HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-07PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF MAY 7, 1984
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was
called to order at 7:35 p.m, by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps,
Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mrs. Flemings joined the
meeting in progress.
117. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
The Board reviewed cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on May 10, 1984. It
was agreed to make no recommendation on the following three cases:
86 Marrett Road, Arthur Ansin: variance, change legal address
6 Albemarle Avenue, Kenneth Birgile: variance, yard setback
294 Woburn Street, Mary Pedrotti: SP, swimming pool
1721 Massachusetts Avenue, Alex Castiello: SP, bakery, take-out food service: The
Board agreed to comment on how this proposed use, which replaces the Li'l Peach
store, complies with newly adopted parking regulations and to recommend in favor of
granting the special permit.
122 Hartwell Avenue, Hartwood Ltd. Partnership (Signatron, Inc.): SPS: Mr. Bowyer
explained the site plan for the proposed 53,000 square foot office building. The
Board reviewed a draft report on the special permit application dated May 3, 1984.
On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to
recommend in favor of granting the special permit, with two conditions, and to
approve the report as drafted.
' REPORTS
118. 1979 Housing Policy Resolution: The Board reviewed a draft of the 1984
report to the Town Meeting on the Town's progress toward achieving goals set forth
in the housing policy plan as adopted by the 1979 Annual Town Meeting. Several
changes were made. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was
voted unanimously to approve the report as amended.
The meeting was recessed at 7:56 p.m. so that the members could attend the Town
Meeting.
The meeting was reconvened at 10:57 p.m. with all members except Mr. Cripps
present.
119. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On a motion by Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously by
poll of the Board to go into Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to
litigation against the Town which, if discussed in an open meeting, may have a
detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town. At 10:58 p.m., the
Board went into Executive Session.
Following the Executive Session, the Board returned to Open Session at 11:44 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Judit Uhrig, Cler
l,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
EXECUTIVE SESSION, May 7, 1984
After a unanimous vote in an Open Session by poll of the members present, the Lex-
ington Planning Board met in Executive Session, in Room G-15, Town Offices, at
10:58 p.m., to discuss strategy with respect to litigation which, if discussed in
an Open Session, may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the
Town. Present were Chairman Smith and members Flemings, Sorensen and Uhrig, Plan-
ning Director Bowyer and Attorney Steven Anderson of Palmer and Dodge. Mr. Cripps
was absent.
Mr. Sorensen reported that a building permit had been issued and construction had
started for a dwelling at 6 Sherburne Road. An application for a building permit
in October, 1983, had been disapproved by the Building Commissioner and two appli-
cations to the Planning Board for "Approval Not Required" plans had been disap-
proved. The owner appealed the Building Commissioner's determination to the Board
of Appeals and has initiated legal proceedings against the Town. He further
reported that apparently the Building Commissioner had reversed his determination
after consultation with Town Counsel and had issued the permit.
Mr. Anderson, of Palmer and Dodge, Town Counsel, explained that in conferences with
attorneys for the applicants, a number of plans and deeds had been submitted that
provided more documentation than in the earlier application for a building permit.
In a review of those documents, it was not clear that an addition constructed in
1969 was built to or across what the applicants contended was a lot line. He said
that if the Town's case had to rest on combination of the lots by use, his opinion
was that would not be strong enough to hold up in court. Town Counsel had advised
the Building Commissioner that the Town did not have a strong case in denying a
building permit on the basis that the two lots had been combined into one.
Discussion centered on the plans submitted with the application for a building per-
mit to construct an addition in 1969. Mr. Sorensen had seen that plan in a meeting
with Building Commissioner Peter DiMatteo. That plan showed setback dimensions
from the side, front and rear lot lines but none from what the owners contended was
a lot line in the middle of the property. Mr. Sorensen took that as evidence that
the owners, in 1969, did not recognize the existence of a lot line in the middle of
the property, had not requested a variance from the setback requirements of that
lot line, and the Building Department apparently had not considered that lot line
in granting the building permit without requiring the owner to apply for a vari-
ance. About a year ago, the owner removed a portion of the porch -addition because
of "termite damage." That alteration resulted in the addition being set back
somewhat from the lot line in the middle of the property. Mr. Anderson said he did
not recall seeing the plan for the 1969 addition in his review of the documents.
Mr. Sorensen commented that the situation was troublesome for three reasons: 1)
there needed to be a consistent rule on the combination of lots and this action
would be inconsistent with the court decision just made on the Butts -260 Marrett
Road case, 2) there needed to be consistency among the Town boards, with the Plan-
ning Board disapproving a subdivision because it considered the property to be one
lot and the Board of Appeals using language that indicated it could be considered
as two lots, and 3) the abutters became aware of the construction, after the fact,
without a public hearing and with the understanding, based on earlier public hear-
ings, that the building permit application had been disapproved.
1
11
Planning Board Minutes
EXECUTIVE SESSION: May 7, 1984
2
Mr. Anderson explained part of the problem is the wording in the Board of Appeals
decision that grants a special permit for the side yard violation in the event that
the property is determined to comprise two lots. That tends to weaken the argument
that the lots were joined since no variance from the side yard setback was request-
ed for the 1969 addition.
On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs.
a letter to the Building Commissioner reporting
in that two dwellings would be constructed on on
combined by the affirmative representation of t
and that the Building Commissioner be requested
Copies of that letter should be sent to the owne
mit was issued.
Flemings, it was voted 4-0 to send
a violation of the Zoning By -Law,
e lot; that the two "lots" had been
he owner as shown on the 1969 plan;
to enforce the Zoning By -Law.
r and the builder to whom the per -
The Executive Session was adjourned at 11:44 p.m. and the Board reconvened in Open
Session.
Judith J. U3 ig, Clerk