Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-05PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 1987 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Build- ing, was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by the Vice Chairman Cripps, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski, and Secretary Peters present. Mrs. Uhrig was absent. 1. Approval of minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of November 5, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to approve the minutes as written. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of December 10, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unani- mously to approve the minutes as corrected. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of December 15, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to approve the minutes as corrected. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, after a poll of the Board, it was voted unanimously (4-0) to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation against the Town, and to reconvene in open session for the purpose of continuing the meeting as set forth in the agenda. The Board ' went into executive session at 7:46 p.m. The Planning Board returned to open session at 8:26 p.m. ******************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************ 3. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Maguire Road and Hartwell Ave., Maguire Road Realty Trust, Michael Colan- gelo; Variance, min, lot area: The Board discussed a variety of issues involved in their recommendation to the Board of Appeals on the case that has been remanded back to the Board of Appeals for a new hearing on January 8, 1987. Mr. Bowyer reported that at the beginning of the trial in December, he and Mrs. Uhrig had been contacted by John Harding of Palmer & Dodge, represent- ing the Board of Appeals, about an arrangement, which both sides wanted to pursue, whereby the petition for the variance would be remanded to the Board of Appeals for a new hearing. The arrangement required that one or more responsible persons agree to make a favorable recommendation on the granting of the variance. He and Mrs. Uhrig agreed to do so subject to certain conditions: 1) the rehearing would be limited to the variance for minimun lot area only and would not imply any prior approval of any development proposal, 2) any development proposal would be the subject of a separate SPS application and would be treated the same as any other SPS application, and 3) the parties would understand that neither Mrs. Uhrig nor he could bind the other four members of the Planning Board to a positive recommenda- tion and definitely could not guarantee that the Board of Appeals would grant the variance. His reason was that the trial seemed to have become entwined in several overlapping issues, such as the minimum lot area, the Minutes for January 5, 1987 Page 2 specific office building proposal, the traffic study submitted and the traffic impacts of the office building. It made sense to sort these issues out by dealing with the variance for the lot area on its merits alone and the dealing with the impacts of a specific building proposal separately through the SPS procedure. He recommended that the Planning Board make a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals. He said that Mrs. Uhrig, who was unable to attend the meeting, had asked that the Board be informed that she recommended a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals. After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Sorensen summarized a number of points made during the discussion. Mrs. Wood made additional observations. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unani- mously (4-0): to recommend to the Board of Appeals the application for a variance be denied for the following reasons: 1. Allowing a lot to have less area than required by the Zoning By -Law undermines the concept of a minimum lot area applying to all properties within a zoning district. The same principle applies to the reducing the minimum lot area in residential districts which the Board has opposed. 2. No hardship has been demonstrated. Mr. Colangelo is an experienced real estate developer who owns other properties in the CM and the adjoining CH district and cannot claim lack of knowledge. 3. Any "hardship" that may have existed because of the reduction of the area of the lot by the eminent domain taking for the laying out of Hartwell Avenue and Maguire Road was addressed by the payment of compensation to the previous owner. 4. Technically, this petition appears to be beyond the scope of a variance. Chapter 40A, Section 10 provides that the SPGA must make a finding based on soil conditions, shape, or topography of the lot; no mention is made of insufficient area as a basis for granting a variance. 5. The applicant has not exhausted the administrative remedies to use the land. It is not true the land can not be developed and therefore is value- less. The property could be used as a parking lot for a principal use within 750 feet of the lot (Section 11.8d of the ZBL). Also, the owner could present a petition for a Planned Commercial (CD) District to the Town Meeting. Two other CD districts have already been approved on Hartwell Avenue. 13 Maple Street, David and Elizabeth Hughes, SP, for continued use of a deck: The Board expressed its dismay at the Town being asked to "rubber stamp" a situa- tion that was created by failure to obtain a building permit. They agreed to recommend the Board of Appeals require proof that the deck was constructed more than six years ago, if they decide to grant the special permit. 1 Minutes for January 5, 1987 Page 3 SUBDIVISION OF LAND 3. Highland Farms, off Woburn Street, Preliminary Plan: The Board reviewed a letter, dated December 30, 1986, from the Planning Director to the applicants informing them the application they submitted for a preliminary site development plan was incomplete. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to concur with the action taken by the Planning Director, and reject the submission because it is incomplete for the reasons set forth in his letter. ******************** ARTICLES FOR 1987 TOWN MEETING ************************** 4. Comprehensive Commerical Revision: The Board continued its work on the draft "Table 1, Part B, Commercial Uses (as of 12-18-86) determining which uses would be permitted in the various commercial districts. ******************************** REPORTS ************************************** 5. Planning Board, Subcommittees a. Emerson Gardens: Mrs. Klauminzer reported that at their meeting on January 7, 1986, the Housing Advisory Committee will discuss the sale and conversion of the apartments to condominiums, and whether the Town should investigate what rights the tenants may have under the State Condominium Conversion Law to lessen the impact of the conversion. 6. b. Middlesex Mall: Robert Bowyer reported the owners of the Middlesex Mall have filed an article at the last minute to rezone into a CD district the same parcel of land that failed to be rezoned at last year's Town Meeting. They did so "to protect their options" according to Elizabeth Franks, Mar- keting Director for the Mall. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Martha Wood, Clerk 1 PLANNING BOARD MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF JANUARY 5, 1987 After a unanimous vote of the four members present, by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session, in Room G-15, Town Office Building, at 7:45 p.m. to discuss strategy with respect to litigation which, if discussed in open session, may have a detrimental effect on the litigating posi- tion of the Town, Present were Vice Chairman Cripps, and members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski, and Secretary Peters. Mrs. Uhrig was absent. The Board discussed the Stipulated Order for Remand issued by Superior Court Judge Robert Hallisey on December 4, 1986 that returned the petition of Maguire Road Realty Trust by Mr. Colangelo for a variance for minimum lot area to the Board of Appeals for a new hearing. John Harding, attorney from Palmer & Dodge and representing the Town in the litigation, reviewed the procedings of the trial prior to the issuance of the Stipulated Order for Remand. The Board discussed the implications of the case and what should be included in their recommendation to the Board of Appeals for the new hearing on January 8, 1987. The Board returned to open session at 8:26 p.m. Martha Wood, Clerk