Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes 1990-05-21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 21, 1990 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 36 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Wood, with members Domnitz, Klauminzer, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Nordby and Secretary Peters present At 7 45 p.m. , Mrs. Wood recessed the meeting to meet with the Selectmen in their Meeting Room. 122. Joint Meeting with Board of Selectmen for Election to Fill Vacancy on Planning Board. Board of Selectmen Chairman Jacquelyn Smith noted that, by state statute, a majority of the combined vote of both boards present is required to elect a new member to the Planning Board. She asked for nomina- tions to fill the vacancy Planning Board chairman Martha Wood nominated Edmund Grant, 27 Grove Street. Planning Board member David Williams nominated Melinda Vinton, 11 Leonard Road. There being no other nominations, Mrs. Smith declared the nominations closed. By individual poll of the members of both boards present, Mr. Grant was elected, by a vote of 5-2, to serve on the Planning Board until March 4, 1991, when the annual Town elections are held. At 8 03 p.m. , Mrs. Wood reconvened the Planning Board meeting in Room G-15. f ************************** REPORTS ************************************** 123 Planning Director a. Revised Zoning By-Law: Mr. Bowyer reported that changes made to the Zoning By-Law, reflecting amendments passed at the Annual Town Meeting, €€€f are about complete and should be ready for transmittal to the Attorney General's office within the week. ************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ********* DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 124. Valley Road. Lot 18A. Massucco Ms. Nordby reported that the Town Engineer has approved the applicant's plan for paving 300 feet of Valley Road to provide frontage for Lot ISA, and that the estimated "cost to construct" is $8,025. She also reported that satisfactory surety, in the form of a passbook containing $17,000 has been provided by the applicant. The Board agreed that Valley Road insofar as it provides frontage for Lot 18A, is not now of ade- quate grade and construction, but would be of adequate grade and construction if the roadway were improved as shown on the plan approved by the Town Engi- neer. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 4-0 1. to approve the plan titled "Plan and Profile of a Section of Valley Road in Lexington, MA," dated April 25, 1990, prepared by The BSC Group in Bedford, MA, and approved by the Town Engineer, for the improvements to Valley Road for the portion of the street in front of Lot 18A, shown on Map 79 and for a distance of 300 feet, and Minutes for the Meeting of May 21, 1990 2 r-- 2. to set and accept the amount of surety for the improvements to Valley Road at $11,000, which is the total "Cost to Construct," plus contingency, escalation fee, and administrative costs, to be held until the completion of the construction and a determination that the improvements are accep- table upon inspection by the Town Engineer. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 125. Hearings Scheduled for June 14, 1990: Mr. Domnitz gave an oral review of the following applications scheduled to be heard by the Board of Appeals. 14 White Pine Lane, Timothy Dugan, SP, to use portion of a residence for part-time medical, psychiatric practice for no more than 20 hours a week. Mr. Domnitz noted that the combined hours of practice by Dr. Dugan and Dr. Liao (see the next application) has been reduced from 45 hours a week to 30 hours a week. At the applicants' previous hearing in January, 1990, the Planning Board had recommended that the combined hours of practice be no more than 20 hours a week. The Board agreed that they continue to think this should be the maximum number of hours permitted. The Board also agreed that they considered this too intense a use in a residential neighborhood, and that they believed this use did not meet the test for an accessory use as stated in Section 4, Paragraph 4. 1 6. , since the use constituted more than an incidental or insubstantial part of the total activity on the lot. They did not think that setting the hours of practice to begin at 7 00 a.m. and end at 7:00 p.m. signifi- cantly reduced the intensity of use from the previously proposed hours. They noted that although it is represented that the present neighbors did not object, this may not be the case in the future, and that once this large office addition is built, the pressure to use it more inten- sively and to expect, as of right, to continue to use it for office pur- poses will be difficult to deny. Also, as mentioned in the January recommendation, they suggested the applicants look for office space in properly zoned commercial districts where there is plenty of office space available. The Board also agreed that the two applications are really a repetitive petition of the joint application filed in January by the two appli- cants. