Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-18-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2015 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order 7:02 p.m. by Chair Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, with members, Tim Dunn, Charles Hornig, Richard Canale, and planning staff Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. Ginna Johnson was absent. *********************************STAFF REPORTS***************************** General updates: Attention was brought to a letter from the Board of Selectmen that set the date to close the warrant for Annual Town Meeting to December 29, 2015. It also set the dates for the local elections and Annual Town Meeting to March 1 and March 21, respectively. ***********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************** RD-6 (Brookhaven) PSDUP Amendment update: Bill Daley, attorney, Dianne Dooley, principal architect, Dave Fisher, landscape architect, Jim Borrebach, project engineer, and James Freehling, Brookhaven CEO/President were present. Mr. Daley presented first, indicating the updated proposal has incorporated comments and concerns from the last Planning Board meeting, and the goal is to bring the proposal to the 2016 Annual Town Meeting. He then gave the floor to Ms. Dooley who presented an overview of the most important changes made to the plan. These changes included:  Removing the public entrance on the north side and limiting that access to emergency vehicles, leaving the current entrance as the only one to the site. This access system was acceptable to the Fire Department.  To avoid the inclusion of a dead-end parking lot, the current plan now features parking along the internal roadway.  Inclusion of a public walkway on the east side of the site that connects to conservation land.  To mitigate the visibility of the building to northern abutters, the north side of the proposed expansion has been reduced from a 4 story to 3 story profile.  Pedestrian access to the new building has been provided. Dave Fisher presented next, highlighting some of the more important landscaping features, including: landscaping buffers to Waltham Street on the west side of the site, and conservation to Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of November 18, 2015 the east; pedestrian paths connecting to existing sidewalks on Waltham St, and other existing pedestrian accommodations as well as the southern buildings; pavilions along the pedestrian connection to the northern buildings; and an apple orchard on the northeast corner of the site. Board Comments  The Board wished to ascertain that both the emergency vehicle entrance and public entrance will include pedestrian access accommodations to Waltham St. Yes: The emergency entrance is only for emergency vehicles so it functions be default as a pedestrian entrance. The main entrance will have pedestrian access that connects to Waltham St.  Beside the one primary installation, will there be other drainage structures for the northern building? Jim Borrebach, project engineer, answered the question in the affirmative, indicating there will be two additional infiltration systems on the southeast and southwest corners of the building.  Will there be any invasive species controls in areas of existing vegetation? Work was conducted in concert with the Conservation Commission on the southern end to remove invasive species. Other than that, the plan is to leave the northeast corner and the wetlands areas untouched.  Will there be additional drainage mitigation for the expansion to the southern complex? Yes. A retaining wall on the northern side of the roadway.  Is there an expected increase in traffic demands for the main entrance and will there be measures in place to cope with that? Jim Borrebach: There is no definitive evaluation of that at this time. There are plans to conduct trip generation analyses, but the expectation is that the increased traffic will be fairly low.  Will there be any changes to uses or conditions are part of the PSDUP? No changes.  Are there any planned changes to the age restrictions or conditions for eligible residents? James Freehling answered the question stating the conditions and requirements will not change: age restriction of 62 and above. No changes to contracts or any other conditions.  Is this proposal the maximum expansion that the applicants expect for their current site? Yes.  Have the applicants made any considerations towards acquiring land to the north and seeking further expansion in the future. Bill Daley: Not at this time, but they would certainly like to retain the option to do so, as Brookhaven has considerable demand. Minutes for the Meeting of November 18, 2015 Page 3 The comments of absent Board Member, Ginna Johnson were presented. They generally expressed approval and support of the changes made, but also highlighted some remaining areas of concern: removing the proposed building from the 100ft wetlands setback; reducing the size of the proposed building and moving it to the north and west. The Board discussed with the applicant about scheduling a further meeting. It was agreed that the applicant would meet with the Development Review Team on December 1, 2015 and plan to meet with the Planning Board on December 9, 2015. Stratham Road, Street Determination: Julie Medley, resident of 11 Stratham Road, and other residents of Stratham Road were present. Ms Medley presented first stating that she is seeking a waiver of standards for private ways based on the following considerations:  All nine families living on Stratham Road would prefer to leave the road as is. Traffic is currently minimal, and residents would like to see it stay that way.  Improvements to the road would likely involve significant work and require Conservation Commission approval, given the proximity to wetlands.  The cost of repaving the way is substantial, and if required to, the applicant would likely be forced to sell the home, leaving a developer open to demolishing the existing structure and rebuilding a significantly larger home, an unwelcome outcome for the neighborhood. Throughout the meeting, residents of Stratham Road took the opportunity to speak up in support of Ms. Medley’s request to leave the way as is generally for the same reasons provided by the applicant. Board Comments  How is maintenance being conducted on Stratham Road? George Katsarakes, resident at 16 Stratham Road, came forward to provide an answer: DPW will patch the road occasionally to ensure they can plow the road and emergency vehicles can pass.  Is the stated width of 14 feet a dimension at the narrowest point, or are there places where the way is narrower? The way is slightly narrower in some parts.  Fourteen feet is not enough for vehicles to pass delivery trucks. How are situations like that being handled on Stratham Road? Four residents came forward to say that in such situations, drivers will ride up on the grass, wait, go around to the other entrance on Woodberry Road, or use a neighbor’s driveway. They do not view the width as ever having caused any concerns. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of November 18, 2015  Concerns were raised that the paved road may not in fact be in the right-of-way. Town data indicates the paved road does not stay within the right-of-way. Do any residents have surveyed plans that show the exact location of the property lines? Ms. Medley stated she had a survey of her lot showing that the paved road is indeed within the right-of-way. No conclusive evidence was provided showing the property lines on other parts of Stratham Rd.  