Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-09PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 9, 1987 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Build- ing, was called to order at 7:37 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 66. 191 Spring Street, Fullers Hill, Boston Properties: The Board discussed a letter from Frederick DeAngelis, dated 3-6-87, requesting an extension of time for action by the Board until April 30, 1987 on a preliminary subdivision plan. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to grant an extension of time for action on the application until April 30, 1987. 67. 188-194 Lowell Street, McNeil and Castelli, Definitive Plan: The Board reviewed a letter, dated 3-6-87 from the Planning Director, sent to McNeil & Associates, Inc. and John Castelli, co -developers of 181 - 194 Lowell Street, informing them their subdivision plans were incomplete. Mr. Bowyer commented the letter had to be sent on that date in order to be within the 14 day review period described in the Development Regulations. ' The Board also discussed a letter from Briggs Engineering to the Engineering Department, dated March 9, 1987, explaining how the field survey had been con- ducted, and stating a ground instrument survey had been done, and that the data had not been obtained from Lexington's topographic maps. Ms. Rawski noted the Development Regulations require the submission of definitive subdivision plans based on a complete and up-to-date field survey. She added it appeared the sites' topography were based on the Town's photogrammetric maps, dated April 24, 1971, and that the site analysis plans are also based upon the Town's photogrammetric maps which have been enlarged to an approximate scale of 1"=40'. She noted that in many cases, these photogrammetric maps have been proven to be inaccurate and therefore unsuitable for the preparation of construc- tion drawings. For this reason the Planning Board's Development Regulations require preliminary and definitive plans to be based upon an actual field survey. Also, all objects on the site must be identified by field survey including trees of over 6" in caliper. Ms. Rawski listed other deficiencies in the submission of the definitive plan, including but not limited to the following: Proof Plan - the determination of the area of vegetated wetland and of developable site area is not based on a field survey and certified by a register- ed land surveyor or professional engineer; (188 Lowell) Site Analysis Map - all of the required information such as, mapping of soils, limits of 100 -year flood elevation and the bottom elevation of all streams and water bodies, is not shown; Property Rights and Dimensional Standards Plan - all setbacks in feet from lot lines, from brooks, etc., are not shown; Minutes of March 9, 1987 Page 2 Preliminary Site Construction Plan - all existing structures, proposed landscaping, identified by materials and sizes, are not shown and no landscaping is shown within the limit -of -work area at the rear of the 188 Lowell St. site. She added that in order for the Planning Board and the Town Engineer to properly review both subdivision plans, the following are required: 1. complete and up-to-date field surveys for both submittals; 2. all existing and proposed site conditions based on the complete and up-to- date field surveys; 3. plans certified by a Registered Professional Land Surveyor and by a Regis- tered Professional Engineer; 4. all drainage analysis and calculations based on the existing and up-to-date field survey for both submittals; 5. all of the information required by the Planning Board's Development Regulations. The Board determined the application was incomplete. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to reaffirm the letter dated 3-6-87 sent by the Planning Director in which the applicants were informed the submission was incomplete. 68. Ridge Estates III, Acceptance and Endorsement of Covenant: On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to accept and endorse ' the covenant for Ridge Estates III. ******************** ARTICLES FOR 1987 TOWN MEETING **************************** 69. Article 43, Commercial Revision, Meeting with the Board of Appeals: The Board met with Board of Appeal members Natalie Riffin, John McWeeney, Thomas Taylor and Clarence Turner for a discussion of Article 43. Mrs. Riffin recommended, and the Planning Board agreed that a special permit continue to be required for restaurants. The Board also agreed to include with Home Occupation, under "ACCESSORY USES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES", the office of a physician, dentist or other professional person. Discussion followed on how to stop the clock when an application for a hearing has been filed with the Town Clerk and found to be incomplete by the board acting on the application; and Section 17.1, of Part C - Table II of Article 43, which deals with temporary uses. Mrs. Uhrig thanked the Board of Appeal members for their efforts and time, adding she felt the meeting had been most helpful to the Planning Board in their