HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-16-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2019
A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Selectmen’s Meeting Room, in the Town
Office Building was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chair Bob Creech with members Charles
Hornig, Robert Peters, Richard Canale, and planning staff Eve Tapper and Lori Kaufman present.
Ginna Johnson will be participating remotely due to medical reasons.
**********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION***********************
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Rangeway Extension (Map 87 lot 37), Continued Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision:
Mr. Creech opened the continued public hearing at 7:08 p.m. with approximately 10 people in the
audience. Mr. Peters will be recused from this project. Ed Grant, attorney, Fred Russell, engineer,
Suzanne Raymond, buyer, and Doris Duff property owner were present.
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Canale, it was voted, 4-0, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, yes and Mr. Creech, yes) to extend the action deadline to November
15, 2019 as requested by the applicant.
Mr. Grant explained why some waivers were withdrawn from the application for this revised
application. Mr. Russell reviewed the plan changes for tree removal, reduced height of the wall
from nine to five feet with a guardrail, screening for the wall with a flowering climbing vine
approved by the Conservation Commission, and revisited the utilities and found that more trees
do not need to be removed.
Board Members Comments:
Thank you for lowering the wall and using a guardrail.
It is appreciated having updated tree sizes. There are a lot of trees at the same grade can
they all be saved and then monitored by an arborist after construction? The Ash Tree
should remain.
Could you use Virginia Creeper and Spicebush (Lindera Benzoin) plantings for the wall?
Could the Board limit the size of the house? Ms. Tapper said only if the applicant agrees
as per Town Counsel. Would the applicant consider that? Mr. Grant said in the past the
applicant agreed, but now Suzanne Raymond does not plan to live on the property and
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 2019
limiting the height would be cumbersome after all this time and expense and it would
affect the marketability of the house.
Can you plant additional trees down the driveway to better screen the Rangeway and
Drummer Boy abutters? Mr. Russell said yes.
The reduced number of waivers is better.
Do not agree that limiting the size of the house will impact the value of the house and
please consider that.
Public Comments:
An abutter was angered because things have changed and there is no consideration for the
size of the house. When we bought our house on Rangeway the Town said the lot next to
them was an unbuildable in 2003 and now a house is being built there. Based on that
original information we built an addition that faced that lot. There will be a lot of trees
cut and as the next door neighbor we will be upset when a 6,000 square foot house is
built in our backyard with a seven foot setback. We want additional trees to be planted.
Ginny Levett, Ms. Duff’s sister who used to live on James Street, which was originally part of this
lot said in 1958 there were no trees. She lived in Lexington for 50 years and there was no trees on
the lot up to Rangeway. They used to ride their horses and ski on this lot and in 2003 when the
neighbor bought the house the trees were very small and now 18 years later the trees are bigger.
There are three things to consider which is the non-native invasive plantings, surety
should be collected to make sure the road is completed, and the five foot wall is still too
high and is partly on the town property. If a small child falls off this wall and has a five
foot drop into invasive species on the Town property who will be responsible for those
injuries.
Board Individual Comments:
In 2013 the Board approved the project and I voted against it and not much has changed
but for continuity purposes I plan to approve it.
Would be happy to move forward with this and hope this is done soon and I plan to
approve it.
This will impact abutters and be a big change. It will be a delightful home for the future
residents. I am mindful of our work on Colony Road which allowed a large home to be
built and changed the character of the neighborhood. I am requesting Ms. Raymond to
consider the size of the house.
I want a condition to remove all invasive plants within the right of way within the limit of
work as identified by Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group and restore with
Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 2019 Page 3
species native to Middlesex County per “The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A
County Checklist.”
All trees should be evaluated by an arborist after the building of the road and save any
mature trees that can be saved. I would rather have a road be six inches narrower to save
a tree. Please add three additional native canopy trees on the south side of the driveway.
Mr. Russell said yes we will try to save as many mature trees as possible.
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Creech, it was voted, 4-0, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, yes and Mr. Creech, yes) to close the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
The Board reviewed the changes to the draft decision, as discussed tonight for the waivers and
conditions.
