HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1999-02-24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 1999
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room Town Office Building,was called
to order at 7.36 p.m.by Chairman Merrill with members Colman,Davies,Galaitsis,Bridge-Denzak,Assistant
Planner Garber and Secretary Tap present.Planning Director Bowyer was absent due to illness.
************************************* MINUTES ***************************************
37 Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of January 6, 1999 On the motion of
Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr Galaitsis, it was voted unanimously 5-0 to approve the minutes, as written.
************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************
DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS
38. 16 Bennington Road.Kenneth Nill. Determination of Adeouacv of Grade and Construction: Mr
Garber informed the Board that Kenneth Nill, 16 Bennington Road,has asked the Planning Board to make a
determination of the adequacy of grade and construction for the portion of Bennington Road that provides
frontage for 16 Bennington Road. He wishes to replace the existing house,his present residence, on a
recorded lot with a new dwelling. Mr Garber also reported that the Engineering Department has evaluated
Bennington Road in the vicinity of number 16 and found it to be of adequate grade and construction. The
street had full depth reconstruction in 1987 and resurfacing in 1994
After a brief discussion,on the motion of Mr Colman, seconded by Mr Davies,the Planning Board voted
unanimously to:
1 waive the requirement for filing a Definitive Street Construction Plan;
2. determine that Bennington Road, as it provides frontage for lots 71B and 7IC on Assessors Map 31, is of
adequate grade and construction; and
3 amend the lists of Unaccepted That Appear on the Zoning Map and Non-Street accordingly
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
39 113-115 Concord Avenue Defmitive 7 4.5 Subdivision Plan.Kazazian.Request for Extension of Time: Mr.
Garber informed the Board that George and Anahid Kazazian have requested in, writing, that the time for the
Planning Board to act on their definitive subdivision plan for land at 113/115 Concord Avenue be extended an
additional ninety days,from February 24, 1999 to May 26 1999 On the motion of Mr. Galaitsis, seconded by
Mr Davies,the Board voted unanimously to grant the extension.
************************ ARTICLES FOR 1999 TOWN MEETING ************************
AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING BY-LAW
40. Article 4. Zoning By-Law.Historic Preservation Incentives.PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Merrill opened
the public hearing at T45 p.m. There were 31 people in the audience.
Mr Davies introduced the amendment and explained that it is meant to provide the town with more techniques
for preserving historically significant structures and other historic elements in the community He said that the
proposed methods are not so permissive as to cause undesirable changes in districts where they are employed.
Comments from the audience were generally supportive. Questions had to do with the number of such historical
elements in town,how they are determined, and the criteria the Special Permit Granting Authority would use in
deciding to grant special permits
2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 1999
Mr Merrill closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m.
41. Article 5 Zoning By-Law Adjustments. Section 9 Residential Developments PUBLIC HEARING: Mr.
Merrill opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.There were 35 people in the audience.
Mr Merrill presented the six amendments to Section 9, Residential Developments (Cluster Subdivisions)
separately
Amendment A-1 Frank Sandy, TMM Precinct 6, pointed out that the language of the amendment will not
accomplish what Mr.Merrill said the amendment is supposed to do.
Amendment A-2:Mr. Galaitsis and Ms.Bridge Denzak expressed their misgivings about this amendment,saying
they believe open space would be lost, not gained. Mr. Colman responded that the quality, if not always the
quantity,of the open space in a cluster subdivision could be improved if the Board had the discretionary measures
proposed. Later in the hearing, Mr. Davies pointed out that the cluster provisions are aimed at increasing the
quality of the Town's open space in toto.
Ephraim Weiss, Precinct 5, asked what experiences with Section 9 led the Board to seek these amendments.
William Fraser,Precinct 6, said he believes that developers will ask for the most concessions they can get and
possibly sue to get them. Other comments and questions included: This is not a"technical correction"to Section
9; it is controversial.There is not a large enough experience base to decide to make changes. Why was the public
not invited to the October 26 meeting with the development community on Section 9?Does the Planning Broad
serve developers or residents and is it trying to encourage development?
Mr.Merrill stated that development is happening and will happen anyway The Board is trying to encourage an
alternative to conventional subdivisions that it believes will enhance the town's attractiveness overall and provide
a variety of housing types.
Alan Lazarus, TMM,Precinct 6,urged the Board to make clear to Town Meeting that there are already checks
and balances for them to use in administering Section 9
Amendment A-3 There were no comments on this amendment.
Amendment A-4 Ephraim Weiss,Precinct 5,commented that at least two public benefits out of three should be
present instead of one, as suggested by the use of the word "or "
Amendment A-5 A number of people saw this amendment as arbitrary Robert Whitman, Precinct 8, said that
the proposed "affordable" dwelling units described in this amendment would simply be affordable by someone
with more money than someone in the state defined income categories. Mr. Merrill answered in the negative
Nyles Barnert's(Precinct 4)query as to whether the State would include the lower priced dwelling units suggested
in this amendment on their affordable housing inventory
Amendment A-6: Several persons suggested coordinating references to and the definitions of minor revision in
the Zoning By-Law
The hearing was closed at 9:01 p.m.