deli- berations. ****************** ADMINISTATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND 70. North Street Development, Presentation of Sketch Plan: Representatives for Carol Johnson Associates appearing for the owner, Dr. Managanello, presented three alternative sketch plans for a three lot subdivision on approximately 4.27 acres off North Street. In response to questions from the Board, they explained Minutes of March 9, 1987 Page 3 the rationale behind the three design concepts, describing the strengths and weaknesses of each. They added they have not discussed the proposal with the Conservation Commission. The Board preferred Alternate One because the dwellings are sited away from the commercial district with the roadway serving as a buffer between the two dis- tricts, and suggested one of the lot lines be changed. They also recommended a cluster plan be tried because of the site problems, such as wetlands and proximi- ty to the commercial district, to permit more flexibility in design. They added they will require a sidewalk be constructed, and will waive installation of the fire alarm system. APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 71. 12-18 Hartwell Avenue, MICO Realty Trust, SP with SPS, to demolish an exist- ing 1 -story office bldg. and construct a 2 -story office building: The Board reviewed and approved sending a letter, dated March 9, 1987, to the Chairman of the Board of Appeals welcoming Mr. Colangelo's willingness to monitor and improve traffic conditions in relation to his property at 12-18 Hartwell Avenue, and listing the reasons the Board feels it is important to have a plan for traffic mitigating measures spelled out. ******************* ARTICLES FOR 1987 TOWN MEETING ***************************** e 72. Articles 45 through 49: Article 45. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to move indefinite postponement on Article 45. Article 46. The Board discussed the need for a maximum impervious ratio instead of a range for impervious surface ratio and agreed on a maximum number of .20 in the RS,RT Districts, and .12 in the RO District. Article 47. The Board discussed what portions of Article 47 that have been incorporated in Part E, Traffic, of Article 43 they could support. Article 48. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to recommend to Town Meeting that Article 48 not be approved. Article 49. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to recommend to Town Meeting that Article 49 not be approved. ********************************* REPORTS ************************************* 73. Planning Board, Subcommittees a. 1709-1729 Mass. Avenue: The Board discussed a memo prepared by Mr. Sorensen that maintains a special permit as well as a building permit should be required for the reconstruction of the burned -out buildings at 1709-1729 Mass. Avenue. I I Minutes of March 9, 1987 Page 4 b. State Legislation re Hansom Field: Mrs. Wood reported legislation has been filed in the Senate by Sen. Carol Amick to require that developement of any facility within Hanscom Field for any purpose other than those directly related to the operation of aircraft shall be comply with state and town environmental protection and zoning requirements. She presented a draft letter stating the Board's support for the legislation, and the Board approved the letter for transmmittal to Chairpersons, MacLean and Karol of the Joint Committee on Transportation. 74. Planning Director a. EXECUTIVE SESSION, Hartwell Ave. and Maguire Rd., Maguire Road Realty Trust vs. the Board of Appeals: The Planning director requested that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss the litgation in progress. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Cripps, after a poll of the Board, it was voted unanimously to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation against the Town, and to recon- vene in open session only for the purpose of adjourning. The Planning Board returned to open session at 11:17 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m. Martha Wood, Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES FOR MARCH 9, 1987 After a unanimous vote of the five members present, by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met 1n Executive Session, in Room G-15, Town Office Building, at 11:03 p.m. to discuss strategy with respect to litigation which, if discussed in open session, may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town. Present were Chairman Uhrig, and members Cripps, Klauminzer, Sorensen, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski and Secretary Peters. Mr. Bowyer briefed the Board on the Maguire Road Realty Trust vs. the Board of Appeals trial at which he testified this past week. He reported the plaintiff's case began as an appeal of the Board of Appeal's denial of their application for a variance of the minimum lot area requirement and broadened to a challenge of the constitutionality of the 3 acre minimum lot area requirement in the CM District. He added this had serious implications for Lexington's commercial zoning. The Board returned to open session at 11:17 p.m. eL7ra44& c. 6dewpe Martha Wood, Clerk 1