Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-08PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 1986 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-1, Town Office Build- ing, was called to order by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Cripps, Soren- sen, Uhrig, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski and Secretary Peters present. 3. Approval of Minutes: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted 3-0-1 to approve the minutes of December 16, 1985 as corrected. (Mrs. Smith abstained because she had not attended the meeting of December 16). ********************ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW 4. Form A/85-21, 191 Spring St., Lowell R. Fox: The Board reviewed a plan which appeared to create a lot with no frontage. On the motion Mr. Sorensen seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to not endorse the plan. 5. Form A/86-1, Hancock Street, Ravens. H. Robinson: The Board reviewed a plan which creates 3 lots having more than the required frontage and acreage for the RS district. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously: ' to endorse the plan entitled Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass., dated December 1985, by Barnes Engineering Company, Inc., certified by Joseph A. Bodio, Registered Land Surveyor, with application form A/86-1 by Ravena H. Robinson, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 6. Lincoln Hills, Reduction of Surety: On the motion of Mr. Cripps, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to approve the request of Jeffrey Pechet for reduction of surety to $1800, 15% of the original amount of surety required for the subdivision. 7. Pheasant Brook, Request for Waiver of Construction Standards for Stone Walls: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted unanimously not to grant the waiver requested in a letter dated December 2, 1985 from Sidney Gorovitz. The Board approved a letter dated January 8, 1986, in response, with the report from the Town Engineer attached. 8. Hamilton subdivision, off Lincoln Street: William Hamilton presented a sketch plan for a three lot subdivision off Lincoln Street, to be called Lincoln Park Estates. He is requesting waivers from: 1. Installation of the fire alarm box. 2. Installation of the sidewalk 3. Change in right of way width from 50' to 40'. 4. Change in road grade from 8% to 9.5% as shown on plan. 5. Install bituminous concrete curb beyond initial radius from Lincoln Street, including granite at all catch basins. Minutes for January 8, 1986 Page 2 His plan showed the road graded at 8% and 9 1/2%. He maintained that there would be less cut and disturbance to the land at the 9 1/2% road slope. He noted that it would be a south facing road. The Board questioned the lack of a leveling area where the road joins Lincoln Street. He pointed out that the proposed slope there is less than 6%, so he is not required to have any level area. The Board would still like to see what one would look like. He noted that there is a clear sight line 400 feet in either direction from the intersection of the proposed subdivision road with Lincoln Street. He argued that the proposed 40 right of way would save trees and be more appropriate for a three lot subdivision. He will build an oversized drainage system to accomodate any excessive drainage that might come from the Jean Road area via the Vine Brook drainage system. In response to a question from Mrs. Smith he said he would prefer to put the sidewalk on the right side of the road, on the same side as the homes. He added that putting the sidewalk on the left side, up against the wall where there is a cut in the roadway would present problems in the winter. Mr. Cripps spoke in favor of granting the waiver for construction of the sidewalk. Mrs. Smith asked Ms. Rawski for her thoughts. She replied that she had walked the site with Mr. Hamilton. She favors waiving the 8% slope limit for the road because the 9 1/2% slope would require less blasting, walls and would respect the site more. 9. APPLICATONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS ' Mrs. Uhrig gave an oral report on the two applications to be heard on January 9, 1986 by the Board of Appeals. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted to make no comment on the following two cases. 17 Carriage Drive, Harriett and David Korff: SP, continued use of a residence 5 Forbes Road, Unitrode Corporation: SP, to operate a cafeteria Mrs. Smith commented that the cafeteria will help to reduce traffic in the area and to Lexington Center. BIDC application for a Comprehensive Permit: Letter to Board of Appeals: Mr. Bowyer reported he and and Ms. Rawski felt the BIDC submission for a comprehen- sive permit was incomplete, and did not meet the requirements of a definitive plan that would be required by an applicant for a special permit wtih site plan review. They felt that in the adoption of Chapter 40B, sec. 20-23, the Legisla- ture intended to permit the overide of those requirements of local zoning that inhibited the construction of low- and moderate -income housing, but that it should not extend to the procedural requirements about the type of information submitted. BIDC should be required to submit detailed information on parking lot layouts and proposed drainage calculations. There is also a question of whether they need to file with the Conservation Commission, since the Comprehensive Permit process may not be able to override the state wetland protection regulations. Mr. Bowyer has also talked with Town Counsel about the need for some three-way agreement between the Board of Appeals, the Planning Board and the applicant that the hearing will be continued beyond that scheduled for January 23. Otherwise the Planning Board will have to prepare their recommendations before all the Minutes for January 8, 1986 Page 3 material is before them. The Board reviewed a draft letter outlining these points, with an appendix, prepared by Ms. Rawski, outlining how the application is incomplete. It was agreed to send the letter and add a request for a res- ponse from the Board of Appeals on this approach. ******************* ARTICLES FOR THE 1986 TOWN MEETING ************************ 10. Recommendation to Selectmen on Streets for Acceptance, Jean Road, Maple Tree Lane, Pearl Street, Tavern Lane and Hayes Lane: The Board had received notificaton from the Board of Selectmen of hearings on streets to be accepted. The Board will recommend Maple Tree Land and Pearl Street for acceptance; the other three, Jean Road, Tavern Land and Hayes Lane should be built to Town stand- ards before acceptance. The Board did not believe these three were high priority streets and asked the staff to review the Engineering Department's report to identify higher priority streets that met the criteria approved by the Select- men. 11. Hearing dates for warrant articles: The Board indicated dates they would be available for hearings. It was agreed to pair the two RD and two CD rezoning petitions on separate evenings. The hearing for the Planning Board articles will be held on Monday, February 24. The staff will prepare a hearing schedule. 12. Planning Board Articles: The staff will send the most recent drafts of Articles AA, BB, and CC to the Board. Mr. Sorensen pointed out some corrections ' that need to be made in Articles GG and HH. Mr Bowyer discussed a using a sim- plified, more easily understood motion for advertising in the paper and in the warrant; and presenting the detailing wording of the motion to the Town Clerk. He has cleared this process with Town Counsel. Article FF, Minimum Lot Area: Mrs. Smith questioned the amount of support there would be at Town Meeting for a zoning change of this nature. She had no problem having this as a study item, but felt it would be a dangerous move without some indication from the Town that there is a need for this. She suggested Mr. Soren- sen research the effect of such a residential lot size reduction on the amount of additional building lots that would be created. Mr. Sorensen felt the zoning change would encourage housing diversity. Mrs. Smith did not agree. Mrs. Uhrig noted that her concerns are largely political and felt that this was not the year to do it. It was agreed by poll of the Board to withdraw the article, and study the rezoning proposal for a year. The meeting adjourned at 10:33 fl Z le Ste hen Cripps, Clerk