Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-05PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1984 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. PLANS NOT REQUIRING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 217. 404-416 CONCORD AVENUE, F. William Smith, Form A-84/24: The Board reviewed a plan which would be part of the transfer of back land of Norman Daigle and David and Lorraine Salto to adjoining land of George and Barbara Forten, which will be included in the Hampton Subdivision. The remaining lots of Daigle and the Saltos would each have sufficient frontage and more than the 30,000 square foot minimum lot area. Several errors in the plan, such as the location of Waltham Street and the labelling of Concord Street, not avenue, were noted. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously: To not endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.," dated October 2, 19849 by Hayes Engineering Company, Wakefield, Mass., certified by Sydney Field, Jr., Registered Land Surveyor, because the plan does require approval under the Subdivisin Control Law as it creates two lots, ' Al and B1 for which no frontage on a street is shown and because there are errors in the plan. The plan could be corrected by showing the adjoining land of Forten to which Lots Al and B1 are to be joined. 218. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Mrs. Smith provided an oral review of the cases to be heard on November 8, 1984. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to make no recommendations on the following three cases: 10 Colony Road, Leonard Colwell: SP, continue use 1265 Mass. Ave., Seasons Four: SP, extended hours during holiday 373 Mass. Ave., Sunshine Lexington, Inc.: SP, take out food service At 7:57 p.m., The Board recessed to attend a meeting conducted by the Board of Selectmen at which representatives of the Minuteman Vocational School District presented plans for a hotel/conference center. No action was taken by the Planning Board or the Board of Selectmen during the time that the Planning Board was in attendance. At 9:23 p.m., the Planning Board meeting was reconvened. 189 Mass. Ave., Sheila Robinson: SP, sign: Mrs. Smith showed an elevation with the sign placed just under two gable ends of the building in a conspicuous and visually jarring location. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously to recommend against granting the special permit because the sign is badly placed with respect to the architecture of the building, disrupting the silhouette and roof line of the building. The Board recommended that the sign be lower, be aligned in an elevation with the signs on Planning Board Minutes: November 5, 1984 2 adjoining buildings, and that more design sensitiviy be shown in the placement of the sign. 2 Burns Road, Jan and Eva Jonas: Variance, dimensional controls: SP: continue use: This case appears to involve contradictory evidence based on plans prepared by two surveyors. On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 4-0, with Mrs. Flemings abstaining, to recommend an instrument survey of the land be prepared before any decision is made by the Board of Appeals. If the instrument survey shows the deck is in violation of yard setback requirements, the date of the construction of the deck should be established. 81 Hancock Street, Jacquelyn Weinstock: Variance, front yard setback; SP, non- complying structure: The Board had no objection to the granting of a special permit for a non -complying garage. There did not appear to be grounds for a variance for an addition. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to vote against granting a variance from the front yard setback for the addition to the house because there appeared to be other space available within the side and rear yards in which an addition could be built without causing a front yard setback violatin. While the proposed addition may be more desirable architecturally, there does not appear to be a hardship which is created by the dimensional requirements of the Zoning By -Law. 153 North Street, Amalia Samoylenko: SP, congregate housing facility: Mr. Bowyer reported there had been a number of inquiries received from neighbors about this proposal with opposition developing about the density of the development. With the uncertainty about the wording of the congregate section of the Zoning By -Law, the Board asked that the Building Commissioner, with the assistance of Town Counsel, give the Town's interpretation of what the word "facility" in Section 9.2 means. DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 219. Hazel Road, CUS 84/2, Map 88, Lot 35: The Board reviewed a plan showing proposed improvements to Hazel Road and a staff report dated November 2, 1984. Mr. Sorensen commented that the 15.8% grade was nearly double what is permitted in a conventional subdivision. He is opposed to more development in a hazardous situation. Mrs. Smith questioned how many more lots could be developed after this one. It appears that at least one, possibly two additional lots could be developed. After extended discussion of safety issues, it was agreed to defer a decision until there is further evaluation by the Town Engineer about the proposal from a traffic and public safety perspective. It was noted that the Planning Boaid's policy on unaccepted streets does not now address the maximum length of a dead end street, the slope of a berm and the requirements for levelling strips. The staff should prepare recommendations on those items which should be reviewed by the Board for additions to the policy. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES 220. Guidelines for Approval Not Required Plans (Form A's): The Board reviewed "Fact Sheet on Form A's" dated October 23, 1984, prepared by Mrs. Smith. After discussion, on the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to adopt the fact sheet as a policy and that all future Approval Not Planning Board Minutes: November 5, 1984 3 Required Plans should have the notation "The above endorsement is not a determination by the Planning Board as to conformance to zoning regulations." ARTICLES FOR TOWN MEETINGS 221. Standards for Conversion of One -Family Dwellings: The Board reviewed an outline of eight categories of standards or procedures for the conversion of one - family to two-family dwellings. Mrs. Flemings commented that many of the standards or procedures were policy questions and that input should be received from the busing Needs Advisory Committee on the policy issues involved. It was agreed to defer the final decision on these standards and procedures until the Housing Needs Advisory Committee was involved. In a preliminary discussion, it was tentatively agreed that all conversions would require a special permit, that each dwelling unit would have a minimum floor area of at least 700 square feet, the dwelling to be converted must have existed as of January 1, 1983 and that enlargements or additions would be permitted if the character of a one -family dwelling is maintained. The issue of the minimum lot area was deferred until data on minimum lot area in relation to floor area of structures, contained in the 1983 report of the Accessory Apartments Committee, could be reviewed. Mrs. Uhrig thought the article would have a better chance of passage if it was close to the provisions approved for accessory apartments. Mrs. Smith thought this type of conversion might have more impact in the town than accessory apartments and that a special permit should be required; the presumption of acceptability for accessory apartments should not apply to the conversion of one - family dwelling into a two-family dwelling. 222. Pine Meadows Golf Course: Mrs. Smith explained several sketch plans prepared by landscape architect Gary Larson for the Selectmen's Advisory Committee on Pine Meadows Golf Course. One plan illustrated that a conventional subdivision might result in about 120 houses being constructed if the golf course is purchased by a developer. There were several other alternatives that showed that if the Town acquired the property, in the northeast section of the property land could be sold for the development of housing as a means of raising money, to defray some of the cost of acquiring the property without affecting the continued operation of the nine hole golf course. One of the plans which showed housing grouped into clusters reinforced the importance of having more flexible development regulations in the RS zoning district. The meeting was adjourned at 11:21 p.m. <_ fidith J. Uh ` , Clerk