HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-14-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JULY 14, 2010
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office
Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Richard Canale with members Charles
Hornig, Anthony Galaitsis, Wendy Manz and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and
Lori Kaufman present. Gregory Zurlo was absent.
**************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION****************************
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Stedman Road, continued public hearing, definitive plan: Mr. Canale called the continued public hearing
to order at 7:32 p.m. In attendance were Attorney Frederick Paulsen, David Romero and Eric Nitche of
Commonwealth Engineering, and Al Casella, applicant, with approximately seven people in the audience.
Mr. Romero said there were minor changes to the plan since June, which included an additional water
chamber, snow storage, signs closer to the entrance and improvements to be made to the cart path. The
applicant also met with the Conservation Commission and added a leaching catch basin to handle a one-
year storm and stabilized the steep slope.
Board comments:
The catch basins bottoms do not meet Planning Board regulations, but would be acceptable if
they were approved by the Conservation Commission.
Want to see more detailed standards for the footpath regarding the width, slope, surface, and
control for runoff.
Regarding waiver 16 for the post development runoff, would it be worse? Mr. Romero said there
would be difficulty with infiltration due to ledge, but would infiltrate for the one-year storm.
The regulations state infiltration should be for a 25 year storm, but this will be for a one-year
storm.
Audience Comments:
A resident wanted signage to include “Not a Through Way”. Mr. Romero said they did not want
to over sign.
There were concerns about the boulders the fire department placed there as a barrier.
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of July 14, 2010
A resident asked for justification of the dead end street and why it would be in the public interest
to waive a through street. A compliant plan here would not be in the best interest of the public.
Who would have the obligation to maintain the new road if ownership is transferred, and who
would have authority in Town to report if there was noncompliance? The Zoning Enforcement
Officer in the Building Department would be in charge of enforcement. The decision would get
recorded with an operation and maintenance plan attached and would carry though with transfer
of title. The opinion was also expressed that enforcement would be through the covenant, not the
Zoning Enforcement Officer.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Board Deliberations:
The Board discussed the draft decision prepared by staff with the following changes:
Reword Waiver 16.
More specifics in special condition # 4. Eight foot width would be the minimum width, the barrier
should allow entry of snow plow, maximum 10% grade, gravel depth to 6” and ensure that runoff
does not flow along the roadway.
Plan modifications should include drainage improvements, multi-use path, and an infiltrator.
Findings should reference the land court grandfathering decision.
There were concerns about allowing 16 waivers and whether that would set a precedent.
Since Brookside Avenue has a sidewalk, a sidewalk would be required absent a waiver, which
the Board will grant.
Require the applicant to go to TSAC for signage and street markings.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-1, (Mr. Galaitsis opposed) to approve the certificate
of action for the definitive subdivision plan located at Stedman Road with the conditions set forth in the
draft and including the changes discussed to the findings, special conditions and waivers.
Unaccepted Street Plans:
3 Laurel Street:
The applicant, Jason Brickman and Ben Osgood of Pennoni Associates were present requesting a
determination of adequate grade and construction in the vicinity of 3 Laurel Street. The documents
Minutes for the Meeting of July 14, 2010 Page 3
presented showed an existing conditions plan and a conforming plan. They would repair the road with a
variable pavement of 20-24 feet, mill and overlay and repair the sub-base to Engineering standards.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, that Laurel Street was presently not of adequate
grade and construction, but will be of adequate grade and construction when improved per the staff’s
recommendations. The pavement requirement of 24 feet was waived to allow 20- 24 feet within the
existing footprint of the street. The standard 1% grade minimum was waived as long as there was positive
drainage in all directions.
34 Wachusett Drive: The applicant George Murnaghan wanted to demolish a 1957 cape house and
construct a new house. The applicant was requesting substantial waivers of the requirements from the
typical process outlined in section 175-68 and was requesting the Planning Board proceed directly to the
determination of adequacy of the street for the purpose of new construction. There would be at least one
street opening and possibly two. The Engineering Department has requested a new water service be
installed from the main and possibly a second for the sewer.
There were concerns about a 16 foot wide street servicing 20 homes having a long dead-end with no
turnaround, however, there could be support for a 18 feet wide street with a gravel shoulder. Mr.
Murnaghan said the Fire Department had four trucks there in June for a fire exercise without any
problems. The Board would like to hear from the Fire Department at the next meeting, but would need a
small extension of time. The applicant requested an extension to July 29, 2010.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the applicants request for an extension
of time to July 29, 2010 to allow input from the Fire Department on this matter.
