HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-29-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JANUARY 29, 2001
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G- I of the Town Office Building, was called
to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Galaitsis with members Bridge - Denzak, Chase, Davies, Planning
Director Garber, and Assistant Planner McCall- Taylor present. Mr. Colman was absent.
* * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * **
SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
32 Roosevelt Road, Ronald Lopez: Mr. Galaitsis began the meeting by explaining to the half dozen
people in the audience that the purpose of the evening's meeting was to allow the Planning Board to
discuss the proposed development at 32 Roosevelt Road, not to take public input. He noted that since the
Iast meeting letters of concern had been received from neighbors Kelly, Wheaton and Jones. Ms. McCall-
Taylor noted that a petition had been turned into the planning office that morning. It contained 80 to 100
signatures requesting a traffic study of the area.
Mr. Davies raised the issue of sewage backups that had been referred to at the last meeting and wondered
if they were sanitary or storm sewers. Ms. McCall - Taylor said that there had been four known sanitary
sewer back -ups in the area in the last 15 years and that engineering was looking at the problem in more
detail. At this time they believed the size of the sewer was adequate, but there might be issues of inflow
and infiltration causing the problem.
Mr. Galaitsis asked if there were setback requirements for an interior drive. He was told that this was
something that could be determined by the special permit process.
Mr. Davies stated that he felt the development should comply with site coverage and impervious surface
ratios. This site is very tight and allows no slack. He acknowledged that in the past the interior drive
might not have been included in these calculations and he didn't want to change the rules without notice
but said that all future applicants have to include it in the calculations. He felt the Board should be
rigorous about the rest of the coverage meeting the standards set forth in the Zoning By -Law.
Ms. Chase agreed that the site was too tight to allow the seven units proposed. She wanted to see a traffic
study performed. Mr. Garber explained the Board could not require a study of trip distribution throughout
the area but that a trip generation study was within their scope. He wondered which the neighbors really
wanted. Those in the audience said they were concerned about the traffic peaks at the intersection of
Roosevelt and Wilson Roads during the four drop -off and pick -up periods at the Hastings School. Parking
along Roosevelt Road is an issue as the parents park and go into the school to pick up children.
Mr. Galaitsis said that the long, stretched -out parcel, reached only from one end, stretches the limits of
what the By -Law allows. The long lot requires a long road to get to the back of the site, which results in a
disproportionately high site coverage and impervious area. He felt the impact multiplier of 3.75 was very
high given the constraints of the lot shape. He felt the number of units needed to be scaled down from the
seven proposed.
Mr. Harrington, attorney for the developer, said they had tried to take into account the guidelines for
clusters. By keeping the units low, it causes the units to spread out. They had avoided the boxier
townhouses that would have lowered the site coverage.
Mr. Galaitsis said he was trying to find where the open space was. All he saw were left -over pieces. He
wanted to see the proposal trimmed down. Mr. Harrington said that the Mazarells, current owners of the
property, would lose value if the density were reduced.
Minutes for the Meeting of January 29, 2001
Mr. Davies replied that the Mazarells would still have a valuable piece of property at a lower density.
They would be leaving the neighborhood, and he was concerned with the community that surrounds the
development. He suggested the developer look at five units, putting three in the first jog of the property
and two in the second jog. Mr. Galaitsis agreed, saying he felt this was the equivalent to two jumbo
houses.
Ms. Bridge - Denzak felt that the finished floor grades were on the high side and this would have a
negative impact of the neighbors. Ms. McCall - Taylor explained that the developer had said that the area
had a high water table and he was mounding the site a bit to allow basements. The site is lower than the
surrounding houses. Ms. Bridge - Denzak questioned the high water table as the site continues to slope
down.
2
Mr. Davies spoke of the trees. He said there is quite a cluster of trees where the three -unit townhouse is
shown. He said if the three units were placed where the existing house is and a two -unit dwelling was
placed back in the lot, the trees within the stone wall could be saved. He felt that the issues raised on the
site are all a result of putting too many units on the site.
Mr. Galaitsis pointed out that the higher the house, the more susceptible it is to the noise from Route 128,
so it is in the interest of the builder to have the lower units. He wanted to see five units of the same size
shown, clustered in the broader portions of the lot.
Mr. Davies said, on the plus side, that he liked the units, their size and organization. The location of the
drive keeps the units from Route 128. He noted that in a perverse sort of way, the houses would buffer the
Wilson Road houses. Ms. Chase said she was convinced that there are market forces for smaller units.
Mr. Garber recalled that at the end of the last meeting Mr. Michael Schroeder had raised the question of
whether this is a preliminary plan under subdivision control. He explained that a special residential
development can exist on a single lot. The development had been characterized as a subdivision as it is a
subset of cluster. However, technically it is not creating two lots, so it is not a subdivision. The course of
action agreed to with the developer is to continue with the preliminary plan guidance letter and move to
the SPS as the finalidefinitive plan.
REGIONAL, 1NTERTOWN ISSUES
HATS Ms. Bridge- Denzak expressed concern that Route 3 construction will force more traffic onto local
Lexington streets. She was interested in writing a letter to HATS about this.
Mr. Galaitsis reported that at a recent HATS meeting there was talking of reviving the Four -town
Planning Group. The renewed interest is a result of the town build -out studies being done by the state
through MAPC.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Data Notebooks Ms. McCall - Taylor showed the Board the data notebook that was being developed as
background for the comprehensive plan as well as maps that show open space and underdeveloped land.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
i
Sara B. Chase, Acting Clerk