Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1993-02-22 ( PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1993 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 05 p.m. by Chairman Williams, with members Grant, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, and Secretary Tap present. Mrs. Davison and Mr. Domnitz arrived during Item 20. 20. Review of Minutes The Board reviewed the minutes for the meetings of January 11, January 25 and February 1, 1993 On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Grant, it was voted 3-0 to approve the minutes, as written. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of February 8, 1993. On the motion of Mr. Grant, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted 3-0 to approve the minutes, as amended. Mr Domnitz will attend the Moderator's meeting about Town Meeting articles on March 24. Mrs. Battin will want to know who is presenting the articles, what kind of view graphs will be used, how long the presentation will be, etc. *********************** ARTICLES FOR 1993 TOWN MEETING *********************** 21. Article 27 Disabled Persons Mr. Grant would like the Board to consider withdrawing Article 27 in light of the reactions received at the public hearing on February 8 The Building Commissioner has said the Town is complying already and he does not anticipate many situations that would present a problem. He thought it could be handled without amending the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Bowyer pointed out that federal law would supersede anyway. Karsten Sorenson commented on possible implications of the open-ended definition of disabled in the Americans with Disabilities Act. On the motion of Mr. Grant, seconded by Mrs. Wood, the Board voted unanimously to withdraw the article. 22 Article 25. Jumbo Houses Mr. Domnitz asked the Board to also consider withdrawing Article 25 He believes that policy arguments should be firmly in place before presenting the article to Town Meeting and that a number of objections raised at the public hearing were valid. He believes it would be wise to wait for the build-out analysis to see how many lots would be affected. The issues of nonconforming and grandfathered lots have wide implications. The amendment needs a very firm foundation and it is not workable in its current form. He moved that the article be withdrawn. Mrs. Davison objected. Jumbo houses are being built now and it is the Planning Board's responsibility to address this problem. Neighborhoods deserve protection. Mr. Williams said that perhaps there should be differentiation based on zoning district because jumbo houses in the center of town do not overshadow neighboring buildings. However, in an area such as Woodhaven they would. Minutes for the Meeting of February 22, 1993 2 Mr. Grant thought that since Mr. Domnitz is most familiar with this subject, his caution is important. The article raises a big issue and needs careful delibera- tion Knowledge gained from the undertaking of a master plan and build-out analysis will be important to writing a sound amendment. The Planning Board is concerned but it is a question of timing and judgement On the motion of Mr. Domnitz, seconded by Mr Grant, it was voted 3-2, Mrs Davison and Mr. Williams opposed, to withdraw the article. ***************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************ REPETITIVE PETITION 23 Decision on the Rehearing of Carroll Brothers' Repetitive Petition Mr. Williams referred to the December 21, 1992 letter from the Board of Appeals requesting the Planning Board to hold a public hearing to consider allowing a rehearing by the Board of Appeals of a second petition by Carroll Brothers to install a driving range on their land off Waltham Street. The Board of Appeals had voted unanimously to allow a resubmission of the petition, finding specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based. Mr. Williams passed around a list of abutters who are in favor. Mr. Domnitz pointed out that the original decision of the Board of Appeals found Carroll Brothers' proposal as presented not appropriate for this location. It said the use will generate additional traffic on an already congested street and the proposed lighting is not appropriate in a residentially zoned area. These three things, use, lighting and traffic, are at issue. This new proposal affects lighting but Mr Domnitz believes the other two are a judgement call. A South Lexington Civic Association letter presented at the hearing asks the Planning Board not to allow the petition to be reheard. Mrs Wood thought that the deletion of lighting a major change and that the new egress is safer than that on the original plan Mr. Williams pointed out that the Board of Appeals has to decide if it is an appropriate use of the site. He hopes they do find it so as it is a way to keep the land open. He hopes for a Chapter 61B agreement on the land; that is a recreational restriction with tax deferral giving the town first refusal if the land is ever for sale. Mr. Grant was persuaded to allow a rehearing by the unanimous vote of the Board Z of Appeals that it should be reheard. They found specific and material changes in the second application They will have another public hearing with all the people pro and con and it is their