Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-22I N 0 M Q u 425 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 229 1982 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:20 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Sandy, with members Smith and Nichols and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mr. Sorensen and Mrs. Uhrig joined the meeting during discussion of item 61. Mrs. Nichols and Mr. Sandy left the meeting during part of item.61 to attend the Board of Appeals hearing. 60. APPLICATIONS TO BOARD OF APPEALS The Board reviewed a staff analysis dated April 21, 19822 on cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on April 22, 1982. After discussion, it was agreed that the Board would take no position on the following cases: 15 Moon Hill Road, K. L. Kuhns Ting: Special Permit, Use of a section of the residence for an office 73 Blake Road, Robert H. Morrison: Variance, side yard 10 Ward Street, Bruce Neale: Special Permit, swimming pool 335 Woburn Street, Paul Kaloostian: Special Permit, Take Out Food Service 342 Bedford Street, Lisa T. Fitzgerald: Special Permit, riding school Land off Grove Street, Oscar Cormier: SP, Cluster Subdivision: Mr. Sandy turned the Chair over to Vice Chairman Sorensen and disqualified himself from discussion of the Cormier subdivision as he is an abutter to it. Oscar Cormier, Eric Nitzche, engineer, and Attorney Plunkett were present for the discussion. Mr. Bowyer reported that he had met with Messrs Cormier and Nitzche in the morning for a detailed review of the proposed plan. He noted that extensive regrading of the site was proposed; the amount of regrading for the road had to be tolerated in view of the Board's earlier approval of the preliminary subdi- vision plan. His discussion with Cormier-Nitsche concentrated on the amount of grading proposed for the house lots which the staff considered excessive. He reported on a meeting with the Building Commissioner in which Mr. DiMatteo ex- pressed concern about the proposed grading which could result in water in base- ments, runoff onto adjoining lots, and potential structural problems if founda- tions are built in filled areas. Mr. DiMatteo indicated he would be reluctant to issue building permits is such a loose situation. Mr. DiMatteo recommended that a final grading plan be submitted so that less time and discretion is needed from the staff of the Building and Engineering Departments in monitoring construction. Ms. Arslan commented that many of the trees shown within the limit -of -work area would either be cut down or would not survive because of the damage to their root systems caused by the excessive grading. Mr. Cormier and Mr. Nitzche stated the house locations shown and the grading proposed are preliminary and would need to be adjusted as individual buyers de- cided on the siting of houses. They intend to build one model house and con- struct the remaining houses after agreement with buyers. The applicants had to leave to attend the Board of Appeals hearing which was also attended by Mrs. Nichols and Mr. Sandy. Later in the meeting the Board re- sumed discussion of the subdivision and agreed to request that the applicant ff Ln N 0 Q m a J 1 Planning Board Meeting 2 April 22 4 N2 show a final grading plan including a commitment to save specific trees, to be designated by the developer, rather than a generalized 'good faith' effort to save trees. House locations should be shown but may be changed if they do not conflict with the final grading plan or the trees designated to be saved. If a potential buyer seeks a location which would conflict with the final grading plan, the developer may request a change in the plan as provided in Section 10.2 of the Rules and Regulations. 61. ARTICLES FOR 1982 TOWN MEETING Article 49, Garrity House: After a poll of the Board, it was agreed unanimously to support the motion to be offered under this article. Article 50, Land Transfer, Battle Road to National Park Service: After a poll of the Board, it was agreed unanimously to support the motion to be offered under this article. Article 59, Marrett Road near Minuteman School: Larry Smith of Nolan, Norton Company was present and submitted an updated parking management plan which showed that 857 of the parking spaces will be physically restricted during the peak traffic hours. The time of operation for professional staff has been moved back to 9:15 a.m. The parking limitations and hours of operation will be in effect for ten years or until traffic improvements are completed, whichever occurs first. Mr. Sandy indicated that with these changes, he now supports the article which means that the Planning Board now unanimously supports the article. Article 61, Hartwell Avenue and Wood Street: -Julian Bussgang of Signatron, ' Inc., and Herman Beckstoffer, architect, were present to present a revised site plan and the draft of a new preliminary site development and use plan for one parcel containing about 7.5 acres. Mr. Beckstoffer explained the new siting for the building, a new drainage plan with a retention area on the same parcel, and the layout of the parking lot which would permit 757 of the spaces to be physically restricted during peak hours. Mr. Sorensen expressed concern as to why parcel "C" in the low lying area was not included. Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Nichols expressed concern about leaving par- cel "C" in the RO district as it would be isolated from the rest of the Cosgrove property and other RO zoned land by the proposed CD district on parcel 1. Roger Altreuter of Spaulding & Slye Corp. stated it was not Spaulding & Slye's inten- tion to have -any development on lot "C". Attorney Frank Kiley, who stated that he represented both Marie Maguire and the Cosgrove family, stated they under- stand and agree completely that there will be no development on that land and that it was considered to be undevelopable because of its site characteristics. Mr. Sorensen commented that if everyone agreed that it was not to be developed, it should be included in the current rezoning petition. Messrs Altreuter and Kiley and members of the Cosgrove family who were present` left the meeting to discuss inclusion of lot "C". They subsequently returned to the meeting and stated they would revise the proposal to include parcel "C", with no development designated, with parcel 1 if the Planning Board agreed that the appropriate use of parcels 2 and 3 is commercial. Mrs. Uhrig stated that N 0 a in ' Q Planning Board Meeting 3 April 22, 'L11-0 since Spaulding & Slye is now back in the proposal, she would abstain from " voting as the firm for which she works is general counsel for Spaulding & Slye. On a poll of the Board, four members agreed that the appropriate use of parcels 2 and 3 is commercial with its potential endorsement of a specific development plan dependent upon the timing of the development relative to traffic improve- ments and the specific site development proposed. Mr. Sandy requested that the applicant submit a document signed by Marie Maguire and the Cosgrove family stating that they understand and agree that the effect of this CD rezoning will be, that no development may occur on parcel "C" without further, subsequent Town Meeting zoning action. All parties discussed the need, or desirability, of having either another public hearing or an information meeting to present the revised plan. After discus— sion, it was agreed that the changes are not significant enough to require another public hearing or meeting. The principal change from the proposal made at the public hearing in February is that one building has been deleted and the area proposed to be rezoned reduced in size. On a poll of the Board, four members agreed to support the rezoning proposal. Mrs. Uhrig abstained. The staff was requested to work on the draft of a report based on the revised proposal. EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon a motion by Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 5-0, by poll of the Board, to go into Executive Session to discuss a matter involving current litigation against the Town. It was agreed the Board would return to its open session only for the purposes of adjournment. At 10:37 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session. Following the Executive Session, the Board returned to open session at 10:58 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10:5$ p.m. Karsten Sorensen, Clerk 4 L9 PLANNING BOARD MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION April 22, 1982 After unanimous vote by a poll of the members, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session in Room G-15, Town Offices, at 10.38 p.m., with Chairman Sandy and members Nichols, Smith, Sorensen and Uhrig, and Planning Director Bowyer present for discussion of a lot on Rockville Avenue which is currently the subject of litigation against the Town. The Board continued its discussion started at the Executive Session ofAp ril 5 N 1982, of a letter from Charles G. Kadison, Jr., dated April 19 1982 and accom- panying documents which seek to prove that Rockville Avenue was in existence on 0 April 4, 1948, and has continued in use thereafter. Mrs. Nichols stated the Q documentation submitted by Mr. Kadison was unconvincing but a discussion she had m with Paul Vears of the Engineering Department, that the road was in use, may be Q better than what they had submitted. Mr. Sandy wanted to see evidence that the road had been used for automobiles and not just for walking. The Board agreed that the statement by Thomas Costello was vague. Mr. Sandy stated it is con- ceivable the road was in use but sufficient evidence has not been produced yet. The consensus of the Board was that better documentation of the continued use of the road needs to be submitted. The Executive Session was adjourned at 10:58 p.m. and the Board reconvened in open session.., Karsten Sorensen, Clerk i i