HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-01-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF MAY 1, 2002
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Carpenter Room., National Heritage Museum,
was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members, Chase, Davies, Harden, Kastorf
and planning staff Elissa Tap present.
MINUTES x* x *x * ** x * * * * * * * ** x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Review of Minutes The Board postponed review of minutes to a future meeting.
************ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Marvin Street Subdivision, Cornerstone Concepts, Inc., Accept Surety The Board studied a staff memo
that explained Steve Hamilton's request for the Board to accept surety of $69,300 against the completion
of work on the Marvin Street Subdivision, so that he may obtain building permits for the two proposed
dwellings. After a brief discussion, on the motion of Mr. Harden, seconded by Mr. Davies, the Board
voted unanimously:
1) that the amount of surety for the Marvin Street subdivision be set at $69,300, per section 3.7.4.5.4
of the Development Regulations, $12,375 being the minimum amount of surety the Board must
hold until the completion of the subdivision. This level of surety is determined to be sufficient
through May 1, 2004 only;
2) that if the subdivision is not completed by May 1, 2004, or if little or none of the work that
remained, at the time this surety was posted, is completed by that time, and the current costs, of
the amount of work to be completed, have increased, the amount of surety will be increased to
reflect the costs of completing the work and the developer will be required to furnish additional
surety to the Planning Board;
3) to accept surety in the amount of $69,300 in the form of Middlesex Savings Bank passbook
number 183074
Aaron Road Subdivision New England Construction Co. Inc. Endorse Plans: The 20 -day appeal period
since approval of the Aaron Road Subdivision plan having passed with no appeal filed, the Planning
Board endorsed the plans.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOWN MEETING
Article 20, House Impact Review, Possible Move to Reconsider Mr. Davies reported that Mrs. Natalie
Riffm, 6 Field Road, told him that she believes new information about Article 20, House Impact Review,
has come to light and therefore Article 20 should be brought up for reconsideration by Town Meeting.
She said that the new information has to do with the process for an appeal of the Building
Commissioner's decision not to issue a building pen if an applicant for site review does not accept the
Planning Board's conditions on a site's development. Mr. Kastorf said that Mrs. Riffin had also contacted
him in this regard. In anticipation of a discussion of this topic, Ms. McCall - Taylor bad reviewed and
provided the Board with a transcript of the relevant exchange at the April 10 Town Meeting session when
Article 20 was debate. Mr. Davies said that he believes the information is not new; it is just a
misunderstanding of Town Counsel's statement on that process, which he believes was quite clear. Mr.
Kastorf agreed. Mr. Galaitsis agreed that Town Counsel's quote is accurate.
Mr. Galaitsis left the meeting to ask Town Meeting Moderator Marge Battin if the Planning Board would
have final say about the reconsideration. He carne back and reported that others could bring it up.
Minutes for the Meeting of May 1, 2002 2
On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously against bringing Article 20 up for
reconsideration as there is no new information to warrant the action. The members did agree, however, to
vote in favor of Article 20 if it is brought up for reconsideration by other forces and to another vote by
town meeting.
The Board agreed to ask the Building Commissioner to appear at town meeting to explain the
enforcement process if Article 20 is reconsidered.
Article 29,_ Community Preservation Act,, Accept MGL Ch. 44B After a brief discussion, Mr. Galaitsis
polled the Board, which agreed unanimously to support Article 29, Community Preservation Act.
Article 30, Community Preservation Act, Amend Bylaws After a brief discussion, Mr. Galaitsis polled
the Board, which agreed unanimously to support Article 30, Community Preservation Act, Amend
Bylaws.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Petitions to be heard on May 2002: Mr. Davies gave an oral review of the following petitions.
® 763 Massachusetts Avenue — Variance to construct an addition with side street side yard setback of
4.5' and rear yard setback of 10' and a handicapped access ramp with l; side yard setback. - -The
Board agreed to make no comment.
Farm Road, south end — Variance from the minimum frontage requirements to be allowed to extend
a driveway and use the property as a single- family house lot — Because of a lack of adequate time
and some legal questions, the Board postponed consideration of a recommendation on this petition
until the next meeting. Mr. Davies noted that the Board's policy against granting a variance for lack
of sufficient frontage is fundamental.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Sara B. Chase, Clerk