Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-18PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 1986 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, and 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 Cripps, Klauminzer, Sorensen, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski and Secretary Peters present. ****************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************ SUBDIVISION OF LAND 205. Lincoln Park Drive: Mrs. Uhrig announced that Mrs. Klauminzer would not participate in discussion or action on this item because she is an abuttor. A letter, dated August 18, 1986, has been received by the Board from William Hamilton, the developer, requesting an extension of time for action on the definitive plan until November 5, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood it was voted 4-0-1 (with Mrs. Klauminzer abstaining) to extend the time for action until November 5, 1986. Mrs. Uhrig noted a date has not been set for the continued public hearing, to discuss drainage only, that had been recessed in May. 206. Mason's Hollow, Mass. Avenue: The Board reviewed a draft of the deci- sion on the special permit. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. ' Cripps, it was voted unanimously to grant the special permit with site plan review and to approve the decision, as drafted. 207. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Mrs. Wood gave an oral review of five cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on September 11, 1986: 55 Albemarle Avenue, Robert J. & Marguerite Gaudet, variance, 2500 sq. ft. minimum area for a dwelling to add an accessory apartment: The Board supports the construction of more accessory apartments in Lexington, and recommends granting the variance. The use of the remodeled space in the garage would bring the area of the dwelling to the 2500 sq. ft. minimum dwelling size re- quired, although under the Zoning By -Law, the garage area can not be included in area requirements for the dwelling. The accessory apartment can be built without changing the footprint or exterior appearance of the dwelling. 8 Larchmont Lane, Jill Butler, variance, front and side yard setbacks for three additions: The Board had no comment on the two minor incursions into the sideyard setbacks, but questioned whether any hardship could be shown to justi- fy the large addition extending 10 feet into the front yard setback. The Board also agreed to make no comment on the following three cases: 83 Pleasant Street, Isacc F. and Lili J. Silvers, variance, garage 34 Grapevine Avenue, Roy and Serena Crystal, variance, side yard setback 1640-1644 Rear, Mass. Ave., Claire & Daniel Mager, SP, to send and receive small packages and provide private mail boxes. Minutes of August 18, 1986 Page 2 SUBDIVISION OF LAND 208. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendments to the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in Lexington Mass": Mrs. Uhrig opened the hearing by reading the legal notice, and describing the procedures for the hearing. Mr. Bowyer summarized the need for the revision, noting the last revision was in 1978. He added there will be several sets of amendments, each covering portions of the proposed regulations, because of the scope of the revisions. The objectives, applicant's responsibility, types of plans and information required, and procedures that fall under the Board's jurisdiction, will be consolidated into a new Section 5. A new Section 8 will contain all fees associated with applications for land development, with the language from the existing Section 8 incorporated into the revised Section 5. He noted that language from the Zoning By -Law, enacted since 1978, has been incorporated into Section 1 to provide policies and objectives for the planned residential and commercial development in Lexington. He explained that the definitions found in Section 1 had been moved to a new Section 2, with the material in the existing Section 2 entitled "Plans Believed Not To Require Approval" moved to Section 5 in the revised regulations. Portions of the existing Section 3, related to material in the revised Section 5 have been moved there. All of Section 4. "Preliminary Plan" has been incorporated, in ' its entirity, into the proposed Section 5. There were no questions or comments from the audience on the revised Sections 1, 20 3 and 4. Mr. Bowyer outlined the reasons for the revisions to Section 5: 1) to provide detailed instructions and aids so an applicant can comply with the requirements and procedures for development, and to stress the applicant's responsibility to file full and complete plans, and 2) to place more emphasis on the sketch plan/ preliminary plan process, so applications can be more thoroughly reviewed and problems dealt with before the