Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-11-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 11, 2007 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building, and called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Zurlo, Hornig, Galaitsis, Canale and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of June 20, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 4-0-1, (Mr. Canale abstained) to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of June 28, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 5-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board deferred discussion of the minutes of May 23 and 30 and June 6, 2007 until the meeting of July 25, 2007 in order to facilitate members’ edits. ****************************** ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT**************************** Mr. Greg Zurlo made a presentation on the work being done by the Economic Development Task Force (EDTF). The presentation is being made to elicit feedback, discussion and support from the Planning Board to help achieve its long and short-term goals. Task Force Charge: ?? Engage the community in education about existing businesses and the potential for further commercial development. Elicit community opinion. ?? Conduct a modeling exercise; through community and town leadership examine tradeoffs associated with various commercial-development choices. ?? Examine various regulatory issues affecting prospects for the business sector and development decisions. ?? Work with Town officials to arrive at an effective, workable mission for Lexington’s Economic Development Officer. Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 2007 Page 2 Progress To Date: ?? Working with the new Economic Development Officer (EDO), Susan Yanofsky, on a Request For Proposals (RFP). ?? Working on the current scenario, which suggests an increasing imbalance between revenues and expenses over time. There needs to be a 3-5% increase in revenues to maintain level services ongoing through 2010. ?? Larry Smith’s Analysis of Development Potential on the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). ?? Working on a RFP for a Modeling Consultant to do a study on large commercial areas in Lexington such as Hartwell Avenue and Hayden/Spring Street. Task Force- Future Action: ?? The RFP- Work with a Modeling Consultant to analyze various build-out scenarios and work with the Sustainability Task Force Committee. ?? Community outreach discussing the progress, findings and reports of the EDTF. ?? Work with the Town and the EDO on dimensional regulations, FAR, and parking requirements. ?? Long Term goals to recommend revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and create a Master Plan for these areas. ?? Have an Economic Development Committee Advisory Board to work with the EDO. Mr. Zurlo would like to schedule another meeting within the next few weeks to continue the dialogue. Mr. Larry Smith gave a presentation that he gave to the Chamber of Commerce showing a comparison of the FAR by Town. The chart shows that Hartwell Avenue has only six properties which have less than .15 FAR. There is development potential with an increased FAR up to .48 which would be the maximum given the site constraints for a three-story building. Mr. Smith felt that there were already more parking spaces than would be required by the Zoning Bylaws, even with expansion. Mr. Grant said that there was a downzoning in the late 1980’s when there was a backlash because of the number and size of buildings going in. Town Meeting established a .15 FAR with the Planning Board’s recommendation. Now that the 33 cents on the dollar in tax revenue the Town was getting in the 1980’s is reduced to only 20 cents on the dollar, Town Meeting may be more willing to increase the FAR to bring up revenue. There is a significant attitude change with all the overrides. Families with children have begun to recognize a need to build. Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Adam Sacks raised concerns that the economic development discussions have not been done in the context of global warming and in a manner compatible with sustainability principles. One cannot assume that the next 13 years will be the same as the past. There will be food shortages and increases in costs for fossil fuels. He felt that there was a need to support small businesses in Town now in order to become more self-reliant. Board Questions: Mr. Hornig wanted to know the timeline envisioned for the economic development task force. Would there be recommendations in time for Spring Town Meeting 2008? Mr. Zurlo said by the end of the year. Mr. Galaitsis said that recent Town Meeting decisions suggest that there may be a change in Town Meeting’s thinking about FAR. He suggested sounding out Town Meeting Members, starting with the TMMA executive committee, to ensure that the consultant is aware of their views. He also said that, currently, the Hartwell Avenue jug handle acts as a control on traffic volume. Therefore, any plan to raise the Hartwell Avenue FAR that would increase local traffic volume must also include major intersection modifications to alleviate the jug handle bottleneck. Mr. Canale said the Sustainable Task Force is limited and they will not be addressing what needs to be done here. They should ensure that the State’s Sustainable Principles are met. There are better strategies that are sustainable and increasing the FAR is not one of them. The RFP should be used to look at the opportunities and potentials and see how they fit with Lexington’s goals and values. Mr. Zurlo said that he was encouraged with tonight and wants to schedule the next session on August 15, 2007 to continue this discussion. Mr. Hornig said traffic was put on the back shelf a few months ago. Mr. Canale said he realizes that we lost two staff members, but still wants to address those issues. Ms. Manz said the zoning bylaw changes regarding traffic are very pertinent to the work of the EDTF. ************************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT***************** SUBDIVISION OF LAND PUBLIC HEARINGS Hazel Road, Subdivision Rescission: At 8:55 p.m. Ms. Manz opened the continued public hearing. Ms. Manz heard from Town Counsel and from the applicant for rescission and there are a number of legal arguments on both sides. The brief history of this matter