Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes 1990-07-11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 11, 1990 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 35 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Wood, with members Domnitz, Grant, Klauminzer, Williams, Acting Assistant Planner Marino, and Planning Director Bowyer present. ************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************ 155 Form A/90-6 and Form A/90-7. Burlington Town Line The Board reviewed two plans, previously reviewed by Town Counsel, that show a confirmation of existing lot lines along the border between Burlington and Lexington. The plans will be endorsed by both towns, so that they can be recorded in the Land Court. The plan to be recorded includes a strip of land in Lexington along the boundary, that was acquired in the seventies by Lexington for conservation purposes, and a much larger area in Burlington that was recently acquired by the Town of Burlington, also for conservation purposes. Due to the technical requirements of the Land Court, because the property was in one ownership at an earlier time, the Planning Boards of both towns must endorse the plans. On the motion of Mr Williams, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 to endorse both plans entitled "Compiled Plan of Land in Burlington/Lex- ington Mass.", dated June 26, 1990, by Harry R. Feldman, Inc. , certified by Joseph L. Calabro, Jr. , Professional Land Surveyor, with Application Forms A/90-6 and A/90-7, Applicant Town of Burlington, as the plans do not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 156. Wood Street Development. Definitive Plan. Decision on Certificate of Action The Board reviewed and made minor corrections to a draft Certificate of Action disapproving the definitive plan. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Domnitz, it was voted 5-0 to disapprove the definitive sub- division plan entitled Wood Street Development, and to approve the wording of the Certificate of Action, as amended. Mr. Williams left the meeting, at this time. 157. 90 North Hancock. Final Release of Surety: The Board reviewed a memo, dated July 9, 1990, from the Town Engineer stating that the "as-built" plans have been approved, and that all required community facilities in the 90 North Hancock subdivision have been completed in accordance with Town's standards, and the surety can be released. On the motion of Mr. Grant, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 4-0 1) to return the remaining surety, in the form of passbook #4025751 from the Depositors Trust Company in the amount of $7,000 00, which was being held for the completion of the community facilities at the 90 North Hancock Street subdivision; and 2) to release the covenant from Jeffrey and Carol Hodgdon, dated March 21, 1988, and to consider that the 90 North Hancock Street Sub- division is completed and closed out. This action is taken with the Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 1990 2 understanding that the 90 North Hancock Subdivision street will not I be accepted by the Town of Lexington as a public street. Mr. Williams returned to the meeting at this time. 158. Orchard Crossing. Presentation of Revised Plan for Lot 16 Mr. Bowyer described the original configuration of the subdivision plan, as approved by the Planning Board, and the changes in ownership of the subdivision that have occurred since. He noted the new plan proposes that Lot 16 will change from one lot, with four buildings, each containing two dwelling units in condomin- ium ownership, to a cluster subdivision with four separate lots in four sepa- rate ownerships. He added that the features pertaining to the open space remain essentially the same except that they propose to relocate the pedestri- an access to the open space to a more central location. He said the group present tonight want to work out with the Board the proce- dure to follow in order to accomplish this change, since any amendment to an approved subdivision plan and special permit requires essentially the same process as an original application, i. e. a formal filing of an amendment, the holding of a public hearing and the rendering of a decision on the proposed amendment by the Board. In response to a question from Mrs Klauminzer, it was agreed that the same statutory period applies as required for the filing of a definitive plan. Attorney John Farrington, representing the future owners and the bank for Lot 16, presented a proposal to build four buildings, each containing 2 dwelling units on Lot 16. He noted that procedurally there was an immediate problem since the time limit, in which the approved special permit has to be acted on, expires tomorrow. He proposed that since the filing he is presenting is an amendment to the already existing special permit, and assuming that the owners, the bank and the Board all wish to go forward with this modification to the special permit, the word "modification" in the filing can be changed to "issuance of a special permit." Mr. Bowyer noted that he did not believe the special permit had expired. The expiration date referred to in the original special permit decision was effective if no work was begun. Since the roadway has been constructed, this could be construed as "action" taken under the special permit adn it is still in effect. Mr. Farrington said his recommendation would be to file in such a way that all the procedural requirements are met, so that this particular issue, the expiration of the special permit, is not raised. On the motion of Mr. Grant, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 that the present expiration date of the special permit previously granted, be extended to December 31, 1990. Although this may not be needed because the Board believes the special permit is in effect and is not due to expire, this action is intended to remove any doubt as to the validity of the special permit. In response to questions, Mr. Bowyer summarized the reasons for the Board's previous endorsement of the four two-unit buildings, proposed for condominium Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 1990 3 ownership of the individual dwelling units, on lot 16. Mr. Farrington noted that the proposal would be for the addition of lot lines, creating four individual lots within Lot 16, with two dwelling units in a single building on each lot In response to a question from Mr. Williams, he said that each lot would contain two dwelling units, the same as in the orignally approved plan, but Lot 16 would now become a cluster subdivision. Mr. Farrington also noted that the substance of what is being done here is not very different from what was originally approved, but has been repositioned because of the current economic environment. Mrs. Klauminzer commented that it still has many of the features of the previously approved plan, mainly the advantage of the open space, which without the cluster plan would mean that all of the land would be developed. It was noted that the only difference between the two proposals was the addition of lot lines creating four lots within Lot 16, but that physically there was very little difference, since there are four two-family dwellings in either plan, with the same open space, and the same roadway. Mr. Bowyer said that the alternative cluster plan permits better siting of houses, and that the cluster requirements in the Zoning By-Law provide design criteria for the relationship of the houses to each other, as well as some design control over the exterior appearance of the dwellings. He added that his recommendations, following staff review of the modification, were that more design attention be given to the amount of paving and the siting of the houses, the need for a landscape plan, and more specifics on the design control since there will be a change from four buildings under condominium agreement to four buildings, owned separately. He concluded that at this point it might be desirable for the applicant to get the Board's reaction as to whether they are proceeding in the right direction to modify the special permit. In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Farrington said that the proposal before the Board may not be in the exact format that is eventually submitted to the Board to modify the special permit. For example, the planting schedule for the planted area in the cul-de-sac center would be unchanged; the submission will present design standards for the four two family homes; the design standards for the entire subdivision, previously approved, will still apply to Lot 16, as amended; and the deed restrictions, pertaining to the condominium form of ownership for dwelling units on Lot 16, will be included in the deed restrictions of the individual lots. He added because of the two unit configuration, there will probably be at least four automobiles for each building. He added he would like to come back as soon as possible with an application based on meetings with the staff, and the Board's reactions tonight. The Board encouraged him to do so. Mr. Williams left before Item 159 was discussed, and returned for the discus- sion of the Board of Appeals case at 36 North Street. 159. Turnburry Hill Status Renort and Letter Received from Rena Murman Mr. Bowyer said that the Engineering Department has reported that all work on the roadway has been completed and that the Building Department is no longer issuing daily fines. He also reported that a letter was received today from Rena Murman, addressing the landscaping questions discussed at the last Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 1990 4 meeting. In response to a question from Mrs. Klauminzer as to what were Mr. Brown's reactions to the landscaping issue discussion last week, Mr. Bowyer said nothing has been heard. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 160. Hearings Scheduled for August 16 1990: Mrs. Klauminzer gave an oral review of the following applications scheduled to be heard by the Board of Appeals 153 North Street, McCabes Energy Store, Appeal of Zoning Officer's Ruling: Mrs. Klauminzer reported there had been five complaints about Mr. McCabe's operation of his business, which the Zoning Officer has investigated. He found that two of the complaints had merit 1) leaving items for sale outside after business hours, and 2) the outside display of "wind socks", which are wind actuated. Both are not permitted under the Zoning By-Law, and Mr. Marino so ruled. Mr. McCabe has appealed this ruling. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Grant, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Williams abstained since he had not been present for most of the discus- sion) to recommend that the Board of Appeals uphold the decision of the Zoning Officer. Mr Williams returned near the end of the above discussion. The Board also agreed to make no comment on the following applications: 39 Preston Road, Anne and Stuart Schaffner, Variance, front yard setback: Mrs. Klauminzer reported they have a garage next to the home and they wished to install a deck and stairways down to the garage. The house and stairs are already non-conforming. 36 North Street. James Caouette, SP, second floor, nonconforming dwelling: Mrs. Klauminzer reported that the house is presently one story, and the applicant wishes to add a second story to a nonconforming dwelling. 161. Lexington Ridge Associates. Waltham Street Comprehensive Permit: Mr. Bowyer reported that tomorrow evening there will be an initial informational presentation within the advertised Board of Appeals public hearing. No recommendations will be expected from Town departments, committees or boards, and the public hearing has been advertised to be continued to a later date, when a decision will be made by the Board of Appeals. This two part hearing will give time to receive comments and recommendations from involved Town departments, committees and boards. The procedure followed by the Planning Board for the previous comprehensive permit, Katandin Woods, was discussed. Mr. Bowyer reported that two documents were prepared: 1) a zoning and site analysis prepared by the staff, largely factual, including such data as setbacks, density, site coverage, impacts on traffic and schools, and the availability of Town services; and 2) the Board's recommendations to the Board of Appeals. He added that preparation has begun on a similar analysis of the Lexington Ridge proposal. Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 1990 5 Mr. Bowyer also reported on a meeting with the developers of Lexington Ridge, Northgate Developers, which was called by the Town Manager, to which all concerned Town operating departments, who will be required to work with the developers, could discuss any potential conflicts that may occur between Town Boards, commissions and committees. The Board reviewed and discussed the plans for this meeting, that will be presented tomorrow evening. ***************** COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES ************************* 162. Continental Airlines. Commuter Service at Hanscom Field Status Report Mrs. Klauminzer reported that Jack Taylor, Lexington's representative on its Hanscom Field committees, who was present, feels that the Town's strongest position is not that Massport's Master Plan has been violated, but that a complete environmental study, particularly a study of traffic and noise impacts, is necessary. This would be a more effective way to state the Town's opposition to the proposed commuter expansion. The Board reviewed and suggested editing changes to a letter, dated July 11, 1990, stating the position of Lexington's Board of Selectmen and Planning Board. On the motion of Mr. Grant, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 to approve the letter. Mr. Domnitz reported that at the Selectmen's meeting on July 9, 1990, a proposal was made to form a strategy subcommittee to monitor this issue on an ongoing basis. Mr Grant and Mr. Domnitz expressed interest in sharing repre- sentation on such a committee. They also agreed that Jack Taylor should serve on the committee. The Board agreed to send a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen for the formation of such a Selectmen's subcommittee. 163. "Design Guidelines for Commercial Districts". Comments and Recommenda- tions to the Design Advisory Committee. Board of Selectmen: The Board discussed its reaction to the report. Only Mr. Williams had received Volume I. He generally thought the report was well done, and commented on the process of action, based on the recommendations in Volume I - what the Town can do, rather than its content. He said that closing off the alley between the York building and the BayBank, closing off one of the driveways at the School Administration building, changing the texture of the sidewalks, putting down benches, changing Depot Square, are all things that can and should be done immediately. He added his concern was how the plan would be implemented. Mrs. Wood commented that these are exactly the type of changes the Board has recommended. Board members agreed they could only comment on Volume II, since that was all they had received, and would wait until they had received a copy of Volume I. In its review of Volume II, they agreed that the Town's zoning limits the height of buildings in the center to 2 stories, not 2 1/2 stories as suggested on pages 17-19 of Volume II. It was noted that if there were a design reason favoring 2 1/2 stories, having to do with transition to residential areas where 2 1/2 stories are allowed, then a case must be made, and the report should recommend the change be proposed to Town Meeting. Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 1990 6 Mr. Domnitz said that he had major concerns with the report's understanding of the Town's zoning process. Mrs. Wood commented that the report did not seem to display too much awareness of existing zoning requirements for screening dumpsters, and signs. It was generally agreed that the report contained good ideas that should be implemented, but that the recommendations must not be in conflict with the Zoning By-Law unless this is noted or a change in zoning is justified. Mr. Grant asked and it was agreed that the staff review both volumes of the report for any inconsistencies with the Zoning By-Law and let the Design Advisory Committee address these inconsistencies before the Board endorses the report. Mr. Bowyer commented that the report implies a process which represents a substantial commitment of time on the part of Town officials to Lexington Center, and the question may be is Lexington Center a high priority question that warrants the time of this Board, the Board of Selectmen and others. Mr. Domnitz added that it assumes that, if the Town government spends all that time and effort, the result will be better. Mrs. Klauminzer commented that some times town regulatory bodies get too involved in process and this is why a document like the report is valuable, because the perspective is different. The Board ask Mr. Bowyer to inform the Selectmen that the Board has not received Volume I, so will be unable to transmit its recommendations on the report at this time. Although the Board thinks the work is valuable, it does have concerns as to some of the statements that are procedurally incorrect and not consistent with the Zoning By-Law. On the motion of Mr. Grant, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 5-0: 1) to ask the planning staff to review the two volumes of the report entitled. "Design Guidelines for Commercial Districts" for any inconsistencies with the Zoning By-Law or any other town policies, such as the Development Regulations, as well as other general considerations, discussed tonight, and 2) to request the Board of Selectmen to furnish the Board with Volume I. 164. "Commercial Development Characteristics". Discussion of Data from Commercial Zoning District Data Base Mr. Bowyer gave a brief synopsis of the report, which will be distributed before the next meeting, for discussion then. *********************** REPORTS ******************************************* 165. Planning Board Subcommittees a. Design Advisory Committee: Mrs. Wood asked what progress has been made on proposed revisions to the sign by-law portion of the Zoning By- Law. She noted that work on zoning changes for next year's Town Meeting must begin very soon if they are to be completed for review by the Board in time. The meeting was adjourned at 11 03 p.m. 9 6. U/%l.s..4 David G. Williams, Clerk