Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-29PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 1984 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices was called to order at 7:41 p.m. by the Chairman Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig, Planning Director Bowyer and Assistant Planner Davidson present. PLANS NOT REQUIRING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 207. 94-98 Pleasant Street, Frank Carpenter, Form A-84/23: The Board reviewed a plan of land owned by Frank and Ruth Carpenter on which Gerald Mimno wanted to record a ten -foot wide easement for a sewer. There are no changes in the frontage or lot lines. Several members inquired of attorney Stephen Anderson whether the Planning Board needed to endorse such plans as there was no subdi- vision. Mr. Mimno said that practically every plan recorded in the Registry required Planning Board signatures. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously: The plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass., showing a sewer easement on Lots 11 plus 11A shown on LC Plan 19700C," by Barnes Engi- neering Company, Auburndale, Mass., certified by John P. Hurley, Regis- tered Land Surveyor, with application form A-84/23 by Gerald R. Mimno ' for Frank M. Carpenter, owner, does not require approval under the Subdi- vision Control Law. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES 208. Guidelines for Lot Combination: Attorney Stephen Anderson of Palmer & Dodge was present for a discussion of the draft of "Guidelines for Reviewing Applications for Building Permits to Build on Substandard "Grandfathered" Lots." These draft guide lines had been prepared in collaboration with the Building Commissioner and as part of the inter -board agreement to develop written guidelines to avoid a repetition of the Town's experience in the 4-6 Sherburne Road case. Mr. Anderson said that the guidelines do not have the force of law; they are administrative rules. They provide the Building Commissioner with written guidelines for reviewing applications involving substandard lots. Although the Board of Appeals will not specifically adopt them, the plan is to have the Board of Appeals review them and be in general agreement with them. Depending upon the facts in a specific case, the Board of Appeals may make a determina- tion different than the guidelines would suggest. Mr. Anderson said that there are several differences in these guidelines from those that were prepared in April, 1983. First, these guidelines are written to be distributed to applicants to describe the rules which the Building Com- missioner will apply to specific cases. Second, the category "combination by application" has been divided into three parts. A new test will now be applied — if the permit could have been obtained without creating a zoning violation, lots would not necessarily be considered to be combined. If a zoning violation would have occurred without the two lots being combined, they will be consider- ed to be combined. Third, the Building Commissioner and Mr. Anderson have Planning Board Minutes: October 29, 1984 vJ reviewed past Zoning By -Laws to determine when side yard requirements were introduced for accessory structures. The product of an extended review was that Mr. Anderson would consider four amendments to the guidelines: 1) adding language referring to a principal structure located in a required side yard, 2) the time of acquisition of the second lot relative to the date when the building, or addition, was construct- ed, 3) differentiating between an accessory use required by zoning, e.g., off- street parking and other "conspicuous" accessory uses not required by zoning and 4) changing the next to last paragraph so that it applies to all structures in a required side yard and not just accessory structures. Mr. Anderson said he wanted time to think through the implications of the changes proposed and to work on some draft alternative language. He would then review that material with the Building Commissioner and with the Planning Board. Mr. Sorensen inquired of Mr. Anderson what the limits of the Board of Select- men's discretion may be under the Town Manager Act in approving or disapproving the request of a Board to engage in litigation. 209. Guidelines for Approval Not Required Plans: Mrs. Smith distributed a copy of "Fact Sheet on Form A's," dated October 23, 1984 which she had prepar- ed. She mentioned that "Land Use Manager," Volume 1 Nos. 9 and 10, by the ' Executive Office of Communities and Development, covered this subject very well. She asked Mr. Anderson and the other Board members to review this mater- ial. Several members of the Board asked Mr. Anderson to research the question of whether the Planning Board needs to endorse plans in which there is no change in lot lines or frontage. 210. South Lexington Planning Program: The Board had received copies of Technical Memo #1: Existing Land Use, Technical Memo #2: Parcels Susceptible to Development, and Technical Memo #3: Natural Systems. Ms. Davidson explain- ed a number of maps which will be photo -reduced and included as illustrations in the text of the technical memoranda. In Technical Memorandum #1, the Board discussed the presentation of net resi- dential density. Mr. Sorensen thought the table should be revised because it overstated the amount of development permitted. A better explanation of the concept of density is needed. Mrs. Flemings suggested a revision of Section 5 on the development history as seen through rezoning. A better explanation of why that section is in the memo is needed. Mrs. Flemings also suggested more material and explanation on commercial land use and residential land use. In Technical Memorandum #2, Mrs. Smith and others had problems with portraying development potential, in dwelling units, on a lot -by -lot basis. It was agreed to delete that material. The memo should also explain better that the listing of parcels is a "first cut" which is unconstrained by factors such as natural systems, traffic impact, availability of utilities and the like. In Technical