is there are two owners involved; Mrs. Sharkey Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 2007 Page 4 had a Purchase and Sale Agreement with North Shore Construction on which she granted five years of extensions before allowing it to expire because of North Shore Construction’s inability to go forward. Mrs. Weiss has a current Purchase and Sale Agreement with North Shore Construction. A special permit granted by the Planning Board has expired by its own terms. A portion of Mrs. Sharkey’s land is registered land and the rest is recorded land; the registered portion was never filed with the land court as part of the subdivision approval. The status of all the land after a rescission is unclear; it is unclear if the regulations allow the Planning Board to grant a rescission without the signatures of both owners. The Planning Board cannot adjudicate the equities among the parties, and Town Counsel says the regulations suggest that without the signatures of both owners the Board cannot make that determination regarding this rescission. Mr. Galaitsis said that given the background, it is clear that the two sides expect the Planning Board members to act as judges; he is uncomfortable being placed in that position. Attorney Ed Grant, who represents Mr. Patel and Mrs. Sharkey, had spoken with Town Counsel at one point and was advised that a rescission was an appropriate action in this matter. Under the zoning bylaws and regulations relating to special permits, a special permit must be acted upon with in two years, if not the special permit terminates. In Berg v. Lexington the Appeals Court reversed the decision of requiring the signatures of all interested parties. Mrs. Sharkey has a property right here, she wants to rescind the subdivision and remove any defect in the title so she may proceed with the sale of her property. No one is adversely affected by the rescission since North Shore Construction did not file the registered land or proceed with the subdivision. Attorney Brian McMahon, who represents Mrs. Sharkey, said that the Planning Board’s position that they are in the wrong forum allows any developer to tie up land in indefinitely. What does the development regulation mean to the average person? Attorney Dan Harrington represents North Shore Construction that is owned by Ron Lopez and has been authorized to speak on behalf of Mrs. Weiss. There are three entities involved- Mrs. Sharkey, Mrs. Weiss and North Shore Construction, and he asserts that signatures from each entity are required in order to move forward. The special permit has expired, but the subdivision still exists. Mr. Lopez received notice and that shows proof of standing. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the only reason Mr. Lopez got notice was because he asked for it. There has been no determination of legal standing on this matter. Mr. Bashar is an abutter and against the rescission. Attorney McMahon referred to an abutter suit which had delayed development of the subdivision, and Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 2007 Page 5 asked, if the case was settled, why wasn’t the land purchased? Attorney Harrington said it was a verbal agreement. Mr. Bilge of 7 Hazel Road stated that three neighbors were pushed into a complaint to protect rights on Hazel Road. There is no signed settlement and they are not against the rescission. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to close the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Board Comments: Mr. Hornig said he does not support the rescission at this point. He is unsure about the signatures being required, but the land would revert back to 13 grandfathered, substandard lots and he does not feel that would serve public interest. Mr. Hornig does not want to play judge on Sharkey/Weiss when someone can just acquire the entire site and then apply for a special permit for a special residential development or a new subdivision. Mr. Galaitsis said he does not have the qualifications to be a judge here and does not want to go against Town Counsel’s advice. Mr. Canale said he is reluctant to support the rescission. Mr. Zurlo asked what were the circumstances where Town Counsel said rescission was an appropriate path? Ms. McCall-Taylor said she never heard Town Counsel indicate any contradiction to what is now being said. They just asked the applicant to make a legal case to support their request. Ms. Manz said this is not the body to make a determination of equity among the parties. However, the subdivision is not going to happen at this point, and Ms. Manz said one could interpret the regulations to read that that would be grounds for a rescission. Mr. Zurlo wanted to know if the termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement forces a rescission. How would anyone be able to back out of a deal? Mr. Zurlo said he would tend to follow counsel’s recommendation. Mr. Galaitsis asked Ms. Manz to clarify again whether the Town Counsel advised that the Planning Board should or should not rescind. Ms. Manz said that this was her own conclusion, not Town Counsel’s and believes the Counsel’s advice is practical as much as legal. She does not see a viable subdivision. Mr. Galaitsis said he would be willing to hold one more meeting in order to receive a written statement from the Town Counsel if that would help all members with their decision. Mr. Zurlo is abstaining from voting until he sees a written opinion from Town Counsel. A motion to deny the rescission was then made and seconded, with three members voting in favor and one member, Ms. Manz, opposed, and one member, Mr. Zurlo, abstaining. Grove Street, Continued Public Hearing of the Conventional Definitive Subdivision Plans: Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 2007 Page 6 Ms. McCall-Taylor said the applicant has withdrawn the conventional subdivision plan and is pursuing future development under the cluster subdivision plan. The applicant still has to go before the Conservation Commission for its approval. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously, 5-0, to accept the withdrawal of the conventional subdivision plan. ******************************* ZONING INITIATIVES********************************* Special Residential/Cluster Development Bylaw: Mr. William Scanlan, the consultant hired to assist in revising the cluster bylaw, distributed handouts summarizing the roundtable discussion and comparing other communities’ cluster bylaws. Mr. Scanlan wants to discuss a list of options the Board might want to consider. He asked what the Planning Board wants to get out of its bylaw; what are the Board’s purpose and objectives and what is the reason it is not being accomplished. Ms. Manz said that number four on the June 12, 2007 handout does not mention clustering. Ms. McCall- Taylor said that they are now calling clusters Special Residential Developments. Mr. Hornig asked about the time line. Is this for Spring Town Meeting 2008? Mr. Scanlan said that his contract expires on December 31, 2007. Ms. McCall-Taylor said a draft would be firmed up by mid- September. Mr. Galaitsis sees some good things and others that need to be changed. In 1996, the Town Meeting supported clusters to bring in young couples and allow seniors to downsize and still remain in Lexington. There have been many single-family homes created, but few small units for those they were trying to attract or accommodate here. They were supposed to bring in smaller units that, when attached in twos or threes, looked externally the same in mass as one of the current single-family homes, but each smaller unit was more affordable for the young professionals and seniors. The fundamental objectives now should still be the same as those back then. Ms. McCall-Taylor said they are trying to simplify the bylaw while still controlling the same impacts. Mr. Galaitsis said he was concerned about overestimating the number of occupants in conventional homes and underestimating the occupants of cluster units; he wants a more realistic accounting of occupants as well as traffic counts. Mr. Henry said due to privacy issues, using the number of bedrooms would be the most accurate way to limit the number of occupants. Mr. Hornig said based on current use, if you want to minimize the number of occupants you should build larger homes. Todd Cataldo said if you go with the conventional proof plan it depends on what the number is. If you Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 2007 Page 7 take away the multiplier and based it on the proof plan developers will always do a conventional subdivision. They go to the cluster for flexibility. If that is taken off the table, you will lose clusters all together. Mr. Larson agreed and said that incentives need to be incorporated so the developers won’t go with the unrestricted conventional subdivisions. Developers need to be allowed to construct some larger houses as well smaller units. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that the developers had professed to not care about predictability and consistency in the cluster bylaw. Mr. Hornig said it was more that they felt the special permit process was okay. Ms. Manz asked if it is better to start with the proof plan or go back to square footage? Mr. Galaitsis said to base it on a proof plan and then add in a multiplier. Mr. Cataldo said try plugging in new numbers and see what you get. Mr. Canale asked about comparable development impacts and comparable profit impacts. Mr. Cataldo said construction costs to build smaller units are slightly higher, as they have to build more kitchens and bathrooms. Mr. Scanlan suggested requiring a number of smaller units in the cluster. Ms. McCall-Taylor wanted to see how the Board felt about the public benefits required under a reduced frontage subdivision, which is currently roughly half the value of the difference between constructing a road or a driveway. Mr. Hornig said the zoning bylaws as written are reasonable and that the public benefit is undefined. The current implementation of the pubic benefit is only in the guidelines, not the zoning bylaw. Ms. McCall-Taylor said in a RS zone with 50 feet of frontage it is not possible to do a complying proof plan. If the Board goes with a proof plan as the basis of impacts this will need to be worked on. Mr. Scanlan asked about the impervious surface ratio (ISR). Mr. Hornig said they already agreed with the staff memo addressing the ISR by using an impervious surface maximum based on the ISR allowed in the proof plan. Mr. Galaitsis agreed, provided that the Special Residential/Cluster ISR limit is reduced to the conventional ISR. Ms. Manz said they are out of time and will continue the discussion on July 25, 2007 and it will be the first item on August 15, 2007. ********************* REGIONAL, INTERTOWN MEETINGS**************************** Tomorrow there is MAGIC meeting with various towns’ Conservation Preservation Committee members, for which Ms. Manz is the representative. The Metro Future meeting for the Planning Board and Board of Minutes for the Meeting of July 11, 2007 Page 8 Selectmen is next week. ********************* PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE******************* Election of Officers: The Board held its annual election of officers. On a motion duly made, and seconded and voted, the Board elected Mr. Hornig as Chair of the Planning Board. On a motion duly made, and seconded and voted, the Board elected Mr. Zurlo as Vice Chair of the Planning Board. On a motion duly made, and seconded and voted, the Board elected Ms. Manz as Clerk of the Planning Board. Committee Assignments: The Planning Board Representatives/Liaisons to Town Committees and Commissions was discussed. The assignments for the year are as follows: Conservation Commission Mr. Hornig Community Preservation Committee Ms. Manz, Design Advisory Committee Ms. Manz Energy Conservation Committee Mr. Galaitsis Hanscom Area Towns Committee Mr. Canale Historic Districts Commission Mr. Zurlo Historical Commission Mr. Hornig Housing Partnership Board Mr. Zurlo Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee Mr. Canale Lexington Center Committee Ms. Manz Noise Advisory Committee Mr. Galaitsis Sidewalk Committee Mr. Canale Transportation Advisory Committee Mr. Canale Traffic Mitigation Group Mr. Canale Traffic Safety Advisory Committee Mr. Canale Vision 2020/Executive Committee Mr. Zurlo Vision 2020 Economic Development Task Force Mr. Zurlo Vision 2020 Sustainability Committee Ms. Manz On a final note, Mr. Hornig wanted to thank Ms. Manz for the fine work she did as Chair of the Planning Board. Her hard work was greatly appreciated and was defined by the Grove Street Subdivision. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Greg Zurlo, Clerk