The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-11-15-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2000 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Guard Room, Police Station, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Galaitsis, with members Chase, Davies, Planning Director Garber, and Assistant Planner McCall- Taylor present. Mr. Colman and Ms. Bridge- Denzak were absent. Also present were Larry Belvin, Tom DeNoto, Elaine Dratch, Marilyn Fenollosa, Tom Harden, Wendy Manz, Joe Marino, Jerry Moloney, Anne Ripley, and Iris Wheaton of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. MINUTES ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Review of Minutes: The Board agreed to postpone consideration of the minutes of the October 3, 2000 executive session until the next meeting when Mr. Colman would be present. ADNIPZSTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Form Al00 -7, 21 -23 Pleasant Street, Wilson The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at 21 -23 Pleasant Street. On the motion of Mr_ Davies, seconded by Mrs. Chase, the Board voted unanimously to endorse the plan entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land Located in Lexington, MA ", dated November 9, 2000, prepared by Medford Engineering & Survey, Medford, MA, certified by Thomas Killion, Professional Land Surveyor, with Form A00 -7, submitted by Scott and Elizabeth Wilson, applicants, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard on November 16, 2000: Ms. Chase gave an oral review of the following applications (The Board's recommended action follows): a 11 Appletree Lane — Variance from required 15- -foot side yard setback to replace an existing attached carport with an attached 2 -car garage with an 119 -foot side yard setback_ No Comment * 40 Tower Road — Variance from required 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a new front portico over a rebuilt landing and steps with a 12 -foot front yard setback_ No comment. * 181-201 Spring Street — Modification of an existing Special Permit to allow lighting of the entrance sign during limited periods and hours. No comment. * 231 Bedford Street _Special Permit for as- needed use of a . freestanding A -frame sign identifying availability of walk -in services at Illusions Hair Design. The Board recommends unfavorable action as it is against the proliferation of commercial signs. « 13 Depot Square — Special Permit to erect an identifying sing that is larger than that whichis allowed by right. Although the Board feels the sign is too large, it defers to the judgement of the Design Advisory Cormittee s 884 Massachusetts Avenue — Variance from required 15-foot side yard setback to construct a garden _ shed with a 3 -foot side yard_ The Board recommends that the applicant seek an alternative location that will not require a variance 0 Hillerest Avenue, lot 73B on assessors map 21 — Appeal of a decision by the ZEO that the lot on . Hillcrest Avenue between 50 and 58 Hillcrest Avenue is not a separate buildable lot —The Board recommends the decision of the Zoning enforcement Officer be upheld. It is the Board's understanding that the application of the Belmont Savings Bank for the addition of signs at 384 Waltham Street has been withdrawn. Minutes for the Meeting of November 15, 2000 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING The members of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) were asked to give their names and some brief background. Mr. Galaitsis thanked the members for all the work they had given to the town in the past and for the work they would be doing. Mr. Garber then gave a presentation "Growth Management Challenges Pacing Lexington ". It included how new land is created in the mature suburb as well as a discussion of the current legal issues in land use. Mr. Garber followed that up with an overview of the comprehensive plan and the elements that will be done in the neat year. The meeting was then opened for questions. The questions focused on how the CPAC would fit into the comprehensive plan process and what the committee's responsibilities would be_ Mr. Garber explained that there would be joint monthly meetings of the CPAC and the Planning Board. The staff and the consultant will be doing research and data collection, the results of which will be brought back to the joint meeting to be discussed. In the end the Planning Board is the body responsible for the comprehensive plan. The output of the comprehensive plan will be detailed recommendations, some of which might go to Town Meeting. Mr. Garber reported that the requests for proposal (RFP) had gone out and the deadline for proposals had been today_ Three responses had been received and the consultant will be selected in the next few weeks by a committee of the staff and Board members. CPAC members had been asked to review the Scope of Services section of the RFP before the meeting_ While they had no questions they did ask for a brief overview. The six phases of developing the comprehensive plan are as follows. 1) data gathering; 2) data analysis, looking for what the challenges are. Issues may include an analysis of vacant sites, trends in housing and costs, and the state of natural resources; 3) formulation of implementation measures — the CPAC and workshops will help identify initial implementation measures; 4) draft plan,, 5) final set of implementation measures; and, 6) the final plan. Mr. Garber said that the final plan should be a lean document emphasizing policy_ It will be a useable document with an action plan, not one that will just sit on a shelf. Mr. Moloney asked if the goal was to achieve consensus. Mr. Galaitsis said that that would be valuable but it may not be possible to get one hundred percent consensus. The Board is using CPAC for outreach so that no one should be surprised at the end of the process. Ms_ Chase felt that the principle should be to find the greatest good for the greatest number. * * * * * * * * * * * * *T REPORTS * * * * * * * * * * * *x* Planning Board, Subcommittees Bicycle Committee_ Mr. Galaitsis reported that at the last meeting three issues had been raised. On input provided by the Planning Department staff, the Planning Board found that none of there were under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. 1) Could the Board request a bicycle path through Old Smith Farm? As the decision has already been voted on this will not be possible. 2) What is the status of Stedman Road from Marrett Road to the Clark School and could the Boy Scouts improve it as a bike path? Stedman Road is a paper street and the town has no rights in the street. This would have to be done privately with those having rights in the street. 3) What is the status of the path through Coppersmyth Way? There is an easement for a footpath. The easement is grass as required in the decision_ It is not for a bike path and is not to be a paved surface_ Efficacy of Section. 15 of the Zoning By -law Committee: Mr_ Galaitsis reported that the committee had received a memo from the Planning staff. They had not expected such a detailed comment but it would provide guidance. At this time they have a .map of antenna locations in town_ Minutes for the Meeting of November 15, 2000 Noise By -Law Committee: Mr. Galaitsis reported that they are in process of reviewing the draft by -law. Tree Protection Ad hoc Committee: Mr. Garber shared his thoughts with the Board as follows: There are some real issues raised by the current draft. Perhaps basing the by -law on Newton, which is a city, was a mistake. The by -law needs a great deal of work and thought. The committee should come up with a short and simple by -law that does not overburden the individual homeowner. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. r i 3 V