Audience comments:
Alterations to the street were not necessary and were not in the public interest for residents there.
The street was repaved by neighbors a few years ago; it is a quiet street where children can play
in the street.
There was a fire in the 1990’s and the Fire Department was able to respond quickly.
The Fire Department has not requested anything. Would it be the role of the Planning Board to
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of July 14, 2010
make this determination without the neighbors or Fire Department making a request? Yes, it was
the role of the Planning Board to apply the current standards in the best interest of the public.
142 Marrett Road (Bacon Street):
Mr. Hornig recused himself from the discussion since his father owns property on Bacon Street. Mr.
Moriarty, the applicant, requested the approval of the Board on the adequacy of grade and construction of
the street providing access to 142 Marrett Road (Bacon Street) to allow the reconstruction of his house.
The applicant submitted a roadway maintenance plan, which was approved by the Town Engineer and
included the culvert.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, that the road providing access to 142 Marrett
Road (Bacon Street) was presently of adequate grade and construction for its proposed use with the
conditions and waivers recommended by staff.
Extension of Rockville Avenue Sketch Plan:
A development team consisting of Fred Russell, engineer, Ed Grant, attorney, and Bob Bradley and Jeff
Callahan, land owners, had presented five different scenarios in March for the extension of Rockville
Avenue. At the time the Board preferred Plan D, with a reduced size of cul-de-sac. Now Mr. Russell came
back with two modified versions one with a cul-de-sac, and one was a hammerhead turnaround.
Board Comments:
There was a question of past ownership and if the lots were merged.
There would need to be some kind of proof that Mr. Bradley’s parcel was buildable.
If this project goes forward it should be a Balanced Housing Development or a Site Sensitive
Development, which would allow the Board to sensibly waive setbacks and frontage.
The existing path from Rockville Avenue to Davis Road must be a safe multiuse path.
Variances would be required unless the applicant pursues a special permit residential
development.
Had the applicant spoken with the Fire Department to see if the cul-de-sac or hammerhead
turnaround was acceptable to them?
The Board preferred the hammerhead turn around over the cul-de-sac because it had less
Minutes for the Meeting of July 14, 2010 Page 5
pavement.
The Board would feel more comfortable if the other building issues were resolved.
The Board would want to look at Swan Lane to Moreland Avenue to make it safe.
A lot of waivers would mean a lot of mitigation and would require lots of explanations.
Mr. Bradley said that plans took time and expense to develop. The Board recommended if the applicant
wanted to proceed with this plan they should work with staff for the next submittal.
*************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY***************************
101 Hartwell Avenue: The applicant would like to request a site plan review, but there was concern that it
might trigger the old tripwire for a special permit regarding traffic levels of service since the TMOD plan
was not completed at this time. The Board determined that in this instance it would not be applicable
They did not want to rush a final TMOD plan for the Hartwell Avenue area and would rather waive the
submission of a traffic plan for this property and not have the applicant return again until the TMOD plan
was adopted.
******************************BOARD MEMBER REPORTS*****************************
MPO funds that were to be administered (TIP monies) would be reduced and would need to be
reauthorized annually. In the next year, the MPO will be studying the appropriateness of roundabouts and
where they should be located. The results should be available at the end of next year. Green DOT policy
directive of June 20, 2010 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encourage bike, pedestrian and transit
and support of smart growth.
*************************************MINUTES***************************************
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the minutes for June 7, 2010 as
amended.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to accept the minutes for June 12, 2010 as
amended.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained) to accept the minutes
for June 23, 2010 as amended.
Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of July 14, 2010
**********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE******************
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to reappoint Ginna Johnson as Associate
Planning Board Member until June 2011.
The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:
1. Definitive Plan of Land Stedman Road, dated 7/7/10. (5 pages)
2. Unaccepted Street Plan 3 Laurel Street, dated 6/1/10. (3 pages)
3. Letter from Arlene and David Langseth, regarding 34 Wachusett Drive, dated 7/14/10. (1 page)
4. Letter from George Murnaghan dated 6/10/10 regarding 34 Wachusett Drive, with existing
conditions plan dated 01/23/10, and building permit plan, dated 6/16/10. (3 pages)
5. Sketch subdivision plan for Rockville Avenue extension, dated 6/3/10. (18 pages)
6. Sketch subdivision plan, Rockville Avenue extension, dated 5/7/10. (7 pages)
The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 p.m.
Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk