Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-06PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 6, 1988 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Wood, Assistant Planner Nordby and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mr. Williams was absent. ************************* REPORT ******************************************** 159. Planning Director a. Research Projects: Mr. Bowyer reported that a good beginning had been made on several interrelated research projects using the "Paradox" data base software. Summer intern Joseph Marino has entered a parcel identi- fier frontage and lot area information for all lots in the Pine Meadows neighborhood. He is now starting a data base on all residential subdivisions approved since 1980. The Building Department is entering data on all residential construction since 198U. Preliminary discussions have been held with the Assessors Department about "downloading" data from the real estate file and with the School Department about "downloading" demographic data from the Town Census. The end results of these several projects is extensive data about the characteristics of every dwelling unit and every subdivision constructed since 1980. This will permit development of up-to-date indices of school enrollments for different types of new housing construction. **************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************** PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW 160. Form A/88-9 1145 Mass. Ave., Charles T. Mooney and Lexington Conservaion Commission: Mr. Bowyer explained that this subdivision retains two lots for the Mooneys, on Massachusetts Avenue, with the back land being conveyed to the Town for conservation purposes. There is no change in the frontage of either of the lots on Massachusetts Avenue and there is a note stating that Lot 1 is not a separate building lot and is to be conveyed to the Town and to the Con- servation Commission. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously: to endorse the plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass." (Middlesex County), dated June 19, 1988, by Noonan & McDowell, Inc., of Bullerica, Mass.; certified by Malcolm P. McDowell, Professional Land Surveyor, with application form A/88-9 by Charles T. Mooney Jr., and Joyce A. Miller, for the Conservation Commission, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 161. PUBLIC HEARING, 1 Tracer Lane, Harold Nahigian, Trustee Definitive Plan: At 7:45 p.m., Chairman Uhrig reconvened the public hearing on the application for approval of a definitive plan, which was continued from the public hearing of December 7, 1987. Present were: Harold Nahigian, Trustee of Tracer Lane II Realty Trust, John Griffin and Jane Pitt, attorneys from Rackemann, Sawyer 6 Meeting of June 6, 1988 -2- Brewster, Richard Cook, engineer, BSC - Bedford, and Roger Kahlstrom, landscape architect, Symmes, Maini and McKee. Mr. Cook made the presentation for the applicants. In response to Mrs. Uhrig's question, he stated there was no additional information now available which was not presented at the December 7, 1987 public hearing. It will require substan- tially more time to obtain information requested by the Lexington Conservation Commission. Some data will not be available until the next winter. Mr. Cook noted that utilities can not be provided by the Town of Lexington because of the distance between the site and the end of the utility lines. He said that the applicant has permits in hand for water and sewer service from the City of Waltham. He explained a waiver is requested allowing the width of the layout of the right-of-way to be 50 feet rather than 60 feet because it adjoins a 50 foot right-of-way in Lexington on land owned by others. He said the applicants do not believe that a waiver is required from the maxi- mum length of a dead end roadway because they believe the Planning Board's jurisdiction is limited to Lexington only and if measured from the Town line, the roadway is less than the 650 foot maximum length of a dead end roadway. They are proposing a two lane roadway with a sidewalk on one side. He stated the roadway would be adequate to serve traffic that would be generated by a building on the site. A request was also made that the pavement width of the ' bridge structure be 24 feet, without a sidewalk, rather than the 30 feet re- quired for a local street. He explained that the utilities will be suspended underneath the bridge structure and can not be buried in that location; otherwise they will be underground. Waivers are requested from the standard cross section dealing with grass strips, slopes, retaining walls, guard rails and the like, all of which are not applicable to a roadway constructed on a bridge. The Planning Board members and the Planning Director had a number of questions dealing with the proposed construction of the subdivision street on a bridge across wetlands and with other features of the proposed subdivision. They dealt with the street system in Waltham into which this proposed subdivision street would connect, alternative means of access, guarantees that the City of Waltham would provide utility services, how the utilities