Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-06267 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 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, Mrs. Smith, with members Nichols, Sandy, Sorensen and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mrs. Uhrig joined the meeting during discussion of Item 190. 188.' APPROVAL OF MINUTES On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Sandy, the minutes of the meeting of November 22, 1982, were approved, as written, by a vote of 3-0. Mr. Sorensen ab - Stained as,be was not present at that meeting. to DETERMINATION OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL Q 189. 8-13 Hayes Lane, Sumner Richards, Form A-82/13 The Board reviewed a plan of two.lots on Hayes Lane, each having 42.5 feet of front- age, and each having a dwelling thereon. One lot had 5,569 square feet of area and the other had -5,495 feetoflot area. Mr. Bowyer reported that attorney Dennis Lowe, representing a bank,- had found that in 1953 the Board of Appeals permitted one lot, containing two dwellings, reportedly built about 1900, to be divided into two lots each with insufficient -frontage and area. There was no`evidence that a Form A had ever been approved or recorded. Mr. Lowe considered that 1953 action to be essen- tially worthless since the Board of Appeals had no power to subdivide land. Apparent- ly there have been several sales of each of the lots sinee 1953. On the motion of Mr. Sandy, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 4-0: 1. The plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass." dated November 18, 1982 by Miller and Nylander Company of Lexington, Mass., cer- tified by Donald J. Forand, Registered Land Surveyor, with application form A-82/13 by Sumner Richards, owner, does not required approval under the Subdivision Control Law; and 2. That a notation should be placed on the plan that "lots 56A and 56B do not comply with the current provisions of the Town of Lexington Zoning By -Law for lot area and lot frontage and may not qualify as a building lot for zoning purposes;" and 3. That the Planning Director is authorized to sign the plan in behalf of the . Board after the notation is placed on the plan. 190. APPLICATIONS TO BOARD OF APPEALS The Board reviewed a staff analysis, dated November 22, 1982, for cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on December 9, 1982. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs, Nichols, it was voted 4-0 to make no recommendation on the following cases: 1794 Mass. Ave., Sack Cinema SP, theater in CB zone 10 Muzzey Street, Sack Cinema: SP, theater in CB zone Minutes of Planning Board Meeting: 12/6/82 -2- 265 33 Bedford Street, Moore Homes Inc.: SP, free standing, illuminated sign: Mr. Sandy commented that he was concerned that the signs which are presented to the Board of Appeals for special permits appear to be getting larger and larger. On the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted 3-1, 'with Mr. Sandy opposed, to recommend that one free standing, illuminated sign, of the size described, be per- mitted with the condition that no other free standing signs be permitted on the site. 40 Hartwell Avenue, Control Data Corp.: SP, five temporary trailers: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 4-0 to recommend in Favor of granting a special permit for one year for five trailers with the understanding that the Board of Appeals will indicate that its intent is not to grant a renewal of the to special permit for more than one additional year. 544 Lowell Street, Plant Action Inc.: SP, commercial greenhouse; and SP, sign: , It was agreed to make no recommendation on the special permit to continue operating a Q commercial greenhouse. A sign has been erected without a permit. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to recommend that the Q proposed sign is too large for a residential district and that the Board considers a sign not larger than six square feet to be appropriate. The Board reviewed a staff analysis dated December 2, 1982 for cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on December 16, 1982. After a series of motions, the Board voted unanimously to make no recommendation on the following bases: 399 Lowell Street, Dennis Dyer: SP, continue business at Lexington House of Pizza: Motion by Sorensen, seconded by Nichols. 150 East Street, Doran Greenhouses Inc.: SP, farm stand, Christua greens: Motion by Sorensen, seconded by Nichols. 20 North Hancock Street, J. J. McCue: Variance, side yard: Motion by Sorensen, seconded by Uhrig. 17 Fairview Avenue, George Changelian: Variance, side yard: Motion by Sandy, k seconded by Sorensen. { 748 Waltham Street, Manuel G. Rose: SP, temporary use: On the motion of Mr. Sorenseri,7— i seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to make the same recommendation as that made in 1981, which was "The Planning Board is not opposed to granting the temporary permit requested. The Planning Board would be opposed to introducing a use not otherwise permitted in a residential district through the medium of Line 9.1 Temporary Special Permit. This is a special case. Due to Mr. Rose's age and the re- strictions proposed, it is likely that the use will be unintensive and not a nui- sance. The Planning Board is not opposed to granting a special permit provided all the conditions imposed in the temporary permit granted March 31, 1977 are imposed again. 640 Marrett Road, R. F. Perry: Variance, jot size: 0n the motion of Mr. Sorensen, i` seconded by Mr. Sandy, it was voted unanimously to make no recommendation. Mr. Soren- sen said this action should not be interpreted as setting a precedent forotherlots. These lots have sufficient frontage and are very close to the area required. Theuse of the lots for single family dwellings is what the zoning district allows. -.'Mrs. Nichols commented that when the neighborhood opposed the rezoning of the property for ` a CD district, it advocated two single family dwellings on the land. f _ Minutes of Planning Board Meeting: 12/6/82 -3- 263 430 Bedford Street, M. B. Zuckerman: SP, sign: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen., seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 4-1, with Mr. Sandy opposed, to make no recom- mendation on the erection of a free standing, non -illuminated sign but to suggest that the Board of Appeals include a condition that when Bedford Street is widened, the sign would be relocated at the owner's expense. SUBDIVISION OF LAND y 191.' Ingleside, Emilio Spagnuolo; Release of Lots: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 4-0 to execute a release of lots 16A and 188, thus releasing all lots in the subdivision. 192. Ridge Estates -II. off Emerson Road; Reduction of Surety: Mr.,Bowyer showed a (� plan of the subdivision_ indicating that Parcel B, which is the subject of litigation between George Morey, Jr., and Theodore Freeman, is in the middle of the subdivision Q and could affect its completion. Mr. Sandy commented that the surety should not be reduced until there is at least a binder coat on the full length of the road so that ' there would be two means of access built along the road. On the motion of Mrs. Q Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously that the Board does not and - will not approve a reduction in the amount of surety until: a) the subdivision is free from the litigation and the Board is satisfied that the subdivision can be com- pleted as approved, and b) until at least the binder coat is completed for the entire length of the subdivision road. It was agreed to inform Mr. Freeman of the Board's ~ guidelines on reduction of surety. ZONING ENFORCEMENT 193. Service Stations: Building Commissioner Peter DiMatteo was present, along with about ten operators of service stations, to discuss several problems. The sign sec- tion of the Zoning By -Law is being violated due to the proliferation of promotional material from the parent oil companies, the varieties of pricing options (by is- lands), state -mandated safety signs, along with the conventional identifying signs already allowed by the By -Law. With special permits having been granted over a long time period, often in response to neighborhood pressure, there is no consistency in special permit provisions as to what repair activities are permitted and what sale of accessory items are permitted. Apparently the special permits have been granted on a case-by-case basis, with no consistency and a number of conflicts. Mr. DiMatteo advocated agreeing on a lowest common denominator of activities that should be - allowed as a matter of right and amending the Zoning By -Law to permit those activi- ties. Mssrs. Sandy and Sorensen responded that there should be some type of special permit,. such as for location at the least; Town Meeting would insist on retaining the special permit procedure and permitting service stations and other related activities as a matter of right was not acceptable. They suggested that a set of guidelines provid- ing consistent and equitable treatment be worked out with the station operators and the Board of Appeals and that new special permits be issued, under those guidelines, for each of the service stations. It was agreed that the Planning Board would review the guildelines when they are prepared. Mr. DiMatteo suggested reserving a space in the warrant and developing amendments to the Zoning By -Law. Mrs. Smith noted there were about three weeks until the warrant Minutes of Planning Board Meeting: 12/6/82 -4- 261 closed and that it would be difficult to pull together a workable by-law change on such a complex issue in such a short time. Mr. Sorensen observed that the success rate is quite low for articles that are put together late. f .fir. Bowyer suggested it would be worthwhile to work on guildelines for a year to de- termine which problems could be handled by the Board of Appeals under guildelines and which problems required an amendment to the Zoning By -Law, and to gain a year's ex- perience so that what by-law changes are made are well thought out. ! It was agreed by all that Mr. DiMatteo and the operators would work together on de- veloping guidelines for handling the seventeen service stations in Lexington. The Planning Board agreed to cooperate in that effort. l V REPORTS Q 194. Planning Director a. Hill Street Subdivision: James Tiernan, John Zvara, and Anthony Cassendino representing the neighborhood adjoining the proposed subdivision were pres- ent and indicated they wanted to cooperate with the Board and the developer in obtaining a better site plan.. Mr. Bowyer showed two alternative site plans that had been prepared by Boston Survey Company in response to the ' Board's request that Mr. Colwell explore the feasibility of using the RD zoning district procedure as an alternative to `the conventional subdivi sion._ He commented that he was disappointed in the alternatives submitted because they did not retain the natural features of the site, required too much construction, did not encourage the clustering of building development and would not comply with the spirit of the RD regulation relative to the provision of significant open space. He would not recommend proceding with an RD district for these two alternative plans. Board members and the neighborhood representatives all agreed that these site plans lacked a cre- ative approach to the site and did not take advantage of the flexibility 4 afforded by the RD procedure. Mr. Bowyer will be in contact with the ap plicants with respect to the Board's thinking. 195. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees a. Measurement of Lighting for Signs: Mrs. Smith thanked Mr. Sandy for his _ work on clarifying the procedure for measuring the degree of illumination in signs. Mr. Sandy will deliver his memo to the Board of Appeals at its meeting on December 9. b. HUD Flood Insurance Districts: Mrs. Smith noted the receipt of comments from the Conservation Commission. It was agreed to formally ask for com- ments from the Engineering Department. It was unclear as to whether a war- rant article to amend the Zoning By -Law will be required. The staff will research that question. Mr. Sandy noted that the comment period estab- lished by HUD runs into January, after the time in which a warrant article would need to be submitted. minutes of Planning Board Meeting: 12/6/82 -5- 259 c. Muzzey School Conversion: Mrs. Smith reported that the Muzzey School Con- version Committee had met earlier 'n the d and had narrowed the consid- eration i a i Y eration to three proposals by: 1) Arlington Park Management, 2) Greater Boston Community Development Corporation, and 3),Sydney-Noyes. All three proposals are for apartments and all three can proceed either with or with- out a senior center. Final proposals are due by December 28. d. Board of Appeals Hearings Held November 18: Mr. Sorensen reported that the celery processing operation at Gold Ribbon Farms, which has long been a contentious issue with neighbors, is relocating to Chelsea. e. Meeting Schedule: Due to schedule conflicts, it was agreed to not hold a meeting_on -December 20 and to schedule a meeting for Monday, December 27. Members will hold Tuesday, the 21st open in the event a meeting is neces- sary. The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m. Judith J. Uhrig, Clerk I� h L