HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-29PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF APRIL 299 1985
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was
called to order at 7:09 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps,
Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
115. Farmhurst, Section 5, off Bridge Street; Decision: Mr. Bowyer reported
that as a follow-up of the Board's meeting of April 3, 1985, lot 114C had been
joined with lot 1 and lot 115C was removed from the subdivision. On the motion
of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to approve
the definitive subdivision plan entitled, "Farmhurst, Section 5," subject to
certain special conditions set forth in the Certificate of Action and to approve
the Certificate of Action as written.
In the review of the draft of the decision on the special permit, the Board
agreed to revise the wording of paragraph 4, relative to the Town's responsibil-
ity for maintenance of islands in turnarounds, under the reasons for granting the
special permit. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was
voted unanimously to grant the special permit subject to certain conditions and
requirements as set forth in the decision, and to approve the decision, as amend-
ed.
' ARTICLES FOR 1985 TOWN MEETING
116. Article 21, RD, Woburn Street: On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by
Mrs. Flemings, it was voted 3-1, with Mr. Sorensen opposed and Mr. Cripps abs-
taining, to make a preliminary recommendation that the majority of the Board
would recommend the proposed amendment be approved if there are satisfactory
written commitments to the provision of affordable housing and to approve the
preliminary report, as written.
The Board reviewed the revised draft of the preliminary site development and use
plan dated April 24, 1985. Mr. Bowyer reported that the significant changes from
the earlier draft were: 1) the developer could take applications for the afford-
able housing units directly, provided LEXHAB certified those households were low
or moderate income, and 2) the time period for terminating the tenancy of an
over -income occupant of an affordable housing unit was set between 12 and 24
months, and the frequency of review was reduced from five years to three years.
Board members suggested that several features of this system of monitoring be
checked with that for the Muzzey development so that they are as similar as
possible. The Board urged that the preliminary site development and use plan be
reviewed by Town Counsel. When the participation by LEXHAB is approved by the
Board of Selectmen and LEXHAB and when the Town Counsel is satisfied with the
document, a time should be scheduled for the article to be presented to the Town
Meeting so that all interested parties may attend.
117. Article 16, Congregate Living: Ephraim Weiss was present to explain his
proposed motion under Article 16 dated April 22, 1985. His main interest is to
prevent congregate conversion from being used as a back door route to create an
apartment building. He thought his proposed motion captured what the Town Meet-
ing thought it had approved in 1979 when it created the old Section 9.2, Congere-
gate Living.
Planning Board Minutes: April 29, 1985 2
The Board reviewed its report, already issued, on Article 16 which said if
Article 11, Planned Residential Development, were approved, the objectives for
congregate living would have been met. The rest of the report on Article 16
dealt with what the Board would support if Article 11 was not approved. Mrs.
Uhrig said she understood Mr. Weiss would not proceed with Article 16 if Article
11 were approved. Mr. Weiss said that was not the case.
Mrs. Flemings commented that the Selectmen had appointed a committee on congre-
gate living and the proposed amendment should be worked out with them. The Board
of Health may need to be involved because of its role in rooming houses. She
thought the draft was too limiting if it was to serve the purpose of promoting
congregate living.
Mrs. Smith questioned whether the Town Meeting should do anything further on
congregate living now. She suggested that Mr. Weiss work with the Selectmen's
congregate living committee and with the Board of Appeals who has the power to
include certain provisions in their rules. She noted that several sections in
the proposed amendment are covered by the building code and other sections are
covered elsewhere in the Zoning By -Law. For the moment, Article 11 should be
sufficient. It is not likely that a conversion would be presented to the Board
of Appeals before a revision would be on the warrant for next year's town meeting
because since 1979, no petition for the conversion of an existing dwelling had
been presented.
' In a poll of the Board, Mr. Sorensen said he would support the motion. He
thought the question of the conversion of an existing dwelling to a congregate
living facility was still open and this amendment would clarify it. Mrs. Uhrig
and Mr. Cripps want to stay with the original report on Article 16. No addition-
al amendments to the conversion provision are needed and they will not support
the proposed amendment. Mrs. Flemings would prefer to wait until next year's
town meeting but would support the article. Mrs. Smith said that she did not
have a problem with the general concept but did have problems with the specific
language of this proposal as written. She noted there were problems with the old
Section 9.2 and the amendment as drafted appears to put some of those problems
back in the Zoning By -Law. She does not support the amendment. Thus, three
members of the Board do not support the amendment; two do.
118. Article 22, RM, Lowell Street: Frederick DeAngelis and Robert Cataldo were
present to inquire what changes would need to be made to obtain the Planning
Board's support. The Board did not have much opportunity to discuss this matter
as it was hurrying to adjourn to be on time for the start of the Town Meeting
session. Mrs. Smith commented that the Board would only support an RD develop-
ment and she understood the current RM petition could not be changed to an RD
petition this year. She said the Board would be pleased to discuss an RD devel-
opment with the applicants after this year's Town Meeting is over.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Judith J. 6rig, Clerk