Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-06275 P:�Ati':3ING BOARD MINUTES :FETING OF JULY 6, 1982 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Sandy, with members Nichols, Smiths Sorensen and Uhrig, and Planning Director Bowyer present. 93. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lo On the motion of Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, the minutes of the meeting N of June 3, 1982, were approved unanimously as written. 0 The minutes of the meeting of June 7, 1982, were corrected and on a motion by Mrs. < Nichols, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, were approved unanimously as corrected. m On the motion of Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, the minutes of the meeting Q of June -10, 1982, were approved unanimously as written. The minutes of the meeting of June 16, 1982, were corrected and on a motion by Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, were approved unanimously as corrected. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, the minutes of the meeting Of June 22, 1982, were approved as written by a vote of 3-0. Mr. Sandy and Mrs. Smith abstained as they were not present for that meeting. Ns. Sorensen suggested additions to the minutes of the Executive Session of June 7, 1982. On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unani- mously to table the minutes until they are re -drafted. 94. ELECTION OF OFFICERS As provided in Section 2.1 of the "Procedural Rules", the Board elected officers. For the office of Chairman, Mr. Sandy, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, nominated Mr. Sorensen. Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, nominated Mrs. Nichols. Chairman Sandy declared the nominations closed. In the vote, Mr. Sandy and Mr. Sorensen - voted in favor of Mr. Sorensen; Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Uhrig voted in favor of Mrs. Nichols. Mrs. Nichols did not vote and stated she did not think she had the time to take on the responsibilities of Chairman. Chairman Sandy re -opened the nomina- tions. Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, nominated Mrs. Smith. Chairman Sandy declared the nominations closed. In the vote, Mrs. Nichols, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. U'rsig voted for Mrs. Smith; Mr. Sandy and Mr. Sorensen voted for Mr. Sorensen. yrs. Smith was elected Chairman. For the office of Vice Chairman, Mr. Sandy nominated Mr. Sorensen; there was no second. Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, nominated Mrs. Nichols. Mrs. Nichols was elected Vice Chairman by a vote of 5-0. For the office of Clerk, Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Smith, nominated Mrs. Uhrig who was elected Clerk by a vote of 5-0. The election of officers was the last item taken up during the meeting. Mr. Sandy presided through the business meeting. I Planning Board Minutes: 7/65/82 2 273 95. APPLICATIONS TO BOARD OF APPEALS The Board reviewed a staff analysis dated July 2. 1982. On the motion of Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to make no recommendation on the following cases: 53 Bedford Streett Manfred Belton: SPR take-out food 3 Doran Farm Lane, Moore Homesr Inc*.-. Amendment to SP# addition to structure Worthen Road, Grace Chapel: SP, sign 39 Woodcliffe-Roadl Amelia Brieting: Variance, front yard LD 399 Lowell Streett Peter Nacopoulos: SP, sign: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, N seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of 0 Appeals that the hearing be continued until the Planning Board receives the infor- < mation required to be submitted by the Zoning By -Law and has an opportunity to iftake co a recommendation on it. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 96. Blossomcrest Tract: DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN, SPECIAL PERMIT: PUBLIC HEARING: Chairman Sandy opened the public hearing on the definitive subdivision plan andt concurrently, the public hearing on the special permit for a conventional subdivi- sion at 8:06 p.m. by reading the public notice for both public hearings. Robert Cataldo, co-owner of the tract, and attorney Donald Katz were present,as were four abuttors. Mr. Cataldo explained that he had worked with the Town's staff to provide the in- formation that was not included in the plan which ' the Board had not approved at its meeting on December 21, 1981. He said that the road would be built as shown on the plans but that some flexibility should be provided for the final grading of the lots. He proposes to sell the lots to another party to construct the houses and thought there should be flexibility to account for the siting of the houses by the builder. He suggested that a condition be included in the special permit that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final grading plan be approved by the Town Engineer and the Building Commissioner. He indicated that the "limit of work" line shown on the plan was what is intended at this stage of the development. Mrs. Nichols and other members commented on some detailed features of the Flail. Mr. Cataldo indicated that corrections would he made in the contour lines. a 0011- crete bound would be shown at the point of curvature of the road, and that a final decision on the placement of a stone wall on the rounding easement would depend on the request of the Town Engineer once the grades are determined. Mr. Cataldo, indi- cated he would make adjustments to the plan once the Town indicated what details it wanted to have included. There was extensive discussion of the provision of an easement over lot 5 for pub- lic access to connect the proposed Crest Road to the adjoining conservation land of the Town. After considerable discussion, Mr. Cataldo stated he would grant an ease- ment to the Town. Abuttors Richard Semerjian and Graham white questioned the de- sirability of the walking easement. Planning Board Minutes: 7/6/82 3 271 Mrs. Nichols raised several questions about the grading and drainage on lot 7. She said that a definitive subdivision plan was, in effect, a contract between the Town and the developer and that it should show the construction details. Mr. Sandy suggested that a revised grading plan for lot 7 might be tied to a bond which the Town would hold. As there were other items on the agenda and people in the audience waiting dis- cussion of them, the Board discussed deferring discussion of the subdivision until later in the evening. A poll of the Board showed that four members, with Mrs. Nichols in opposition, were not in favor of any further discussion of