HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-24-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF MARCH 24, 2010
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Planning Office, Town Office
Building, and called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Vice-Chair Canale with members, Hornig, Galaitsis and
Manz, planning staff Henry and McCall-Taylor present. Mr. Zurlo arrived late.
*************************TOWN MEETING WARRANT*************************
Article 43, RD-5 rezoning amendment; Countryside Manor, Woburn Street: The Board discussed the
proposed presentation, with members Canale, Manz, and Hornig submitting edits.
Article 32, Climate Change Committee: The Board discussed the proposed article that would create a
Town Meeting subcommittee to study Climate Change. With a number of Selectmen created committees
with a similar charge and the Green Communities initiative underway, the Board wasn’t sure how this
group would fit into all the work already underway, but due to concerns over time, the Board chose to
revisit this issue later in this meeting.
Article 35, Farming Article: A broad conversation of the article, including the positives and negatives of
living next to a working farm and how these things may affect the site planning process. Members
discussed whether a right to farm bylaw should be studied for possible inclusion at a later town meeting.
Due to the proposed schedule for this evening’s session of Town Meeting not including Article 35, the
Board moved on without taking a position on the matter.
Article 43, RD-5 rezoning amendment; Countryside Manor, Woburn Street: The Board returned to a
discussion of the article itself, as member Galaitsis desired to have his vote recorded. A motion to reopen
the vote was made and seconded, with a brief discussion regarding the report’s acknowledgment of the
project’s negatives. This motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-2, with Mr. Hornig and Ms. Manz
abstaining. The Board’s revised recommendation on Article 43 was 4-1 with Mr. Galaitsis in the negative.
Article 32, Climate Change Committee, continued: The Board returned to discuss Article 32 with a copy
of the latest proposed motion. While the intent of the article didn’t seem problematic to most members,
the potential for confusion between so many similarly charged groups was a concern. Particularly, the
charge to become a “self sufficient” community seemed a difficult task to accomplish with the proposed
framework of the committee. A motion to recommend adoption of the article was made and seconded, but
failed by a vote of 2-3, Mr. Canale and Mr. Galaitsis in favor, and Ms. Manz, Mr. Hornig and Mr. Zurlo
opposed. A motion that the Board NOT recommend the article’s passage to Town Meeting failed to
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 24, 2010
receive a second
*************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************
Rockville Avenue Roll-Out: A development team consisting of Fred Russell, engineer, Ed Grant,
attorney, and Bob Bradley and Jeff Callahan, land owners, presented four very informal conceptual plans
for the extension of Rockville Avenue. Rockville is an unaccepted way that currently dead ends despite a
right of way that continues on to another built street (Davis Street). The landowners contend that they
each own exempt buildable lots, provided access could be provided to them. The purpose of the roll out
review is to offer potential applicants guidance on prospective projects.
The development team’s four concepts could be summarized as follows. Plan A would extend Rockville
all the way to Davis, but would, at times, exceed a 9% slope, require as much as a 17 foot cut from
existing grade, and uncover the existing sewer line. Plan B would extend Rockville only to the parcels in
question and terminate with a T-type turnaround, but would drastically impair the existing pedestrian path
to Davis, as the change in grade from the termination of the pavement to the existing grade would be so
great. Plan C, like B, only extends the road an amount equal to the parcels frontage, but terminates in a
cul-de-sac that is only 50% of the standard size. This plan has fewer grade issues but impacts the assumed
building envelops negatively. Plan D terminates the extension of Rockville prior to the major change in
grade, maintains the integrity of the existing path, but doesn’t provide improvements across the entire
width of the parcels’ frontages. The landowners shared with the Board that the neighbors have been
inclined to support this plan.
The Board’s exchange focused primarily on Plan D and the need to insure the continued service of the
pedestrian path. There was also talk on the procedural aspects of implementing any of these options,
namely is the exempt status of the parcels a given, the potential of a frontage variance for improvements
that do not extend across the entire frontage of a lot and under what section of the bylaw such
improvements could be made. It was staff’s opinion that this plan represents a subdivision plan and that
variances would probably be required. The Board takes no action on roll-out plans.
Tavern Lane Street Construction Plan: The Board continued its discussion of the Applicant-proposed
waiver from the normal process begun at its meeting of March 17. The Board had requested to have the
proposed plans included in their packets and had been supplemented by the Town Engineer’s consent on
the proposed estimated cost of construction. It was then moved, seconded and unanimously voted:
1. That, Tavern Lane will be of adequate grade and construction provided certain improvements,
proposed by the applicant, are made. These improvements will result in the way having
Minutes for the Meeting of March 24, 2010 Page 3
sufficient width, suitable grades, and adequate construction to provide for the needs of the
vehicular traffic, and for the installation of municipal services, in relation to the proposed use of
16 Tavern Lane;
2. That, in accordance with § 175-30 of the Planning Board Development Regulations, the Board
determines waiving strict compliance with the specific provisions of the Regulations listed
below, as strict compliance does not serve the public interest and is inconsistent with the intent
and purpose of the Board’s rules. These waivers are granted to minimize the disruption to the
area around 16 Tavern Lane caused by the construction of both the street and the property. The
waivers granted are from:
a. § 175-68F(2) and (4); and
3. That, the Board authorize the Planning Director to accept a performance guaranty on behalf of
the Town, in an amount not less than the full cost of a non-waivered plan, in accordance with §
175 68(F)(3).
At 7:15 p.m., on a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to recess to the Town Meeting and
adjourn when the session of Town Meeting adjourned.
Charles Hornig, Acting Clerk