HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-10PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1985
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was
called to order at 7:11 p.m. by the Chairman Mrs. Smith with members Cripps,
Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Four members of
the Junior Class of Lexington High School, Mssrs. Allen, Gaudet, Hagopian and
Sandy, who were designated as members of the Planning Board for Student Govern-
ment Day, were also present.
ARTICLES FOR 1985 TOWN MEETING
112. Article 21, RD, Woburn Street: Peter Kelley and Richard Perry of Woodhaven
Realty and Landscape Architect, Gary Larson were present to show a revised site
plan to the Board. Six residents of the area were also present.
Mr. Kelley stated there were 3 principal commitments: 1) the provision of afford-
able housing for 50% of the units, 2) a system to monitor the development so
those units remain affordable in the future and 3) granting a full conservation
easement to the Town over the wetlands. Mr. Larson showed how the interior drive
had been relocated away from the property lines and how a buffer strip with
screening and planting had been provided for along the side lot lines adjacent to
two abutting houses and along Woburn Street. On the suggestion of the Fire
Chief, steps leading to the buildings in the upper section of the site had been
replaced by ramps to make access easier for emergency vehicles.
In response to a question from Mrs. Flemings, Mr. Kelley said the developer would
make a legal committment through the site development and use plan to maintain
the unit for rental housing. Any change to another form of ownership would
require action of a subsequent Town Meeting.
Mr. Sorensen mentioned a 1980 hydrologic report that said no dwellings should be
located below elevation 200. Mr. Larson said no finished floor levels were below
elevation 200 and that would comply with the Zoning By -Law. There was some
construction, such as foundations, below elevation 200. He also noted that the
elevation 200 was an artificial target because the 100 year flood elevation was
well below that, around 195. In response to Mr. Sorensen's question about grad-
ing on this steep site, Mr. Larson said that all of the road and all of the
parking lot have slopes of less than 5%.
In an informal poll of the Board, Mrs. Smith said she had no reason not to sup-
port the proposal. Larson had done a good site analysis and the proposed design
treated a very difficult site well; the issues of screening of the neighborhood
and abutting property had been dealt with; there was much need of rental housing
and 50% of the housing units would be in the affordable category. Mrs. Uhrig
said her concern had been that the site plan conform with what the Planning Board
proposed in Article 11, Planned Residential Development. She understood that the
development technically was subject to last year's RD District requirements but
she did not feel comfortable in supporting a proposal that would conflict with
what the Planning Board was recommending. As it now appears that the site plan
will conform with Article 11, she is inclined to support the proposal.
Mr. Sorensen said it was a very difficult site which will require too much grad-
ing to develop; he is opposed. Mrs. Flemings was interested in the amount of
1
1
Minutes, April 10, 1985 page 2
affordable and rental housing. She thought the quality of the architecture
deserved a favorable comment; she is in favor.
Mr. Cripps abstained from the poll. He reported that there had been claims that
he had a conflict of interest because some time ago he had some small incidental
business dealings with Kelley. He had provided all the information on the situa-
tion to the Town Counsel who reviewed it and also checked with the State Ethics
Commission. Town Counsel had advised him there was no conflict of interest under
Massachusetts law and that he had every right to vote on the matter. Mr. Cripps
stated to avoid even an appearance of a conflict, he would refrain from voting on
the Planning Board's recommendation.
Mrs. Flemings made the point that the Planning Board was not making a determina-
tion of compliance with the Wetland Protection Act. That is the responsibility
of the Conservation Commission. While the Planning Board consults with the
Conservation Commission and has the benefit of their advise, the Planning Board
cannot make a wetlands determination. The Conservation Commission has a record
of thoroughness and protection of the interests of residents and of the Town and
she was confident the wetland issues would be addressed thoroughly.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
r/ Judith J. Ukfrig, Clerk