Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-20PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1988 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Build- ing, was called to order at 7:39 by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klau- minzer, Sorensen, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer and Secretary Peters pre- sent. Mrs. Wood arrived during item 20. *********************************** REPORTS ******************************* 19. Planning Director a. Sheraton Hotel, Marrett Road: Members of the Board of Selectmen have heard that officials of the Flatley Company have said they will have no recourse but to lay off employees because of the difficulties they are having with the Town's permit process. b. Dates for Planning Board Articles: Mr. Bowyer noted that by January 25, 1988 the Board should agree on the wording of the articles in order to meet the February 1 deadline for the warrant, and to have sufficient time to place the public hearing notices in the Lexington Minuteman. The Board agreed to tentative hearing dates on February 22, and 29, 1988. c. 80 Westview Street Midnight Auto, repetitive petition: Mr. Richardson has refiled an application for a special permit which was disapproved by the ' Board of Appeals. The Planning Board agreed to hold a public hearing on February 22, 1988 to act on the repetitive petition as required in Section 16, Chapter 40A of the General Laws. ******************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ******** SUBDIV1S10N OF LAND 20. Ledgemont, The Beal Company, action on definitive plan: The Board reviewed and corrected a draft certificate of action dated January 20, 1988. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to approve the alternative definitive subdivision plan entitled "Ledgemont Center Definitive Subdivision in Lexington, Mass." dated October 1987, and the Certifi- cate of Action dated January 20, 1987, as amended. 21. Turnbury Hill, Hill Street, Otis Brown, action on sketch plan: Mrs. Uhrig summarized three remaining decisions the Board must make on waivers requested by the developer: the maximum permitted slope for the roadway, the continuation of the sidewalk beyond the hammerhead and curbing details. The Board agreed not to require the extension of the sidewalk and to require granite curbing where the grade is in excess of 6%, as required by the Development Regulations, and to permit the curbing to be installed at a 45 degree angle. Mr. Sorensen moved grade greater than Williams voted in and Mrs. Wood seconded, to deny the waiver permitting a road 8%. By a vote of 2-3-0 (Mrs. Uhrig, Mrs. Klauminzer and Mr. the negative,), the motion did not carry. Minutes for January 20, 1988 -2- On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mr. Williams, it was voted 4-1-0 (Mr. Sorensen voted in the negative) to grant the waiver permitting an increase in grade to 10% only for those parts of the road where it is determined that an 8% grade would cause the loss of significant trees and would have a negative impact on the site due to the depth of cut required to maintain an 8% grade. The Board noted this action was justified because the road will remain in private ownership and will be privately maintained. Mr. Williams asked that language be added to the decision requiring the road be kept in private ownership and that this be incorporated into every deed for the lots abutting the road. ********************** ARTICLES FOR 1988 TOWN MEETING ********************* 22. Proposed Conservation Commission Amendment to the Zoning By-law: Conserva- tion Administrator Charles Wyman explained the intent of the amendment is to insure that any new residential lots contain a certain amount of contiguous up- land area available for a dwelling, driveway and yard, etc. The Commission has agreed that any wetland, but not a flood plain, be excluded from the calculation and that 90% of the minimum lot area required for the the district would have to be contiguous upland. He added the Commission hopes to prevent illegal encroach- ment into wetlands in developments where large homes are built on lots without sufficient upland area so that the temptation is great to illegally fill low- lying swampy areas. ' In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Wyman agreed that one effect of the amendment would be to encourage developers to try a cluster plan more often, where the land is marginal, because it is more difficult to get as many lots in a conventional subdivision. Mr. Bowyer expressed some concern with the 90% figure. He felt it was too high because other site planning considerations, such as slopes, ledge, etc., should also be taken into consideration. He added this would probably not apply to any existing subdivision (such as Pheasant Brook II) since all they need to do is file a preliminary subdivision plan before the Town Meeting vote to freeze the existing zoning. Mr. Wyman commented that other towns that have adopted similar amendments have found it an aid in the control of excessive development of marginal land. 23. Article B. Adjustments: The Board continued their review of Article B, and agreed to further revisions on Section A, dealing with the weights of commercial vehicles. The Board reconsidered their decision to not include Section B, under Article B, Adjustments, eliminated at the January 11, 1988 meeting. Mr. Bowyer suggested that there was a great deal of confusion over the interpretation of the density section of the cluster subdivision provisions in Section 9, and clarifying lan- guage was needed. Mrs. Wood recommended that these amendments could be included in Technical Corrections, if the language were only clarifying and no substantive changes were made. Mr. Bowyer will draft language for the Board's consideration at their next meeting. Fil Minutes for January 20, 1988 -3- He added it may be necessary to add another "adjustment" amendment to the By -Law dealing with the definition FLOOR AREA, NET; since there have been problems determining the correctness of an applicant's calculations. The interpretation that includes storage areas and other support operations has been included in the definition of floor area ratio since it was first introduced in 1984. The calcu- lation of the floor area ratio levels for the various districts and the parking demand factors are based on the net floor area not being less than 80 percent of the gross floor area. It was agreed to add a sentence at the end of the defini- tion that would define net floor area as 80% of gross floor area, exclusive of any floor area within the building used for off-street parking or loading. That language will also be ready for the Board's consideration at their January 26, 1988 meeting. 24. Article C. Nonconforming Situations: The Board continued their discussion of the draft dated 1-7-88, adding a new 6.1.3, providing certain protections against enforcement action by the Town as set forth in a newly adopted amendment to Section 7, Chapter 40A M.G.L.; 6.2.3, adding conditions under which a special permit or variance may be granted for an additional period of time; 6.2.7, adding language about evidence of discontinuance or abandonment; 6.3.3, substitution of nonconforming use, rewritten for clarity; 6.4.4, noncomplying building, clarify- ing language; and 6.5.4, combination of lots, adding clarifying and new language. Discussion will continue at the next meeting. 25. Article E. Incentives for Affordable Housing: The Board began a page by page review of the draft dated 12-17-88. They will complete the review at their meeting on January 25, 1988. REPORTS *x*********x*************** 26. Planning Board, Subcommittees a. Recent Board of Appeals decisions: Mrs. Uhrig reported on the applica- tion by Dan McCabe, heard January 14, 1988, for a 6' wide by 8' high exter- nally illuminated double -sided standing sign. The special permit was grant- ed for a sign no larger than 20 square feet, illuminated only between dusk and 11:00 p.m., located at least 30 feet from the street line and at least eight feet from the property line, and with less wording on the sign. Mrs. Uhrig also reported the decision by the Board of Appeals requiring the removal of a satellite dish from the roof of the applicant, has been chal- lenged in the courts by the satellite dish company. The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Eleanor Klauminzer, Clerk