Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-24PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1987 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15 and the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order in Room G-15 at 7:36 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Williams, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski and Secretary Peters present. ********************** 1988 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ******************************* 228. Revisions to Non -Conformity Section of the Zoning By -Law: The Board contin- ued work on the revision of Section 6, Non -Conforming Uses and Structures, for the 1988 Town Meeting. They discussed a memo dated 8/14/87, prepared by Mr. Bowyer, which sought to pose specific policy issues on nonconformity, raised in the Janet Englund memos, to provide general guidance before drafting specific language for the remainder of Section 6. The Board agreed in the event of partial destruction, a nonconforming building should not be allowed to increase the building's footprint, but that some expan- sion within the zoning envelope should be permitted. Mr. Williams recommended consideration be on a case by case basis. Mr. Sorensen felt that the special permit requirements now in Section 6 should be retained. When any discretion is given it should be by a board so that the ' public has an opportunity to be heard. The Board continued to agree they wished to keep an attitude of fairness, i.e. to "put back whole" when a catastrophe has occurred. ***************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************** APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 229. Brookhaven, Choate-Symmes, Waltham Street: The Board reviewed and made some corrections to a draft SPS report on the Choate-Symmes Life Care, Inc,. Brookhaven development, off Waltham Street. They agreed more information would be required from the developer about meeting housing conditions before the Plan- ning Board report can be completed. 230. Hearings scheduled for September 10, 1987: Mrs. Klauminzer gave an oral review of the following hearings: 80 Hayden Avenue, Hunneman Company, SP, canvas sign and double sided sign for real estate purposes: The proposal is to hang a 4 ft. x 40 ft. canvas sign mounted flush to the building, about 15 feet from the base, facing Route 2. The double sided sign would be approximately 4 ft. x 6 ft. on the Hayden Ave. side of the building approximately 30 ft. east of the entrance ramp to Route 2 and on the embankment adjacent to Hayden Ave. The Board agreed that hanging a canvas sign on the outside of a building was a totally inappropriate way to advertise space for rent in a building, and that such practices were incompatible with the visual appearance of the town and with the attractive office park character which other commercial proper- ty owners in the CRO district are attempting to achieve. They recommended Minutes for August 24, 1987 Page 2 the applicant be urged to use conventional real estate listing methods to advertise the availability of floor space, as do other owners of commercial space throughout the town. They also agreed they were not opposed to the doublesided sign as long as the dimensions conform to the Zoning By -Law, i.e. no larger than six (6) square feet. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted unani- mously to recommend the use of the canvas sign be denied, and the size of the double sided sign be no larger than six (6) square feet. 401 Lowell St., William T. Greene, SP, package store in a CRS zone. Mrs, Klauminzer reported the applicant wants to move his package store from Lexington center to the Countryside shopping area. The Board agreed that there are a number of preliminary steps that are needed before this application can be considered, and that in the case of a multiple tenant building, composed of uses which have different parking factors, it is important to have an off-street parking and loading plan so that the aggregate number of parking spaces and loading bays needed, before and after the change in use, can be determined. They noted that the newly adopted Section 10, Landscaping, Transition and Screening, provides, in subsection 10.1.3, that compliance with the landscaping requirements of the section, to the maximum extent practicable, must be demonstrated as a pre- condition of the granting of a special permit. ' They agreed that prior to consideration of this application, the information required by subsections 3.5.1.1. b, off-street parking and loading plan, and 3.5.1.1. c landscaping plan, should be provided. 15 Minuteman Lane, Deborah Jackson & John Miler, Variance, side yard setback to allow construction of a carport leaving a 4.47 side yard setback: The Board opposed the intrusion into the setback and agreed that no hardship had been demonstrated since the garage could be located further to the rear of the home, in the back yard, or a single carport could be built. Either alternative would preserve the setback. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, second- ed by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to recommend the variance be denied since no hardship has been demonstrated. 4 Freeman Circle, Thomas & Susan Cheek, Variance, from rear yard setback to construct a 2 -car garage with a rear yard setback of 9 feet. Mrs. Klaumin- zer reported that with the addition there will be garaging for 3 cars. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer it was voted unanimous- ly to recommend the variance be denied since no hardship has been demons- trated. If, in addition to the existing one -car garage, an additional one - car garage were built, there would be garaging for two cars, and no intru- sion into any setback would be required. The Board also agreed to make no comment on the following applications: 3 Vinebrook Road, Norman Nielsen, Variance, to allow construction of a single-family dwelling with a front yard setback of 21 ft., rather than the 30 ft. setback required. (Mr. Sorensen abstained from any action on this application since he is an abuttor.) Minutes for August 24, 1987 Page 3 16 Reed Street, Carlton & Ruth Davis, Variance, with a front yard setback of 24 ft. rather than the 30 ft. setback required. 231. 1-3 Sherman Street, Accessory Apartment: The Board reviewed a draft of a letter dated August 24, 1987 to the Board of Appeals containing an additional recommendation following up on the new information presented at the Board of Appeals' public hearing. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mrs. Wood it was voted unanimously to send the letter, which identifies unique condi- tions and supports the retention of rental housing, as written. ************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ***************** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 232. Graystone Subdivision, driveway change to lot #4: Joel Roos, representing Boyd -Smith, proposed to eliminate a common driveway, serving lots #3 and #4 off Dover Lane, and construct a new driveway, serving Lot #4, off Pleasant Street, to save more trees and cause less damage to the site. Ms. Rawski said she had reviewed the proposal and found no problems. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to approve the change to the plans. 