Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-03-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 2021 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on February 3, 2021, Virtual Meeting per Governor Baker’s Order at 7:04 pm Present: Robert Creech, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Ginna Johnson, Clerk; Richard Canale. Charles Hornig was not able to attend the public hearing tonight and will join the meeting in progress. Since there is a public hearing on a special permit that requires a super majority to pass Michael Leon, Associate Board member will be sitting in for him. Also present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director and Sheila Page, Assistant Planning Director. Robert Creech, Chair, read the agenda into the record, introduced members of the Planning Board and Planning Department Staff, and called the meeting to order on Wednesday, February 3, 2021. Mr. Creech read the following statement relative to the recent outbreak of COVID-19. Good evening. Consistent with Governor Baker's Executive Order of March 12, 2020, suspending specific provisions of MGL. c. 30A, §18 due to the current State of Emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of COVID-19, this meeting of the Lexington Planning Board is being conducted remotely. In-person attendance is not permitted at this time. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access real-time proceedings via technological means. In the event access cannot be provided, an audio or video recording of this meeting will be available for review on the Town of Lexington website or through LexMedia as soon as possible after the meeting. For this meeting, the Lexington Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. Specific information for remote participation by the public can be found on the Planning Office’s web page. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. At this time, I will provide a brief review of the meeting proceedings. 1. For each public hearing, the Planning Board will request a presentation from the Applicant or petitioner, followed by an opportunity for the Planning Board to ask questions or provide comments. Then the floor will be open for public comments. 2. All comments during public participation need to be limited to 2 minutes or less and must be respectful. 3. When the time comes for public participation, if you are dialing in, you may use *6 to mute or unmute yourself and *9 to raise or lower your hand. 4. If at any time during the meeting you have a question, please use the Q&A feature, and staff will respond. Development Administration a. Public Hearing: 9 Keeler Farm Way (71-79 East Street) Special Permit Modification Mr. Creech opened the public hearing for a Special Permit Modification for 9 Keeler Farm Way. Present was Mr. Erik Bednarek, landscape architect for VHB who presented the history and existing conditions of the special permit subdivision and the property of Mr. Chang’s home. Mr. Bednarek explained the purpose of this Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2021 modification would be to create more useable and attractive outdoor space. Mr. Bednarek said he was sure the concerns expressed from Engineering about meeting the stormwater bylaw requirements could be met. Mr. Bednarek addressed comments received from the neighbors regarding impervious coverage, drainage, drainage design, maintenance, light pollution, views and equity. Board Member Questions: Ms. Johnson asked for clarification on what was being requested. Mr. Bednarek said the applicant was asking for a waiver on the impervious surface. Mr. Canale asked if he had anything in writing from the other landowners in the development stating that they would be willing to give up their rights to any potential increase of impervious surface for the future to allow this modification. He asked if this modification was only for convenience and not for any existing problem on site. Mr. Bednarek explained the wife wanted to be able to do more gardening and be able to entertain as well. Mr. Peters asked for clarification on the land surrounding this property which was referred to as designated preserved land and asked for the definition under the Keeler Farm Homeowners Association Trust. Mr. Bednarek said he believed was mostly allotted as a path system and is common land to the Homeowner’s Association. Mr. Leon asked for clarity on the drainage system regarding a surface drainage structure located adjacent to the property on common land and what was it connected to, and the depth of the groundwater. Mr. Leon asked if he had a response to the Town Engineer’s question on depth to groundwater, if the stormwater management plan for this subdivision was connected to a street network drainage system or drained into leaching catch basins or to the common area south of this parcel. Mr. Leon requested confirmation that there is no connection to the municipal stormwater system and if the entre subdivision was intended to discharge in to a leaching structure or drain on the common area on parcel 2. Mr. Bednarek responded that he would have to check that information. Board Members Comments: Ms. Johnson explained the Planning Board relaxed the required dimensional controls to get a better development for this subdivision which included preserving the existing farm house, a shed structure in the rear which could make a great small rental unit, a variety of housing sizes and preserve open space and connectivity for that open space. The limits were set for this special permit for the reasons stated above Ms. Johnson stated she was opposed to this requested modification since the special permit limits were set to protect the benefits that the town was offered and protect the abutters with the open space. Mr. Canale said when the owner purchased the house the impervious surface limits should have been made clear. Since this was strictly a matter of convenience and not a hardship he would not be in favor of approving this request. Mr. Peters agreed this request was excessive and he could not support this request. Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2021 Page 3 Mr. Leon said the unusual common area design had not fully accomplished the objectives that was articulated when the project was approved. There has been a number of abutters who expressed their concerns of the inadequacies of the buffer provisions and protections it was to afford. Mr. Leon was troubled about the adequacy of the stormwater system management plan and the impacts it has had on the abutters. Mr. Bendarek could not answer questions regarding the existing stormwater system functioning and if the proposed project would impact the existing system. This would be difficult to decide without more information on the stormwater system along with concerns about the existing equity for the other residents within the community and would not feel comfortable approving this request. Residents input: Sandra Gasparro A resident submitted a letter to the Board and said that she that lives in Fiske Common and was the closest house abutting to this project. She requested information on when the pictures shown were taken of my house and deck taken since that tree line no longer existed and the color of the umbrella on her deck. There is no barrier between my house and the project. She had questions about the ponding that was now occurring on her property since the houses were built. Concerns about the low lighting that they installed that would shine in my eyes when I sat on my deck. There was no buffer planting and no pathway behind their property and I could see right into their house most of the year. Lee Sillin, Trustee of Fiske Common submitted a letter of concern about stormwater drainage and groundwater that was negatively impacting the residents of Fiske Commons and needed to know if the stormwater system was being maintained and how it was being enforced. Mr. Bednarek said he was concerned that Mr. Chang was being penalized for the development itself and felt like he was being told he could not do any improvements to his property. Mr. Bednarek requested information on what could be allowed? Mr. Canale responded that once the development was built the maintenance was the responsibility of the Association and it would have been helpful if a report was sent with the maintenance plan and requirements that were completed set forth by the special permit. There would need to be an impervious surface equity piece along with unknown drainage system information to determine if this would be adequate. Anyone who wants to do improvement should get approval from the Association and the residents. Ms. Johnson said there were consequences of the impervious surfaces which could create flooding of basements and ponding of adjacent properties and that is why the maximum was created. A reduction of the driveway could reduce the impervious surface could be a possibility. Mr. Chang said he was not aware of the history of the property nor the lighting disturbing the neighbor and once alerted turned off the lighting. He was one of the last families that moved in and there was no open space it was already blocked off by the existing neighbors. Mr. Chang was just trying to find out what they could do to their property. Mr. Creech said this was just not allowed Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2021 due to set impervious surface limits for the development and that was the only reason the Board was not looking favorably at this request and this was not personal. Mr. Leon asked staff if the applicant reduced the pervious surface like having a pea stone driveway or using pervious pavers for the driveway would it be allowed to offset the some of the calculation for impervious surface to allow some changes. Ms. Page said that is a question that staff has been discussing and are not clear on and believed it was somewhere in between. Mr. Chang asked if they could get more clarity on that before they spent more money on this proposal. Mr. Creech said staff would research further, make a proposal, and have the Planning Board review it before discussing it with the applicant. Mr. Bednarek said with regards to the Stormwater if we need to look into it as well we would do an investigation. Mr. Creech said to wait until you heard from staff. Mr. Chang would consider withdrawal of the plan and send a note to staff. Richard Canale moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing for 9 Keeler Farm Way modification for a special permit to Wednesday, February 17, 2021. Ginna Johnson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll Call: Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Michael Leon – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Hornig joined the meeting in progress at 8:34 p.m. b. Site Plan Review Compliance Condition #3: 960-1010 Waltham Street (Brookhaven) Mr. Creech explained that this had to do with a gate and signage and the applicant was required to come back to see if the Board wanted to close the emergency access. Mr. Jim Borrebach was present to see if the Planning Board wanted to close the emergency access as required in condition 3 for Site Plan Review for a Planning Board determination. They sent a report to both the Fire and Police Departments who both responded the access should remain the way it is. Mr. Canale said the bollards should remain in place and not require a chain at this time. Ms. Johnson had no problem with it remaining the same. Mr. Peters asked do you see any issue with residents using this access. Mr. Borrebach said they do not anticipate any issues. Mr. Peters agreed it should remain as is. Mr. Hornig said it should remain as is. Mr. Creech requested they confirm with new residents that this was only an emergency access and not to use. Mr. Borrebach had no issues with this. The Board was happy with the way the emergency access currently was and said the project had met the condition 3 requirements. Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2021 Page 5 Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board agree that Brookhaven met the condition 3 requirements for the site plan review and do not recommend any changes from the current conditions. Richard Canale seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll Call: Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED Town Meeting a. Discussion of Article 35 – Scenic Roads Bylaw (Citizen’s Petition) Mr. Jeff Howry presented his proposed citizen’s petition amendments for Article 35 for the Scenic Roads Bylaw for Town Meeting and explained that there should be a committee established to recognize and document roads, walls and historic dwelling locations and wanted Planning Board feedback. Mr. Canale thought the suggestion of a committee was excellent but Town Meeting did not adopt a Scenic Road Bylaw and it could be confusing since the Town did adopt a Battle Road Scenic Byway law which was completely different. This proposed amendment would be to create a committee that could establish the necessary criteria to bring forward to Town Meeting for the Scenic Roads Act in the future. Ms. Johnson thanked Mr. Howry for bringing this forward as part of community values that was discussed in the Residential Policy Committee in the past and is happy to support this proposed amendment. Mr. Peters said this was a good idea to bring forward, the language in the warrant language does not mention who would establish the committee the title needs to be adjusted since the town has not approved a Scenic Roads Bylaw yet. This would need to be clarified in the motion and at Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig asked for clarity on what the committee would do and asked about enforcement. Mr. Howry explained the committee would identify candidates to bring forward to Town Meeting for approval. Mr. Hornig said there may be a problem with enforcement, but it would not do a whole lot of harm, but does not see it being necessary. Mr. Howry said this was just to get the process going to have Town Meeting eventually adopt the Scenic Roads Act. Mr. Leon applauded Mr. Howry for bringing this proposed amendment forward to inventory, acknowledge, and recognizing the historic landmarks and have the property owners’ respect and understand the significance of them. He also expressed a concern where the jurisdiction ends with public-owned land as opposed to private-owned land and in Lexington it could be hot button issue. Mr. Canale said adopting the Scenic Road Act would only address what would happen in the public right of way and did not address landscapes. Mr. Canale would work with Mr. Howry to see how they could bring this forward within the scope of the language. Mr. Hornig suggested that since this was for historic roads it could work well with a subcommittee of the Historical Commission. Mr. Howry said he preferred it remain separate and asked what could go forward. Mr. Canale would check with the moderator. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2021 Ms. Johnson requested Mr. Howry come back with the proposed amended article at a future meeting to allow the Board to vote on it once modified. It would be placed on a future agenda. Board Administration a. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) appointment: Larry Freeman The Board asked for background information and requested that this be moved to January 10 to allow time for the Board to review his background before the appointment. b. Staff Updates Ms. Loomis said tomorrow is the last coffee for Hartwell at 8:00 a.m. c. Board Member Updates Mr. Creech gave an update on the Lexington Center Streetscape Project that will run from April, 2021 to November, 2022. Mr. Creech will continue to send invites to the candidates to our meetings to participate. Mr. Peters asked how it would work with new candidates for the voting for Town Meeting Articles. d. Review of Meeting Minutes for December 16, 2020 and January 21, 2021. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board vote to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2020 and January 21, 2021, meetings as distributed. Richard Canale seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-1 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – abstained; Charles Hornig-yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Adjournment Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 3, 2021. Richard Canale seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. 9 Keeler Farm Way:  Plan set dated January 5, 2021 (8 pages).  Cover letter dated January 5, 2021 (3 pages).  Application dated January 5, 2021 (5 pages).  Recorded Keeler Farm Way Decision dated October 21, 2011 (12 pages).  Stormwater Memo dated January 5, 2021 (106 pages). Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2021 Page 7  As-builts 2014 dated August 20, 2014 (1 page).  Engineering comments dated January 29, 2021 (1 page).  Staff Comments dated January 29, 2021 (5 pages). Brookhaven:  Report on Brookhaven Emergency Access to the Wellesley Building dated January 13, 2021 (4 pages).  Brookhaven SPR decision dated September 13, 2017 ( 4 pages). Ginna Johnson, Clerk of the Planning Board