Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes 1990-06-25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 25, 1990 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by the Vice Chairman Mrs. Klaumin- zer, with members Domnitz, Grant, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer, and Secretary Peters present. Mrs. Wood arrived just prior to Item 140. 139. Review of Minutes The Board reviewed the minutes for the meetings of May 14 and 21, 1990, the meeting of June 4, 1990, and the Executive Sessions of May 21, 1990 and June 4, 1990. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Grant, it was voted 4-0 to approve the minutes, as written. ********************************** REPORTS ****************************** 140. Planning Director a. Plans or Proposals Submitted in the Previous Week Mr. Bowyer unrolled plans for a Comprehensive Permit entitled Lexington Ridge, Waltham Street, and noted that this was prior to staff review. He re- ported the plan now calls for 198 units (previously 222 units), the highest buildings are now 2 1/2 to 3 stories (previously 5 or 6 sto- ries), and that a public hearing must be held by the Board of Appeals within 30 days. ******** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ******************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND 141. PUBLIC HEARING. Wood Street Development, Definitive Plan: At 7 50 p.m. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing by reading the legal notice. Robert Higgins, speaking for CLV Realty Trust, started by submitting two written requests. The first request was for a separate hearing and determination for a special permit with site plan review. Mr. Higgins stated that CLV Realty Trust had not petitioned for a hearing for a special permit with site plan review. He stated they wished to hold the hearing only on part 1) of the legal notice for a conventional subdivision under the Subdivision Control Law and the Planning Board's Development Regulations. Their position was that they had never requested a hearing for approval of a special permit with site plan review, since they thought there is nothing in the Zoning By-Law that applies to their proposal. He believes a subdivision plan only needs to provide for approval of a roadway to provide frontage for single family lots. He said their plan only shows lots on which they will build single family homes, all in confor- mance with the RO residential district. An extended discussion followed in which it was noted that although the Board customarily holds the two hearings together, there was no requirement to hear the application for approval of a conventional subdivision, and for the grant- ing of a special permit at the same time Mr. Higgins felt that, assuming the subdivision is approved, he would not need any other approvals prior to apply- ing for building permits to begin construction. Mrs. Wood and other members Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 1990 2 of the Board noted that any subdivision containing three or more dwelling units requires a special permit with site plan approval. Mr. Higgins respon- ded that they are not asking for approval of any dwelling units, and in fact, not for approval of any lot lines, just approval of the roadway. In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Ms. Vilasi said that no special permits were required for the conventional subdivision they filed, and that no special permits will be required to build houses on these lots if the subdivi- sion is approved. In response to other questions from Mr. Williams, Mr. Higgins said they were submitting a subdivisions plan under state statute, Chapter 41-81. Mr. Grant commented that if the conventional subdivision plan were approved, according to the Zoning By-Law, this would then trigger a requirement for a special permit with site plan review. He added that Mr. Higgins may dispute the provisions of the Zoning By-Law, but the position of the Planning Board is that it will operate according to the Zoning By-Law. He also noted that Mr. Higgins will have an opportunity to dispute this in the future, when he applies for building permits. Mr. Bowyer commented that the Board had advertised and was holding a public hearing on a set of plans filed by the applicant March 23, 1990. Sheet 5 of that set of plans shows house locations, grading plans, driveways, retaining walls and all of the features that go with a special permit application. It is not a plan showing a roadway with lot lines marking five lots. Mr. Higgins said they were trying to conform with the Board's development requirements, and that the plans filed were to "help" the Board make a decision. Mrs. Wood responded that the plans submitted are what the Board makes its decision on, and there can be no changes made to these plans at this point. Mr. Grant stated that if tonight's hearing was held on the approval of the conventional subdivision only, and that if the Board is correct that a special permit is required for five dwelling units or more, the zoning issues would have to be the subject of a separate application, a separate hearing and a separate decision at some later date When asked why the applicant wished two hearings, Mr. Higgins said that they were asking for separate hearings on the two parts of the application because they wanted separate decisions, since they did