HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-07-25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JULY 25, 1988
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Office
Building was called to order at 7 31 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with
members Klauminzer, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Nord-
by, Summer intern Marino and Secretary Peters present. Mrs. Wood and Mr.
Sorensen were absent.
*************** REPORTS ***,-*****************r*****1 .********'c************- *
191. Planning Director
a. Belfry Club Lot Julian Bussgang reported hearing that Grace Chapel
will soon submit an application for use of the Belfry Club lot on Forest
Street as some sort of recreational center. Mr. Bussgang said the neigh-
borhood wondered whether the Town might consider trading other land to use
tor the recreational center and use the Belfry Club lot for affordable
housing. Members were not enthusiastic about this proposal because it
would require imposing the recreation center on another neighborhood.
b. 191 Spring Street Mr. Bowyer reported Boston Properties has filed for
a special permit with site plan approval with the Board of Appeals.
l c. Pheasant Brook - Phase II Mr. Bowyer reported an application for
approval of a preliminary plan was filed today.
192 627-669 Massachusetts Ave, Boyd-Smith, preliminary plan Mrs. Uhrig
explained this would be an informal presentation. Joel Roos, representing Boyd-
Smith, presented the preliminary plan, directing the Board's attention to build-
ing locations, slopes, vegetation, vistas, road details, as well as the proposed
easement and pathway to adjoining Town property He reported they have met with
the Historic Districts Commission, who recommended the Dana Morill house remain
a single family unit, and who gave permission for the barn on the Cataldo prop-
erty to be demolished , as well as the rear portion of the Dana Morill home which
has already been condemned. He added that they and the Commission also recom-
mend a reduction in road paving width, roundings at 15 feet and no berm on the
hammerhead road; Boyd-Smith will be asking for waivers on these specifications
from the 'Development Regulations
In response to a question from Mrs. Uhrig, Mr. Roos stated they will donate the
common open space to the Town Mr. Bowyer noted they would like to relocate the
footpath to lead more directly into the Town recreational area rather than into
a flood plane.
Mrs. Uhrig suggested the hammerhead had become very convoluted, and suggested
more work on this. She noted the driveways did not work well off the hammerhead
shown. It was also noted that they were very close to the maximum limit of
impervious surface ratio permitted. Mr. Roos commented they were working on a
redesign of the driveways to reduce the amount of paved area.
Meeting or July 25, 1986 -2 -
Later in the evening the Board gave direction to the staff. Concern was expres-
sed that there was too much crowding , given the size of the structures. They
discussed whether the developer should proceed to the definitive plan stage with
this many units if they do not reduce the size or number of the structures.
They noted the proof plan had appeared less crowded than the preliminary plan,
and suggested that a conventional subdivision plan be considered as a basis for
comparison with the cluster plan.
The Board agreed the development was not ready to proceed to the preparation of
a definitive plan. They recommended more study, and that the developer come
back with revisions on the preliminary plan. They felt too much of the site is
covered; the buildings are too big; and they suggested that if a conventional
subdivision is less crowded , then that plan would be more acceptable.
The board tentatively agreed to allow a roadway with 22 foot wide paving, and a
four foot wide sidewalk, which can meander around existing trees.
193. Turnburry Hill, oft Hill Street, Otis Brown, Jr. , preliminary plan: Mrs.
Uhrig explained this would be an informal presentation, and questions would be
taken after the presentation. Frank DiPietro, BSC - Bedford and representing
the developer, discussed the evolution of the preliminary plan. He reviewed the
plan and profile of the roadway and noted that they were requesting waivers for
the tollowing 1) a roadway that would be 24 feet wide, with 3% entering grade
for 75 feet , and a 10% grade for approximately 90 feet of the length of the
road; 2) granite curbing installed at 45 degrees instead of vertically; 3)
two five to six foot walls to handle cuts for the roadway; and 4) a meandering
sidewalk.
Mr. DiPietro reviewed the layout of the units , which consists of two duplexes ,
and three single tamily homes. He noted they have reduced the amount of paving,
and have increased the footprints of the buildings staying just under 20%, the
maximum allowable impervious surface coverage, which will be approximately
32 ,000 sq. ft. They will design a gravity sewer system and a surface drainage
system both of which will tie into Town sewer and drainage systems on Hill
Street. They have been in consultation with the Engineering Department and the
Conservation Commission and plan to contain all the surface drainage on the site
with a controlled discharge into the Hill Street drainage system.
Mrs. Uhrig expressed concern that the increase in house footprints would cause
the loss of more trees. Mr. DiPietro will try to get an answer to the question
of how many trees will be lost with this plan.
Mrs. Klauminzer expressed concern over the closeness to the lot line of one of
the larger two-story homes. In response to a question from Mrs. Uhrig, Mr.
DiPietro noted the walls would reach a height of eight feet in one place. The
Board recommended the wall be tiered to reduce the effect of steepness. There
was general discussion of ways to lessen the impact of the high stone walls
Donald Lang, 6 Childs Road, read part of letter, dated July 7, 1988, sent pre-
viously to the Board , which said there was little difference in this plan from
previous plans; that there are still seven units, six structures; and that there
was the same impervious surface ratio, and it appears more road surface. The
abuttors continue to feel the site is overdeveloped. The letter could be sum-
marized by saying the neighbors still oppose the development.
Meeting of July 25, 1968 -3 -
Dorman Priest, 19 Diana Lane, noted that his house is located on the rear of his
property, which will exascerbate the closeness to lot lines of the house on lot
four.
