Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-28PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 1983 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Sandy, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mrs. Nichols was absent due to illness. 29. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motions by Mr. Sorensen, each seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, the minutes of the meet- ings of January 24 and 31, 1983, were approved unanimously as written. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Sandy, the minutes of the meeting of February 3, 1983, were approved as written by a vote of 3-0. Mrs. Uhrig abstained because she was not present at that meeting. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Sandy, the minutes of the meeting of February 8, 1983, were approved unanimously as written. On the motion of Mr. Sandy, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, the minutes of the meeting of February 14, 1983, were approved unanimously as written. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 30. Kitson Park, off Concord Avenue: Reduction of Surety, Acceptance of Surety, Release of Lots, Suggested Revision to Definitive Plan The Board reviewed a memorandum from Francis X. Fields, Town Engineer, dated February 23, 1983, recommending that the original surety for the subdivision be reduced from $190,000 to $60,000. The Board also reviewed a proposed surety agreement and a request for a release of lots. Mr. Bowyer reported that Town Coun- sel Norman Cohen had some difficulty with the proposed surety agreement because it was not clear or sufficiently specific. There was discussion about the various types of surety agreements proposed by developers and the time required to review those by Town Counsel and staff. Mr. Bowyer commented that the Subdivision Rules and Regulations gave three alterna- tives for providing surety. He suggested adding a fourth alternative based on the letter of credit approach used in the Trodden Path subdivision. Members suggested that Mr. Cohen review the wording of the letter of credit approach and that when he is satisfied, a fourth alternative be drafted for the Board to include in the Rules and Regulations. Thereafter, developers would have the choice of one of four alternatives and the Board would not consider other types of surety. z Mr. Bowyer explained that for the suggested revision to the plan, Mr. Hamilton proposed to eliminate a sidewalk on one side of the street, to change the grad- ing of the lots adjacent to the right-of-way, to preserve more mature trees, and to install a planted island in the center of the turnaround. There was general agreement that the proposal would.improve the subdivision plan. Mr. Bowyer will investigate the specific steps necessary to revise the definitive subdivision plan. There was a consensus that the Board had no problem with providing a sidewalk on one side only or the reduction of the surety to $60,000. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Sandy, and by a unanimous vote, the matter was laid on the table. ".. Planning Board Meeting: 2/28/83 31. ZONING MAP: STATUS OF CERTAIN STREETS 2 The Board reviewed staff memoranda dated February 28, 1983, on the designation of streets on the Zoning Map, and a corrected version with the same date. After a review of the streets listed in the memoranda, it was agreed the staff would make further investigation of the following streets: Balfour, Garfield, Hazel, Phile- mon, Stratham Road, Valleyfield, Aaron Road, Park Drive, and Bacon. When the matter is again presented to the Board, a vote will be taken to change the desig- nation of streets as shown most recently on the 1979 map. ARTICLES FOR 1983 TOWN MEETING 32. Article 16, Waltham Street CD: The Board reviewed a draft report, dated February 23, 1983, and made several changes. The consensus of the Board is that the report, as amended, is acceptable. REPORTS 33. 1983 Report, Housing Policy: The Board reviewed a draft, dated February 28, 1983, of the 1983 Annual Report on the Housing Policy Resolution adopted by the 1979 Town Meeting. Several corrections were agreed to. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to approve the report as corrected. 34. Planning Director a. Waste Water Facility Plan: The Board reviewed the work outline for the development of a waste water facility plan. Mrs. Smith asked if any mem- ber wished to volunteer to serve as the Board's representative in moni- toring the development of the plan; no member in attendance volunteered. b. Service Stations: The Board reviewed a memorandum, dated January 21, from Building Commissioner Peter DiMatteo, about suggested rules for ser- vice station operations. It was agreed that a meeting would be scheduled to discuss the matter further with Mr. DiMatteo. Mr. Sandy commented that the rules appeared too long and too detailed to be included in the Zoning By -Law. He suggested there be some written administrative rule available to any interested party. Mr. Sorensen sug- gested several improvements. One is the clarification of the right to conduct other businesses, such as the policing of automobiles or U -Haul trailers, at a service station site. The outdoor storage of surplus used tires needs attention. Mr. Sandy noted that the provision for washing or polishing of vehicles is a change from the current By -Law and should be treated in that regard. He also suggested that some of the suggested improvements in signs should apply to all of the sign provisions and not just those in service sta- tions. c. Ledgemont Development, Spring Street: Mr. Bowyer reported that the Beal Company, which acquired the former Kennecot Copper Ledgemont Laboratory on Spring Street had appeared before a recent meeting of the Conservation