Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-11-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 2015 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig, with members Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, Richard Canale, Timothy Dunn, Ginna Johnson and planning staff Maryann McCall- Taylor, Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. *************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION******************** PUBLIC HEARING 3 Martingale Road, special permit modification: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing to order at 7:05 p.m. There were no people in the audience. Mr. Waitt represented the applicant Peter Chiarelli, to request a modification of the special permit to allow the addition of a pool, a pervious pavement patio and a bath house. Mr. Waitt said the request was to increase the impervious area limit for Lot 1 of the subdivision from the approved 17.9% to 20.0% for Lot 1. Since the last plan the pool was moved 8.5 feet west and the pool house moved 20 feet to the west. The Conservation Commission approved the plan and there were no abutter objections. Board Comments:  The applicant should move the pool to the north to not block the light and within the original limit of work line (LOW). Plantings should go up to the limit of paving.  There was disappointment that the applicant did not reach out to abutters. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the modification to the special permit with site plan review to increase the impervious surface from 17.9% to a maximum of 20% and a condition to relocate the pool house north of the pool and west of the original LOW. 36, 42, & 48 Cary Avenue, Definitive Subdivision: Mr. Hornig called the continued public hearing to order at 7:22 p.m. There were 2 people in the audience. Mr. Waitt, Engineer of Meridian Associates, John Farrington, Attorney and Todd Cataldo, the applicant were present. Mr. Waitt said the following changes were made: a note was added to the site analysis plan that there were no wetlands located on the property, the drainage structure to Lot C was relocated and a drainage easement added, the stonewall on Lot A would now run parallel to the property line, trees were added on opposite side of the ROW, the sidewalk Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2015 was extended around the entire cul-de-sac, and “one way only” and “do not enter” signs would be added. The center line of the pavement was offset by one foot to fit within the 40 foot ROW. The waivers requested were to reduce the outside turning radius of the cul-de-sac from 50 feet to 49 feet and the inside turning radius from 25 feet to 24 feet both approved by Engineering and the Fire Departments. The pavement of the ROW would be offset from the centerline of the street by one foot so not to lose a foot of the planting strip behind the sidewalk. The water main cannot be looped and so would be a dead end main, which was approved by Engineering. Board Comments:  Willard Circle what was the significance of that name? The Hayden Estate was down the street and that was Mr. Hayden’s middle name.  Would there be plantings in the cul-de-sac to screen lights from the abutter? That would be evaluated during construction.  Could the turning radius provided to the Fire Department be forwarded to the Board? Yes.  For a minor road the documents must include giving the Town enforcement rights as well as prohibit parking on the roadway. John Farrington said if required they would be added.  The Homeowners Association must agree to plow snow until the developer gets a certificate of completion for the subdivision or request a waiver? Mr. Farrington said they would ask for a waiver. Audience Comments:  There was concern expressed about the light impacts with the vegetative buffer being removed and was requesting a commitment now to mitigate the effect of traffic lighting for the immediate neighbor’s homes. Mr. Cataldo would look at that when the cul-de-sac was in. The abutter was asking for plantings in back of the lots. Board Comments:  When the Fire Chief reviewed the proposal was he aware that there would be parking on the street? Not sure if that matter was discussed. Get an interpretation from the Fire Department.  The Homeowners should take responsibility for snow removal. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the definitive subdivision as submitted with changes to the draft decision to include wording of mandatory conditions and conforming to conditions in section 6.3. Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2015 Page 3 21 Follen Road/718 Massachusetts Avenue, Approval Not Required: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to endorse the plan as it did not need approval under the Subdivision Control Law. 11 Cider Mill Lane, Major or Minor modification determination: The applicant was seeking to expand the deck on the back of the house, but was governed by a special permit. The Board discussed that if this had been included in the original plans it would have been approved. The plan was way under the allowable site coverage. This maybe an issue with the condo association and the applicant would need to address that with them. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, that the change in the deck size was a minor change. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the proposed change to the deck size. ******************************TOWN MEETING********************************* PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Hornig called the public hearing to order at 8:03 p.m. There were 18 people in the audience. Mr. Hornig did a presentation on the following Zoning change Articles. Commercial District Boundary Changes, Article 48: This Article will amend the Zoning Map by changing zoning district boundary lines in the areas listed so that the district boundaries will coincide with lot or ownership boundaries. It would adjust the commercial zoning district lines in these areas to follow lines of ownership or lot lines where they do not already do so. This may result in portions of lots or the entire lots being moved into or out of the commercial districts. Audience Comments: A. 229-235 Bedford Street (CN)  There was concern that where there was residential use there and if changed to a commercial zoning expansion by right for the residential use as currently allowed might not be permitted. B. 242-246 Bedford Street (CS)  There was objection of doubling the size of the commercial zone in a residential area because of overnight lighting, buses starting early in the morning and fumes from warming up the buses and could be detrimental to neighbors. This neighborhood has been burdened with non-conforming uses, which directly Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2015 impact the neighbors behind them. If this was made legally conforming just to neaten the zoning map it could have a large detrimental impact on the residential neighbors.  