HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1999-02-10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1999
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board acid in the Selectmen's Room Town Office Building,was called
to order at 7.32 p.m. by Chairman Merrill with members Colman,Davies, Galaitsis,Bridge-Denzak,Planning
Director Bowyer,Assistant Planner Garber and Secretary Tap present.
************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
28. 113-115 Concord Avenue,Definitive 7 4.5 Subdivision Plan,Mr. and Mrs.Kazazian: Mr Garber summed
up the status of the subdivision plan for 113-115 Concord Avenue, proposed by George and Anahid Kazazian,
saying that the definitive plan leaves too many aspects undefined, e.g., where the houses will be sited and site
construction to be approved at this time.After a brief discussion,on the motion of Mr.Colman, seconded by Ms.
Bridge-Denzak,the Board voted unanimously, 5-0,to advise the applicants to request an extension of time and
to submit a more definitive plan.
************************ ARTICLES FOR 1999 TOWN MEETING ************************
_ 29 Article 9 CD Rezonina of 903 Waltham Street, Status of Application: Mr Bowyer and Mr. Garber
reported to the Board that the sponsor of Article 9,the rezoning of land at 903 Waltham Street(the Chadwicks
property) has not yet submitted all the required material to the Planning Department. The staff is, therefore,
unable to properly analyze the proposal. The proponent was notified in January of the lack of material but as of
the February 10 deadline had not produced the required documents. Mr. Bowyer recommended that the Board
postpone die scheduled February 24 public hearing to an unspecified time in March.
Caleb Warner, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 3, and member of the South Lexington Civic Association,
commented that the officers of the Association had met with Mr McManus,the applicant, and were favorably
impressed by his proposal.
On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr Galaitsis, the Board voted unanimously, 5-0, to postpone the
public hearing on Article 9 to an unspecified date in March.
Later in the meeting,the hearing was set for Tuesday,March 30.
30. Article 6,Zoning By-Law Technical Corrections, PUBLIC HEARING: Mr Merrill opened the public
hearing on Article 6,Technical Corrections, at 7:50 p.m. There were 22 people in the audience.Mr Davies
explained the purpose of each proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law
Questions and comments from the audience had to do with: 1) the definition of "temporary;" Mr. Davies
explained that the proposed 2 years is a reasonable limit,with no extensions.David Kanter,Precinct 6, suggested
that the permits be issued by the Zoning Officer or the Planning Board, instead of the Board of Appeals. Bob
Whitman, Board of Appeals, commented that the word will should be replaced by the word may relative to
requiring compliance with the standards in Section 10,for Landscaping, Transition and Screening or in Section
11,Off.Strcet Parking and Loading; and, 2)how the definition of certain types of space below the first floor is
determined;
Mr Merrill closed the hearing at 8:22 p.m.
31. Article 7 Zoning By-Law Procedures, Section 8, Special Zoning Districts, PUBLIC HEARING: Mr.
Merrill opened the public hearing at 8:23.Twenty eight people were in the audience.Mr.Merrill explained that there
are three parts of the proposed changes to the Section 8, Special Zoning Districts.
2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 1999
The purpose of the first change is to make it possible for the developer to submit a revised proposal under
reconsideration and for Town Meeting to get new information on a revision to a site plan in a reasonable time frame.
Comments from the audience had to do with making sure the Planning Board and staff and the Town Meeting have
enough time to understand changes to a proposal.Andrew Friedlich suggested lengthening the time period from 7
days to 14 days.David Kanter said it is important that the Planning Board and staff have enough time to evaluate
revisions because the Town Meeting depends on that analysis.Robert Whitman believed that the burden is on the
applicant to make sure information is available in a timely way If the Planning Board cannot produce a report within
the prescribed time period,notice of reconsideration can be voted down by Town Meeting.
Mr.Kanter,based on the difficulty of even discussing these proposed changes,suggested scrubbing this article and
letting Town Meeting rules deal with the problem. Sam Berman said that Town Meeting,if it votes this amendment,
establishes the procedure as a Town Meeting procedure.A discussion pointed out that Town Meeting rules do not
handle this process well and it is not possible for Town Meeting to vote to suspend its rules.
Richard Canale suggested that the amendment should mimic the state law that says Town Meeting may not vote on
a zoning amendment until it receives a report and recommendation from the Planning Board is received or 21 days
expires.
Mr.Bowyer explained the other two parts of the proposed amendment.Paul Turner,Precinct 6,asked about
revisions to provisions referred to in the part of the amendment dealing with the PSDUP Mr.Bowyer explained
that the text part of the PSDUP is what controls,not the drawings.Frank Sandy,commented that if the intent of
paragraph b is to make sure that revisions do not violate the provisions of what Town Meeting approved,a
simple method would be to strike out paragraph b and remove that possibility
` Mr.Whitman commented that language already in the Bylaw,that says a revision must comply with an earlier
special permit except as modified by the current special permit, is circular and should be removed.
Mr Merrill closed the hearing at 8:57 p.m.
32. Article 8.Zoning By-Law Automatic Teller Machines.PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Merrill opened the
hearing on Article 8,Zoning By-Law,Automatic Teller Machines, at 8:58 p.m. There were 28 people in the
audience.Deirdre Niemann,of Niemann Associates, explained that this amendment seeks to make automatic
teller machines acceptable,with a special permit, in the CN zoning district, as they are in the other
commercial districts.