not agree that they were required to file for a special permit with site plan approval. When Board members explained that separate decisions are always rendered on a definitive subdivision plan, according to subdivision considerations, and on the special permit with site plan review, according to zoning considerations, but that decisions on sketch or preliminary plans are usually combined into one document, Mr. Higgins then understood that separate decisions would be issued and asked to proceed with both parts of the hearing this evening. He agreed orally to withdraw the request for a separate hearing on the special permit with site plan review. The second written request of CLV Realty Trust was that the house number(s) contained in the public hearing notice be corrected to refer to 160 Wood Street only. Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 1990 3 An extended discussion followed in which the Town's Property Maps were consul- ted. It was pointed out that the notice also refers to Town of Lexington Pro- perty Map numbers 58C and 60 which also identify the location of the property. Several Board members pointed out it would be pointless to publish a "correc- ted" public notice after the public hearing was over. In the event of a dis- agreement, they would rely on the general principle of public notices is that it is better to "err" on the side of a broad notice than on a limited notice. After discussion and explanation of the hearing notice, Mr. Higgins agreed orally to withdraw the request for a "correction" of the notice dealing with the street address of the property. Gary Larson of Larson Associates presented the site plans showing soil con- ditions, slopes, existing and proposed vegetation, surface water flow, the detention area, and proposed house and driveway layouts on the five lots. Mrs. Wood asked for questions from the Board. In response to questions from Mrs. Klauminzer, Mr. Larson said the maximum roadway grade was less than 8%, and that the cuts required to site the homes furthest in on the cul-de-sac were not excessive. In response to questions from Mrs. Wood, he pointed out the usable open space for each lot; he said that the detention pond would belong to the owners of the lot on which it was located; and that the street will be proposed for acceptance by the Town. In response to questions from Mr Williams, Mr. Larson located the sidewalk and discussed the proposed 20 foot wide utility easement shown on the plan, through to Mr. Rushton's pro- perty at the rear of the site. In response to questions from Mr. Domnitz, Mr. Larson said the plans were the same as filed in March, and that no waivers were requested. In response to questions from Mr. Grant, Mr. Larson said there were no structures on the property except a barn which will be moved. In response to questions about the responsibility for the maintenance of the drainage-retention pond, Mr. Higgins was unclear as to who would be respon- sible for the maintenance of the drainage area suggesting at one point that perhaps the Town would be responsible. Several members indicated that the Town does not maintain this type of facility on private property. No agree- ment has been prepared defining the responsibility for the maintenance. Several members commented on the drainage plan relative to comments from the Town Engineer. Landscape architect, Gary Larson, speaking in behalf of the applicant, recognized that the drainage design would have to be changed to meet the Town Engineer's comments. Michael Fertitta, 5 Woodpark Circle, had questions and concerns about how the detention pond would operate, and whether his property would be affected. Mr. Larson noted it was not really a pond, rather an area that would, for the most part, be a dry lawn-type area. Mr. Williams asked that the deed for the lot containing the detention area have specific language requiring the area be maintained by the property owner. Michael Appleman, 164 Wood Street, reported that 20 years ago there had been problems with excessive run-off from this property on to his property, which had been corrected, and he expressed concerns that excessive clearing of the site might cause the problem to recur. He asked the Board to keep this in Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 1990 4 mind. In response to a question from Mr Williams, Mr. Larson said their hear- ing before the Conservation Commission has been continued. Norman Gaut, 25 Marrett Street, and Robert Rushton, 29 Marrett Street, inquir- ed about a right-of-way to provide access for them to the subdivision road and to Wood Street in the future. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Rushton said they own approximately 12 acres between them. Mr. Higgins said that access would be along the utility easement shown on the plan and that there had been some preliminary discussion with Messrs Gaut and Rushton about granting an easement to them for utilities and access. That matter is not finalized and an agreement is not included with this subdivision application. Mr. Bowyer commented that the right-of-way for a future road connection would need to be 50 feet wide. The street within that right-of-way would probably only need to be 24 feet of pavement, consistent with the Town's standards, and does not need to be built at this time. Mr. Gaut and Mr Rushton asked that a condition of approval be that a 50 foot right-of-way be required to the edge of the property instead of the 20 foot utility easement shown on the plans to ensure they will have access to a public road. Mrs. Klauminzer commented that she considered the land containing the illegal apartments still to be part of the parcel, and that the Board's decisions have been based upon the fact that the Board sees that they are still one parcel, as stated in the Zoning By-Law and that zoning compliance is still an issue for the Planning Board. Mrs. Wood declared the hearing closed at 9 22 p.m. 142. Turnburry Hill, Otis Brown Discussion of Occupancy Permits. The Board received an update of the situation at the subdivision, where the developer is violating a condition in two documents, approving the subdivision, which said that there can be no occupancy of buildings until the road work within the development is completed. Mr. Brown said that he has been fined $100.00 per day, since June 1, 1990, for the occupancy of two homes at Turnburry Hill after temporary certificates of occupancy issued by the Building Department had lapsed. He added that he felt he had been singled out. He described the problems he had encountered in trying to complete the roadway, and said he was doing the best he could to complete the work required in order to receive certificates of occupancy. Mrs. Klauminzer commented that he was not being treated any differently than any other developer in Lexington. Mr. Brown left the meeting after expressing frustration about his dealings with the Town. Also present were several neighbors, who said they were very unhappy with how the development had proceeded. Concerns were expressed about the lack of landscaping and screening. They were told the plantings would be added, as needed, once the structures were completed. Mrs. Wood added surety in the ' amount of $50,000 was held by the Town to ensure completion of the development to the Town's standards. Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 1990 5 Donald Lang, 6 Childs Road, asked that the Tree Warden circle the site and suggest where the landscaping and screening needed to augmented. Melissa Lang, 6 Childs Road, asked if a dirt access road leading to the lower level of the garage building had been part of the approved plan. She also commented that two of the homes are not completed, and did the abuttors have to wait until all the work was completed before the landscaping would be done. Mr. Williams suggested that no more certificates of occupancy be issued until the landscaping and screening is completed. Rena Murman, 92 Hill Street, presented pictures showing the view of the site from her property next door, including the opening on the lower level of the garage building and the lack of any screening. John Zvara, 8 Childs Road, invited Board members to visit the neighbors' homes and see for themselves the view from their windows. He also asked how long an existing foundation could be in place before construction of the home must begin. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW 143. Form A/90-3 4 Clematis Road. Smith & Melina. The Board reviewed a plan showing a change in lot lines between Lot lA and Lot 2B, leaving both lots with more than the minimum frontage and lot area required for the zoning district. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Grant, it was voted 5-0 to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass. (Middle- sex County) ," dated June 7, 1990, by The BSC Group - Bedford, Inc. , certified by Donald J. Forand, Professional Land Surveyor, with Applica- tion Form A/90-3, by applicants Molina and Smith, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. 144. Form A/90-4. Lincoln Street Robert DeMello: The Board reviewed a plan showing the transfer of Parcel B-2-B, not a legal building lot, from Hayden Recreation Center to be combined with Lot 3, and Parcel B-2-A remaining in the ownership of the Hayden Recreation Center. On the motion of David Williams, seconded by Mr. Grant, it was voted 5-0: to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass. (Middle- sex County)," dated May 21, 1990, by The BSC Group - Bedford, Inc. , certified by Roger M. Corbin, Professional Land Surveyor, with Applica- tion Form A/90-4, by applicant Robert DeMello, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. 145. Form A/90-5 Westminster Ave. David Hornstein: The Board reviewed a plan showing the transfer of Lot 5A from Lot B-1 to Lot 5 leaving the primary frontage of Lot 5A on Westminster Avenue unchanged, and increasing the lot frontage of Lot 5. The lot area of Lot B-1 remains more than the minimum required for the zoning district, and Lot 5 becomes less non-conforming. