HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 02-23-1998 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall in Cary Memorial Hall and in Room G-15,
Town Office Building,was called to order at 7.45 p.m. by Chairman Merrill with members Davies,Galaitsis,
Canale,Planning Director Bowyer, and Assistant Planner Marino present. Mr. Colman was absent.
***********************ARTICLES FOR 1998 TOWN MEETING ***********************
45 Article 33. Small Lots. PUBLIC HEARING: Mr.Merrill opened the public hearing at 7:38. There were
25 people in the audience.Mr.Merrill introduced Article 33, Small Lots,and explained that the intent of the
proposed zoning amendment is to respond to public concern about large homes that are being built in existing
neighborhoods. The proposed amendment would prevent the construction of a house on a vacant lot that does
not meet minimum zoning requirements, i.e., a lot must have at least 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet of
area to be determined buildable.
Mr.Bowyer explained that the best tools to control large buildings would be a floor area ratio or extra large yard
setbacks but neither of these tools is available because of prohibitions in Chapter 40A,the State Zoning Act.
Robert Whitman,a member of the Board of Appeals, asked for clarification of the last eight words of the first
paragraph of the proposed amendment so that the Board of Appeals could better interpret it. [That language
dealt with the treatment of adjoining lots in common ownership. It was confusing and was subsequently deleted
from the amendment presented to Town Meeting.]
David Kanter of Precinct 7 asked what is the significance of the 5-year difference, 1924,and 1929 in the
existing Bylaw The answer is zoning was adopted by Lexington in 1924 The Town adopted a minimum of 50
feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet of area in 1929 Under the existing Bylaw if the lot was laid out before
March 18, 1929,and has any area and frontage it is buildable. The proposal is to require that the lot be recorded
prior to March 18, 1929 and have 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet of area.
Other questions dealt with whether or not the by-law would apply to cluster developments,the answer being, no;
and,how many lots would the by-law affect,the answer being 122.
Mr.Merrill closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m.
46. Article 35. Technical Corrections.PUBLIC HEARING: Mr.Merrill opened the public hearing at 8:06
p.m. There were 25 people in the audience. Mr Davies explained that the proposed amendment will correct
omissions,typographical errors and cross references,bring the wording of the By-Law into compliance with
MGL, Chapter 40A,the Zoning Act, or with court decisions,clarify interpretations, and otherwise improve the
readability and interpretation of the By-Law This year there are 24 such corrections.The first 14 clarify
definitions in Section 2.
Questions and comments from the audience included: How is the square footage of a basement or cellar that is
not level counted with respect to gross floor area?Is it accurate to refer to a patio as a structure?Do setbacks
control patios?David Kanter,Precinct 7, said that in his condominium complex some decks have been roofed
and screened in. He wondered if they now are counted in the gross floor area.Mr. Davies responded that they
are not habitable and so they would not be counted.
Kate Diamond,Precinct 6, asked if attics are excluded from the 40 foot height limit on residences.Mr Bowyer
said that"story"is the operative word.An attic is a story A basement is not.Mr.Davies explained the
amendment is drafted to be consistent with the State Building Code. William Levison,Precinct 9,why does an
attic count as a half story if walls are only 3 feet high.Furniture can be placed there. Frank Sandy,Precinct 6,
suggested deleting Number 23 dealing with requirements for parking for handicapped persons already covered
2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 1998
by State regulations as it is redundant.
Mr.Merrill closed the hearing at 8:31 p.m.
47 Article 40. Outdoor Lighting.PUBLIC HEARING: Mr.Merrill opened the hearing at 8:32 p.m. There
were 21 people in the audience.Mr Davies explained that Article 40, Outdoor Lighting is aimed at regulating
lighting in commercial and institutional buildings. It will apply primarily to new buildings or to an existing
outdoor lighting installation that is being expanded or modified.It will not apply to one and two-family
residences or to street lights,traffic lights,or other lighting for public safety Its aim is to reduce glare, light spill
onto adjacent properties or into the night sky, and to conserve energy He said the best way to improve the
quality of lighting is through the permit application process,with guidelines provided to applicants.
Comments from the audience included: Safety should be emphasized as a goal.Bright lighting can blind drivers
at night. The bylaw should apply to nuisance residential light as well as streetlights and it should be retroactive.
The color of the light is also very important. The Design Advisory Committee currently requests that applicants
revise unacceptable lighting plans.
Caleb Warner, 546 Concord Avenue, expressed concern at a lack of specificity in the bylaw as to units of
lighting, a very important issue for enforcement.Asher Keshet said that lumens are pretty simple to state,but
color is harder. Some colors are more penetrating.
David Kanter,Precinct 7, advocated including street lighting in the amendment stating that the Town should
regulate itself and purchase only complying fixtures. Myla Kabat-Zinn,Lighting Options Committee Chairman,
said that the Committee is working with George Woodbury,DPW Director on street lighting standards She said
that the process of choosing fixtures is very complex.