judgement call. The Building Commissioner (n thinks the driving range is allowed by the Zoning By-law. Q In answer to Mr. Williams's question, Mr. Bowyer said that relative to the proposed zoning amendment in Article 24, the golf amendment to the Zoning By-Law, the Carroll Brothers proceed at their own risk if they are reheard, approved, and start work on the driving range. If Town Meeting subsequently passes Article 24, the amendment's effect is retroactive to the date the first notice of a public hearing was published in January. Mr. Grant moved to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals reconvene to hold this hearing, consistent with their vote to rehear it for the reasons stated in their letter to the Planning Board that there are substantial changes. Mrs Wood `J SO£ Minutes for the Meeting of February 22, 1993 3 seconded the motion. The motion, which required the concurring vote of four members, failed by a vote of 3-2, Mr. Domnitz and Mrs. Davison opposed. Mrs Davison and Mr. Domnitz believe there were not specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based. The Board adjourned at 7 53 p.m. to Cary Hall where public hearings required by M G L 40A were held for the three rezoning petitions to be considered by the 1993 Town Meeting. 24. PUBLIC HEARING. Article 31. CM to CD. Westview Street Mr. Williams opened the hearing at 7 58 p.m. and described the procedure followed for public hearings. There were about 50 people present. Mrs Davison read the legal notice and introduced Colin Richardson, the petitioner. He outlined the reasons he needs a rezoning of his land. He proposes to build an auto repair garage with four bays with 1900 square feet of gross floor area. There would be eight parking spaces on the site. Hours of operation would be from 8 00 a.m. to 6 00 or 7 00 p m , Monday through Friday. He does not plan to have a sign. He emphasized that his operation is not a gas station nor a body shop with their attendant problems. His business will be oriented to the commercial businesses on Maguire Road and Hartwell Avenue. In response to a question from Mr. Domnitz, Mr. Richardson said that he has had no complaints from abutters at his present location, nor have there been any safety violations He is very conscientious about environmental issues. Mrs. Davison asked for questions from the audience. Neal Boyle asked if he had made any improvements to the property since he bought it. Mr. Richardson answered that he had installed 800 feet of sewer service. Greg Bialecki, attorney for Mr. DeFelice, an abutter, presented a letter signed by five abutters opposed to the presence of Mr. Richardson's business in their neighborhood. He outlined the reasons why his clients believe the Planning Board should not recommend Mr. Richardson's petition for a rezoning of the land. He listed six arguments against the rezoning, among them the contention that it is a classic case of "spot-zoning"; current dimensional controls in the zone make businesses and residences compatible and the neighborhood is satisfied with status quo; and, Mr. Richardson's proposal benefits only himself. Some abutters feared reduced property values would result if an auto repair shop were in the area. Abbott Dickson and Evelyn Roman spoke in opposition, citing traffic impacts and opposition to the proposed use. Paul Riff in, speaking in favor, said that residents need local services of this type. The hearing was closed at 8 45 p.m. 25 PUBLIC HEARING. Article 29. CM to RD. Maguire Road. Mr. Williams opened the hearing at 8 46 p.m. About seventy people were present. Mr. Grant read the legal notice and introduced Douglas Noble, President of HDC, Inc. who presented the proposal. His company has also built nursing facilities in commercial districts in Randolph, Hingham, Peabody and Norwell, Massachusetts. He said that annual tax revenue to the Town would be $100-125,000. They have been working with Town boards and committees and would include a park with rest rooms contigu- ous with the bike path, and a cash donation would be made to LexHAB. Minutes for the Meeting of February 22, 1993 4 The building would be a four-story brick structure with 41 beds for supportive care, the others would be for patients needing constant nursing care. Mrs. Davison asked the height of the building The answer was 53 feet to the ridge line. Mr. Domnitz asked how this related to other buildings in the area. Mr. Noble said the adjacent Kiln Brook office building had four stories Mr. Williams asked if the developer had considered the shadow on the bike path. He also expressed concern about the flights into Hanscom Field and the Hanscom air show. The answer was that the facility is on the edge of the affected area and the flight pattern could be altered. Mr. Grant asked about real estate taxes. The answer was that it is a proprietary company, not a not-for-profit. He also asked about the effects of noise from Hanscom airport. The developer said that the construction would be type 1B, and the clients would be indoors most of the time. Mr. Grant asked for questions from representatives of Town bodies. Jerrold Van Hook of the Friends of the Bike Path spoke briefly about the plans for a bike path rest stop that his group had generated. The following Town Meeting members had questions Richard