HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-11PLANNING BOARD MEETING
June 11, 1979
' The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
by the chairman Dr. Friedman with members Sandy, Wheaton, Nichols, Zabin,
planning director Briggs and secretary Mrs. Snow present. Also in atten-
dance was Susan Fisher, Lexington Minute -Man. Selectmen Miley, Battin,
Kent and Busa, Conservation Commissioners Williams and Smith, and William
Page of the Meriam Hill Assoc. joined the meeting to hear the Carr/Lynch
presentation of a progress report on the Hanscom Land Use/Noise Compatibility
Study.
John Meservy of Carr/Lynch Associates, Inc. met with the Board by appoint-
ment for review of the third draft of the Airport Noise Control and Land Use
Compatibility Study (ANCLUC), initiated by Massport. He recapped his
February report to the Board (see Feb. 26, 1979 minutes) and presented
a map showing recommended land use and road improvements (by 1985) within
the study area. He suggested zoning amendments to accommodate the recom-
mended industrial uses and design of a new road system based on future ex-
panded industrial development. Decreased present use at Hanscom was noted,
and Mr. Meservy predicted an increase in use and air traffic by 1985, but
expressed doubt that any new runways would be constructed. The Airport
overlay zone, derived from noise contour levels, was pointed out and HANSCOM
Mr. Meservy advocated that sites within the zone should have notations ANCLUC
written into their deeds designating their location for protection of STUDY
future owners regarding airport noise. In answer to question about any CARR/LYNCH
Massport effort to diminish the scope of the zone area, Mr. Meservy replied
that the existing noise abatement procedures should be formalized and en-
forced by Massport. Since Parker School, slated for multi -family resi-
dential use, is severly impacted by airport noise, it was recommended that
it would be unsuitable for the elderly, as well as for families with child-
ren. Comments on the recommendations offered in the study were requested
within two weeks. The final report is expected within a month.
At 8:30 p.m., John Bellizia met with the Board to discuss a proposed BELLIZIA
4 -lot subdivision of land near Route 128 off Wood Street, which would
involve extension of Bates Road. He asked the Board's view on a sketch
plan. Since the proposed cul-de-sac extension would increase the number
of houses served to 28, including 12 existing on Springdale and 12 exist-
ing on Bates Rd.,Mr. Bellizia was advised that the Board would be opposed to
the extension of Bates Road.
At 8:45 p.m. William Hamilton, developer, and Douglas Hogan of Miller & HAMILTON
Nylander met with the Board for informal presentation of a plan for an
8 -lot subdivision on a 6 -acre parcel off Concord Avenue. A 712 -foot
cul-de-sac is proposed, and the developer will request waivers on right-
of-way width and grade of the road. Mr. Hamilton asked for suggestions
for revisions at this point in the design procedures and was informed of
the "usable area" requirement under Section 39.
Chairman Mary Shunney, L.H.A., and the authority's attorney, Frederic REED STREET
DeAngelis, met with the Board to request Planning Board consent to a ORCHARD ST.
Board of Appeals rehearing regarding Site 23 at Reed and Orchard streets.LHA SITE 23
Page 2
6.11.79
The previous petition for variance, denied on May 17, 1979, for 0' side
yard was noted and the plan compared with the current proposal for
4' sideyard based on redesign of the house. Efforts will continue to LHA SITE 23
delete Orchard Street (paper street which runs along the side of the
house) as a right-of-way. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, it was
unanimously VOTED:
The Planning Board, acting under authority granted in Section 16 of
Chapter 40A, finds that the Lexington Housing Authority request for a
rehearing of a variance application for a house location on
Scattered Site No. 23 (Reed/Orchard Streets) shows specific and
material changes. Pursuant to a unanimous vote of approval, the
Planning Board consents to this rehearing.
It was also voted that a letter be written expressing Planning Board
support of the granting of the sideyard variance.
Extent of upgrading of Earl Street to serve Site 18 of the Housing Author-
ity's Scattered Sites Program, was considered. Mr. DeAngelis asked the
view of the Board on 20 -foot wide pavement of the section of the road SITE 18
in front of Site 18 which is strictly under the control of the Town. EARL ST.
Engineering Dept. will be consulted as to road design, and the matter
was tabled until the June 18th meeting.
