2000-06-28-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2000 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Colman, with members Bridge - Denzak, Davies, Galaitsis, Merrill, Planning Director Garber and Assistant Planner McCall - Taylor present. Gerard Moloney, the developer of Lexington Park, was also present * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND Lexington Park Cluster Subdivision, off Winter Street, Halyard Builders, Discussion Mr. Colman stepped down as chair for this item. Mr. Galaitsis chaired the discussion. He began by stating his belief that the cluster subdivision by -law contains bothersome inconsistencies, particularly with regard to calculating development impacts. He presented charts that illustrated and summarized his points. The number of occupants is his issue. Mr. Davies said that four years ago the planning staff came up with the cluster impact concept. The Planning Board and then the 1996 Town Meeting endorsed the by -law with enthusiasm. The goal was to encourage smaller houses and more open space. In Lexington Park, we have a quality developer and architect, a beautiful site, and the neighbors are in favor of the proposal. We must find a way to approve this plan. Mr. Merrill echoed Mr. Davies comments, saying that the Winter /Sullivan Street site is "crying out" for a cluster subdivision layout. He acknowledged Mr. Galaitsis' s point that the impact numbers do slightly favor cluster development. Mr, Merrill said that while Mr. Galaitsis may not like the numbers, they are the numbers that the Planning Board has used for other developments. Mr. Galaitsis responded that he wants what he sees as the inconsistency in the impact measure calculations brought to the attention of the public and future developers. Mr. Merrill reiterated his point that the Lexington Park site is perfect for a cluster development. Single - family homes would have greater impact. He said that it is a mistake to consider the over - garage space as an "end -run" around the regulations. Mr. Galaitsis repeated his concern about the number of school -age children to be produced by Lexington Park. He presented a formula demonstrating his view. Mr. Merrill pointed out that a "bulge" in the number of school -age children is already in the school system. Mr. Garber acknowledged that there is confusion over the impact calculations but the concept of impact -based development should not be abandoned. He said the figures should be updated. It is his hope that this can be done in the fall, using an intern. Mr. Moloney, the developer, commented that the developer needs a "bullet- proof' by -law, so he supports ridding it of any inconsistencies. He also suggested that the definition of "bedroom" be more tightly defined. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard on July 13, 2000: Mr. Colman gave an oral review of the following applications: ■ 44 Tarbell Avenue — Variance from side and rear yards to replace non - conforming one -car garage with two -car garage The Planning Board agreed to recommend that the applicant be allowed to replace the garage with a one -car garage twelve feet in width to accommodate modern cars but that the two -car garage be denied. 0 359 North Emerson Road— Variance from front yard setback to add garage to a single - family dwelling The Planning Board agreed to suggest that the applicant reapply with a plan showing a one -car garage, which will be more conforming than the current proposal and that the application for a two -car garage be denied.