2004-05-05-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 5, 2004 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room 227 of the Clarke Middle School, was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Harden with members Davies, Galaitsis, Kastorf, Manz and planning staff Garber and McCall- Taylor present. MINUTES Review of Minutes The Board reviewed the minutes for the meetings of April 26 and 28, 2004. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes. ARTICLES FOR 2004 TOWN MEETING Article 13 Metropolitan State Hospital RD Rezoning - The Planning Board had received two amendments to the PSDUP, one by Ed Grant on behalf of the developer AvalonBay, and one from Steven Heinrich of Potter Pond. Mr. Garber explained that, after much discussion and back and forth between attorneys, the mitigations will be memorialized in the amendment to the PSDUP, rather than in a separate covenant. While the Town Counsel would prefer the covenant approach as more defensible in case of appeal, in the end it was felt that it might be confusing to separate the mitigations from the PSDUP document at this late date. Mr. Garber said that the planning staff will work with the Zoning Board of Appeals to include all the mitigations as special conditions in the special permit. Mr. Harden was interested in how the Town Counsel's advice might influence requirements for fiitare projects and said the Board should return to this issue at a later date. Mr. Garber said that Patriot Partners were really the first to use a covenant, although there had been documents signed around transportations demand management proffers in the past. Ms. McCall - Taylor walked the Board through Mr. Grant's amendment, pointing out the most recent changes. Mr. Kastorf commented that extending the guaranty on school aged children to ten years was a good thing. The Board discussed what response should be made to Mr. Heinrich's amendment and to Loren Wood's latest fiscal analysis. The Board felt that Mr. Heinrich's proposal for 331 units was only a number and that there was not a full proposal and was too inadequate a submission to consider. In addition, the Board felt that the benefits of 387 units vis a vis the 40B inventory count were important as well. Mr. Kastorf said he thought it was not productive to get into a debate on the fiscal impacts with Mr. Wood. Rather the Board should state that the fiscal impacts had been reviewed by the Board, the Board's consultant, the Town's chief financial officer and the Appropriations Committee, all of whom were comfortable with the methodology used in the initial fiscal analysis and the predicted range of expected impacts. Mr. Harden said it was important to show that the Board was conversant with the fiscal analysis and not to totally defer to the experts. Mr. Harden raised the question of whether or not the developer had been pushed hard enough for mitigations. Mr. Davies responded that just because someone is rich you cannot say "give me all your money ". Mr. Kastorf said that there was also an equity issue between this developer and what had been asked of other developers who are building single - family houses in the town. He said the Board had delved far deeper into the finances of this project than any other. Mr. Harden said that was true but also appropriate given the goal of fiscal neutrality in the Reuse Plan. There followed some discussion of the various goals and objectives put forth in the Reuse Plan and how these were addressed by the various proposals received by the state for the redevelopment of the hospital site.