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 5-0: to endorse the plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Lexington, MA. (Middlesex County)," dated June 15, 1990, by The Land Surveyors Col- laborative, certified by Malcolm N. Johnston, Professional Land Sur- Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 1990 6 veyor, with Application Form A/90-5, by applicant David Hornstein, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 146. Hearing Scheduled for June 28 1990 Mr. Domnitz gave an oral review of the following application scheduled to be heard by the Board of Appeals 43 Waltham Street, Mail Boxes, Etc. , appeal of the decision of the Zoning Officer denying the use of a portion of the premises for a postal and communication services business. The Board discussed a letter from the applicant's attorney, Stephen Russian, that argued against the decision of the Zoning Officer. They agreed with the decision of the Zoning Officer; that the uses are not specifically permitted in the CB district and are therefore prohibited, and that the proper route to legalize any of these uses is through amendment of the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Domnitz presented a draft he had prepared reflecting these views. Furthermore, the Board agreed that such uses would be parking intensive and would probably require more parking than the prior non-conforming situation. On the motion of Mr. Domnitz, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 to recommend that the decision of the Zoning Officer be upheld. 147. Hearings Scheduled for July 12. 1990 Mr. Grant gave an oral review of the following application scheduled to be heard by the Board of Appeals. 321 Marrett Road, Glenn Eric's Deli, renewal of special permit to continue take out and fast food service, unchanged except for the installation of a small oven for baking. The Board agreed they had no problem with the installation of the small oven. On the motion of Mr. Grant, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 to recommend the permit be renewed for a period of one year, subject to the same condi- tions that are contained in the previous special permit. 411 Waltham Street, Samuel Wilensky, SP, to install a 4 ft. x 15 ft. wall sign at the entrance of Mr. Formal, Inc. The Board felt very strongly that the applicant should be required to conform to the Town regulations on signs. They noted that this recommendation was consis- tent with the David Dixon Report that is presently circulating among various Town boards and committees. On the motion of Mr. Grant, sec- onded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 to recommend the application be denied. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 148. Mahle Tree Lane / Butterfield Road, street name: The Board reviewed and agreed to send a draft response, dated June 21, 1990, to a letter from Attorney George Foote who represents Dr. Zangara, 4 Maple Tree Lane. The letter outlined the reasons why the entire length of roadway, from Solomon Pierce Road to Maple Street, must be named Butterfield Lane. Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 1990 7 149. Busa Farms. A & D Realty Trust. Action on Request for Final Release of Surety. The Board reviewed a memo from the Town Engineer, dated June 13, 1990, reporting as follows 1) iron pins have not been set at each corner of each lot as required by condition 11 of the Certificate of Action; 2) stone bounds have not been set at all corners of the drainage easement as required by condition 11 of the Certificate of Action; and 3) curb inlets for catch basins at stations 0+25 left and right and 2+50 left and right are not needed. They report that although they are not necessary, the "As-Built Plan" shows them installed. It was noted that under the Subdivision Control Law, the Planning Board must take action on a request for final release of surety within 45 days or the surety is automatically released, and that the Board should not release the surety until everything is completed to its satisfaction. On the motion of Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Grant, it was voted 5-0 to disap- prove the final release of the remaining surety. 150. Orchard Crossing. Change of Financial Institution Holding Surety for the Subdivision The Board discussed a background memo and draft motion from Acting Assistant Planner Joseph Marino, dated June 19, 1990, which stated that the developer of the Orchard Crossing subdivision, Joseph Castelli, wishes to replace the previously accepted letter of credit from Waltham Savings Bank with a letter of Credit with Lexington Savings Bank as surety. Previously, the Orchard Crossing subdivision was a joint venture with Castelli Realty Trust and first, McNeil & Associates, Inc. and later, the Lexington Syndicate. Mr. Castelli now assumes sole responsibility for the development. Mr Marino's memo noted that except for the insurer of the Letter of Credit, and the deletion of the Lexington Syndicate, the terms and the amount of the surety remain the same The applicant asks that the Board accept the letter of credit from Lexington Savings Bank in place of the Letter of Credit from Waltham Savings Bank. The applicant also wishes that the Waltham Savings Bank be released from its previous obligation. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Grant, it was voted 5-0 1) To transfer the responsibility as insurer of the Letter of Credit for the Orchard Crossing subdivision from the Waltham Savings Bank to the Lexington Savings Bank; 2) To release John E. Sweeney, Trustee of the Lexington Syndicate, from the Agreement, dated June 30, 1989, to secure construction of the municipal services at the Orchard Crossing subdivision, and to release Waltham Savings Bank from its obligation as former insurer of the Letter of Credit to Castelli Realty Trust; and 3) To maintain the surety at $ 155,000.00, which is deemed to be sufficient for the completion of the community facilities and the subdivision, through June 25, 1991 only. If the subdivision is not completed by that time, the amount of surety needed may be re-evaluated Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 1990 8 to determine its relationship between the then applicable construction costs and the work remaining to be completed. If little or none of the work that remained, at the time this surety was posted, is completed by June 25, 1991, and the current costs, of the amount of work to be completed, have 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. 