Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-061 MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 6, 1981 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held called to order at 7:32 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Sorensen and Wheaton, and Planning Director Bowyer 139. Trinity Covenant Estates, near Allen Street in Room G-15, Town Offices, was Sandy, with members Nichols, Smith, present. The Board was in receipt of a letter from Dennis Lowe, Trustee, requesting an extension of time on which the Planning Board may act on the definitive sub- division plan until July 15, 1981. On a motion by Mrs. Wheaton, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 4-0 to grant the extension of time. Mrs. Smith abstained from voting. It was agreed that the Board will attempt to con- clude its action on this plan at the meeting of July 13. 140. APPLICATIONS TO BOARD OF APPEALS 31 Allen Street, John Carroll: The Board reviewed a draft recommendation re- questing that the Board of Appeals defer making a decision until the correct use determination is made by appropriate Town Officials. On the motion of Mrs. Wheaton, seconded by Mrs. Smith, it was voted unanimously to approve the recommendation as drafted. The Board agreed that if the Board of Appeals appears to be headed toward making a decision at the hearing of July 9, Mrs. Wheaton, who will attend the hearing, should indicate orally that the Planning Board is opposed to granting any special permit other than a temporary permit for a one-year period. 16 Doran Farm Lane, Alfred Cavaretta: Variance, side yard, SPS: The Board reviewed and approved a revised recommendation that included the finding that the amount of floor space proposed to be added exceeded the 10% permitted by Section 8.1.14a of the Zoning By -Laws. 141. Items to be Discussed with the Board of Selectmen 141a. Garrity House: Mr. Sorensen suggested clarification of the Board's earlier position. He pointed out that if a residential use is not feasible, the proposal for commercial use, by Interchange, the desig- nated developer, might be the last chance for saving the building. He suggested that the Board take a position on the -issue of saving the building even if it means a commercial use of the property. Mr. Sandy responded that the Board did not need to take a position on that issue until it was determined that residential use was not feasible and that, in fact, the Interchange proposal was the last chance to save the building. 141b. Committee on Accessory Apartments: Mrs. Smith commented that there needed to be an understanding with the Board of Selectmen that the committee to study accessory apartments should have a limited role relative to overall housing policy. Accessory apartments are only part of a larger housing policy which is the responsibility of the Planning Board. She hoped the Planning Board would devote time to the larger housing policy, perhaps after data is released by the United States Census. The meeting was recessed at 8:08 p.m. so that the Planning Board could meet with the Board of Selectmen in their meeting room. f L 7/6/81 Page 2 After the recess and meeting with the Board of Selectmen, Mr. Sandy called the meeting to order again at 10:58 p.m. Upon a motion by Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Wheaton, it was voted 5-0, by poll of the Board, to go into Executive Session for discussion of litigation against the Town. It was agreed the Board would return to its open session only for the purpose of adjournment. Following discussion of the matter involving litigation against the Town, the Board returned to open session at 11:58 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m. /1 �Y Karsten Sorensen, Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION July 6, 1981 After a unanimous vote, by a poll of the members, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session at 11:01 p.m., with Chairman Sandy and members Nichols, Smith, Sorensen and Wheaton, Planning Director Bowyer, D.P.W. Director Tonaszuck and Town Engineer Hanlon present, for discussion of a lot on Rockville Avenue, which is currently the subject of litigation against the Town. Mr. Bowyer reviewed the sequence of actions. In June, 1980, Building Commissioner Peter DiMatteo rejected an application of John H. Shea to construct a new single- family dwelling at a lot on Rockville Avenue because that section of Rockville Avenue is not considered to be a street. Mr. Shea appealed the decision of the Building Commissioner to the Board of Appeals, which upheld the Building Commissioner's ruling. In its recommendation to the Board of Appeals, the Planning Board supported the deter- mination of the Building Commissioner and used language which was then in a draft policy on the construction of unaccepted streets. Shea brought suit against the Town appealing the decision of the Board of Appeals and that of the Building Commissioner. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, Charles Kadison, attorney,representing Mr. Shea, had met with the Town's staff and proposed to construct improvements which would pro- vide satisfactory access. A consensus had been reached between Kadison and the Town Engineer. This proposal was suggested by Kadison as a means of settling the case out of court. Mr. Hanlon showed a profile of Rockville Avenue. The land slopes sharply and just below the lot in question reaches an 18% grade. By filling, it would be possible ' to comply with the construction standards of the unaccepted street policy and none of the proposed road would exceed a 10% grade. Mr. Tonaszuck commented on the opera- ting requirements of oversized vehicles, such as snow plows and refuse collection trucks. He recommended against a solution which would require large vehicles to back up on a steep slope. The Board discussed both the procedure by which a determination could be made and what would be an acceptable construction of the road. Three alternatives were iden- tified: 1. A determination that that section of Rockville Avenue is a paper street and the Board cannot determine adequate grade and construction under the policy for unaccepted streets. 2. Construction for the full 125 feet of frontage in compliance with the standards in the policy for unaccepted streets. 3. A substitution for alternative 2 in which other public benefits are obtained in exchange for reducing the amount of street to be constructed. Potential benefits were:. completing the water loop system, a turnaround for large vehicles, and a pedestrian path providing a connection to the lower section of Rockville Avenue. A poll of the Board was taken. Mr. Sorensen believes alternative one is appropriate. Mr. Sandy, Mrs. Smith, and Mrs. Nichols favor alternative three and obtaining a substitute beneficial to the Town. Mrs. Nichols thought all 125 feet would have to be graded with at least a gravel surface and part of the road should be paved. Mrs. Wheaton deferred,saying she wanted to obtain more information. Planning Board Executive Session 7/6/81 Page 2 There was further discussion as to whether that section of Rockville Avenue was a paper street and whether a section of street could be re-classified from paper street to an unaccepted street. Mr. Sandy said that there was precedent for such action. The Executive Session was adjourned at 11:58 p.m. and the Board reconvened in open session. Karsten Sorensen, Clerk ;1 1