233. Maple Tree Lane, Gentile, final release of surety: The Board reviewed a memo from Town Engineer, Frank Fields, dated August 19, 1987, recommending the ' Board release the remaining surety held for completion of work on the subdivi- sion. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unani- mously to release the surety of $4,700 to the developer, Mr. Gentile. 234. Clematis Road, Woodhaven Realty, release of surety: Ms. Rawski reported Mr. Freeman, the original developer, has notified the Board that he had replaced the dead trees. However, because the trees were replaced in the middle of a very dry summer and due to damage caused by the current contractor, time is needed to determine their survival. She also reported the water service problem has been resolved. She recommended the surety not be released until the trees show evi- dence of new growth next spring. She added the responsibility for replacing the trees, if necessary, now lies with the current owner of the subdivision, Wood- haven Realty. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to not release the surety on the Trinity Covenant Estates subdivision. Mrs. Uhrig declared the meeting recessed at 8:56 p.m. to be reconvened in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. 235. PUBLIC HEARING, Fullers Hill, 191 Spring Street Trust, c/o Boston Properties, definitive plan: Mrs. Uhrig declared the public hearing open at 9:04 p.m. Approximately 11 residents attended. Attorney Frederick DeAngelis, Frank DiPietro and Roger Corbin, of BSC Bedford, made the presentation of the defini- tive plan on behalf of the developer. Mr. DeAngelis reviewed the site plan, and steps leading to the filing of the final plan. He noted the plan filed requires the granting of no waivers by the Board. He discussed an alternative plan, aimed at minimizing site impact, that would require the granting of several waivers from the "Development Regulations" Minutes for August 24, 1987 Page 4 that the Board, consistent with its recommendation as set forth in the prelimin- ary plan decision dated April 29, 1987, and the recommendation of the profession- al staff considered more desirable. He noted the alternative plan would elimin- ate the necessity to construct a subdivision street in the RO residential dis- trict, be less environmentally intrusive, demonstrate better site planning and would make equivalent and adequate provision for the installation of necessary utilities. He added the alternate plan is essentially the same as the plans submitted to the Planning Board on July 17, 1987 and as presented at the public hearing with the exception that several design features would be eliminated. The alternative plan would require the Board to grant several waivers, primarily allowing a longer than 650 feet dead-end street in the CRO district. Mr. Corbin reviewed the subdivision plans, and Mr. Di Pietro discussed the drain- age plans, including the two detention basins proposed for storm water storage on the site. In response to questions from Mrs. Klauminzer and Mrs. Wood, Mr. Di Pietro answer- ed that the alternate plan would still require both detention ponds, however the one nearest Spring Street would be smaller. In response to a question from Mr. Bowyer, Mr. DeAngelis said they did not have drawings of the alternate plan with them, but would be glad to present supplementary material. Jacqueline Davison, 86 Spring Street, said that she hoped the waivers will be used to eliminate the construction of the residential street in the meadow. ' Mrs. Uhrig requested the developer prepare plans showing the proposal if all necessary waivers were granted for the alternate plan. She declared the hearing closed at 9:53 p.m. Later in the evening, in response to a staff request for direction from the Board, they agreed to recommend the 650 foot limit for a dead end street in a commercial district, required in the "Development Regulations", be waived, elimi- nating the need for construction of the residential street. The Board noted the developer has demonstrated he can comply with all the other regulations but that results in a plan the Board does not favor. The decision should still require the water main be looped, but in or adjacent to the existing roadway, so that the meadow will be disturbed as little as possible. 236. PUBLIC HEARING, Carchia Woods, SEA Consultants Inc., definitive plan: Mrs. Uhrig declared the hearing open at 9:55 p.m. Approximately 4 residents attended. David T. Goodemote, of SEA Consultants, Inc., described the proposal as a four lot conventional subdivision on approximately 4.4 acres off Grove Street. He noted they were not requesting any waivers except for construction of the fire alarm system. There were no questions from the Board. Ms. Rawski reported the Fire Department did not like Carchia Woods Drive as a name for the subdivision street. The Board agreed to ask the applicant to submit five other street names for consideration. Two abuttors expressed concern about the potential effects of blasting on their property. Mrs Uhrig declared the hearing closed at 10:30 p.m. The meeting was recessed at 10:31 and the Board reconvened in Room G-15 at 10:35 p.m. for the completion of the meeting. Minutes for August 24, 1987 Page 5 The Board discussed what direction they wished to give, and agreed to approve the application, with the stipulation that a street name, acceptable to the Fire Chief, be found. REPORTS*************************************gat** 237. Planning Board, Subcommittees a. Massport - Hanscom Field: Mrs. Uhrig reported that the Town of Lexing- ton's recommendation to the other cities and towns will be that HATS is a suitable vehicle to review the Massport planning proposal. 238. EXECUTIVE SESSION: On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klaumin- zer, after a poll of the Board, it was voted unanimously (5-0) to go into Execu- tive Session to discuss litigation against the Town, and to reconvene in open session only for the purpose of adjourning. The Board returned to open session at 10:57.p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 p.m. [ I Eleanor Klauminzer, Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION OF AUGUST 24, 1987 After a unanimous vote of the five members present, by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session, in Room G-15, Town Office Building, at 10:42 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 Chairman Uhrig, and members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Williams, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski and Secretary Peters. The Board discussed a Complaint filed August 17, 1987 with Middlesex Superior Court on behalf of A & D Realty Trust, Joseph Tassone and Sheila Tassone, Trust- ees, appealing the Board's decision on the Busa Farm definitive subdivision plan and their decision on the special permit with site plan review. As the complaint filed gave no specifics, it was not clear what the litigation was about. Ms. Rawski reported she believed they were worried about the effect of impervious surface ratio requirements. Those are technical problems which probably result from the applicant's misinterpretation and probably can be remedied without the need for court action. The Planning Board returned to open session at 10:57 p.m. Eleanor H. Klauminzer, Clerk( 1