Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes 1992-04-13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 13,1992 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 34 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Williams, with members, Davison, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, and Secretary Tap present. Mr. Grant and Mr. Domnitz arrived during Item 66. 62. Review of Minutes The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of January 21, 1992. On the motion of Mrs Wood, seconded by Mrs. Davison, it was voted 3-0 to approve the minutes, as written. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of April 6, 1992. On the motion of Mr. Grant, seconded by Mrs. Davison, it was voted 4-0 to approve the minutes, as amended. Mrs. Wood abstained from voting as she was not present for that meeting. ************************ PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT *********************** 63. Planning Director a. Land Use Law Article: Mr. Bowyer distributed and commented on copies of an article in the current issue of "Land Use Law and Zoning Digest". The article commented on three cases dealing with regulatory takings which are before the US Supreme Court in this term. Land use law commentators believe Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Councilmay be a potentially landmark case in which this conservative, pro property rights court may alter some of the currently accepted practices in zoning law. ************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND 64. Royal Circle Mr. Bowyer reported that Barry Caouette,the developer of the Royal Circle subdivision, wishes to renew the level of surety held by the Town in order to have the remaining lots released. He said that the level of surety for the Royal Circle Subdivision was set at $30,000 by vote of the Board on October 29, 1990. The Board also voted at that time that the level of surety was sufficient through October 29, 1991, at which time, the level of surety may be reevaluated to determine its relationship with the then applica- ble construction costs and the work remaining to be completed. As of this date the work that remains consists of the top coat of the road and sidewalks. The total cost for completion of the community facilities and the subdivision is approximately $6,500. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Grant, the Board voted unanimous- ly• 1) To renew the level of surety for the Royal Circle subdivision at $30,000, which is 15% of the original cost to construct, the minimum at which the surety may be set, as the amount necessary to hold until the completion of the community facilities and the subdivision. Minutes for the Meeting of April 13, 1992 2 2) That this level of surety is determined to be sufficient through April 6, 1993 only. If the subdivision is not completed by that time, the amount of surety needed may be re-evaluated to determine its relation- ship between the then applicable construction costs and the work remaining to be completed. If little or none of the work that remained, at the time this surety was posted, is completed by April 6, 1993, and the current costs, of the amount of work to be completed, have in- creased, the amount of surety may be increased to reflect the costs of completing the work and the developer will be required to furnish additional surety to the Planning Board. 3) To accept surety in the form of Funds Retained by Lender document, executed by Somerset Savings Bank, in the amount of $30,000.00. 4) To release lot numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 In a subsequent discussion, the Board questioned the risk of using this form of surety which requires a bank to retain funds which are authorized for a mortgage to be retained as surety for the Town. The Board asked the Planning Director to ask Town Counsel what are the Town's rights to the surety relative to others with claims, particularly the bank, in the case of the developer's default and what happens if the bank itself defaults? The Board noted that in its preparation of new Development Regulations it should no longer allow use of letters of credit from developers as surety as they are too risky. *********************** ARTICLES FOR 1992 TOWN MEETING *********************** 65. Article 23 Zoning By-Law. Ad?ustments. Signs Mr. Williams welcomed those who had come to the meeting at Mrs. Davison's invitation to discuss the proposed amendment. Present were Anne Scigliano, Eric Clarke and Robert Whitman of the Board of Appeals, John Frey of the Design Advisory Committee, Walter Pierce and Chris Gelling of the Historic Districts Commission, Eric Carlson, Jan Spealman and Steve Hurley of the Chamber of Commerce, David Wells of the Lexington Center Committee, Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner, Frank Sandy and Karsten Sorensen, Town Meeting Members, Betsy Whitman, Betty Clarke, Dick Michelson and Frank Smith. Mr. Williams asked Mrs. Davison to report on the proposed amendment's status. There followed much discussion about the need for more rigorous sign control and/or guidelines to help an applicant and the SPGA to attain appropriate signage and to reduce