HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-12-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2000
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room Town Office Building, was
called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Davies with members Bridge - Denzak, Colman, Galaitsis, Director
of Comprehensive Planning Bowyer, Planning Director Garber and Assistant Planner McCall- Taylor
present. Mr. Merrill was absent.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
46 Hayes Lane Definitive Subdivision Plan, Peter Johnson, PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Davies opened the
hearing at 7:07 p.m. Present for this item were Gary Larson, Larson Associates, Iandscape architect, and an
audience of 15 interested persons. Mr. Larson presented plans for the proposed two -lot subdivision. He
showed that the plan complies with wetlands regulations and said there would be minor widening of the
portion of Hayes Lane that provides frontage for the site.
In response to Mr. Colman's question about considering a cluster layout for the site, Mr. Larson answered
that a cluster subdivision would require three dwelling units and that this could be a more intense use of the
site. Other questions and comments from the Board had to do with the street widening.
Several residents spoke against the road widening. They said that Hayes Lane is used as a cut - through route
and widening will allow that traffic to go faster through the neighborhood, creating a greater hazard. These
neighbors are not opposed to the proposed house. One resident said that illegal fill was dumped at the site in
previous years.
Mr. Davies acknowledged the comments from the audience regarding the widening of the street. He closed
the hearing at 8:04 p.m.
Rowland Avenue Definitive Subdivision Plan, Woodhaven Realty Trust, Continuation of Public Hearing
Mr. Davies opened the hearing at 8 :05 p.m. Frederick DeAngelis was present representing the applicant,
Barbara Palant. There were eighteen people in the audience. Mr. DeAngelis said that the applicant requests a
120 -day extension of the time in which the Board has to act on the definitive plan dated December 1, 1999.
Mr. Davies read a prepared statement, as follows: The Planning Board takes action on this case, after 14
months, with a degree of frustration. During this time period, the Board has had to focus largely on issues of
lot title and property history, deeds, plot plans, vintage paper rights-of-way, old Board Of Appeals records
and the like. Such material is not the domain of this or any other Planning Board in the Commonwealth.
Such data is not required in anyone's subdivision regulations as a submission requirement. When it dons its
permitting hat, the stock in trade of this and all Planning Boards is made up of subdivision control, special
permits and rezoning petitions, and nothing else.
The Board is charged with evaluating subdivision elements such as paved travelways, curbing, sewer and
water mains, catch basins, street trees, lot lines, sidewalks and related improvements. Where a special permit
is involved (which is not the case with the Rowland Avenue application), the members ponder such matters
as the layout of houses on a site, the natural features of a piece of property, landscaping and screening,
handling stormwater runoff on the lot, and similar considerations. The proper and statutory role for the
Planning Board is to deal with these subdivision and site plan matters. The Board's role is emphatically not
to act as a local land court and to spend months trying to figure out an irregular flow of detailed and
fragmented property information. The Board's job is to review design features within the public
infrastructure and on private land; it is not our job to assemble real estate crossword puzzles that in some
instances might go back more than a century.
To compound the inappropriateness of the Board acting in this role, it has been necessary to make town
counsel Palmer and Dodge our partner in this venture for the past eight months. Combined with other so-
Minutes for the Meeting of April 12, 2000 2
called orphan lot cases, the legal complexity and extreme detail of this subject have consumed an enormous
percentage of time for the professional staff, the Board members and our legal counsel. In our opinion, it has
been far too great a proportion of our collective time.
Here are some of the things that the Board members have learned in coping with the orphan lot dilemma:
• Every orphan lot case is different and must be evaluated on its individual merits; various applications
will have different outcomes, when their applicability is challenged under subdivision laws.
• The Subdivision Control Law of the Commonwealth clearly and repeatedly asserts its intent to apply to
old divisions of land and street layouts that pre -dated formal subdivision control in Lexington and all
communities. The problem, however, is that the same statute also contains one or more loopholes which,
if applied aggressively, allow exceptions to this rule for certain properties where there might be some
doubt as to the unified ownership of the land at the time of lotting and street layout, which in turn can
create exemption from Planning Board subdivision jurisdiction, in some instances.
• It is these technicalities in the statute that have stretched the time line on the Rowland Avenue
application for so long, for the simple reason that it takes a great deal of time to prepare —and then to
review- -full title and property history.
By insisting that the case take as long as it needed to take, and by working so closely with legal counsel
rather than making less - informed judgments, the Board has acted in the most prudent and responsible
manner on the Rowland application. However, when neighbors ask why the Board did not make this
determination fourteen months ago, the answer is clear: there is no requirement within the Board's domain
to prepare and submit voluminous title searches and property histories. Again, it takes time to decide that
this material is necessary, and a lot more time to prepare and evaluate all of it. To make jurisdictional
determinations on the basis of spottier evidence could be risky and imprudent.
