Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-09-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2002 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members, Chase, Davies, Harden, and planning staff Garber and McCall - Taylor present. Mr. Kastorf arrived after the minutes had been accepted. ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of December 19, 2001. On the motion of Mr. Harden, seconded by Mr. Davies, it was voted unanimously 4 -0 to approve the minutes, as amended. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** Lowell Street Comprehensive Permit (M.G.L. Chapter 40B) - Mr. Galaitsis left for this portion of the meeting, as be is an immediate abutter. Ms. McCall - Taylor rolled out the plans for a proposed development at 536 -540 Lowell Street that will utilize a comprehensive permit. It showed 48 units arranged around an interior looped drive. The dwelling units will be in quadraplexes and duplexes with garages underneath. A review committee has been set up to negotiate with the developer and make recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Proposed Zoning Amendments - Mr. Garber reported on the zoning articles that will be sponsored by the Planning Board at the 2002 Annual Town Meeting. The Board had received the latest copy of the House Impact Provisions that incorporated all the comments to date. Mr. Garber said that there was one issue that was still troublesome and that was the site plan review. He felt that it was confusing to have it remain within the special permit provision and he might extract it and put it at the end of Section 3 or as its own section. As a result there may be one more iteration of the House Impact Provisions. The articles dealing with codification and the technical corrections are done. Mr. Garber reported that net floor area could not be removed from the by -law without many other areas being affected so it will be left as is at this time. Mr. Harden asked if there were a firm deadline for the final versions of amendments. Mr. Garber said the February 4 is absolute as that is when the Selectmen sign the warrant and send it to the printer. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND - Aaron Road Continued Hearing Ms. McCall - Taylor told the Board that the hearing had been continued to allow the Conservation Commission and the Engineering Department to resolve the issue over which side of Nickerson Road to tie into and that as of that afternoon the issue was not resolved. Mr. Edmund Grant, Mr. Mark Barons, Mr. Jim Burke, and Mr. and Mrs. Grammont were present for the development team. Mr. Grant gave a brief overview of the project to date, including showing how the preliminary plan had been revised to respond to the conditions of the preliminary decision and the concerns of the neighbors as expressed by the BSC engineering group. He reported that a majority of the Jean Road abutters wanted it paved from Aaron Road to Massachusetts Avenue and that Mr. Barons was willing to do this. He said that the homeowners' maintenance plan and agreement will be worked out in detail. Minutes for the Meeting of January 9, 2002 2 Mr. Burke explained the stormwater management system. He said that there had been substantial revisions. He also responded to the BSC letter of January 9, 2002 to Mr. Kocher saying that he did not agree with most of the issues raised. He felt that moving the catch basin connection to the other side of Nickerson Road was not necessary and would in fact lead to excessive convergence of the utility trenching. He said that sedimentation, the concern of the Conservation Commission, would not be a problem with the design, and moving the connection to the other side of Nickerson Road would have a minimal effect. Mr. Harden inquired as to why the road was to be paved to an 18' width rather than to 20'. Mr. Burke said that the less impervious surface the better. The use of bituminous berin rather than granite curbing would give a more bucolic feel and allow easier passage of two cars. Mr. Kastorf wanted to know how the homeowners could be required to maintain the storm water facilities. Mr. Grant responded that a special agreement would be filed with the Registry of Deeds and would obligate the homeowners' association. Mr. Kastorf commented that if the maintenance were not done the property owners would have large ice rinks at the end of their driveways. Mr. Grant said that serve as incentive or motivation to do the maintenance. Mr. Richard Schaye, 7 Jean-Road, wanted to know if the road were paved at a 20' width rather than at 18' would that make it an accepted road. Ms. McCall- Taylor responded that it would not and that the acceptance of a street is a more involved process that requires action by the Board of Selectmen and the Town Meeting. Mr. Schaye asked if the quality of the road built would be different for the different widths. Mr. Burke said that either would have a 12" gravel base and a 3 %z" bituminous layer. Mr. Steven Wightman, 1Aaron Road, asked what would be the beginning and end of the pavement. Mr. Burke