Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-06-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 2016 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order 7:05 p.m. by Chair Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, with members Charles Hornig, Tim Dunn, and Ginna Johnson and planning staff Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. Mr. Canale was absent. *********************************STAFF REPORTS***************************** General updates: The PSDUP was filed for Brookhaven and on the table as well as Lincoln Street plans for the meeting on January 20, 2016. The new planner, Mr. David Fields, will start January 25, 2016. Mr. Fields resume will be made available to Planning Board Members. ************* UPCOMING MEETINGS AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE************** Discussion of upcoming meeting schedule and known agenda items: The upcoming schedule was reviewed. Board Members were asked to attend a Board of Selectmen (BOS) meeting on Monday, January 11, to discuss the number of articles the Planning Board wants to bring forward on the warrant. That meeting will be posted. Meetings are scheduled for January 20, 21, and 27, February 3, 10, and 24, March 2, and 16. RPC updates were discussed. Planning Board Members were given assignments to present the various Residential Policy Committee (RPC) articles at the public meetings. A draft flier was for the January 21 public forum was provided to the Board for review before distribution. The next RPC meeting is January 12. **************** 2016 ATM WARRANT ARTICICLE DISCUSSION****************** Discussion of upcoming meeting schedule and known agenda items: The draft for the Planning Board warrant articles were distributed to the Board for review. The articles that were not published are still able to be modified and all comments should be forwarded to staff. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of January 6, 2016 The following Board Members will do Town Meeting presentations on the warrant articles at Town Meeting:  Mr. Canale will present Neighborhood Conservation Districts, and Large Uses in the CB District (Bank Moratorium);  Mr. Hornig will present Technical Corrections, Planned Development Districts, Accessory Apartments, and Two-Family Houses;  Ms. Johnson will present Floor Area Ratio and Side Yard Setbacks and Height; and  Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti will present the Government/Civic Use Districts (GC), Flood Zone, and Brookhaven after the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Hornig and Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti will meet with the School Committee on the GC District th and get comments but will not close the hearing on the 20 to wait for comments after the meeting with the School Committee. Staff will work with Board Members on the presentations. ************************************MINUTES********************************* On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the minutes for the Planning Board meetings on October 21, November 18, and December 9, 2015 as submitted. ***********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************** PUBLIC HEARING 48 Summit Road, Site Sensitive Development: Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti called to order the continued public hearing for 48 Summit Road at 7:31 p.m.Mr. Fred Russell, project engineer and Mr. John Farrington, attorney were present and there were 18 people in the audience. This project came in last year and considered the Board’s comments has been revised. The impervious surface was reduced by making a smaller footprint, smaller setbacks and bring the house forward with a smaller driveway length with a front entry garage to reduce disturbance. All runoff will be captured with subsurface infiltration systems. The applicant will provide an overlay on Summit Road and improvements to the existing path and make more desirable. The drainage system was redesigned for this new configuration. Board Comments:  Show the easement for the existing driveway on the plans;  Show where the utilities will be; Minutes for the Meeting of January 6, 2016 Page 3  Will the new utilities be underground? Yes.  The new house siting is better. The new location is right at the top of the hill. The house was depressed three to four feet lower than the previous submission.  What is the height of the roof Gable? 40 feet.  Footpath put appropriate material at an appropriate width. Highway Department did some stabilization on the path and Engineering wants to work with the applicant. There was some erosion which needs to be addressed.  The pavement on Summit Road is cracking. Will overlay be appropriate or would it need mill and overlay. Could use some crack sealing and provide an overlay and the pot holes will be filled before the overlay.  Want a minimum of 18 feet? Yes, all the way to the public section.  Would like to see a turnaround at the end so a fire truck can turn around. That turning radius will be brought forward the next time.  Consider undergrounding the utilities. The applicant will look into to see if it would be possible. Public comments:  There is an existing shed at the wall that needs to be looked at.  The applicants have still not reached out to neighbors as was request in the past.  There are concerns about the water issues that may be caused by construction in this area.  The site is mostly ledge.  This does property does not fit the criteria for a Site Sensitive Development and should be disapproved.  The owner of the property does not live there right now and not attending the meeting. The owner did not respond to the attempts of the abutter to reach out.  There are over 100 trees that will be cut down and the water will not get absorbed and cause water issues on Summit Road. Mr. Russell and Mr. Farrington will be happy to meet with the neighbors. The drainage calculations and system has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and yes it is sad to cut down all the trees.  The resident does not agree the drainage issue are addressed. The entire site is bedrock and water runs right over the bedrock and will randomly flow into basements and driveways. This development is sitting on top of the hill and there must be blasting and no one will know where the water will go through the cracks. The infiltration system is catching all the roof and surface water to five pipes leading to the back and then Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of January 6, 2016 distributed to one location right over bedrock. There is no soil to absorb water and this development will make the water go in their directions with the more than 7% grade and will ice up. The abutter was surprised no comments or questions about the drainage in the back were made. Many neighbors are here and are concerned about this development.  