151. Eaton Road. Set and Accent Surety and Release Lot: The Board reviewed a memo and suggested motion from Acting Assistant Planner Joseph Marino which reported that the developer of the Eaton Road Extension subdivision, Kevin Duffy, wishes to deposit surety with the Town in order to have the lots released; that the "Cost to Construct" for the remaining work at this sub- division, as estimated by the Engineering Department, on June 6, 1990, is $8,165.00; and that with the required fees added, the total amount of surety to be held is $15,215.00. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 1) To set, and accept, the amount of surety for the Eaton Road sub- division at $16,000.00, which is the total remaining "Cost to Con- struct," plus contingency, escalation'deposit, and administrative costs, as the amount necessary to hold until the completion of the community facilities and the subdivision, and 2) that this level of surety is determined to be sufficient through June 25, 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 little or none of the work that remained, at the time this surety was posted, is completed by June 25, 1991, and the current costs, of the amount of work to be completed, have in- creased, 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. ************************* PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION ******************** 152. Election of Officers Mrs. Wood asked for nominations for officers of the Planning Board to serve until the Board's next scheduled election. [ Mrs. Klauminzer nominated Mrs. Wood for chairman. The were no other nomina- tions, and the Board voted unanimously to elect Mrs. Wood chairman. Mr. Domnitz nominated Mrs. Klauminzer for vice-chairman. There were no other nominations, and the Board voted unanimously to elect Mrs. Klauminzer vice- chairman. Mr. Grant nominated Mr. Williams for clerk. There were no other nominations, F and the Board voted unanimously to elect Mr Williams clerk. Minutes for the Meeting of June 25, 1990 9 ******************************* REPORTS ************************************ 153. Planning Board. Subcommittees a. Lexington Lighting Options Committee Mr. Domnitz reported he would be considered a voting member of this committee if the Board wished it to be so. The Board agreed they did wish this to be so. He also reported the committee have compiled all the provisions in the Zoning By-Law that relate to lighting, and they hoped some sort of guide for people looking for lighting information could be inserted somewhere in the By-Law. The Board agreed the committee should complete its study before changes are proposed for the Zoning By-Law. They also agreed that an insert could be added to the zoning booklet, but not part of the Zoning By-Law, for informational purposes until the committee's work is completed. b. Recent Board of Apneals Hearings Mr. Domnitz reported that the Crafty Yankee sign, as presented at the hearing, did not appear to be as high as indicated in the application, so he did not comment at the hearing. He also reported that the Board of Appeals did not consider the White Pine Lane applications as repetitive petitions. He added some members, who voted against granting the special permit, did not think, given the size of the proposed building, that the building would only be used for twenty hours a week, if the special permit were granted. Copies of the APA Home Occupation report will be sent to the new members of the Planning Board. The Board will consider whether changes need to be made to the By-Law at a future meeting in August or September. c. Hanscom Field Advisory Committee Mr. Domnitz reported he has received many calls from residents, a citizens committee has been formed to try to formulate reasonable options for the Continental commuter airlanes proposal. He asked if the Board should do anything other than respond to the Environmental Office on the Continental expansion proposal and meet with the Selectmen on July 9, 1990. He also reported the deadline for the Secretary of Environmental Affairs' decision has been extended to the end of July. The Board reviewed, edited and approved a draft letter, prepared by Mr. Domnitz, presenting the Board's views on the proposed expansion. 154. EXECUTIVE SESSION. Litigation Against the Town. Tracer Lane and Wood Street: At 11 30 p.m. , after an individual poll of the five members present, it was voted 5-0 to go into Executive Session to discuss the recent Land Court decision on the Tracer Lane Subdivision litigation, and potential legal action against the Town on the Wood Street Subdivision. The Board agreed to recon- vene in open session only for the purpose of adjourning. The Planning Board returned to open session at 11 55 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 11:56 p.m. Wittj (AilL David G. Williams, Clerk