2004-01-14-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Guard Room in the Police Station, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Harden with members Chase, Davies, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall- Taylor, and Tap present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of October 29, 2004. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Marrett Road at Tufts Road Approval Not Required Plan 2004 -1: The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at Marrett and Tufts Roads. On motion duly trade and seconded, it was voted to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington in Mass., dated December 8, 2003, prepared and certified by James R. Keenan, Professional Land Surveyor, Winchester, Mass., with Form Al2004 -1, submitted by Glenn Comeau, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. There were questions about whether or not an ANR is required to meet the minimum lot area. It is not but the two lots on this plan do meet the requirement in this zoning district. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ZONING WORKSHOPS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Zoning Initiative, Impervious Surface in Residential Developments Mr. Harden conveyed Mr. Galaitsis's objections to the proposed amendment to impervious surface calculations in cluster -type subdivisions. Mr. Galaitsis believes the change would give developers additional advantage over that already inherent in the bylaw. Mr. Galaitsis belives a cluster already allows a density bonus and this would increase that because the calculation for a cluster involves the entire parcel area whereas a conventional calculation uses only the collective fee simple lots. Mr. Garber explained that this amendment was not about density or advantages to developers but about correcting a significant inequity in the interpretation and administration of the bylaw in terms of calculating impervious surface ratio in cluster and conventional developments. If the Board does not subtract interior drives in clusters, according to legal counsel and in the opinion of our consulting planners and staff, the Board would be subject to challenge of that kind of inconsistent administration of this requirement. It is about consistent administration between two different types of subdivision. The members felt that Mr. Galaitsis's concerns should be fully acknowledged and examined perhaps in a future revisiting of the entire Article 9 and cluster provisions, particularly in the context of density discussions and impact based calculation. Mr. Harden and others pointed out that the intent of the existing cluster bylaw, in terms of impact measures —such criteria as floor area created site coverage traffic and so on —was that cluster would have the same impact as conventional subdivisions even if the cluster typically involved some extra units. Mr. Davies indicated that he does support the concept of "fixing" this problem of inequitable administration of the impervious surface ratio requirement between conventional and cluster subdivisions, and that broader issues pertaining to the cluster provisions in the Bylaw can be discussed in the future. The second topic relative to impervious surface had to do with existing impervious surface on a development site, e.g., buildings and parking lots. Ms. McCall- Taylor and Mr. Garber explained that the original intent perhaps was to simply provide a mathematical formula to control the situation where old