42. Article 9 Zoning By-Law CN and RO to CD, 903 Waltham Street, PUBLIC HEARING: Mr Merrill
opened the hearing at 9:02 p.m.There were 37 people in the audience.Mr.Merrill informed the audience that at
its meeting on February 10 the Board voted to postpone the public hearing on Article 9, Fox and Hound
Properties,Inc.'s CD Rezoning Petition for land at 903 Waltham Street.He reported that,according to the staff,
the submission materials were incomplete making it impossible for them to adequately analyze the proposal.
In the brief discussion that followed, several people, including members of the South Lexington Civic
Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 1999 3
Association, said they have seen the plans and like what is proposed. Mr. Galaitsis asked the applicant why, if
the plan was available to others,the Planning Board had not been provided with information in a timely way?
After a discussion that included the audience,the Board set Tuesday,March 30, 1999 as the new hearing date for
Article 9
The hearing was closed at 9:21 p.m.
43 Article 10, Zoning By-Law 16 Hayden Ave. Amendment To CD District#8.PUBLIC HEARING:Mr.
Merrill opened the hearing at 9:22 p.m. There were 37 people in the audience.
Lawrence Smith, Cranberry Hill Associates, co-applicant, introduced Michael Martignetti, owner of 16 Hayden
Avenue,Attorney John Farrington,Dr. William Healy,Radiologist, and Stuart Lerman,of Lahey Clinic,and Dr
Richard Zangara of Lexington Medical Associates.He showed slides of the proposed building and the completed
structure followed by slides showing proposed changes within the building to make possible the installation of a
Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine.He explained that the original PSDUP allows the construction of 12 more
parking spaces so the elimination of 5 spaces to accommodate the MRI facility will not reduce parking below that.
Mr.Davies asked Mr. Smith if the FAR in 1999 is within the FAR voted by the 1997 Town Meeting and if he has
a certification from the architect that the area calculations were done with precision with respect to the Town Zoning
By-law and whether that has between submitted to the staff for review Mr. Smith answered yes. Mr. Galaitsis said
he would like to see the drawings and calculations.
Caleb Warner,TMM,Pr.3,suggested a public statement be made about the presence of an MRI machine because
of public sensitivity about electromagnetic emissions,as evidenced by the three proposed zoning amendments having
to do with wireless communication antennae before Town Meeting this year. Dr. Healy countered that the MRI
device has a low-level magnet and is heavily shielded,being underground.
David Kanter, TMM, Pr 7, asked if a new traffic study is warranted. It was explained that the MRI process
accommodates one patient per hour,not a use that would generate much traffic. The applicants agreed to submit
a statement describing the nature of the operation to the Board before Town Meeting begins.
The hearing was closed at 10:12 p.m.
44. Article 6. Technical Corrections. Approve Report to Town Meeting: The Planning Board reviewed a
draft report on Article 6, Technical Corrections. On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr Colman, the
Board voted unanimously, 5-0,to recommend that the Town Meeting approve the proposed amendments and to
approve the report, dated February 17, 1999, as written.
45. Article 7 Zoning By-Law.Procedures, Section 8, Special Zoning Districts:The Board discussed the three parts
of this article
Amendment A-1. David Kanter,TMM,Pr 7,said that he wants a requirement in the by-law that Town Meeting
has to approve reconsideration of a rezoning article. The Board agreed to work further on the language of the
amendment.
Amendment A-2: On the motion of Mr.Davies, seconded by Ms.Bridge-Denzak,the Board voted unanimously,
5-0,to approve the wording of the amendment,dated February 17, 1999
Amendment A-2: On the motion of Mr.Davies,seconded by Mr.Colman,the Board voted unanimously, 5-0,to
approve the wording of the amendment,dated February 17, 1999
46. Article 8.Automatic Teller Machines,Review draft Report to Town Meeting: The Board reviewed the
4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 1999
draft report to Town Meeting on Article 8,Automatic Teller Machines, dated February 19, 1999 On the
motion of Mr Davies, seconded my Mr. Colman,the Board voted unanimously, 5-0,to recommend that
Town Meeting approve the proposed amendment and to approve the report,as written.
47 Article 11. Zoning By-Law Wireless Communications. Multi-Family Direction to Staff to prepare a
Report:Mr.Colman pointed out that in the FCC regulations there is something called "pre-emptive relief."If the
telecommunication providers believe they are being denied a permit to site an antenna based on the health effects
on the surrounding area, and provided their facility meets the established federal standards, they can appeal
directly to the Federal Communications Commission for pre-emptive relief. He said that when Section 15,
Wireless Communication Facilities was put before Town Meeting, he and Richard Canale tried to create an
orderly process for siting with an emphasis on aesthetics. Co-location was emphasized as was the advantage of
siting facilities out of sight on existing buildings. If these amendments are passed, it would throw the whole
section into chaos.
