Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-04PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 4, 1985 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:47 p.m. by the Chairman Mrs. Smith, with members Flemings, Sorensen and Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mr. Cripps was absent. 53. EXECUTIVE SESSION On the motion of Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, after a poll of the Board, it was voted 4-0 to go into Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation against the Town which, if discussed in open session, may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town. At 7:51 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session. Following the Executive Session, the Board returned to open session at 8:05 p.m. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 54. Hampton Road, off Concord Avenue; a condition in Certificate of Action: William Smith was present to protest Condition 4, which was included in the Certificate of Action approved on February 11 that required the developer to grant to the Town and construct a footpath easement on Lot 5. Smith contended this requirement was too severe, that the easement did not connect to other Town - owned property and that it would adversely affect the market value of the lots. He said there were other means of access to the Town's conservation land nearby. He would be willing to grant an easement limited only to the residents of the subdivision. Mrs. Smith responded that type of easement has been included in at least three of the recently approved subdivisions and there was no evidence of any decrease in the market value of the lots. The Conservation Commission had an agreement with the prospective buyer of the abutting property (the John Sellar's property) to provide a footpath which would provide a connection from the Hampton subdivision lot to the Town conservation land. That buyer did not follow through but it can be assumed a similar arrangement will be worked out with the next buyer of the Sellar's property. The Town does not have a pedestrian access to the conserva- tion property and the easements to which Mr. Smith refers are sewer easements, not pedestrian easements. Mr. Sorensen did not believe the Town could accept an easement restricted only to the residents of the subdivision. As a practical matter, such a restriction is probably unenforceable. Mrs. Uhrig observed that the proposed easement is pri- marily for the benefit of the residents of the area and it is most unlikely that residents from the other parts of the Town would either be aware of or use this walking easement. The Board agreed that it would not change its decision. ARTICLES FOR THE 1985 TOWN MEETING 55. Article 18, CD, Concord Avenue: Nicholas Cannalonga and attorney Robert Factor were present to report that, in response to the public hearing, they decided to eliminate the first floor retail space and make the building entirely PLANNING BOARD MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF MARCH 4, 1985 After a unanimous vote of the four members present, by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session, in Room G-15, Town Offices, at 7:51 p.m. to discuss strategy with respect litigation which, if discussed in open session, may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town. Present were Chairman Smith and members Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer. Mr. Cripps was absent. Mr. Bowyer reported that William Smith had threatened to appeal the Certificate of Action on the Hamptons subdivision unless the Board removed condition #4 which called for the developer to grant to the Town a ten -foot wide easement along Lots 4 and 5 and build a pathway which would lead to conservation land nearby. He reported that he had discussed the potential appeal with Steven Anderson of Palmer and Dodge and he explained the choices as Mr. Anderson outlined them: 1. Do not revise the Certificate of Action and see if Boyd -Smith will really bring an appeal. They might not do so because of the time and cost involved. 2. Do not delete condition #4 at this time but be prepared to do so if an appeal is filed and the case is ready to go to trial. 3. Delete condition #4 now and avoid any possibility of an appeal. The Board agreed that it would not delete condition #4 now and see if Boyd -Smith does file an appeal which they will have to do by Wednesday, March 6. If an appeal is filed, the Board can re-evaluate the situation at that time. The Board took this action because it was consistent with its own practice in at least three other subdivisions and it was consistent with the policy as expressed in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Board thought there was some incon- sistency in the Boyd -Smith position because they would offer the easement if limited to residents of the subdivision only. The Executive Session was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. and the Board returned to open session. dith J. Uhri Clerk v [1 fl PLANNING BOARD MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF MARCH 4, 1985 After a unanimous vote of the four members present, by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session, in Room G-15, Town Offices, at 7:51 p.m. to discuss strategy with respect litigation which, if discussed in open session, may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town. Present were Chairman Smith and members Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer. Mr. Cripps was -absent. Mr. Bowyer reported that William Smith had threatened to appeal the Certificate of Action on the Hamptons subdivision unless the Board removed condition #4 which called for the developer to grant to the Town a ten -foot wide easement along Lots 4 and 5 and build a pathway which would lead to conservation land nearby. He reported that he had discussed the potential appeal with Steven Anderson of Palmer and Dodge and he explained the choices as Mr. Anderson outlined them: 1. Do not revise the Certificate of Action and see if Boyd -Smith will really bring an appeal. They might not do so because of the time and cost involved. 