Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-221 1 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 1986 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in room G-15 and in the Select- men's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski and Secretary Peters present. Mr. Cripps was absent. ************************* 1986 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING *************************** 115. Annual Housing Report: The Board reviewed a draft of the Annual Housing Report. They will phone any comments they have to the staff during the week, with the objective of approving the final draft at their meeting on April 28, 1986. ******************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *********** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 116. 188 Lowell St., McNeil Associates: In a letter dated April 18, 1986, the applicants have requested an extension of time for action by the Board on their Preliminary Subdivision application for 188 Lowell Street. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously (4-0) to grant an extension of time until May 31, 1986 for action by the Board. 117. Mason's Hollow, Mark Moore: In a letter dated April 17, 1986, the appli- cant has requested an extension of time for action by the Board on the Definitive Subdivision application for 1303 Massachusetts Ave. until June 26, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Martha Wood, it was voted unanimously (4-0) to grant an extension of time until June 26, 1986 for action by the Board. 118. Birchknoll Subdivision, Lowell Street, Lexington/Woburn, Birchknoll Realty Trust: Ms. Rawski reported no preliminary site analysis work has been done. There is wetland, but no application to the Conservation Commission for a Deter- mination of Applicability to ascertain the extent and/or presence of wetlands on the site has been made. The Board felt that since most of the development is in Woburn, and it appears the applicant intends to bring in sewer and water service from Woburn by extending the existing service from Grant Street (in Woburn), the road should become an extension of Grant Street. The Board recommended the applicant take steps to acquire a legal right of access across the contiguous property of Gould or Kingston Homes, which separate the proposed subdivision road from Grant Street in Woburn. Should the applicant be unable to acquire an access easement, they recommended that the City of Woburn take the property by eminent domain, and the applicant should agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Woburn for all incurred costs arising from this transaction. Ms. Rawski pointed out the road layout is in violation of Section 6.5.2 of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations which prohibits centerline offsets of less than 125 feet. The centerline offset of the proposed road with Thoreau Road is 85 ft. Minutes for April 22, 1986 Page 2 On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously: to disapprove the Preliminary Plan for the Subdivision of Land in Lexington and Woburn by Birchknoll Realty Trust, filed with the Board on February 26, 1986, because the proposed road can not maintain a centerline offset of at least 125 feet with Thoreau Road. 119. Sunset Ridge, Sunset Ridge Realty Trust; continued hearing on application for subdivision approval: Ms. Rawski reported that as far as the staff knew th drainage plans have been corrected to the satisfaction of the Conservation Com- mission and the Engineering Department. She added that the subject of waivers had generated the most questions from concerned citizens and the waiver request causing the most concern was the one requesting the pavement not be centered in the right-of-way. Mrs. Uhrig declared the meeting recessed at 7:58 p.m. to reconvene in the Select- men's Meeting Room for the public hearing, continued from March 24, 1986, on the application for approval of the Sunset Ridge subdivision. PUBLIC HEARING: Sunset Ridge subdivision, Buckman Drive (continued): At 8:03 p.m. Mrs. Uhrig declared the public hearing reconvened for review of revised drainage plans and other questions the Board or the audience may have. She added the hearing would follow the same procedure outlined at the beginning of the hearing on March 24, 1986. After introductory comments by Mr. Steinkrauss, Richard Galehouse outlined three changes to the plans: 1) the change in the drainage system to an "inpipe" detention system, 2) the addition of a sidewalk and 3) an additional easement/restriction to be granted to the Conservation Commission along the stone wall bordering Daisy Wilson Meadows. He added there had been additional discussion with the Conservation Commission on the question of whether blasting would increase ground water run-off onto the land of the abuttors. Their engineer and consultant said the use of small charges would prevent this. Francis Di Pietro, civil engineer, summarized the waivers requested from the Planning Board's Subdivision Rules and Regulations, as listed in their letter to the Board dated April 7, 1986. Mrs. Uhrig