said that Jean Road would be paved 18' wide from the southern corner of Aaron and Jean for about 250'. Mr. Jay Johnson, 227 Massachusetts Avenue, inquired as to whether the homeowners' maintenance agreement could be a renewable permit with the town and was told it could not. Mr. Burke pointed out that roughly 1 %z acres were being removed from the watershed and being recharged into the ground. Mr. Bhatia, 8 Nickerson Road, asked whether the new plan had been submitted to the fire department, was there a hydrant, and what was the estimated cost to maintain the stormwater system. Ms. McCall - Taylor said that it had been reviewed by the fire department. Mr. Burke said there was a hydrant. He also said he did not know about maintenance costs but that to pump a septic system runs about $150 to $200. Mr. Schaye noted that the proposal places a pole opposite the existing pole on Jean Street. This creates a goal post visual effect. Mr. Schaye asked if the wires could go underground from the existing pole instead. Mr. Barons said he had no problem with that if engineering agreed. Mr. David Kocher, 4 Nickerson Road, made comments based on the December 10 plans. He favors the connection of the storm drain to the other side of Nickerson Road. He asked his engineer Mr. Crispin of BSC to comment further on the plans. Mr. Crispin said that they are very close on the engineering issues. He felt that crossing the road before tying into the storm water system would allow connection at a lower grade, which is desirable, and it would avoid a scouring effect. He said that maintenance is the real puzzle and that the town should have an easement for emergency access. Mr. Kocher said that water should be looped if Nickerson Road is to be torn up. He felt that a substandard road improvement only passes on problems to the future. Mr. Wightman asked if a surety bond could be put up for long -term maintenance. Mr. Robert Serano suggested a private maintenance fund be established with a one year reserve built in and that that be attached to an agreement recorded at the registry that shows where the fund is. Mr. Garber said that subdivision requires surety only for "construction of streets and installation of municipal services ". Mr. Harden indicated he favored Mr. Serano's approach. Mr. Kastorf said he was seeking clarity on the issue Minutes for the Meeting of January 9, 2002 of a maintenance agreement and would like something that allowed one homeowner to act if the other failed to, rather than a third party intervening. Mr. Kastorf favored the idea of putting aside money in an account. Mr. Burke said that the good ideas expressed here, as well as those in other towns, would be pulled together in a draft maintenance agreement. Mr. Grant said that this is a problem everywhere and that he is sure they can come up with something agreeable with input from town legal counsel. He suggested that the hearing be continued, but only to resolve these issues, not to allow new issues to be raised. On the motion of Mr. Galaitsis and the second of Mr. Harden, the Board voted to continue the hearing to January 23. Cotton Farm Sketch Subdivision Plan, Todd Cataldo_ - Present for the development team were Mr. Gary Larson, Ms. Krista Murphy, Mr. Richard Waitt and Mr. Todd Cataldo. Mr. Larson commented that as two members are new to the Board since the last submission he would give brief history of the project. Sketch plans had been submitted in March, May, June, and August of 2000. They all showed 10 to 11 single - family houses on just over 6 acres. 3.9 acres are to remain with the existing house and not be incorporated into this development. The current plan shows 11 units on the site with one house moved to the other side of the road. Mr. Galaitsis questioned whether the current plan is simply a conventional subdivision and asked for a proof plan showing how many lots could be created through a conventional subdivision. Mr. Larson said that except for the preservation of the orchard at the front of the site, it really was a conventional subdivision. Mr. Davies commented that he was not persuaded that this sketch plan had resolved the 650' dead -end limit. Mr. Galaitsis said he thought the 650' limit was a sacred cow and he didn't want to go back on it. Mr. Cataldo said that he had thought this was a non -issue after two years discussion on the subject. Mr. Galaitsis said that the developer should fix the lot lines and then design the project. He felt that the only aspect of a cluster that is reflected in the plans is the preservation of the site lines but there arc no affordable or attached units. Mr. Waitt said that the Board had changed and that the previous Boards had been adamant about saving the orchard. He pointed out that a conventional subdivision would really limit what could be done on the site. The plan proposed saves the whole orchard. Mr. Galaitsis said he would like to see a conventional subdivision layout for the purpose of specifying the size and shape of the parcel that will be used to accommodate the cluster and work with