Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1991-09-23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 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 Mr. Williams, with members Davison, Domnitz, Grant, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Marino and Secretary Peters present 180. Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of September 11, 1991. On the motion of Mrs Wood, seconded by Mrs Davison, it was voted 5-0 to approve the minutes, as amended. ******************* Planning Director's Report ***************************** 181 Recent Activity a James Street. Town Counsel Mr. Bowyer reported that he had discussed with Town Counsel Norman Cohen, the Board's concerns (see the minutes for September 11, 1991, Item 174) about the Town's liability if surface water drained onto abuttors' properties as a result of the proposed improvements on James Street (CUS91-1) Mr Bowyer reported that Mr. Cohen did not think the Board needed to be overly concerned about litigation resulting from accelerated water run-off Mr Cohen had added that any litigation would more likely be directed against the applicant, Sundar Balasuryan. Mr. Cohen said he would be concerned about the potential for litigation on "equal protection" grounds if the Board disapproved the application because others in similar circumstanc- es have been approved *************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************** PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW 182. Form A/91-8 Franklin Street The Board reviewed a plan showing the exchange of two parcels of land along a side lot line between two lots, with both lots continuing to have the required frontage and lot area for the RS Residential Zoning District On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr Grant, it was voted 4-1-0 (Mr. Domnitz was opposed) to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington Mass ", dated September 7, 1991, by VTP Associates, certified by Verne T Porter, Registered Land Surveyor, by applicant Martin R. Richmond, with applica- tion Form A/91-8, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 183 Additional Hearing Scheduled for Sentember 26 1990 Mrs Davison gave an oral review of the following application 8 Camellia Place, Sherwin-Williams, SP, to install a 5 foot high wall sign which will exceed the 3 foot high limit allowed by zoning and an SP for a free-standing sign to be mounted at the entrance to Camellia Place. The Planning Board agreed with the assessment of the Design Advisory Committee as presented in its September 16, 1991 memo to the r- Minutes for the Meeting of September 23, 1991 2 Board of Appeals; that the wall sign was too large and should conform to the dimensions allowed by Section 13 4.1 of the Zoning By-Law. With respect to the proposed standing sign, the Board agreed that there were numerous problems with the standing sign o it was too large; o it might interfere with traffic sight lines in a busy intersection used by the Fire Department; o there was not evidence the applicant has the "owner's" i.e the Town's, permission to locate a sign on Town owned land; o if a sign were to be allowed on Town land, the advertising content of the standing sign, i e. using a company logo and name, is inappropriate for location on Town land; it should contain direc- tional information only; and o if this sign were to be approved, it would establish an unaccept- able set of precedents for other Town owned land; Mr. Marino pointed out that the sign was a non-accessory sign, which is prohibited by the Zoning By-Law, since it was not to be located on the same property as the use it advertises. The Board commented that, again, no landscaping plan had been presented as required by Section 10.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law which requires that a landscaping plan demonstrating compliance accompany each application for a special permit, building permit or occupancy permit. The Board recommended that the use as a paint store not be allowed until a suitable landscaping plan was filed. On the motion of Mrs Davison, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted 5-0 to recommend the applications for both special permit be denied. 184. Hearings Scheduled for October 10 1991 Mrs. Wood gave an oral review of the following applications. 90 Lowell Street. Melvin Savage, renew SP, to continue to use a portion of a dwelling for a dentist office, 3 days a week. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr Grant, it was voted 3-2-0 (Mr. Williams and Mr Domnitz voted in the negative) to make no recommendation except to note that Section 4. Permitted Uses and Development Standards, Line 1 25 of the Zoning By-Law states that there can be no employee, who is not also a resident, in the dwelling. 6 Cedarwood Terrace, variance, to allow a new entryway with a second floor addition to the front of a single family dwelling, with a 24 foot setback instead of the required 30 foot setback. On the motion of Mrs Wood, seconded by Mr Grant, it was voted 5-0 to recommend that the variance not be granted since no hardship was demonstrated with respect to the criteria, such as soil, shape or topography of the land, and unique conditions, defined under state law Minutes for the Meeting of September 23, 1991 3 The Planning Board also agreed to make no comment on the applications below 10 Colony Road, Richard Schembor, SP, to extend the second floor of a single family dwelling over the nonconforming portion of the garage, with no increase in site coverage. 10 Maguire Road, Itek Optical Systems, renew SP, to reserve as green open space an area for 85 future parking spaces. ****************** PLANNING BOARD PROJECTS, POLICY MAKING ******************* 185 Revisions of Development Regulations. Subdivision Regulations The Board continued its review and editing of the 8/20/90 draft of Chapter 7, Implementation, Construction of an Approved Definitive Subdivision Plan. ************************ REPORTS ******************************************* 186. Planning Board, Subcommittees a. HATS. Memorandum of Agreement The Board discussed a draft Memorandum of Agreement dated 7/17/91. It was noted that this draft did not appear any different than the draft the Board had last discussed. Mrs. Wood asked why there was still no provision to provide a alternate voting member when the designated voting member (the selectman) was absent Mr. Grant reported that Lincoln and Concord have approved the draft memorandum; Bedford still has some questions and the Lexington selectmen have not yet voted on the memorandum. Mr. Domnitz expressed concerns that the selectmen could accept money from the Air Force for improvements around the base that might involve the widening or change of adjoining streets in Lexington and could do the work without ever bringing the proposal before Town Meeting for approval Mr. Grant thought the memorandum would be all right He noted that the scope was limited enough and that the four towns worked well together and respected each others concerns He said he would bring Mrs Wood's concerns to the next HATS meeting. ****************** ARTICLES FOR 1992 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ******************* 187. Institutional Uses. Dimensional Controls Mr. Domnitz distributed a proposed revision of Table 2, that would increase the setbacks of the struc- tures and pavement, such as driveways and parking lots; and would call for the inclusion of increased screening requirements for institutional and religious uses. Mr Grant commented that landscaping is not specifically mentioned under Chapter 40A, Section 3, as one of the criteria that can be regulated in reli- gious and educational uses. Mr. Domnitz noted that parking and open space can Minutes for the Meeting of September 23, 1991 4 r— be regulated, and that perhaps landscaping could be treated as an ancillary parking or open space regulation and thus be regulated. Mr. Bowyer added that a strict interpretation of Chapter 40A Section 3 would be that only the things that the statute mentions, such as height and set backs of buildings, i e traditional zoning tools, may be regulated and that landscaping or screening are not mentioned in the statute and may not be regulated A discussion followed about how to adopt "reasonable" regulations that would not be overthrown in the courts, and about various cases that had been heard by the courts. One of the cases is the Cardinal Cushing College v. Brookline case which held that churches could not be governed by single family residen- tial dimensional standards. The Board agreed that Town Counsel must be consulted as revised regulations are prepared, and some members felt he should support any final by-law amendment if they are to be passed by Town Meeting. Mr. Domnitz specifically proposed that the side and rear yard setbacks be increased from 25 feet to 50 feet to accommodate driveways and allow for some screening along property lines He also proposed that the setback for driveways and parking lots be increased form 8 feet (as required in Section 11.6.2) to 25 feet to allow room for screening, so that there is a 25 foot area for screening all around the property perimeter except along the street. The Board recommended he discuss these proposed changes with Town Counsel The meeting was adjourned at 10 40 p m. CL O Edmund C. Grant, Clerk r