This could be one of these unintended consequences of trying to clean up the zoning bylaw. Going to the Zoning Board of Appeals abutters would be noticed with the existing zoning, but if rezoned a mall could be put up without any notices sent to the abutters to be heard.  Would this be 10 separate issues or all as one?  If this was rezoned a beautiful neighborhood would be lost which would be heartbreaking. C. 173-181 Bedford Street (CLO)  What would the access to the office park be? The access was off Bedford Street. D. Bedford and Reed (CN)  Lowell Street and Woburn Street the owner was not allowed a teardown for a rundown house and changed to commercial. There was a rundown house now and would hate to lose an affordable housing unit.  There was someone living in the house and it was not rundown and if rebuilt by the time it met all the zoning requirements the house would be a toothpick. E. North and Lowell (CS)  Are there any residences on the lot that would become commercial? No. F. Lowell and Woburn (CRS)  Is there any difference on how the residential and commercial are taxed? It is taxed by use.  The co-owner of Countryside very supportive and very willing to rezone the house that was turned down a few years ago at Town Meeting. G. Marrett and Lincoln (CLO) H. Marrett and Spring (CS) I. Waltham and Marrett (CN & CRS)  Concerned with any changes that would result in the loss of a residential unit that was affordable.  This was primarily a residential use now, but was concerned that if a new person bought the lot it could be changed to a mini strip mall, which would disturb the neighborhood. J. Waltham Street at the Waltham Town Line Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2015 Page 5 Civic Use District, Article 49: This Article would create a new district or districts including establishing allowed uses, dimensional standards and transition and screening requirement by rezoning parcels owned by governmental bodies held for public use into the new district this includes most publicly-owned land in Lexington. Mr. Canale attended an open space and recreation meeting and said that if this article should go forward in the future discussion there may be two possible zones one for open space and one for civic use. Audience Comments:  What was the land zoned now and what was the purpose of this Article? To make clear the intended use and provide clear protections for these government owned lands.  This would be lumping in conservation land with civic uses in this district; what would be allowed? Ms. McCall-Taylor read off the use table for the proposed district for clarity. There would be a political process if the Town wanted to build on it.  Would any new Town use like a parking lot require Town Meeting to appropriate money for that use? Since the Town owns the land it would still need to go through the political process before it would be allowed to happen. Most of this land would have rights that would be truncated and there would be no use change in this rezoned land.  Would churches be permitted? They would have to lease or buy the land and their rights would not be restricted.  This would just be putting a name on what already existed and calling it a civic use district.  What land was being excluded? Land that was not held for a public purpose, taken for taxes or given to the Town, land the Town might want to sell, fire station, land overlapped with planned development districts, two parking lots one behind the library and the one behind Michelson’s Shoes (due to possible reorganization to create parking efficiencies), and LEXHAB Public Housing. CRO and Unzoned Parcel to CM, Article 50: This Article would rezone the Lexington properties adjacent to Tracer Lane in Waltham to the CM District. Some of this land was removed from the RO Residential District by a Court Order, leaving it unzoned, while the remainder was currently in the CRO District. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2015 Audience Comments:  Copies of the Court Report were and never received. The background for this parcel should be presented now. Mr. Hornig gave a review of the background for this lot.  It was suggested that the information presented was inaccurate for this parcel. If this rezoning was to go through and the land built on it would be a controversial article. Mr. Canale said the Town’s decision to not appeal was due to the cost and would not be a wise use of money.  Any legal cases that demonstrate any unzoned land can be used for anything without restriction should be posted to the Town’s website. Banks and Credit Unions in the Center, Article 53: This Article would create a temporary moratorium on banks or credit unions as allowed uses in center storefronts in the Central Business District. Existing banks and credit unions could continue to occupy their existing space, but could not expand or relocate except where such a use currently exists. This period of the moratorium ending July 31, 2016 would be used to study the effects of banks and credit unions on the strength and vitality of a Center Business district and to assess the impacts of further regulation of such uses. This was requested by the Board of Selectmen at a meeting with them on January 12, 2015. Audience Comments:  The Center Committee studied this for a whole year. The committee presented a draft article for a ban; why was that denied? The Planning Board felt it was not appropriate and met with BOS and on January 12 to address that matter.  This was a Planning Board warrant article and the Center Committee does not have an official position on the article at this time. What was proposed was a bank limitation on storefronts in the Center.  What was the issue being studied and trying to be resolved? What would be the end game and the projected outcome? The Board wanted to explore what would be the right approach to take.  