the amount of time, money and effort spent by all concerned. Most present agreed Mrs. Davison had performed an important service in drafting a digest of the sign oriented guidelines in "Design Guidelines for Commercial Districts", prepared by David Dixon Associates with Peter Halvorson Co. , which has previously been endorsed by a number of Town boards and commit- tees However, no satisfactory wording for the motion could be forged, though all agreed work should continue on the digest of the sign design guidelines. Mr. Williams then suggested that a sign advisory committee be formed. Its task would be to produce sign guidelines that promote appropriateness and Minutes for the Meeting of April 13, 1992 3 continuity in signage, based on the Dixon Associates document. It should then see that the guidelines are made available to the owner of a new business at the first possible point of contact with the Town. It will consist of representatives from the Planning Board, Board of Appeals, Historic Districts Commission, Design Advisory Committee, Chamber of Commerce, and the Building Commissioner, In response to a suggestion from Anne Scigliano, Chairperson of the Board of Appeals, Mr. Bowyer said that the American Planning Association has both a published report on sign regulations and an ordinance search service which could offer guidance to this committee. Mr. Williams spoke for all present when he expressed the Board's thanks for the work that Mrs. Davison has put into this project, saying she raised many important issues that can now be dealt with. The issue of awnings and canopies was then addressed. It was agreed a definition of awning should be included in the Definitions Section of the Zoning By-Law. Text needs to be developed for other parts of the Zoning By- Law to deal with awnings or canopies that do not carry sign messages. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Grant, the Board voted unanimous- ly, to recommend that the Town Meeting indefinitely postpone Article 23. 66 Article 22. Dimensional Controls. Institutional Uses Mr. Domnitz reviewed the current status of this proposed amendment. A letter still needs to be written to the Selectmen addressing their concerns about its effect on Town buildings, Town Hall, Cary Hall, the Police Station, the Main Fire Station and Cary Library in particular. Mr. Domnitz reminded the Board that these buildings are presently non-conforming and would need a variance to make changes in any case. Mr. Frederickson pointed out that the proposed amendment would create an additional By-Law requirement to which they would not conform. He sees this as a significant problem for the Town In answer to Mr. Grant's query as to the urgency of this amendment being considered at this year's Town Meeting, given the Selectmen's misgivings, Mr. Domnitz said he feared that momentum to deal with this issue would be lost. An institution coming into a residential neighborhood before next year's Town Meeting could potentially have substantial negative impact on that area due to insufficient screening based on the current setback requirements. Mr. Frederickson disagreed with Mr. Domnitz. It was agreed that Mr. Domnitz should draft a letter to the Selectmen that would describe the current degree of non-conformity of the buildings in question and the probable effect of the proposed amendment on these buildings. He will circulate the draft letter to members of the Board before sending it to the Selectmen. Mr. Williams commented that if the Board of Selectmen still has reservations, he will not support this article because he does not want to be in open disagreement with the Board of Selectmen on this issue and doubted it would pass if the Selectmen are opposed. Mr. Grant and Mrs. Wood agreed with that position. Minutes for the Meeting of April 13, 1992 4 ************************* REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES ************************* 67. Mass. Industrial Finance Agency The Board was in receipt of a letter from Meg McCrory Kelleher dated April 3, regarding the refinancing of a revenue bond in connection with Beverly Enterprises, 140 Emerson Gardens Road. The initial bonds were issued in 1983. The MIFA Board requested that they be notified if the proposed project conflicts with any existing local or regional comprehensive plan. On a motion by Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs.Davison, it was voted unanimously to make no comment. ********************************** REPORTS ********************************** 68. Planning Board. Subcommittees a. Metropolitan Area Planning Council The Board was in receipt of a letter from David Soule, Executive Director of MAPC, dated April 8, seeking a representative to participate in their efforts to assess the potential benefits and impacts on affected communities of a concept for investment and development in the Boston metropolitan area, with vertical flight technology as the driver. This is a joint effort of federal, state, and local officials and the private sector. Mr. Domnitz volunteered to serve as the Board's representative to the MAPC group. The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m. tiipc) 4S f Edmund C. Grant, Clerk