Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-12PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1985 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, was called to order at 7:37 p.m, by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen, Uhrig, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski and Secretary Peters present. 176. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to accept, as written, the minutes of March 21, 25, 27, April 1, 3, 8, 10, 22, 29, May 1, 6, 8 and 13. 177. SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION FOR REGISTRY OF DEEDS The Board, Mr. Bowyer and Ms. Rawski signed the signature authorization letter for the Registry of Deeds. 178. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Mrs. Uhrig presented an oral review of the cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on August 22, 1985. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings seconded by Mr. ' Cripps it was voted unanimously to make no recommendations on the following three cases: 125 Hartwell Ave., Rolm Corp.; SP, Sign 12 Hartwell Ave., Leggat Co.; SP, Sign 35 Arcola Street, Robert Frazier; Variance, Front Yard 93 Hancock Street, Lexington Gardens; Amend SP, Sunday operation: Lexington Gardens feel that they should be allowed to operate on Sunday claiming they are entitled to come under the agricultural exemption per Chapter 40A, Section 3 of The Zoning Act. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Flemings it was voted unanimously to recommend against the application. 922 Waltham Street, Nicholas Cannalonga; SP, CD Site Plan: Ms. Rawski pointed out the differences in the plan approved at the 1985 Town Meeting and the plan sub- mitted with the application to the Board of Appeals. There were apparently technical changes made to the drainage plan. Roger Corbin, of BSC, explained that there had been a redirection of the drainage flow, and that the proposed lighting had been revised to reduce an over -designed illumination. On the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted 4-1 (Mr. Sorensen ab- stained) to recommend in favor of the application. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES 179. Meeting with Congregate Housing Committee: Co-chairmen William Hays and Sherry Edmonds with members William Sen and William Spencer, presented the re- sults of the Committee's work on congregate housing to the Board, and to ob- servers Eleanor Klauminzer and Joel Adler, of the Housing Needs Advisory Commit- tee. Minutes, August 12, 1985 page 2 Mrs. Flemings reported on the meetings and the activities of the Committee. Mr. Hays explained that the Committee had been created by action of the Selectmen to explore the possibilities of congregate housing in Lexington. The Committee first worked toward defining the need and developing physical and design require- ments, including investigating what the private sector might provide. The Selectmen were interested in what type of controls and regulations might be necessary and what services are provided in existing examples of congregate housing. The Committee met with developers and nutrition providers. Developers have found they can't sell congregate housing without private baths and some kind of kitchen facilities, i.e, a small apartment, when they are planning a large development (similar to a large apartment building). The Committee struggled with the prob- lem of keeping the congregate aspect viable as a part of a large development. They wondered if zoning could be used to accomplish this. They felt that conver- sions of existing buildings would not happen without public support as outlined in Part 4 of their draft report. They are also looking at Board of Health regu- lations re congregate housing. Mrs. Edmonds would like the Town to encourage a variety of congregate housing types. The following problems were identified: 1) affordability - high cost of elderly care, staffing/nursing, 2) scarcity of funding, and 3) services already provided to elderly, such as Meals on Wheels, which tend to postpone their acceptance of the congregate living concept. People living independently would rather stay as ' they are and have services added. The committee presented a draft report of their findings to the Board for study. Mrs. Smith commented that the need for independence sometimes outweighs the ability to care for oneself. She felt the Committee did well not only examining need, but looking at how people reacted to the concept of congregate housing. She added that the Planning Board would work with the Committee's recommendations relating to zoning, and that it must continue to be a joint effort. 180. Kiln Brook IV, Conditions in Special Permit: Appointment with Thomas Dupree: Mr. Dupree felt the proposal he discussed with the Planning Board includ- ing a general restriction in each lease he signs with his tenants provides the means to control traffic problems if they occur. He said his tenants react to traffic congestion by readjusting their schedules voluntarily. Mr. Sorensen commented that the roads in the area are saturated, and the Planning Board feels the alleviation of the traffic problems should be divided among all business in the area, hence the solution of roping off portions of parking lots if traffic problems warrant it. Mrs. Smith felt the Town must be able to protect the interests of the Town if the roads in the area become oversaturated by enforcing the restriction proposed by the Board, and can not depend on the promises of individual business to control the problem. She feels this is accomplished by the language the Board has pro- posed in their report on the Special Permit. The Planning Board will report to the Board of Appeals that Mr. Dupree and the Board can not agree. The Board is satisfied with the actions taken by Mr. Dupree in the Kiln Brook IV building to date. The current situation is workable, in Minutes, August 12, 1985 page 3 part, because the building is not fully occupied and other new buildings are also not fully occupied as well, reflecting a current oversupply in the suburban office market. A problem may occur when this, and other new buildings, are more fully occupied, further aggravating an already deteriorated traffic condition. The Board is not satisfied with Mr. Dupree's indefinite plans for dealing with the potential for excessive traffic during peak hours and does not believe the "voluntary" procedures he has sketched are acceptable. Mr. Dupree should submit a definite plan for insuring that excessive traffic movement during the peak traf- fic hours does not occur. That plan should be an agreed upon "back up" to his present controls. If all else fails, the Town should insist that the use of the parking spaces be physically restricted during peak hours and that condition should be included in the special permit. PLANS NOT REQUIRING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 181. Form A-85/12: 44 Adams Street, John Chiesa: Conservation Administrator Charles Wyman, presented a plan showing a division of the Chiesa land acquired at the Special Town Meeting in May. The Conservation Commission is buying 13.8 acres for the Town, Mr. Chiesa will be retaining roughly one and 3/4 acres. Frontage and acreage of the two parcels conform to the zoning requirements. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously: to endorse the plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass." by ASEC Corporation, dated July 1985 and revised August 6, 1985, , certified by Jeffrey B. Shorey, professional land surveyor, with application form A- 85/12 by John D. Chiesa, Jr. because it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. 182. Form A-85/13: Oak Street, Edwin West Mr. Wyman presented a plan showing the division of the West property into three parcels, two of which will be pur- chased by the Conservation Commission. All three lots conform to frontage and acreage requirements of the Zoning By -Law. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen sec- onded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously: to endorse the plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass." by ASEC Corporation, dated July 1985 and revised August 6, 1985, certified by Jeffrey B. Shorey, professional land surveyor, with application form A- 85/13 by Edwin West, because it does not require approval under the Subdivison Control Law. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 183. Graystone, off Pleasant Steeet; Acceptance of Covenant, Endorsement of Plan: Joel Roos explained there had been minor lot line changes that did not affect frontage or area. Mr. Sorensen cautioned against changes in a plan that the Board has already approved no matter how good the reasons. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen seconded by Mrs. Flemings, it was voted unanimously to amend the certificate of action, filed July 2, 1985, to refer to the latest revision date on the mylar originals. It was agreed the name of the subdivison street will be Dover Lane subject to the concurrence of the Fire, Police and Engineering Departments. Minutes, August 12, 1985 page 4 On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to accept the covenant, pending approval of the street name, review by Town Counsel and placing the revision dates on the mylar originals. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to endorse the plans. Mr. Bowyer will ensure that the street name is approved and added to the drawings, and the covenant corrected. The Town Engineer is not satisfied with the construction details for the retain- ing wall in the street right-of-way. He says a retaining wall should have a footing below the frost line which would require a four foot foundation under the wall. That is the Town's standard for retaining wall construction. The developer feels this is not necessary, and too expensive. Mr. Smith said they would have to substitue a slope for the retaining wall which will result in losing more trees. Board members did not like the idea of extensive slopes rather than the retaining walls on the approved plan. The staff will consult with Mr. Fields again re the need for a foundation that deep and what design was used for the wall built by the Town at North -Adams Street intersection. Mr. Fields will be invited to attend the meeting on September 9. 184. Hampton, off Concord Avenue: change to site plan: Mr. Bowyer reported that the same issue of retaining wall vs. slope occurred in the Hampton subdivision. There the developer proposes to use a retaining wall rather than the slope that was shown on the plan. The Board will discuss this with the Town Engineer on ' September 9 also. 185. Pheasant Brook, Kahn -Quinn; acceptance of surety, release of lots: Sidney Gorovitz, representing the developer, presented the surety and release of lot forms to be signed by the Board. The Board informed Mr. Gorovitz that the sign at the entrance of the subdivision was expressly disapproved by the Board in the Certificate of Action approving the subdivision and is not permitted by the Zoning By -Law. Mr. Gorovitz said the sign will be brought in to conformity with the Zoning By -Law. Mr. Bowyer noted that probably meant the sign had to be removed. Mr. Gorovitz said he understood and it would be taken care of. Mr. Gorovitz had no objection to language being included in the Release of Lots indicating certain lots were subject to further action by the Conservation Commission. On a motion by Mr. Sorensen seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously: 1) to accept as surety Merchants Co -Operative Bank passbook #60-064343 in the amount of $500,000, with assignment to the Town of Lexington, 2) to sign the Release of Lots Form releasing lots 1-67, with language about subsequent approval of certain lots by the Conservation Commission, and the missing book and page reference to be added, and 3) to instruct the staff to hold the Release of Lots document until: (a) Town Counsel is satisfied that the plan has been completely and cor- rectly recorded, and (b) the sign at the Maple Street entrance is brought into conformity with the Zoning By -Law. Change in Special Permit for site plan details: Lot 3 - Permission has been granted by the Conservation Commission to move and replace a wet meadow. Ms. Rawski feels that contours should be more Minutes, August 12, 1985 page 5 detailed in the area, since lots 2 and 4 are also affected. The developer will provide more detail and the Board will act on the changes later. Lot 66 - Construction is proposed about 20 feet beyond the limit -of -work line. The Conservation Commission has disapproved and the Board agreed to do likewise. Lot 67 - The edge of the house falls on the limit -of -work line, and would entail some grading beyond the line. The Conservation Commission has approved the changes. The Board will recommend moving the limit -of -work back 15 feet at one corner. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to approve the revision to Lot 67 with the limit -of -work boundary change. Mrs. Smith noted that the Board should not approve any lot disapproved by the Conservation Commission. 186. 188 Lowell Street: The Board approved the draft response to the letter from Erik Lund, re the use of an easement from Page Road to the property. The response calls for all documents referred to by Lund to be furnished to the Town Counsel who will advise the Board. It was agreed to include in the letter a suggestion to the developer that he may have to request an extension of the time limit so that the legal question of Page Road can be resolved. ' 187. Pelham Road: Roger Corbin informally presented a sketch plan of a subdivi- sion with a deadend street longer than 650 feet. There are also problems with providing sewer hook-up. The Board did not see how they could support the plan. REPORTS 188. Board of Appeals meeting of August 8, 1985: Mrs. Uhrig reported that the Board of Appeals granted all applications before them except that of Diane Jellis for a deck. They incorporated the recommendations submitted by the Board in the Special Permit granted to the Comeau/delicatessen. The Board of Appeals also added the restriction that no tables, benches or chairs be allowed. 189. Planning Director: Mr. Bowyer discussed the implications of the Federal Court -Needham -sign case which may require an amendment to the Zoning By -Law if Lexington wants to continue to prohibit political signs. The next meeting will be held on September 9, 1985. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. 1 , Clerk