The three primary drivers would be using zoning as a tool for over a long period of time to affect uses. Bank use has changed over time and the front window with offices was boring and did not create a vibrant center. The third was the linear store frontage which has a great value and a scarce resource had a large amount that has been taken up by banks. Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2015 Page 7 Site Plan review Applicability, Article 51: This Article would make the site plan review process, currently used for developments in the CM District, apply to expansion of structures other than buildings in addition to expansions of buildings. Structures other than buildings include ground-mounted solar arrays, storage tanks and the like. Audience Comments:  Would this cover house additions? No only commercial properties. Technical Corrections, Article 52: This article includes changes of a corrective nature such as inserting a definition dropped inadvertently during recodification and inserting a missing word, and would not change the Bylaw in any substantive way. This would clarify the interpretation of certain aspects of the bylaw. Audience Comments:  There were no comments from the audience. Planning Board Comments on the public hearing Articles: Commercial District Boundary Changes, Article 48:  Two votes may be in order if the Board wanted to indefinitely postpone or debate portions of the article and present what the Board’s actual positions were.  The purpose of bringing this article forward was to hear from the public. What was heard was there was concern about the proposed changes and the residents preferred to maintain the character of the neighborhoods as they were now. Civic Use District, Article 49:  Support this article for the Lexington we want, but change the colors to enhance the maps.  Look at the proposed goals of Open Space Plan and to see this Article would meet the those goals. Would a subcategory that provided protection achieve what the Open Space plan was looking for?  A list of revisions was submitted by Mr. Hornig and can be found on file in the Planning Office.  List all the excluded parcels and put them in the Town Meeting packet.  Provide classes of what government parcels were and were not included in the Article.  Changed uses of a special permit and site plan review in this zone would not deal with future ownership.  What kind of public process would be required? Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2015 CRO and Unzoned Parcel to CM, Article 50:  There was concern about this parcel being adjacent to the Cambridge reservoir and would the CM district be the best possible use to respect this resource area. Has runoff and pollutants going into the reservoir been considered?  Have staff heard from the land owner? The owner wanted to remain unzoned.  Have staff heard from the City of Cambridge? Not specifically on this project but were in contact on all items around the reservoir. Site Plan review Applicability, Article 51: Technical Corrections, Article 52: Banks and Credit Unions in the Center, Article 53:  Have land owners been notified. The Economic Development Officer was in contact with the land owners. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearings to February 25 at 7:10 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. *********************ORGANIZATION & SCHEDULING************************** Planning Director Recruitment Process: The Planning Director Maryann McCall-Taylor announced her retirement in May. The Board offered their congratulations and proceeded to discuss the recruitment process timeline for the hiring of a new Planning Director. The Town Manager would appoint a new Planning Director with the approval of the Planning Board. There was some discussion of staff reorganization and the possible addition of an Assistant Town Manager for Land Use. The Board should review the Planning Director job description and forward comments to staff. There was a suggestion that the Planning Board should weigh in on the selection process for the new Assistant Town Manager and wanted that position description to include some planning background. Schedule: There will be a Planning Board meetings on February 25 with a public hearing on Medical Marijuana and continued public hearings on Cubist CD-9 and the Planning Board zoning articles. th On March 4 the Planning Board will deliberate on the articles and draft reports for Town Meeting and hear a sketch plan for 83 Spring Street. On March 11 the Board will approve the final reports. There will be a meeting on March 18 only if necessary. The site plan review application for Hartwell Avenue application was expected soon, but the applicant would not be available on March 11 or 18. Once Town Meeting begins on March 23 the Board will meet at 6:00 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays before each Town Meeting session. Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2015 Page 9 *********************************MINUTES************************************ On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the minutes of November 19, 2014, as amended. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of December 3, 2014. ****************************BOARD REPORTS********************************** Mr. Canale said at the MAPC executive meeting it was decided that dues would not be going up this year. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department: 1. Cover letter and application, dated December 19, 2014 regarding 3 Martingale Road, (9 pages) 2. Permit Site Plan of Land for 3 Martingale Road, revised December 19, 2014 (1 page). 3. Amend Zoning map for CM District, Waltham line near Route 128/I95 (2 pages) 4. Amend Zoning Bylaw Site Plan review Applicability (1 page) 5. Amend Zoning Bylaw technical c Amend Zoning Bylaw corrections (2 pages) 6. Amend Zoning Bylaw CB District moratorium on banks and credit unions (2 pages) 7. Amend Zoning map Commercial District lines (10 pages) 8. Mr. Hornig Civic Use district dated February 8, 2015 (1 page). 9. Grant of Easements, regarding 36, 42 & 48 Cary Avenue (7 pages). 10. Roadway Section details for Cary Avenue (Willard Circle) dated February 11, 2105 (1 page). 11. Proposed Certificate of Action from February 11, 2015 from staff regarding Cary Avenue subdivision, dated February 11, 2015 (4 pages). 12. ANR plan of land for 21 Follen Road/ 718 Massachusetts Avenue, dated 1/9/15 (1 page). 13. Plot Plan for 11 Cider Mill Lane and deck drawings (4 pages). Timothy Dunn, Clerk