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Canale, it was voted, 4-0, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, yes and Mr. Creech, yes) to approve the subdivision plan decision with
the conditions as modified tonight and with minor edits to be made. The final version will be sent
by staff to Board Members for review.
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Canale, it was voted, 4-0, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, yes and Mr. Creech, yes) to authorize the chair to sign the subdivision
plan decision on the Board’s behalf after the Board reviews the final version.
Restrict Automatic Teller Machine use in the CB District, public hearing: Mr. Creech
opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. with approximately 10 people in the audience.
Mr. Jerry Michelson and Howard Levin from the Lexington Center Committee presented the
article that provides a definition for an automatic teller machine (ATM) and closing a loophole
for principal ATM use to preserve the limited linear storefront in the Lexington Center/ CB
District. This was brought about by the Chase Bank proposal for an ATM in a storefront. This
would not prohibit ATMs as an accessory use.
Board Comments:
There was a questions about Town Counsel’s changes to definition and why the word
computer was in there? Ms. Tapper does not know why Town Counsel submitted that
change.
What matters to you the unattended part or the machine part? Mr. Michelson said they
wanted to close the loophole to what Chase Bank was proposing. Mr. Levin said first we
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 2019
need to limit ATMs in the Center and the underlying goal is to preserve the limited linear
storefront in Lexington Center and we need an ATM definition.
How would this definition impact another request like the Chase Bank proposal?
Town Counsel’s definition seemed adequate.
The shorter the better for the definition. If an ATM is in a place that takes cash or plastic
that would not make it a primary use. The addition of computer, telephone or other
personal electronic device, use is extremely problematic. Since this is a Planning Board
article we will decide what the definition is.
The Board can discuss this further at the next meeting.
Examples of ATM primary uses in Lexington were discussed. Mr. Levin said they were
only concerned about linear store frontage in Center. Mr. Michelson said there are 12
places to get cash and do not need more and if things change in the future the Planning
Board can revisit the bylaws.
Have you spoken with the Building Commissioner about his version of accessory use as
opposed to a primary use? No, but there is no black and white answer. Before we move
forward we should discuss what the Building Commissioner’s take is on primary ATM
use versus accessory use.
The intent in the CB District is to not allow them to be primary uses. If it is out on the
street it is primary. Tell the Building Commissioner our intent and ask if he agrees.
We will ask staff with to discuss this with the Building Commissioner. We need to send
the right message and have concern about the fuzzy details.
We should not get bogged down with details our goal here to create the kind of
community we want and preserve a vibrant center. Ms. Tapper suggested making an ATM
a special permit process making it parallel to a bank.
Mr. Levin said the Center Committee does not want a standalone ATM in store fronts and special
permit conditions do not address the concerns which is the preservation of linear store front.
Staff will speak with the Building Commissioner, but it is not an easy answer.
Public Comment:
The Associate Member who sat on the hearing for the Zoning Board of Appeals said
there are two types of ATMs one that only gives cash and a bank ATM. The Board needs
to distinguish between cash ATMs and bank ATMs. Teller-less banking should be added
to the use table with a definition.
Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 2019 Page 5
Board Comments and questions:
Do we have actual evidence that ATMs produce less foot traffic then other uses and
storefronts?
Has there been any outreach to the property owners of that area other than banks?
What we are doing is not allowing ATMs, but are allowing banks. Why are we
encouraging full banks over ATMs?
Mr. Michelson asked what changes would be within scope of the warrant article as originally
submitted? It would be left to the Town Moderator or Town Counsel.
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Peters, it was voted, 5-0, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Peters, yes, Mr. Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, yes and Mr. Creech, yes) to continue the public
hearing to October 30, at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room.
Mr. Michelson said outreach to property owners included the public hearing posting in the
newspaper, the Retail Association sent a letter to all business owners on their list, and the
Economic Development newsletter also included information on this article.
Staff will follow-up with Building Commissioner and everything else is on the Board or Center
Committee.
