Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-02MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING February 2, 1981 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Wheaton, with members Friedman, Nichols, Sandy, Sorensen, Planning Director Bowyer and Assistant Planner Asen present. 25. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of January 19, 1981, were amended and upon a motion by Mr. Friedman, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, were approved unanimously as amended. The minutes of the meeting of January 26, 1981, were corrected and upon a motion by Mr. Friedman, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, were approved unanimously as corrected. DETERMINATION OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL 26. 27-31 Mass. Ave., Form A-81/4: The Board reviewed a plan showing land at 27-31 Mass. Avenue. Upon a motion by Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Sandy, it was voted unanimously: The plan entitled "Compiled Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.," dated January 14, 1981, prepared by Miller and Nylander, Co., land surveyors and civil engineers of Waltham, Mass., certified by Donald J. Forand, registered land surveyor, with application Form A-81/4 by Owen Lafley, does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. 27. Land on Concord Avenue and Blossom Street, Form A-81/5: The Board reviewed a plan showing land on Concord Avenue and Blossom Street. Upon a motion by Mr. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Sandy, it was voted unanimously: The plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.," dated December 29, 1980, prepared by Hayes Engineering, Inc., civil engineers and surveyors of Melrose, Mass., certified by George E. Hayes, registered engineer, with application Form A-81/5 by Joel Greenstein and Donald Jenkins, does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. 28. Application to Board of Appeals The Board reviewed a staff memorandum dated January 30, 1981, and took action on the following case: 93 Hancock Street, Lexington Gardens, Inc., Renewal of Special Permit. On a motion by Mr. Sandy, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to make no recommendation on this case. The Board reviewed a staff report and recommendation dated February 3, 1981, and took action on the following case: 2 Forbes Road, Honeywell, Inc., Special Permit with Site Plan Review, construct addition to existing building. February 2, 1981 2. Upon a motion by Mr. Friedman, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to approve the report and make no recommendation because of insufficient information supplied to the Planning Board. 29. ARTICLES FOR 1981 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING a. Citizen Articles, Public Hearing of January 29, 1981 Article 30, Waltham Street, Frasca Land:: A poll of the Board was taken m iientify each member's position and the reasons for that position. Mr. Friedman thought that there had not been sufficient study of traffic and that the access was too narrow. Mrs. Nichols, noted that there were two single-family residences that would need to use the proposed road in order to have access to Waltham Street and that offices and housing don't mix well. She also said that office use is more traffic -intensive than housing and that the site plan called for the parking to be located in the wetland adjacent' to the conservation area. She preferred to not rezone land for commercial use until the Planning Board's study of the area is completed so that it can be determined how much housing sinuld be allowed in the neighborhood. Mr. Sandy thought the owners needed to work together and come in with a coordinated plan. No action should be taken to rezone the rear parcel until the future of the Mugar land, which fronts on Waltham Street, is settled. Mr. Sorensen said that first a determination needs to be made as to whether more housing is needed or whether more office space is needed, both in the Town as a whole and in this neighborhood. The poll showed that the Board is unanimously opposed to the rezoning. The staff is requested to prepare an adverse report based on the reasons given above. Article 32, Waltham Street, DeVincent Land, RD: A poll of the Board was taken to identify each member's position and the reasons for the position. Mr. Sorensen thought that the proposed density could be seen as either a plus, or a minus, depending on one's point of view, but he saw other problems with the proposal. Mr. Friedman thought that the proposed access drive for the apartments may end up providing access to 33 acres of back land and that was a problem. Mrs. Wheaton commented on the same issue and thought the proposed driveway may not be sufficient to service the number of units in this condominium development regardless of later development of land in back. Mr. Sandy was opposed to the density of development. Land should not be re- zoned on the vague promise that higher density development will result in lower priced units. There is no binding commitment by the developer to that premise and the experience with other RD developments in the Town shows that . lower priced units do not result from higher density. Mrs. Nichols preferred to delay any rezoning until the Planning Board study of the area is completed. She noted that some of the parking is located in wetland area. The poll showed that the Board is unanimously opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Sorensen is not opposed on the grounds of density. Article 31, Waltham Street, DeVincent Land, RM: It was agreed unanimously to oppose this article for essentially the same reasons as those in Article 32 because the developer had stated the development would be the same under either article. In addition, the report will include references to poten- tial zoning violations of the RM district. February 2, 1981 3. b. Planning Board Articles, Public Hearing of January 29, 1981 Article 17, Enlarging Non -conforming Structures: It was unanimously agreed to proceed with this article as written. Article 18, Non -complying Buildings: Several members reported feedback which indicated the Board of Appeals was not happy with the article as currently written. A poll of the Board was taken and showed that: Mrs. Nichols and Mr. Sandy favored moving the indefinite postponement of the article. Mr. Fried- man and Mr. Sorensen favored submitting the article to Town Meeting so that it could be debated and get direction from the Town Meeting, and Mrs. Wheaton favored presenting the article to the Town Meeting and having it referred to the Board of Appeals to submit a revised amendment for the 1982 Town Meeting. Mr. Bowyer suggested that the Board of eliminating the reference to the owner last sentence. The Board agreed with proceed with the article as amended. Appeals objection might be met by and the transfer of property in the that change and agreed unanimously to Article 19, Open Space: A poll of the Board was taken which showed that four members are in favor of proceeding with the article; Mrs. Nichols is not. Article 20, Garages: Mr. Sandy suggested that there be a back-up amendment available to delete the reference to the RO, RS, and RT districts if objec- tion is raised on the floor of the Town Meeting. The Board agreed unanimously to proceed with the article as written and to have the back-up amendment avail- able. C. Other Articles Article 16, Swimming Pools: Mr. Sorensen distributed copies of a proposed revision to this article which would delete the second sentence of the first paragraph and to specify that a fence of five feet in height is required. The Board agreed with these revisions. Article 26, Cambridge Waterlands: Mr. Asen reported there was a discrepancy in the perimeter description of the Cambridge waterland to be placed in the wetland protection district between the article printed in the warrant and what the Cambridge Water Department had requested in December. It was agreed unani- mously that, if Town Counsel concurred, the correct description should be presented at the public hearing on February 9, and to the Town Meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. Laura F. Nichols, Clerk