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 4-0 to recommend the special permits for both applications be denied because the applications constitute a repetitive petition of the previously filed joint application in January The Board added that if this was not considered a repetitive petition, the Board's recommendation would remain basically the same as its recom- mendation made to the Board of Appeals in January: that the special permits be granted only if the combined hours of practice in the home Minutes for the Meeting of May 21, 1990 3 are limited to no more than 20 hours a week; no patients seen before 8 00 a.m, and the final appointment concluded by 9 00 p.m. ; and off- street parking is provided for all patients at all times. 14 White Pine Lane, Elizabeth Liao, SP, to use portion of a residence for part-time medical psychiatric practice for no more than 10 hours a week. The Board considered this and the above applications as one, and this recommendation is included with the above recommendation. 1838 Massachusetts Avenue, The Crafty Yankee, SP, to install a standing sign in the courtyard in front of the store. Mr. Domnitz noted that there was no clearly designated section of the Zoning By-Law under which the applicant could file for a special permit, except under a "catch- all" provision that allowed a standing sign for a retail store if it was determined that there was something unique about the architecture, loca- tion or the nature of the business. The Board noted the special problem of the store entrance being located off the lobby inside the bank building, with no direct access to the outside. The Board expressed reservations about the size and height of the proposed sign. They agreed they had no objection to a standing sign in the front yard, but felt that the sign proposed was too high and overwhelming. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 4-0 to recommend the special permit be granted only if the size of the sign is reduced and its height is lowered. 301 Mass. Ave , Sun Refining & Marketing Co. , variance to install a canopy with a 1.5 foot front yard setback instead of the 30 feet required, variance from maximum site coverage requirement to allow 29% rather than 25% required, renew existing variance allowing one foot rear yard setback instead of 20 foot setback, to demolish and rebuild Sunoco Gasoline Station. The Planning Board agreed they did not oppose granting the variance allowing a rear yard setback of one foot because that, in effect, replaces the existing building. The Board thought the current proposal was deficient for the following reasons 1. The proposed intensity of the site use was too great and needed to be reduced. The Board also thought that the site was too small for activities generated by having both a new mini-mart and the service station. 2. There was not sufficient off-street parking for both the new mini- mart and the service station, since the parking spaces shown for the mini-mart appear to conflict with access to the pump islands 3. The landscaping proposed did not meet either the requirements or the spirit of Section 10 of the Zoning By-law. It was noted that the site is directly across Massachusetts Avenue from a residential zoning district, and the Board thought that the houses across the Minutes for the Meeting of May 21, 1990 4 street deserve more effective screening as required by the By-Law. It was also recommended that the landscaping along Fottler Avenue be improved. 4. The reconstruction of the station did not appear to be consistent with the recommendations of the study done by the Design Advisory Committee. 5. The proposed canopy and pump island are too close to Massachusetts Avenue. There is insufficient room for the landscaped buffer strip, required by the Zoning By-Law. The Board noted that there may be room for only one pump island, although additional study may show that two pump islands are possible. 7 The proposal for two curb cuts onto Massachusetts Avenue with another curb cut onto Fottler Avenue is excessive and redundant. The Board recommended the westerly curb cut onto Massachusetts Avenue, nearest Fottler Avenue, be dropped from the plan, leaving more room for the required landscaped buffer strip along Massachu- setts Avenue. Members recommended the applicant consider withdrawing this plan and ([k preparing a revised plan. They added that they would be glad to work with the applicant on a revised plan, as they had on the successful revision of the plans for the Mobil Oil station at Marrett Road and Waltham Street. On the motion of Mr. Domnitz, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 4-0 to recommend that the variances for the site coverage and the front yard setback, as well as the special permits to replace the existing gas station, not be granted for this plan and to recommend that a revised plan be submitted. 301 Mass. Ave. , Sun Refining & Marketing Co. , Special Permits, to replace existing gas station. The Board's recommendation on this application was included with the previous application. 'I Land on Hartwell Avenue at Maeuire Road, Maguire Road Realty, Trust, to remove excess earth materials from the vacant lot at the intersection of Hartwell Avenue and Maguire Road. On the motion of Mr. Domnitz, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 4-0 to recommend the application be approved if the following conditions are made part of the decision 1. the site shall be rough graded, and any slopes created seeded, so the site is not left unsightly, does not become an "attractive nuisance" and does not allow for "ponding" or standing water; 2. as much vegetation and as many trees as possible should be left around the perimeter of the site, to provide a visual screen from the adjoining streets and properties, until work on the construction of a building on the site begins; and l_i Minutes for the Meeting of May 21, 1990 5 3. truck movements are scheduled to avoid peak traffic hours, and the routes used by trucks are limited to Maguire Road, Hartwell Avenue and state numbered highways in Lexington; truck routes must avoid use of other Lexington streets, particularly residential streets. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 126. 26 Blueberry Lane. Sun Valley Subdivision Release of Lot 58A Mr. Bowyer reported that a title examination by a bank was unable to find that Lot 58A was ever released, even though the Town has long since accepted the road. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 4-0 to release Lot 58A. 127. 90 North Hancock Street. Set and Receive Surety. Release Lots 1 and 2 Ms Nordby reported that the developer of the 90 North Hancock Street sub- division wishes to deposit surety with the Town, to cover the cost of the remaining work to be completed in order to have lots released. The cost to complete the remaining work, as approved by the Engineering Department, is $6,000 With the required fees added, i.e. contingency to cover possible cost overruns, the total amount of surety to be held is $7,000. This work is scheduled for completion within the month. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 4-0 1) to set and accept the amount of surety, for the 90 North Hancock Street development, at $7,000 which is the total remaining "Cost to Construct" plus contingency, as the amount necessary to hold until the construction of the community facilities and the subdivision are completed; 2) that this level of surety is determined to be sufficient through June 1, 1991 only. If the subdivision is not completed by that time, the amount of surety needed may be re-evaluated to determine its relationship between the then applicable construction costs and the work remaining to be completed. If the cost, of the amount of work to be completed at the time of re-evaluation, has increased, the amount of surety will be increased to reflect the costs of completing the work and the developer will be required to furnish additional surety to the Planning Board; and 3) to release lots 1 and 2. 128. Recent Court Cases. Colangelo v Board of Anneals Mr. Bowyer reported on the Supreme Judicial Court decision that overturned the portion of the low- er court decision declaring invalid the special permit provisions of the Zon- ing By-Law. He added the court did not reach the question of the variance and the constitutionality of the three acre minimum lot size. In a minority dis- sent, the Chief Justice did not find that the Board of Appeals had based its case on a legally untenable ground, as the lower court had found. He went on to comment that he hoped this case was an aberration and that cities and towns could still act on zoning cases when they had a factual basis for doing so. Minutes for the Meeting of May 21, 1990 6 ******************* REPORTS *********************************************** 129. Planning Board. Subcommittees a. Hanscom Field Advisory Committee (HFAC, Position on Massport Expansion: Mr. Domnitz reported on the committee meeting he had attended at which Massport presented their proposal to expand the commuter flights by Continental Airlines from Hanscom to its New Jersey terminal and connecting flights to other cities, adding that he believed it was an important issue on which the Town should be more informed. He noted the proposal appeared to violate Massport's master plan He introduced Joan Goldman, League of Women Voters representative to the HFAC from the four surrounding towns. Ms. Goldman described the increased activity proposed, and said she believed it was important for the Town to get involved. She noted that the proposal by Continental Airlines involved using larger planes than the 30 seats presently allowed, and that in the next phase they proposed using 42 seat planes for commuter runs between Newark and Hanscom Field. She predicted that traffic in the area could more than double. Members agreed they shared the concerns expressed by Ms. Goldman and Mr. Domnitz. They also agreed to write to the Selectmen expressing these concerns and to request a meeting with the Selectmen, as soon as possible, to see what steps the Town may wish to take on this proposed Massport expansion at Hanscom. Points to be covered should include 1) a discussion of the viability of the Massport Master Plan, 2) how to limit the scope of the operation to discourage large national airlines from using Hanscom as an alternate to Logan, and 3) an investigation of what legal steps can be taken by the Town. 130 EXECUTIVE SESSION. Litigation Against the Town. Fray v. Planning Board, Holderness Lane At 10 03 p m. , after an individual poll of the four members present, it was voted 4-0 to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation concerning the recent decision by Middlesex Superior Court on the case, and to reconvene in open session only for the purpose of adjourning. The Board returned to open session at 10 23 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. 6 VI David G. Williams, Clerk ,J