HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1993-12-06 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
( MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1993
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building,
was called to order at 7:37 p.m by Chairman Williams, with members Canale, Davison,
Domnitz, Grant, Planning Director Bowyer, and Assistant Planner Marino present. Mr
Davison and Mr Domnitz arrived during Item 166.
************************* PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ************************
166. Staff Reports
a. Outlook Drive. Definitive Street Construction Plan Staff reported that a
Definitive Street Construction Plan for Outlook Drive was filed on November 26,
1993.
b Shea vs. Board of Appeals. Rockville Avenue Mr. Bowyer reported that the
Town has won the most recent round in this case in the Appeals Court. The judge's
decision was based on zoning aspects of the case, not the subdivision aspects
c Tracer Lane. Notice to Harold Nahigian Mr Bowyer reported that nearly six
months have passed since the Board approved and filed the Certificate of Action on
the Tracer Lane Subdivision The plan was approved, and notice of the decision
filed in the Town Clerk's office, in July, 1993. The eight year protection of
zoning runs from the date the plan is recorded at the Registry of Deeds. A
condition of the approval states that if the applicant does not take action to
provide a covenant to the Board within six months, the approval may be rescinded
After talking with Acheson "Mike" Callaghan, at Palmer and Dodge, the staff drafted
a letter to Mr. Nahigian reminding him of this six month provision.
**************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS **************
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
167. Review of November 22 meeting. relative to new Development Regulations In a
retrospective of the meeting of November 22, 1993, Mr. Bowyer described some staff
and audience reactions to the Board's interaction with the developers whose plans
were under consideration that night.
It concerns him that even though the Board has just approved new Development
Regulations, the Board's actions appeared inconsistent. There also appears to be a
lack of unanimity among the members. Developers are having trouble reading what the
Board wants Perceptions are that waivers are easy to get, even from Town engineer-
ing standards He suggested that the Board identify areas of disagreement and work
at reaching consensus privately Mr. Bowyer also reminded them that the Board's
policy is not to grant waivers They may grant waivers that improve the end
product, but not those that allow an applicant to do a project he could not
otherwise do
Mr. Williams agreed that the Board should defer expressing their disagreements and
opinions until after the hearing is concluded. Mr Domnitz noted that in those
areas where there is not unanimity on certain standards in the Development Regula-
tions, a modus operandi needs to be developed so that these disagreements are not
raised on each proposal before the Board
Minutes for the Meeting of December 6, 1993 2
Mrs. Davison questioned the role of a hearing in the approval process. She believes
that in order to be sensitive to the circumstances of each proposal, flexibility
from a rigid set of standards is needed. Why have a hearing if the standards are
inflexible? She also said the Board needs more direction from the professional
staff
Mr. Grant said that he sees waivers as a way the Board can affect the way things
turn out. As elected officials, they speak for the citizens of the town. It may
seem inconsistent but proposals should be weighed individually He also said that
it would be useful to have the staff's input earlier in the process.
168. 669 Massachusetts Avenue. Dana Court Decision on Preliminary Plan Mr.
Williams expressed surprise that the houses are now proposed to be two-family
dwellings. Mr. Canale also understood them to be single-family dwellings. The 20
foot roadway was considered in that context Mr Bowyer suggested that the road
width be tied to the number of families living there, 20 feet for single-families,
24 feet for two-families.
The Board reviewed a draft letter of direction to the applicant. They agreed to
include the following in the Dana Court Decision
The Property Rights Plan of the definitive subdivision plan should show the
entire parcel on the adjoining land that Parcel A will be combined with.
A note should also be placed on the plan stating that Parcel A is not a
buildable lot.
The applicant should propose a private deed restriction protecting the knoll
in the rear of Lots 2 and 3 from alteration.
A sidewalk will be required in the subdivision.
The metal fencing on the rear property line should be removed and replaced
with a wood split rail fence. A wood split rail fence should be installed
along the northern property line where the property abuts the triangular
shaped parcel labeled "owner or owners unknown".
The applicant should discuss with the Recreation Committee the location and
character of the access into the Town recreation land from the sidewalk in the
subdivision The Recreation Committee should also be informed that the
existing metal fence will be removed and replaced with a wood split rail
fence.
The applicant should explore an alternate entrance into the existing garage
that requires less pavement than now proposed.
Comments from the Engineering Department dated November 5, 1993 (A. through D.
only) , the Board of Health dated November 19, 1993, and the Conservation
Commission dated November 17, 1993 are attached to this document. The defini-
tive plan should address those comments.
