HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-27-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2005
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Guard Room at the Lexington Police
Station was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chairman Harden with members Manz, Galaitsis, Hornig,
Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Tapper and Tap present.
************************ ARTICLES FOR 2006 TOWN MEETING ************************
Possible Reconsideration of Articles: The Board discussed its position on potential motions to reconsider
Article 7, Community Preservation Act (CPA) and Article 10, Accessory Apartments, articles already
passed by the 2005 Town Meeting. After some discussion of the possible arguments that might be made
against the CPA, the Board, on a motion duly made and seconded, voted to oppose reconsideration of
Article 7. Mr. Hornig said that the arguments for reconsideration of Article 10 were both procedural and
substantive. Since no amendment had yet been put forward the members decided to wait to respond to a
specific proposal if needed.
************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Public Hearing: 31, 33, 35 Cary Avenue Definitive Cluster Subdivision Plan, Sheldon Corporation: The
public hearing was opened at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Dryden, engineer for the project, had just arrived after being
caught in bad traffic. Mr. Todd Cataldo, the applicant, was also present. There were thirty people in the
audience.
Mr. Dryden presented the definitive plan for a cluster subdivision on land at 31, 33 and 35 Cary Avenue.
He said that the process had begun a year ago and that there had been four sketch plans reflecting many
changes. The definitive plan however is very similar to the approved preliminary plan. The plan shows
four single-family dwellings, one with an accessory apartment, arranged in a cluster served by two
driveways. Mr. Dryden had submitted to planning staff a proof plan showing four dwellings were possible
using a conventional subdivision. A large specimen tree would be protected during construction and
remain as a focal point of the development. Common open space was shown at the rear of the property,
adjacent to the wetlands area, the boundary of which had been approved by the Conservation
Commission. The plan showed an easement for access to the common open space. As many large trees as
possible would be protected during construction. Six test pits had been dug to determine the seasonal high
ground water level. Three dwellings would share a drive 18-feet wide, though the Conservation
Commission the night before requested that it be 16 feet wide. Mr. Dryden said that the sight distances in
both directions when entering Cary Avenue from the proposed driveways are sufficient.
Regarding the storm water management plan, Mr. Dryden said that the plan fully mitigates runoff, and
exceeds standards for infiltration, retention and TSS removal. He had communicated with Mr. Laurence
Hayes, independent reviewing engineer, and addressed Mr. Hayes’s issues. A comprehensive operations
and maintenance plan for the drainage facilities has been submitted. Mr. Cataldo commented that he has
worked with Mr. Zitkovsky, an abutter, on ground water issues in the area. Mr. Dryden said the following
changes would be made on the plans based on the meeting with the Conservation Commission: the
wetlands boundaries; the shape of the detention basin, which has been changed to pull it back from the
rear property line; and a swale to capture groundwater flows toward the northeast. He said he would
submit a full package with the changes to the Planning Board and the Conservations Commission.
Board Questions and Comments
: Mr. Hornig asked that measurements be taken in the field, to assure
that the limit of work line is outside the drip edge of the specimen tree. He also requested that the access
easement be delineated such that it is not on the driveway. In response to his question about underground
utilities, Mr. Dryden responded that all are underground except for a pump in Unit 4. Mr. Hornig
questioned the 13-foot side yard on Unit 2.
Minutes for the Meeting of April 27, 2005 2
Mr. Canale asked how much fill had been deposited and if more would be needed. Mr. Dryden indicated
that a bit more would be needed. Ms. Manz also expressed concern about the amount of fill. Mr. Dryden
said that the grading would make a smooth transition. In response to Mr. Canale's previous comment
about the Cambridge Reservoir watershed, Mr. Dryden had found that there is no tributary to the
watershed from the property. He will make a full report on this to the Commission and the Board.
Mr. Hornig said that he wanted updated plans before approving the subdivision. The plan should show
delineation of the easement to the open space so people would know where it is and the Town should
have the right to enforce the easement.
There were concerns expressed about the protection of the trees on the site - whether the driveway was
too close to the trees and whether drip edge of the large maple on the interior of the site was accurately
depicted and, even if it were, was the foundation of the nearest house so close as to endanger the tree.
Mr. Dryden maintained that red maples were very hardy and should be fine.
Mr. Galaitsis said that the size of the development was large and that he felt that only three conventional
lots would fit on the property due to wetlands issues so he was seeking a development that would not
exceed the impacts of a three-unit conventional subdivision, no matter what the formula might produce.
He felt that there should be greater setbacks to minimize the impacts on the abutters and that there is no
excuse for one of these dwellings to be so near the lot line, or for one of them to have four stories, as
shown. He also stated that a cluster subdivision is meant to have smaller units. He recalled the neighbors'
repeated objections to the build-up of fill and mess on the property over the past months.
Mr. Galaitsis noted that at previous meeting then Planning Board member Mr. Kastorf had said the fill
that had been brought on the site needed to be removed before the Board considered the subdivision; Mr.
Galaitsis noted that nothing had been done. The grade has already been raised and more will be brought
on site and he wants to see the original grade.
Mr. Dryden said that the existing condition plan was based on the original grade. Mr. Canale asked if it
had been determined how much fill had been brought on site and would be brought on site. Mr. Dryden
said that fill was necessary to cover the infiltrator. Mr. Canale said he was trying to understand what the
impacts would be and he found it hard to see that four conventional lots could be done. He then asked
about drainage to the Cambridge reservoir and whether the applicant had consulted with the City of
Cambridge. Mr. Dryden said that that question of drainage had come up at the Conservation Commission
and, using DEP information, he had found there was no tributary to the Hobbs Brook.
Ms Manz said that she had questions about the fill and how much would be removed and how much
added. Mr. Dryden said they would not be removing the fill currently on the site but may move it. Ms.
Manz then asked why the fill had been brought in and Mr. Dryden explained that originally they had
planned to build only on lot 3 but then had purchased two more lots. At that point they stopped grading
on the original lot.
Audience Questions and Comments
: The neighbors reiterated their individual and collective concerns
about the development and potential worsening of their water problems. They wanted to see the detention
basin moved farther from their property. Mr. Dryden assured them that the proposed system would fully
mitigate drainage on the site, although it would not correct off-site problems. Mr. Jeff Chitouris asked
how many trees were actually being taken down, saying his estimate was 70 to 80 trees.
Mr. Harden suggested that the hearing be continued and that the applicant be asked to provide additional
information including calculations on the amount of fill. He also wanted to see the gross floor area
Minutes for the Meeting of April 27, 2005 3
calculations in more detail, with explanations of what has been included. Since the preservation of the
40” maple on the site had been the reason the Board was considering a cluster on this site, he felt a
certified arborist should look at the tree and make sure that it is protected. Ms. Manz also requested a
count of the trees of 6” diameter or greater that would be removed.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to continue the public hearing to May 11, 2005
immediately following the public hearing on Jefferson Union scheduled for 6:00 p.m.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Richard Canale, Clerk