Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1991-05-29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES OF MAY 29, 1991 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 04 p m. by the Chairman, Mrs Wood, with members, Davison, Domnitz, Grant, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Marino and Secretary Peters present ***************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************ SUBDIVISION OF LAND 121. PUBLIC HEARING, Lot 16 Orchard Crossing Mrs. Wood opened the hearing by describing the Board's procedure for conducting its hearings. She intro- duced Attorney John Farrington, who represented the applicant, Sterling Bank, and who presented the plans. Mr. Farrington introduced Architect Mark Margulies, of Margulies and Associates, who assisted in the presentation Mr. Farrington noted that Sterling Bank obtained ownership through foreclosure of one of the previous developers of Lot 16 who was unable to finance and develop a condominium development in the changed real estate market. Under the cluster provisions of the Zoning By-Law, Lot 16 was originally granted a special permit for four semi-attached dwellings (two dwelling units, side by side, separated by a party wall) , to be owned by a condominium association made up of the owners of the dwellings. Sterling Bank proposes to remove the condominium restrictions contained in the previously approved plan. Mr Farrington noted that the Bank will address what it perceives as the legitimate concerns of the rest of the Orchard Crossing neighborhood -- that the completion of Lot 16 blend with what has already been built. Removal of the condominium restrictions will allow the developer to subdivide Lot 16 into four lots, each containing a building with a principal dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit. The exterior appearance of each building will be that of a single family home Documents, requiring the maintenance of the footpath easement and the center island of the cul-de-sac by the individual owners of the lots, and to ensure that the design of the dwellings and the landscaping will be compatible with other dwellings in the development, are proposed to be inserted into the deeds of each lot Mr Margulies and Mr. Farrington reviewed the site plan They noted that the footpath easement has been relocated to provide a more direct access to the conservation land at the rear of the property. Waivers are requested to provide for better siting of the buildings on the lots, respecting the existing topography and existing road. Mrs. Wood asked and was told that the lots would be sold with design restric- tions within the envelopes shown on the plan. Mrs Davison expressed concerns that all of the buildings would look the same, and asked that the amount of pavement be as little as possible. Mr. Williams asked that one of the garage spaces be designated for use by the accessory unit occupant He also asked that the footpath be described as a 10 foot wide easement, covered with crushed stone, with a post and rail fence on one side Mr Grant noted that Minutes for the Meeting of May 29, 1991 2 the application appears complete and that he assumes the recordable covenant information will be shown on the plan by the time the vote of the Board is taken on the amended special permit for Lot 16. James Purvis, 11 Page Road, expressed concerns that the rental of one unit would attract "transient elements", and asked if the resident of the principal unit would have to own and to live in the principal unit The Board responded that the building would have to be owned by the occupant of one of the units, but not necessarily the occupant of the principal unit since the owner could live in either unit. Mr Farrington said that developer hoped, by deed, to restrict the rental of the accessory unit to family members. Mr. Williams noted that it would be very difficult to guarantee that occupancy by family members would always be the case. Attorney Donald Garrity, representing Mark Noonan, 10 Sanderson Road, did not like two front doors on the front side of the building, and was told that the plans of the buildings shown were not necessarily what would be built Mr. Garrity said that he and Mr. Noonan supported this plan. Representing the neighbors, he said they generally support this plan also. Carl Popolo, 2207 Lewis 0. Gray Drive, Saugus, asked and was told that the I size of the smaller unit could not exceed 725 sq. ft or the greater of 1/4 of the total square footage of the building Roger Yokum, 4 Orchard Crossing, asked and was told that it was the intent of the Board to require two units in each structure Mrs. Wood responded that the decision of the full Board had not been made. Mr. Grant responded that, as far as he was concerned, that should be the Board's intent for the purpose of encouraging rental housing in new construction throughout the town. Margit Svanis, 7 Page Road asked and was told that these accessory units could not be included in any official count of units credited toward Lexington's affordable housing stock because no limits on rent or household income were proposed Adele Germaine, 11 Page Road, had questions about the public benefit to the town of this type of development. Mrs Wood declared the hearing closed at 8 27 p.m. Later in the evening, the Board gave direction to the staff for the prepara- tion of draft Amendments to the Certificate of Action and draft Amendments to the Special Permit with Site Plan Review, approving the definitive plan. The Board agreed that the following conditions should be part of the decision 1) the building on each lot and the two units in it shall be in one ownership; 2) one of the units in each building shall be and remain a rental unit, and one of the two units shall be owner occupied; 3) the accessory unit must be built; 4) the accessory unit can not be larger than 750 sq ft. 5) one parking space in the garage must be dedicated for the use of the accessory unit; 6) there must be a minimum of four off-street parking spaces, including those in the garages; and Minutes for the Meeting of May 29, 1991 3 7) the path to the conservation land shall be stone dust, well defined with signage at the beginning of the path, and subject to the approval of the Conservation Commission. The Board discussed the waivers requested by the developer. It agreed not to grant a waiver of the sideyard setback requirement for Lot 16C from 25 feet to 7 feet. The Board will vote on the definitive plan June 26, 1991. 122 Holderness Court. Minute Man Lane Mr Marino reported that the developer has submitted a plan suitable for recording that shows revised setback requirements for lots 2 and 3, and a straightened property line between lots 7 and 8. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Grant, it was voted 5-0 That in accordance with Section 3.5 8 of the Lexington Zoning By-Law and Section 10 2 of the Development Regulations, the Planning Board deter- mines that the proposed changes to the approved plan are minor and a public hearing as set forth in Section 3.5.3 is not required, and approves the plan entitled "Plan of land in Lexington, Mass", prepared for Robert Phelan, dated May 3, 1991, by The BSC Group - Bedford, Inc . PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW 123. Form A/91-5. 210 Marrett Road. Mr. Bowyer reported that the mylar, showing the lot changes, had been returned to the engineer for the revisions suggested by the Board at its May 20 meeting. However, the applicant had not yet resubmitted the revised Form A, so that the three week period allowed for the Board to deliberate whether or not to endorse the plan, continues to run On the motion of Mrs Wood, seconded by Mr. Domnitz, it was voted unanimously that if the plan is not formally withdrawn 1) to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land Located in Lexington, Massachusetts (Middlesex County)", dated April 25, 1991, by Merid- ian Engineering Collaborative, Inc , certified by Donald E Bowen, Jr. , Registered Land Surveyor, with application Form A/91-5 by Applicant Margo B. Rushton, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law; 2) to note on the plan that application appears to create a zoning violation; and 6 3) to authorize the Assistant Planner to endorse the plan on behalf of the Board. 124. Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of May 6, 1991 On the motion of Mr Williams, seconded by Mr. Grant, it was voted 5-0 to approve the minutes, as amended. The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of May 20, 1991. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr Grant, it was voted 5-0 to approve the minutes, as written. *************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ************************ 125. Summer Meeting Schedule The Board discussed various ways to conduct meetings more expeditiously and to ensure time is available for discussion of planning projects and policies. The Board agreed upon a suggested classifica- tion of meeting types prepared by the staff Minutes for the Meeting of May 29, 1991 4 P PLANNING PROJECTS, POLICY MAKING -- Meetings reserved for discussion of planning projects, drafting revisions of Subdivision Rules and Regula- tions and Development Regulations, Zoning Amendments to be sponsored by the Board, drafting elements of the Comprehensive Plan, discussion of proposals prepared by others e.g. David Dixon Report, Hanscom Field. R ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS -- Meetings primarily for actions required under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning By-Law. Various actions dealing with subdivision applications and approved subdivisions in various stages of completion Recommenda- tions to the Town Meeting on zoning amendments proposed by others and to the Board of Appeals. Depending on the number of and time required for regulatory items, the agenda might include some time for planning projects The agenda will include reports of Planning Board members on the Board's subcommittees and other committees to which Board members are liaison. M MIXED (PLANNING AND REGULATIONS) -- Meetings which include both planning projects and regulatory actions Actions dealing with subdivi- sions and zoning (Board of Appeals and recommendations to Town Meeting on petitions by others) will generally be limited to one hour The agenda will generally be limited to those regulatory actions for which time is pressing or are so routine they can be disposed of