This new system should require an engineering evaluation at the top of Summit Road since some pavement will be opened and examined to make sure this is being done properly.  Read a letter from neighbors about their concerns regarding the construction at 48 Summit Road for the past 21 years there have been significant water runoff problems, which started when the existing property on Summit Road was significantly expanded with flooding basement and yard flooding and are concerned with another property being built above them.  Removing trees from the top of the dome will not help the water problem.  This is also an issue with ground water flow issues not just surface water runoff issues and it is hard to figure runoff with ledge and any significant changes will disrupt what currently exists. Not sure there is even a way to fix the ground water flow issues. Board Comments:  This is the antithesis of a Site Sensitive Development since it is proposed to be perched at the summit of the site. Concern about where the water is going after the infiltration system and cannot predict where it goes and will cause great expense to the abutters. If put at a lower elevation it would be better since it would save some trees and have less of an impact on the views across the area. This is still a bad proposal and cannot support.  Things that need to be addressed that cause concern like building a 40 foot house at the top of the site is in an inconvenient location so bring down the roof height and even without blasting will still need to remove more foundation. This is better than the conventional, but not much.  The storm water issue is the major issue and asked staff what the options are here to make sure? Mr. Henry could ask to Engineering to review the plan in more detail or could invoke 53G and have the plan peer review by a third party at the applicants expense. This seems to be leaning towards a 53G review.  The drainage is bad now, but probably will not be better or worse but as things get moved around it will change and just not sure how it will change.  By removing trees considerable water drainage will be increased. This is not a project worthy of support. Minutes for the Meeting of January 6, 2016 Page 5 Audience Comments:  Take out trees, add a house, and driveway and that creates a zero absorption. Mr. Russell said that regulations were met and this won’t make the problem worse, but will not make it better. The Board comments from the last meeting and incorporated them so tell me what can be done. No development is not an option. A conventional plan can be done here by right.  If a conventional plan was done it would be an awful plan.  Has a conventional plan been proven? It is a requirement before proceeding to this level for a special permit. Board Comments:  Bring the house height down  Take the proposed house off the summit of the hill and bring it down lower and make a small structure and set to the east of the existing house and set it into the slope and create a country lane to connect it. Audience Comments:  The owner is not living there and will sell his house as soon as he sells the other lot. This is all comes down to money. Board Comments:  Where do we stand with the 53G? The drainage report is reasonable, but agree that neighbors will see changes and not sure what that would be and not sure a peer review would help.  Even if this is a conventional plan it would still require peer review. Does the conventional plan have stormwater plans? Can that be submitted to the Board? Yes.  What is the length of road? This road is 625 feet.  When would be the next meeting? February 10 and will double back with Engineering.  Locate abutting structures on GIS to understand relationships and heights.  Make sure to reach out to the abutters. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to continue the public hearing to February 10 at 8:05 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. The Board Recessed for 5 minutes. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of January 6, 2016 60 Hartwell Avenue, Major Site Plan Review: Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti called to order the continued public hearing for 60 Hartwell Avenue at 8:53 p.m.Mr. Stephen Wiehe, project manager and Mike Singer of Brightfields Development, LLC. were present and provided print outs of two documents a NOI and a storm water modeling filed with the Conservation Commission filing that were sent electronically. A letter was submitted by the applicant with the questions that were brought up by the Board at the last meeting and the applicant’s responses which is on file in the Planning Office. Board Comments:  The trailhead sign should be coordinated with the Greenway Corridor Committee and/or Bike Committee, and Peggy Enders should be consulted.  What will the rest of the site be used for? Would like more details than what has been provided.  Are any conduits being buried? Only one and the rest are above ground.  Any lighting on the site lighting is compliant with the standards of the zoning bylaw. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 4-0, to approve the site plan with the changes discussed above. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 4-0, to authorize the Planning Director to sign the decision on behalf of the Planning Board. **************** 2016 ATM WARRANT ARTICLE DISCUSSION********************* The Board discussed whether to bring forward all the Planning Board warrant articles. Concern was expressed the readiness of some of the Articles. The timeline will be determined based on feedback from the public and the Board will decide which articles will go forward. Some Members are interested in hearing what Lexington has to say. If comments come in and there is no consensus for some articles they will not move forward for this Town Meeting. After public hearings may reconsider whether an article may go forward. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to adjourn at 9:54 p.m. Minutes for the Meeting of January 6, 2016 Page 7 The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Email from the Board of Selectmen, dated January 6, 2016 to Aaron Henry and Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti regarding the Planning Board Warrant Articles for the 2016 Annual Town Meeting. (1 page)  Draft Warrant Articles (38 pages)  Agenda Summary and Staff Recommendations regarding 48 Summit Road, dated December 30, 2015. (2 pages)  Definitive application book for 48 Summit Road SSD, dated September 25, 2015.  Plan set for 48 Summit Road dated September 25, 2015. (8 pages)  Cover letter and plans from 60 Hartwell Avenue, dated January 6, 2016 from Weston and Sampson. (5 pages)  Draft site plan approval for 60 Hartwell Avenue dated January 6, 2016. (3 pages) Ginna Johnson, Clerk