HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-05-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2000
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Room G -1, Town Office Building, was called to
order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Davies with members Bridge- Denzalc, Colman, Galaitsis, Director of
Comprehensive Planning Bowyer, Planning Director Garber and Assistant Planner McCall - Taylor present.
Mr. Merrill was absent.
* * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * **
PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW
1. Form A/00 -1, 7 and 9 Carmel Circle, Tien -Yu Tsui The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required
Plan for land on Carmel Circle. On the motion of Mr. Colman, seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, the Board voted
unanimously to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington in MA, dated September 24, 1999 and
revised December 16, 1999, prepared and certified by Ernest H. Fagerstrom, Registered Land Surveyor,
Norwell, MA, with Form A /2000 -1, submitted by Tien -Yu Tsui, applicant, as it does not require approval
under the Subdivision Control Law. The possible non - compliance under the Zoning By -law was noted on
the plan at staff insistence.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
2. Rowland Avenue, Amendment to a Prior Definitive Subdivision Plan, Woodhaven Realty Trust,
PUBLIC HEARING Present for this item were Gary Larson, landscape architect, Larson Associates, Inc.,
and Frederick DeAngelis, attorney for the applicants. A number of Rowland Avenue residents were also
present with their attorney, Emily Sample.
Mr. Davies opened the hearing at approximately 8:05 p.m. He began by referring to a letter from the
Rowland Avenue neighborhood. He refuted their claim that staff did not provide timely or sufficient notice
of the hearing or were trying to hurry this project through. He cited key notice dates and actions.
Mr. DeAngelis described the current plan as an amendment to a prior subdivision. He said that, physically,
the plan has not changed. Mr. Larson summarized the physical layout plan. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the plan
can accommodate a full 120 footdiameter right -of -way, and if any subdivisions have been approved without
a full circle cul -de -sac being constructed. Mr. Bowyer responded that there have been perhaps six such plans
in recent memory, citing the Taylor Lane and Garfield Street subdivisions. In response to Mr. Galaitsis
question, "What are the "special circumstances cited in section 3.6.2.5.4 of the Development Regulations,"
Mr. Larson and Mr. DeAngelis said that in meetings with Town Engineers, it was indicated that their
turnaround dimensions were acceptable.
Board members asked questions as to whether the Palant lot was part of an older subdivision, based upon
evidence currently on the table.
Robert Katz, 6 Rowland Avenue, asked the applicants why and how they decided to withdraw the earlier
definitive plan. Mr. DeAngelis answered that it was done based on his own research. Michael Cassetari, 2
Rowland Avenue, asked why Mr. Garber had not reviewed Palmer and Dodge's legal analysis as of
December 28, the day it arrived from Palmer and Dodge. Mr. Garber responded that aside from the
impossibility of reviewing a complex legal write up on the same day it arrives, 95% of the time, the staff
analysis goes out to the Board on the Friday before their meeting the following Wednesday. Mr. Cassetari
also requested a neighborhood meeting with the Planning Board. Chairman Davies responded that that
would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law.
Attorney Sample stated that she strongly disagrees that this plan is an amendment to an existing subdivision
Minutes for the Meeting of January 5, 2000 2
Chapter 41, Section 81FF does not place this lot under subdivision jurisdiction. She offered as new evidence
a 1.964 Planning Board - endorsed Approval Not Required plan. She believes that the applicant does not have
the,authority to extend an existing public way, that only the Selectmen do.
Attorney DeAngelis denied withholding knowledge of the 1964 plan. He said there are three ways to build
on the Palant's lot: by obtaining a variance; extending the road via an application to the Planning Board; and
approaching the Selectmen for a street layout extension. He stated that he believes the Planning Board can
authorize a street extension under the Subdivision Control Law.
Mr. Cassetari said that the Rowland Avenue residents are proponents of open space, not opponents of the
Palants. Their concern is town -wide, not just Rowland Avenue.
Brian Hackley, , 1444 Massachusetts Avenue, stated his belief that the Board has to respect the 1964 ANR
plan.
Mr. Galaitsis asked how the Board could avoid situations like this, where key information about the land is
unknown. Mr. Garber responded that that would require a title search. Mr. Bowyer commented that the 1964
ANR plan, were it to come in today, could not be endorsed because frontage on a street is required under the
Development Regulations.
Jacqueline Lubin, 4 Rowland Avenue, asked if the Planning Board should not assume a protective role for
the neighbors, instead of their having to hire legal counsel to protect themselves.
On the motion of Mr. Galaitsis, seconded by Mr. Colman, the Board voted to continue the hearing to a date
called by the chairman. The hearing was suspended at 9:40 p.m.
DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS
3. Ash Street Preliminary Street Improvement Plan John Daley, presentation by the qpplic ant:
John Daley, applicant, was present to explain his plan for improving a portion of Ash Street. On the motion
of Mr, Colman, seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, the Board voted unanimously, 4 -0, to approve the preliminary
street improvement plan and to recommend proceeding to the definitive design.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
4. 112 Laconia St. Sketch Two -Lot Conventional Subdivision Plan, Tanner/Nahigian No one was
present to represent the applicant. The Board reviewed a draft decision. On the motion of Mr. Davies,
seconded by Ms. Bridge - Denzak, the Board voted unanimously, 4 -0, to approve the sketch plan and to
recommend proceeding to the definitive design.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
f
Anthony G. Galaitsis, Cleric