the subdi- vision during the meeting and that the Board would meet on July 12 to resume dis- LO cussion of the subdivision. The hearing was concluded at 9:34 p.m. N 0 97. Simonds Estates, off Grove Street; revised proof plan: Mr. Sandy turned over Q the Chair to Vice Chairman Sorensen and disqualified himself from discussion of the m Cormier subdivision as he is an abuttor to it. The Board reviewed a revised con- ventional zoning plan, dated June 1, 1982, by which Mr. Cormier attempted to prove Q that 20 house lots could be built in a conventional subdivision. Mr. Bowyer re- ported that as a condition of the special permit approving the cluster subdivision, the applicant was required to obtain the approval of both the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals for 20 house lots. Mr. Bowyer reported that the staff's cal- culation of the area within the setback line on lot 18 was about 10,900 square feet, less than the 18,000 square feet required by paragraph 4 of the Planning Board's "Rules and Regulations for Special Permits". On the motion of Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, the Board voted 2-1, with Mr. Sorensen in opposition, and Mrs. Nichols abstaining, to not approve the revised conventional zoning plan as it applies to lot 18. The motion was not adopted. In the absense of any action to approve the revised conventional zoning plan, the effect of the vote was that the revised conventional zoning plan is not approved and that the applicant should be so notified. 98. MinuteMan Ridge II: Scott Road: Request for Release of Surety Mr. Bowyer reported that the letter from Mr. Freeman, dated May 21, 1982, inquiring about a release of surety, had not been filed with the Town Clerk and, thus, did not meet the statutory requirements for a request for release of surety. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to in- clude in the minutes that a poll of the members was taken by telephone on June 28 and 29, (the result of which was a unanimous vote) and to reaffirm that vote by the following action: That the Planning Board denies the request for release of surety because there are outstanding problems on the location of several lot lines and the location of several buildings relative to lot lines that have not been satis factorily resolved with the Building Commissioner. The applicant should seek prompt resolution with the Building Commissioner of all outstanding issues relative to lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 15. Planning Board Minutes: 7/6/82 269 99. Subdivision Streets for Acceptance at 1983 ATM: The Board discussed briefly streets to be recommended for acceptance at the 1983 Annual Town Meeting. It was agreed the staff would research the matter further and it would be on the agenda for the next meeting. 100. Sherburne Road, Request for Change in Name: The Board reviewed a letter from residents of Sherburne Road, dated June 2, 1982, requesting a change in the name of the street between numbers 53 and 67 to Sherburne Road South. The initial reaction of Board members was that the proposed change made sense. Mr. Sandy questioned whether the Planning Board had any statutory or regulatory responsibility for the change. It was agreed the matter would be referred to the Town Counsel.to deter - LD mine where the responsibility lies. N COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES 0 Q 101. Development of Muzzey School Property: The Board discussed a letter from Town Manager Hutchinson, dated June 30, 1982, inviting the Board to send a repro - Q sentative to the Board of Selectmen's meeting on July 12 and to comment on a pro- posed advertisement requesting proposals for the reuse of the Muzzey School prop- erty. Steven Saran, Chairman of the Human Services Committee; Margaret Rawls, TMMA Chairman; and Donald Giller, a member of the Muzzey Conversion Committee, were present for the discussion. Mr. Sorensen stated that the senior center should be considered a separate issue from the redevelopment of the building. The Town should determine what is the best location for a senior center and not simply locate it at Muzzey because a developer would construct it as part of the redevelopment of the building. Mrs. Smith com- mented that there are a number of questions about the senior center that have been raised in the past and should be resolved promptly before it becomes caught up in development proposals. She suggested that each developer submit two proposals# one with the senior center and one without. Mr. Giller suggested that the Board of Selectmen defer placing an ad in the newspa- per until the Human Services Committe, Council on Aging, the Housing Authority and the Planning Board provided input to the process. Mrs. Uhrig commented that plat ing an ad at this time requires developers to answer questions rather than the Town. Mrs. Smith commented that it is not productive to advertise and then fig- ure out the guidelines along the way. She thought it important that the Town dem- onstrate a concurrence by Town Boards or developers will avoid Lexington in view of the recent experience of the Elgin proposal. Mrs. Smith proposed that a letter be sent to the Board of Selectmen for their July " 12 meeting indicating that the proposed process was moving too fast in the wrong order. The letter should indicate that more detailed guidelines would follow. The Selectmen's meeting should be viewed as the beginning of the process of participa tion by Town Boards and not the end of it. i The Board discussed the type of housing for the Muzzey reuse and its own policy that when higher density results from a zoning action, 20% of the units should be made available to the Housing Authority for low and moderate income housing. Mr. Sorensen said the Board should not press the 20% policy with the shortage of fed- eral funds for subsidized housing construction. Mr. Sandy thought the units did not necessarily need to be subsidized if there were a number of affordable housing I Planning Board Minutes: 7/6/82 529 units. Mrs. Smith preferred a large number of moderate priced units rather than a few subsidized units. On a poll of the Board, four members, with Mrs. Nichols opposed, preferred moderate priced housing development rather than adherence to the policy of 20% of the units being subsidized. The Planning Director was requested to draft a letter to the Board of Selectmen incorporating the comments made about the selection process and to prepare a work- ing paper on housing issues in the Muzzey development. The meeting was adjourned at 11:36 p.m. LO (v Judith J. Uhrig, Clerk % ® t Q M Q . i