Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br />MEETING OF MARCH 14, 2006 <br /> <br />A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall was called to order at 7:40 <br />p.m. by Vice Chairman Hornig, with members Galaitsis, Canale, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor, <br />Schilt, Tap and Tapper present. Ms. Manz arrived at 8:00 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* <br />Signature sheets for Registry of Deeds and Land Court As required by State statute, the Board endorsed <br />signature sheets, required to be on file with the Registry of Deeds and the Land Court, reflecting the <br />current membership of the Board and staff members authorized to sign for the Board. <br /> <br />************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* <br />SUBDIVISION OF LAND Cedar Street- Ms. McCall-Taylor gave a brief preview of the definitive <br />subdivision plan that has been submitted. A public hearing will be scheduled. <br /> <br />************************ ARTICLES FOR 2006 TOWN MEETING ************************ <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />Article 5, Zoning By-Law, Impervious Surface Amendment: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing on <br />Article , Impervious Surface, at 7:45 p.m. There were five people in the audience. <br />5 <br /> <br />Mr. Hornig explained that the Planning Board's proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law would adjust <br />the maximum impervious surface ratio (ISR) permitted in cluster subdivisions. The area of a proposed <br />subdivision street is not included in the ISR calculation for conventional subdivisions, but it is included <br />for roadways/driveways in clusters. In past approvals of cluster subdivisions the Planning Board has <br />tended to relax the ISR permitted maximums of .15 in the RO district and .20 in the RS/RT districts, in <br />order to get better site design. But developers contemplating development in Lexington find the permitted <br />ISR a disincentive to using the cluster provisions, as roadway/driveway area represents the bulk of <br />impervious surface in a development. The proposed amendment would raise the maximum ISR for cluster <br />subdivisions in the RO district to .20 and in the RS/RT district to .30. Mr. Hornig provided examples of <br />two recently approved subdivisions, one cluster and one conventional, to demonstrate that the proposed <br />ISR would make the total impervious surfaces allowed in clusters consistent with that allowed in <br />conventional subdivisions. The Board believes that equalizing ISR calculation factors for cluster and <br />conventional developments would result in higher use of the cluster provisions and improved site layout. <br /> <br />Mr. Frank Sandy, TMM Pr. 6, asked how many cluster subdivision applications were approved in recent <br />years and how one could tell that developers were discouraged by the cluster requirements. He urged the <br />Board to be ready to answer these questions and to provide other quantitative data, as Town Meeting <br />members will surely ask for it when Article 5 is taken up. <br /> <br />Mr. Galaitsis indicated that he does not agree with the majority of the Board about impervious surface in <br />cluster subdivisions. He believes that cluster subdivisions, which typically result in more units and greater <br />impacts than conventional subdivisions, already provide great incentives to developers; therefore he finds <br />the additional advantages offered to developers under Article 5 unnecessary and permissive. He pointed <br />out that for years the majority of the Planning Board misinterpreted the cluster by-law and, despite his <br />objections, and permitted higher ISR values than specified in the existing by-law. He said the way to fix <br />the past problem is to enforce the existing by-law rather than legitimize its past misinterpretation. For a <br />level playing field with conventional developments, the ISR should be equal, but it would be substantially <br />higher for clusters should Article 5 pass. He also cited the “Equal ISR Option” (that he submitted to the <br />Planning Board Members and Planning Office staff on 12/7/05), which would ensure nearly equal ISR for <br />conventional and cluster subdivision, while giving an additional small advantage to the cluster <br /> <br />