48. Article 12.Zoning By-Law Wireless Communications. Setbacks In Residential Districts:Direction to
Staff to prepare a Report: Mr. Colman commented that Section 15 encourages siting antennae in churches, and
other buildings, in residential districts.This was meant to avoid erecting towers,which are generally considered
aesthetically objectionable.
49 Article 13.Zoning By-Law Wireless Communications Setbacks From Institutional Buildings.Direction
to Staff to prepare a Report: Mr. Colman said the language of the proposed amendment is too vague, especially
"public congregation."And he asked,rhetorically,what is the scientific basis for establishing a 750 foot setback?
He said he believes the amendment would not stand up to an appeal to the FCC.
IThe Board struggled with the idea of supporting one of the amendments,but realized that it would be inconsistent.
6_ Why try to "protect" children at school,but not in their homes?As to the effect of antennae on property values,
one of the arguments of the petitioners,Mr.Kanter pointed out that many Town by-laws affect property values.
Mr. Davies and Mr. Galaitsis said that they do not feel able to judge such a technical issue.Ms. Bridge-Denzak
stated that she believes that the perception that there is danger from the emissions is valid and can affect property
values. She believes that in our public buildings we have the opportunity to address the citizens'concern for their
children and to protect them from what they perceive as a potential hazard. Smoking cigarettes once was not
considered a danger and now it is.Mr.Kanter agreed that smoking is a good analogy He continued, saying that
although the concerns about smoking grew over time, it wasn't until there was a consensus of the scientific
community that the federal government felt it was in a position to unilaterally impose restrictions.There is some
evidence by certain reputable researchers that radio emissions are harmful but there is a large body of evidence
that says there is no problem. He believes the Board has a responsibility to act in the public good when it is a
necessity In his opinion this is not a necessity,based on the evidence thus far.
Mr. Colman commented that if these amendments are passed,then towers would be erected by service providers
where allowed and they would emit the same radio emissions. Mr. Davies commented that the only way to say
yes is to argue that many people do not want the antennae sited near them because of the perception that they
are a bad thing.Mr.Garber suggested that the Board can express its empathy in the report to Town Meeting and
suggest that next year, after homework and changing the basis of their articles,they try again.
On the motion of Mr. Merrill, seconded by Mr. Davies, the Board voted unanimously, 5-0, to recommend
disapproval of Article 11, Wireless Communications, Multi-Family Dwellings.
On the motion of Mr. Galaitsis, seconded by Mr. Colman, the Board voted unanimously, 5-0, to recommend
disapproval of Article 12, Wireless Communications, Setbacks In Residential Districts.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 1999 5
On the motion of Mr. Colman, seconded by Mr. Davies, the Board voted 4-1,Ms. Bridge-Denzak opposed,to
recommend disapproval of Article 12,Wireless Communications, Setbacks from Institutional Buildings.
Mr. Merrill commented that he would like to see the report to Town Meeting end in some affirmative way The
Board agreed it sympathizes with the petitioners.
50. Article 4,Zoning By-Law.Historic Preservation Incentives:The Board reviewed and corrected a draft report
to Town Meeting on Article 4, Historic Preservation Incentives. On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr.
Galaitsis, the Board voted unanimously, 4-0, to recommend that the Town Meeting approve the proposed
amendment and to approve the report,as amended.
51. Article 5 Zoning By-Law Adjustments,Section 9 Residential Develonments:Mr.Merrill said that based
on the audience's reaction to the hearing tonight on Article 5,he is inclined to withdraw the article altogether.The
merits of Section 9 as a whole were under fire and he does not want that to happen at Town Meeting.Mr.Galaitsis
said he only had trouble with A-2 and A-5 The others were fine. On the motion of Ms.Bridge-Denzak, seconded
by Mr. Merrill, the Board voted unanimously, 5-0, to withdraw Article 5, Adjustments, Section 9, Residential
Developments.
52. Article 10. Zoning By-Law 16 Hayden Ave. Amendment To CD District#8: After a brief discussion,
on the motion of Mr.Davies, seconded by Ms.Bridge-Denzak,the Board voted unanimously to recommend that
the Town Meeting approve Article 10, 16 Hayden Avenue, Amendment To CD District#8.
******************* PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ********************
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
53 Applications To Be Heard on February 25. 1999• Ms.Bridge-Denzak gave an oral review of the following
applications:
Vacant land adjacent to 22 Bowker Street, appeal of a decision of the Zoning Officer
6 North Hancock Street, extension of a special permit to operate take-out food service
The Board agreed to make no comment on the applications.
************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ****
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
54 Trinda Estates. Sketch Subdivision Plan,Lawrence Trebino:Decision: The Board reviewed a draft decision,
prepared by the staff and dated February 8, 1999 On the motion of Mr Galaitsis, seconded by Mr. Davies,the
Board voted unanimously, 5-0,to approve the letter urging the applicant to explore further options for extending
Dunham Street.
The meeting was adjourned at 11 40 p.m.
Steven L. Colman, Clerk