HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1993-02-08 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1993
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Cary Hall was called to
order at 7 45 p.m. by Chairman Williams, with members Davison, Domnitz, Grant,
Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, and Secretary Tap present Richard Canale and
James Nicoloro, candidates for the Planning Board, were present
*********************** ARTICLES FOR 1993 TOWN MEETING ***********************
14. PUBLIC HEARING. Article 26. Minor Revision Procedure Mr. Williams
opened the hearing at 7 45 p.m. and briefly outlined the procedure the Board
follows for conducting public hearings. Twelve people were present Mrs.
Davison explained the article's purpose and then asked for questions.
Ephraim Weiss commented that it would control the expansion of a development
and thought that was a good thing. James Nicoloro thought that it was too
constricting to the developer Karsten Sorenson wondered why a developer had
to have any "wiggle room." He could build a percent for expansion into the
design presented to Town Meeting
Mrs. Uhrig wondered why the board was considering changing the percent of
change allowed. Did they foresee many requests and a heavy workload? Mrs.
Davison responded that 10 percent was too generous and said the amendment
would help the Board of Appeals and the Building Commissioner deal with
requests from developers
Mr Williams wondered what happened to the time limit approach to the problem.
The hearing was closed at 8 00 p.m
15. PUBLIC HEARING. Article 27. Disabled Persons Mr. Williams opened the
hearing at 8 01 p.m. Sixteen people attended. Mr. Grant read the proposed
wording as well as the current wording in the Zoning By-Law and presented the
reasons the change in the definition is being proposed.
Mr Weiss asked about the wording of the federal Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Mr Sorenson voiced concern that the definition of disabled in the federal law
is so open-ended There is the question of who gets to change the guidelines.
He thinks that the definition should not be changed in the Definitions section
of the Zoning By-Law because the Building Commissioner must then make a
judgement call.
The hearing was closed at 8 12 p.m
16. PUBLIC HEARING, Article 25. Jumbo House Setbacks Mr Williams opened
the hearing at 8 13 p m Eighteen people were present. Mr. Domnitz read the
proposed amendment and explained its purpose Frank Sandy and Mary Kathryn
Wolf questioned what areas of a house were to he counted in the square footage
named in the article Joel Adler thought the amendment should be limited to
the footprint of a house The visual impact should be considered as well.
00£
Minutes for the Meeting of February 8, 1993 2
Mr Sorenson thought the wording in the footnote needed to be consistent with
section 9.2.12. He thought the exemption in section 7.4. 1, the very lots you
want to affect, negated the proposed amendment.
Peter Kelley suggested reading section 6, Nonconformity, in conjunction with
the redevelopment of small lots after a disaster or voluntary demolition
Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Domnitz for clarification of the intent of the article.
Mr Kelley took offense at what he perceived to be an attempt to control the
socio-economic makeup of the Town He also pointed out that the presence of
wetlands on a site might cause the house to be set to the side of a lot,
violating the setback, making the lot essentially unbuildable
Mr Williams took a straw vote of the audience on their feelings about the
intent of the article Five persons voted positive; 6 persons voted negative
The hearing was closed at 8 39 p m
17. PUBLIC HEARING. Article 28 Drainage Mr. Williams opened the hearing
at 8 55 p m. Twenty-five people were present Erik Mollo-Christensen
introduced the article and explained that it is his attempt to get the Town to
deal with the problem of flooding caused by runoff from impervious surfaces
Private property should be protected, not just public ways.
In response to Mr Williams's question about the role of the Conservation
Commission in this matter, Mr. Mollo-Christensen said that their concern is
wetlands, not their upland source.
The hearing was closed at 9 12 p.m.
18 PUBLIC HEARING. Article 24 Golf in Residential Zoning Districts Mr
Williams opened the hearing at 9 13 p m. Twenty-four people were present
Mr Domnitz introduced the article and outlined its purpose and the chronology
of its impetus Mrs. Uhrig and Mr. Weiss both voiced the belief that it is
important to identify all possible sites in town for golf courses and driving
ranges that could be affected by this amendment.
Mr Sorenson asked if the Building Commissioner agrees on this proposed z
definition He also warned of the possibility of the installation of one hole
which would make the driving range meet the definition of a golf course
The hearing was closed at 9 34 p m (71
O
19 REPETITIVE PETITION, Carroll Brothers vacant land west of Waltham
Street Mr. Williams opened the hearing at 9 34 p.m by reading the legal
notice Twenty-four people were present Steve Politi, the applicants'
lawyer, presented the petition. He pointed out that the application differs
from the previous application in that the entrance to the proposed driving
range has been moved and no lighting is requested. The driving range would
close at dusk. The plan shows a par three golf course on a portion of the
land that showed no use on the original plan
In response to a question from Mr. Domnitz, Mr. Politi said that they expect
action on this petition despite the Planning Board's proposed article concern-
ing a driving range in a residential zoning district
66Z
Minutes for the Meeting of February 8, 1993 3
Richard Canale, of the South Lexington Civic Association, read a letter of
objection to the driving range from the association. The membership believes
the plan is not effectively different from the original plan submitted by 1
Carroll Brothers
I
Joel Adler voiced support for the golf facility.
The hearing was closed at 9 57 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 9 58 p m.
'fiLege.SZ71 (
Edmund C. Grant, Clerk
Zo£