Robert Warshawer,Tower Road,spoke in favor of the article,saying that having ATM machines in
neighborhoods would be an important convenience and it would reduce traffic in the central business district.
Questions had to do with whether drive-through ATMs would be permitted,if the machines'appearance would
be regulated,would hours of operation be limited and what the police have to say about the proposed
amendment.
Mr. Merrill closed the hearing at 9. 15 p.m.
The Board agreed and announced it would recess the meeting to Cary Hall in order to accommodate the number
of persons who were present for the three articles having to do with wireless communications antennae.
The Board reconvened in Cary Hall.
33. Article 11.Zoning By-Law Wireless Communications.Multi-Family Dwellings.PUBLIC HEARING:
Mr. Merrill opened the public hearing on Article 11, Wireless Communications, Multi-Family Dwellings, a
Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 1999 3
proposed amendment to Section 15,Wireless Communications Antennae. There were 48 people in the audience.
At 9:35 p.m.,after an informal poll of the Board and the audience,Mr.Merrill also opened, simultaneously with
Article 11,the public hearings on Articles, 12, Wireless Communications, Setbacks In Residential Districts,
and 13,Wireless Communications Setbacks From Institutional Buildings, so the three amendments could be
considered together.
Temple Goodhue,773 Massachusetts Avenue, introduced herself and a number of the persons who would be
presenting information on the three articles: Attorney Ed Collins and Dr George Eastman.
The speakers cited the"precautionary principle"-when an activity raises the threats of harm to human health or
the environment,precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not
fully established scientifically The proponent should bear the burden of providing proof that it is a safe activity
This principle dictates that even in the absence of positive proof that emissions from antennae are detrimental to
health, one should proceed as if they are.
The proponents referred to antennae siting by-laws from surrounding towns that are comparable to what is
proposed in these amendments. They showed a map of the town marked with all the sites of antennae in
Lexington as well as all the schools and playgrounds,and healthcare facilities.
The proponents contended that property values decline when a house is near a cell tower. That results in less tax
revenue.They said that testing has only been done on average male adults,not children or the elderly They
described various health effects attributed to the emissions and cited studies done by various scientists. The
National Academy of Sciences has appointed an expert panel to look at the field and warned against building a
massive infrastructure with the current uncertainty about health effects.
Dr.George Eastman stressed the precautionary principle as an approach the Board and the Town should take.
Their presentation included a videotape of Dr.Bose,Chief Executive Officer of the Bose Corporation, speaking
for the use of caution regarding radio emissions.
After a variety of presentations on the subject of emissions from wireless communications antennae,and their
health,aesthetic and economic effects on abutters,the chairman asked for questions.
Questions and comments from the audience had to do with what other towns have done to control antennae
installations,the 1966 Telecommunications Act,normalizing the MPE,the M(method)of P(presenting)
E(evidence)and the definition of congregation(of people).Robert Whitman suggested that the language of
Section 15 not be replaced,but be supplemented by the language in the proposed amendment.
Mr.Merrill asked for a show of hands as to who was in favor of the articles.An overwhelming majority of the
audience raised their hands.He advised the proponents to tighten up their presentation for Town Meeting and
make their issue very clear.He closed the hearing at 10:48 p.m.
The Planning Board meeting recessed from Caty Hall and was reconvened in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at
10:53 p.m.
********^`*** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************
DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS
34 Earl Street.Landscanine to Replace Removed Trees.Plan.Mark Barons: Ms.Bridge Denzak,
following up on a memo she wrote to the Planning Board on the unauthorized removal of trees on Earl Street,
said that she believes strong action must be taken.Mr Barons removed trees, for no apparent reason, which
4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 1999
had defined the design of the road construction plan for the portion of Earl Street involved. She listed a
number of actions that she believes should be required of the developer, including a fine. To discourage future
such problems, she suggested that these penalties be incorporated into the Zoning By-Law
After a brief discussion, on the motion of Mr.Davies, seconded by Mr.Galaitsis,the Board voted unanimously,
5-0,to authorize the staff to send a letter to the developer that includes Ms. Bridge-Denzak's suggested list of
required mitigation for the removal of the trees. Mr Bowyer cautioned against including a fine because legal
procedures require a series of notifications and measures before a fine can be upheld. Several members pointed
out the mitigating measures proposed imposed an economic penalty and would act as a deterrent.
************************ ARTICLES FOR 1999 TOWN MEETING ************************
35. Other Warrant Articles on Which the Board May Comment:Mr.Bowyer suggested that the Board choose
a member to be a spokesman for Article 14,the Home Rule-Mansionization petition.Mr.Merrill agreed to speak
for the Board at Town Meeting.
36. Article 10. 16 Hayden Avenue.Amendment to CD District 8: Mr. Garber distributed a letter addressed
to Lawrence Smith,Hayden Medical Center.The letter outlined the need for delineation of the categories of floor
space in the building because of their critical effect on the proposed amendment.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.22 p.m.
flesh
Steven L. Colman,Clerk
1 11
L