Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-23-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building, and called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Zurlo with members Manz, Galaitsis, Canale, Hornig and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ****************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION************************* PUBLIC HEARING Murray Hills Subdivision, Blueberry Lane; definitive Site Sensitive development: Mr. Zurlo called the continued public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. Present for the applicant were Ms. Phyllis Etzell, Mr. David Romero and Eric Nitche of Commonwealth Engineering, and Attorney Hamilton Hackney. Mr. Romero explained this was a site sensitive development with two parcels. Parcel A was not buildable in the current configuration. Parcel B would have two lots with a replication area and common drive. This development when compared to a conventional subdivision would have a reduction in pavement for the drive, which would be 18 feet wide and have a T-turn with a 24 foot disturbance as opposed to a 40 foot disturbance. Board Comments and Questions: ? Appreciate the new design; it is superior to the conventional plan. ? Would there be separate utility and water services for Blueberry Lane? Yes. ? The utility plan was not shown on the current plan. Everything must be on the final plans. ? Nothing should be done on Parcel A or B that was not shown on the plans. ? Would all the trees within the limit of work be removed? The applicant would try to save some of the trees. ? It was not clear if the landscape plan complied with the tree bylaw. ? There are no street numbers available for the lots so there would need to be a name for the common drive to facilitate emergency access. ? There needed to be explicit indications of all trees to be saved or removed. ? Would there be a conservation easement for the unbuildable lot? The lot would remain under the applicant’s ownership and he will not grant a conservation easement. Audience Comments: ? There was concern about drainage. The abutter’s pool had collapsed once before. ? Was the survey accurate or would the abutter need to do her own? The deed sets out the property 2 Minutes for the Meeting of September 23, 2009 Page lines. ? A tremendous amount of water comes downhill; how would the amount of water be decreased? The water would be mitigated with full curbing, four catch basins, and infiltration chambers, which should reduce the runoff from the site. The culvert under the road should keep water from backing up. ? The redirecting of the water flow would reduce the flow to the stream it feeds and the applicant has been unresponsive to this issue. ? What were the town laws about building close to structures and were they being complied with? ? There would be no building on the western portion of the property so would all the trees remain? Board Comments: ? The trees were a big concern, the applicant has to protect trees and this plan does not do that. Half of the total caliper of trees to be replaced could be used to screen the existing houses from the driveway. ? If the house needed to be moved would that be a minor modification? ? The applicant needs to make a reasonable estimate of any trees over six inches. ? Have the landscape plan submitted to staff by October 2 for the October 7 meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing on the definitive site sensitive development to October 7, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. *****************************CENTER BUSINESS DISTRICT**************************** The Lexington Center Committee, proposed zoning changes: Howard Levine, Jerry Michelson, Susan Yanofsky and Chris McVay were present for the presentation. Mr. Levine explained the proposed zoning changes to the Board. The warrant language was not yet available. The Board had concerns and was not sure there would be enough time to complete the needed details for the Fall Special Town Meeting. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the warrant language would be broad. The Center Committee would be back on October 7 to continue the discussion and present the final version to the Board. ****************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY************************ Site Plan Review: Mr. Bobrowski was present to discuss the updated version of the Site Plan Review and answer any issues or concerns. The Board expressed concerns regarding the following: ? Appeals could be done under sections 17; ? Square footage under 500 would set off a major site plan review as worded; Page 3 Minutes for the Meeting of September 23, 2009 ? A lighting plan, noise requirement and transportation piece should be added under major site plan review; and ? Spillover lighting should be addressed. Version nine would include the major changes and would then be sent out to the Board for review. **************************** DEVELOPMENT ROLLOUTS*************************** Stedman Road, Street Construction Plan: The Board was advised that Mr. Casella had submitted a street construction plan for Stedman Road. *****************************APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED****************************** 31 Winthrop Road & 14 Sherburne Road; A/2009-5 : On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to endorse the plan entitled “ Plan of Land in Lexington, Massachusetts (Middlesex County)” dated February 25, 2009, prepared and certified by James Richard Keenan, Professional Land Surveyor, Keenan Survey, Winchester, MA, and submitted with Form A/2009-5, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board deferred discussion of the August 26, 2009 minutes until the next meeting. ***************************OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN********************** Letter to the Conservation Commission: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the draft letter with the addition that MAPC’s recommended revisions be incorporated into the Open Space and Recreation Plan before it was finalized. *****************************REGIONAL INTERTOWN ISSUES************************** H3252,Bill concerning Hanscom Field and Massport: The Board discussed the support of the H3252 bill. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4- 0-1, (Mr. Canale abstained), to put forward the letter as drafted to the appropriate parties as recommended by one of our HATS representatives. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk