HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-19-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2001
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building,
was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman. Galaitsis with members Davies, Harden, and Kastorf and
planning staff McCall - Taylor present. Ms. Chase was absent. Present in the audience were Mr. Edmund
Grant, Mr. John Himmel, and Mr. Michael Schroeder.
* * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW
Form A/01 -08 The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at 17 North Street. On the
motion of Mr. Harden, seconded by Mr. Davies, the Board voted unanimously to endorse the plan entitled
"Plan of Land in Lexington, Massachusetts (Middlesex County) ", dated December 10, 2001 prepared by
Meridian Engineering, Inc., Danvers, MA., certified by Michael J. Juliano, Professional Land Surveyor, with
Form A/01 -08, submitted by Jonah and Mary Kalb, applicants, as it does not require approval under the
Subdivision Control Law.
Form A/01 -09 The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at 32 Burlington Street and 5
Nowers Road. On the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr. Kastorf, the Board voted unanimously to
endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, MA (Middlesex County) ", dated August 23, 2001,
prepared by Meridian Engineering, Inc., Danvers, MA., certified by Michael J. Juliano, Professional Land
Surveyor, with Form A /01 -09, submitted by Todd Cataldo, applicant, as it does not require approval under
the Subdivision Control Law.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Aaron Road Subdivision, Public Hearing Postponed The continued hearing for the Aaron Road Subdivision
was postponed to January 9, 2002 at 7:45 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOWN MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
01rcel 011106=1104 1 0 111 UV 121
Definition of Height Mr. Harden reported that the outstanding issues on the definition of height had been
worked through except for the actual height. It is currently 40 feet, but that may be too liberal. Mr. Harden
distributed four sheets showing houses with different roof pitches, different sizes of floor plates, and with
and without knee walls. These showed that the wider footprints with steep roofs would exceed the 40 -foot
limit. Ms. McCall - Taylor reported that the building commissioner said that the 40 -foot limit as now defined
never comes into play, and that currently, the number of stories rather than the number of feet controls the
residential building height. She said that any amendments made to the motion on the Town Meeting floor can
only make something less restrictive. For that reason the Board might want to go into Town Meeting with the
more restrictive height limit. Mr. Galaitsis felt the Board should go to Town Meeting with the more
restrictive height and leave the option open for Town Meeting to go with a higher limit.
Mr. Davies said that he felt the way the Concord Zoning By -Law's definition of height was confusing and
that the current proposal using the peak of the roof as the top measuring point was a more intuitive way. Mr.
Kastorf commented that the 6/12 and 8/12 roof pitches were more common in Lexington. Mr. Harden said
that he felt that a 36 -foot maximum was probably about right for being in scale, although he was waffling
between 36 feet or 38 feet. His inclination was to go with the lower figure and then see what public input
was.
Mr. Himmel who was in the audience spoke in favor of a 36 -foot maximum. He said other towns have found
it to be reasonable so why wouldn't it be reasonable here? He also said that it could be used as a bargaining
Minutes for the Meeting of December 19, 2001. 2
chip and pointed out that one can build a dormer on up to 50% of the roof in order to get more useable room.
Discussion then shifted to whether there should be an addition to Section 7.5.1 dealing with the measurement
of the maximum number of stories and whether that should be from the natural grade. There was some
concern expressed that the Board keep its eye on the ball and not get sidetracked dealing with the definitions
of cellar, crawl space and basement. Mr. Himm advocated for using the "grade plane" for the lower point
of measurement as is done in Weston. Mr. Davies felt that the building commissioner could use the natural
grade. Mr. Kastorf expressed his concerns that the discussion of story was very confusing and might not
serve the larger issue of dealing with height. He wondered if it might just make a complex issue more
confusing. Mr. Davies responded that just addressing the height in feet might be sufficient. Mr. Kastorf did
comment that without addressing how stories are measured the mounding of soil around a foundation could
continue. He suggested testing the concept at the public hearing and seeing if it were an issue. He urged the
Board to be very clear in its explanation and to keep the story issue separate from the maximum height in
feet issue.
Mr. Davies made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kastorf, that Section 7.5.1 be rewritten in such a way that the
measurement of stories be taken from the natural grade and that, when measured in feet, the height maximum
be 36 feet. The motion was passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
�' Karl Kastorf, Acting Clerk