HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-14-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2000
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, was
called to order at 730 p.m. by Chairman Davies with members Bridge - Denzak, Colman, Galaitsis, Merrill,
Planning Director Garber and Assistant Planner McCall - Taylor present. Mr. Colman left the meeting during
the public hearing on Lexington Park. Ms. Bridge - Denzak left after the public hearing.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
The Board held an election of officers, effective the next meeting. On motions duly made and seconded,
the votes were unanimous for the following officers: Chairman, Steven Colman; Vice - chairman, Tony
Galaitsis; Clerk, Stacey Bridge - Denzak.
* * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
The Board signed the plans for the Grandview Subdivision. The applicant had received a letter from the
Town Clerk stating that the twenty day appeal period had passed without any appeals being filed.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Lexington Park Definitve Cluster Subdivision
Steven Colman recused himself and left the room, as he is an abutter to the property. Representing the
applicant team were Jerry Moloney, Halyard Builders, Inc.; Michael Weinmayr, Weinmayr and Associates,
Inc., landscape architect; John Noonan, Noonan & McDowell, Inc., engineers; Bill Hubner, Incite
Architecture, and Edmund Grant, attorney. There were 13 people in the audience.
Mr. Moloney presented a brief overview of the project, saying that he is committed to the cluster concept
even though it is a challenge in today's market using the 1996 guidelines and impact figures. He felt that the
project as presented would have significantly less impact than would either a conventional subdivision, or
the previous proposal. That proposal had been a sketch plan utilizing the increased densities allowed with a
Development of Significant Public Benefit.
Mr. Weinmayr presented the landscape and siting plans, noting that the top of the knoll had been chosen for
open space. A proof plan shows eleven units. Mr. Weinmayr noted that the April 1996 cluster by -law and
the September 1997 guidelines called for half of the units to be attached and half to be small. The
September 1998 updated guidelines suggest that two- thirds of the units be attached and two- thirds be small.
According to Mr. Moloney advantages of this cluster subdivision include the retention of 200 trees, less
impervious surface., and a smaller unit size. In comparison to current new single- family houses, the units are
small. The impact factors reflect a market very different from today's. The average size of conventional
subdivision units is much higher. This development will have an average house size of 2,500 square feet.
Fifteen of the eighteen units will have the master bedroom on the first floor. This is an alternative housing
type, designed to appeal to the "empty nester" market. The two -car garage is a major design element. The
average height, by the Zoning By -law definition is 22 feet. The design of this cluster will close off the
access to the back land which is landlocked, thus preventing its development, whereas a conventional
subdivision could allow the purchase of individual units to provide access to the back land.
The voluntary public benefit was presented. The basketball court at the Marvin Street playground will be
resurfaced. A swale will be built into the field, which will then be reseeded. There will be a path from
Cushing Street to the playground. Traffic safety improvements will include new signage on Winter Street, a
stop sign on Magnolia Street, a street light to better illuminate the curved portion of Winter Street and a
sight easement across the corner of the lot at 60 Winter Street. Drainage improvements will be made to
Minutes for the Meeting of June 14, 2000 2
Winter and Cushing Streets. Mr. Moloney's estimate of the total value of these improvements is $40,000.
While the construction will require a lot of blasting the developer said he would use ram hoeing where
conditions allowed.
Bill Hubner, the architect, described the unit design. There was quite a bit of stepping back of the units.
The foundations would be sheathed with stone. The garage doors were done as singles rather than having
the broad expanse of a two -car wide door. This is in keeping with the "village colonial" design and the
neighborhood.
Mr. Weinmayr returned to the landscape plan pointing out the existing path through the site will be
maintained. A large part of both work areas is within areas that are not wooded. He pointed out that the
numbers on the plant list as well as the number of trees saved are minimums. It is likely the actual numbers
will be higher.
Mr. Noonan ended the developer's presentation by explaining that the site is on a drumlin and most of the
material is glacial till. The wetlands buffer is not on the property but the work to replace the culvert for
drainage improvements is, so they will be filing with the conservation commission. The retention ponds are
dry retention ponds.
Comments from the Planning Board began with Mr. Galaitsis who stated that he was pleased to see the roll
back from previous proposals and that it is moving in a direction he likes. He wanted to see the
superimposed footprints of proposed units in relation to the Drummer Boy units. He felt that most of the
units look like four bedroom units and he wants to see those impacts. It was his feeling that the unfinished
space is just asking to be finished and that the occupants would be before the Board of Appeals asking to use
that space. Mr. Galaitsis felt that the cluster subdivision. at Coppersmyth Way should not be used as a
precedent, as those units are too big. He was concerned about what constitutes attachment. The use of
roofed walkways to connect two dwelling units concerned him. It was his feeling that this was a big shift
from the 1960's conventional subdivision living space and is only a notch down from 1990's conventional
dwellings.
Mr. Moloney responded that he bad done the numbers assuming that all the units contained four bedrooms
and the impact numbers still worked.
Mr. Davies commented that this is precisely the kind of development the cluster by -law was written to
support. He felt the covered walkthrough was a great convenience as it allowed easy access to the
backyards. He was concerned that the retention basin at the north end was extremely geometric and
wondered if it could be softened to look more natural.
Mr. Noonan said that the design was driven by forebay and storm water requirements. The flat - bottomed
pool was the result of needing to stay above the water table.
Mr. Merrill's comments centered on the quality of the presentation and the benefits of the cluster design
proposed. He felt that the voluntary public benefit was a desirable thing. He pointed out that the market has
changed since the passage of the cluster by -law. He wanted to know more about the neighborhood
interaction and whether the open space would be public or limited to the development residents.
Mr. Moloney said that he had tried to work with the abutters, focusing on the direct abutters. There had
been a meeting about drainage issues with the neighbors and the engineer. While the homeowners
association will hold the open space, it will be publicly accessible.
Ms. Bridge - Denzak offered the same compliments on the development. Her concerns focused on the open
Minutes for the Meeting of June 14, 2000
space — would there be fences that cut it off, could there be sidewalks along Boxwood and Magnolia so
people felt more invited into the area? She felt that she would like to see more canopy and evergreen trees,
particularly in the back of the units. She also felt that the units tend to be high on the site and she would like
to see the first floor elevations brought down three to four feet.
The landscape architect explained that the highest units are in -cut and are about as low as they can go. They
are laid out in relationship to the street and to each other.
Ms. Bridge Denzak was curious about the proof plan. To her the amount of the site with at least fifteen
percent slopes begins to feel un- developable. Other board members pointed out that a proof plan is not
required in a cluster.
Comments were then taken from the audience. Mr. Keshet, 46 Winter Street, said that overall he was happy
with the design. His concerns were with blasting and he hoped that it could be done as quickly as possible
without using large blasts. The person from 29 Oak Knoll was concerned about drainage and what would
happen if he gets water problems after the units are built. Mr. Noonan said that the amount of water flows
off the development property would be the same or less than presently. A resident of 60 Winter Street felt
that the retention basin sloped toward his house and it would flow into his basement. Mr. Noonan said that
the bottom of that basin was at the same elevation as the resident's driveway. Mr. Moloney offered to install
a perimeter drain if the basement gets wet.
Karl Kastorf of Bedford Street spoke in favor of the project, feeling that the impacts were limited.
Tom Sullivan of 2 Cushing Street asked about the catch basin system and how long the blasting would go
on. He was concerned about lights shining in windows as he didn't see much screening. Mr. Moloney said
he would add screening if needed.
Mr. Keshet once again raised concerns about blasting and suggested that there be a contents assessment
prior to blasting. Board members felt that this was outside of subdivision control and that he should take the
matter up with the fire chief.
With no more comments from the audience Mr. Galaitsis once more voiced his concerns about the
possibility that there might be further expansion of the units after the development is complete. He
wondered if there could be a deed restriction to limit the footprint and to guarantee that no one ever came
back for another special permit to expand the units.
Mr. Moloney acknowledged that concerns raised about blasting and drainage were reasonable and he would
do his best to address them. He promised to treat the neighbors well.
Mr. Davies closed the hearing.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
7a
Anthony G. Galaitsis, Clerk