Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-20u 0 m a 337 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES: MEETING OF JULY 20, 1982 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Nichols, Sandy, Sorensen, and Uhrig, and Planning Director Bowyer present. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 105. Blossomcrest Tract, Certificate of Action, Special Permit: The Board reviewed a draft of a Certificate of Action dated July 20, 1982. Mr. Bowyer explained fur- ther revisions in the draft which had been suggested by members of the Board, by Town Counsel, and by staff to reflect changes in the definitive plan received on July 19, 1982. He reported that all the changes which the Planning Board had re- quested at the meetings of July 6 and July 12 had been made. A motion by Mr. Sandy, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, to delete the waiver for the fire alarm circuit was not adopted by a vote of 1-4, with Mr. Sandy voting in favor. Mr. Sandy commented that the reasons for granting the waiver from the maximum length of a dead end street were inadequate; he thought the Board's position on dead and streets should be updated. On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to approve the definitive subdivision plan entitled "Blossomcrest Tract",, comprising four drawings with the latest revision date 7/16/82, and to approve. the Certificate of Action dated July 20, 1982. The Board then considered whether to consent, under Section 16, Repetitive Peti- tions, of Chapter 40A, to the application for the special permit for a conventional subdivision. The Board had rejected an application for a special permit for this subdivision on December 21, 1981. Mr. Sandy suggested that the Planning Board's rules and regulations concerning repetitive petitions should be considered to be waived because the Planning Board was itself the special permit granting authority, not the Board of Appeals, and because the Board had held a public hearing on the special permit for which all interested parties had already received a notice. Mr. Sandy also observed that the situation was now different. The December 21, 1981 action followed a vote to disapprove the Certificate of Action (making the special permit useless even if approved); consideration of the special permit now would follow an approval of a certificate of action. Some of the reasons for the disap- proval in December, 1981, have now changed in that missing and incomplete informa- tion has now been provided. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 4-01 with Mrs. Uhrig, who was not a member of the Planning Board at that time, abstaining, to consent to consideration of the application for a special permit for a conventional subdivision. (The,affirmative vote of at least four members is required under Chapter 40A, Section 16.) The Board reviewed a draft dated July 20, 1982, of the decision on the special per- mit for the conventional subdivision. It was noted that the filing date needed to be corrected. On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to grant the special permit for the conventional subdivision and to approve the decision as corrected. Planning Board Minutes: Page 2 Meeting of July 20, 1982 335 106. Simonds Estates, off Grove Street; Extension of Time, Revised Proof Plan: Mr. Sandy disqualified himself from the discussion as he is an abuttor to the sub- division. Mr. Bowyer reported that Oscar Cormier had filed.a written request for an extension of time. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 4-0, with Mr. Sandy abstaining, to approve the request of Oscar Cormier - that the time for action on his definitive subdivision plan be extended until Sep- tember 15, 1982. Mr. Bowyer presented a revised proof plan dated July 13, 1982. It shows 28,560 feet of land area within the yard setback lines, although two major areas of land.. approximately 600 apart, are connected by a strip of land which, in some cases, is only a foot wide. Board members objected to the distortion of the requirements although it is in technical compliance with Paragraph 4 of the Planning Board's LO "Rules and Regulations for special Permits." On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, sec- N onded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 4-0 to approve the revised proof plan for 20 lots ® in the subdivision because it is in technical compliance with the requirement. Q It was agreed that that section of the Planning Board's rules and regulations M should be promptly revised to avoid any repetition of this type of design. Q PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL ' 107. Form A82/4: Land on Barberry Road: Mr. Bowyer reported that Samuel Berman, owner of the property, objected to placing a notation on the plan that Lot 64A may not qualify as a building lot for zoning purposes because of inadequate lot area. Further, Mr. Berman had indicated the plan which the Board acted upon represented conditions as they existed in 1961, and the "proposed addition" shown on the plan was built about 20 years