quickly The Board agreed on the following summer schedule of meetings as classified below Type of Meeting Time and Place M Mon. , June 10, 1991 - 7 30 p m. - Room G-15, Town Office Bldg ; R Wed. , June 26, 1991 - 7 30 p.m. - Room G-15, Town Office Bldg. ; M Mon , July 15, 1991 - 7 30 p m. - Room G-15, Town Office Bldg. ; R Wed. , July 31, 1991 - 7 30 p m - Room G-15, Town Office Bldg. ; P Wed , August 7, 1991 - 7 30 p m. - Room G-15, Town Office Bldg. ; R Wed. , August 28, 1991 - 7 30 p m - Room G-15, Town Office Bldg P Wed. , Sept 11, 1991 - 7 30 p m - Room G-15, Town Office Bldg. *************************** REPORTS *t*************************************** 126 Planning Director a. Rollout, Taylor Lane Prior to staff review, the Board looked briefly at a definitive subdivision plan for four lots entitled Taylor Lane, filed May 22, 1991. b. Minuteman Village Mr. Bowyer reported on a meeting he and Mr Marino had with Attorney Schlesinger, who represents the Board of Managers of Minuteman Village Condominium located on April Lane off Concord Avenue They have requested an opportunity to appear before the Planning Board to discuss a potential subdivision issue which is affecting the condominium. Owners appear to be unable to sell their units because various attorneys have questioned the legality of the subdivision of the condominium land from land of the adjacent apartment buildings. Minutes for the Meeting of May 29, 1991 5 The Board discussed the letter and agreed that they were unclear from the letter, exactly what the problem is; what solutions may be avail- able; and what role, if any, there would be for the Planning Board. Board members noted there may be potential disagreement among the parties involved, and that the first step to be taken, before involving the town, would be to have the parties agree on a proposed solution. They agreed that this would be an essential step if the Board became involved, since all parties with interests in the land must agree to any subdivision proposal submitted to the Board. Otherwise, there existed the possibility that, if all of the involved parties did not agree with a solution proposed by one of the parties, a decision of the Board to effectuate that solution, could expose the Board and the town to a suit The Board agreed that if, after mutual exploration of the alternatives by the parties, it appeared that some public action might be required, the Board would assist as it could. The Board noted that its usual I procedure was to schedule items on its agenda when there is a proposal for specific Board action. On the motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Davison, it was voted 5- 0 to have the Planning Director prepare a letter responding to Mr. Schlesinger's letter, incorporating the Board's concerns and recommen- dations, discussed tonight 127 Planning Board Subcommittees a. Letter from Patrice Hurley. Representative on Hanscom Field Advisory Commission (HFAC) for the Town of Bedford Ms. Hurley's letter asks that any comments from the Planning Board go directly to the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) . Mr Domnitz reported that, as a representative of his neighborhood association, he will attend the EOEA hearing in Bedford tomorrow evening which will deal with the Environmen- tal Notification Form (ENF) . He commented that the ENF is used by the EOEA to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report (ENR) is required, and, if it is, what will be the scope of the report. 1 Mr. Domnitz added that, in this case it has been determined that an ENR is required, so that the issue for the hearing tomorrow evening is what is the scope of this five year study. The consensus is that the study should not be too broad so as to limit what can fit under Massport's five year study If the narrow study is approved, it will not allow for a lot of incremental proposals to come along in the next five years At tomorrow evening's hearing, Mr. Domnitz will recommend that any propos- als must also fit under Massport's Master Plan; and that no proposals should be approved that are outside the scope of the Massport Master Plan Mr Domnitz recommended that the Board do nothing on the ENF now, but follow what happens and perhaps respond later, if necessary The Board agreed it would not respond to Ms. Hurley's letter at this time, and to invite, probably in August, Jack Taylor, the Town's HFAC representative, and Selectman Jack Eddison, HATS representative, to a future meeting to update the Board on what is happening Minutes for the Meeting of May 29, 1991 6 r b. HATS Mr. Grant reported that, at the Board's June 10 meeting, he will brief the Planning Board on the Memorandum of Agreement setting forth the understandings of the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln, and the Air Force at Hanscom Field, for the establishment of a growth and development policy committee i **************** REVISIONS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ***************** 128 Evaluation of Zoning, Subdivision Regulations The Board continued its general discussion with Mr. Bowyer of the zoning and subdivision regulations that are to be revised // '' The meeting was adjourned at 11 24 p m. /� �.W�U� l David Williams, Clerk