lincoln Street, a possible development on Winter Street, and some street determinations on Ward Street, Sunny Knoll Terrace and Outlook Drive. ****************************BOARD REPORTS********************************** There were some updates on the on the Land Use Reform Bill and MAPC would be voting on adjusting their dues assessment. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to adjourn at 10:06 p.m. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of July 16, 2014 The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Staff Summary/ recommendation from Staff regarding Oakmount Circle (1 page).  Letter from Daniel Orwig regarding Oakmount Circle Lot 186E, dated July 10, 2014 (2 pages).  Plans Notice of Intent, regarding Oakmount Circle, dated July 7, 2014 (4 pages).  Staff Summary/recommendation from Staff regarding Ponybrook Lane, dated July 16, 2014 (1 page). Timothy Dunn, Clerk