Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-09MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING February 9, 1981 P The Planning Board conducted public hearings on proposed zoning amendments in Estabrook Hall beginning at 7:30 p.m. The hearings were concluded and the Board adjourned to Room G-15, Town Offices, where the regular meeting of the Board was called to order at 8:12 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Wheaton, with members Friedman, Nichols, Sandy, Sorensen, Planning Director Bowyer and Assistant Planner Asen present. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 30. Cambridge Farms, Off Marrett Road: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, the Board voted unanimously: to approve the request of Joel H. Greenstein, of J/G Home Builders, that the surety for the Cambridge Farms Subdivision be reduced from $27,000 to $15,400 as recommended by Michael J. Hanlon, Town Engineer. 31. Articles for 1981 Annual Town Meeti a. Garrity House: Anne Grady, Martin Gilman, Lawrence Whipple, Wilbur Jacquith, and other members of the Garrity House Reconstruction Committee were present to brief the Planning Board on Articles 60-62. The Com- mittee's objective is to find a use which would permit the reconstruction of the Garrity house which is in a dilapidated condition. The Committee has solicited proposals for reconstruction and reuse. One proposal calls ' for office use with a craft shop and another proposal calls for office use with a tea house -lunch room. No proposals have been received for residential use although the Committee has discussed reuse of the build- ing with the Housing Authority. The Planning Board pointed out the zoning difficulties of attempting to introduce a commercial use into a residen- tial district. It was agreed the Committee and the Board would meet again when more information was available. b. Planning Board Articles, Public Hearing of February 5, 1981 ARTICLE 16, SWIMMING POOLS: The Board agreed with the suggestion made at the public hearing that prior to the Building Commissioner issuing a building permit for a swimming pool, there should be a procedure for notifying abutters of the application for a pool. Mr. Sorensen will draft a notification provision. It was also agreed to delete the second sentence in the first paragraph relative to swimming pools that are not accessory to a residential use, because that subject is handled in a separate line item in the Table of Use regulations. ARTICLE 21, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: It was agreed to proceed with this article as written. C. Citizen. Articles, Public Hearing of February 5, 1981 ARTICLE 27, RIDGE ROAD, PRESCOTT VILLAGE: A poll of the Board was taken to identify each member's position and the reasons for the position. Mr. Sorensen thought that the plan is generally acceptable although there were some minor site problems that needed to be resolved. Mr. Friedman thought that the potential of second or third bedrooms in many of the units pre- sented a loophole that might result in a higher density. He questioned February 9, 1981 9 whether the 20% of the housing units could be acquired by the Housing Authority because of their problems with HUD on housing units located in condominium developments. He noted the development was "strung out" and was more like a single-family home subdivision than an apartment develop- ment. Mrs. Nichols though there were a few good features to the proposal. The Town needs more one- and two-bedroom units and already has enough large single-family homes that people can't afford. She was concerned about the Town's ability to maintain the open space and thought it might be better for the condominium association to own and maintain it and to grant the Town a conservation easement. She noted that the drainage plan needs additional work, that many of the buildings are too close to the drive, that the interior circulation on the driveways was inadequate and that, in general, the plan needs additional work. Mr. Sandy commented that it was important to have the Town own the open space so that the public can use it. He did not think the housing mix provided benefit to the Town. The proposed economic units are too large and will probably be too expen- sive for moderate income families. Because of the Housing Authority's still unresolved problems with HUD on housing units in condominiums, it was uncertain whether the proposed 20% of the units would actually end up with the Housing Authority. Mrs. Wheaton was concerned about the street network just beyond the develop- ment, whether Ridge Road would be improved, and what the impact would be on neighborhood streets such as Laconia Street. She questioned where the required 200 feet of frontage would be provided and how the Korman's exist- ing single-family home would be tied into the condominium development. Mr. Sorensen observed there were several issues on which the Board should focus: Is the density appropriate? Is the condominium concept appropriate? Does the Town need more housing? and is the total scale of development, i.e., 127 units, thought to be appropriate for a 45 -acre site? Is this neighborhood an appropriate setting for this type of development? It was agreed that these concerns would be communicated to the developer with the understanding that he would have until February 20 to provide answers to them. ARTICLE 33, MARRETT ROAD AT LINCOLN STREET: A poll of the Board was taken to identify each member's position and the reasons for the position. Mr. Sandy announced that he would abstain from discussing or voting on this article because the petitioners had completed some painting at his house and he wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Mrs. Nichols noted that there was strenuous opposition in the neighborhood to the rezoning. There would need to be a strong case made for change from the single-family district and that case had not been made yet. Mr. Fried- man thought commercial development might be consistent with existing commer- cial development and zoning on the other corners of the intersection. How- ever, he thought that development should be controlled by a special permit and that a site plan review procedure, such as in the CD zone, was needed. He opposed the use of the CG zone. Mr. Sorensen observed that although the number of vehicular trips is low as a percentage of existing traffic volume, nearly all the trips would be required to cross a major traffic flow which moves at high speed. He noted that even the proponent's traffic engineer indicated the new drive- way should not enter onto Marrett Road and that the intersection needed February 9, 1981 Kim to be redesigned to make it safer. He noted that while the other corners of the intersection are commercial, they are not oriented to the neighborhood. He said he was generally opposed to the rezoning of small lots and that zoning districts should be separated by streets or natural boundaries. In this case, only a lot line would separate the proposed development from the single-family homes. Mrs. Wheaton said that if the lot were to be developed commercially, a CD district would be better be- cause it would not allow subsequent growth which might be permitted in a CG zone. Four members of the Board are opposed to the rezoning article. Mr. Sandy abstained. ARTICLE 34, MARRETT ROAD, BOSTON EDISON LAND: A poll of the Board was taken to identify each member's position and the reasons for the position. Each member said that the traffic conditions in the area were so bad that the development should not be permitted until the traffic situation is corrected. In addition, Mr. Sandy observed that of the 22 acres proposed to be rezoned, not all of the land will be owned by the petitioner. There should be evi- dence that the owners of the other land consent to the CD proposal. Mrs. Wheaton commented on the resolution from the Minuteman School district which indicated the developer had not done enough homework on the access road question. Mr. Sorensen noted that this was a good location for office use if the traffic conditions were improved. Mrs. Nichols commented the designers had done a good job in placement of the building and on the over- all site plan. She thought the low wet land should not be changed from RO to CD. Mr. Sandy thought it might be proper to have that land in the CD district if conditions were included so that the land could not be built on. All of the members of the Board agreed that the article should be opposed because of traffic conditions. 32. Planning Director's Report Proposed Office Building, Hayden Avenue: Mr. Bowyer reported that an application had been submitted to the Board of Appeals for a variance and special permit with site plan review to develop a_1.87 -acre site on Hayden Avenue near the Route 2 access ramp. The site is in a district that requires a 5 -acre minimum lot area. The Board agreed that a lot area variance of that magnitude was too great and a better procedure would be to submit a CD rezoning proposal. A letter should be sent to the applicant informing him of that position. The meeting was adjourned at 11:26 p.m. Laura F. Nichols, Clerk