Commission and showed a proposed new building on the site. The building would have about 200,000 square feet of floor area and would be serviced by a five -story garage. Mr. Sandy commented that the height limitatargs}s of the Zoning By -Law appear to be violated. i {. Planning Board Meeting: 2/28/83 3 d. Meeting: Mass. Federation of Planning Boards: Mr. Bowyer reported that the Mass. Federation of Planning Boards would be holding a meeting of its northeast area on Thursday, March 24, 1983. If any members of the Board wish to attend, they should contact him. 35. Planning Board Members a. Muzzey Conversion: Mrs. Smith reported that there had a meeting with Kirk Noyes. The Town has proposed that the 70 units be allocated as follows: a) ten units will be reserved for the Town to purchase through LexHAB, b) the first 40 units will be offered only to persons meeting the lower of the two MHFA income guidelines (this will include all 21 units agreed to be offered at the lowest sales price), and c) the remaining 20 units will be offered in the numerical order of the receipt of deposits and a person meeting either of the MHFA guidelines could purchase a unit. Mr. Sandy advocated that all units be offered at the lower income guide- line as the time period for acceptance of the higher income guideline applicants had not started yet. Mr. Sorensen commented that process seemed unfair to those people who ex- pected to follow the procedure described in the proposal before the Town Meeting voted. He noted that procedure called for a time period for de- posits to be received after the direct mail, pre -sales campaign described in the developer's brochure. The developer stopped taking deposits be- fore the direct mail, pre -sales campaign even started. He urged that the developer continue to take letters of interest, even if not deposits, ' through the time period originally described and that there then be a lottery to select the purchasers of the units. Mr. Bowyer suggested that, in addition, the Town -developer receive letters of interest about Muzzey as a means of identifying persons poten- tially interested in comparable housing elsewhere in Town. He thought the "comparable" housing would probably not be in a school building, but may be a new development organized around the affordable housing, deed restriction principle. Mrs. Smith said she would take both suggestions to the Conversion Committee and the Town Manager. b. March Meeting Schedule: The Board agreed to schedule meetings for March 10, after the public hearing on accessory apartments, and on March 14 and 21. Members will reserve March 7 as the Planning Board may be invited to meet with the Board of Selectmen on a recent court decision. EXECUTIVE SESSION After a poll of the Board, it was voted 4-0 to go into Executive Session to dis- cuss a matter of current litigation involving the Town. It was agreed the Board would return to its open session only for the purposes of adjournment. At 9:18 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session. Following the Executive Session, the Board returned to open session at 9:53 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Judith J. Uh , Clerk 11 PLANNING BOARD MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION February 28, 1983 After a 4-0 vote by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in Execu- tive Session in Room G-15, Town Offices, at 9:18 p.m., with Chairman Smith and members Sandy, Sorensen and Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present for dis- cussion of litigation involving the Town. Mr. Bowyer briefed Mrs. Uhrig and Mrs. Smith, who were not members of the Planning Board at the time that the Board and the Building Commissioner initiated litiga- tion against the Board of Appeals on the so-called Butts -Campbell case, 258-260 Marrett Road. The Board of Appeals had overturned a ruling of the Building Com- missioner that the property at 258-260 Marrett Road was one lot. On February 16, 1983 Justice O'Neil of the Superior Court had found in favor of the Planning Board and Building Commissioner. Mrs. Smith reported that she had information that both Butts and the Board of Appeals will appeal Justice O'Neil's decision. She had been contacted by a member of the Board of Appeals who wished to avoid spending more of the Town's money in the case and sought a way to resolve the issue among the Town's Boards. Both Mr. Sandy and Mr. Sorensen observed that any "compromise" would require an amendment to the Zoning By -Law to be approved by the Town Meeting. As the Planning Board's position on combining lots has now been sustained by the courts, there would be nothing for the Planning Board to gain by having the principal watered down by an amendment to the By -Law. Three previous attempts by the Planning Board to tighten up the provisions on substandard lots have all failed. Mr. Sorensen observed that there were two significant problems. One is that the Board of Appeals appears unwilling to accept the court's decision as the basis for future cases. The second is that the Board of Appeals acted in a non -judicial manner in that, on the same evening, it denied an appeal in the Fornier case on Moreland Avenue, because of neighborhood opposition, and granted an appeal in the Butts -Campbell case on Marrett Road, in part because of a lack of neighborhood opposition. These cases need to be decided on consistent zoning principals rather than personalities and emotions. It was agreed that Mrs. Smith would convey to the member of the Board of Appeals that the consensus of the Planning Board was that there was no reason to hold a meeting among the Boards. The Executive Session was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. and the Board reconvened in open session. / 12th J. Uhr' , Clerk U1