Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 1989-09-25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Wood, with members Klauminzer, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer, Secretary Peters, Planning Aide Kotval and Zoning Officer Marino present. Mrs. Uhrig and Mr. Sorensen arrived during Item 232. ****************** FALL SPECIAL TOWN MEETING ****************************** 232. Planning Board Annual Housing Report and Report on Affordable Housing: The Board reviewed a final draft, dated September 25, 1989. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 5-0 to approve the report, as written. *********** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ***************** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 233. Royal Circle. Barry Caouette. Definitive Plan: The Board reviewed and corrected a draft Certificate of Action, dated September 27, 1989, approving the definitive plan. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klaumin- zer, it was voted 5-0 to approve the definitive plan, and the Certificate of Action, as amended. The Board will act on the Special Permit with Site Plan Review for the subdivision at its October 16, 1989 meeting. 234. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING. 170 Wood Street. Preliminary Plan: Mrs. Wood opened the informational meeting at 7:15 p.m. by asking that the persons presenting the plan introduce themselves. Mr. Robert L. Higgins, representing CLV Realty Trust, introduced the applicant, Joanne Vilasi, and Landscape Architect Gary Larson, of Larson Associates. Mr. Higgins referred to a letter dated March 9, 1988 from the Planning Director which discussed two points raised by the Board: 1) that endorsement of a Form A by the Board, that divided the original site into two lots, one containing three illegally built apartments, in no way legalized their existence; that all the endorsed Form A did was state the two lots had legal frontage on an accepted way, and sufficient lot area to conform to the requirements of the zoning district; and that the problem of the illegal apartments must be resolved before any sub- division can proceed, since the provisions of Section 6.2.5 of the Zoning By-Law require that "if land is subdivided, . . . no building or other permit shall be issued . . . until both the lot retained and the newly created lot(s) meet the requirements of this By-Law". 2) An applicant for approval of a cluster subdivision is not entitled to the maximum density which results from the calculations described in subsection 9.2.9 of the Zoning By-Law; rather, the number of dwelling units that may be included in cluster subdivision is the number the Planning Board approves after application of the criteria set forth in Iy { Minutes for the Meeting of September 25, 1989 2 the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Higgins outlined the various steps they had taken to try to legalize the apartments and referred to other plans filed with the Planning Board. Mrs. Wood noted that the only thing before this hearing tonight is the preliminary subdivision plan filed by the applicant. He said they had filed a preliminary cluster plan showing six dwelling units on five lots, that were "very close" to the frontage and lot area requirements of the RS zoning district, since the Board had previously indicated they were not inclined to consider a cluster plan with lots smaller than that. He added that they also filed a sketch plan showing a conventional subdivision of five dwelling units on five lots, and left it up to the Board to pick the one they preferred. He said they received no response on this filing. He said they were prepared to talk on how the lots can be legally separated, at the Board's convenience. He asked Mr. Larson to present the technical information. Mr. Larson presented the site analysis plan, the dimensional plans, the preliminary construction plan, showing the layout of the road, and five lots containing six units, and noted that two of the units have driveways with 12% grades. He pointed out the steep slopes at the rear of the site, up to 40% grade in one corner; an existing stone wall that they propose to save; an historically significant barn near Wood Street, that they propose to remodel; ' and a water storage area, previously used for irrigation, which has been classified as insignificant wetlands by the Conservation Commission, and which can be filled. He added they would retain the wooded area abutting the road, as well as the trees in front of some of the dwelling units. Mrs. Wood inquired what is the maximum street slope, roadway width proposed and what waivers the applicant would request? Mr. Larson said the maximum street slope was 8%, and width of the roadway was 24 feet, and would require about six foot of cut at the steepest portion of the site. He added that, in addition to the usual waivers, they would be asking a setback waiver, from Wood Street, to preserve the existing barn. Mr. Larson also located the pathway