The Board reviewed a plan submitted by Emilio Spagnuola with Application FORM A79-8
' Form A79-8, showing Lot 18A at Maple St./Carnegie Place. Upon a motion MAPLE/CARNEGIE
duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: SPAGNUOLA
REJECTED
To reject the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", dated
May 24, 1979, by MacCarthy & Sullivan Engr. Inc., submitted on
June 1, 1979, by Emilio V. Spagnuola, with Application Form A79-8,
showing land at Carnegie Place and Maple Street.
The plan is rejected for the following reasons:
It does not comply with Section 2.1 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Subdivision of Land in Lexington, Mass. in that it
does not show the entire parcel from which Lot 18A will be taken,in
order to determine if the remaining land constitutes a legal lot.
The plan lacks a notation designating Lot 18A as an unbuildable lot.
The Planning Director was instructed to inform the applicant of the
Board's action.
A plan submitted by Joseph F. Robertson, with Application A79-9, FORM A79-8
showing land at Volunteer Way, to be separated from a 4.7 acre parcel VOLUNTEER WAY
at Grove St., was reviewed. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, it ROBERTSON
was unanimously VOTED:
The plan submitted on June 6, 1979, with Application Form A79-9,
by Joseph F. Robertson, entitled "Plan of Land, Grove Street -
Volunteer Way, Lexington, Mass." dated May 28, 1979, by Neil J.
Murphy, showing Lots 2 and 3 at Volunteer Way and Grove Street,
requires no approval under the Subdivision Control Law.
Page 3
6.11.79
' Town Manager Robert M. Hutchinson joined the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
At 9:50 p.m., upon a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously EXEC.SESSION
VOTED:
To go into executive session for consideration of discipline or dis-
missal of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against an
employee of the Planning Board.
It was also voted that the meeting would be adjourned immediately
following the close of -the executive session.
The meeting adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
�I
F
Frank Sandy, Clerk
PLANNING BOARD MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
June 11, 1979
The purpose of this Executive Session was to discuss whether or not to send
the Town Manager a formal request to discharge the Planning Director.
The Chairman informed the Board that he had given a draft of a letter to the
Town Manager requesting the dismissal of the Planning Director to each of
the Board members and to Mr. Briggs and had informed him that he could
attend the Executive Session if he wished. Mr. Briggs declined to attend
the meeting. The persons in attendance were all of the Board members and
the Town Manager.
The Chairman informed the Board that he and Mr. Zabin had met with the Town
Manager on June 5, had shown him the draft letter, discussed the current
problems and reasons the Board was not satisfied with Mr. Briggs' performance,
and requested that he attend this .meeting.
The Chairman asked if the Town Manager wanted a formal letter from the
Board, and if so, in what form, or if he was adequately aware of the
problems and desires of the Board without a formal letter. It was generally
agreed that a formal letter was not needed at this time.
The Town Manager indicated that he understood our concerns but could not
promise any specific action within a fixed time deadline. He indicated
that there were severe problems associated with discharging a Town employee,
especially at this time and he could not agree to discharge Mr. Briggs now.
However, he had discussed the matter with Mr. Briggs on several occasions,
the most recent being earlier in the day, and was satisfied that Mr. Briggs was
now making a concerted effort to find a new position. The Town Manager
stated that he will assist in an orderly transition and in assisting Mr. Briggs
in finding a new job. The possibility of another position in the Town was
discussed but the Town Manager did not feel that was practical.
The Board agreed that it would be preferable if the Planning Director resigned,
and would delay action while waiting to see how his attempts at finding a new
position progressed.
It was pointed out that unless and until Mr. Briggs resigns, the search for
a new Planning Director cannot begin. 'It was generally agreed the search
would take several months.
Mrs. Wheaton suggested, and the Board and Town Manager agreed, that unless
the matter was resolved sooner, another meeting would be held the first week
in August to get a progress report and discuss what further action the Town
Manager and the Board should take.
The Town Manager informed the Board that he is -recommending a 4% raise for
Mr. Briggs. This is less that the Town average of 6 - 7% but more than some
other employees are receiving.
' The Board returned'to open session at 10:33 p.m. to adjourn..
Frank SandY-1, C rk