ago. There is another structure on Lot 64A which cur- rently contains a studio not used for living purposes which is not shown on the plan. On the motion of Mr. Sandy, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to rescind the action taken at the meeting of June 3, 1982 (see Item 89), which found that the plan did not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law because: a) the information presented on the plan was incorrect and incomplete, b) the con- struction of the addition in 1961 resulted in a de facto elimination of the lot line and the plan purports to move a lot line which may not now exist, and c) the applicant does not wish to have a notation about the zoning status of Lot 64A placed on the plan and may not record it. It was agreed a letter should be sent to the land surveyor expressing concern about the situation. It was also agreed that it should be discussed with Town Counsel. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES 108. Advisory Committee on Housing Meeting Community Needs: Gail Colwell and Ruth Nablo of the League of Women Voters were present. Mrs. Smith reported that she had met with Mrs. Colwell in response to the letter from the League of Women Voters, dated May 21, 1982, urging that the Planning Board appoint a committee on affordable housing. She said that an advisory committee to the Planning Board could undertake the items identified in the charge contained in the "Proposal for a Lexington Committee on Affordable Housing" which accompanied the May 21, 1982, letter as well as dealing with many of the items out- lined for the task force on housing meeting community needs described in the Plan- ning Board's draft working paper on the use of the Muzzey School property for housing. She saw housing at Muzzey as only one piece of the housing puzzle and Planning Board Minutes: Page 3 Meeting of July 20, 1982 333 techniques developed at Muzzey may be applicable elsewhere in town. She said the advisory committee could be a: 1) technical resource specializing in housing assisting the Planning Board in one of its several responsibilities, and 2) an activist committee acting as an advocate for the provision of more affordable housing. Mr. Sandy commented that it is critical that an advisory committee concentrate on proposals that are capable of getting through Town Meeting. The Town does not need more "needs assessments" and statements of the problem. Mr. Sorensen requested that numbers be developed on the costs of building housing including such compo- nents as land, labor, materials, profit, and financing. Mrs. Smith suggested the advisory committee could obtain information that would be LO helpful for the Muzzey School, Conversion Committee and the Town Meeting. One of N its first responsibilities would be to assist the Planning Board in making its rec- ommendations to the Selectmen on the charge for the Conversion Committee. Q After a poll of the Board, it was agreed unanimously that there should be an Advis- m ory Committee on Housing Meeting Community Needs. Mrs. Smith asked the other mem- bers to give her suggestions for people to be appointed to the advisory committee. She proposed that a small group start in right away working on the Muzzey housing issues while the larger advisory committee was being formed. She appointed Gail Colwell as Chairman Pro Tem and Ruth Nablo as a member of the committee. 109. Development of Muzzey School Property: There was some discussion of the draft working paper on the use of the Muzzey School property for housing and dis- cussion of the eligibility standards for publicly subsidized housing. It was agreed that the staff would make further refinements in the working paper based on the discussion at thismeetingand at the previous meeting. The Board discussed other development issues on the Muzzey School property. After a poll of the Board, it was agreed to recommend: 1) that no addition could be made to the building but parts of it could be demolished, 2) changes could be made to the exterior appearance to make it more attractive, consistent with guidelines from the Historic Districts Commission, 3) the entire playfield should remain intact and in Town ownership, and 4) there would be no numerical limitation on density as long as the parking was adequate. 110. Projected Planning Activities, 1982: The Board reviewed memorandum entitled "Work Program: Remainder of 1982", dated July 16, 1982. It was agreed that the South Lexington study would have the highest priority. The Board questioned the proposal to publish the zoning Map in black and white and thought the Zoning Map in color was much more informative. Mr. Sandy favored changes in the cluster zoning regulations and said he would be in favor of cluster development in the RS district and smaller lots in the RO district as a trade-off for effective open space. It was agreed to invite the Town Manager to a future meeting to discuss the work ro ram and fees for zoning d subdivision review. 