Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-15-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairman Richard Canale, with members Wendy Manz and Charles Hornig and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. Greg Zurlo and Anthony Galaitsis were absent. ********************************TREE COMMITTEE*********************************** Jerry Paul and John Fiske from the Tree Committee discussed with the Board proposed changes to the tree bylaw. Since 2001 there have been over 2,000 replacement trees planted in the setback areas covered by the bylaw. The Tree Committee would like projects requiring special permits to come under the jurisdiction of the Tree Committee and is considering further expanding their jurisdiction to areas outside of the setbacks on a lot. They felt it was time to put the Planning Board’s stated policy into the bylaws. The mitigation requirements should be universal. Mr. Paul felt that it would be too much of a burden to monitor whether other boards were taking positions consistent with the tree policy. Board Member Comments: The zoning bylaw incorporates the same definition for protected trees. The Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) can decide on the most appropriate mitigation for the individual site. Applying the Tree Bylaw to a subdivision may not be appropriate for each lot and allowing mitigation over a broader area would make it more effective. Mr. Paul said that the tree bylaw was established for single residential lots and small lots bear a greater burden. The area requiring mitigation might be based on a percentage of the site rather than setbacks, so that bigger lots would have a greater area and more trees would be protected Board comments: One member suggested that when the Tree Bylaw was originally presented to Town Meeting the purpose was to preserve tree buffers for neighbors. Protecting all trees on a lot would go beyond the original intent of the bylaw. While protecting more trees is a good goal, crafting something acceptable to Town Meeting may be difficult. Mitigation based on the percentage of mature trees on a site to be removed might be one approach. The Board will consider appointing a liaison to the Tree Committee. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of September 15, 2010 ********************************SUBDIVISION CONTROL****************************** Lexington Hills: Mr. John Farrington, Attorney, Gary Larson, Landscape Architect, and Habib Aminipour, the applicant, were in attendance. As an aside, Mr. John Farrington requested that 34 Wachusett Drive, scheduled for later in the evening, be put off until a full Board was present. Mr. Canale said that the meeting was being recorded and absent Board members could review the tape. While a decision would not be made, there would be discussion on the Wachusett Drive matter tonight. Mr. Farrington stated that since the Board approved the Lexington Hills subdivision in 2007 some problems have come up. With the recent changes to the zoning regulations, the applicant requests that the Board consider allowing the project to be redone as a site sensitive development (SSD). Major site work has been completed and one house is under construction. The impervious surface limits with the 30-foot setbacks and the topography of this site have made this project difficult. The applicant still owns all the land and no lots have been conveyed. The developer felt it would improve the quality and character of this project if it were changed from a conventional subdivision plan to a SSD since site coverage, not impervious surface, would be the determining factor. Mr. Larson handed out a chart to the Board showing the proposed revised lot data. Lot lines, infrastructure and mitigation would remain the same. The Board was generally receptive to the applicant submitting a new plan, and on a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, that modifying the current plan to a SSD would be considered a major change to the special permit for the Lexington Hills subdivision. 63 Paul Revere Road, reduction in Tri-Partite Amount: The developer requested a reduction from the Tri-Partite Agreement by $54,280 for the completed work in the development. The municipal utilities have been inspected by DPW and planning staff. There were some minor field changes approved to drainage due to ledge, and some trees had to be removed with more trees added to the front for a buffer. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to approve the reduction by $54,280 to the Tri- Partite Agreement for 63 Paul Revere Road. Minutes for the Meeting of September 15, 2010 Page 3 *****************************UNACCEPTED STREETS********************************* 34 Wachusett Drive: Applicant George Murnaghan and his attorney John Farrington were present. Mr. Farrington asked to continue to October 13 to present to a full Board. Mr. Henry said that on July 28, 2010, the Board determined that Wachusett Drive was not of adequate grade and construction because of its 16-foot width, and that before getting a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant would have to return with a specific plan to be approved. This meeting is an informal discussion. Mr. Farrington said this was a house tear-down. The street was paved in September 2001, berms were added to a portion, and the Town does plow it. The owner of 33 Wachusett Drive was allowed a tear-down without widening the street. The initial feedback from DPW and the Fire Department was that the road was fine. Now the Planning Board was addressing policy issues and it was not fair to place the cost for improvements on one person. Board Comments:  At the last meeting, there was discussion of leaving the section in front of 38 Wachusett Drive at 16 feet and then widening to a 20-foot width for 60 feet in front of 34 Wachusett Drive. The 20- foot wide area would allow fire trucks to pass. The trees in the area shown are already down or dead.  One member felt that in previous street determinations and other approvals in the Marrett Road/Wachusett Drive area the Board had had an opportunity to improve emergency access but did not require it. In the past Wachusett Drive was determined to be adequate and the Board should give better predictability and consistency.  In the review of the Marrett Road subdivision abutting Wachusett Drive, the Board discussed having a connection to Wachusett, but the subdivision road was complying as approved and there were uncertainty about the legal right to use Wachusett Drive.  A 16-foot road with a dead end serving 20 houses and no turnaround is not considered safe and the Board needs to make a better decision than that on 33 Wachusett Drive.  A waiver on this section is less of a problem as it is close to the intersection, there are fewer trees, and emergency vehicles could go up on the lawns if necessary, but it was not the same for the rest of the road. It was questionable whether the proposed changes to this section of the road would actually improve safety. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of September 15, 2010 Audience Comments:  The driveway at 24 Wachusett Drive is used as a large vehicle turnaround and recently emergency vehicles came and went without problems. There was concern about aesthetic and speed issues if the road were widened. Residents bought their houses because of the country lane appearance.  A resident who lived further down the street was concerned with the precedent that would be set and what would be imposed on those residents further down the street. The second email from the Fire Chief suggesting a 20-foot width should be ignored. Requiring widening would block future renovations and decrease property values.  Those in the area expressed opposition to widening the street.  The applicant said that this was a change in public policy and the decision at 33 Wachusett Drive was the standard. Board Comments: It was explained that the Board was not changing their policy, which was to have the road 20 feet wide, but there may be situations where the Planning Board waived the policy. It appeared that there were not three votes for the current suggested plan (widening to 18 feet from the intersection across the frontage of #34) among the Board members present. The applicant was asked to submit a revised plan for consideration by the full Board in October. In terms of setting precedent, the current policy for a road in Lexington was a 20-foot width and the Board was being asked to waive this particular policy for this particular lot. If it were to be waived for 34 Wachusett Drive, it would be for specific reasons. Anyone living on Wachusett Drive should assume that the requirement would be for a 20-foot wide road until the policy was changed. The Board heard the concerns of the neighbors regarding future improvements, but safety concerns and standards for emergency vehicles were the real issues. When there is a demolition of 50 percent or more, regulations require incremental improvements to the road. The Board tries to look at each situation and this is not an arbitrary decision. Anyone who lives on a street less then 20 feet wide might want to advocate for a policy change to advocate for narrower roads. Audience Comments:  A resident wanted the decision made on July 28, 2010 to be rescinded at the October 13 meeting. Minutes for the Meeting of September 15, 2010 Page 5  The solution of creating a bubble in the road was not acceptable. Trucks could pass one another 100 feet further up the road.  There would be a safety risk to the children, and traffic safety for young children was more of a concern than fire access.  Could there be a decision made about the rest of the street on October 13? No this was a response based on an application. *************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY*************************** The Board could discuss the plan at the meeting on September 29 and still make the hearing for October 27. Mr. Canale felt this plan does not have a transportation plan that addresses mitigation as was promised at Town Meeting. This would require the developers to figure out without guidance how to get to a 10% reduction in single occupancy vehicles. Mr. Hornig and Ms. Manz found the staff draft acceptable. *************************************MINUTES*************************************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0, to accept the minutes for August 11, 25 & 31 and September 1, 2010, as a package. *********************************STAFF REPORTS************************************ Development update: 85-87 Hancock Street: The development was never closed out. The owner now needs a release from the covenant, but what was approved was not what was built. A major modification on the special permit with site plan review would need to be sought, and the Board would either accept it or reject it. The Dana Home at 2027 Massachusetts Avenue is up for sale and may be the site of future development. 