The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-11-21PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1983 83 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by the Chairman Mrs. Smith, with members Flemings, Nichols, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 229. Center Parking Amendments: William Spencer, Town Meeting Member from Hancock Street, inquired what the Planning Board proposed for the CB districts in Lexington center and in the Worthen Road -Bedford Street area across from Hancock Avenue. He was informed of the date of the hearing and of the availability of explanatory '' nn material. Lo / 230. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS N 0 7 Homestead Street, Robert Frank: Variance, construct a garage: Mrs. Nichols Q reported that she had visited the site and that two sizable trees would have to be M removed to construct the garage within two feet of both the side and rear lot LLI lines, as proposed. She said that the garage could be located within the ten foot Q setback requirement. It would be somewhat more expensive but could be located closer to the center of the lot. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to recommend that the petition for the variance be denied because of the lack of a hardship and the availability of other alternatives. 231. MUZZEY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT: Kirk Noyes of Sydney, Noyes, Anderson, the developer, and his attorney, Robert Shafer, attorney David Rogers of Palmer and ' Dodge, and about fifteen people were present. The Board had a preliminary draft of a report on the application for a special permit with site plan review. Mrs. Smith stated that the Planning Board interprets the Zoning By -Law to mean that a special permit with site plan review includes all related documents and not just the site plan. She proposed the Planning Board focus on four elements: 1) is the development financable? 2) guarantees of continuing affordability, 3) treatment of the senior center, and 4) the site plan. Kirk Noyes stated that the concept of income limitations for purchasers and limita- tions on the resale value of units to insure continuing affordability is simple in principle but had proven complex in execution. He said there are about 230 on the waiting list; he stopped taking deposits after the first 110. About 70% of those who have filed financial information are in the lower ($25,000-$31,000) income group. Mr. Noyes said that he will buy a commitment for up to 70 mortgages. He is opposed to granting a right of first refusal to the Town because of the diffi- culties that raises in the secondary mortgage market. There was extended discussion of the formula for determining the average base selling price at each of three stages in the development process at which the price is allowed to rise by $5,000 per unit. The Planning Board's position was the average selling price of the remaining unsold units should increase by $5,000 at each of the stages. Mr. Sorensen pointed out the Town is really asking for a right of first option, not a right of first refusal. Mr. Noyes responded that as a practical matter, if the Town through LexHAB maintains a list of qualified buyers, sellers of units would probably offer them to persons on the Town's list because they would save the real Planning Board Minutes of November 21, 1983 2 estate sales commission. Mrs. Smith inquired why Noyes was adamant about pursuing the right of first refusal issue with FNMA but had not taken such a position on the deed restriction on resale value which is a more fundamental issue for the sec- ondary mortgage market. Noyes responded he was willing to pursue the fundamental issue to the end, but didn't want to use up "points" on the lesser issue. Dealing with substitution of buyers, Noyes said that if a potential buyer couldn't pre -qualify for a mortgage within 30 days of the date that he receives a mortgage commitment, he would return their reservation deposits. After 30 days, he did not want to be obligated to return the reservation deposits. People have to accept responsibilities under a contractual arrangement and cannot extend the time of purchase unfairly, at the expense of other potential buyers. The Board suggested that if persons in the "priority income" range are not able to obtain financing commitments, then other persons on the buyer list in the "priority income" range should be advanced by their order on the priority list so that as many units as possible are offered to persons on the "priority income" list. In the event the "Priority list" is exhausted, then a public notification -solicitation process should take place to encourage other moderate income persons to apply. The Board then addressed Section 7.10 of the Land Disposition Agreement that states so long as no substantive changes are required, the Town agrees to modify the re- strictions if difficulties occur in the secondary mortgage market. The Board agreed that the limitations on maximum income of buyers and the restriction on the resale price of units is so fundamental that they are substantive changes that could not be waived. If difficulties are encountered in the secondary mortgage market, the developer and the Town together should seek other methods of financing. If it becomes necessary to modify the procedures currently anticipated, an open process, analogous to a public hearing, should be conducted and the Planning Board and Town Meeting Members notified about the proposed changes so they may comment on them. If all efforts fail and it appears that the development would proceed without its fundamental provisions, the disposition of the building should be referred again to the Town Meeting for direction. As the Land Disposition Agreement authorizes the Muzzey Administrator to grant waivers, the Board thought that written guidelines should be established for the granting of waivers. The Board thought further that written guidelines should be established for the temporary use of all units for rental purposes. Attorney Shafer suggested that the guidelines not be included in the quitclaim deed but that LexHAB or the Board of Selectmen could adopt the guidelines referred to. The Board agreed to recommend that LexHAB be activated promptly because of the educational process that new members will need to familiarize themselves with this complex development. The Board decided to not make any recommendations on the senior center because of the extensive and apparently harmonious work of the Council on Aging with the developer in that regard. In reviewing site planning elements, the Planning Board discussed the internal cir- culation on the site and its points of access -egress on Massachusetts Avenue. A person from Russell Square advocated making the northern driveway, nearest Russell Square, a service exit only. That would have required a partial two-way system on the rest of the site. After some discussion, the Board agreed that the one-way system, as proposed by the developer, was the most desirable. ZOE Planning Board Minutes of November 21, 1983 3 The staff was requested to incorporate the Board's comments on the housing elements of the plan into the SPS report and to make revisions to the draft report on site planning features, as needed. A copy is to be available by Wednesday afternoon with Board members responding to the staff by Monday morning. A revised final copy will be available for Board action on Monday evening. The meeting on November 28 will be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. so that the Board can attend.the public hearing sched- uled at 7:30 p.m. 232. 1983 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN It was agreed to schedule discussion of this item for the December 5 meeting and to invite a representative from the Conservation Commission and the Recreation Commis- sion. REPORTS 233. Planning Board and Subcommittees a. Board of Appeals Hearings of November 17: Mrs. Flemings reported that the Board of Appeals had granted a special permit for 4 Sherburne Road without making a determination that there are two lots; that would be up to the owner to prove. Mr. Sorensen expressed concern about the long term implications about the Board of Appeals pursuing a different interpretation than the Building Commissioner and Planning Board. He cited the Board of Appeals 1976 Wood Street decision which, seven years later, has ended in a law suit against the Planning Board. The Board agreed that the Chairman should arrange a meeting with the Chairman of the Board of Appeals to discuss these issues. Others mentioned the recent decision on Ward Street which is a type of "floating" special permit or variance that would have an effect if certain assumptions prove true. It was agreed that Town Counsel should be consulted as to the implications of these "floating" decisions. 234. Planning Director a. Law Suit, Wood Street: Mr. Bowyer distributed copies of a complaint filed against the Board because it disapproved the "Approval Not Required" plan submitted for 275 Wood Street (Form A-83/10). Town Counsel will pre- pare a response to the complaint. The meeting was adjourned at 11:29 p.m. � ith J. Uhr' foz