A Board Member wants to keep the use table as “NO” for ATMs since that is the purpose of the
Article.
Liberty Ridge/0 Grove Street-Request to Modify Construction Hours:
The applicant is requesting a modification to the hours of construction from the original hours in
the special permit to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturdays from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The applicant was not present.
Would this be indefinitely?
Moving this closer to what others are allowed to work is acceptable to get the project
finished sooner and stop the pain for the neighbors.
Why was this special permit given more restrictions with respect to working time then
normally allowed? This was a carefully crafted condition with a lot of abutter input. To
change this in the middle of the project except for an emergency situation with a specific
length of time would be disrespectful and disruptive to abutters.
I would be willing to allow for a time limited through the end of the calendar year and
then revisit.
Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 2019
When I walked the site and it is noisy. I would consider allowing the time to extend from
5:00 pm to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday work from October 15 to May 15, but no
cement trucks and lumber deliveries it would only allow form framing, roofing, windows
and interior work to be done.
It would be difficult to monitor what work would be done on Saturdays for 6 months. I
encourage the Board to respect the abutters and not allow work on Saturdays for six
months.
It would be better to get this project done sooner.
Do we know what the noise impacts are to the abutters?
On a motion of Mr. Creech, seconded by Mr. Peters, it was voted, 4-1, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Peters, yes, Mr. Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, no, and Mr. Creech, yes) Saturday work beginning this
week until December 31, 2019, from Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and weekdays 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. with the expectation to allow for a request to extend if needed at the end of the year.
On a motion of Mr. Canale, seconded by Mr. Peters, it was voted, 4-0-1, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Peters, yes, Mr. Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, abstained, and Mr. Creech, yes) to have the chair
send a letter to the Planning Director and cc the applicant.
137-143 Shade Street, security release:
The applicant has requested the release for the remaining monies held as security covering the
essential infrastructure within the development. Engineering and Planning Staff have confirmed
the completion of the required work.
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Canale, it was voted, 5-0, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Peters, yes, Mr. Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, yes, and Mr. Creech, yes) to release all the remaining
security as the work has been complete.
4 Bennington Road, Approval Not Required: (2:34:51)
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Peters, it was voted, 5-0, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Peters, yes, Mr. Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, yes, and Mr. Creech, yes) to endorse the ANR plan
showing the property at 4 Bennington Road as it does not require approval under the Subdivision
Control Law.
Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 2019 Page 7
21 Hastings Road, Approval Not Required:
On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Mr. Peters, it was voted, 5-0, (Mr. Hornig, yes, Mr.
Peters, yes, Mr. Canale, yes, Ms. Johnson, yes, and Mr. Creech, yes) to endorse the ANR plan
showing the property at 21 Hastings Road as it does not require approval under the Subdivision
Control Law.
Public Comments:
Ms. Lin submitted and read a letter representing over 30 abutters that is on file in the Planning
Department about why this ANR should not be allowed. She asked if there can there be
restrictions placed to protect house that is on the Historical Registry. The new lot rules would
apply like on all the other lots in the RS District. The existing house is on the historical registry
and if they are looking to heavily modify the house they would have to go to the Historical
Commission. At this time, the applicant is not looking to do anything with the house, but the
Board encourages a meeting with the neighbors. This is a straight forward by right application
and the Planning Board has no discretion to do anything. The neighbors can possibly join
together to buy the lot or talk to the owner of the property.
Discussion of Street Adequacy Determination Regarding Unaccepted Streets:
Mr. Hornig and Ms. Johnson recused themselves from this proposal since they live on private
ways.
Mr. Dan Rapperport was asking if the Planning Board would propose an article that would
expand the street widening trigger from 1,000 square feet to 2000 to 2500 additional square feet
beyond the existing gross floor area of the property. The value of the property decreases the
further away it is from the nearest accepted road. He believes that Lexington in the only Town in
Massachusetts that enforces this rule.
Board Comments:
This trigger is to ensure adequate safety and access for the Fire Department to houses.
