HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-07-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2001
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room Town Office Building, was
called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Colman with members Bridge - Denzak, Chase, Davies, Galaitsis,
Planning Director Garber, and Assistant Planner McCall- Taylor present.
MINUTES ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meetings of January 3, January
10, and January 22, 2001. On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, it was voted
unanimously 5 -0 to approve the minutes, as amended.
* * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS
23 Richard Road, Street Improvement Plan, Mark Barons, Presentation by the Applicant The proponents
for this project were Attorney Ed Grant, representing Mark Barons who was unable to make this
rescheduled meeting, and Ron Tubman of Precision Engineering. Mr. Grant said that an existing house
would be demolished to allow the construction of a new house on an unaccepted portion of Richard Road
so that the approval of the Planning Board was required. The plan shows 125' of repaving and the
location of the utilities. There was discussion of the potential runoff as well as the lack of new
landscaping. Mr. Grant said that the developer had talked with the neighbors and that was what they
wanted. The Board indicated that they would like such statements in writing in the future.
On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, the Board voted 5 -0 that Richard Road, an
unaccepted street, insofar as it provides frontage for lot # 15 on Town property map number 31 is
presently not of adequate grade and construction, but that, upon the satisfactory completion of
improvements proposed by Mark Barons of New England Construction Corporation, Lexington, MA,
applicant, that section of Richard Road will be of adequate grade and construction. The proposed
improvements are shown on plans entitled "Definitive Roadway Improvement Plan, Lexington, MA ",
prepared by Precision Surveying & Planning, stamped by Ronald N. Tubman, Professional Land
Surveyor, plans dated 11122/00, revised 212101.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Bird Hill Road Sketch Subdivision Plan, Scott Seaver, Presentation by the Applicant Fred Russell, the
surveyor for the subdivision, explained the proposal. There are currently three large lots, two had houses
on them although one has burned and been taken down. The plan would create three buildable lots and a
fourth unbuildable parcel. The fourth parcel would eventually be added to lot 3. The two of the proposed
lots front on the unaccepted portion of Bird Hill Road while the third is two- thirds on the unaccepted
portion and one -third on the paper street. Two alternate approaches to the treatment of the end of the road
were offered. Plan A shows a reduced cul -de -sac and Plan B shows a hammerhead. Mr. Russell said this
would not increase building density, just utilize more buildable area.
Mr. Davies asked why lot 4 wasn't a part of lot 3. Mr. Russell explained that the Development
Regulations require that the road be constructed across the frontage of a buildable lot so lot 4 had been
kept separate at this time. Mr. Galaitsis asked what the frontage of lot 3 would be without the curve of the
cul -de -sac. Mr. Russell said that it was approximately 125'.
There followed a discussion of the size of the lots, the size of the houses that might be built and how this
proposal fit into the scale of the neighborhood. The sense of the Board was that they would not want to
Minutes for the Meeting of February 7, 2001 2
see radical changes in size and design from the existing homes. In order to help in their deliberations, the
Board asked that the plan show the footprints of the abutting homes. Mr. Galaitsis felt that in return for
the waivers that would be needed to construct the subdivision as shown, the Board could ask for smaller
houses. Ms. Bridge - Denzak asked for a sample of house sizes in the neighborhood, as is done in frontage
reduction subdivisions.
While the Board liked the hammerhead option as it has less pavement, they deferred to the Fire
Department's preference for a radius turnaround, and indicated to the developer that that was the option
he should pursue.
There was some discussion as to whether a cluster subdivision would be appropriate for this site. Mr.
Russell said it was not considered because of the steep slopes that could not be counted toward the
common open space. While it was not apparent that a cluster was advantageous for this site, the Board
indicated that if the developer wanted to consider a cluster development, the slope would not be the deal
breaker.
After further discussion, the Board indicated that the developer could proceed to a preliminary plan that
would show basic lotting and street layout, as well as the house foot prints and floor areas. Ms. Bridge -
Denzak stated that she did not feel comfortable with three lots as she felt that was an increase in density.
SPECIAL PERMIT SITE PLAN REVIEW
32 Roosevelt Road Preliminary Subdivision Plan, Ronald Lopez Mr. Colman gave a brief synopsis of the
draft guidance letter on the special residential development at 32 Roosevelt Road. Ron Lopez, Daniel
Harrington, Ed Grant and Dylan James were present from the development team. Mr. Davies asked that
the sentence regarding the impact of noise be removed from the letter. Ms. Bridge- Denzak said that there
was no reference to the finished first floor elevations, an issue she had raised at the public information
meeting. She wanted clarification of the ground water situation.
