Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-02-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2000 The meeting of the Lexington PIanning Board held in the Selectmen's Room Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Colman with members Bridge - Denzak, Davies, Galaitsis, Assistant Planner McCall- Taylor and planning intern Ralph present. Mr. Davies left the meeting prior to the discussion of the Board of Appeals cases. Mr. Merrill was absent. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** Mr. Colman did not participate in the discussion and action on Lexington Park nor the ANR on Marrett Road. Mr. Galaitsis stepped in as acting chair. SUBDIVISION OF LAND Lexington Park Cluster Subdivision , Plan endorsement The Board signed the plans for the Lexington Park Cluster 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.. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Form A/00 -4, 130 -143 Marrett Road, David Hunter The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land on Marrett Road. On the motion of Mr. Davies seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, the Board voted 3 -0 to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land located in Lexington in MA ", dated July 19, 2000 and certified by Wesley T. Guilloume, Registered Land Surveyor, Winchester, MA, with Form A /004, submitted by David Hunter, applicant, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Colman resumed as chairman. SUBDIVISION OF LAND Trinda Estates Definitive Subdivision, Public Hearing The hearing was called to order at 7:45. Mr. Colman read the legal notice and gave an outline of the hearing procedure. Representing the applicant team were Roger DuPont, attorney for Mr. Trebino, trustee of Trinda Realty Trust, and Fred Russell, engineer. There were approximately a dozen people in the audience. A sign -up list, now on file at the Planning Department, was at the door although only one person signed in. Mr. DuPont presented a brief overview of the project, stating that the land, which has been in the Trebino family for 75 years, was originally subdivided in 1925. This subdivision had been approved by the Board of Survey then, and again in 1935 when the plan was amended to decrease the number of lots and increase the lot size. The lots before the Planning Board are those shown on the 1935 plan. The lots are grandfathered under state Chapter 40A. The jurisdiction issue has been explored since a sketch plan was submitted for these properties. At a meeting attended by Robert Bowyer, Glenn Garber, a representative from Engineering, Roger DuPont and Fred Russell an agreement was reached to proceed under subdivision control and to request waivers from some of the standard requirements. In addition to the waivers requested in the letter of June 16, 2000 the applicant would like to add a waiver of the granite curbing since there is no granite curbing in the area. Fred Russell the engineer then presented the locus plan and the site analysis. The plan is to extend Dunham Street approximately 110 feet, of which about 40 feet will be paved. There will be a 50 -foot turn- around. Because the existing sewer is at a depth of about 3 '/z feet (seven feet being the current standard), each house will have an ejector pump. The water line will be extended to the end of the pavement and a new hydrant will be installed. The hearing was opened to questions and comments from the Board. Ms. Bridge - Denzak questioned the need for waivers, particularly of the landscaping. Mr. Russell replied that the extension was designed to fit into the existing neighborhood. Ms. Bridge - Denzak felt that just because items do not exist did not mean that the Board Minutes for the Meeting of August 2, 2000 2 should continue to not require them. Mr. Davies said that the significant stand of hemlocks on the Iot line between the existing and new lot should be part of the design. Mr. DuPont said he thought the trees were between the abutter's property and the extinguished right of way, not on the subdivision lot. Mr. Galaitsis would like to try to bring the road up to standard and would like to see granite curbing. Mr. DuPont indicated that that would be fine. Mr. Galaitsis felt that water flow was an issue. Mr. Russell responded with figures showing that the proposed run -off would be less than the current amount. He went on to explain that the stone trench at the end of the pavement is not for storm water mitigation, but rather as a pre - treatment of the water. Mr. Colman asked for more information regarding the waiver of the maximum 650' length of a dead -end street. Mr. DuPont explained that the current road ends in a wall of vegetation and is quite narrow. There is no provision for an emergency vehicle turn - around. The proposal will clear out the area, and make it more attractive. He felt that it was a minimal increase in road length, which would result in an increase in neighborhood safety. Abutter Fred Taylor of Woburn Street pointed out that, in his opinion, most of the land is wetland and the old foundation on the property almost