The driveway on Lot #3 must comply with the setback requirements in the
Lexington Zoning By-Law
Investigate more fully the disposition of the triangularly shaped parcel
labeled "owner or owners unknown" and . The Board would like to know if it can
3 Minutes for the meeting of December 6, 1993
be acquired by the Town. The Board suggests that the applicant submit an offer
to release and transfer to the Town, all interests, if any, that he has in
that land.
it The Board indicated that it will look favorably on the following waivers from the
"Development Regulations".
6.5 4c Minor Streets - to allow the construction of the subdivision street in
a 40' right-of-way.
7.9 Fire Alarm - to allow the subdivision to be built without a fire alarm
circuit.
7.3.1 Preparation of Street - to allow some of the existing vegetation within
the proposed right-of-way to be retained. The applicant proposes to save
existing trees that are within the 40' street right-of-way. Trees within the
right-of-way could be saved on a case by case basis with the consent of the
Engineering Department and the Superintendent of Parks and Trees
6.5.6 Dead End Street - To permit the use of an alternate turnaround.
As for the width of the subdivision street, the Board will offer a choice If
the applicant is willing to place a permanent restriction in the deeds all of
the lots in the subdivision that restricts those dwellings to single family
dwellings, the Board is willing to grant a waiver from section 7 3.4 Roadway
Pavement of the Development Regulations, to allow a reduction in the required
pavement width from 24 feet to 20 feet. If the applicant wants to retain the
right to construct two family dwellings, as allowed in the RT zoning district,
the Board will not grant a waiver from the 24 foot pavement width requirement
169. Webb and Woburn Streets. Wiltshire Court. Decision on Preliminary Plan Mrs
Davison said she had spoken to Larry Whipple about a suitable name for the new
street as Wiltshire Court was not favored by the Board. Mr. Whipple suggested
Currier Circle There are three generations of the Currier family in the area, with
an interesting history
The Board reviewed a draft letter of direction to the applicant They agreed
to include the following in the letter
The applicant should propose a more appropriate street name. The Lexington
Historical Society should be consulted for suggestions.
Permanent removal of the driveway to the existing dwelling at 224 Woburn
Street will be required. All pavement material from that driveway must be
removed. The vehicular access for that dwelling must be from the proposed
subdivision street.
The Board suggests that the developer offer a restriction on the size of the
dwelling to be constructed on the 10,000 square foot lot on Webb street The
Board believes that the dwelling built on that lot be similar in size and in
style to the others on Webb Street which average approximately 1,500 square
feet of living area. The Board suggests that the size of the dwelling be
limited to not more than 2,000 square feet of gross floor area as that term is
Minutes for the Meeting of December 6, 1993 4
defined by the Lexington Zoning By-Law. The Board believes that the dwelling
on the 10,000 square foot lot should be subject to the provisions of paragraph
9.2.12 of the Zoning By-Law in the same manner as newly created lots in the
subdivision
The developer should explore increasing the size of the 10,000 square foot
lot While the Board recognizes the difficulty of increasing the frontage of
that lot on the new subdivision street, perhaps additional land can be added
from the back part of the adjoining lot.
The cause of the drainage and wet basement problem experienced by the owner of
#17 Webb and the possible effect the proposed subdivision may have on it
should be investigated. The application for approval of the definitive plan
should include a cross section of the subdivision street and #17 Webb Street.
Comments from the Engineering Department dated November 5, 1993, the Board of
Health dated November 19, 1993, and the Conservation Commission dated November
17, 1993 are attached to this document. The definitive plan should address
those comments
The Board indicated that it will look favorably on the following waivers from the
"Development Regulations"
6 5.3 Street Curves - to allow the establishment of the street right-of-way
with less than the 25' minimum radius at the intersection of street sidelines.
6.5.4c Minor Streets - to allow the construction of the subdivision street to
be within the existing 40' right-of-way off Webb Street
7.9 Fire Alarm - to allow the subdivision to be built without a fire alarm
circuit
7.3 5 Sidewalks - to allow the subdivision to be built without the required
sidewalk on one side of the road
6 6 - Storm Drains - to allow the spacing of the required storm drains to be
greater than 250' apart The applicant should be prepared to comply with the
Development Regulations if comments on the definitive subdivision plan from
the Town Engineer, Conservation Commission and/or Board of Health indicate
that the proposed spacing will not function adequately
The Board also indicated that it might consider the following waiver from the
"Development Regulations" (which was not specifically requested)
7.3.1 Preparation of Streets - to allow some of the existing vegetation within
the proposed right-of-way to be retained on a case by case basis with the
consent of the Engineering Department and the Superintendent of Parks and
Trees.
170 10 Summer Street. Decision on Sketch Plan The Board reviewed a draft letter
of direction to the applicant. They agreed to include the following in the letter
5 Minutes for the meeting of December 6, 1993
They are inclined to grant waivers from the requirement for constructing the
required roadway, utilities, and turnaround, and, in general, approves of the
proposed cluster development plan
These suggestions should be incorporated into the next plan submitted for
review
The possibility of increasing the size of lot 3 should be ex-
plored. Increasing the amount of open space may adversely influ-
ence the siting of the proposed dwelling on lot 2. The donation of
public open space will be an important factor in its decision
No dwelling unit should be less than 600 square feet This unit
may be located in either the existing dwelling or in the proposed
dwelling.
The location and width of the proposed driveway should be chosen
to preserve the most desirable trees.
The definitive subdivision plan should incorporate a sufficient
leveling area at end of the proposed driveway to ensure safe
egress from the site.
The presence of the chain link fence on the property is undesir-
able It should be removed where possible
A private deed restriction on the further subdivision of either
lot in this development should be proposed.
Prior to the filing of the next development proposal, the layout of the
new driveway, new dwelling, and lot line between lot #2 and lot #3
should be staked in the field
The Board is not opposed to the filing of a definitive subdivision plan as the
next step because the construction of any public facilities (i.e. , utilities
and roadway) will be minimal.
171. 35B Concord Avenue. Decision on Sketch Plan The Board reviewed a draft
letter of direction to the applicant In general, the Board agreed to support the
proposed conventional subdivision design scheme and to waive the requirement for the
construction of a sidewalk, and to allow the installation of a hammerhead turnaround
instead of the required circular turnaround. They would like to see the layout of
the right-of-way and dwellings staked in the field for its inspection.
172 Lowell Street. Emanon Lane On the motion of Mr. Grant, seconded by Mr
Canale, the Board voted unanimously to approve Woodhaven Realty's request to
withdraw their application for the (Lowell Street) Emanon Lane subdivision
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
173. Aonlications To Be Heard on December 16. 1993 Mr. Canale gave an oral review
of the following applications
661-665 Lowell Street. Locke Village Mr. Canale described three problems with the
Locke Village plans 1) according to the Town Engineer, the drainage plan for this
Minutes for the Meeting of December 6, 1993 6
development will not work, 2) there are no extraordinary circumstances that justify
the extra 3% of floor space the current plan includes, 3) building heights shown on
different plans differ by seven feet. One sheet shows 36 foot height, one shows 29
feet
Mr. Canale found no conditions in the field to justify these adjustments. That
these are the best architectural plans to make the 62 units work, as the applicant
argues, is not enough.
Mr Bowyer said that the staff advises applicants to allow themselves some slack in
the F.A.R. when submitting the Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan. The
F A.R stated in the Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan is an absolute. Mr
Grant said he thought most people would perceive a change of 3,000 square feet in a
project with 135,000 square feet as insignificant.
Mrs Davison thinks it is the Board's responsibility to stand firm. If the floor
area goes up, another unit ought to be given to LexHAB.
Mr. Kelley described how hard it was to completely recalculate the project in the
seven days they had last April to downsize it to suit Town Meeting. They are trying
to live with it but it isn't easy and he believes the plans are in keeping with the
spirit of the Town Meeting approval. The political process adds difficulty.
Mr Williams said that abutters and TM believe that what they saw is what they will
get. If you are allowed to deviate from the PSDUP, it will be difficult for future
projects to get approval. Mr. Domnitz believes there should be no latitude in this
case.
After further discussion, on the motion of Mr. Domnitz, seconded by Mr. Canale, to
approve the following recommendation to the Board of Appeals
We wish to point out that the proposal exceeds the specifications approved by
Town Meeting with respect to Gross Floor Area, Floor Area Ratio, and Building
Site Coverage.
In view of the prolonged negotiation and debate over this development, and in
view of the modifications made to the plan to secure Town Meeting approval, we
believe the proposal should adhere to the limits set by Town Meeting.
The Planning Board believes that the landscaping plan does not have enough
detail to determine if it complies with the requirements of the Zoning By-Law
We remind the Board of Appeals that we have a by-law and they should be sure
it is being addressed.