The standards are restrictive and increasing the trigger to a higher number could create a
safety issue. The Planning Board could revisit what it requires to be done with the road in
the future, but not the trigger.
I went to an open house on a private street and it was hard to negotiate, but 1000 square
feet is not small. The Board could look at this at a later date.
A resident response was that a neighbor had a fire and there were two fire trucks that made it
down to the fire and granted they had to back out but made it down the road.
Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 2019
*************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION****************************
Discussion of upcoming meetings and Outreach-October 17, 24, and 30 November 6 and 12:
October 17 and 24 are joint Board of Selectmen (BOS) and Planning Board Meetings. The
Planning Board Meetings are scheduled for October 30, November 6, outreach and November 12,
a pre-town meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Parker Room. The meeting on October 17 is intended to be
a listening session to gather input from the community on appointed versus elected Boards and
then how to move forward if needed. The BOS will then decide what is the next step? The Board
discussed concern that there be no advocacy in the introduction and Mr. Creech will confirm that
with Ms. Kowalski tomorrow.
Board Comments on November 6 Outreach:
The November 6 outreach will include a presentation by Ted Brovitz, consultant on the
Hartwell Avenue Zoning proposal, Article 8, 25% design funding, and resident feedback.
It was thought this would be a listening session. We do not want to force the proposal on
the public rather than listening to what residents want.
It is important that we have graphics and images for the presentation; do we have any?
Who will be making them?
Does the Board believe that there will be a Hartwell Avenue rezoning initiative ready for
the spring? Mr. Creech and Mr. Hornig said yes.
th
Should the November 6 session be run by Economic Development staff?
There was concern that we are not ready and this outreach is premature.
The chair will speak with staff on this matter.
On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
The meeting was recorded by LexMedia.
The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in
Planning Board packets.
Rangeway extension:
Town Counsel memo from 2000 regarding orphaned lots (9 pages).
Zoning Determination dated June 21, 2002 (1 page).
Ed Grant memo regarding Berg v. Town of Lexington dated 5/2/11 (8 pages).
Land Court Order of Remand (2 pages).
Application for Rangeway from Doris Duff dated 7/11/11 (12 pages).
Memo from Ed Grant on his opinion dated April 30, 2012 (9 pages).
Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 2019 Page 9
From B application dated January 15, 2010 (9 pages).
Rangeway definitive subdivision plan dated March 7, 2019 (104 pages).
Rangeway Extension plan set dated December 3, 2018 (8 pages).
Rangeway turning radius (3 pages).
Rangeway daft easement from 205 (3 pages).
Conservation Commission comments dated May 14, 2019 (1 page).
2003 - proposed subdivision denied by Planning Board, mainly due to inadequacy
of proposed road and safety access. The Applicant appealed.
2011 - Doris Duff submitted a statement to the Planning Board.
2012/2013 - Applicant proposed improved access and the Planning Board issued a
Certificate of Action approving the subdivision. However, the subdivision plans
were not endorsed or recorded at this time.
2015 - Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions. The neighbors
appealed it.
2017 - DEP issued a Superseding Order of Conditions.
2019 - Conservation Commission amended their Order of Conditions.
2019 - New plans & application filed with Planning Board.
PDF of tree clusters possible removal.
Engineering comments September 10, 2019.
Staff summary September 25, 2019.
Updated waiver request September 20, 2019.
Applicant Memo September 20, 2019.
Automatic Teller Machine Principal Service Uses in the CB District:
Draft Zoning Language (1 page).
Town Counsel proposed edits (2 pages).
Presentation (24 slides).
Liberty Ridge/0 Grove Street:
Work Hour request from North Shore Development (2 pages).
137-143 Shade Street:
Release request from Fred Keefe (1 page).
Staff Summary and recommendation (1 page).
Page 10 Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 2019
4 Bennington Road, ANR:
Plan dated October 4, 2019 (1 page).
Form A (5 pages).
21 Hastings Road, ANR:
Plan dated October 2, 2019 (1 page).
Form A (5 pages).
Robert Peters, Clerk