Loading...
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