2004-02-11-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2004 2 system handles runoff from impervious surface and suggested they should be factored in to the calculation. Mr. Rick Waitt, Meridian Engineering, agreed that drywells and other drainage structures could be designed to take care of any runoff from impervious surfaces in a subdivision. Mr. Galaitsis disagreed with this, saying that if mitigation were the only answer, then Iots should be developed with 100 percent impervious surface to catch all runoff. Mr. Harden felt that the idea of relying on dry wells and other drainage structure oversimplifies the situation. Mr. Todd Cataldo indicated that there might be a potential conflict with the Conservation Commission's definition of impervious surface. He also indicated that one might begin to see smaller houses and dirt driveways as a result of the bylaw amendment. He also asked how sidewalks would be figured in. Mr. Barnert, Board of Appeals, asked about the terms "interior drive" and "secondary drive ". Mr. Garber responded that a hierarchy of drives has been defined to a degree, but that the Board has some flexibility in evaluating individual development plans in this regard. Using the Lexington Hills subdivision as an example of the re- development of a site where pre - existing impervious surface would be removed, the staff explained the proposed calculation for impervious surface ratio in such circumstances. Any increase in impervious surface ratio by a special permit, above what is allowed in the Zoning Bylaw, shall result in a net reduction of impervious coverage from the existing site. Such permitted increase shall not exceed one -half of the difference between the existing ratio and the ratio specified in the "Schedule of Permitted Buildings, Density and Dimensional Standards." Mr. Moloney commented that the change seems to be in the spirit of the 1996 cluster bylaw revision The hearing was closed at 8:55 p.m. Article 6 Zoning B law. Qpen Space in Residential Developments, Public Hearin : Mr. Harden opened the public hearing on the Board's proposed amendment to the way open space is defined in residential developments. He explained that developers have found it difficult to meet the "usable open space ", as currently defined, and "common open space" requirements without over - excavating a site. Staff found that open space in Lexington's completed cluster developments is lower than that in other municipalities' clusters. Combining the two "types" of open space, as is proposed, would be slightly less restrictive, but a majority of the Board believes that better site design would result if the amendment were adopted. Mr. Galaitsis indicated that he has concerns and cannot support it. Mr. Todd Cataldo, Sheldon Corporation, commented that he thought it might discourage developers from doing cluster subdivisions. Mr. Moloney asked to be updated on any revisions the Board makes to the proposal. The hearing was closed at 9:15 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** Discussion_ on Engineering Review of Plans and Inspection Fees Mr. Garber reported that as the Engineering Division has lost so much personnel, it will no longer be able to review subdivision plans or inspect work at development sites, effective immediately. A letter over the signatures of Mr. Harden and Mr. David Carbonneau, Assistant Town Engineer was sent to people active in Lexington development. Mr. Carbonneau was present to answer how a pass - through system would work. Mr. John Austin and Mr. Todd Cataldo, both developers, and Mr. Rick Waitt, engineer, were in the