Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-10-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Galaitsis, Zurlo, Canale, Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. **************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION**************************** PUBLIC HEARING Murray Hills Subdivision, Blueberry Lane; definitive subdivision: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were David Romero and Erich Nitzsche of Commonwealth Engineering, Inc., Phyllis Etsell of Winning Estates and Hamilton Hackney, attorney, with approximately 7 people in the audience. Mr. Romero said this was a two-lot subdivision off Blueberry Lane. There would be five catch basins to collect storm water and direct it to the infiltration system on site with a wetlands replication area. This system met the storm water standards for runoff mitigation. The applicant was requesting a waiver for the construction of an 18-foot road, a retaining wall and island within the right of way (ROW). The island would be used for snow storage. Board Comments and Questions: Mr. Canale asked why did they choose this plan when they could submit one without the waivers? Mr. Romero said it was due to the wetlands limits. Mr. Canale responded that a site sensitive development (SSD) might be a better option. Mr. Romero said this site had a 10-13 year history evolving from a four- lot subdivision. He wanted no waivers, but would have to cross the wetlands no matter what was done. Ms. Manz said this plan complied in most of the particulars with the subdivision regulations, but would need waivers. A SSD would allow for the minimization of the roadway and would not require defining the lots, so as to allow better placement of the homes. Ms. Manz would be reluctant to approve the proposed plan without waivers and suggested they consider a SSD. Mr. Galaitsis said if there were no other options he would consider this plan, but he would prefer to see a SSD plan and he urged Mr. Romero to consider it. Mr. Hornig said the following needed to be addressed: ?? The plan showed four lots. It needed to specify that some of the lots were not buildable and that there would be no construction on them; ?? The plan showed no drainage easements; ?? The plan showed no wetlands replication area (on lot A); Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 10, 2009 ?? The plan showed no operation and maintenance for the drainage system; ?? A draft of the wording of the easement and covenant language; ?? Suggest a proposed name for the street reflective of the area; ?? Address the turnaround, which was proposed to have a pavement width of 26 feet with the island in the center; reduce the pavement to accommodate vehicles; ?? Address engineering concerns regarding the retaining wall design; ?? Address the lack of street trees at the end and the type of trees; the ones proposed would block the line of sight; ?? Engineering wanted the water main looped and the manhole in the pavement, not on the island; and ?? Show where the utility lines would be located. Mr. Hornig said the Board would like to see the amended plans prior to the next session of the hearing. Ms. Manz asked what would the Conservation Commission do without the waivers. Mr. Hornig said they would explore if adequate adjustments were made to the road and then make a determination. The action was due by August 28 and the next meeting with all five Board members would be August 19 (Mr. Zurlo and Mr. Galaitsis might not be available). The amended plans should be submitted ten days prior to the meeting date to allow a review by the Engineering Department. Mr. Canale asked if the waiver of width would be for the entire length of the roadway? Mr. Romero said just the crossing. Mr. Zurlo said if you went to a SSD it might present more of a challenge, but would yield a better project that would work better with the contours of the site and increase the value of the property. Mr. Zurlo would support the waivers for the plan so as not to strong arm the developer into a SSD. Mr. Hornig said the waiver did not show if it would interfere with the utilities. Snow storage would be enough with a five-foot shoulder and should not go onto the wetlands. Mr. Galaitsis said this was not to strong-arm anyone, but one house touches the 50 foot wetlands buffer and there were several other problems. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to August 19, 2009 at 7:45 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. ***************************APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED******************************** 43 & 51 Bertwell Road: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to endorse the plan entitled “Plan of Land in Lexington, MA Middlesex County”, dated May 27, 2009, prepared and certified by Vernon J. LeBlanc, Professional Land Surveyor, LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc. Danvers, MA, with Form A/2009-1, submitted by John & Catherine Gill and Charles & Jeanne Woodward, the applicants, as Minutes for the Meeting of June 10, 2009 Page 3 it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. 66 Robbins Road: Mr. Henry said this was a street improvement project requiring a determination of the adequacy of grade and construction on an unaccepted street by the Board. Mr. Henry asked the Board to authorize endorsement by the Chairman if questions were resolved through consultation with Town Counsel and town staff. Eighteen months ago the Planning Board said the road was inadequate and he questioned what had changed since. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0 to authorize the chairman of the Planning Board to make the decision after consultation with Town Counsel whether or not this ANR for 66 Robbins Road would be approved, denied or should be brought back before the Board. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE***************** The next meeting on June 24 will be the reorganization. Ms McCall-Taylor spoke with Ms. Johnson and she would be happy to serve again as Associate Planning Board Member. July 8 and 29 are the next scheduled meetings. **************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION**************************** PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 91-93 Hancock Street, Lexington Gardens; preliminary subdivision plan: Present were Joe Marino, Homes Development Corporation, John Esserian and Rick Waitt. Mr. Marino said they found they could build a 12-lot conventional subdivision on this site, which would comply with the subdivision regulations rather then deal with the uncertainty of a Balanced Housing Development (BHD). Hancock Street was a public street and would not require a traffic study by the developer since the site would contain fewer than 50 units. Any concern about traffic would be the responsibility of the Town if a study needed to be done. Mr. Waitt said the site had 11.09 acres in the RO district with the Diamond Middle School to the east. On this site were the Victory Garden, an existing home and wetland on site as well as a wetland buffer from an off-site wetland. The land was relatively flat and with minimum elevations for the drainage system, would have a looped water main and the sewer easement would be used for the connection. There would be a more defined landscape plan presented at the definitive stage. Mr. Waitt wanted to address the engineering report. A traffic analysis that had been strongly recommended but would not be required according to the figures generated by the ITE manual; all utilities would be on the individual lots at the definitive plan; the fill would be used to elevate the sidewalks on the inner loop; and they would be willing to discuss a sidewalk along the frontage on Hancock Street. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 10, 2009 Board Comments: th Mr. Galaitsis asked what had changed in the survey that allowed for the 12 lot? Mr. Waitt said just time to work on it. Mr. Galaitsis said the rattails in the front of the lots would penetrate and block major portions of the neighbors’ front yard and were not in the spirit of the bylaw. The bylaw should be fixed as soon as possible. Ms. Manz agreed that the shape of the lots was absurd and could create many problems, the open space and Victory Garden were eliminated, and there was no access to the conservation land. In every way this plan was less valuable then the last. She asked that they at least consider the SSD as an alternative. This plan was irrational and very negative compared to the former plan. Mr. Zurlo asked what the criteria would be to require a traffic study? Ms. McCall-Taylor said 50 units or more. Mr. Zurlo suggested they test the traffic calming policy. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that was still only a draft and not a policy. Mr. Zurlo said this was not sound practice wished the Board would deny the plan based on unorthodox arrangment. Mr. Marino said the requirement for a lot to be able to contain a circle equal to 80% of the required frontage was to avoid flag or pork chop lots and to create a place for the homes near the street and these lots complied with the bylaw. Mr. Canale said this plan would not serve future residents, neighbors or the developer’s interest. Why not consider a SSD? While the Board could not require a traffic study he suggested the applicant might wish to do one. Mr. Canale wanted a sidewalk across the frontage of Hancock Street. The two entrances so close to the island on Hancock Street, which was considered an arterial roadway, should be reduced to one entrance with a looped road for safety concerns. The property abutted public land and would require access; was there an easement? Mr. Marino said adding a new walking easement would create problems and could be a safety issue since there was a well-established pattern that existed, which should be used. Mr. Hornig said there were PVC pipes near the headwall coming out of the ground, which needed to be removed. Mr. Waitt said they would be. Mr. Hornig asked if the sight distance had been reviewed. Mr. Waitt said yes and they were in excess of the minimum requirements. Mr. Hornig said the sidewalks should be outside the loop for connectivity for pedestrian and bicycle use. There was no street lighting on the plan and were the monitoring wells still needed? Mr. Marino said the wells would be removed after 12 months. Mr. Hornig said there was very few trees on the site and wanted as many existing trees as possible preserved. Mr. Hornig said §175-50 allowed the Planning Board to require the designation of one or more parts of the subdivision for reservation of land for public purposes. The Board would exercise that power for the area around the Victory Garden and the sewer easement. Minutes for the Meeting of June 10, 2009 Page 5 Audience comments: ?? The developer went from a BHD to this plan; what would be the tradeoffs? ?? What waivers have they applied for? Mr. Waitt said none. ?? There were concerns about rat tailing the frontage and what would be lost by not having frontage? ?? There were concerns about traffic, visibility and the entrance/exits off Hancock Street. ?? There should be another cross walk created at another location for safer walking and biking to and from the school. ?? Access to the conservation land would be good to have. ?? Would the developer be willing to meet with the sidewalk committee to address their concerns? Mr. Marino said yes after a plan was approved. ?? Regarding the aesthetics were there any plans to remove the Victory Garden in any way? Mr. Marino said they were in the process of developing the landscape plan. ?? There was concern regarding the square footage of the homes, no open space and the overbuilt quality of the site. Mr. Henry said the houses could be up to 8,000 square feet. ?? There was hope the Board would seek the public land and limit what the developer could do. Mr. Henry said the Board needed to compromise. Since the developer proved they could do a 12-lot conventional plan, the SSD would preserve that right and may benefit the Town. If the Board wanted the Victory Garden saved, let the house size go and get better lotting that would be gained through an SSD. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the future residents wanted a fence what would happen? Mr. Marino said there would be private restrictions provided in anticipation of that issue. Mr. Hornig said the following were lists of modifications and instructions from the Board: ?? The utility services would need to be relocated onto the individual lots; ?? Sidewalks should be outside the of the loop and along the Hancock Street frontage; ?? There should be a bike and pedestrian path near lot 5 to the school and conservation land; ?? The Town would reserve the right to take the Victory Garden and straighten the road; ?? Only allow one curb cut on Hancock Street; ?? Address how this development would fit within the character and scale of the neighborhood; and ?? All issues raised by Engineering would need to be addressed. Mr. Canale said the developer should consider a definitive plan based on the feed back from the Board and consider the SSD concurrently. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 10, 2009 Mr. Hornig said the access would serve the conservation land as well as the school. The two curb cuts were needed to allow for 12 lots unless the developer considered the SSD. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the developer could come back with a definitive plan at anytime. Mr. Waitt would prefer the approval of the preliminary plan and not revisit the plans of the past. There might be a consideration to look at the SSD if a unified voice was heard from the Board. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the 12-lot conventional preliminary subdivision plan for 91-93 Hancock Street with instructions as outlined above by Mr. Hornig. Board Comments Mr. Zurlo said that an assumption was being made that the SSD was the way to go and suggested a BHD would be a better option. The type of developments that would best utilize the SSD would have more dynamic land features. He further stated the previous proposal for a BHD was reviewed by the Board working with the new Bylaw and he believes with staff’s guidance a BHD could still be the favorable option. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the Board had already had an opportunity to support a BHD on this property and had been unable to come to any agreement as to what was acceptable for this site, even though the proposal was within the limits that Board had said were acceptable when the bylaw was changed at Town Meeting. Now what was before them was a conventional plan, which must be approved if it meets the standards for a conventional subdivision. Mr. Henry said in order to get the BHD to work the Board would need to give consistent guidance. The SSD would at least be a better option then a conventional plan and could improve it. Mr. Hornig said the developer wanted a clear and unanimous approach before they would consider trying the SSD and that was the goal now. Mr. Galaitsis said the SSD must save the Victory Garden, provide clear access to the school, and be based on a conventional plan without rattails blocking the front yards of any houses, which meant 11 units. Mr. Canale said that the Board saw the applicant could go forward with 12 units and would get a conventional plan. If there were no compromise by the Board, it would miss the boat. The additional unit would be part of the give and take. There would need to be access to the Victory Garden and the school and the sight line on the school access taken care of. The units could be on lots or clustered, he would leave that determination to the developer. Mr. Hornig agreed with Mr. Canale. Mr. Galaitsis said a 12 unit SSD would be better then a conventional but the proof plan was absurd and he would make a decision when they came back with a plan. Mr. Henry said they would not come back with an 11 unit SSD plan since the 12 unit conventional plan complied. Ms. Manz said the entire Board preferred the SSD to the Minutes for the Meeting of June 10, 2009 Page 7 conventional plan and she had no opposition to 12 units. Mr. Zurlo suggested the language be open to allow an 11 or 12 units for the SSD. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-2, (Mr. Zurlo and Mr. Galaitsis opposed), to recommend that the developer come forward with a 12-unit SSD plan with lots that did not have front yard rat tails. ************************************ BOARD REPORTS******************************** Mr. Canale said the Battle Road Scenic Byway public meeting will be on June 16 in Cary Auditorium at 7:00 p.m. The MAPC annual meeting was yesterday and the Metrofuture actions had three planks - transportation, finance reform, a local smart growth plan, and green growth and green job creations. Ms. Manz said the CPC will make a recommendation to the Selectmen to create a Land Acquisition Committee to include all interests and not just conservation. There was a meeting regarding the use of Busa Land. There was a strong campaign made for keeping a portion of the Busa Land for farming. The Center Committee would be bringing a warrant article to Town Meeting to add additional uses in the center. Mr. Hornig said that Cubist wanted to amend their PSDUP. Mr. Canale said a meeting took place regarding the State Energy Code, commonly known as the stretch code that would require more energy conservation. *********************************** MINUTES**************************************** The Board will review the minutes at the next meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:01 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk