Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes 1990-11-26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26, 1990 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 45 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Wood, with members Domnitz, Grant, Klauminzer, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer, Acting Assistant Planner Marino and Secretary Peters present. ****************************** REPORTS ********************************* 232. Planning Director a. Woburn Street. Robert Cataldo. Sketch Plan. Mr Bowyer reported that the applicant will present his cluster sketch plan, for a 7 lot subdivision off Woburn Street, at the Board's Wednesday meeting prior to the Special Town Meeting this week. In response to a question from Mr Williams, Mr. Marino reported he had not found any restrictions relating to a road crossing Monroe Brook on the property. The Board agreed that the issue of the brook crossing should be resolved at the preliminary plan stage. ************** ARTICLES FOR THE 1990 SPECIAL TOWN MEETING ****************** 233. 1990 Planning Board Report on Affordable Housing The Board reviewed and edited a draft report, dated November 26, 1990 On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 to approve the report, as amended, and to make it available to Town Meeting members at Town Meeting, Wednesday evening. 234. Preparation for the Presentation of Article 2 The Board briefly discussed the various points to be made in the presentation. Mr. Bowyer said the staff would be available for the preparation of any presentation material the Board may need to have done. *************** ARTICLES FOR 1991 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ************************ 235. Planning Board Articles Mr. Domnitz gave a preliminary review of three Planning Board articles that he is drafting to amend the Zoning By-Law. The first amendment would attempt to clarify the method for determining parking requirements for restaurants. In the current By-Law, the number of parking spaces is computed by a formula based on the number of seats and employees. Mr Domnitz proposed, and the Board agreed, that the computation of parking spaces be based only on the number of seats in the restaurant, and proposed 1 parking space be required for every 5 seats in the CB District, and 1 park- ing space for every 3 seats elsewhere in town. A second amendment would base the number of parking spaces required for a beauty salon or barber shop on square footage rather than on the number of seats in the establishment. He recommended, and the Board agreed, that one parking space for every 150 square feet in the CB district, and 1 space for every 100 square feet elsewhere in town be required, and noted that as long as the parking factor is higher than for general retail and office use, conver- LJ Minutes for the Meeting of November 26, 1990 2 sion from these uses to beauty salons or barber shops should not create parking problems. A third amendment would address potential legal challenges by churches and schools to the Town's SP and SPS processes. Mr. Domnitz proposed, and the Board agreed. 1) that existing SP and SPS language be retained for all applicants other than churches and schools; and 2) for churches and schools, review be limited to the bulk and height of structures, yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage, in accordance with Ch. 40A Sec. 3. ************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* 236 Hearings Scheduled for December 13. 1990: Mr. Williams gave an oral review of the following cases scheduled to be heard by the Board of Appeals. 329-331 Marrett Road, Giuseppe Raponi, variance to allow an addition for commercial use in an existing two-family dwelling with a floor area ratio of .27 instead of the .20 ratio allowed on a lot located in the CN zoning dis- tricts The Board applauded the developer's wish to retain the two family dwelling. Mr. Williams noted that the landscape plan was not prepared by a landscape architect, as required by the Zoning By-Law and that traffic condi- tions at the intersection of Marrett Road and Waltham Street are already over- t stressed. Mr. Bowyer observed that the Planning Board's policy and past decisions of the Board of Appeals were to take a firm position against any increase above the permitted floor area ratio. The floor area ratio is the basic control of density, which is the most important regulatory control on commercial proper- ty. It is nearly impossible to justify a variance from the floor area ratio according to the statutory criteria of topography, soil conditions or shape of the lot because the floor space allowed by the floor area ratio may be located anywhere on a lot or on multiple of floors, and is unaffected by dimensional considerations On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 5-0 to recommend the variance not be granted since the FAR measurement is not an appropriate criteria, as are soil conditions or topography, for granting a variance, and to grant this variance allowing a larger FAR than permitted by the Zoning By-Law, which the Board has never recom- mended, would set an inappropriate precedent for future cases. 14 White Pine Lane, Timothy Dugan, M.D , set Planning Board hearing date for a repetitive petition. The Planning Board agreed to schedule the public hearing for the petition on January 7, 1991 . The Board also agreed to make no comment on the following applications 57 Meriam Street. Leonard and Lee Sarnia, SP, to allow a satellite to remain where installed, on the roof of a single family dwelling. Minutes for the Meeting of November 26, 1990 3 60 Tarbell Avenue Diane and Michael Miccioli, SP, to extend the second floor over the nonconforming portion of a single-family dwelling with no increase in site coverage. 237. Lexington Ridge. Comprehensive Permit The Board discussed a prelimi- nary draft proposed by the applicant entitled, "Proposed Terms and Associated Language for the Following Three Conditions #1 - Percentage of affordable units, #2 - Tenant selection criteria and #3 - Affordable units to be maintained in perpetuity. Mrs Wood reported that the Board of Appeals and the developers will meet tomorrow evening for a negotiating session on these conditions. As they only received a copy of the draft language that evening, the Board agreed to recommend that the Board of Appeals not take final action then, and noted that it wished to discuss the conditions proposed by the developers at next Monday's meeting. ********************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION ************************ 238. Planning Board Members Signature Sheets The Board signed revised sheets for the Registry of Deeds and the Land Court correcting an error in the expiration date of Edmund Grant's term. 239. Schedule for Future Meetings. The Board scheduled the following Planning Board meetings December 3, 5, 10 and 17, 1990; January 7 and 28, 1991; and February 11 and 25, 1991. ******************************** REPORTS ******************************** 240. Planning Board. Subcommittees a. HATS. MAPC Report. Next Step Mr Grant briefly reviewed the evolution of HATS and HATS II, and discussed what should be the Town's position on whether the four HATS towns should propose to their respec- tive 1991 Town Meetings the establishment of a "Hanscom Area Planning District", and to what extent should Lexington be prepared to support and implement the traffic management recommendations spelled out in the HATS II Executive Summary Mr. Grant added that the creation of a Regional Planning District would set up a mechanism through which HATS could receive payments in lieu of taxes from organizations operating at Hanscom Field, because, in its present form, HATS can not legally receive such payments. This would enable Hanscom Air Force Base to donate funds to improve the road network around Hanscom Field. The Board questioned what "strings", such as potential airport expansion and increased traffic, might come with such money. There was a concern that accepting that money might run counter to objectives of the four towns, such as the control of development and traffic Mr. Grant said the next HATS meeting will be December 13, 1990, and that Selectman Jack Eddison would like to hear from the Planning Board by then. b. Center Committee Mrs. Wood reported that, at the Committee's meeting last week, there was more discussion on the placement and financing of the park benches. She added that Mrs. Uhrig's proposed Minutes for the Meeting of November 26, 1990 4 zoning amendment to allow seasonal outdoor seating for restaurants in the Center, without requiring a reduction in number of indoor seats, had also been discussed. It was the sense of the Planning Board that it supports this amendment for seasonal outdoor seating, and the staff was directed to prepare a draft amendment. Mrs Wood added that the Planning Board has been invited to attend a formal presentation to the Selectmen and the Town of the Design Guide- lines for the Center and other commercial districts on Monday, December 3 at 7 40 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. c. Design Advisory Committee Mrs. Klauminzer reported the committee has no zoning changes in mind for the 1991 Annual Town Meeting *************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *********** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 241. Wood Street Development. Joanne Vilasi Reconsideration of Disannroval Attorney Alan Altman, representing the applicant, stated a number of com- plaints about his difficulties with the staff in attempting to have an item placed on the Board's agenda. He stated he was filing a Petition for Recon- sideration of the definitive subdivision plan previously disapproved by the Planning Board on July 11, 1990. He explained the reasons for filing the Petition, contained in that document dated November 26, 1990 (attached) Mr. Grant pointed out the matter was in litigation and asked why he had not taken his proposed action to the court. Altman replied that it was of no concern to him that the matter was in litigation before the courts. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Altman said he was not filing a revised subdivision plan, but rather, expected the Board to reverse its decision and endorse the plan they had previously disapproved. Mr. Grant commented that in spite of his expressed difficulties with the staff, he was before the Board at its next scheduled meeting (tonight) following his first letter requesting an appointment on the agenda, dated November 16, 1990. Mr. Williams noted there were only four working days, due to the holiday, since he first asked to meet with the Board. Mr. Grant made a motion, seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to ask Town Counsel to review the Petition for Reconsideration placed before the Board this evening by Attorney Altman on behalf of his client Ms. Vilasi, and after receiving a response from Town Counsel, to act on Mr. Altman's request Mr. Altman demanded that the motion be amended to include that the response must be made within 30 days The Board did not accept that amendment Mr Grant restated his motion and it was voted unanimously. Minutes for the Meeting of November 26, 1990 5 Mr. Bowyer stated that Mr. Altman's statement of the facts are different from his recollection of the conversation they had. Mr. Bowyer said he told Mr. Altman that the appointment would have to be scheduled after consultation with the Chairman, this being the Board's regular procedure. He also told Mr. Altman that, as this matter was in litigation, the normal practice was for litigants to consult through their attorneys. The meeting was adjourned at 10:49 p.m. ���'19144 4144 David Williams, Clerk