Dylan James said that a backhoe bad dug holes approximately 10' deep to see the soil types and where
ground water was. Using the soil evaluators used for Title 5, the tests show the seasonal high ground
water to be 36 ", 34 ", 43 ", 54" and 60" below grade at the test pits. Discussion followed on whether it was
practical to build within the water table, even if allowed. Ms. Bridge - Denzak felt that the finished first
floor elevations were set too high and if the developer wanted to avoid the water table, he could do so by
not having basements in the units. Mr. Davies suggested that a sentence be added to the guidance letter
stating that the board wants to be assured that the first floor finished elevations are as low as possible with
respect to ground water
Paul Mazerall, son of the owners, spoke of their concern to make it an economically viable project. He
said that they had initially proposed 8 units and he felt they were just adding one building to the site since
it already contains a house and a shed. The units are 120' away from the existing houses whereas the
houses on Wilson Road are only 30' apart.
On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Ms. Bridge - Denzak, the Planning Board voted 5 -0 to approve
the guidance letter with the addition of the sentence which recognizes the ground water concerns. Ms.
Bridge - Denzak told the applicants that the letter states Board thinks but it is up to the applicant to decide
what to come back with. She felt that what really mattered was the impervious surface and site coverage.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Applications To Be Heard on February 15, 2001 Mr. Galaitsis recommended, and the Board members
agreed, that the Board would make no comment on the following applications:
• 109 Shade Street — Variance from the requirement regarding gross floor area in a structure, not built
Minutes for the Meeting of February 7, 2001 3
as of January 1, 1983 (Section 5.2.3.a.4 of the ZBL); and a Special Permit in accordance with Section
5.3 of the ZBL for the conversion of a one- family dwelling in the RS district into a dwelling unit
containing 2 dwelling units.
• 12 Dudley Road — Variance from the 2.5 story residential height restriction in order to construct an
addition that would extend a shed dormer more that 50% of the ridge line of a raised ranch -style
single- family dwelling.
• 8 Minute Man Lane — Variance from 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a new front entry to a
single - family dwelling that would have a front yard setback of approximately 22 feet. An attached
garage will be removed and the existing side entry will be eliminated, while a on -story addition with a
garage underneath will be constructed at the back of the dwelling
• One Cranberry Hill — Special Permit in accordance with Section 15.3.3.3 of the ZBL to construct,
operate, and maintain an unmanned wireless communications facility on the existing building at One
Cranberry Hill.
• 31 Paterson Road — Variance to construct an addition with a front yard setback of 24.3 ft. An existing
carport will be eliminated and replaced with a 2 -car garage beneath the proposed addition to a
contemporary -style single - family dwelling.
There were two cases that had wider policy implications and that the Board discussed in more detail. The
application for 7 Hartwell Avenue asked for a clarification and/or revision of an existing Special Permit
with Site Plan Review, for a determination that the general office uses set forth in Section 6.11 to 6.18, as
well as the banking use set forth in Section 7.1 of the ZBL are permitted in perpetuity at 7 Hartwell
Avenue.
Among points considered by the Board was that while this was the first of the CD rezonings done in
Lexington, and things were not as clearly defined and laid out as in subsequent rezonings, there was never
any indication that any other use was contemplated. One of the selling points of the CD zones has been
that WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get). The Planning Board feels that this constitutes a change
in use, and as such needs to go back to Town Meeting, rather than the Board of Appeals.
Tom Cox and David Connolly, representatives of the current owners of 7 Hartwell Avenue, were present
to make a case for allowing the Zoning Board of Appeals to modify the special permit. They felt that the
change in use "substantially complies with what was passed by Town Meeting ". Mr. Connolly said that
they had filed with the ZBA and Town Meeting and were trying to follow the town's guidance.
The Planning Board recommended unfavorable action on this petition. While the Board is not opposed to
office use at this site, they felt that the proper process for a change of use is to go back to Town Meeting.
The second ZBA case of wider interest was the appeal of a decision by the Zoning Enforcement Officer
that Lot 5A Spring Street is not grandfathered or protected by Section 6.6 of the ZBL and that it is
therefore not a buildable lot. The Planning Board felt that the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer
should stand. They were of the opinion that the buildability of the original lot was preserved and used by
the lot owner when a building permit was issued for a portion of the lot, now known as 154 Spring Street.
ARTICLES FOR 2001 TOWN MEETING
Articles 17 -21 The Planning Board received copies of the legal notices for the hearings on the zoning
related warrant articles. The hearings will be held on March 1, 2001.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 7, 2001 4
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Comprehensive Plan Workshop, February 13, 2001 Mr. Garber said he was looking forward to the next
week's comprehensive plan workshop and the participation of Planning Board members as facilitators.
The consultant and the planning staff are currently involved in tasks one and two, data collection and
analysis. Soon there will be a second generation of data collection needs. The information is being
collected and will be distributed to the Board after it is refined.
According to Mr. Garber, the city of Waltham has created new challenges in the Met State process. They
want to go through the permitting process last. The larger group meetings have again been postponed.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
7
Stacey Bridge- Denzak, Clerk