asked Ms. Rawski if allowing a centerline radius of 112' instead of the 125' required by the Regulations, presented any problems. She replied it did not, given the small size of the development and the design speed of the road in that location. In response to a questions from Mrs. Uhrig and Mrs. Wood, asking how close the proposed road will be to the back lot line of the houses on Buckman Drive, Mr. Galehouse replied by showing distances from the rear of the homes and from lot lines to the road, adding the minimum distance between the lot lines and the proposed road is six feet. They are planning to use snow fences during construction to prevent intrusions. Concerns about closeness of the road to abutting properties and the applicant's request for a waiver permitting the roadway pavement to be not centered in the proposed street right-of-way were expressed by Robert Snuggs, 54 Buckman Drive, John and Elizabeth Mc Neff, 58 Buckman Drive, and Deena Mazer, 70 Buckman Drive. Minutes for April 22, 1986 Page 3 Concerns about blasting procedures and potential blasting hazards were expressed by Elizabeth Mc Neff, 58 Buckman Drive, John Brennan, 73 Buckman Drive and Frank Stille, 5 Hawthorne Road. Jay Lucker, 53 Buckman Drive, noted Buckman Drive was already deteriorating, and asked if the Town would be responsible for further damage caused by big trucks hauling away debris resulting from the construction of the new road. Maryann Jule, 69 Buckman Drive, expressed concerns about waivers requested for the reverse curves and the hammerhead turn-arounds, and asked if fire trucks could turn around in them. She also asked how much longer the Board will accept letters and comments. Mr. Sorensen replied fire trucks could turn around in a hammerhead cul-de-sac, and the Board would be making a decision on April 28, 1986. She suggested the developer purchase insurance to cover potential damage to abuttor's properties. Douglas Holmes, 4 John Wilson Lane, suggested the 8% limit on grades be waived in the interest of lessening excessive grading. Allan Sherman, 52 Buckman Drive, felt the proposed development would change the character of the neighborhood, citing the deep cuts, and closeness of the road. David Sherman questioned esti- mates of time required to accomplish the blasting for the road. Marcia Stille, 5 Hawthorne Road, had concerns about excessive water on the Bowman School playgrounds. Mr. Galehouse replied drainage from the Buckman Drive, ' Philip road area will continue to go into the Dunback Meadow area, and the in- creased amount from the Sunset Ridge subdivision will not change this. Mrs. Uhrig announced the Board would take action on this application for subdivi- sion approval next Monday, April 28, 1986. She declared the hearing closed at 9:06 p.m. and the meeting recessed, to be resumed in Room G-15. The meeting was reconvened by Mrs. Uhrig at 9:11 p.m. in Room G-15. SUBDIVISION OF LAND (cont. 120. Pheasant Brook, Section II: The Board reviewed a draft letter to the Kahn - Quinn Group dated April 22, 1986 dealing with two items on the submitted sub- division plan: 1) the delineation of wetlands on the site, and 2) the connec- tion of Butterfield Road to Maple Tree Lane. They discussed a letter to the Planning Director from Anthony S. Gentile, dated April 14, 1986, in which Mr. Gentile states that "no changes to the roadway or cul-de-sac will be permitted without my permission until the road is accepted." The Board will require that Pheasant Brook Estates, Inc., provide documentation to the Planning Board that they have the necessary legal rights to connect But- terfield Road to Maple Tree Lane, and that they have the necessary rights to reconstruct Maple Tree Lane to the required standards. Time for action by the Board on this subdivision is May 16, 1986. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer it was voted unanimously (4-0) to send the letter as corrected to the Kahn -Quinn Group. Minutes for April 22, 1986 Page 4 APPLICATONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 121. Countryside Manor: The Board met with approximately 15-20 members of the Countryside Civic Association. Harris Cohen, 20 Peachtree Road, represented the group and read a prepared statement outlining their objections to and recommend- ations for the Countryside Manor application, by Woodhaven Realty, for a special permit to be heard by the Board of Appeals on May 8, 1986, (letter attached). Mr. Cohen noted the Planning Board is required to make a report to the Board of Appeals and he wanted the Association's views known to the Board, as they prepare the report. He requested the Association be notified each time the proposal is to be discussed by the Board, adding they want to work with the Planning Board and the staff to resolve problems and deficiencies in the plan. In answer to a request from Mrs. Uhrig he agreed to send a copy of the statement he read to the Board. He also gave copies of a draft agreement they have reached with Woodhaven Realty. SUBDIVISION OF LAND (cont.) 122. Graystone Subdivision: Joel Roos, representating Boyd -Smith, discussed