HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-16-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2011
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Planning Board Office,
was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Chairman Richard Canale with members Greg Zurlo,
Wendy Manz, Charles Hornig, and Michelle Ciccolo and planning staff Aaron Henry and
Maryann McCall-Taylor present.
**********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION*****************
40 Solomon Pierce Road, lot release:
The property owner of 40 Solomon Pierce Road requested a release for lot 9 from the
covenant for Pheasant Brook Estates in order to complete a real estate transaction. At the
previous meeting the Board had voted to release the lot, but the form was not acceptable
to the Land Court, although it was able to be filed with the Registry. The Board was
asked to endorse a form acceptable to the Land Court.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to release lot 9 securing 40
Solomon Pierce Road and to authorize the Planning Director to endorse any needed
documents to finalize the release.
The meeting was recessed briefly to allow a photograph of the Board for inclusion in the
annual town report.
Unaccepted Streets:
The Board discussed the staff memo on unaccepted streets which suggested that if there
are no documented safety problems with a substandard way then there is no benefit to be
gained by improving it (as there is no problem to correct).
The draft proposal asks the Board to consider adding language into the section on waivers
contained in the unaccepted streets section of the rules, which has a different standard
than that contained in the main body of the regulations (§175-30). By placing it there it
would not apply to conventional subdivisions.
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of November 16, 2011
As proposed, the amendment would not affect the standards directly, but afford
applicants (on qualifying streets) the opportunity to demonstrate that waivers could be
granted without adversely affecting the street’s safety, which would be documented
through accident and crash data records.
Board members expressed concern that as proposed they would only be looking at
vehicle safety and would not be taking into consideration emergency access needs which
would not be reflected in accident reports. Perhaps a performance standard would work.
It is a question of risk assessment and balancing varied interests. For instance increasing
the road width for emergency access might encourage higher speeds and create more
stormwater runoff. It was suggested that the matter be brought to the Development
Review Team to get Fire Department input. Several members of the Board focused on
the need for input from the Fire Department regarding emergency access on any
application for waivers.
Another issue considered was enhancing connectivity. Board members wondered if it
would be possible to waive the construction of sidewalks, but require a payment into a
fund should sidewalks be required at a later day. This way the last developer in would
not bear the entire cost.
The staff will come back with another draft to be considered.
Rockville Avenue Extension, definitive subdivision plan:
The public hearing on this application had been closed at the last meeting. There were
certain changes to the plans that were to be made and the comments from the Engineering
Department were to be incorporated into the decision.
The Engineering report found that the changes that had been made to the drainage plan
would result in an unacceptable system. While the original system with chambers on the
same level was better, it still would not meet the standards as the chambers were shown
placed in ground water. All agreed that the plan needed to be revised, but the question
was whether or not it was a major change that would require a new public hearing, or if it
fell within the previous vote to allow changes based on the Engineering review which has
Minutes for the Meeting of November 16, 2011 Page 3
not been received at the time of the vote. After further discussion, the Board members
indicated that if the entire site drainage could be handled by increasing the size of the
system shown on the Bradley lot, that would be minor, but if the road profile had to
change it would probably require reopening the public hearing. The applicant will submit
revised plans in time for Engineering and Planning staff to review them and get
comments to the Board. The decision on whether or not to reopen the public hearing
could be made at the next meeting without causing any greater delay.
Aside from the drainage issue there was a discussion of the path that now exists within
the right of way, and whether or not to require specific improvements to the path and the
connection between it and the new roadway. It is not clear how the regulations of the
Architectural Access Board (AAB) and the Americans with Disabilities Act would need
to be applied. Staff will check with the ABA and revise the draft decision as needed.
Having received a request from the applicant, the Board voted, 5-0, on a motion duly
made and seconded, to extend the time for action on the Rockville Avenue Extension
Definitive Subdivision to December 21, 2011.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 7:55 p.m.
The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning
Department:
Staff Report regarding proposed amendment to unaccepted street regulations, dated
October 28, 2011 (8 pages).
“Definitive Subdivision Plan Rockville Avenue Extension”, updated October 19, 2011
(15 pages).
Michelle Ciccolo, Clerk