Canale asked about the range of motion of the residents of the nursing home. The answer was that forty-one beds are supportive care for ambulatory patients. The remainder are for non-ambulatory persons needing constant nursing care. Barbara Barres asked if the Fire Department could handle a fire in the facility without new equipment. The answer was yes. The building would also have a sprinkler system and standpipes. Audrey Friend asked if the plan was compatible with the planned reconstruction of the intersection. The Engineering Department had not commented on that subject. Joel Adler asked about water retention on the site and who is responsible for Z maintenance. The developer will create a basin near the intersection at the low J� point of the site. The owner will maintain it. 01 In response to a question from Wendy Reasenberg, Mr. Tobin said that he is O enthusiastic about the park near the bike path and is committed to it. 26. PUBLIC HEARING. Article 30 RO to RD. Lowell Street Mr Williams called the hearing to order at 9 36 p.m. About sixty people attended. Mr. Grant read the legal notice and then introduced Peter Kelley of Woodhaven Realty who introduced his development team. Gary Larson, of Larson Associates, a landscape architecture firm, described and gave some history of the site on Lowell Street where this proposed development would be located. He then described the three proposed buildings, which will have parking underneath. Only 44 parking spaces will require additional paving on the site. There will be a leaching system for overflow water Minutes for. the Meeting of February 22, 1993 5 In response to questions from members of the Planning Board, Mr. Larson answered that the landscaping is designed to mitigate the noise of traffic and to provide visual barriers to views into and out of the site. Walkways will be paved and Northgate Corporation will provide a walking path to its adjoining retail area. The highest point of the buildings is 36 feet. Mr Kelley said that seven units will be donated to the Lexington Housing Assistance Board and each building will contain some of these units. The remaining units will be sold as condominiums in the $125,000 to $175,000 price range. Mr Grant then asked for questions from representatives of Town boards and committees. Bigelow Moore, a Town Meeting member, asked what real estate revenue might be expected from the development. Mr. Kelley figures that it would be around $110,000 per year. Leona Martin of the Lexington Housing Authority asked about outreach to assure diversity in the development. Town Meeting member Paul Hamburger asked what other developments in town have a similar density. Planning Director Robert Bowyer answered that Muzzey Condominiums have a density of 18 dwelling units per acre Most other complexes are 10 to 12 units per acre. Joel Adler, a Town Meeting member, asked if the market rate units would subsidize the upkeep of LexHAB's units. Mr. Kelley answered no. LexHAB representative Eleanor Klauminzer pointed out that the seven units donated free and clear to the Town would represent seven years' work by LexHAB. Cynthia Blumsack, a Town Meeting member, voiced concern about traffic in the area and impact on Lexington schools. The Planning Board's report to Town Meeting will estimate the possible number of school age children. Mr. Kelley, in answer to a question from Town Meeting member Elizabeth Haines, said that the first building would be built beginning in the fall of 1993, the second in 1994 and third in the spring of 1995. Woodhaven Realty would have full responsibility for the property until the homeowner's association took over. John Frey of the Design Advisory Committee spoke to confirm the developers' meetings with that body. Topics discussed were the site plan, common areas, the scale of the buildings relative to the neighboring residences, and the transition from the shopping areas to the residences. Mr. Frey characterized the Committee's interaction with the developer as a "good working relationship." Rona Cohen, a Town Meeting member, expressed concern about the density of the project and asked what other uses of the land the developer had considered. Mr Kelley answered that the site would lend itself to a six-lot subdivision though he would not be interested in building such a subdivision. Mr. Grant then opened the hearing to questions and comments from the audience. A number of residents from the neighborhoods near the proposed development spoke 1 in opposition, citing traffic noise and congestion as their major concern. Many were opposed to the presence of a high density development in the area. They felt its scale is not in keeping with the single-family character of the neighborhood. Some thought that there would be an adverse impact on the schools at a time the Town can ill afford it. Minutes for the Meeting of February 22, 1993 6 Frank Kirkland, an abutter and a plumber, doubts that the current Town sewer service in that area is adequate for the development and believes the Town would f—" soon have to upgrade it. He noted that the Planning Board in 1985 opposed, based on density, a development on that site whose density was less than that proposed by Woodhaven Realty. The hearing was closed at 11 13 p.m. i ` " 1 Edmund C Grant, Clerk fI 1i Z 01 O