Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-24-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 24, 2021 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on March 24th, 2021, Virtual Meeting per Governor Baker’s Order at 6:00 pm Present: Charles Hornig, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Clerk; Melanie Thompson; and Robert Creech. Also present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director and Sheila Page, Assistant Planning Director. Mr. Hornig stated that this remote participation meeting was being held in accordance with Governor Baker’s March 12, 2020 Executive Order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law to allow remote participation during the State of Emergency due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Mr. Hornig provided instructions to members of the public, who were watching or listening to the meeting via the Zoom application, regarding the process for making a public comment. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION****************** Non-Residential Preliminary Subdivision Plan Approval: 10 and 3 Maguire Road: Present was Robert Buckley of Reimer and Braunstein, David Robinson from Allen and Major, and Scott Kelly. Mr. Buckley explained the reason for this application was for a plan freeze for the zoning for this property and preserve the current property rights. Mr. Robinson presented the plan for a non-residential subdivision of land for 10 Maguire Road. The application would take the large parcel of land and divide it into three buildable lots. Ms. Page said the plan was compliant minus the need to have looped water and recommended it be a condition of approval. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters asked for clarification regarding the lot at 3 Maguire Road. Mr. Buckley said 3 Maguire would not be required since it has sufficient frontage on Maguire Road. Mr. Hornig suggested this not be made part of this request for this new subdivision and should remove it to avoid confusion.  Mr. Peters asked for clarification that the existing building was entirely on lot one. Mr. Robinson said yes. Was the intent of this plan to preserve the rights on the property under Article 16? Mr. Buckley confirmed that.  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on what currently exists around the area they focused on at the bottom of the plan. Is there wetlands or conservation land surrounding that area? There would be no residential area around it only commercial properties. Would the bikeway be impeded by the construction? Mr. Buckley said no.  Mr. Creech asked for confirmation that all the changes would be on the southern side of Maguire Road. Mr. Buckley said yes.  Mr. Hornig said it would be important to note this was in the CM District and not the C-HIP District which had different dimensional standards and should be Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 24, 2021 updated at the definitive stage. Would you object to a condition that required you meet the town standards for the water service. No. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the preliminary plan for 10 Maguire Road with three conditions (1) to upgrade the water service to meet town standards, (2) to change the zoning table to reflect this is in the CM District and not the C-HIP District, and (3) make it clear that 3 Maguire Road would be excluded from the subdivision. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Rangeway Extension Definitive Subdivision-Building Permit Request, Covenant, Surety, Modification: Mr. Peters was recused from the Rangeway discussion since he was an abutter to this property. Mr. Gilgun, Attorney and the prospective buyers were present. Mr. Gilgun explained that there were three problems which would not allow the sale of the property to go forward:  The covenant would not allow the property to be sold prior to the completion of infrastructure improvements to serve the property;  The need for consent from the Board to get a conditional building permit issued subject to the completion of the infrastructures as conveyed in the covenant; and  The plan had a Limit of Work (LOW) area and wanted clarification that landscaping beyond the LOW area in the rear yard would be allowed. Mr. Gilgun said they would give notice to the abutters. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Hornig said to change the wording of the covenant was no problem. The request to get the conditional building permit would be contrary to State law and the Planning Board had no power to do that, but the applicant could change the surety form to allow the issuance of a building permit. The third matter issue was any changing to the landscape on the lot would require no change to the stormwater runoff into that drainage system in a negative way.  Mr. Schanbacher said this seemed to be somewhat reasonable and was open to other discussion.  Ms. Thompson was asking for clarification on the history and more discussion on this matter. The proposed buyer Mr. Corey explained the LOW line would cut the lot in half and he would like to provide some yard for a potential buyer and would like to do some grading and clearing of trees to create a more attractive landscape. If we couldn’t provide more green space it would be difficult to sell. Ms. Thompson asked why this wasn’t challenged earlier. Would this change impact any abutters? Mr. Corey said he did not believe so. Bob Creech moved that the Planning Board authorize the chair to execute any documents necessary to make the covenant for Rangeway extension conform to section 81U. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll Call: Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED Minutes for the Meeting of March 24, 2021 Page 3 Mr. Hornig said he would work with staff to figure out what would need to be done for the two matters that the Planning Board could do. Mr. Hornig said the LOW was a substantive issue and would accept the audience comments. Audiences Comments and Questions:  There was concern expressed that the issue with modification to the LOW would have a dramatic effect on the topography and that building on that hill would impact the residents of Drummer Boy Way.  There was a lot of history with the composition of the neighborhood and how the clearing of the lot would impact Rangeway. There were a lot of changes the Planning Board would need to consider and have more clarity on this proposed radical change. Mr. Hornig said the LOW was a concern due to drainage and needed assurance that the clearing and regrading or any potential change for this matter would need to be addressed. The Board would need you to come back with an updated new set of plans and updated drainage calculations from the 2017 plans. **************************TOWN MEETING****************************** Discussion and Review Warrant Determine Positions on Town Meeting Articles: Would there be any issues to an amendment to decrease the number of loading docks required in Article 44? There were no objections by the Board. Mr. Hornig will convey that to the Members of the Center Committee and try to attend their meeting on Friday. Mr. Peters rejoined the meeting. The second amendment is for Article 45. Ms. Arens intends to propose an amendment with language from the Sustainable Lexington Committee. The Board will discuss it at the next meeting if the Board Members have no objections at this time. Mr. Peters asked if this would be discussed at the night of Town Meeting next week. ***********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************ Staff Updates: There were no updates. Board Member Updates: Mr. Peters said the Housing Partnership Board met last night and there was a presentation on Affordable Housing Corporations. Ms. Thompson said that it was recommended that the Planning web page offer more information on that topic. Review of Meeting Minutes March 10 and 17 2021: Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of the March 10, 2021 meeting as amended by Mr. Creech and March 17, 2021 meeting as distributed. Bob Creech seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-1 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – abstained; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of March 24, 2021 The next meeting will be Wednesday, March 31, 2021. That meeting will start early at 5:00 p.m. April 14 will be the next meeting for a public hearing for 109 Reed Street and possibly a sketch plan for 12 Summit Road. The next meeting after that will be April 28, 2021 if needed. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of March 24, 2021. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5- 0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 7:12 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. 10 Maguire Road:  Revised Form B Application dated March 22, 2021 (10 pages).  Revised Preliminary Plan set dated March 22, 2021 (8 pages).  Revised Staff review dated March 23, 2021 (6 pages). Rangeway:  Cover Letter dated March 17, 2021 (3 pages).  Decision dated October 29, 2019 (6 pages)  Recorded Covenant dated August 5, 2020 (10 pages). Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board