HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-17-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF MARCH 17, 2010
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town
Office Building, and called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Zurlo with members Canale, Hornig and
Manz, planning staff Henry and McCall-Taylor present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent.
*********************************MINUTES******************************************
The Board reviewed the minutes for the executive session of March 3, 2010. On a motion duly made and
seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Hornig abstained) to approve the minutes.
*************************TOWN MEETING WARRANT*********************************
Article 43, RD-5 rezoning amendment; Countryside Manor, Woburn Street: The Board deliberated on
their recommendation to Town Meeting. They wanted to make sure that the rental units remain as rentals
in perpetuity. This had been added to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Were the affordable
constraints properly captured? The Board wanted the conditions there for the length of the special permit
or in perpetuity. Mr. Henry said the deed rider for a LIP also ensures perpetuity. On a motion duly made
and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to recommend approval of Article 43 to amend RD-5 Countryside
Manor. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to endorse the report on Article 43 as
amended.
Article 37, Food Related Uses: The motion originally did not have a “Y*” for takeout service in the CB
District as the intention was to deal with the other districts that the recent Town Meeting had not
addressed. Town Meeting had just changed the use to “Y” in the CB. However, it didn’t seem to make
sense to allow takeout at all hours in the center and restrict it to a special permit use between the hours of
11 pm and 7 am everywhere else. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to add an “*” to the
“Y” in line 9.13 under the CB district. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to support
the 3/5/10 draft.
Article 41, Center Zoning: While major changes had been made from the original motion, the final form
of the motion was still uncertain. Board members were inclined to withhold their recommendation until a
final motion was put forward. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to endorse the
report on Article 41 without a recommendation. The Board will vote on a recommendation once the
Center Committee has finalized the article and then give an oral recommendation to Town Meeting.
2
Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 17, 2010
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0 to accept the written report on Articles 37 -42.
****************************UNACCEPTED STREETS**********************************
16 Tavern Lane: A procedural waiver was requested so that the developer could begin work on the house
prior to the construction of the road. The Board asked to see plans before considering this. Section 175-
68F(2) states that the improvements must be complete prior to issuance of a building permit. Board
members indicated that once a street construction plan was adopted they would consider waiving the
timing of street construction and dwelling construction with the posting of surety. The applicant will
develop an estimated cost to construct for the construction of the road to town standards without waivers
and return to the Board.
**************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION****************************
91-93 Hancock Street, Continued Public Hearing:
The development team was represented by Mr. John Esserian and Mr. Joe Marino of Homes Realty
Corporation, Attorney John Farrington, and Mr. Rick Waitt, Mr. Brian Timms and Mr. John Gwozdz of
Meridian Engineering.
Mr. Waitt summarized the issues raised at the last session of the public hearing and the applicant’s
reponses as follows:
A revised list of waivers was submitted, including standards for materials used for paving.
The maintenance of the Victory Garden stage set and garden was added to the Homeowners
Association documents.
A landscape plan for the Victory Garden and the wetlands was modified to reflect changes in
plantings required by the Conservation Commission, whose hearing on this had closed.
There is landscaped screening on the perimeter.
The street trees are being shown 35 to 55 feet apart.
The plan changes requested have been made. The table of development data has been moved and
the street lines and contours will be on the mylars.
The street lights have been reviewed by Engineering and found acceptable.
Hancock Street will be restored from curb to curb.
The pathway to Diamond will be constructed when the roadway is paved but will open after on
3
Minutes for the Meeting of March 17, 2010 Page
construction activity has ceased, probably in 2015.
The legal documents have been revised.
The recommendations of the traffic engineer have been incorporated. The entrance wall will be
low and set back to retain sight lines.
Each utility will have a conduit.
The porous pavement installation will be certified by an engineer.
Lots 1, 12 and 8 will face the subdivision road, not Hancock. The garages on 1 and 12 will have
the garages closest to Hancock to help step down the building.
The Board expressed concern that although constructed fairly early, the path would not be available for as
many as five years. They suggested that there be a target date, perhaps the two years in which a
subdivision was supposed to be completed, with a contingency that it be safe to use. The maintenance of
the porous pavement was an issue. Mr. Farrington said that there would be an operational document as an
addendum to the Homeowner Association and a placard with the restrictions placed in each garage.
The Victory Garden preservation was considered important and the Board wanted a more formal
statement of intent as to its care and upkeep. The Historical Commission should be consulted to see what
findings they might want incorporated. The Board would specify as a condition in the special permit
exactly what was to be preserved and how to maintain it.
Board members expressed concern about the orientation of the houses along Hancock Street. Mr.
Esserian said they were oriented for privacy and salability. The buffer along Hancock would have no
curb cuts. The members asked him to consider the relationship to the larger neighborhood and think
about the treatment of the edges. They did not want garage doors facing Hancock Street.
Ms. Judy Crocker from Safe Routes to School and the Sidewalk Committee raised a concern about the
walls and hedges interfering with the sight lines of the school driveway. She also wanted to see the
pedestrian path opened by the fall of 2012.
Ms. Dawn McKenna asked what contribution would be made to Lexpress, and when she was told none,
she urged the Board to negotiate for money. She also suggested the garages be placed on the interior of
the development to avoid having the open garages facing Hancock Street.
4
Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 17, 2010
There was further discussion as to the need for any additional information and if the public hearing should
be closed. Outstanding issues included the street name, what exactly of the Victory Garden was to be
preserved, and the treatment of the transition at the edges of the development.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-1 (Mr. Canale opposed), to close the public hearing
at 10:55 p.m.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:57 p.m.
Charles Hornig, Acting Clerk