Drainage concerns were raised: Is there puddling on the road? Is there erosion occurring on the side of the road? Ms. Medley indicated there is indeed puddling at the bottom of Stratham Rd (near its intersection with Worthen Road).  Has the applicant thought about the adequacy of the way with respect to the requirements of the construction vehicles necessary to rebuild her house, or considered construction management techniques for this issue? Ms. Medley indicated she had not. Another resident who has lived on Stratham Rd stated he had thought about it and that many improvements and expansions have been made to his home over the years and construction vehicles have never caused any concerns.  Has the applicant or any of the residents considered making the road one-way? It might alleviate some of the concerns with the width. Ms. Medley indicated that no one had considered a change to a one-way street, and that they were most likely all opposed to the idea.  Is the Fire Department willing to provide a variance to their requirements with regard to the width of ways (20 feet)? Ms. Medley stated that the Fire Department has been to her house many times including during the heaviest snowfall of winter 2014. Mr. Henry expanded on the requirements of the Fire Department, and stated that the Fire Department is usually pretty lenient when it comes to existing ways, but they were not yet consulted on this particular case.  Will the Town continue maintaining the road? No conclusive answer.  The house at 19 Stratham Rd may be encroaching on the property of 11 Stratham Rd. Do the applicant’s surveys confirm this? The surveyed plans do not show such an encroachment, although the house at 19 Stratham Rd is still very close to the lot line.  One Board member expressed that he is satisfied with the width of the road but would like to see it repaved. The biggest concern being the quality of the surface of the road.  Comments of absent Board Member were relayed by the Chair: The road does not meet the Town’s regulations regarding adequacy, however, the Board should use its discretion in applying regulations standards to this case. The regulations do not accommodate Minutes for the Meeting of November 18, 2015 Page 5 Lexington’s historic infrastructure, specifically roads that predate the automotive age. Stratham Rd appears to be a candidate for preservation under the state’s Scenic Roads Act. If not, new regulations should be drafted protecting small historic cartways whose improvement would impact historic areas or environmental protection areas. The applicant should simply be required to restore the road to its pre-construction condition and repair existing potholes, but not improve the roadway to required width and grade.  What is the expected timeline for the rebuilding of the home if the Board were to proceed? Ms. Medley stated she does not, and due to work-based constraints, she will get to it when she can if she feels her proposals will be successful.  What is the estimated desired size of the house to replace the existing one? Ms. Medley said she is hoping to keep the replacement home between 2500 and 3500 square feet, with a preference towards the lower end of the range.  One member expressed his satisfaction with the grade and utilities. His concerns lie primarily with the width being far too narrow and the quality of construction. He would like to see a width of 16 feet. Ms. Medley pointed out that Karen Mullins, the Conservation Administrator had inspected the lower end of Stratham Road and said that any widening of the way would trigger a review. The Board Member’s biggest concern is with the construction, stating that the best parts of the way are showing cracking that pose a threat to the subbase. The Board’s practice in similar cases has been to ask that the road be repaved and the subbase repaired.  Since the regulations pertaining to this case are currently up for review and subject to change, will the applicant be able to come back or file again at a later date? Mr. Henry, planning director, indicated that the applicant would be able to come back in any event, and should the change to the regulations render the applicant’s current application unnecessary under the new regulations, the decision made would be rendered moot. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, the section of Stratham Road from #11 to Worthen Rd is not of adequate grade and construction. After the motion, there were extensive discussions about the possibility of a new proposal and how it would be classified, as well as what standards or improvements could be made that would receive approval from the Board. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of November 18, 2015 ******2016 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLE DISCUSSION*********** Mr. Henry, Planning Director, opened discussions by requesting an explicit report by the Board about what they would like to pursue. The Board agreed that they would, at this time, like to continue to pursue all proposed articles under consideration, including technical changes to the bylaw. Planned Development Districts: Changes to this section of the bylaw would require complimentary changes to other sections like Site Plan Review. Those changes have not been drafted or significantly contemplated. Discussion revolved around trying to bring the regulations on Planned Development Districts back to the “what you see if what you get” mindset elucidated by Robert Boyer’s document (handed out to staff). Residential Policy Committee: RPC members planned to meet with the Historic District Commission regarding Neighborhood Conservation Districts. Members expect that by mid- December, drafts for each RPC initiative will be ready to bring forward. Two-Family Dwelling: It’s important to discuss this initiative in conjunction with other proposals, especially as a carrot-stick combination with Floor-Area Ratio restrictions. Smart Growth, 40R: While not ready for this year’s Town Meeting, the Board believes the concept is certainly ready for discussion. State law seems to be geared more towards 40R implementation in small, isolated cases while so far staff and the Board have been considering it more as overlay zoning. Large Services Uses in the CB District: The Center Committee had a lukewarm support for the concept, but Committee wished there was another option available since there seemed to be a feeling that banking has been moved operating more like an office use. The Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) can have rules for Special Permits through a regulation from the SPGA as to what they would be looking at when considering a Special Permit. ************* UPCOMING MEETINGS AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE************** The next Planning Board meeting will be December 9, there will be some development some development administration items and discussion of the warrant articles will continue. December 16 is the Hartwell Avenue solar project (major site plan review). Mr. Dunn will not be at that Minutes for the Meeting of November 18, 2015 Page 7 meeting. January 6 and 20 are the proposed meeting dates for Janauary. Mr. Canale may not be there January 6. Staff requested that Board Members advise the office of any dates the Board Members are not available for meetings. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Potential 2016 ATM Articles  Brookhaven Repositioning Site Plan and Landscape (2 pages) Richard Canale, Acting Clerk