HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 10-26-1998 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 1998
Chairman Merrill called the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board,held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room,
to order at 7.33 p.m. Members Bridge-Denzak, Colman,Davies, Galaitsis,Planning Director Bowyer, and
Assistant Planner Marino were present. Thirty members of the development community were in the audience.
189 Cluster Subdivision Guidelines.Discussion with the Develonment Community. Mr Merrill opened the
meeting by explaining that the Planning Board is very interested in hearing from those people who will use the
cluster subdivision regulations, Section 9 of the Lexington Zoning By-Law The Board wants the regulations to
be attractive to the development community because of their belief that superior development will result from
their use.
Two developers who are in the process of designing cluster subdivisions spoke of their experience thus far
with the regulations,Harry D. Wight, of Chestnut Green LLC,and Carter Scott, Lexington Park.LLC.
Harry Wight, developing Coppersmyth Way near Five Forks,observed that it is hard to read the By-law for its
economic benefits.After considerable study he concluded the most stringent controls, as applied to his
development, were impervious surface and next was trip generation.
He supports the requirement for open space for general planning purposes and for marketing.Nevertheless the
distinction between"usable open space"and"common open space"can be difficult to follow and apply A
small berm violated the maximum slope requirement for usable open space.
He was most complimentary of the Board's commitment to the cluster approach and to the staff for its
explanations and cooperation. Although he ended up filing two sketch plans,he thought he would arrive at final
approval sooner than he anticipated when he started.
Mr. Wight said the requirements for public benefit were gray throughout his process. He said the September
guidelines clarified it.He considered it essential to meet with and inform neighbors and reduce their anxieties.
They eventually supported the proposal at the public hearing.
Carter Scott,developing Lexington Park off Winter Street said that neighbors appear to be most concerned
about those features of cluster development that the Planning Board finds most attractive—a greater number of
(smaller)housing units, affordable housing and housing types different than detached one-family houses.
Neighbors believe more units means more traffic. They prefer fewer larger units more like the single family
houses they live in. He thinks the developer can be placed in the middle between what the Planning Board
thinks is desirable and the more traditional and conservative attitudes of neighbors.
He said the cluster process is longer because of the additional time needed to demonstrate its value to
neighbors. The cluster procedure allowed him the flexibility to move houses away from lot lines and produce a
better scale relationship with neighboring houses.The cluster process is longer than a conventional subdivision
because there are more people to satisfy
He said that the threat of a legal appeal to the courts of a Board's approval was devastating to a developer
because of the delay While the developer and the Board may ultimately prevail on the legal issues,the
developer is economically exposed because of the delay
He said that the site coverage requirements and impervious surface requirements are potentially restrictive.He
pointed out the Board should be aware that the requirements set up an architectural tradeoff While the Board
may want to encourage ground floor master bedroom suites that are oriented to empty nesters,those type of
2 Minutes for the Meeting of October 26, 1998
units have greater site coverage and impervious surfaces.The alternative is to have that floor space on the
second story That results in taller buildings that have a more difficult scale relationship with the older smaller
houses nearby
Commenting on the September Guidelines,he thought the objectives for units with fewer bedrooms and the
desire to discourage three and four bedroom units were too restrictive. They run counter to market desires and
the preferences of neighbors. He suggest the Board direct its objective to"mid-sized"three bedroom units with
perhaps 3,000 square feet of floor area compared to the large four-five bedroom 6,000 square foot units that are
built in single family houses.
Mr Scott was also very complimentary of the Board's support and encouragement and the assistance and
cooperation of the staff.
John Austin,developing Porter Lane, off Adams Street, chose not to pursue the cluster approach on his site
because of neighborhood resistance and financial considerations.He said the cluster approach is not well
understood and may even be misunderstood.He was concerned about language in the Development
Regulations that might open the door to excessive interference by the Planning Board in house design. In the
process of custom design for buyers well after the subdivision plan is approved and recorded, it is difficult to
have a detailed design review during the application process. That might severely limit design options for
buyers.
Several present commented that the Guidelines appear to take away too many carrots from the developers. The
Guidelines can be contradictory The Board may be too ambitious and shouldn't expect to achieve all of its
objectives at once.
Some observed that the process will be attractive to some developers but not to all.There may be a natural
weeding out process among the developers. The procedure and regulations require detailed study and
sophistication. They require a lot of understanding among the developers,the developer's design team,
potential buyers and neighbors.
The process is"reactive" It requires extraordinary expense to the developer to prepare plans. The Planning
Board and neighbors then must react to them.It would be desirable to have a simpler, more predictable and less
time consuming procedure.
Tom Sullivan, an abutter to the Lexington Park development, said some neighbors believe they have a veto
power over proposals.He suggested that he Planning Board put together an explanation, in layman's language.
He spoke well of Carter Scott's efforts to work with the neighborhood and said that it is a learning process for
the neighborhood.
Mr Davies said the Board should try to make the sketch plan process less rigorous. Landscape architect Ron
Wood advocated a process that is more informal and more of a"roll up the sleeves"working session.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
190. Applications To Be Heard on October 29 1998. Mr Merrill gave an oral review of the following
applications. After a brief discussion, on the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Ms. Bridge-Denzak,the Board
voted unanimously to make the following recommendations. - -
Minutes for the Meeting of October 26, 1998 3
39 Adams Street,Austin,variances for special permit for new accessory apartment
39 Adams Street,Austin, special permit to move dwelling at 43 Adams Street
The Planning Board agreed to express its strong support for both of these requests, one for a special permit and
one for a variance, in order to provide for the preservation of the Greek Revival cottage.It will unanimously
recommend approval of these petitions.