field changes they were requesting in the area where the subdivision road joins Pleasant Street to lessen potential damage to mature trees and excessive cuts if the road were graded and constructed as approved plans require. ' He asked the Board's permission to grade within the road's right-of-way, noting they had received permission from the Board last summer to do this and had not corrected the drawings. On the right side of the road, they were asking either to: 1) reduce the size of the grass strip, 2) reduce the width of the road pavement from 24 feet to 20 feet or 3) eliminate the sidewalk entirely, adding these revisions would save trees amd make a better looking development. He added the swale required by the Conservation Commission to alleviate a water run-off condition was really not necessary since it turns out the houses on Phillip Road have a problem with the water table and not with surface run-off. Construction of the swale was also going to result in the loss of a lot of trees. He noted that following the Subdivision Rules and Regulations causes very severe cuts, and urged the Planning Board to visit the site and see the problems as soon as possible. Ms. Rawski reported she had met with the Engineering Department to discuss these requests. They had said they might consider the elimination of the grass strip on the left side, and would not agree to reducing the paved roadway to 20 feet. Mr. Bowyer noted these request were not just field changes, and that revised drawings showing these changes should be submitted, and approved by the Board before any change in construction is considered approved. He stressed construc- tion on the site must conform to the most recently approved plan or revision. He suggested a scale of 1" = 20' in the problem areas. He agreed there were sub- stantial sized trees involved and every effort should be made to save them. However if the Board agreed to grant waivers, there should be an agreement that if the trees still died, they would be replaced by the developer with trees of appropriate species, at least 4" or more in diameter, approved by the Board. Minutes for April 22, 1986 Page 5 Marion Marks, 104 Pleasant Street, said that the essence of Pleasant Street is lost. She felt that subdivisions should be judged on a more flexible basis; that too much planting had been sacrificed to adhere to rules. She also urged the Board to visit the site as soon as possible. Mr. Sorensen said the sidewalk should stay, but could be moved if the Engineering Department agreed to the changes. He would not agree to anything less then 24 feet of pavement for the road. He added the Board and the developer knew there would be these problems last summer when the plan was approved, and this was not an oversight on anyone's part. He added when a developer presents a plan that meets the Subdivision Rules and Regulations no matter how badly it will deal with the landscape, there is little the Board can do but approve and try to prevent as much damage as possible. In response to question from Mr. Roos, Mr. Bowyer noted that the rationale for requiring 24 feet of pavement could be seen in the winter when the snow piled up and narrowed the street. Mr. Sorensen added that parked cars can completely block a narrower road. Mr. Roos will get revised plans at 1" = 20' to the staff as soon as possible. *************************************** REPORTS ****************************** 123. Planning Board, Subcommittees: a. Middlesex Mall: Mr. Sorensen noted that Mrs. Wood had moved reconsider- ation of the zoning amendment not approved at Town Meeting. He felt the proponents did not get a fair hearing at Town Meeting and should have a chance for reconsideration if they wished it. Mr. Bowyer reported the applicants had talked with him about reconsideration; he told them about Town Meeting's usual handling of reconsideration. His impression was they would rather try in another year. 124. Planning Director: a. Sunset Ridge: Mr. Bowyer requested direction for the staff to prepare the decision. Mrs. Uhrig asked if the pavement could be located more nearly in the center of the right -of way, and also if the six foot setback could be increased to eight to ten feet away from abutting properties. Mrs. Klauminzer suggested there could be relief on the maximum road grade permitted by the regulations to lessen excessive cuts for road construction, and suggested requiring some planting for screening along the abuttor's property lines, and fencing where the wall is higher than five feet. b. Countryside: Relative to the schedule of future Planning Board meetings, Mr. Bowyer noted the SPS will be heard by the Board of Appeals on May 8, 1986, and for a significant development the report should be ready for them well before the hearing. All points presented by Mr. Cohen need to be addressed for the hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m. C. C/V Martha Wood, Clerk April 23, 1986 Ms. Judith J. Uhrig Planning Board Lexington, Mass 02173 Dear Ms. Uhrig, As requested by you at last evenings meeting I hereby submit a written record of the