Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 02-27-1995 1- PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 1995 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall was called to order at 7.40 p.m. by Chairman Davison, with members Canale, Domnitz, Grant, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Marino and Secretary Tap present. Mr. Merrill arrived at 7 46. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 1995 TOWN MEETING ************************ 38. Article 25 (A). Frontage Reduction. PUBLIC HEARING: Mrs. Davison opened the hearing at 7.47 p.m. There were 25 people in the audience. Mr. Merrill explained that the Planning Board is seeking authority to reduce the required frontage on a street for some small subdivisions. It is initiating this change to the Zoning By-Law because: 1) it will decrease the amount of open land that has to be paved, and 2) the construction of small stub streets for one or two lot subdivisions creates problems for the Department of Public Works which has to maintain the streets. If a property owner can first demonstrate he/she meets the requirements for a conventional subdivision, the Planning Board can grant a special permit to reduce the "frontage" requirement, permit a house to be constructed on a separate lot serviced by a driveway off an existing public street, and waive the requirements to construct a new dead end street. Debra Cary, 110 Grove Street, who owns land that would be affected by this amendment, showed how the proposed amendment would affect the use of her land. Marianne Lazarus, 22 Woodland Road, observed that the amendment allows Mrs. Cary to spend much less money to develop her land than if she had to build a street. She worried that this would enable more people to subdivide and build on land that would otherwise be too expensive to develop. Several other people expressed similar concern. Mr. Canale commented that while this may be true for some properties, the waiver to reduce the frontage is entirely discretionary and would not be granted in every case by the Planning Board. Mr. Merrill added that the proposed amendment would improve development that is happening anyway Mr. Bowyer estimated that 50 to 70 lots in town would be affected by the amendment. Edith Sandy, 353 North Emerson Road, suggested that the wording of the amendment be tightened with reference to house demolitions in case a complying plan is submitted that presupposes the demolition of an existing house. Others attending the public hearing expressed a concern that land that theoretically might be developed, i.e. meets the test of a fully complying preliminary site development plan, would now be developed because it would be less expensive to do so. Several attending the public hearing questioned whether an applicant could submit a theoretical preliminary site development plan, showing a subdivision that could not be approved in reality For instance, the preliminary plan might show a proposed roadway where an existing house is located, or so close to an existing house that normal yard setback requirements would be violated. Residents expressed appreciation to the Planning Board for taking the initiative on this issue. They believe the land saved from paving should be donated to the Town for open space so that residents would derive the use of it. Developers in attendance testified from experience that the Planning Board would extract public benefit from them in the negotiating process. One suggested that the land in the right of way be used as conservation land. 1 David Williams, one of the Trustees of Public Trusts and a former Chairman of the Planning Board, suggested that developers be given the option of donating money to one of the Town's trust funds. There Minutes for the Meeting of February 27, 1995 2 are a number of such funds, established with donated money, the income from which pays for public improvements such as the purchase and installation of trees and other landscape improvements that beautify the Town. The hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m. 39 Article 26 Bl. Satellite Dish. PUBLIC HEARING: Mrs. Davison opened the hearing at 8:36 p.m. Mr. Grant read a summary of the intent of the proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law Comments from the audience included a concern about siting the antenna on the front of a house or in a yard. In response it was pointed out that the antennae are expensive and portable and are likely to be placed in a location that would prevent theft. A Town Meeting Member expressed concern about enforcement of the current by-law concerning satellite receiving dishes. A member of the Board of Appeals said that the Board of Appeals is vulnerable to lawsuits by applicants for antennae. Their past experience has been that the courts uphold the first amendment rights of the applicant. One person suggested including a note in the article's description about historic district regulations in relation to the small antenna. The hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. 