Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-27-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 2002 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Sclectmen's Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members, Chase, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall- Taylor and Tap present. Mr. Davies and Mr. Harden were absent. ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOWN MEETING ZONING AMENDMENTS Article 17, Zoning By -Law, Technical Corrections, Public Hearing Mr. Galaitsis called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. There were four people in the audience. Mr. Garber explained the intent of the proposed technical corrections to the Zoning By -Law. The changes proposed in items A, B and C would correct grammatical errors and a subsection reference. The last two changes, D and E, are at the suggestion of the Building Commissioner. They would remove unnecessary language from the Lexington Zoning By -Law regarding parking for physically handicapped persons, which is now governed by state law. Mr. Ephraim Weiss, Town Meeting member, Precinct 5, asked if the state law was more or less restrictive than the existing by -laws. He thinks it is a question that will be asked at Town Meeting. He also suggested adding n/a to the last cell in the table in Section 11.7.2. Mr. Kanter agreed that the table, although based on the existing by -law, could be clarified. There being no further discussion, on the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted unanimously, 3 -0, to recommend that the Town Meeting approve article 17. The hearing was closed at 7:48 p.m. Article 18, Zoning By -Law, Setbacks for Sheds, Public Hearing Mr. Galaitsis opened the hearing at 7:48 p.m. There were four people in the audience. Ms. McCall- Taylor explained that the Building Commissioner requested this amendment, which would allow a shed to be placed closer to the lot line by right. A storage shed is a building according to the Zoning By -Law; therefore it is subject to Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls. Under the current rules, it must be set back 30' from the front, and 15' from the side and rear property lines. Mr. Frederickson contends that the Board of Appeals gets a fair number of requests for variances to allow sheds closer to the lot line than 15' and most often grants these requests. Mr. Kanter asked what other structure is allowed within the yard setbacks. Ms. McCall - Taylor responded that a six -foot fence is allowed up to the property line. Mr. Kanter spoke against allowing sheds to be placed within the setback by right. He believes the neighbors should have a chance to comment on a neighboring shed's placement, as it impacts their view. Mr. Weiss stated his preferences for a setback equal at least to the height of the shed. Mr. Kastorf moved that the hearing be continued to March 20 to allow time to ascertain if the Building Commissioner and the Board of Appeals still want to proceed. Ms. Chase seconded the motion and the Board approved it unanimously, by a vote of 3 -0. The hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Article 19, Zoning By -Law, Definitions, Public Hearing Mr. Galaitsis opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. There were 5 people in the audience. Mr. Garber explained that the impetus for these proposed changes to some definitions in the zoning By -Law arose during drafting of the house impact review article. They are intended to make it easier to find and comprehend definitions related to measuring building size. The Minutes for the Meeting of February 27, 2002 N changes reorganize the definitions relating to floor area so that they can be found together in one section of the definitions, making them easier to understand. The term "net floor area" was needed to distinguish between living area and floor area. In response to a question from Mr. Weiss, Mr. Garber said that there is no definition for residential floor area. Mr. Kanter asked if this was a technical correction. Mr. Garber responded that it is not, and assured Mr. Kanter that it would not affect anyone's right or future rights. Mr. Weiss said that he had written the Board a letter a while ago about what he saw as a problem of definitions missing or scattered throughout the Zoning By -Law, among other things, and urged the Board to address some of them. There being no further comment, on the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted unanimously, 3 -0, to recommend that Town Meeting approve article 19. The hearing was closed at 8:19 p.m. Article 21, Zoning By -Law, Codification Mr. Galaitsis opened the hearing at 8:19 p.m. There were five people in the audience, including Ms. Donna Hooper, Lexington Town Clerk. Ms. McCall- Taylor explained that the codification of the zoning by -law had been approved by Town Meeting in 2001, but that the Attorney General had ruled that the Planning Board needed to hold a public hearing on the article. Proposed corrections to the re- codified by -law were outlined in the handout provided this evening. She said that the codification structure itself causes most of the changes and that approving them ensures that the By -Law conforms to the one approved by Town Meeting in 2 00 1. Ephraim Weiss, town meeting member, precinct 5, questioned the wording of the headings and their relation to the text that follows. Ms. McCall - Taylor said that the changes would put them in agreement. In response to a second question she said that the document had been thoroughly scrutinized by the staff. On the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted unanimously, 3 -0, to recommend approval of article 21. The hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. Article 15, RO to CRS Land on Waltham Street at the Town Line, Continued Public Hearing At 8:25 p.m., Mr. Galaitsis opened the continued hearing on Article 15, which requests a change in zoning from RO to CRS for a parcel of land on Waltham Street at the town line. He announced that the petitioner, Watertown Savings Bank, has withdrawn its petition. Mr. Kanter asked if the public input from the hearing, which began on February 13 would become part of the public record. Mr. Garber replied in the affirmative. On the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted unanimously, 3 -0, to close the continued hearing without prejudice. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF ]LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS 1.9 Bird Hill Road,_ Scott Seaver Ms. McCall- Taylor reported that Mr. Scott Seaver has asked the Board to make a determination of adequate grade and construction for the portion of Bird Hill Road that will provide frontage for number 19 Bird Hill Road. That portion will be upgraded when Mr. Seaver builds his three -lot subdivision on the other side of Bird Hill Road, on which he has already begun construction. Mr. Seaver volunteered to Iimit the new house on the site to be no larger than the houses he is building across the street; this would be 3,500 square feet of living area. After a brief discussion, on the motion of Ms. Chase, seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, the Board voted that Bird Hill Road, in so far as it provides frontage for 19 Bird Hill Road, shown as lot #24 on Town property map number 15, is: Minutes for the Meeting of February 27, 2002 3 1. presently not of adequate grade and construction, 2. but that, upon the satisfactory completion of improvements proposed by. Seaver Construction, Inc. of Woburn, MA, in the definitive subdivision plans entitled Bird Hill Road Extension, Definitive Plan in Lexington Mass., approved by the Planning Board on September 12, 2001, that section of Bird Hill Road will be of adequate grade and construction. REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** _Metropolitan State Hospital Site Reuse Mr. Garber reported that this week has been a pivotal one in the Met. State Hospital reuse process. At a meeting today, the stakeholders carne to agreement on the second amendment to the Reuse Plan, breaking a logjam of objections. The representative of the state Department of Capital Asset Management said it wants final resolution at a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, February 28. Mr. Garber said that the Lexington Met State Task Force met today and reached resolution. On March 18, Mr. Garber will update the Board of Selectmen on Met State and ask them to approve the second amendment. Mr. Kastorf stated that the reuse plan documents are solid and well crafted and that Mr. Garber's efforts were very instrumental in getting the process to this stage. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Executive Summary of the Comprehensive Plan The Board discussed how the Comprehensive Plan could be "advertised" at town meeting this year. It was agreed that an executive summary should be prepared and distributed and some kind of visual display designed and set up in the lobby of the National Heritage Museum prior to town meeting sessions. Each board member agreed to try to produce a prdcis of a section of the plan and have it ready for review by about March 5. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOWN MEETING Article 20, House Impact Review, Discussion of Additions Exemption Mr. Garber opened the discussion about possibly exempting house additions from the proposed house impact review measure. He asked the Board for guidance so the staff can work on generating support for their position. Mr. Galaitsis commented that he has not seen any house addition in Lexington that bothered him. But he added that he would want to close any loopholes that would allow enormous additions. Ms. Chase said that she would like to see tight controls on additions if an exemption is given. Mr. Kastorf said that he does not see additions as a problem, compared to large new houses. But so many residents believe that the Douse impact review regulation would prevent them from adding on to their houses, that the measure could be overwhelmingly defeated based on this fear alone, whether or not it is grounded in fact. He said that Mr. Harden shares this concern. The local realtors have apparently sent a letter to residents claiming that they won't be able to add on to their houses. Mr. Galaitsis noted that recent staff efforts on this amendment have been concentrated on deterinining where to "draw the line," above which review would be required so that the Board will review only the most egregious cases. Ms. Chase asked if this regulation could cause someone to accuse them of a "taking." The answer was no. It will only regulate how a house is built, not if it can be built. Mr. Galaitsis asked what would happen if an applicant ignored the restraints. The answer was not completely clear. Mr. Garber said that it would be up to a superior court judge. Mr. Galaitsis said that it would be important to define "existing house ". On the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted unanimously, 3 -0, to add to the second paragraph of Section 3.8 of the proposed amendment: "Additions of gross floor area to a single- Minutes for the Meeting of February 27, 2002 4 family dwelling existing prior to the effective date of this by -law shall not be subject to Large House Site Plan Review." PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Lexington Minuteman Freelance Reporters Mr. Garber reported that Susan Fisher, who has covered Planning Board meetings for the Lexington Minuteman newspaper for years, called the office today and informed them that all of the freelance reporters for the Minuteman have been laid off until further notice. The Board and staff expressed their regret. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Sara B. Chase, Clerk