Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-071 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1983 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, called to order at 7:39 p.m. by the Chairman Mrs. Smith, with Nichols, Sorensen, Uhrig, and Planning Director Bowyer present. 213. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 97 Town Offices, was members Flemings, The minutes of the meeting of October 17, 1983, were corrected and on the motion of Mrs. Nichols, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, were approved as corrected by a vote of 4-0. Mrs. Smith abstained as she was not present for the October 17 meeting. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, the minutes of the meeting of October 24, 1983, were approved unanimously as written. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 214. Procedure for the Subdivision of Land: Mr. Bowyer reported that he had had a further discussion with Norman Cohen, Town Counsel, on the implications of the Board finding that a plan, presented as a Form A, is a subdivision within the mean- ing of the Subdivision Control Law and requires approval. If a plan were submitted under the Subdivision Control Law, it would have to be a definitive plan which would require a public hearing, notice to abutters and the like. The Board could amend its subdivision rules and regulations to permit a simplified definitive sub- division plan and, in the short term until the regulations are amended, could waive the detailed submission requirements for a definitive subdivision plan. As the subdivision control law requires a public hearing, there appears no way around that requirement. Even accepting plans under the definitive plan procedure still does not resolve the issue of inadequate frontage because operating under the Subdivi- sion Control Law, the Planning Board does not have the power to waive the frontage requirements adopted under the Zoning Enabling Act, a different statute. The Plan- ning Board could have some form of notation that waived the frontage requirement for subdivision purposes provided a variance for frontage were subsequently ap- proved by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Cohen was quite firm that no plan that had not been approved the Planning Board to create a separate lot, should be presented to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the frontage requirements. Both Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Cohen thought there were policy questions the Board should addressed, such as: 1) whether to permit or encourage the creation of lots with insufficient frontage, 2) whether lots with insufficient frontage should be created if there were sufficient area on each of the lots, and 3) whether there should be other written guidelines governing the Planning Board's approach to the subdivision of lots with insufficient frontage. Mr. Bowyer recommended that a subcommittee of Board members be appointed to review this issue and make recommendations to the Board. Mr. Sorensen agreed to chair the subcommittee. Other members who are interested in serving should contact the chairman. 215. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Mrs. Flemings presented an oral review of cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on November 17, 1983. Planning Board Minutes of November 7, 1983 2 95 Three of the cases involve the construction of swimming pools. On two motions by Mr. Sorensen, each seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to make no recommendation on the following cases: 13 Hathaway Road, Joseph Johnson: SP, pool 7 Longfellow Road, Joseph Schachter: SP, pool 4 Bennington Road, Kenneth Snell: SP, pool 66 Spring Street, Michael Gill: SP, continue use of garage LD 70 Westview Street, Dupree Associates: SP, amendment of an SP previously approved: N Mrs. Flemings reported that Dupree Associates sought an amendment to a special per - 0 mit granted by the Board of Appeals on August 9, 1983, for the Kiln Brook IV devel- opment. Apparently, Dupree Associates are concerned about the wording dealing with m a restriction on parking during peak hours but there is no indication as to how they propose to change the wording. Mr. Sorensen moved that the Board oppose a Q change in the special permit because there is no wording on which to comment. The motion did not receive a second. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted 4-1, with Mr. Sorensen opposed, to make no recommendation as there was nothing to comment on. 4 Sherburne Road, Edward Hersey: SP, continue use of dwelling: This is the same property which was the subject of an Approval Not Required plan (Form A-83/12 and Form A-83/13) which the Planning Board disapproved on October 24, 1983, because the Building Commissioner has determined that all of the land at 4-6 Sherburne Road is one lot for zoning purposes. Therefore, the "three foot side yard setback viola- tion" on the south side is not a violation because it is 93 feet from the lot line, when all of the land is considered as one lot. The ten foot side yard on the north side may be in violation. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to recommend against granting the special permit for the "three foot side yard setback violation" on the south side as the property is determined to be one lot for zoning purposes and to make no objection on approving a special permit for the ten foot side yard on the north side. 216. MUZZEY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT The Board and members of the Housing Needs Advisory Committee discussed the status of the Muzzey School documents. As currently written, the Town would be required to modify the agreement if the developer or potential condominium owners are unable to obtain financing. Some noted that the developer had pledged before the Town Meeting to help obtain mortgage money for buyers, but that was not included in these documents. A significant problem may arise if the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), an important factor in the secondary mortgage market, does not approve the deed restriction limiting resale prices to not more than a 4% annual increase. If that occurs, and if other sources of financing are not obtained, then the units may be classified as unrestricted. Mr. Sorensen noted that provision, coupled with the provision authorizing the Muzzey Administrator to lift the re- strictions, might mean there would be fewer or even no restricted units in the building. Mrs. Smith pointed out that if the developer doesn't find a qualified buyer, he becomes free of the restrictions on the units. She also said that in the event of a foreclosure, those assuming the rights after foreclosure would not be subject to the deed restrictions. [1 Planning Board Minutes of November 7, 1983 3 Mrs. Flemings noted that the developer had promised the Town Meeting he accepted the principle of deed restricted units and the developer had prior experience with FNMA and should have known how FNMA would deal with restricted units. Mrs. Klaumin- zer commented that her experience in California with an inclusionary housing pro- gram was that the number of deed restricted units was a small percentage of the total units. Officials there worked with local banks to arrange financing. Mrs. Flemings said that Cambridge housing officials recommended obtaining financing from MHFA to avoid any problems with FNMA. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING. POLICIES 217. Housing Analysis Acting Chairman Eleanor Klauminzer, Sherri Edmonds, and prospective members Joel Adler and Esther Lobell of the Housing Needs Advisory Committee and Planning Intern Mary Trudeau were present for a continuation of the discussion of the Housing Analysis draft report. The Board completed its review of Chapter 5, "Housing Issues to Think About." A summary of the report was distributed to members that the staff would complete the revisions agreed Committee when the revised document is available. Committee could then review it. It is not planned cussion of the report during a Planning Board me making one of its public presentations of the rept Association forum in January. of the Committee. It was agreed to and notify the Board and the Members of the Board or the to have further review and dis- ting. The Board anticipates rt to the Town Meeting Members 218. Open Space and Recreation Plan: No action was taken as copies of the plan had not been received from the Conservation Commission. PLANNING DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS 219. Budget Request for FY'85 Mr. Bowyer reported that the Department's budget request was due soon and asked if the Board had any special requests it wanted to include. He said that because of a recent court ruling, the hours of the secretary and assistant planner may be re- duced by 20%. The Board indicated it was unanimously opposed to any cut in the part time staff. If anything, there should be an increase in the Department staff in view of the variety of projects that are underway. The priority should be to increase the assistant planner to full time. Other priorities would be to maintain an intern and to increase hours for the secretarial staff. ARTICLES FOR 1984 TOWN MEETING 220. 16 Hayden Avenue, CD Rezoning: The Board discussed a response to the concept plan presented by Temple, Barker and Sloane at the October 24 meeting. Mr. Sorensen raised a policy question -- with too much development already permitted by right in the CR district relative to the traffic demands that it would produce, could the Board justify supporting additional commercial development in the area? He noted the CR district required five acres and this site contained 2+ acres. f6 Planning Board Minutes of November 7, 1983 4 The staff was requested to prepare a response that identified points that needed tc be investigated without indicating a commitment of the Board to support a rezoning. Those points include the traffic impact on Waltham Street, the sight line at the Route 2 ramp, the provision of sewer service, the intensity of development on the site, and potential encroachment on wetlands. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER'S DEVELOPMENT 221. Citizen's Guide to Zoning, Chapters 11-12: The Board completed its review and discussion of this book. Members commented Lexington seemed to have a number of the contemporary techniques mentioned in the book but not others. REPORTS 222. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees a. Chairman: Mrs. Smith reported that at the recent meeting of the Chairmen of Boards and Committees, other chairmen made impassioned pleas to retain part time staff at their present schedules without reducing below 20 hours. b. Board of Appeals Hearings of November 3: Mrs. Nichols reported that a variance had been granted for a side yard on a paper street in the Ward Street case. Chairman Thomas Taylor had assured her that the Board of Appeals was only acting on the petition presented to them and was not over- ruling the Building Commissioner's determination that there was only one lot and a second house could not be built on it. There was much confusion on this case. c. Telephone Company Expansion: Mrs. Nichols reported that a representative of the Telephone Company informed the Board of Appeals they had decided to employ a new technique to provide for the conversion of the telephone service in the town and it would not be necessary to construct an addition to their building on Waltham Street. 223. Planning Director a. MinuteMan School, Hotel/Conference Center: Mr. Bowyer reported Peter Krafts had requested a meeting to brief the Board on the status of the proposal. It was agreed that MinuteMan should first coordinate with the Town's representative on their Advisory Committee, Mrs. Uhrig. b. Center Parking Zoning Amendments: Mr. Bowyer distributed and described four proposed zoning amendments dealing with parking and Lexington center. It was agreed to discuss them at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m. udith J. Uhr' , Clerk U