it. Mr. Davies said that he didn't see the purpose of that, that is seemed like an exercise, not a design. He said that the difficulties of this project are self- imposed. It is Mr. Cataldo who has said that there can be no pavement in front of the existing house, that the houses must be huge and there must be 1 I of them. Mr. Davies felt that ten units would liberate the site. Mr. Kastorf commented that the last unit off the cul -de -sac intrudes into the view from Marrett Road. He wondered why it had to be I 1 units. Ms. Chase said that if the developer consented to one or two fewer units he could keep more of the orchard. Mr. Cataldo said that to keep the orchard he would lose two or three lots and he wouldn't do it. He said at some point it becomes a question of money. Ms. Chase said she was surprised that he did not want to compromise in order to do something for the town. Mr. Harden said it was a question of using a cluster with detached single - family units and without affordable units in return for preservation of the land. He said it was a trade -off the Board could do and it made sense. It would be easier to do with a few less units. As to the issue of the road Mr. Harden thought the Board needed to consider the policy and precedent of this public safety issue. Mr. Galaitsis reiterated his feeling that it would be difficult to allow the road to exceed the 650' length. He said he felt as long as the development had no more units than would be allowed under a conventional subdivision it did not have to have attached units. Minutes for the Meeting of January 9, 2002 4 There was further discussion about the road issue. Ms. McCall - Taylor said that in addition to the design of the road and how to measure the length of the dead -end, there might be a problem with a secondary road being on an easement over land that was not a part of the development. The Board members debated the issue of waiving the standards for a road and what they might allow for a secondary access. Ms. Chase felt that she could consider waivers that added value such as taking an "Olmstead" approach to the road design so that it could match existing grades, contours while preserving trees. Mr. Davies wondered if the Board should grant some design waivers on the secondary road and go with the plans as is. Mr. Kastorf thought it should go to the next step as the point was to save the property. Mr. Harden said that if the Board were to approve the sketch and allow a preliminary submission that he would ask for a more appropriate density. Ms. Chase brought up a walking trail to the Upper Vine Brook. She suggested looking at looping the road on the eastern side. Mr. Galaitsis characterized the issue as, "Is the orchard worth the Zoning By -Law ?" Mr. Larson suggested proceeding with the preliminary plan and having the developers meet with the board and staff along the way. The Board suggested coming back with a sketch that dealt with the road surface and design of the secondary road and with one or two fewer units. Mr. Harden recommended that Mr. Cataldo come back with another sketch that showed more of a road. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard-on January 10, 2002 Mr. Galaitsis gave an oral review of the following applications: 0 95 Lincoln Street — Jean L Parr - renewal of a Special Permit to continue to use a portion of a residence as an office for the performance of electrolysis ® 32 Waltham Street — Timothy Enright — Modification of an existing Special Permit to change the name and modify the menu and continue the operation of a deli /sandwich shop with seating. • 6 North Hancock Street — Due Fratelli, Inc. — Special Permit for operation of a take -out food service in the CN District • 18 -20 Forest Street —Ana Mari De Garavil la & Paul Hammond -Variance to reconstruct and expand an existing back porch with stairs that will have a secondary street setback of 11'. • 55 Hayden Avenue — Clarion Realty - Special Permit to install and illuminate new signage 0 65 Hayden Avenue — Cubist Pharmaceuticals - Special Permit for revision of an existing special permit to repaint and reface an existing sign. O 1139 Massachusetts Avenue — James Feeney — Special Permit for the placement of approximately 156 cubic yards of fill. ® 6 Meriam Street — Sprint Spectrum — Special Permit to install, operate and maintain an unmanned wireless facility within the Church of Our Redeemer steeple. The Board had the following comments: They deferred to the Design Advisory Committee on the signs permits. They recommended in the case of the wireless facility that the petitioner conform with the recommendations outlined in Mr. Kanter's December 3, 2001 memorandum to Sheila Marian. The Board believes 1139 Massachusetts Avenue will need to be reviewed by the Historic Districts Commission. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE The Board reviewed the calendar for the next two months and set tentative meeting dates of January 23 and 30 and February 6, 13 and 27. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Sara B. Chase, Clerk