Memorandum #3, Natural Systems, the Board thought that in Section 10, Suitable Sites for Development, it should be emphasized that suitability Planning Board Minutes: October 29, 1984 3 was measured by natural systems only and the other criteria, such as traffic impact, the availability of public services and the like, was not included in the evaluation. The Board discussed the process for the release of the individual technical memoranda. The Board was concerned that data in any one of the technical memoranda could be taken out of context. For instance, a parcel may be des- cribed in an early memoranda as suitable for development but when criteria in a later memoranda are applied, the parcel would no longer be considered suitable for development. Regardless of how many caveats or conditions are stated, a person may interpret an early memorandum as thinking development is appropriate or even advocated for a particular parcel. The first step will be for the staff to revise the wording of the memos to stress that there is a sequential process and data in later memoranda may supersede that presented in the early memoranda. The Board reserved judgement on whether to have a limited distribu- tion of the technical memoranda after they have been reviewed by the Board or to hold them until all memoranda are completed. It was agreed to have the conservation administrator review the natural systems memorandum. COMMUNICATIONS 211. Kiln Brook IV, Westview Street: The Board reviewed a letter from Freder- ick F. Dupree dated October 18, 1984, stating that as the developer of the Kiln Brook IV office building, he proposed that the tenants of the building schedule ' hours of operation so that at least 75% of the employees will neither arrive nor depart during the morning or afternoon peak hours. The Board agreed with the principle but wanted to see more evidence of how that restriction would be carried out. The Board requested that Mr. Dupree submit a plan showing how parking spaces would be restrained from use during the peak hours. SUBDIVISION OF 212. Pheasant Brook, Maple -Woburn Streets; Street Names: Mr. Bowyer reported that there had been some feedback from the Fire Department and the Police Department that three of the street names discussed at the meeting of July 16, 1984 (see Item 155) were not acceptable because they could easily be confused with names of existing streets. It was agreed to revise the names of the streets to be: Road A - Solomon Pierce Road Road B - Butterfield Road Road C - Joseph Comee Road Road D - Lothrop Circle The names are either of 1775 Minutemen or of families long associated with that area. 213. Hampton, Concord Avenue; Definitive Plan: Mr. Bowyer reported that a definitive plan for the "Hampton" subdivision has been submitted by Boyd Smith Company for the Forten property off Concord Avenue near Waltham Street. The staff will review the plan and a public hearing will be set later. The appli- cant had inquired about a sliver of land between the proposed right of -way and adjoining property. The Board thought that sliver could either be offered to Planning Board Minutes: October 29, 1984 4 the adjoining property owner or included within the Town's right-of-way for the street. 214. Garden Avenue/Wellington Lane Avenue; Philipson Land: The Board discussed further the problems posed by attorney Dennis Lowe in the land of Conrad Phil- ipson (see Item 202 of the October 15 meeting.) No solution to the problem was apparent to the Board. It was agreed the Board would not bend its rules out of shape to solve this problem; the owners will have to deal with it. 215. Subdivision Streets for Acceptance at 1985 Town Meeting: Mr. Bowyer reported that at a meeting of the Development Committee, Town Engineer Francis Fields thought it would be better if the Town waited longer before processing subdivision streets for acceptance as public ways. That would permit any imperfections in the street to be noticed and corrected before the Town took over the street. In particular, more time is needed with Maple Tree Lane because it will be completed just before the onset of frozen ground and the Town Meeting would vote on accept ance just after the spring thaw. Mr. Cripps suggested the Town be guided by the principle "we will accept no streets before their time." On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to withdraw the recommendation for the acceptance of Maple Tree Lane at the 1985 Town Meeting based on the recommendation of the Town's professional staff. EXECUTIVE SESSION ' After a unanimous vote, by poll of the Board, it was voted to go into Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation which, if discussed in an open session, may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town. At 10:29 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session. Following the Executive Session, the Board returned to open session at 10:54 P.M.. 216. Xerox -Ginn, Spring Street: Definitive Plan: Mr. Bowyer reported that the Xerox Corporation had submitted a definitive subdivision plan on October 22, 1984. The staff had reviewed the plan and found that several important proce- dures had not been followed and that certain important information was not included in the plan submitted. He outlined the improper procedures and incom- plete information. As provided in Sections 3.5 and 8.2 of the "Rules and Regulations," he had returned the plan as an incomplete application. It ap- peared advisable for the Planning Board to reinforce the action taken by the Planning Director. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 4-0, with Mr. Sorensen abstaining: That the Board has reviewed the plans submitted by Xerox Corporation for land off Spring Street and has determined that in accordance with Sec- tions 3.5 and 8.2 of the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in Lex ington, Mass.," the required procedure was not followed and a number of items required to be filed with a definitive plan were not included, for the reasons set forth in the Planning Director's letter to Xerox Corporation dated October 26, 1984. Planning Board Minutes: October 29, 1984 5 REPORTS 217. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees a. Minuteman Hotel/conference-Center: A presentation to the Board of Selectmen about the proposed hotel conference center at the Minuteman School will be made on Monday, November 5 at 8:00 p.m.; the Planning Board will attend. In response to communications from Ron Fitzgerald, Superintendent Director of the Minuteman School District, it was agreed to send the Board's "Guidelines for RD, CD Re zoning Petitions" as a general guide for the type of information that should be submitted for a Town Meeting vote on a zoning proposal. b. Board of Appeals Hearings of October 25: Mrs. Flemings reported that the Board of Appeals was very pleased with the Planning Board's recommen- dations on the Itek proposal. c. Conversion of One -Family Dwellings to Two -Family: Mr. Bowyer reported on the decision on 364 Waltham Street in which the Board of Appeals followed the conditions in Sec tion 5.3 of the Zoning By -Law exactly. This changes a long-standing practice of the Board of Appeals to not grant permits for conversion of one -family dwellings to two- family. The Board had briefly considered in 1983 amending the Zoning By - Law to revise the standards for conversion of one -family dwellings, to be consistent with the proposed amendment for accessory apartments. It was decided then to defer that amendment so as not to confuse the accessory apartments issue. It was agreed the Board should submit an amendment to the 1985 Annual Town Meeting to update the standards for conversion of one -family dwel- lings to two-family. It was also agreed to discuss with the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Appeals some procedure or standards for deal- ing with petitions that result from enforcement action by the Building Department. The Town should not be legitimizing past illegal construc- tion frequently as it will undermine the enforcement effort. The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m. ter` . � �%J' // �� ,���• C�dith J. �Uh/fig, Clerk 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES EXECUTIVE SESSION: OCTOBER 29, 1984 After a unanimous vote, in open session, by poll of the members present, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session, in Room G-15, Town Offices, at 10:29 p.m., to discuss strategy with respect to potential 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 Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer. Mr. Bowyer reported that the staff had reviewed the Xerox definitive subdivision plan with attorney Martin Healy. He had written a letter within the seven-day period from the receipt of the plan, as prescribed in Section 3.5 and 8.2 of the "Rules and Regulations." The deficiencies in the definitive plan, both proced- ural and substantive, were listed. Healy thought the courts would think that the deficiencies were sufficient to justify the action. For instance, the owner's signature is important as evidence the owner knows what is proposed for his land; the Town should know what the sub -base under Ginn Drive would be; the connection of the proposed utility lines to the Town's existing lines in Spring Street should be clear; the provision of sewerage to lot 1 should be identified. This is not a normal subdivision submission. The "subdivision" to establish lot 1 could be done with an Approval Not Required plan. The applicant's objective ' clearly is to freeze the zoning with the 1983 provisions and to avoid the effect of the floor area ratio provision adopted at the 1984 Town Meeting. The Board agreed that it should take the action within its power to have the newly -adopted floor area ratio provision applied to this property as it does to the other lots in the CR district. Requiring an applicant to comply with the letter of the statute and the "Rules and Regulations" is appropriate. Healy had said we should assume the applicant would contest the Planning Direc- tor's action in not accepting the application for processing which has the effect of wiping out the crucial October 23 date which is the end of the seven-month period prescribed in the statute for filing the definitive plan. Healy had said there is not case law on whether a Planning Board could not accept a plan, or insufficient information, and thus move the filing date back. There are several issues that would have to be resolved in court. First, whether the Planning Board may defer the acceptance date of an application until all is submitted. With a statutory period of only 60 days in which to act after the date of appli- cation, that type of action by a board is reasonable. Second, can the Planning Board's non-acceptance of an application be delegated to its staff? A vote by the Board at its next business meeting would be consistent with the delegation. Third, if the non-acceptance of an application for insufficient information is acceptable to the court, was the amount of information in this case sufficient? If the non-acceptance were limited to the color of the drawing ink and labelling of pages, a court might think that was unreasonable, but there did appear to be enough important substantive information missing to justify the action in this case. Planning Board Minutes Executive Session: October 29, 1984 2 Healy had also advised that the Board might have to protect its action by follow- ing all the usual steps for processing a definitive subdivision plan. That would guard against a" ponstructive approval" in which approval is automatic because the Board fails to file its decision within 60 days. If the Board followed the normal procedure, there should caveats at each step of the way indicating the Board did not consider the application to be filed properly. Whether the Board follows that procedure will depend upon how the applicant responds to the non- acceptance letters. Healy will give more thought as to what caveats the Planning Board would state if it follows the normal processing period. The Executive Session was adjourned at 10:54 p.m. and the Board returned to open session. dith J. Uh g, Clerk (/ 1