HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes 1990-04-02 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1990
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room-G-15, Town Office
Building, was called to order at 7 06 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Wood, with
members Domnitz, Williams, Uhrig, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner
Nordby and Secretary Peters present. Mrs. Klauminzer was absent.
************************ REPORTS ******************************************
77. Planning Director
a. Mass. Association of Planning Directors. Annual Retreat Mr. Bowyer
reported that he attended the retreat last Thursday and Friday. One of
the discussion items was support by the Massachusetts Land Use Coalition
for revisions to the so-called grandfathering clause, in Section 6 of the
Zoning Act, which would reduce the "grandfathered" period of time for
subdivisions from eight to four years. It would also eliminate the three
year exemption for uses upon the endorsement of an "approval not required
plan." Also discussed was legislation authorizing cities and towns to
collect "impact fees". He added planning boards are encouraged to write
their legislative representatives supporting this proposed legislation.
Recent court cases were presented by an attorney from the Massachusetts
City Solicitors and Town Counsels Association. Four cases dealt with
"Approval not Required" plans. Some cases dealing with the "Site Plan
Review" process were also discussed. Mr. Bowyer added that he had picked
up copies of the final report of the Growth Commission which may recom-
mend a bill be filed next year in the State legislature proposing
legislation requiring the preparation of comprehensive plans by cities
and towns in Massachusetts.
********************** ARTICLES FOR 1990 TOWN MEETING ************************
78. Other Planning Board Reports to Be Prepared
a. Article 55. Meagherville Committee Proposal and Article 56 Meagher-
ville, Neighborhood Proposal: Mr. Bowyer commented that staff antici-
pates the Board will prepare reports on these proposals comparable to
what the Planning Board prepares for a rezoning petition. The staff is
preparing an impact analysis but needs more specific information on the
proposals. Mrs. Wood noted that the Selectmen will not select a develop-
er until April 25, and that the Committee has made its recommendation.
*************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
79. Hearings Scheduled for April 26. 1990: Mrs. Uhrig gave an oral review of
the following applications scheduled to be heard by the Board of Appeals.
41 Shade Street, Malcolm Blier, SP to demolish and reconstruct a
nonconforming garage with no increase in site coverage.
24 Grassland Street, renew SP, continued use of a crank-up radio
tower in the rear yard.
32 Hill Street, Peter Janney, SP, to use portion of residence as
an office for private psychology practice, no more than 20 hours a
week.
Minutes for the Meeting of April 2, 1990 2
On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Domnitz, it was voted 4-0 to make
no comment on the applications listed above.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
80. INFORMATIONAL MEETING 245 Concord Ave. . Preliminary Plan Mrs. Wood
began the meeting by reading portions of the notice sent to abuttors.
Approximately 10 residents were present. Landscape architect Gary Larson, of
Larson Associates, represented the applicant, George Issaians. Mr. Larson
noted that the preliminary plan now before the Board was based on recom-
mendations made by the Board on two sketch plans, previously filed. He
presented the site plan, which showed analyses of slopes, watershed direc-
tions, surface soils, existing vegetative covers and the existing home and
driveway.
Mr. Larson said waivers from the Development Regulations would be requested
for a roadway grade greater than 8% (10)%; an impervious surface ratio on Lot
1 greater than 12% (14%) ; and a 20 foot wide roadway pavement, instead of the
required 24 foot width. He added that the meandering sidewalk/footpath, pre-
viously suggested by the Board, did not appear viable, because the steepness
of the slope where it was proposed would necessitate excessive disturbance of
the site. He questioned whether it was worthwhile for a two lot subdivision,
especially since there is no sidewalk on Concord Avenue.
In response to questions from the Board and staff, Mr. Larson said that the
road will remain a private road; that it had been their interpretation of the
Development Regulations that the 1% leveling portion of the roadway, where it
l intersects with Concord Avenue, was not required; and that a catch basin in
the roadway where it intersects with Concord Avenue was not necessary. Ms.
Nordby noted that the Engineering Department would require a catch basin. The
Board noted they did not agree with his interpretation that the 1% leveling
portion would not be required.
Comments and questions from residents focussed on existing drainage problems
in that area of Concord Avenue, and concerns that the subdivision would
increase these problems. One resident said he did not see the need for a
sidewalk in a two lot subdivision.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
David G. Williams, Clerk