341 Marrett Road: There was a request for a minor modification to build an 8 by 10 foot deck and to add additional buffering for Margaret Heitz, as well as construct a low stone wall to prevent the swale from overflowing onto her property. Solly’s Way: There is $6,000 in escrow to underground the utilities and remove the pole. There is no longer a moratorium, so either the money should be returned to the developer or he should be instructed to underground the line and remove the pole. The Board wanted to have the utilities undergrounded. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of September 15, 2010 137-139 Shade Street: The sketch plan had not been favored by the Board because of the large number of trees being removed. The developer has now staked two building pads that would take down a smaller number of trees. The Board can informally go out to the site. They should assume that anything within the rectangles will be cut down. Cliffe Avenue: A proposed project on an unaccepted street 18 feet wide with no drainage. Intervening distance to the next intersection would be a problem. Dee Road: Expect this project within the next few weeks. Width was not the problem, the road surface is. The neighbors like this as is. Lexington Gardens: This project is almost finished and will be ready to switch the surety to cash and release the covenant. Journey’s End: Street trees still need to be planted and there is a punch list of other items. 147 Shade Street: Waiting for the mylars for the Board to sign. *********************************BOARD REPORTS*********************************** Mr. Canale said there is a MAGIC Meeting tomorrow about the Comprehensive Land Use Reform and Partnership Act (CLURPA), and a Vision 2020 Meeting. On November 19 there will be a Battle Road Scenic Byway corridor management plan meeting in Cary Auditorium. Ms. Manz said there had been a Community Preservation Act summit with the Community Preservation Committee, the Board of Selectmen and the two finance committees on procedural issues and debt options. The Metropolitan Planning Organization has approved a one year study by Central Transportation Planning Staff and Mass DOT on when roundabouts are acceptable to use. *************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY*************************** Minutes for the Meeting of September 15, 2010 Page 7 The Board continued the discussion of the Traffic Mitigation Plan for the Hartwell Avenue Transportation Management Overlay District, using the draft from staff dated September 10, 2010. There was some rewording and reorganization of the document in sections A, B, C and E. Section D. Assessment of Future Development: Add a paragraph that explains where a majority of the sources of the analysis was found. Section F. In the list of improvement include “redesign” as well as reconstruct; remove the undergrounding of utilities on Bedford Street; remove “landscaped” from medians; add “to accommodate automobiles with occasional bus and local truck traffic” on Wood Street; on Westview Road add “create a safe passage way for Minuteman Commuter Bikeway across Westview Road”; add “Roadway elements to ensure multimodal safety” to apply to all sections; at Bedford Street & Route 128 Southbound Ramps, add “Provide for both on road and off road bicycle accommodations around roundabout”; under Bedford Street, Hartwell Avenue, & Drummer Boy Way change so Hartwell Avenue “cross walk will be located on the north side of Westview Street”; under Hartwell Avenue & Minuteman Bikeway/ West Lexington Greenway add “Relocate bikeway crossing offset from present Hartwell crossing, if needed for effective Maguire Road Roundabout traffic flow.” Consider a section on TMOD transit services. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:07 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department: 1. Letter from Gerry Paul with a copy of the Proposed Expansion of the Tree Bylaw, dated September 9, 2010. 2. Chart submitted at the meeting by Gary Larson regarding the proposed revised “Lot Data” for Lexington Hills. 3. Letter from Warner Larson Landscape Architects regarding Lexington Hills, dated September 8, 2010. 4. Road Improvement Plan for 34 Wachusett Drive, dated August 25, 2010. 5. Statement from Peter and Bernadette Shapiro of 11 Wachusett Drive, dated September 15, 2010. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of September 15, 2010 6. Draft dated September 10, 2010, of the Transportation Management Overlay District Plans. Edits from Mr. Canale were included. Charles Hornig, Acting Clerk