The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-03-31PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 31, 1986 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Office Bulding, was called to order at 7:03 P.M., by the Chairman Mrs. Uhrig, with members Cripps, Klauminzer, Sorensen, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer and Assist- ant Planner Rawski present. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 1986 TOWN MEETING ****************** 91. Article 4: Mrs. Uhrig asked what position the Board wanted to take on the amendment to be proposed by Precinct 3 Town Meeting Members that the Planning Board Personal Services account be increased by $10,000. It was agreed the Board would not support the amendment for the same reasons agreed to at the January 27, 1986 meeting. While additional professional help would be welcomed, the Board has difficulty justifying an increase: 1) until it is able to evaluate at least one year with three full-time staff people, and 2) other departments such as engineering and conservation have similar work load problems. 92. Article 26, Photogrammetric Maps: Mrs. Uhrig reported that the Board of Selectmen by a 2-3 vote has decided not to seek an appropriation for the photo- grammetric maps and will presumably move indefinite postponement. She had a conservation with Chairman Joyce Miller of the Conservation Commission about whether both boards should collaborate on a substitute motion to seek the approp- riation. In an informal poll of the Board it was agreed unanimously that the Board would work for the appropriation for the photogrammetric maps. 93. Distribution of Housing Element: The Board discussed distributing the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan to Town Meeting Members. It was agreed that several methods of obtaining feedback would be desirable. One would be a one -sheet response form which could be handed in during the town meeting season. Another was to schedule a public meeting on a Monday night within several weeks after the close of the Town Meeting. Mrs. Klauminzer suggested an explanatory sheet be prepared describing how the document was drafted, the fact that it was a draft which has not been finalized until input is received from Town Meeting Members and others, and the differences among policies, proposals and items for study. Mr. Bowyer will prepare a draft of these handouts to be reviewed by the Board at the Monday April 7th meeting. 94. Articles 40-46, Information Meeting: It was agreed that the Board would hold an information meeting on the Panning Board sponsored articles on Wednes- day, April 9, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in Estabrook Hall. The Board will provide explanations and interpretations of the proposed amendments and encourage anyone proposing an amendment to the Planning Board article to make that known, and discuss it with the Board. Commenting on the difficulty of getting people to come to additional meetings during the Town Meeting season, Mr. Sorensen proposed that there be a "suggestion box" at the back of Cary Hall so that Town Meeting members could indicate questions or problems they have with the various articles. 95. Article 48, Middlesex Mall: It was agreed to ask Town Meeting to schedule a specific time for consideration of Article 48 so that residents and the developer Minutes of March 31, 1986 Page 2 can know in advance when the article will be considered. Monday, April 14, 1986 was agreed upon subject to confirmation by Mr. Bowyer with the applicant. *************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *********** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 96. Mason's Hollow, Determination of Number of Dwelling Units: Mr. Bowyer reported that he had discussed the interpretation of Section 9.2.9 of the Zoning By -Law with Town Counsel, who thought that in this location, which is in a his- toric district, the fact that an historic house could not be demolished without the permission of the Historic Districts Commission needed to be taken into account. If the land were elsewhere in Town, outside of a historic district, the location of the dwelling relative to lots shown on the "proof plan", could be ignored on the assumption that the dwelling could be moved or demolished. Based on that understanding, the staff analysis showed that the "proof plan" dated 14 February 1986 had six qualifying lots, the "proof plan" dated 21 January 1986 had no qualifying lots because the Webber house is located across the right-of- way, and the "proof plan" dated 20 February 1986 had five qualifying lots. Mark Moore was present and argued that the presence of the house was not a con- sideration because the "proof plans" are test plans which will not be built but are a method to determine the maximum number of lots. Mrs. Uhrig responded that the presence of a building that could not be removed had to be factored into the ' preparation of a "proof plan" and had to comply with the yard setback require- ments. Mr. Cripps inquired whether Town Counsel had made a final determination on that point. He suggested the Board defer its determination until it obtains a definitive ruling from Town Counsel. Mr. Moore presented a fourth "proof plan" which had been prepared that day. The Board did not comment on the fourth plan because it was being presented for the first time and had not been checked by the staff. David Williams, a Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member and an area resident of the development, argued that a "proof plan" had to take into account known facts such as the presence of a wetland or a structure. He did not see the "proof plan" as an abstract exercise that would allow a road to be shown passing through a wet- land or through an existing structure. He understood that when Article 11 was presented to the 1985 Town Meeting that the proof plans would apply only to vacant land and would not consider land on which structures were located. Mr. Bowyer commented that the "proof plan" is only the first stage in determining the number of dwelling units in a planned residential development. There are other sections of the Zoning By -Law that have an important bearing on the density of development. One is Section 9.4.4b that authorizes the Planning Board to require that the density be less that that shown on the definitive site develop- ment plan if it determines that the qualitive design criteria in Section 9.4.8 require that. While the "proof plan" may determine the maximum density, it does not simultaneously determine the minimum density. The actual density may be less depending on the characteristics of the site and the design. Mr. Williams thought that "proof plans" should be limited to vacant land and not to compilations of lots with houses already on them; he did not believe that was 1 1 1 Minutes of March 31, 1986 Page 3 what Town Meeting understood when Article 11 passed in 1985; and if this inter- pretation were allowed to stand, there would have to be a clarifying amendment to these zoning regulations that Town Meeting could vote on. ******************************* REPORTS ******************************* 97. Planning Director: a. 10 Muzzey Street, Conversion of Mews: Mr. Bowyer reported that a build- ing permit had been issued for the conversion of Theater 3 in the Mews complex in Lexington center to be an extension of the Bellecour Restaraunt and for an addition on the second floor of about 400 square feet. Under Section 11.1.3, the substitution of uses section of the Zoning By -Law, the parking demand for the new uses will be eight spaces less than the parking demand for the theater. The Building Commissioner, the Town Counsel and the Town Manager have all reviewed the situation and determined that the build- ing permit should be issued. Although the mathematical calculations indicate compliance with the By -Law, the practical effect may not be favorable. All of the parking demand for the theater is in the evening and the restaurant and office space will have daytime parking demand; but the By -Law makes no distinction as to time of day. The fairly liberal substitution provision, even where there is little or no off-street parking provided, was included in the By -Law to counter the criticism that the new off-street parking regulations would create a static freeze or cap on all change in Lexington center. Mr. Sorensen pointed out that the theoretical parking demand with eight fewer spaces should apply to the next substitution of use. The owner should not be permitted to obtain a credit of eight spaces to expand the building. The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 P.M. Martha Wood Clerk