comments made by me with regard to the Woodhaven Realty's request for permit. The Town of Lexington has always enjoyed a reputation for having its rules and regulations followed. We ask that the plan before you be judged on its merits not on the applicants. The by-laws and regulations must be uniformly applied for the protection of the community as a whole and for the abutters most effected. This project is grandfathered aad cannot meet certain current rules especially the one concerning dual access. This current rule is considered so important you have seen fit to impose it even on the Kathadip Woods project which has been takes out of your jurisdiction through a different process of permitting. This public safety rule was seen necessary but of course is being waved here. We feel that this is a violation of the intent of the Town Meeting to afford to one and all the best possible chance in the event of a fire or other disaster. The parking lots as designed are contrary to our rules which have evolved in an effort to avoid exactly what is before you,too large a scale project for the available land, . There is but one single extra parking place: 12 per two bedroom unit which is in this day and age inadaquate. The screening and.set backs are not in the best interest of.a good looking well planned complex. The mandatory shore storage problem is circumvented 'by calling the center of the undersized illegal turnaround as a snow storage area. The grade of this turnaround is too great and the area too small for such a designation. It is totally inadaquate. The road grade plan, sheet L-7, conveniently stops short of the turnaround so as not to show the necessity of a redesign of this "sore thumb". Your rules require a complete set of plans you were not given them. 3 handicapped apartments as required by statute are not uniformly placed throughout the project, infact none are shown at all and the five required handicapped spaces are not provided. Current recommendations about dead ended water mains are not considered for thelVdrant s are not even placed at the end of lines for proper and adequate flushing. Section 8-1-11 d of the By laws state that your board must state to the Appeals Board whether the development is compatible with the surrounding area. There is not another RD area east of Lowell St. in Lexington. We feel this project is not computable. Section b. There is no indication of the impact on Town Services especially the Marshall Rd. Sewer pumping station. Section e. The plans don• t comply with the rules and regulations. Sheet A18 of the plans East Elevation Bldg V and VZ show 3 story elevations Ufiits 30, 31, 32, 27, 29, 28, 37, 36, 38, 40, 41, 39 are effected. These buildings which by definition come under the designation of Garden apartments are subject to the no basement apartments nor living quarters above the second floor rule in the table of use section of the rules. Several units must be removed to make the buildings conform to the law. We hereby request that at any time that this project is discussed we, under the open meeting law, be informed of the time and place of said meting so that we can follow thefhinking of the board as to the forthcoming recommendation to the Appeals Board. We also request that the two new members of the board familiaraize themselves with all the intricate details of this plan and not be swayed or unduly influenced by others. We have on two previous occasions supplied you with detailed deviations from the pertinent laws and procedures and are enclosing copies of these letters so as to allow you to check the plans and see if these deviations have been corrected. In our opinion most have not. As you know the ConservationCommision's actions were appealed to theDEQE and those findings have been appealed under the adjudicatory process. It is not reasonable to continue the permitting process which is under such scrutiny with any know flaws. We feel that our elected boards should act in the most prudent manner at all times and int leave themselves open for rebuttle. Woodhaven Realty has approached the neighbors and offered to sign a binding agreement to correct some of the problems. They have not as yet agreed. Maybe the problems are so large that the solutions outweigh the desire for financial profit? The petitioners certainly have a right to use their land as they see fit under the law. We of course have always stated that we don't like the nature of our neighborhood changed. We could not probably disagree with a plan that abided by all the rules, aegulations, and by-laws; however; that project has not yet been presented to you for it is obvious that it would be substantially smaller than what we have been looking at for over one year. Please remember that 18 units are placed on an area of roughly ' 12acres in the front. This density would be laughed at if presented by itself. It is not a good plan it is the combination of two bad plans separated by a mosquito infested swamp. We urge you in your recomendation the Appeals Board that if the plan remains as submitted the permit be denied. aVetruly lyours, �C COHEN