Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-07PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1985 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:42 p.m., by the Chairman Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen and Uhrig, and Planning Director Bowyer present. DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREET 1. Evergreen Lane: CUS 85/1, Map 20 lot 7: The Board reviewed a plan showing proposed improvements to Evergreen Lane and a staff report dated January 4, 1985, which showed that the existing situation and proposed improvements would comply with the Planning Board's policy. The Town Engineer and the staff recommend that a one and one-half inch surface course of paving be placed over the existing pavement and that several small sections of roadway be widened to provide a uni- form width of 24 feet. The applicant has agreed to these changes and will supply the Board with an updated plan. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously that: 1. In the opinion of the Planning Board, Evergreen lane, insofar as it pro- vides frontage for Lot 9 as shown on Map 20 is not now of adequate grade and construction. If the improvements identified on "Plan and Profile of Evergreen lane" dated October 6, 1984, prepared by Miller and Nylander Company and bearing the stamp of Francis D. DiPietro, Regis- tered Professional Engineer, as revised by a sketch prepared by Arlene ' Davidson, Assistant Planner, to be shown in an updated plan, are made and a written certification by DiPietro is submitted, that the improve- ments, as shown on the revised plan, have been completed, then Evergreen Lane will be considered to be of adequate grade and construction. 2. The section of Evergreen Lane shall be considered to be of adequate grade and construction for a period of two years only from the time of Mr. DiPietro's written certification that the improvements have been made in conformity with the updated plan. 3. It is not desirable to have road construction occurring during the winter months and the Planning Board would not object to the Building Commissioner issuing a building permit for the construction of a dwell- ing prior to the construction of the road improvements provided no certificate of occupancy is issued until the improvements have been made and Mr. DiPietro's written certification has been received. 4. This opinion is limited to the grade and construction of the street only and should not be interpreted as implying that the lot under considera- tion meets other tests of the Zoning By-law to qualify it as a building lot. 2. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Mrs. Uhrig provided an oral review of the cases to be heard on January 10 and January 24, 1985. After discussion of each of the cases and agreement on a Planning Board Minutes: January 7, 1985 2 Planning Board position, on the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to make the following recommendations to the Board of Appeals: Hearings of January 10, 1985 70 Westview Street, Dupree Associates: Plan to Control Traffic: The Board does not believe that the information submitted by Dupree Associates is a specific or definite plan for limiting the effect of the development on peak hour traffic. Having the potential restricted time period start at 4:00 p.m. falls outside of the evening peak hour, which is estimated to fall between 4:15 and 5:45 p.m. 52 Lowell Street, Rosins, Buss: SP, roadside stand: The Board understands that there have been problems at this location in the past with repairing automobiles on the site. The Board is not opposed to granting the special permit requested for the roadside stand and the sale of Christmas trees provided no other non-residential uses are permitted on the site and the time period is limited to one year in order to monitor activities at the site. 41 Preston Road, Sydney Alpert: SP, non -complying building: The Board does not believe the mortgage survey type of plan submitted should be accepted in a case dealing with yard setback because that type of survey has proven to be inaccurate in the past. The application should be deferred until a plan based on an instrument survey and tied to concrete or stone bounds and proper reference points is submitted. Hearings of January 24, 1985 Myrna Road, John Gilbert: Variance, frontage: It is important to establish when this lot was created. If the lot was created at a time that permits it to qualify for the frontage exemption allowed in Section 7.4.1a, then, conceivably, no petition for a variance needs to be submitted and the owner could apply directly for a building permit. If the lot does not qualify for the frontage exemption, which is a very liberal provision that the Lexington Zoning By -Law has, a variance should not be granted. One purpose of a frontage requirement is to control density. It should be noted that while the nominal frontage measured on the arc of the intersection is 94.25 feet, the "actual" frontage, as measured in the passageway from the rear of the lot to the street, is only 27 feet. 4 Spencer Street, John Flaherty: SP, non -complying building: The Board does not believe the mortgage survey type of plan submitted should be accepted in a case dealing with yard setback because that type of survey has proven to be inaccurate in the past. The application should be deferred until a plan based on an instrument survey and tied to concrete or stone bounds and proper reference points is submitted. Planning Board Minutes: January 7, 1985 3 915 Waltham Street, Texaco: SP, canopy: The Board is unclear why a special permit is needed. The applicant does need a variance for a minimum front yard of 2.5 feet rather than the 30 feet required in the CN district. On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously to make no recommendation on the following case: 443 Lincoln Street, Albert Piantadosi: Extension of Variance, parking of motor vehicles. 