HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-11-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 11, 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 4:00 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Hornig and Canale and
planning staff McCall-Taylor and Henry present.
*******************************CLUSTER BYLAW************************************
Ms. McCall-Taylor said that while Mr. Galaitsis was not present he had expressed concerned about the
equivalent impacts. He felt the mission of the cluster bylaw was to have comparable impacts and that
Town Meeting would have to approve any changes.
Ms. Manz suggested that developments have been required to be below the maximums to allow changes
with time.
Mr. Hornig asked if any of the members present disagree with the staff suggestions about what to keep
and drop in impact figures. All indicated that they agreed with the suggestions. He then asked about the
ISR. He felt that if they went to a proof-plan-based multiplier they should subtract the right of way from
the tract area, apply the ISR percent to the remaining area to get a square footage of impervious surface,
and then add to that the impervious surface of roadway to establish a cluster maximum. He proposed
allowing waivers for proof plans if the conventional plan were one where the Board would have approved
waivers. Mr. Canale said that if they were to allow waivers, there would have to be two plans on the table.
Ms. McCall-Taylor said under current regulations they could get the subdivision with waivers. There
would need to be a decision framework for waivers. If applicants have to get a conventional plan
approved to get the waivers, why would they then go to the cluster? Mr. Henry said the might have to go
through the process to get the waivers. Mr. Canale said the proof plan can be whatever the Board
chooses, including allowing waivers, since it can be written into the bylaw changes.
Ms. McCall-Taylor asked if open space should be just a percent of developable area rather than a percent
of the entire site. This might address concerns about open space being more than just land that could not
be built on because of wetland and slope constraints.
Mr. Hornig suggested that the developments at Cary Avenue and Grove Street could be treated in the
same vein as reduced frontage subdivisions. He suggested extending §135-38E to allow waiving the
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 11, 2007
frontage requirement to less than 50% and increasing the number of lots allowed. He felt this section and
the cluster section were both trying to avoid having to build stub roads and that Cary and Grove were
clusters in name only. Mr. Canale said that during the period the original cluster bylaw was being
researched and drafted, the reduced frontage bylaw was created to address the number of two-lot
subdivisions that were coming before the Board at that time. It also was in response to a specific
development proposal that never came to be.
Mr. Hornig suggested having a flexible conventional subdivision without an open space requirement and
having no bonus for the proof plan. Was the goal to prevent development, prevent bad development, or
promote good development?
Ms. Manz said it was not to stop development, but to promote a variety of development and housing
types. Mr. Hornig said that that maybe the Development of Significant Public Benefit should be drafted to
apply to affordable units only. As currently written it had so many options that it really wasn’t clear what
was desired.
There was some discussion of using bedrooms as a development factor and the difficulty of defining a
bedroom vs. a study vs. a laundry room, etc.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Richard Canale, Acting Clerk