2017-03-15-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2017 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Battin Hall, Cary Memorial Building was called to order 6:05 p.m. by Chair, Richard Canale with members Charles Hornig, Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, Bob Creech, and Ginna Johnson and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Fields, and Lori Kaufman present. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** Upcoming Meetings and Anticipated Schedule: There are meetings on Monday, March 20 and Wednesday, March 22 in the Planning Office and then join the Board of Selectmen during the meeting in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. ***********2017 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS******************** CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Special Permit Residential Development, Article 40: Chair Richard Canale opened the continued public hearing at 6:09 p.m. with approximately 6 people in the audience. There is general consensus among Planning Board Members that the existing Zoning Bylaw for Balanced Housing Developments (BHD) is not achieving the desired goals of the Board. Staff has provided the best they can offer and the Board needs to decide tonight how they would like to amend the Special Permit Residential Developments to achieve what would best benefit the Town. The hope is to have the Board determine what it would like to see on each individual site rather than waiting for the applicant to provide the visions they see for the site. Board Comments:  The matrix would not be successful because the developer would always request the maximum allowable and so there should be a reasonable limit cap on the site of 1.75 times the proof plan. Also open space should be deeded to Conservation. The amendment should be more on the restrictive side at 1.8 not counting the affordable units.  Not a fan of the matrix due to the complexity, but do not think 1.8 would provide many affordable and diverse in sizes of units. This could be done through the matrix or another method, but anything less than 1.8 would not be cost effective in the RO District. There needs to be a more nuanced approach for wetlands/conservation land.