We understand there will be an agreement between the Town Engineer and the
engineers for the project and that the final plans will be in accord with the
accepted engineering practices
Waltham Street. Carroll Brothers, special permit to operate a recreational golf
facility Mr Canale presented a draft motion that outlined why he thinks the
Carroll Brothers' intended driving range on Waltham Street is not allowed by the
Zoning By-Law. Mr Williams asked him why he thought this argument, which was made
before Town Meeting last year, should be brought up again. Mr. Canale answered that
Town Meeting did not address this point.
7 Minutes for the meeting of December 6, 1993
After a lengthy discussion, on the motion of Mr. Domnitz, seconded by Mr Canale,
the Planning Board voted 3-2, Mr. Williams and Mr Grant opposed, to adopt the
following recommendation
The Planning Board recommends to the Board of Appeals that the Special Permit
be disapproved because the intended use of the "Recreational Golf Facility"
violates current zoning.
The present Zoning By-Laws allows "privately owned for profit recreational
facilities for golf, tennis or swimming" in residential zoning districts with
the issuance of a Special Permit by the Board of Appeals (Line 4. 11 of Table
of Permitted Uses and Development Standards) The Planning Board believes that
the word "golf" does not include activities such as golf driving ranges and
that only standard or par three golf courses are allowed in residential
districts.
The absence of the words "(golf) course, standard or par three" in the present
Table of Uses dates back to 1987 when the entire Table of Uses was redrafted
in an omnibus zoning amendment that exceeded 50 pages in length Prior to
1987, the Zoning By-Law explicitly allowed "standard or par three golf
courses" in residential districts, and explicitly prohibited "miniature, pitch
and putt, driving and novelty golf installations". One of the principal stated
objectives of the 1987 amendment was to provide better protection for resi-
dential districts to more types of commercial activities Reinforced by our
own recollections about the purpose of the 1987 amendment, we have concluded
that the change in wording in 1987 was made merely to remove what was then
thought to be unnecessary verbiage, and was not intended to allow the activi-
ties that had formerly been prohibited. (Table 1 from the 1986 Lexington
Zoning By-Law and page 2 of the Planning Board Report to Article 43 presented
to the 1987 Town Meeting is attached for reference).
In addition, the Board of Appeals, in denying the original petition for this
Permit, cited traffic impacts as one reason for denial. When the Planning
Board agreed to allow a rehearing on this petition, it requested that "a full
traffic study, meeting all the requirements of Section 12 of the Zoning
By-Law, be submitted". Such a study has not been submitted. The Planning Board
believes that the submitted traffic study does not adequately address traffic
issues brought up in the original hearing It also appears that the LOS from
the site drive approach (LOS E for PM weekday peak) mandates that "the SPGA
shall determine that there is not adequate capacity and shall deny the
petition" (Section 12.3.2 Lexington Zoning By-Law) .
987 Waltham Street (Lexington Ridge) .TRC Limited Partnership, special permit for
permanent signs. The proposed sign is 32.5 square feet The Planning Board agreed
to recommend that the total area of the sign or signs be limited to 12 square feet,
according to the Zoning By-Law
The Board also agreed to remind the Board of Appeals that signs are meant to be only
for directional purposes, not for advertising. Phone numbers are not acceptable.
The Planning Board agreed to make no comment on the following application, also
scheduled to be heard on December 16, 1993.
2 Forbes Road. Loral Corporation, request a determination that proposed changes are
minor revisions
Minutes for the Meeting of December 6, 1993 8
DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS
174. Bennington Road. Mr. Marino reported that Kenneth Nill applied for a permit
to convert a garage at 16 Bennington Road into a dwelling unit. This triggers the
unaccepted street construction policy. The Planning Department informed Mr. Nill
the Planning Board would have to make a determination as to the grade and construc-
tion of that portion of Bennington Road and that he would have to submit a plan that
fulfills those regulations.
He reminded the Board that they corrected the Unaccepted Street List last year to
include that portion of Bennington Road, giving that parcel frontage and making it
possible to build a dwelling on that lot within the requirements of the policy on
upgrading unaccepted streets The situation is rather like that of a recent case at
75 Outlook Drive
Mr. Williams felt that the Board should determine that the street is already of
adequate grade and construction. The other members decided that they did not have
enough information to make that decision and an application in accordance with the
Development Regulations must be filed.
The meeting was adjourned at 11 25 p m.
Jacqu lin�ison, Clerk
L