The Board agreed to make no comment on the applications below, also scheduled to be heard on October 29
19 Hillcrest Avenue, Orcutt, special permit to expand the second story of a dwelling
17 Locke Lane, Crane,renewal of special permit for home office
6 Bruce Road,Nuss,variance to convert screened porch
95 Lincoln Street. Parr, special permit for home office
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
191. Sketch 7 4.5 Subdivision Plan,246 Concord Avenue,Decision: The Board reviewed a draft decision,
dated October 23, 1998, on the sketch subdivision plan for land at 245 Concord Avenue, submitted by George
Issaians and Bella Markarians. On the motion of Mr Davies, seconded by Mr. Colman,the Board voted
unanimously, 5-0,to approve the decision,as written.
**************************** PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ***************************
192. Recent Activity
a. 113/115 Concord Avenue, Sketch Preliminary Subdivision Plan,Rollout: Mr.Bowyer rolled out a sketch
preliminary plan for the 113/115 Concord Avenue development,that was submitted by George and Anahid
Kazazian on October 21, 1998. The staff has not reviewed the plan in detail yet. The time for action on this
plan expires on March 5, 1998.
*************** ADMINISIRATIONOFLAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ****************
PLANS NOT REOUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW
193 Form A98-10. 82 Waltham Street
To endorse the plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Lexington,MA",dated September 3, 1998,prepared
by The BSC Group,Inc.,Bedford,Massachusetts,certified by Donald J Forand, Registered Land Surveyor,with
Form A/98-10, submitted by Frank Carney&Maria&Kevin McGrath, applicants,as it does not require
approval under the Subdivision Control Law
194 Form A/98-11.41.45. 57 61 Woodland Road. Bedford
To endorse the plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Lexington, MA",dated July 1, 1998,prepared by
Noonan&McDowell,Inc.,Billerica,Massachusetts, certified by John L.Noonan,Registered Land Surveyor,
with Form A/98-11, submitted by Carter Scott and John Snell, applicants,as it does not require approval under
the Subdivision Control Law
195 Form A/98-12. 29 Pine Knoll Road
To endorse the plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Lexington,MA", dated August 20, 1998,prepared by
Noonan&McDowell,Inc.,Billerica,Massachusetts, certified by John L.Noonan,Registered Land Surveyor,
with Form A/98-12, submitted by Scott, Snell,McGagh and Moakley, applicants, as it does not require approval
under the Subdivision Control Law
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
196. Mason's Hollow off Massachusetts Avenue. Completion of Project: Mr.Marino gave the Board some
background on the release of Lot 3 in the Mason's Hollow subdivision, explaining that all of the work on the
4 Minutes for the Meeting of October 26, 1998
subdivision was completed satisfactorily However,the signed release was lost before it was placed on record at
the Registry of Deeds. He said that the staff recommends that the Planning Board approve a Certificate of
Completion of Definitive Subdivision Plan. This will finally close out the subdivision. On the motion of Mr.
Davies, seconded by Mr. Galaitsis,the Board voted unanimously that,whereas the subdivision was executed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Action dated August 12, 1986, and Special Permit
with Site Plan Review dated August 18, 1986, it releases Moore Homes,Inc.,the developer, from the provisions
of the covenant dated September 22, 1986,and certifies that the Mason's Hollow subdivision has been
satisfactorily completed
197 Winship Common, Completion of Project: Mr Marino reported that on September 11, 1998,Mark Moore
Homes,the developer of the Winship Common subdivision, off Lowell Street, requested in writing that the
Planning Board release all of the remaining surety for the subdivision.He said that the Town Engineer certified
the work on the subdivision has been completed in accordance with the Town's standards on October 23, 1998,
and that he finds the request to release surety acceptable. On the motion of Mr Davies, seconded by Mr
Colman,the Board voted unanimously to:
1) release all the remaining surety held in passbook#11-092001619,from the Lexington Savings
Bank, in the amount of$25,000, plus interest,which was being held for the completion of the
community facilities at the Winship Common, and return it to Mark Moore Homes;
2) release Mark Moore Homes, from the provisions of the covenant, dated November 16, 1995; and
3) recommend that Litchfield Road(the street in the Winship Common subdivision)be accepted by
a future Annual Town Meeting.
****************** COORDINATION WITH OTHER BOARDS, COMMITTEES *******************
198. Selectmen's Strategic Planning Group, report on meeting of October 16: Mr. Merrill reported that the
Selectmen's Strategic Planning Group met last week. They had asked what kind of information was available to
them to use in planning for the town.He said that Mr Bowyer presented a very good summary of what the
Planning Department has as resources. Mr Bowyer provided each member with a diskette and some
explanatory material. Mr Merrill commented that it made the Planning Board looked good.
In the second part of the meeting, subcommittees were formed around designing a process for how to engage
the public in goal setting,who should be involved, and how to implement the process.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Steven L. Colman, Clerk