2008-01-02-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of January 2, 2008 and maximum impacts being in conformance with our requirements. Mr. Hornig said the height and impacts do not exceed the maximums although the Board is not required to permit to the maximums. Mr. Zurlo said the issue is if this development is an appropriate presence on Waltham Street. Reading from a prepared statement, Mr. Galaitsis explained his position by citing passages from the Planning Board Report to the 1996 Town Meeting, the Zoning By-Law, and the 1998 Planning Board Guidelines for cluster developments, which describe the expected Cluster incentives to a developer and the expected benefits to the town. In his view, developer incentives include: a greater number of units than allowed by right in a conventional subdivision, relaxation of setbacks between cluster units, and others. Benefits to Town include: cluster impacts not greater than those of a conventional development on same site, at least 2/3 of units being for small households, positive revenue/cost impact ratio for Town finances, and others. Mr. Galaitsis stated that the 960-990 Waltham St. cluster proposal exploits the above incentives but runs counter the above three desired benefits. Specifically, he stated that: A) The proposed plan will cause 55% more development impacts than a conventional subdivision on the same site because it has a 6.36 multiplier for living area instead of a multiplier close to 4 based on the proof plan shown for the same site. B) The Planning Board’s Cluster Guidelines specify that at least 2/3 of the units will be for small households (with 1 or 2 bedrooms), while the proposed plan contains less than 1/3 small household units; furthermore, all units have large living areas (2,211 to 2,375 sq. ft.) instead of the smaller living areas (1,425-1,530 sq. ft. for 13 units) that would yield comparable impacts. C) Because of their large size the proposed units will most likely be occupied by full-size families, with each unit incurring about the same schooling cost as a conventional dwelling unit. Therefore, the proposed 13-unit cluster will have about 3 times (~13/4) more negative revenue/cost ratio than a 4-dwelling conventional subdivision on the same site. While the Planning Board is not responsible for solving Lexington’s fiscal problems, it should factor them in when reviewing proposals with a greater number of full-size-family units than allowed by right. In Mr. Galaitsis’ opinion, the above and other negative impacts (such as appearance of 4-story buildings, etc.) wipe out the potential benefits the town could have realized from a reasonably-sized cluster development on this site. Therefore, given that Section 135-48-C(3) stipulates that “…an applicant is not entitled to… approval of a cluster subdivision…”, he felt obligated to vote against the proposed plan for 960-990 Waltham Street. Mr. Hornig asked the Board for their position statements. Ms. Manz said that the applicant came in within