Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1993-10-25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 1993 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 Chairman Williams, with members Canale, Davison, Grant, Planning Director Bowyer, and Assistant Planner Marino present Mr Domnitz arrived during Item 148. 148. Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of October 18, 1993. On the motion of Mr Canale, seconded by Mrs. Davison, it was voted 4-0 to approve the minutes, as amended. Mr. Williams abstained from voting as he was not present at that meeting. ******************* PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE *************** 149. Meeting Schedule for November. December January The Board set meetings for the following dates November 15 and 22; December 6, 13 and 20; January 10, 1994. ************************ PLANNING BOARD REGULATIONS ********************* 150. PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Development Regulations Mr. Williams opened the hearing at 7 45 p m. Eight developers and consultants active in develop- ment in Lexington were present. Mr Bowyer presented some background on the evolution of the new Development Regulations. The Planning Board started to revise its Subdivision Regulations in 1986. The design standards of the Subdivision Regulations have not been thoroughly reviewed since 1964. In September 1986, the Planning Board adopted revised procedures for submitting plans. In June, 1991, the Planning Board started the review of the design standards. Periodically, along the way, the Planning Department has sought the review of the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department and other Town departments. Several weeks ago, the Town Counsel made a thorough review of the proposed Regulations. Notices of this hearing and a summary of the changes have been sent to all developers, engineers, surveyors and landscape architects who have been involved in any subdivision application in the last five years and to the Board of Selectmen, the Conservation Commission, the Design Advisory Commit- tee, the Board of Appeals, and the Officers of the TMMA Executive Committee. A more detailed summary/comparison and the full text of the changes have been available. Three characteristics of the proposed Development Regulations are the most significant changes from the 1986 and 1964 Regulations they replace • There are specific schedules for prompt action — by the Planning Board and the applicant/developer — in the plan review and plan execution stages These schedules require a business-like and professional approach by both the applicant/developer and the Planning Board and the Town's professional staff. • A greater emphasis on consumer protection. The buyers of a house will have greater assurance they will move into a finished product. Improved design standards that place a greater emphasis on site planning sensitive to the natural features of the land. Minutes for the Meeting of October 25, 1993 2 He expanded on these three points. Mr. Williams then opened the floor for comments from the audience. Richard Perry of Woodhaven Realty said he was glad to see the rules written down. But he feels that the requirements for more professional engineering and landscape architectural services raises the cost of houses to the consumer. He felt especially that it was unfair to seemingly require alternative plans to be submitted with an application for approval of a conventional subdivision John Esserian said he believes it is unreasonable to require the builder to upgrade 150 feet of street in front of a new house on an unaccepted street. He suggested that the builder pay into a fund that would go to the Public Works Department to fix the road. William Hamilton pointed out that a road that is improved in this way may end with a hopscotched appearance. Houses fronting on non-upgraded sections of the same street might then look shabby in comparison. Mr Domnitz answered that the intent behind the rule was protection of the owner of the new house A new homeowner has expectations about Town services, including a decent road. Mr. Williams said that another intent was to upgrade the roads in town little by little. Barry Caouette, a developer, said the new regulations would result in the cost of business going up The seller would get less money and the buyer would pay more. Sam Sleiman, a professional engineer and the former Assistant Town Engineer, said that money in a road improvement fund would be impractical The Town has to pay more to get such work done because of the rules that govern its bidding practices. He added that he thinks the unaccepted street should be paved from the point of existing pavement, not necessarily just in front of the new house. Mr Sleiman also pointed out that the regulation allows leeway in the type of paving job. the Canale responded to the concerns expressed about affordabilit y of housing by noting that demolishing existing houses, that triggers the require- ment for street improvements, reduces the stock of affordable housing. Richard Perry suggested a timetables, such as 48 hours, be added to 3.6.1.4. 5 to insure that the Engineering Division would inspect within that time period. On questioning, he could not give an example when Engineering did not inspect promptly after notification and agreed that his comment pointed up a poten- tial, rather than an actual, problem Mr. Williams felt that Mr. Perry's point about the word "recommend" in relation to the submission of alternative plans in an application should be dealt with and suggested that a different verb be used to avoid the appearance of a threat. Also, the issue of the hodge-podge effect of unaccepted street upgrading should be addressed. Mr Canale would like to see flexibility in the requirement to upgrade an unaccepted street so that the improvement could be made either to the street in front of the dwelling or where the existing pavement ends. 3 Minutes for the meeting of October 25, 1993 Landscape Architect, Richard Anderson, commented that, based on his experience in other towns, he was impressed that all the regulations were written down and in one place. He then commented that a twenty feet street width is too wide. Engineer, Richard Waitt questioned the requirement that certain information be submitted on a computer disk. Mr. Bowyer responded that most engineering firms already prepare that type of information on a computer disk and it will soon be nearly universal Mr. Williams closed the public hearing at 9 17 p.m. Later in the meeting, after other business had been conducted, the Board discussed the information received at the public hearing. They decided to replace the word recommend in connection with the submittal of alternative plans for a conventional subdivision They agreed to discuss further a more flexible requirement for upgrading the pavement when a house is built on a vacant lot on an unaccepted street. The upgrading need not necessarily be done only in front of the new house, but may begin where existing pavement ends Mr Domnitz said that he would like to see the removal, in Chapter 3, Section 3.5.5. 1, of the words "little or" from paragraph b , dealing with when the Planning Board may endorse an approval not required plan. The rest of the Board agreed. ff *********** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ********** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 151. Orchard Crossing. Street Acceptance Mr. Marino reported that Francis X. Fields, Town Engineer, has indicated in a memorandum, dated September 29, 1993, that the "as-built" plans of the Sunset Ridge subdivision have been approved. He recommends that the two streets in the subdivision be recom- mended for acceptance. On the motion of Mrs. Davison, seconded by Mr Grant, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that Orchard Lane and Sanderson Road in the Orchard Crossing subdivision be proposed to the 1994 Town Meeting for acceptance by the Town. ********************* PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT *********************** 152 Dana Court. Rollout of Preliminary Plan The Board looked briefly at a plan for a three lot subdivision at 669 Massachusetts Avenue filed on October 18, 1993. The meeting was adjourned at 10 04 p m. Jacqueline B Davison, Clerk