Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-07-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF March 7, 2007 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, was held in Estabrook Hall at Cary Hall, and called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Hornig, Galaitsis, Canale, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 17, 2007, as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of February 21, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2007 TOWN MEETING************************** Article 2, Report to Town Meeting: Ms. Manz suggested that the Board discuss this next week after they have reviewed the information. *************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION***************************** 177 Grove Street, Deliberations after Public Hearing: Ms. Manz explained to those present, that once the public hearing was closed the Board no longer takes testimony; however they will consider written communications they have received in the last week. Mr. Hornig asked what were the changes on the March 5, 2007 plan and what exactly were they reviewing. Mr. Henry walked the Board through the changes, which were the addition of a building envelope for each house, the work line for the wetland enhancement; drainage and electric lines and detail of additional trenches on sheet 4; the profile and plan view of the utilities on sheet 5; and the landscape plan; additional planting of witch hazel on lot 3 (at the engineers request) on sheet 6. There was discussion about the building envelope. Mr. Galaitsis asked if anyone reviewed the building footprint; he wanted to make sure it did not go closer to the lot line; the size of the envelope was fine, but he wanted a footprint size set and would prefer specified square footage per lot not to be exceeded. Mr. Hornig preferred the building envelope a little larger but cap the overall floor plan footage. He wanted to place the smallest rectangle that goes around the building; and no shifting of living area, site coverage, or gross floor area, as they would throw off drainage calculations. He asked if the decks would be outside 2 Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 7, 2007 the building envelope. Ms. McCall Taylor stated minor or major changes would come to the Planning Board for a determination. The Board felt that decks could be outside the building envelope, but driveways and entrances must be located where they are shown. Mr. Hornig suggested imposing height limits of 2 stories and 30’, as defined, (instead of the 2 ½ stories and 40’), with no dormers. Without the half-story, only an attic is allowed since there is to be no living space on that level. Mr. Zurlo was concerned this might encourage buildouts on the second story level; it did not address the building mass as seen. Mr. Hornig would prefer to see a low wide house in this particular neighborhood. Mr. Galaitsis said since there is only a ½” difference between a basement and a cellar, require a basement with a 2½ story limit. This would be more limiting since there would only be 1½ stories of living area. Ms Manz suggested just limiting the height to a 30’. Mr. Hornig suggested two options - to allow either 2 stories and cellar with no dormers, or 2½ stories with a basement and dormers. Ms. Manz requested a recess on the Grove Street discussion for now, to allow Marilyn Fenollosa to present the Historical Commission’s Warrant, Article 15, Demolition Delay By-Law. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2007 TOWN MEETING************************** Article 15, Demolition Delay By-Law: Marilyn Fenollosa, Frank Kern, Tom Taylor & David Kelland from the Lexington Historical Commission were present to discuss the Demolition Delay By-Law. Ms Fenollosa explained this by-law has been in place since 1986. It addresses buildings outside the Historic Districts that are listed on the National Registry, listed on the Historic Inventory, or have been placed on the “A List” by a vote of the Historic District Commission prior to an application for demolition. If the building did fall under one of these categories, the Historical Commission may hold a public hearing to determine whether it should be preserved. If so they can impose a delay on any demolition for six months. The Historical Commission would like to amend the 1986 By-Law by establishing a demolition delay period of 18 months instead of 6 months, during which time there is to be a good faith effort to come up with a preservation solution. The amendment offers a cooling off period and a definite time frame, while providing flexibility if a good faith effort had been made towards preservation. Another change the amendment would address is demolition by neglect. The Historical Commission could require measures to preserve the building which could be enforced by a court. Minutes for the Meeting of March 7, 2007 Page 3 On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted unanimously to support Article 15 at Town Meeting. *************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION***************************** 177 Grove Street, Deliberations after Public Hearing (continued): Ms. Manz stated the Engineering Department had confirmed that drainage systems shown at the public hearing were adequate as proposed. The new plan showed changes were made in response to the abutter’s requests for plantings and infiltration trenches. Ms. McCall Taylor said that Engineering said its standards were met and that the additions shown were not necessary, but did not hurt. Mr. Hornig discussed the trees described as to be “retained if possible” and felt that they should be replaced if removed, and should be replaced as defined in the existing guidelines. The issue of open space calculations was addressed. Mr. Henry explained that there was a discrepancy between sheets 3 and 4, which gave two different measures for the same open space for lot C. Using the correct figure,there is more open space then originally calculated. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that one of the conditions would be clarification of the open space calculations. Mr. Hornig stated that the drainage covenant must incorporate an operation and maintenance (O&M) agreement for drainage systems including, but not limited to gutters, downspouts, catch basins, drywells, trenches, rain gardens, culverts and drains/perimeter drains. Subsurface water must stay subsurface. The Town would have the authority to enforce the O&M agreement at the Homeowners Association’s or homeowners’ expense. Either option would be acceptable, but must be stated clearly in the agreement. The landscaping covenant would be dictated by the landscape plan, which would have the maintenance plan. The utility and access easement must be updated to include use of driveway, walks and utilities. The wording must be acceptable to Town Counsel. The Board also wanted conditions in the approval stating the limits on the gross floor area, the living area and the building envelope. On motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously to approve the special permit with site plan review with conditions, and the special permit for a common driveway for the cluster plan subdivision. On motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously to approve the definitive cluster subdivision plan. 4 Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 7, 2007 ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2007 TOWN MEETING************************** Article 6, Penalties: On motion duly made and seconded it was voted unanimously to recommend the indefinite postponement of Article 6, Penalties. Article 7, 303 Woburn Street, Rezone from RO to CRS: There will be no recommendation to Town Meeting as there was no public hearing on this article. Should a motion to indefinitely postpone the article be needed, the Board will vote its recommendation on the floor of Town Meeting. Article 27, Land Purchase off Lowell Street: Mr. William Hayes of LexHAB had submitted a request in writing and left it with the Board asking that they not support this article. Ms Manz advised that the Community Preservation Committee has not taken action on this matter and it would be indefinitely postponed. Mr. Hayes had also asked the Board to work for the inclusion of affordable housing on this lot rather than having it limited to conservation use. Article 4, Inclusionary Housing: Ms. Manz said there had been a suggestion that the motion be amended to include a grandfathering clause. Mr. Canale was confused about the rationale, why punish the landowner if he combined his property with others? What is the point of having any by-law? Ms. Manz did not see a distinction between existing or assembled land. Mr. Galaitsis said he did see a very clear distinction: If one could not realize additional profit by developing assembled lots with the required inclusionary housing, he would always have the option of developing the original unassembled lots without inclusionary housing. Mr. Hornig questioned what would be achieved at what cost, as it would significantly increase the complexity of the by-law. In addition, bigger parcels tend to allow better design. Ms. Manz said another option that had been suggested would be to increase the threshold for the bylaw to five units so it would eliminate the impact on the smallest developments. Mr. Zurlo stated they could increase the threshold, softening the economic impact, or decrease the threshold and cover more developments. If the threshold were raised it would produce more developments with under five units. He suggested looking for CPA funds for smaller developments. It is unlikely that a three-unit subdivision would have affordable housing on site. Perhaps the CPA funds could offset the cost differential of the purchase price vs. affordable price limit. Ms. Manz said she like the thinking but it would require an application to the CPC and a warrant article. Mr. Zurlo suggested tabling the three and four unit developments in this by-law, and next year look to level the financial playing field for those small developments, perhaps with CPA funding. Minutes for the Meeting of March 7, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Galaitsis said that if there is a threshold it should be set to zero in order to spread the financial burden over a larger number of people. Mr. Hornig says the whole proposal is only on those who are creating new housing units, so raising the threshold would not affect everyone, raising this threshold would only apply to a few hundred people. Mr. Galaitsis said that residents who bought land have the right to build and make units appear. Ms. Manz agreed they do have the right to make units appear, but with zoning limitations and mitigating the effect they create. Mr. Galaitsis stated that the use of a Special Permit (without waivers or rezoning) to exact inclusionary housing is unjustified. Mr. Galaitsis believes the Special Permit by itself simply ensures that a subdivision is done by the book. For example, in a conventional subdivision on an “unassembled parcel”, the Special Permit grants nothing extra to the land owner because it creates no new lots than already allowed by the existing RO or RS zoning, therefore, the land owner owes nothing in return for the Special Permit. Mr. Zurlo pointed out that wetlands bylaws wasn’t always a part of a development scenario and they were created for the good of the communities when adopted. Mr. Galaitsis stated that because of a heavy workload he would not be writing a minority report. Mr. Hornig agreed with raising the threshold from 3 to 5 units. Mr. Canale asked why are we doing this, to get support? Was the idea that it was mitigating the addition of extra units or was it that is seems unfair to the owners of larger parcels? If the reason was that it caused undue burden on smaller developers, he would rather adjust the credits or allow cash in-lieu. Ms. Manz said it is difficult to adjust credits. She stated that although she was reluctant to raise the threshold, she felt the Board should respond to the objections expressed by citizens to the Board. Ms. McCall-Taylor mentioned that if the threshold were increased to five units, the Board should consider eliminating the 140% AMI category, as there would not be a need for an inclusionary credit of .15. On motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 4-1 (Mr. Galaitsis against) to change the threshold from 3 to 5 units, change 140 to 120 in §135-46.I(3)(d), and remove the row with 140% from the table following 135-46.I(4)(e). On motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstaining) to eliminate the last sentence in §135-46.I(3)(e) [1] which was not essential to the statute. Ms. Manz asked Mr. Zurlo and Mr. Hornig to do the Inclusionary Housing presentation for the Board of 6 Page Minutes for the Meeting of March 7, 2007 Selectmen and coordinate with Housing Partnership Board. Mr. Zurlo will do his presentation on how the proposed bylaw meets the need for inclusionary housing and is an appropriate strategy. Mr. Hornig will take half the time to explain how the by-law works. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1 (Mr. Galaitsis against) to recommend Article 4, Inclusionary Housing as amended to Town Meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Gregory Zurlo, Clerk