40. Article 27 (Cl. Recycling Store. PUBLIC HEARING, Mrs. Davison opened the hearing at 8:51. She explained the intent of the proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law There were 25 people in the audience. Comments from the audience dealt with: the necessity for regulating these businesses, drafting the amendment to ensure that there is minimal opportunity for abuse of the proposed provisions, comments about the size of the trucks that may be picking up recyclable materials from these stores, and why those trucks are different from trucks that deliver materials to a business. Questions from the audience included: the reasons for imposing restrictions on the recycling stores as a primary use if there are no restrictions on recycling as a secondary use; would there be restrictions on the use as secondary use, such as recycling areas in existing grocery stores; why limit the use to only the CS, Service Business zone; why does the definition exclude other recyclable materials like newspaper, business paper, etc. Suggestions from the audience included shortening the length of the amendment by not repeating the definition of Recycling Stores in proposed paragraph 4.3.1 because it duplicates language already proposed to be in Section 2, Definitions, of the Zoning By-Law The hearing was closed at 9:09 p.m. 41. Article 28 (D). Revised Setback Calculations. PUBLIC HEARING: Mrs. Davison opened the hearing at 9.10 p.m. Twenty-five people were present. Mr. Canale explained the intent of the proposed amendment. He said that the Planning Board is trying to address the concerns of the people who have been telling Board members that they do not like the new large houses, and house additions, being built in existing neighbor- hoods. They feel that the new houses are out of scale in relation to lot size and to the rest of the homes in , the neighborhood. Further, they are worried that the Town's architectural character is being compromised. 3 Minutes for the meeting of February 27, 1995 With a series of overhead transparencies, Mr. Canale illustrated the effect the amendment would have on the width of houses. A number of residents commented that this amendment does not gofarenough to solve the most important ' problem which is jumbo houses on small lots. Others were concerned about how many houses would be made nonconforming and how many homes would be unable to be enlarged. They were worried that this amendment will create unforeseen hardships on unsuspecting homeowners. Mr. Canale responded that the Planning Board has grappled with this issue for several years. He said that after several versions of the amendment and much feedback from residents and developers, the Board feels that an incremental approach is warranted. This year they are addressing yard setbacks on standard lots in residential districts. John Esserian, a local builder, said that the effect of the new setbacks would be to encourage the placement of houses sideways on the lot. He said the people who are building new houses want a house of a certain size. This amendment tries to dictate what a "good sized" house should be. Mark Moore, also a local builder, remarked that not all lots in town are rectangular so the setbacks will have unforeseen impacts on many homeowners. Mr. Canale ended the discussion by saying that this is a complex issue. There is no easy solution. The hearing was closed at 10:09 p.m. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 42. Applications To Be Heard on March 9 1995 Mr. Merrill gave an oral review of the following applications: 27-29 Cottage Street. Threeacht Sontachalert, variance for a two-story addition to a nonconforming dwelling The Planning Board agreed that the applicant did not adequately address hardship in the submission they reviewed. It believes that the applicants have not demonstrated that they meet the statutory criteria for granting a variance, i.e., that they would suffer substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structures if a variance from the provisions of the Zoning By-Law is not granted. 32 Bellflower Street. Stuart and Stacie Simon, special permit to extend first floor of dwelling The Planning Board agreed to recommend that the Board of Appeals refer this applica- tion to the Design Advisory Committee for their recommendation. This will assist them in the findings required under Section 6.4.1.c of the Zoning By-Law 1666 Mass. Avenue. Aesop's Bagels, special permit to operate a 48-seat bagel and sandwich shop The Planning Board agreed to recommend that the Board of Appeals confirm that the parking requirements in the Zoning By-Law will be satisfied for the entire building. Direct substitution of uses in a building in the CB district is not permitted unless there is a compensating change in use in another part of the building. Minutes for the Meeting of February 27, 1995 4 The Board had no comment on the following applications, also scheduled to be heard on March 9, 1995 1265 Mass. Avenue. Seasons Four, Inc., renewal of a special permit to continue to operate retail garden and nursery center 85-A Pleasant Street. Isaac and Lilli Silvera, variance to allow driveway to remain as constructed 41 Walnut Street. Zaim and May Azar, variance to add family room and deck to dwelling *************************** PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ************************** 43 Recent Activity a. Grey Nuns Property Pelham Road: Mr. Bowyer reported that he had met with two attorneys for the Grey Nuns Order about a possible conversion of the Grey Nuns building on Pelham Road to an assisted living center. Initially, the facility will be for aging nuns, gradually taking in lay people and evolving to management by a non-profit operation. As the number of nuns declines and more lay people are cared for, the facility may lose its exemption under the State Zoning Act as a religious organization. They would like to submit an RD rezoning proposal to Town Meeting, perhaps a special Town Meeting, to clarify the zoning status of the property Mr. Bowyer said that in consideration of a potential special town meeting, he had urged them to place a development restriction on the hill facing Tower Park. That could be a potential public benefit that would justify a special town meeting. b. Locke Village Open House: Mr. Bowyer reported that he attended an open house celebrating the opening of the first building of condominiums at Locke Village on Lowell Street. Sales are proceeding well at the development with a large percentage of the new buyers from Lexington. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* 44. Meeting Schedule for March: The Board set meetings for March 13, 27 and 29, 1995. The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m. JAL , /J�'�4.0.1 X-- Frederick L.Merrill, Jr.,JClerkZ