2. Do not delete condition #4 at this time but be prepared to do so if an appeal is filed and the case is ready to go to trial. 3. Delete condition #4 now and avoid any possibility of an appeal. The Board agreed that it would not delete condition $4 now and see if Boyd -Smith does file an appeal which they will have to do by Wednesday, March 6. If an appeal is filed, the Board can re-evaluate the situation at that time. The Board took this action because it was consistent with its own practice in at least three other subdivisions and it was consistent with the policy as expressed in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Board thought there was some incon- sistency in the Boyd -Smith position because they would offer the easement if limited to residents of the subdivision only. The Executive Session was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. and the Board returned to open session. Judith J. Uhrig, Clerk 1 1 Planning Board Minutes Meeting of March 4, 1985 The staff was requested to draft a negative recommendation. REPORTS 59. Planning Director 3 a. Assistant Planner: Mr. Bowyer reported that Assistant Planner Arlene Davidson has resigned that morning providing only two weeks notice. Her departure on March 18 will leave the department short-handed at its busiest time of the year. The meeting was adjourned at 10:56 p.m a udith J. rig, Clerk Planning Board Minutes 2 Meeting of March 4, 1985 offices. Mrs. Smith commented that the most important reading she had obtained from the public hearing was that the building needed to be scaled down. While several members understood Mr. Cannalonga's change, based on the negative reac- tion to retail space at the hearing, they regretted that so much of the commer- cial area in Town was being developed for office space. Several members of the Board advocated language in the site development and use plan to steer the development toward small offices serving residents of the Town or other small businesses. They are not in favor of general office space in which the whole building is taken by one regional or high tech -type company. That is not what the neighborhood business district is intended to be. Mrs. Uhrig expressed concern about the amount of area covered by parking. 56. Article 11, Planned Residential Development: The Board discussed what density to propose for the RD district at the public hearing on March 18. Mrs. Smith suggested a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre as that is the maximum permitted in the RM district now. Mr. Sorensen thought that no maximum density should be stated; that would make the RD procedure comparable to the commercial development procedure in which no predetermined standards are included in the Zoning By -Law. Mrs. Uhrig agreed. Mrs. Smith thought there should be some maximum base density to which the bonuses for increase in density, for inclusion- ary housing, could be applied. Mrs. Flemings thought that could be handled through the Inclusionary Housing Policy. It was finally agreed, among the four members present, to recommend no maximum density in the RD district. The Board continued its discussion of Section 9.3.2 relative to two means of access, for emergency vehicles, to dwelling units. Concern was expressed about the "rule beaters" and weird geometry that developers might create to get around the requirement. Members commented the usable open space provision was too complex and needed to be either simplified or deleted. Their should be a higher minimum lot area for a cluster development than for a conventional subdivision; 125,000 square feet was suggested. 57. Article'17, Health Hazards: It was agreed that the Board does not know enough about the various "containment levels" for RDNA research. It may be premature to.adopt this regulation while the Board of Health is close to adopting guidelines for this research. It was agreed that the Zoning By -Law should say where the research should be conducted with the Board of Health saying what levels and type of research should be conducted. The Planning Board will limit its comments to the zoning districts where the research should be permitted. The staff was requested to prepare a report accordingly. 58. Article 20, RD, Lowell Street, McNeill Associates: Mr. Sorensen inquired whether the plans had changed from what was shown to the Board earlier. The buildings appear larger and more institutional now than before. He pointed out that when the proceeds from the required endowment are included, the cost of the housing places it in the market rate category. Mrs. Smith said she was thinking about a negative recommendation because of the problems inherent in this long, thin lot. The development appears to be dense because of its proximity to the Mediplex Nursing Home. There is another question as to whether additional housing oriented to the elderly should be located between two existing large nursing homes. Mrs. Uhrig commented that the narrow- ness of the lot will result in minimal buffering against abutting properties. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1985 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Estabrook Hall, was called to order at 7:42 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps,'Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mrs. Flemings was absent. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 73. Farmhurst, Section 5, Off Bridge Street: PUBLIC HEARING: Chairman Smith opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. William Hamilton and Edward Hearns, engineer with Hayes Engineering, represented the applicants. The Planning Direc- tor reported that the plan had been reviewed by the staff of the Planning Depart- ment and of the Engineering Department and they were essentially satisfied with the technical features of the definitive site plan. Mr. Hamilton explained that lots 114 and 115C were to be retained by the owners and that the three retention areas on lots 19 2 and 115C were to be the subject of a conservation restriction granted to the Town. The owners will also place a maintenance restriction on the island in the turnaround. The Board and staff questioned leaving lots 114 and 115C, which are undersized, as separate lots within the subdivision. Potential problems of an absentee owner ' not maintaining those lots were identified. Questions were raised about the owner's future development intentions for those lots and whether they were to be combined with some other lots. Donna Hooper and Gerard Patrick, who are residents of the area, questioned the use of the small lots as presented on the plan. Mr. Patrick questioned the effect of the construction of an elevated subdivision road on surface water drainage from the west. The hearing was closed at 8:16 p.m., at which time the Board indicated it would discuss the subdivision further at a future business meeting. 74. Article 11, Planned Residential Development: PUBLIC HEARING: The Board conducted a public hearing, as required by Chapter 40A, on the proposed planned residential development amendment to the Zoning By -Law. The hearing began at 8:18 p.m. and was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. The Board recessed at 9:03 p.m. and moved to Room G-15, Town Offices, for the remainder of the meeting. The meeting was reconvened in Room G-15 at 9:16 p.m. SUBDIVISION OF 75. The Hamptons, Endorsement of Plan, Acceptance of Covenants With the expira- tion of 20 days without an appeal having been filed, and the receipt of a cove- nant, the Board endorsed the plan which was approved on February 11, 1985. On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 4-0 to accept the covenant from Boyd -Smith dated March 11, 1985. Planning Board Meeting: March 18, 1985 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES 76. Inclusionary Housing Policy: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted 4-0 to adopt the Inclusionary Housing Policy as set forth in the draft dated March 1, 1985, as corrected. ARTICLES FOR 1985 TOWN MEETING 77. Article 10, Technical Corrections; Article 14, Liquor Stores; Article 15, Parking Space Elevation; Article 16, Congregate Living: Mr. Cripps reported in preparing his presentation on Article 15, he had noted there are some areas in commercial districts that are below the 100 year flood elevation and do not appear on the HUD flood boundary map. A change in the proposed motion was sug- gested to add the words "or on any plan submitted with an application to the Town." It was agreed that change should be included. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 4-0 to make a favorable recommendation on Articles 10, 14 and 15, and a conditional favorable recommendation on Article 16. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted 4-0 to approve the reports on those articles as written or as corrected. 78. Article 12, Conversion of One Family Dwelling: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted 4-0 to recommend to the Town Meeting the amendment be adopted and to approve the report as corrected. 79. Article 17, Health Hazards: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted 4-0 to recommend to the Town Meeting that to the extent research or production in recombinant DNA is permitted, it should be limited to the CR, CM and CH districts, and to not make a recommendation on the containment levels for recombinant DNA research for which others, such as the Board of Health, are better equipped to advise, and to approve the report as written. 80. Article 18, CD, Concord Avenue: The draft report on this article was corrected. On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 3-1, with Mr. Sorensen opposed, to recommend to the Town Meeting that the amend- ment be approved and to approve the report as corrected. As Mrs. Flemings had previously said she was in favor of the rezoning, it was agreed that if she wanted to be recorded in favor of the amendment, that could be done at a subse- quent meeting. 81. Article 19, CD, 16 Hayden Avenue: Mrs. Uhrig disqualified herself from the discussion or action on this amendment. On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mrs. Smith, it was voted 3-0, with Mrs. Uhrig abstaining, to recommend to the Town Meeting the amendment be approved and to approve the report as written. 82. Article 20, RD, 188 Lowell Street: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 3-1, with Mr. Cripps opposed, to recommend against the proposed amendment because: the narrowness of the site makes transition to adjoining properties difficult, there is an undue concentration of housing for elderly persons in that neighborhood already, the proposal does not provide a high enough percentage of affordable housing in accordance with the Planning Board's long-standing policy, and to approve the report as written. Planning Board Meeting: March 18, 1985 3 83. Article 22, RM, Lowell Street: On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted 4-0 to recommend to Town Meeting that the amendment not be approved and to approve the report as written. REPORTS 84. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees a. HATS: Mrs. Uhrig reported that Raytheon has proposed a major develop- ment off Hartwell Road in Bedford. The HATS committee has asked that Ray- theon prepare an extensive traffic analysis showing the impact of the pro- posed development using a methodology comparable to that used by the Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Hanscom Area Traffic Study report issued in July, 1984. b. Meeting, March 21: It was agreed to meet Thursday morning at 7:30 a.m. to decide on a recommendation on Article 13, FAR, CM and CH districts. c. Ridge Estates III: The public hearing on the Ridge Estates III defini- tive subdivision plan will be held on April 1. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Judith J. rig, Clerk(/