Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-22PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15,_ Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:38 by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Assistant Planner Rawski and Secretary Peters present. Mr. Cripps was absent. Mrs. Wood arrived at approximately 7:45 during item 236. 236. Mason's Hollow Special Residential Development: Ms. Rawski reviewed the definitive landscaping plan. She noted the selection of appropriate shrubbery was good, and that rhododendrons were proposed among the existing shrubbery at the end of the turnaround. She reported that she and Town Counsel had met with Fred Conroy, attorney for the developer, and the changes in the covenant required by the Town had been made. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously (3-0-0) to sign the covenant. She also reported the seven "CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO ENDORSEMENT" of the definitive subdivision plan and listed on page 3 of the Certificate of Action have been met. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously to endorse the definitive subdivision plan for Mason's Hollow. The Board discussed whether a special permit should be required to divide the Mason house into two condominium units. It was agreed that the approved proof plan showed the maximum number of dwelling units was seven. The five new units and two in the existing home would not exceed the maximum. The Board has the power under the special permit to allow a newly constructed two-family house and could permit an existing dwelling to be a two-family as long as the maximum density is not exceeded. The Town Counsel concurs with this reasoning, and does not believe the developer has to apply to the Board of Appeals for a special permit to convert the existing house. 237. Grassland Subdivision, Robert E. Phelan: The Board reviewed a letter from Mr. Phelan dated September 22, 1986, requesting an extension of time for action by the Board until October 30, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Soren- sen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to grant an extension of time for action by the Board until October 30, 1986. 238. Pheasant Brook Subdivision, Section II, Kahn -Quinn: The Board review- ed a draft letter to Mr. Kahn, in which a request for an extension of time for action by the Board, in accordance with the developer's application dated July 21, 1986, was granted. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to grant the extension of time for action by the Board until December 4, 1986. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unani- mously to send the letter as corrected. Minutes of September 22, 1986 Page 2 239. Sunset Ridge, Sunset Ridge Realty Trust: Ms. Rawski reviewed events leading up to the present including the reasons for the issuance of a stop work order for the development by Mr. Bowyer. The action was triggered by a memo dated September 10, 1986, from the Engin- eering Dept. to the Planning Dept. requesting the Planning Board take "imme- diate action" to prevent construction not in compliance with the approved plan from continuing. A second memo from the Engineering Dept. dated 9/17/86, requested the Planning Board "inform the developer not to pave the roadway until his engineer submits a plan for permanently remedying the unsafe ledge wall condition and until such plan is approved." Mr. Fields also said that ledge was being left as a vertical face rather than at a reasonable slope, making it "a danger to public safety". In a letter dated September 11, 1986, sent to the developer, Mr. Steinkrauss, by registered mail, Mr. Bowyer directed the developer to stop all construction that is not in compliance with the approved subdivision plan and to take steps to correct the non -complying construction. Mr. Bowyer sent a second letter to the developer, dated 9/18/86, by certified mail, after receipt of the 9/17/86 Engineering memo. The developer has responded with revisions he feels will correct the non- complying construction. Mrs. Uhrig felt the Board should make no comments until the Engineering Department makes its written report. ' Mr. Sorensen noted that the work must be done according to the approved plan unless the Board permits changes. Mr. Steinkrauss, the developer, agreed the slope was too steep and said they need to get on land abutting the development to correct the problem. Andrew Goldstein, project manager, presented a letter from the Negeles agreeing to allow the developers to work on their property, and changes proposed by the developer to correct the work not done according to the approved plans. The Board concurred with the action of the Planning Director, and agreed the staff will review these changes before the work can continue. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unani- mously to only allow changes in the location of the sidewalk, and the entrance to the conservation land at this time. 240. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Mrs. Uhrig announced that discussion of all the applications but the one for 191 Spring Street have been postponed until the meeting of October 6, 1986. 191 Spring Street, Boston Properties, SPS; variance - frontage: Ms. Rawski reviewed the definitive plan, and the traffic study prepared by Norman Abend and reported on the developer's offer to provide money for signalization at Concord Ave. and Spring St. She noted they have more parking (188 parking spaces) than required by the Zoning By -Law. She added the Engineering Dept. will be presenting a detailed drainage study to the Board of Appeals. Minutes of September 22, 1986 Page 3 Comments from the residents focussed on: 1) whether the proposed signaliza- tion could handle the increased traffic from the addition; 2) the legality of granting a variance for frontage; 3) lack of sidewalks, and destruction of a residential neighborhood abutting the property; 4) no second entrance into the property; 5) exit off Route 2 called dangerous; 6) lack of cafe- teria, thereby overloading local streets in the noon hours; 7) concern about additional lighting; and 8) tying the drainage into the Cambridge Reservoir, with pollution from road salt. Mr. Sorensen recommended there be restrictions on Lot B, which is in the RO residential zone, to prevent residential development on it, since it is being used for a detention area and is part of the application. Mrs. Uhrig felt that 188 excess parking spaces (not required by the Zoning By -Law) created too much surface parking, and the Board agreed to state this in their recommendations to the Board of Appeals. She noted that to issue the special permit, the Board of Appeals must make a finding that the roads are adequate to handle the increased traffic from the addition, and that the site plan conforms to the Zoning By -Law. Except for Raytheon, this was the last development that can occur in the CR District within the 0.25 floor area ratio. The Board reviewed the draft "Report on the Special Permit Application (SPS) re: BOSTON PROPERTIES, 191 SPRING STREET" dated September 22, 1986, making corrections. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to approve the report, as corrected, for transmittal to the Board of Appeals. 241. Hanscom Field, Selectmen's Meeting on September 23, 1986: The Board discussed Mr. Bowyer's review, dated September 8, 1986, of the report entit- led: "Generic Environmental Impact Report for L.G. Hanscom Field". They agreed to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen reaffirming their support of the review and also the findings of the Conservation Commission as stated in its memo of September 3, 1986. ******************************* REPORTS ***************************** 242 Planning Board, Subcommittees a. Board of Appeals: Mrs. Wood gave an oral report on the decisions made by the Board of Appeals hearings on September 11, 1986. b. Charge to the Housing Needs Advisory Coumuittee: Mrs. Klauminzer reported she will discuss with Mrs. Flemings, reported revised charge for HVAC, and report back to the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Cl'/� U 941 } od CleJ Martha Wo , rk