HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-05-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2007
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Planning Office in the Town Office
Building, and called to order at 8:00 a.m. by Chairman Manz with members Zurlo, Hornig, Galaitsis and
Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Tapper present.
*******************************CLUSTER BYLAW************************************
Board members were asked to describe what they want a cluster bylaw to accomplish.
Mr. Galaitsis began by stating that he wanted to see credible open space, actual clustering of dwellings,
impacts equal to conventional subdivisions, a better impervious surface ratio that was lower, not higher,
and smaller units, (not the large units contained in many clusters to date), with an affordable component.
He felt the developer was looking for certainty and fast tracking.
Mr. Canale said to look at the title of the bylaw section. If cluster is not what is being sought the Board
should come up with a name to describe what they are trying to get, without getting too hokey. He did not
favor using the current popular phrase “smart growth.” He felt the essence of what they were trying to get
was site sensitive residential development; something that was context sensitive and worked with the site.
He wanted wise use of space rather than dictating houses that don’t fit on site in the context of the
neighborhood
Mr. Zurlo wanted site sensitive development with the buildings sited to minimize cut and fill. On the
macro level he wondered what the town goals were and thought they ought to be defined. He felt they
were housing and development patterns. His sense was that smaller units relate to affordability.
Mr. Hornig said he liked the simplification suggestions. In the end a cluster by special permit is better
than a conventional. However, flexibility works against certainty. He felt there should be multiple kinds
of developments such as site sensitive or affordable (40B “lite”), may be as of right. Rules may differ by
the type of approach.
Ms. Manz asked how much we want to burden clusters, could everything be done in one bylaw?
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 5, 2007
Mr. Zurlo said it was a challenge taking a project like Grove Street where you lose the ability to
physically cluster but the benefit to the site is enormous. The goal becomes a remedy. Minimum lot size
gives some certainty.
Mr. Galaitsis suggested increasing the tract size so it was large enough to actually permit clustering to
occur.
Ms. McCall-Taylor said there was a double process, the subdivision and the special permit. She said that
the consultant had suggested granting the special permit at the preliminary level so there was some degree
of certainty and then refinements of the site design could happen at the definitive level.
Mr. Zurlo said what he found challenging was translating zoning into something physical such as street
width, curves, etc. There can be goals but when you see what it looks like, you can better tell what you
like and do not like. He suggested considering areas of town that are deemed attractive, figuring what
makes them so, and then using that to tie into the cluster outcomes. Mr. Galaitsis said then you are into a
lot of discretion.
Ms. Manz said that density was acceptable in some subdivisions; Johnson Farm was very dense. Ms.
McCall-Taylor said that if you looked at pictures of now admired Victorian homes when they were first
built, you would find they looked quite different. Most were large buildings looming on cleared lots. Mr.
Zurlo commented that one must recall the personal spatial qualities experienced from existing
neighborhoods when considering density.
Mr. Hornig said he saw value in all types of clusters. For example Cary Avenue got rid of a subdivision
street. Mr. Henry asked what do we regulate and why. He felt the Board had differing wants. Mr. Canale
suggested that if a type A, B and C were required at the sketch or preliminary, the Board could explore
what each might be and than at the preliminary say which option should be prepared for the definitive
plan. Ms. McCall-Taylor said it looked as if they should consider beefing up the sketch plan process so
they could explore options and know that they wanted. Mr. Zurlo said he sees boxes but doesn’t know
how it will turn out. He wanted to see opportunities and constraints.
Ms. Manz suggested alternative tracks such as one providing affordable units. Mr. Zurlo wondered how
to keep the Board from extracting too much. Mr. Hornig suggested a standardized pseudo-cluster.
Minutes for the Meeting of June 5, 2007 Page 3
The discussion then turned to the matter of impervious surface and why it is regulated. Mr. Henry said
management of impervious surface was intended to minimize environmental degradation and now there
are better stormwater management techniques. It has now become a way to regulate size of a
development. Mr. Hornig felt the regulation of impervious surface was a goal in itself. Mr. Canale
agreed, saying that there should be a capping of size, as a large impervious surface ratio leads to greater
site disturbance in order to accommodate the infiltrators, etc. Mr. Galaitsis thought we should retain both
the impervious surface ratio (ISR) and site coverage limits. Mr. Hornig said if they limit site coverage, it
pushes up the buildings.
Mr. Henry asked about taking out the pavement in the right of way proof plan and holding the rest of the
lot to the same ISR as for conventional developments. Mr. Hornig said that ISR is a good proxy for site
disturbance and developers can trade buildings versus pavement. Mr. Zurlo said that the ISR affects the
building height; to get a good-looking building, they would be forced to reduce the height.
Mr. Hornig asked if the proof plan had to comply without waivers. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that that was
how the bylaw had been interpreted in the past.
th
Ms. Tapper explained the updated impact figures and said when using updated 75 percentile data the s
the living area showed a decrease but everything else increased.. She had surveyed cluster residents about
the open space in the developments and found that they like it, even if they did not use it themselves. Mr.
Galaitsis wanted to ask the abutters of clusters how they felt about cluster developments. Ms. McCall-
Taylor said that would be problematic, as most abutters tended to compare the cluster development to no
development on the site, rather than conceding that the site would be developed and then looking at which
option would be preferred.
Ms. Tapper told the Planning Board that this was the last meeting before she left to take up a potion in
Newton and she thanked the Board for the opportunity to work with them.
The next meeting to discuss the bylaw revisions would be June 11 from 4 to 6 p.m. in the Planning office.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 a.m.
Gregory Zurlo, Clerk