always has water in it. Mr. Russell agreed that the water table is very high, about 3'. The Conservation Commission has held a hearing and accepted the wetland line as it appears on the plan. Mary Fisher of Woburn Street wanted to know what the impact of displacement of the water table would be with the house construction. Mr. Russell responded that there would be no displacement, as the house would be built above the water table. Jane Epstein of Webb Street asked what was going to happen to the end of the road and what would be the effect on the wetlands? Mr. Russell said that they would be removing only the necessary vegetation to construct the paved portion of the road, there would not be an increase in flow and there will still be trees at the end of the road. Doug Miller spoke representing the Kavlakian Family Trust, which owns property abutting the end of the paper street portion of Dunham. He wondered why the plans did not show 150' of paved frontage and whether the stone trench at the end of the proposed paving acted as a de facto strip which he felt was prohibited by the Planning Board's regulations. Ms. McCall - Taylor replied that while the lots had to have frontage on a street as defined by the Zoning By -law, the lots were grandfathered from dimensional requirements. In addition, the Planning Board could allow a reserve strip if it felt that such a strip were in the public interest. Mr. Miller said that if this proposal is approved the Kavlakians will come in with a subdivision for their land. Mr. Davies said that the Board should not require a reserve strip, which would preclude a future connection of Dunham Street to Webb Street. Mr. DuPont said that the development regulations all presuppose that an extension is to buildable land. There has been no demonstration that there are lots beyond Dunham which are eligible for building permits. The Kavlakians have no rights in the paper portion of Dunham and have no rights to transverse that land. Mr. Miller's arguments presuppose buildability and that is far from clear. Mr. Miller repeated his assertion that Trebinos cannot create a reserve strip. He wants to see the sewer extended so that the Kavlakians can develop their land. The Kavlakian land does have development potential and it is wrong to assume that Dunham Street will be a dead -end. He wants the Planning Board to put off their consideration of this proposal and wait to review an entire subdivision, which would include Kavlakians property. Mr. Dupont responded that Section 2 requires later developers to make the changes to the street, it is not the responsibility of Mr. Trebino to make the iunprovements for someone else. If Kavlakians have rights to Dunham, which is not a given, those rights are not foreclosed by this proposal. To delay Mr. Trebino for an indeterminate time would not be fair, and would be a hardship. Mr. Miller said it might be a hardship for Mr. Trebino to have to wait, but it would not be a hardship to the town as a whole. Ms. Fisher wanted to know if there were other lots owned by Trebino, which may be developed at a later time. Mr. DuPont pointed out one at the end of Dunham Street on the paved portion. Ms. Epstein asked if it were grandfathered. The answer was yes. Minutes for the Meeting of August 2, 2000 The letter from the Waters was read into the record. Mr. Russell acknowledged the reviewing engineer's comments and said that they would respond to them. Mr. Miller asked the board to continue the hearing as he had tried to get the plans to review and had been given the wrong ones. Ms. Epstein said that she felt the Trinda decision should not be based on possible future development and the board should go ahead to consider the proposal before them. Betty Edison spoke on behalf of the newly created tree committee and said they were not in favor of clear cutting lots and want to keep the larger trees. Mr. DuPont asked the Board to approve the plan with the changes requested by engineering and that the waivers be granted, and that the hearing not be extended for reasons of fairness to his client. Ms. Bridge - Denzak stated that she wanted more information on the type of development. She found it hard to believe that there were only two trees on lot 2 with a caliber greater than six inches. Mr. Colman suggested that the hearing be continued and that the members put together a list of questions they wanted answered at the continued hearing. Mr. Galaitsis said he would support continuing the hearing to get more information but not for the reasons put forth by Mr. Miller. Mr. Galaitsis moved that the hearing be continued until August 9, 2000 for the purpose of reviewing vegetation and other appropriate questions to help in determining if the requested waivers should be granted. Ms. Bridge - Denzak seconded the motion. The vote was 4 -0 in the affirmative. Mr. Davies made a final statement that there should not be any consideration of future development of the Kavlakian land in this decision. He cited a subdivision off Wood Street, which didn't prevent further development, but neither was there an obligation to facilitate future development. At 8:45 the hearing was continued until August 9, 2000. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Several of the candidates to replace Mr. Merrill on Board will be away on August 9 when interviews are scheduled. The Board agreed to do phone interviews at the beginning of that meeting. There was some discussion of questions to ask the candidates. Members will try to get any questions to the planning office by Friday so that a script can be written for the interviews. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Galaitsis reported that the Board of Selectmen's noise subcommittee has met and endeavors to prepare an article for the next Town Meeting. Mr. Colman said that he would be attending tomorrow's Senior Center Committee meeting. SUBDIVISION OF LAND /SPECIAL PERMITS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * " "" 246 Concord Avenue Minor Modification to S ecial Permit Masoud Sanayei, owner of one of the lots in the 7.4.5 subdivision at 246 Concord avenue, seeks a further minor modification to his special permit. Once he began clearing the lot for his house, he realized that in the driveway location were trees that he wanted to preserve. In order to do this, he is asking the Board to be allowed to move the house ten feet further back from Concord Avenue, rotate the house slightly, and to raise the finished floor elevation to 280'. He feels this will make the house less visible and save the trees. The Board members expressed some surprise that this project was back before them. Ms. Bridge- Denzak felt that there are other ways to save the trees if that were truly the issue and that to just move the driveway 10' would merely save the trees now to have them die later. Mr. Galaitsis felt that the change allowed at the last meeting was final and that if the house were not so large this would not be a problem. Mr. Davies felt that he couid support a two -foot increase in the finished floor elevation in response to real field conditions. Mr. Colman Minutes for the Meeting of August 2, 2000 supported the idea of saving the trees. Further discussion followed. Mr. Galaitsis moved, "To allow the house to be located not more than twenty feet back from where it was sited on the plans originally approved, to allow the house to be rotated slightly to maintain the proper setback and to maintain the finished floor elevation at a maximum of 277'." Ms. Bridge - Denzak seconded the motion. Mr. Sanayei stated that if that were the motion he would rather just leave the plans as approved at the last meeting. The Board pointed out that he could do that; this motion would simply allow him more options. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 4 to 0 in favor of the motion. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Planning Board member John Davies was not present for the discussion and vote on these applications. Applications To Be Heard on August 2 2000: Mr. Colman gave an oral review of the following applications: • 22 Sherburn Road — Special Permit to use a portion of a residence as an office to see psychotherapy clients on an as needed basis. The Board had no comment. • 19 Vine Brook Road — Variance from rear and side yard setbacks to construct a garden shed -The Planning Board notes that the applicant did not adequately address hardship in the submission they reviewed. • 1736 Massachusetts Avenue, Great Harvest Bread Company — Special Permit to operate a food take -out service consisting of lunch items like soup and sandwiches — The Planning Board supports the new use but raises the question of whether a variance for parking would be needed. • 9 Barberry Road — Appealing decision by the zoning enforcement officer that 9 Barberry Road does not constitute a separate buildable lot from 11 Barberry Road. The board decided to leave this issue to the Board of Appeals. • 9 Locust Avenue — Variance for side yard setback to construct an addition. The Board had no comment. • 153 Reed Street — Variance from rear yard setback to install a garden shed — The applicant should seek other options for the location of the shed. There is no hardship here. • 44 Greenwood Street — Variance from front yard setback to add an attached garage and a Special Permit to add a second story to a nonconforming single - family dwelling within the minimum yard setback — The Planning Board can support the application for the special permit but sees no reason to grant a further encroachment into the front yard setback. The Board recommends that the setback for the garage be a minimum of 23', as is the existing structure. • 3 Stonewall Road — Variance for a driveway with less than the required 5 foot setback (moving driveway off abutting property) — The Planning Board recommends favorable action • 59 Worthen Road, Grace Chapel —Variances from 7.9.2 (maximum floor area) and dimensional controls to enclose an existing courtyard and construct an addition, and from the parking requirements of Section 11.3.1 of the ZBL. The Board had no comment. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.