carried under the bridge would work and would be kept from freezing, and snow removal from the bridge. Mr. Cook responded that approving the definitive subdivision plan at this time would only create a lot with frontage. Many of the development impacts would be dealt with at a later stage when the applicant has to apply for a special permit with site plan review from the Lexington Board of Appeals, and with other permits needed from the Lexington Conservation Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. If those permits are not obtained from other agencies, no development will go forward and there will not be any impacts. He argued that the Planning Board is taking no risk in approving the subdivision, because of incomplete information about environmental and other impacts, because no building may be constructed and no impacts will occur until permits are obtained from other agencies. Meeting of June 6, 1986 -3- There were a number of questions and comments from the approximately 15 resi- dents, of the abutting neighborhood in Waltham and the South Lexington area, who were present. Bruce Collier, 2 Barberry Rd., Lexington inquired as to what contingency plans were availabe to maintain the water circulation and sewage disposal system in the event of an electric power outage. He inquired how pollutants would be kept out of the adjoining City of Cambridge water supply. Stan Wynock, 5 Priscilla Lane, Waltham, informed the Board that the question of whether permits for water and sewer service will be issued is currently before the Waltham City Council. Louise Butler, 1625 Trapelo Road, Waltham, said the matter is currently before the Rules and Ordinances Committee of the Waltham City Council. Anthony DeVito,2 Priscilla Lane, Waltham, informed the Board that the issuance of permits by Edward F. Delaney, the Superintendent of Public Works, has been questioned by the former City Solicitor as to compliance with Massachusetts General Laws. Mrs. Anthony DeVito, 2 Priscilla Lane, Waltham, reported that environmental impact studies required by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, have not been completed. The hearing was closed at 8:31 p.m. Later in the evening, the Board had an informal discussion to provide direction for the staff in drafting a certificate of action. Mrs. Wood commented that there were still a large number of unanswered questions dealing with services from the City of Waltham, the position of the Cambridge Water Board relative to the adjacent reservoir and the State environmental impact process. Mrs. Uhrig ' commented that there was practically no additional information since the pub- lic hearing in December when the applicant'had little additional information beyond what was submitted with the preliminary plan. Mr. Sorensen commented he had not heard satisfactory answers to questions about snow removal from the bridge, how they will keep the drains from freezing in the winter, and how they had determined this should be a collector street which requires a 60 foot right -of-way when only a 50 foot right-of-way is available. The board agreed there are too many unanswered questions to approve the defini- tive plan at this time. They asked the staff to prepare a certificate of action disapproving the definitive subdivision plan, without prejudice. It could be resubmitted at any time when the missing information is available. 162. Holderness Lane, off Minute Man Lane, Robert Phelan; preliminary plan: The Board reviewed a draft of a decision on the preliminary plan. It was agreed that the decision should be revised to distinguish between information missing from the submittal of a preliminary plan, listed on page 2 of the draft decision, and modifications and additions to be made to the definitve plan submission, listed on page 3. Mr. Sorensen suggested, and it was agreed, that if the numbering sequence of Battle Green Road allowed, i.e. the house numbers ran in ascending order toward Minute Man Lane, the subdivision street should be considered as an extension of Battle Green Road and a separate street name, i.e. Holderness Lane, should not be used. The definitive plan must show that the requirement, that 25% of the site be in common open space, is met. That open space should be owned by an association of home owners with a conservation easement granted to the Town. Meeting of June 6, 1986 -4- On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously: 1. To approve, with conditions, the preliminary plan for the Holderness Lane Development, 2. To approve the wording of the decision, with the corrections agreed to included, and 3. To authorize the Planning Director to sign the decision in behalf of the Board. 163. Orchard Crossing; extension of time: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to approve the request of McNeil & Associates, contained in a letter dated June 2, 1988, that time for action on the definitive plan be extended to June 30, 1988. 164. 90 North Hancock Street; extension of time: On the motion of Mr. Soren- sen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unanimously to approve the request of Applicant Jeffrey Hodgdon, contained in a letter dated June 6, 1988, that time for action on the definitive plan be extended to June 30, 1988. 