definitive development plan has been filed, reducing the time spent and expenses incurred by all parties caused by repetitive submis- sions of partially completed plans. Mr. Sorensen suggested all regulations imposed by State statutes be listed in an appendix, and not included as part of the development regulations. He also proposed the addition of checklists, guidelines and timetables where needed to assist the user of the regulations. William Hamilton, 560 Concord Avenue, felt the revisions were more difficult to understand than the sections they were replacing, and commented he had spent hours trying to read and understand Section 5, without success. He also asked whether an applicant would have to refile and pay a new fee if the Planning Board required him to make changes on a definitive plan application. The answer was yes. Minutes of August 18, 1986 Page 3 Mrs. Shirley Byrne, 5 Meadowbrook Avenue, had questions as to the authorship of the revisions, if the new regulations would apply to a one or two lot subdivi- sion, and where the money collected for fees went. The Planning Board had no questions or comments on Section 8. Mrs. Uhrig declared the hearing closed at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was recessed at 8:42 p.m. and the Board moved to the Selectmen's Meeting Room for item 209. 209. PUBLIC HEARING: Beechwood Lane Subdivision. off Hill Street: Mrs. Uhrig opened the hearing at 8:45 p.m. by reading the legal notice and describing the procedures for the hearing. Stephen Russian, an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Leonard J. Colwell, the applicants, introduced Richard Swain, from BSC -Boston, who presented the plan. He reported the site was wooded, with no wetlands and some ledge, and that the plan complies with the zoning (RS) district. He added the deadend road is approximately 400 feet long with a standard cul-de-sac at the end, the maximum slope is 8% and the only waiver they are requesting is for a 20 ft. wide pavement rather than a 24 ft. wide pavement, although they have shown the required 24 ft. wide pavement on the plan. He also presented a letter request- ing an extension of the time for action by the Board 120 days from July 11, 1986. ' They are proposing a detention basin to control the drainage runoff before it enters the Town's drainage system in the street. Mr. Swain requested the hearing be continued to give them time to respond to the memo from the Engi- neering Department dated August 13, 1986, which they had just seen. In response to a question from Mr. Cripps, as to why they went directly to filing a definitive plan, Mr. Swain said they felt the plan was so straight forward that it did not require a filing of a preliminary plan. Mrs. Klaumin- zer asked for the maximum depth of cut along the road and was told it was roughly 10 feet below the existing grade. In response to a question from Mrs. Uhrig, Ms. Rawski and Mr. Colwell reported the difference between this submission and a previous submission 4 or 5 years ago was mainly in the location of the road, which was designed around the existing home, rather than removing the home, as proposed in this one. Also, the previous plan continued the road to the edge of the site. Ms. Rawski had questions about the maximum slopes along the edge of the road. She listed items missing from the submission such as finished grading and contours, house locations, limit of work lines, and driveway locations, and she asked if he had considered a different road alignment to reduce the amount of cut required to lay out the road. Mr. Swain answered they had but this plan gave them the maximum number of lots and the least blasting. In response to other questions from the Board; he added they had not considered a cluster development because of marketing considerations; that the Conserva- tion Commission awaited the Planning Board's decision since there were no wetlands; and no retaining wall construction was required. Minutes of August 18, 1986 Page 4 John Zvara, 8 Childs Road, read a letter dated July 28, 1986 from the Robinson Hill Association listing the concerns of a group of homeowners living near the proposed subdivision. William Hamilton, 560 Concord Avenue, builder of a new house on the abutting lot, expressed concern about the number of trees that would have to be removed if the swale were constructed along Hill Street. Mr. Swain responded that 18 oaks and 2 Beech trees would have to be removed in the swale and ponding area. Anthony Casendino, 49 Cedar Street, volunteered to form a group to investigate cluster possibilities if it was agreeable to the applicant. Roger Borghesani, 24 Hastings Road, felt the lots sloped toward abuttors, and that 7 lots were too many for the site. Stephen Saudek, 85 Hill Street, ex- pressed concern about possible increases in traffic with the addition of 7 new homes. Dorman Priest, 19 Diana Lane, had concerns about lot 4 draining into his prop- erty. Pamela Catenzano, 4 Childs Road, had concerns about drainage in the upper right corner of the site, and feared it would drain into her back yard. Merrel Collard, 92 Hill Street, noted that drainage had always been a problem in the area. In response to a question from Roland Gubisch, 627 Mass. Ave., Ms. Rawski replied that lot 7 complied with zoning layout requirements. No one spoke in favor of the application. Mr. Sorensen moved, and Mrs. Wood seconded, that the petition for an extension of time for action by the Board for 120 days from July 11, 1986 be granted by the Board. Mrs. Uhrig spoke against granting the extension of time for action since she felt the definitive plan before them was unacceptable. She said the Board has granted extensions in the past for adding minor details; this devel- opment needs a whole new design, not minor changes. Mrs. Wood added since the definitive plan can not be modified she did not see what could gained by grant- ing the extension of the time for action. The vote was 2-3-0 against extending the time for action, with Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Cripps voting in the affirmative and Mrs. Uhrig, Mrs. Wood and Mrs. Klauminzer voting in the negative. Mr. Sorensen moved, and Mrs. Wood seconded, that the public hearing be contin- ued as requested by the developer. By a vote of 2-3, the motion was not adopt- ed, with Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Cripps voting in favor and Mrs. Uhrig, Mrs. Wood and Mrs. Klauminzer voting in the negative. Mrs. Uhrig declared the hearing closed at 9:55 p.m.. At 9:56 p.m., the Board left the Selectmen's Meeting Room announcing the regu- lar meeting would be reconvened in Room G-15. At 10:00 p.m. the regular meet- ing was reconvened in Room G-15. Mr. Sorensen commented that since the developer had not been notified his definitive plan application was incomplete within a week from its submission, and since the hearing had been scheluled and held, and he thought the omissions Minutes of August 18, 1986 Page 5 and errors could be corrected, he was concerned about disapproving the subdivi- sion without granting an extension of time. Mrs. Klauminzer asked that the Board request an opinion from Town Counsel before they take action on the plan. The Board discussed several meeting dates to take action on this item and agreed to meet on September 4, 1986 for this purpose. 210. RD Rezoning Proposal, DiVincent Property, off Waltham Street: The Board heard a development proposal for the property from John Davies, architect and Francis Spinks, landscape architect, who reviewed preliminary site analysis, slope analysis, contour, existing vegetation and site plans that determined the design they were planning to bring before Town Meeting next spring for rezon- ing. Mr. Davies added they were were proposing 30-32 apartment units and 24 townhouse units in condominium ownership on the 6.14 acre site. In response to a question from Ms. Rawski about the secondary access required for any development containing more than 15 units, they said they hoped to acquire such access through the Choate Symmes property abutting their property. 211. Countryside Manor: Mr. Kelley discussed an alternate turnaround proposed that was requested by the Conservation Commission to reduce the amount of pavement in the development. The sequence is that Mr. Kelley is showing the proposal to the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission prior to submit- ting it to the Board of Appeals for action. Mr. Sorensen noted the deadend road would be longer that 650 feet allowed by the regulations, and might pose a problem. The Board liked the alternate proposal as better site planning, but expressed concern over the deadend road of more than 650 feet in length. 212. Lowell Street, Robert Phelan: The Board discussed Mr. Phelan's sketch plan for a two lot subdivision in which construction of the turnaround required for the frontage would be waived. Mr. Bowyer noted Mr. Phelan had demonstrated it was possible to build the turnaround conforming to the "Rules and Regula- tions". The Board discussed various types of turnarounds for the plan, and decided they would ask for a legal opinion from Town Counsel whether the lots would have legal frontage if the street were not owned by the Town. 213. Hampton Road Subdivision: Joel Roos, representing Boyd -Smith, requested construction of the swale along the left property line be waived. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to waive construction of the swale unless the Engineering Department requires it be constructed. The meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. ��G Giv�7 Martha Wood, Clerk