Some parties have expressed the concern that the Board should somehow have acted as a neighborhood
advocate in this case and presumed the position that the lot was unbuildable and perhaps even have rejected
the application in the first place. This is, to say the least, an inaccurate understanding of the Board's
responsibility. First, the Board cannot be an advocate for any party, applicant or opposing neighbors.
Second, the Board must presume that there is jurisdiction under the subdivision statute, because that is what
the charge of any Board is: to regulate the layout and construction of streets and infrastructure and/or the
creation or modification of lots. If some parties choose to adopt the strategy of questioning the Board's
jurisdiction by means of loopholes in the subdivision statute, then that is absolutely their right, but it is also
their burden to prove.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Board has taken a bold and innovative step in regard to orphan
lots; it is likely that no other Board in the Commonwealth has taken so dramatic an action. This step has
been to prepare and debate a comprehensive orphan lots policy (Policy); this document will be adopted soon
and apply to future applications. This policy, or set of guidelines, can later become part of the Board's
Development Regulations. Among other things, the Policy places a burden upon any applicant seeking to
develop orphan lots to produce the very items that have been discussed in this Statement and which arc not a
normal part of the submission requirements for a subdivision application; these include a full title
examination, property history and deed record, Zoning Board of Appeals history, and so on. The Policy also
establishes a detailed process for the Board choosing, where needed, to submit all of the property
information to legal counsel for more difficult determinations of subdivision jurisdiction.
After a discussion about three options offered by the Board, Mr. DeAngelis agreed that they would ask the
Board to approve a request for withdrawal of their plan from consideration. On the motion of Mr. Colman,
seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, the Board voted unanimously to accept the request for withdrawal of the
definitive plan dated December 1, 1999. Mr. Davies closed the hearing at 9:30 p.m.
Minutes for the Meeting of April 12, 2000
Cotton Farm Sketch Plan, off Marrett Road, Todd Cataldo, Presentation by the Applicant Present for this
item were Gary Larson, of Larson Associates, landscape architect. Mr. Larson presented a sketch plan for a
ten -unit cluster subdivision on land at 123 Marrett Road.
Several Board members expressed their dismay that much of the apple orchard will be lost to the road
construction. However, moving the road has another set of problems, in particular, the 650 -foot length of
dead -end road limit in the Subdivision Regulations. Narrowing the proposed road was also debated. Mr.
Garber summarized the issues:
• Non - compliance with the 650 -foot dead -end limit
• Creating a narrower interior drive
• The reconfiguration of 3.8 acres
• Placement of some houses on long common driveways
The board asked the applicant to submit another sketch plan.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNINGDIRECTOR'S REPORT
Recent Activity,
Mr. Garber stated that the letter of support- with - conditions from the Board for MAPC's "Development with
Regional Impacts" process was sent to the Selectmen.
ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * **
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Applications To Be Heard on April 13, 2000: Mr. Galaitsis gave an oral review of the following
applications:
• 2 Hill Street — Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a non - conforming garages as well as a
Variance to add a second floor over the reconstructed garage and to attach the garage to the house.
The Planning Board agreed to support the granting of a Special Permit for the
reconstruction of a garage but feels that the variance should be denied. It is too close
to the lot line for such a tail structure.
30 Bowker Street — Variance to reduce frontage and square footage on a lot.
The Planning Board will recommend that application be denied. In 1998 the Zoning
Officer had determined that the lots were not grandfathered and therefore combined.
This determination was never appealed and should stand. Furthermore the Planning
Board sees no hardship based on soil conditions, topography or shape of the lot to
justify the granting of a variance. Size of the lot should not be confused with shape
of the lot in determining if a hardship exists. (Mr. Davies did not participate in this
discussion or recommendation.)
The Board had no comment on the following applications, also to be heard on April 13.
• 20 Vaille Avenue — Special Permit to construct second floor dormers that fall within the current required
front setback. There will be no increase in site coverage
• 53 Ledgelawn Avenue — Variances from front and side yard setbacks to construct an addition
• 17 Lexington Avenue — Variance to construct a pool with a rear and side yard setback of 12 feet rather
Minutes for the Meeting of April 12, 2000 4
then 20 feet.
83 Hancock Street — Variance to allow an accessory apartment in an accessory structure with a gross
floor area of 1,261 square feet instead of the maximum 900 square feet and on a lot of 32,278 square
feet instead of the required 33,000 square feet. Special Permit for an accessory apartment in an
accessory structure
* *REPORTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Planning Board, Subcommittees
Mr. Galaitsis was appointed the Board's representative to the Committee to Study Efficacy of Section 15 of
the Zoning By -Law
The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m.
Anthony Gala tsis, Jerk