Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-01PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 1, 1985 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig, Planning Director Bowyer, and Assistant Planner Delori present. SUBDIVISION OF LAND: 97. Ridge Estates III, off East Emerson Road, Theodore Freeman; PUBLIC HEARING: At 7:10 p.m. the Chairman opened the public hearing on the application for a definitive subdivison plan and concurrently the application for a special permit for a conventional subdivision entitled Ridge Estates III. Representing the applicants were Theodore Freeman, Attorney Dennis Lowe and Carl Bowles of Hayes Engineering. Atorney Dennis Lowe said there would be six house lots constisting of five new lots and lot 37 from the 'Ridge Estates II Subdivision which would be redesignated as lot 1 of the Ridge Estates III Subdivision. All lots complied with the front- age, area and lot circle requirements. Mr. Bowles presented a plan showing an alternate road profile with a maximum grade of 10% If that was to the Board's satisfaction, a waiver would be reques- ted from the 8% maximum slope for a street. Mr. Freeman commented that while a plan for an 8% grade of the road had been submitted, they preferred a 10% slope. He said the land was highly treed and the 8% grade would devastate the land and the tree cover. He asked the Board to consider changing to a 10% slope. In response to a question from Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Bowles pointed out that the cut for the road varied from 6 feet to 14-17 feet. It would be somewhat less with a 10% slope. The Board was in receipt of a letter from Town Engineer Francis Fields to Health Director George Smith, dated March 29, 1985, which said that the plan met en- gineering specifications and that the drainage at the time seemed to be adequate. That will be reviewed further when drainage calculations are submitted. Mrs. Smith read into the record a letter dated March 29, 1985 from Stephen Colan- gelo of 172 East Emerson Road, the owner of lot 38 in the Ridge Estates II Subdi- vision which abuts the proposed subdivision. Colangelo said that he had examined the plan and found it to be inaccurate in that it shows a 25 foot slope easement running parallel to the northeast property line of lot 38. That slope easement does not exist. Mr. Freeman was granted a 3 foot easement for tree removal from lot 38. Colangelo's letter said that in recent days Mr. Freeman started excava- ting for the roadway and Colangelo considered that, in so doing, he was trespas- sing on lot 38 because the work was being done beyond the 3 foot tree removal easement. Mr. Bowyer showed the Board four photographs, which Colangelo had furnished, showing the construction of the road appears to have begun. Mrs. Flemings questioned whether construction was supposed to start before a subdivision had been approved or even before the public hearing on the proposed plan was held. Mr. Freeman answered that construction was really the grading of 1 1 1 Minutes, April 1, 1985 Page lot 38 in relation to the road so that the final landscaping of lot 38 could be done during the spring planting season. The hearing was declared closed at 7:26 p.m. Mr. Sorensen commented that the Board should have a discussion with the Engineer- ing Department about what the standard for the slope of a subdivision street should be. The Subdivision Rules and Regulations say 8% is the maximum grade but the Engineering Department occasionally refers to 10% grade as being acceptable. He thought that the Board should understand what the trade-offs between an 8% and a 10% would be as far as the impact on land and the removal of trees. Mr. Bowyer observed that there were other alternatives to slopes, such as retaining walls. Mrs. Smith asked that the staff check with position they had on the slope and that the ment is located and what it is for. ARTICLES FOR 1985 TOWN MEETING: the Engineering Department on what staff should clarify where the ease - 98. Article 11, Planned Residential Development:Mr. Bowyer reported that copies of a revised motion had been prepared and were distributed to each of the pre- cincts. It included two changes; one was in Table 1 on page 10 due to a word processing error in which the permitted uses had slid into the wrong columns. The other was additional language in 9.3.5, conversion of municipal buildings, to provide that if the conversion occurred within the existing envelope of the building, a majority vote of the Town Meeting to approve the conversion would be needed; and if there was an addition, outside the existing envelope, or a net increase in the floor area, then an RD zoning amendment would have to be approved by the Town Meeting. He said that there was an even further revision in a copy marked Town Clerk version, but that was limited to typographical errors only. Mr. Bowyer said that he had drafted 3 amendments, to hold in reserve, in antici- pation of amendments likely to be offered from the floor. That would provide correctly worded amendments and avoid technical drafting problems that might be created by Town Meeting Members. He recommended that the Board not promote these amendments but they be available to use if needed. Two of the "reserve" amend- ments deal with setting the density for RD development at 9 dwelling units per acre, and at 12 dwelling units per acre. The other is in response to a sugges- tion by Margaret Rawls that 8.4.2 be clarified. The amendment would provide that the SPGR may approve deviations from the plan approved by the Town Meeting which would allow building floor area to be 10% greater in the RD district but not more than the stated maximum floor area ratio in a CD district. The Board discussed a memorandum from Ephraim Weiss that suggested a number of technical corrections to Article 11. The Board decided not to change the pro- posed motion further because Mr. Weiss' suggestions either did not improve Article 11 as drafted or it was not clear what he intended. 99. Article 22, RD, Lowell Street: Mr. Bowyer reported he had received a call from Frederick DeAngelis saying that they proposed to table the article and wanted to discuss revisions with the Board. It was agreed that the Board would not support an RM zoning amendment even with changes, because the execution of the plan could not be guarantedd within the RM proceedure. The Board would • 1 Minutes, April 1, 1985 Page3 consider changes if the amendment were offered as an RD District, but the propo— nents would have to check first with the Moderator and the Town Counsel to see if an RD amendment were within the scope of the article.^ If the article can not be changed to RD, the Board would meet.with the proponents after the Town Meeting was over to talk about a proposal for next year. The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m. Judith J. ig, Clerk