leading to the common open space from the turnaround. Mrs. Wood noted that no plan, showing large existing trees, as required in the Development Regulations, had been filed. Mrs. Klauminzer asked which back yard will require about six feet of cut to create? Mr. Larson pointed out the dwelling unit, and added that it would not require any retaining walls but could be sloped back for 15 to 20 feet. He added that at one point the site had been developed as a garden area with attractive plantings among walking paths, and that the steep slopes make a nice variation for walking. In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Larson said the proof plan showed six dwelling units. Mr. Williams questioned whether the proof plan complied with the provisions of the Development Regulations that deal with historic structures. One of the proposed lots can not be shown over the existing barn, unless it is planned to take the barn down, which they are not Minutes for the Meeting of September 25, 1989 3 planning to do. He questioned whether a conventional subdivision could be done on the site. He also questioned whether the requirements for usable open space could be met. At Mr. William's request, Mr. Larson reviewed the cluster plan filed. He noted this cluster has individual house lots, and all the lots contain at least 15,500 sq. ft. , with the lot containing two dwelling units having in excess of 31,000 sq. ft. ; and that it conforms to the usable open space requirements. In response to an additional question from Mr. Williams as to why they did not prefer the conventional plan, Mr. Larson felt less damage was done to the site with the cluster plan, and the conventional plan was not as responsive to the contours, as the wall would be lost, and the grading required to site the houses would do more damage to the site. Mr. Sorensen commented that some of the driveways were too steep, and ques- tioned whether there was enough usable open space. Mr. Larson located the usable open space on the plan, noting there was 5,000 sq. ft. within 300 feet of the houses. He added, in response to an additional question from Mrs. Wood, a neighborhood association would probably be responsible for the maintenance of the detention pond, the island in the turnaround and the open space at the rear of the site. IIn response to a question from Mrs. Uhrig, it was agreed by the Board that the problems with the illegal apartments had not been resolved. Leo Neumann, 9 Woodpark Circle, expressed concerns about the safety of the water tower on land off the site near his home which might be more dangerous if the contours are changed on the site. Michael Appleman, 164 Wood Street, had pp , questions about the impact of the development on surrounding properties. He stated that the "swimming pool" is about five feet above the grade of the neighboring property, and asked if there were any plans to alter the grade. Mr. Larson said no, since they want to retain as much of the plant material around the pool as possible. Mr. Larson also said there would be little or no difference, between the conven- tional and the cluster plan, in the impact on the existing trees along Wood Street. Martha Paulson, representing Gus Schumacher, reported he hoped the barn could be preserved. Ms. Vilasi noted they were preserving the barn. Fred Rosenberg, 165 Wood Street, expressed concerns about the future of the illegal apartments. Mr. Higgins noted they considered it two parcels, and outlined their reasoning for this opinion. Mr. Sorensen said the Zoning By- Law does not allow any division of property that results in either lot being in violation with the provisions of the Zoning By-Law, and that no permits may be issued on the other lot until the lot in violation is brought into confor- mance with the Zoning By-Law. Eleanor Neumann, 9 Woodpark Circle, expressed concerns about difficulties cars have in exiting from that area. She also questioned the closeness to the lot Minutes for the Meeting of September 25, 1989 4 lines of the one building with two dwelling units. Gordon Barnes, 6 Woodpark Circle, had questions about who would maintain the road and collect the garbage. Attorney Frederick DeAngelis, representing Robert Rushton whose land abuts the site in the rear, expressed concern about possible erosion problems on his property from work done in the subdivision. He also noted that Mr. Rushton's electrical service comes in over the subdivision property from Wood Street, and that provision should be made for the continuance of what appears to be an easement for this service. In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Bowyer said it was unclear what the status of the barn would be in relation to the proof plan, but he did not think the Board wanted to set up a situation where the only way to do the development would be to take the barn down; rather he thought it was in the interest of all parties to maintain the barn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. (i)10 � W David G. Williams, Clerk { 9