225 Waltham Street, Mark Moore: SP, convert to two family: A delegation of neighbors from Waltham Street and Mr. Moore were present and the Board was in receipt of a letter from Sarah Hale, 209 Waltham Street, protesting the potential for two two-family structures in a one -family neighborhood and the inclusion of a business in a residential neighborhood. Frank Mongiello, 242 Waltham Street, urged the Planning Board to either recommend against the conversion or rezone that whole section of Waltham Street to a two family residence district. Mrs. Smith and Mr. Bowyer responded that the only item presently before the Town was an application for the special permit to convert the large 4,000 square foot plus dwelling. The application meets the standards set forth in the Zoning By - Law. The conversion of the former barn structure to a two family house is not permitted because only a dwelling, not an accessory structure, can be converted to a two family. Mrs. Smith pointed out the most important forum for the concern of the neighbors was the Board of Appeals hearing on January 10. ' SUBDIVISION OF LAND 3. Maple Tree Village, Reduction of Surety: The Board was in receipt of a memorandum from Francis X. Fields, dated December 28, 1984, recommending that $4,700 be retained to cover the cost of construction to complete the subdivision. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously to reduce the amount of surety required to be held on the Maple Tree Subdivision from $13,000 to $4,700. ARTICLES FOR 1985 TOWN MEETING 4. Zoning Related Articles: Mr. Bowyer outlined a list of 14 zoning articles that have been submitted to the Board of Selectmen. Six of those are sponsored by the Planning Board and eight are citizen articles. The Board noted that one of the citizen articles had been submitted by Manfred Friedmann, former Planning Board Chairman, who died the previous Thursday. It was agreed the Planning Board would present the article if no one else comes forward to do so. The staff was asked to prepare its schedule of public hearings for all the zoning articles. 1 Planning Board Minutes: January 7, 1985 4 5. Planning Board Articles a. Article "A", Technical Corrections: The Board reviewed a draft of the technical corrections article and agreed to delete a., revision of the Zoning Map, and h., width of signs. Mr. Bowyer was asked to discuss d., dealing with special permits with site plan review (SPS) with Town Counsel. The other sections of the article are acceptable. b. Article "D", Conversion, One -Family to Two -Family: The Board reviewed a draft of the article and made an editorial change in Section 5.3.1. With that change, it was agreed the article was ready to be placed on the warrant. c. Article "E", Floor Area Ratio, CM, CH Districts: The Board approved the draft as written and it is ready to be placed on the warrant. d. Article "B", Residential Development Provisions: Mr. Sorensen advocated that the Planning Board not proceed with this article for the 1985 Town Meeting. It is a very complex article that takes a great deal of time to be prepared properly and to conduct the educational program necessary to secure adoption at the Town Meeting. The Board is just now starting on the review of the draft which has not yet been completed. The Board acknowledged the risks that Mr. Sorensen articulated but agreed to continue the preparation of the article for now. After holding one or more public hearings, the Board may decide to defer presentation of the proposal until another year. The Board reviewed Sections 9.1 through 9.3 of the proposed. The Board noted the absence of any regulation on the minimum distance between buildings. Mr. Bowyer will talk with the Building Commissioner to see how well the state building code deals with that issue from a fire safety point of view. It was agreed to use the special permit procedure to allow a reduction in the side and rear yard setback for properties adjoining publicly owned land instead of permitting it, by right, in Sectin 9.2.4b. There were some reservations about Section 9.3.3 Non -Residential Uses in a residential development. REPORTS 6. Annual Report The Board reviewed the draft of the annual report for 1984. Some were made. Mrs. Flemings suggested a section be added reporting the Housing Needs Advisory Committee and listing the membership. report was approved as corrected. 7. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees editing changes n the work of The annual a. Pine Meadows Golf Course: Mrs. Smith reported there had been a meeting of the Committee during the previous week but there were no significant developments to report. Planning Board Minutes: January 7, 1985 5 b. Lexington 2000: Mrs. Smith distributed copies of a letter from William Page which included memoranda and other material from 1983 and 1984 describ- ing Lexington 2000. The Board thought that, other than a general statement as to the desirability of "strategic" plannng, there was not much indication as to what specific work tasks would be done or how the Lexington 2000 pro- cess would be different than the comprehensive plan process for which the Planning Board has responsibility. c. Karsten Sorensen, Potential Conflict of Interest: Mr. Sorensen distrib- uted a memorandum dated January 6, 1985, dealing with a potential conflict of interest. He had subsequently discussed the situation with Norman Cohen, Town Counsel, who thought the situation was not a conflict of interest if the facts were made known to the Planning Board and the Board thought there was not a problem. Mr. Sorensen's memo sets forth the facts of the situation. By a poll of the Board, Mr. Cripps, Mrs. Flemings and Mrs. Smith thought that the situation was not a conflict of interest. Mrs. Uhrig abstained from the poll as she does on all matters relating to the petition of Temple, Barker and Sloane who is her employer. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Judith J. Uhr�Clerk c% LI