4 an P 9 111. Evaluation of Policy on RD, CD Submission Guidelines: The consensus was that the policy should be revised to give greater attention to, and explain more com- pletely, the written portion of the preliminary site development and use plan. Mr. Sorensen suggested that the guidelines should require developers to differentiate between what is regulatory and what is informational or promotional. It was agreed the staff would prepare an updated revision of the policy for review by the Board.. Planning Board Minutes:. Meeting of July 20, 1982 112. REPORTS Page 4 331 Reports by Members a. Analysis of Subdivision Waivers: Mrs. Smith complimented the staff for the analysis of subdivision waivers and special conditions. Mr. Bowyer indicated that Ms. Arslan and Mrs. Salto were responsible for that work. b. Capital Budget Request: Mrs. Smith noted that a memorandum from the Town Mana- ger had requested that ^all requests for capital expenditures be submitted by August 11, 1982. Members will think about projects which should be submitted. c. Board of Appeals Cases: Mrs. Nichols reported that the Lexington House of LD Pizza was the only significant case heard by the Board of Appeals. The company had N no prior special permit and no permit for the sign. 0 d. Hanscom Area Traffic Study: Mrs. Smith reported that the Town of Bedford had agreed to look at a ring road concept around Hanscom Field. A consultant will be asked to look at the effect of a ring road on handling the traffic generated by the Q businesses in the various communities around the airport.' e. Next Meeting: This will be August 9, 1982. EXECUTIVE SESSION On a motion by Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Sandy, it was voted 5-0, by poll of the Board, to go into Executive Session to discuss a matter involving current liti- gation against the Town. At 9:28 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session. Fol- lowing the Executive Session, the Board returned to Open Session at 10:00 p.m. and resumed the business meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Judith J./Mwig, Clerk f 245 EXECUTIVE SESSION: Planning Board Meeting of July 20, 1982 After a 5-0 vote by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in Execu- tive Session in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town offices at 9:28 p.m. with Chair- man Smith and members Nichols, Sandy, Sorensen and Uhrig, and Planning Director Bowyer present for discussion of litigation against the Town resulting from the denial of a building permit, and the subsequent denial by the Board of Appeals of an appeal from the denial of the building permit, relative to a lot on Rockville Avenue. The Boad reviewed an affidavit: from Thomas Costello, Sr., dated June 22, 1982. stating that Rockville Avenue -had been open for vehicular travel since April, 1948, until the road was barricaded by the Town of Lexington after the installation of a sanitary sewer. Several questions were raised about the form of the affidavit. Mr. Bowyer presented a plan he had obtained from the Engineering Department which showed conditions before the sewer was constructed. it shows the end of the pave- ment being a number of feet further up the hill from the lot in question. It also showed ledge and rocky outcropping in front of the lot. Mr. Sorensen noted the plan showed -a path, about -four feet wide, which would seem to indicate it was inad- equate for vehicular travel. Mr. Sandy reported that he had traversed Rockville Avenue on foot in 1978 and he thought it was not traversable by vehicle. Mrs. Nichols said she had walked it before the sewer was constructed and it could not be driven over by an automobile. Mr. Bowyer presented a plan prepared by Roger Corbin showing a proposed construe- ` tion of a roadway in front of part of the lot with a turnaround for largsi vehicles. The proposal was satisfactory to the Engineering Department, DPW and the Planning staff. He noted that on that plan, prepared by the applicant's engineer, it showed the existing pavement installed by the Town after the construction of the sewer, ended at the property line. The Board generally thought the engineering solution was workable and would provide a public benefit to the Town. The Board noted that it had been discussing this matter for several months as the Shea interests had sought to reach an out-of-court settlement. The only documen- tation provided was one affidavit which was not very convincing. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to make no change in the Planning Board's position voted originally on December 3, 1979, to delete from the Zoning Map ".....Rockville Avenue from the last house southwest from Swan Lane to Davis Road ..... " which had the effect of classifying the section of Rockville Avenue as a paper street. The principal reason for the action at this meeting was . that the applicant had not produced sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the Planning Board had made an error in 1979 and that a correction was required. The Executive Session was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. and the Board reconvened in Open Session. Judith J. Uhrig, Clerk i it