Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-19PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 1984 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:46 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Uhrig, Planning Director Bowyer, Planning Department Secretary, Mrs. Salto, and special counsel Martin Healy present. Mr. Sorensen was absent. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 256. 191 Spring Street, Xerox Corporation: Definitive Plan, PUBLIC HEARING; Mrs. Smith opened the hearing on the application for a definitive subdivision plan at 7:46 p.m., by reading the notice of the hearing. She explained that the Board's procedure in this case would be to hear evidence as to whether the appli- cation for a definitive subdivision plan had been properly filed and to con-sider the definitive plan on its merits. Attorney Norman Richards, representing the Xerox Corporation, and Maurice Freed- man, of Sasaki Associates, were present. Mr. Freedman read from a 4 1/2 page letter responding, point -by -point, to fourteen items contained in Mr. Bowyer's letter of October 26, which was the basis for determining the material submitted on October 22 is not considered to be a completed application for a definitive plan. There was discussion between the Board and Mr. Freedman on a number of these points. ' Mrs. Smith commented that whether the requirements in the Planning Board's "Rules and Regulations" were archaic, as Mr. Freedman contended ". or not, the point was they are in effect. The applicant could have complied with them or could have responded at any time between October 27 and this time, but that the Board had heard nothing from the applicant. She inquired why they had waited until the last minute. There was considerable discussion about the problems associated with having part of the right-of-way of proposed Ginn Drive located in the City of Waltham with respect to the processing of the subdivision plan, including: the acceptance by the Town of the street, the provision of municipal services by both the Town of Lexington and the City of Waltham and the potential for additional develop- ment in Waltham if new frontage is cre4ed on the boundary line with that city. The hearing was declared closed at 8:46 p.m. The Board recessed at 8:47 p.m. and reconvened at 8:49 p.m. Attorney Martin Healy commented on the fourteen points contained in Mr. Freed- man's letter. The principal points that he made, and the appropriate numerical reference of Mr. Freedman's letter, are as follows: Procedures Not Followed 1. While Mr. Freedman is correct about the procedure identi- fied in Chapter 41, Section 81-0, Section 81-T requires the applicant to file a notice with the Town Clerk, which has not been done. Planning Board Minutes, December 19, 1984 2 2. The signature of all the owners is required and the signature of an attorney representing the applicant is insufficient. Requirements Not Fulfilled 4. Mr. Bowyer pointed out that the weight of the lines on Sheet 1 identify- ing the subdivision were the same as other lines on the plan. During the hearing, members of the Board had trouble distinguishing between the boundaries of the subdivision and the municipal boundary line between the City of Waltham and the Town of Lexington. 7, 8, 9, 10. Healy observed that the thrust of Freedman's letter, and his oral testimony, was that because proposed Ginn Drive was an existing road, the information usually provided for a new subdivision street was not necessary. Mrs. Uhrig and others noted that part of the turnaround was new, and part of it would be in Waltham, and there was little infor- matin on how that new section would be constructed. The proposed Ginn Drive was built about 15 years ago and the applicant has not provided any evidence as to the construction standards of the road when built, documentation as to how or when it was inspected by the Town, or any information as to its current condition. Mrs. Flemings noted that Mr. Freedman's contention that the construction cross-section did not need to be provided because it was spelled out in ' the Board's "Rules and Regulations" was not a practical approach. From her experience, it is hard enough to have contractors in the field refer to drawings, to comply with specificatins, and they certainly would not rely on a Planning Board publication. 12. Mr. Bowyer pointed out that at least three new trees are required for Lot 1 and none are shown. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted 4-0 that, after receiving the letter from Mr. Freedman and hearing evidence from the applicant, from staff and from special counsel, that the Board determines that the plan entitled "Proposed Subdivision Plan, Lexington, Mass.," dated October 19, 1984, by Sasaki Associates Inc., Watertown, Mass., Xerox Corporation applicant, Edmund R. Dawson, trustee and owner, is incomplete, the required procedure was not followed and a number of items required to be filed with the definitive plan were not included and that such plan is not entitled to be processed under the Subdi- vision Control Law, G.L.c 41. The Board reviewed a draft of a certificate of action. It was agreed to change the wording in Item 1 dealing with coordination with the City of Waltham, in Items 7 and it dealing with both the existing and proposed sections of Ginn Drive, and to delete Item 17 and renumber the remaining items. Mrs. Salto made the corrections and the Board was furnished with a corrected copy of the certifi- cate of action. On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted 4-0 that if a court should determine that the definitive subdivision plan was entitled to be Planning Board Minutes, December 19, 1984 3 processed, the plan is disapproved and to approve a certificate of action setting forth 17 reasons for that disapproval. The Board signed the certificate of action. It was agreed that the check provided by Mr. Freedman that evening would be returned and that $70.00 received in October and deposited in the Town's general fund would also be returned. The applicant will be responsible for paying for the legal notice in the newspaper. ARTICLES FOR 1985 TOWN MEETING 257. Planning Board Sponsored Articles: On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, sec- onded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 4-0 to submit six proposed amendments to the Zoning By -Law and to request that the Board of Selectmen reserve space in the warrant for them, as follows: Revision, Residential Development Provisions Specialized Amendments to Residential Development Provisions Conversion One Family Dwelling to Two Family Dwelling Floor Area Ratio, CM, CH Districts Liquor Stores, CB -CG Technical Corrections The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. udith J. UhfYg, Clerk