Mr Bowyer commented that though streetlights are excepted, lighting at other Town properties is not.
Mr Merrill closed the hearing at 9.15 p.m.
48. Article 41. Parking Requirements. Secondary Schools.PUBLIC HEARING:Mr. Merrill opened the
hearing at 9.16 p.m. There were 23 people in the audience.Dawn McKenna,2564 Massachusetts Avenue,
proponent of Article 41,Parking Requirements, Secondary Schools,a citizen's article,explained its intent,
which is to create parking requirements for secondary schools that reflect actual need, since high school students
drive to school. Currently the Zoning By-Law specifies two parking spaces per classroom,regardless of the
grade levels at the schools.If schools expand,they would have to provide additional parking. She said that John
Moynihan,Lexington Public Schools' Director of Facilities, said that the school expansion plans would comply
with the proposed amendment.
Questions and comments from the audience included: David Kanter, Precinct 7, said that he believes the
Planning Board's Transportation Demand Management policy should be adhered to before providing more
parking spaces for students. They thought those types of programs should be used before constructing more
parking spaces for students. Others expressed an unwillingness to spend tax dollars to build new parking. If this
amendment intends to require more parking for staff, then that should be stated, but it should not encourage
greater automobile use by students. He also suggested that some administrative procedure be designed to
allocate parking spaces at secondary schools.
Margaret Mann, 5 Pelham Road,said that staff of the Concord-Assabet Adolescent Services facility, a Chapter
766 school on Pelham Road, currently park on residential streets in the area because there is not enough parking
on the site.Mrs.McKenna said the proposed amendment would apply to that school also.
Mr Merrill closed the hearing at 9:30.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 1998 3
The Board recessed the meeting and announced it would reconvene in Room G-15, Town Office Building.
************ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
49 Lexington Park Subdivision.off Winter Street. Sketch Plan.Jack Snell/Carter Scott.Decision:
The Board reviewed and revised a draft decision, dated February 23, 1998, prepared by the staff, on a sketch
plan for the Lexington Park subdivision, dated January 22, 1998. On the motion of Mr. Canale, seconded by Mr.
Merrill,the Board voted unanimously,4-0,to approve the decision.
The Board will conduct a site walk on Saturday March 7, 1998 starting at 10:00
50. Old Spring Street 7 4.5 Subdivision.Ronald Lopez.Decision: The Board reviewed and revised draft
decisions,dated February 23, 1998.On the motion of Mr. Canale, seconded by Mr Davies,the Board voted
unanimously,4-0,to:
a) grant a special permit under paragraph 7 4.5 of the Lexington Zoning By-Law to permit the reduction in lot
frontage for lot A from the required 150'to 136.52' and for lot B from 150' to 76' and a special permit
under section 11.8c.to allow a driveway from Old Spring Street to serve both lots A and B,
both as shown on the definitive subdivision plan entitled"Old Spring Street,Lexington Mass",
b) approve the wording of the decision granting the special permit,dated February 23, 1998, as amended.
c) approve with conditions the definitive subdivision plan,entitled "Old Spring Street,Lexington Mass", in
accordance with Section 7 4.5 of the Lexington By-Law",dated October 24, 1997; and
d) approve the certificate of action, dated February 23, as written.
DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS
51 Oakmount Circle. Defmitive Street Improvement Plan.Richard Curtin.Decision: The Board reviewed
and revised a draft decision dated February 23, 1998. On the motion of Mr. Canale, seconded by Mr Galaitsis,
by a vote of 3-0,the Board disapproved the Definitive Street Improvement Plan dated October 24, 1997,as set
forth in the decision.Mr.Davies abstained because he had been out of town and had not had an opportunity to
review the draft decision.
***************** SPECIAL PERMIT WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW**********************
52. 55 Hayden Avenue. Spaulding and Sive:Minor revisions to plan: The Board reviewed a letter from
Spaulding and Slye dated February 10, 1998 requesting 12 minor plan changes and a change in lighting fixtures
from mercury vapor to metal halide. The Board revised a draft decision,dated February 23, 1998,prepared by
the staff and approved the plan changes.
************************************ REPORTS ************************************
Planning Board, Subcommittees
53 Hanscom Area Towns Study Committee(HATS):After a brief discussion,on the motion of Mr. Canale,
seconded by Mr.Davies,Mr Galaitsis was appointed as the Planning Board's representative to the HATS
Committee.Under the HATS Committee structure,the Planning Board has a representative to the Committee.
As the term of Mr. Canale,who has been the Board's representative, on the Board will end with the Town
Election in March,Mr. Galaitsis will replace Mr Canale.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
CCf "i''1/1'\
Steven L. Colman, Clerk