165. Pine Meadow Development; withdrawal of preliminary plan: The Board was in receipt of a letter from Moore Homes, Inc., dated June 2, 1988, withdrawing its application for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan. Mr. Bowyer explained that Moore Homes had filed a "bare bones" preliminary plan showing only four lots as a "freeze plan" to protect them against proposed zoning amendments in Article 39 of the Annual Town Meeting. As those amendments did not pass, the need for a "freeze plan" is moot. This subdivision plan was filed only as protection against proposed zoning amendments, and has nothing to do with Moore Homes' proposed development of the Pine Meadows site. 166. Ridge Estates I1, East Emerson Road. correction of noncomnlvin¢ facitities: The Board reviewed a draft of a letter, dated June 6, 1988, out- lining an approach which the developer, Theodore Freeman, should follow to correct facilities and structures which have been incorrectly installed. If these facilities were now installed in strict compliance with the approved definitive subdivision plan, undesirable situations and hardships may result for several residents of East Emerson Road who have installed lawns and sprinklers systems, plant materials, driveways and the like assuming the location of the sidewalk adjacent to the street to be correct. Mr. Bowyer explained that several residents had complained of the situation and a number of letters from abuttors have been received. He reached an oral agreement with Mr. Freeman and Attorney John Farrington last Thursday to pursue the approach outlined in the letter. He had a report earlier in the day from one abuttor that Mr. Freeman had a construction crew working on the sidewalk. Mrs. Uhrig thought that the draft letter was too benign in view of the numerous problems the Town has had with this developer. She and other members urged that the Board issue a stop work order. The Board agreed to change language in the letter that requested Mr. Freeman to take certain actions and instead to direct him to do so. Mr. Sorensen requested that the wording of the second paragraph be changed to indicate that Mr. Freeman's incorrect installation of the facilities and the fact that the residents have relied on those installa- tions, was at the heart of the problem. Meeting of June 6, 1988 -5- About a dozen residents of East Emerson Road were present and several commented on specific problems relating to their lots. In response to a question from abuttors, the board agreed that a time table should be set up whereby Mr. Free- man would complete the work promptly and any planting or other landscaping be installed during this growing season. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted unanimously: 1) to issue a stop work order on the Ridge Estates II subdivision as of June 7, 1988, L) to submit to the Board a plan certified by a registered professional engineer showing the alignment of the existing street, all of the improvements installed which do not comply with the approved subdivi- sion plan and required improvements not yet installed; this plan shall be submitted within 30 days. The land surveyor shall mark the center line of the street, show the correct alignment of the edge of the street pavement, the inside edge of the sidewalk and the correct lo- cation of the right-of-way line. The plan, prepared by the engineer, shall show all facilities not in compliance and shall not be limited to the sidewalk. 3) Mr. Freeman shall indicate on a plan changes needed to remedy the non- compliance and he may propose an alternative adapted to the require- ments of individual lots. This plan and any alternative plans shall be submitted to the Planning Board within 60 days. Prior to the submittal of the plan or any alternative plans, he shall notify and consult with affected abutting home owners. ' 4) It is the Board's intention that the situation be resolved by the fall of 1988 and that any planting or landscaping be installed in the 1988 growing season. David Evanson of 199 East Emerson Road suggested the Town have a penalty clause built into the situation to guarantee correct and timely performance. Mr. Bowyer responded that may be difficult because the Town usually holds surety against non-performance by a developer. He will discuss that approach with Town Counsel. 167. Pine Meadows Development; impact analysis: Mr. Bowyer commented that in contrast with most major land use decisions that come before the Town Meeting, the Planning Board is not required to hold a public hearing and make a report to the Town Meeting as it would for a zoning amendment. He anticipated that the Town Meeting will still look to the Planning Board for information and direction. He said that Town Meeting members, consciously or unconsciously, will be com- paring the recommendation of the Pine Meadows Advisory Committee with the alternatives available to Moore Homes, Inc. A useful role for the Planning Board would be to provide an analysis of the alternative development scenarios that presents factual data in as objective a manner as possible. He distribut- ed an outline dated June 6, 