Mrs. Uhrig commented that this is a district of 15,500 sq. ft lots, and that
the developer has the right to build a structure on that size lot She added
the Board has asked them to do a cluster design in an effort to preserve as much
of the natural surroundings as possible. She noted the Board's role is to try
to work to get the best possible plan, while recognizing the rights of the owner
to develop his land.
John Zvara, 8 Childs Road , noted that although they have satisfied the letter of
the law, they do not satisfy the spirit of the law, in that the development is
not compatible with the neighborhood in scale and other things as stated in the
Zoning By-Law.
Pamela Catanzano, 4 Childs Road , expressed concerns about whether there will
still be puddling in her back yard, since some of the buildings will be located
over the ridge, and so still may drain away from the new road
Later in the evening the Board gave direction to the staff. Ms. Nordby noted
the size and spacing of the structures effectively envelops the site leaving
less contiguous open space than in the previous submittal She also noted the
size of the footprints have been enlarged significantly, to the point where the
footprints and floor area would trigger the extraordinary dimensional setback
requirements for jumbo houses if this were a conventional subdivision.
The Board agreed that, as presently stated, the size of the structures, their
proximity to property lines and their higher elevation creates a situation where
the scale and character of the development will be intrusive on neighboring
dwellings. They agreed this is a hybrid cluster/conventional subdivision with
more of the characteristics of a conventional subdivision than those of a
cluster
The Board recommended that 1) the grouping of structures be more compact, 2)
the size of the dwellings, with respect to both footprint and total floor area,
be reduced , 3) individual dwellings #4, #6 and #7 , should be pulled back from
the perimeter of the development, 4) the presence of a significant amount of
common open space (9.3.5.a) and the siting of the dwellings in relation to the
usable open space (9.3 5.c) needs to be demonstrated, and more work needs to be
done on the subdivision plan at the preliminary plan stage before proceeding to
the definitive plan stage.
PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW
194. Form A/88-12, Kendall Road & Grapevine Ave. , Debonte Mr. Bowyer reviewed
a plan showing a proposed subdivision of a lot into two lots in order to move
the Allen House from Allen Street to the newly created lot. He noted there is
sufficient land and frontage to divide the property into two lots; however, for
personal reasons , the applicant wishes to draw the dividing lot line in such a
way as to make the newly created lot noncomplying. The Board discussed whether
Meeting of July 25, 1988 =4 -
to endorse the plan with the addition of a note saying the lot created is not a
buildable lot, but felt this led to problems for future buyers who would not be
aware the lot was unbuildable
On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 3-0-0
To not endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", dated
July 19, 1988, by The Malcolm N. Johnston Co , certified by Malcolm N.
Johnston, Registered Land Surveyor, with application Form A/88-12 by
William J. and Patricia L. DeBonte, because 1) Mrs. DeBonte has stated
that Kendall Road will be the frontage street and the length of the front-
age on Kendall Road is less than the 125 feet required by subsection 7.3 of
the Zoning By-law; 2) the proposed plan would create a lot which would
violate several provisions of the Zoning By-law in that it would have less
than the mimimum lot area required by subparagraph 7. 1 1 and Table 2, it
would have less than the minimum lot width as required by subparagraph
7 2.2 and the proposed subdivision would violate subparagraph 6 2.5, third
sentence.
APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
195. Meeting of August 11, 1988 Mrs. Klauminzer gave an oral review of the
following cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals.
78 Woburn Street, Beth Marcus, variance, to demolish an existing shed, and
construct a yard house with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks. The
Board agreed a case could be made that hardship relating to the topography
and conditions of the land does exist . They noted the letter from the next
door neighbor, appeared to confirm existing conditions. The Board agreed
that special circumstances do exist and recommended the variance be grant-
ed, although they usually recommend against granting variances that intrude
into setbacks
10 Greenwood Street , Robert & Gloria Cady, appeal of decision of the Build-
ing Commissioner for construction of a single family dwelling. The Board
discussed the rather involved factual context of the Building Commission-
er's decision that the lots were combined by application. They agreed that
this was a complex question and recommended Town Counsel be consulted to
assist in clarifying the issues.
17 Barberry Road, Douglas Fraiman, variance, to allow a second-story guest
house above a detached two-story garage. The Board felt that alternative
design options should be further investigated for a solution that does not
further impinge on the setback requirements , which had already been reduced
by variance to 12 feet in 1969. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded
by Mr. Williams, it was voted 3-0 to recommend the variance be denied since
there appears to be more than adequate space on the other side and rear of
the residence for such an addition.
1709-1727 Massachusetts Avenue, Estate of Abram Salter, SP, to allow five
projecting signs for tenants. The Board noted it has been the policy of
the Town to discourage the proliferation of projecting signs. They agreed
that to allow five projecting signs on one building would be a significant
change in policy, that would be cited as a precedent by any other Center
Meeting of July 25, 1988 -5 -
applicant. They recommended the question be referred to the newly created
Design Advisory Committee, which has funds voted by the 1988 Town Meeting
to establish design guidelines for the Center, for their recommendations.
The Planning Board also agreed to make no comment on the following four
applications
380 Marrett Road, Robert & Miriam Pespisa, variance, from front yard
setback
19 Hayward Avenue, Laura Persily, variance, from front yard setback
One Dawes Road, Paul and Janet Mecrones, variance, from front yard setback
74-76 Bedford Street, Moore Homes, Inc., SP, to allow standing signs.
196. EXECUTIVE SESSION, Litigation Against the Town, Ridge Estates II and III
At 10 10 p.m., on the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, and
after a poll of the three members present, it was voted unanimously (3-0) to go
into Executive Session Co discuss litigation against the Town, and to reconvene
in open session only for the purpose of adjourning.
The Board returned to open session at 10 39 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p m.
Eleanor Klauminzer, Clerk