1988, showing five alternative development scenari- os, the characteristics of the scenarios, such as land utilization and housing characteristics, and the impacts of the different scenarios. The data on the alternative scenarios will be obtained from Moore Homes, Inc. and the Pine Meadows Advisory Committee. The impacts will be analysed by the Planning Department staff using the indices developed by Joseph Marino on the summer research projects. Meeting of June 6, 1988 The Board agreed this work should be prepared for the Special Town Meeting although they questioned how complete it could be given the limited amount of time. Members agreed the analysis should be as objective and factual as pos- sible. Mrs. Uhrig thought it would be desirable to have some qualitative evaluation of different types of open space, but it was agreed that the value of different types of open space was in the eyes of the beholder. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 168. Hearings scheduled for June 23, 1988: Mr. Sorensen presented an oral review of the cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals that evening. After discussion, it was agreed the Board would make no comment on the following four cases: 700 Waltham Street, John P. Carroll, SP, standing sign at entrance of the property. 31 Taft Avenue, C. M. Titus, SP (6.4.1), to add a second story to a por- tion of a nonconforming single-family dwelling. 1 Great Rock Road, Peter Massimilla, Variances, side yard and front yard setbacks, for an addition. 178 Lowell Street, Mediplex of Lexington, SP, for free-standing sign at the entrance and directional sign at the parking lot. ' 55 Oak Street Ellen Hall• variances from minimum floor area and minimum habit- able area threshold for an accessory apartment: Mr. Sorensen commented that this case, which is not yet scheduled for a hearing, does not meet the usual statutory criteria for a variance but does appear to have a genuine personal hardship because the applicant has multiple sclerosis and needs live-in help. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unani- mously to recommend that instead of a petition for a variance, an application for a special permit for a temporary use be submitted with the intent that that special permit be renewed as long as Mrs. Hall resides in the dwelling and needs the assistance. If the need no longer exists, the accessory apartment would have to be discontinued. That would be analogous to the special living quarters for Dr. Leichtman on Lowell Street who has a handicapped child. REPORTS****,r********,t***,r************a*********** 169. Plrnning Board, Subcommittees a. Housing Advisory Committee; resignation of Elizabeth Flemings: Mrs. Uhrig read a letter from Betty Flemings which said that she was moving from Lexington next month and would be unable to continue as a member or chairman of the Housing Advisory Committee. The Board accepted the resig- nation with regret as Betty has been a consistent advocate of affordable housing both as a member of the Planning Board and as the Chairman of the Housing Advisory Committee. Meeting of June 6, 1988 The Board deferred to another meeting the question of who would be appointed to be the Chairman of the Housing Advisory Committee. Mrs. Klauminzer reported that some members of the Housing Advisory Committee wondered whether there was still a role or task for the committee in view of the proliferation of other housing committees in Town government. b. Evaluation of recent Town Meeting: Mrs. Uhrig reported that she had attended the meeting sponsored by the Moderator and the Executive Commit- tee of the Town Meeting Members Association which evaluated the recently concluded and protracted annual town meeting. One suggestion was that the Planning Board should not lump together in one article different and controversial items, such as occurred in this year's Article 39. The Board agreed that was a good suggestion. There were several comments that the Planning Board hearings on zoning amendments were not long enough and some advocated additional hearings. Another suggestion was that the TMMA revive its standing committee on land use which could work with the Planning Board on proposed zoning amend- ments. That worked well in the 1987 Town Meeting on the commercial zoning revision. The Board will write a letter to the TMMA encouraging the establishment of a standing committee on land use to work with the Plan- ning Board. c. Flatley-Sheraton, CD rezoning petition: Mr. Bowyer reported that Town Manager Richard White had a lengthy meeting with the Flatley Company and 1 discouraged them, apparently successfully, from filing their CD rezoning petition to be heard at the special town meeting on July 13 or 14. d. Summer Meeting Schedule: Meeting dates for the summer were establish- ed as: Wednesday, July 6; either July 12, 13 or 14 at 7:00 p.m. for whatever nights the special town meeting is in session; July 25 will be left open depending upon whether Mr. Williams is available; (Mrs. Wood and Mr. Sorensen will not be available on that date), August 8, August 22, and Wednesday, September 7. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. T Eleanor Klauminzer, Clerkv