Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-24-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 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 Hornig with members Zurlo, Canale, Galaitsis and Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of September 5, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed the minutes for the executive meeting of September 5, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained as he had not been at the meeting) to approve the minutes. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of October 3, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained as he had not been at the meeting) to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of October 10, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained as he had not been at the meeting) to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of October 17, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained as he had not been at the meeting) to approve the minutes. ************************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT***************** SUBDIVISION OF LAND Cutler Farm, discussion of proof plan in special residential developments: Mr. Gary Larson and Mr. Callahan had requested a meeting with the Planning Board for further clarification of the Board’s interpretation of the zoning bylaws and subdivision regulations and how it pertains to the Cutler Farm Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of October 24, 2007 sketch plans. Ms. McCall-Taylor quoted the zoning bylaws and development regulations regarding proof plans. Mr. Hornig asked the Board to consider the question of if a proof plan does not comply with development regulations could the Planning Board accept it if they so choose? When the previous sketch plan was presented, the general consensus from the Board was that the applicant could not submit a complying proof plan and therefore, the Board would not approve a special residential development on this site preferring to maintain the two existing lots and reconstruct two houses. Mr. Larson said there is a conflict between the two requirements of the proof plan. The proof plan is to see how many lots would fit. It allows the use of town tax maps although they are inaccurate. Without considering contours and wetlands, the Cutler Farm tract can be divided into four lots. Details such as 25 feet roundings at the end of the proposed road where it meets with Concord Avenue (the lack of which made the proof plan non-complying) is a level of detail not warranted at this stage. Mr. Larson said they had been before the Planning Board approximately five times with sketch plans and made several adjustments, but last time the Planning Board didn’t even look at the four dwelling proposal because they got caught up in the proof plan, making it more of an issue and control factor then it was meant to be. Mr. Hornig said the Board is divided over the legal technicalities involved on several issues and so there is no general consensus on special residential developments. Mr. Larson asked if the reason for not supporting the plan was because of the proof plan? Mr. Hornig said he felt that they could submit a proof plan showing one lot and then submit a special residential development plan, so the proof plan does not block it. Mr. Canale was not present for that particular plan, but his general feeling is that this site does not lend itself to a special residential development due to the character of Old Shade Street, access and topography. It is not appropriate for a special residential development based on references and definitions given by Ms. McCall-Taylor for a valid proof plan. Mr. Zurlo said he agreed with Mr. Canale. The phrase “general manner” focuses on completeness of the elements shown, not all of the requirements you have to show (not the design of the road.) An example is a single line representing the entire curb entity for both sides for the street; you would still comply with Minutes for the Meeting of October 24, 2007 Page 3 the general contents, but you must show everything and if anything is missing its not adequate to begin the process. Ms. Manz stated that the statutory argument is persuasive and it is regrettable that the Board did not focus on the proof plan earlier. The proof plan, however, is the threshold requirement and the gateway to a proposed special residential development and where the proposed road meets the public road is not adequate. Mr. Galaitsis agreed that the proof plan is the gateway and the Board should not waive the requirements of the proof plan for any reason. It is there to protect the person next door by offering predictability. There is a problem with approving special residential developments without a number that is supported by a proof plan, as it would not have comparable impacts. Mr. Hornig asked would a one lot plan count as a proof plan? Ms. McCall-Taylor responded then just about every lot would meet the standards and why have a proof plan at all, just have minimum frontage and lot area. Ms. Manz said a proof plan indicates the number of lots on which units that can be built. The requirement for a proof plan would have no meaning if no division of lots was contemplated. Reading into the development regulations, without at least two lots it cannot be a complying proof plan. Mr. Zurlo said in some cases what the proof plan allows is based on the design of the parcel and what the maximum and minimum impacts might be support a one-lot proof plan. Mr. Canale said it seems nonsensical to have a one-lot proof plan. Mr. Henry asked a proof plan of what? It is a subdivision and there is no such thing as a one-lot subdivision. Mr. Larson said the site is a good candidate for a cluster development using a proof plan with waivers for roundings on the right of way intersection within 125 feet of Barberry Road. He also asked when does a driveway become a road? Mr. Hornig asked how would waivers be handled in a proof plan? Mr. Canale said handling it the same as you would a reduced frontage subdivision seems appropriate. Ms. McCall-Taylor said to comply with design standards means a proof plan without waivers. Mr. Galaitsis did not see justification in bending the rules by borrowing wording from other sections to arbitrarily bring a non-complying proof plan into compliance. There should be no granting of waivers at the proof plan stage. Mr. Zurlo had no comment on waivers. Mr. Canale said a request for waivers for a subdivision varies and some might make sense. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of October 24, 2007 Mr. Hornig asked if waivers could be granted at the sketch level? Mr. Henry responded you can grant them at the preliminary stage, but they can only be official at the definitive level when the public is in on it at a public hearing. Ms. Manz said there is no obvious means for granting a waiver on a proof plan. Mr. Zurlo said in general if the proof plan required a waiver that was minor and the development had significant public benefit would the Board give enough assurance that the waiver would be granted at the definitive stage? Mr. Hornig said this proposal would first need to come in as a conventional subdivision to determine if it is a subdivision, and then apply for a special residential development. Ms. Manz asked if there was another way, requiring less time and expense to the applicant. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the Board would need to set up a new process outside of the statutory subdivision control regulations. Mr. Galaitsis said the public benefit is outside the proof plan. First, the proof plan must stand on its own; then and only then the Board can consider the associated benefits and impacts. Mr. Hornig said the proof plan is part of the regulations and could change, but at this time there is no easy way to have waivers in the proof plan. You would have to bring in a conventional subdivision plan. Mr. Larson said if he brings in a three-lot conventional subdivision plan would it be used as a proof plan? How would it related to the schedule of dimensional controls? Mr. Hornig said the proof plan is of a higher bar and most of the Board members agree with that. Mr. Larson said he would discuss this information with his client and go from there. 4 Coppersmyth Way, addition of a deck: The applicants the Piantedosi family requested the Planning Board approve the addition of a deck to their unit as a minor modification to the special permit. The Condominium Trustees have granted their consent. Mr. Canale moved to decide if this is a major or minor modification. Mr. Galaitsis said the Board is setting a precedent each time they approve these modifications and should not approve it. He felt that this way the Board was telling the residents they could come back and use up all the margins to the maximum limits; the Board needs to lock in what was previously approved, which is commensurate to the benefits offered, if any. Minutes for the Meeting of October 24, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Hornig asked for a vote on the determination of whether the changes to the special permit are major or minor modifications. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1, (Mr. Galaitsis opposed) to approve the change as a minor modification. Mr. Galaitsis objects in general to enlarging units in previously approved clusters. The improvements increase the prices of these homes making them less affordable and violating one of the prime goals of cluster subdivisions. In the future they need to make sure the covenants say no to increases/additions in these developments. Mr. Hornig had one problem with these modifications, which is there seemed to be a feeling that the residents in these developments feel they are entitled to the maximums. He added that the applicant in this matter is doing the right thing and has not misled the Planning Board. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-1, (Mr. Galaitsis opposed) to approve the addition of the deck to the unit and the related increase in maximum allowed total gross floor area of the development. Mr. Zurlo said in the discussion of maximum impacts they should address the issue of keeping them lower, allowing for the flexibility of some future changes. ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE***************** There will be a Citizen Planner Training Collaborative (CPTC) Webinar at 7:00 p.m. at the next Planning Board meeting on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room regarding the Roles and Responsibilities of Planning and the Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals will be invited to attend. Mr. Henry said the second Housing Roundtable is scheduled for Thursday, November 15, 2007. (The flyer incorrectly stated it was on Wednesday). This is an open ended forum and a follow up to continue the discussion on the goals and objectives in drafting a successful housing strategy. The following dates are the Planning Board meetings: November 7, 28 and December 5 and 19, 2007. Ms. Manz said November 28, 2007 may present a problem and she would contact the staff to advise. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of October 24, 2007 ******************************** ZONING INITIATIVES******************************** Traffic and Parking: Ms. McCall-Taylor said that this would not be going before Town Meeting from the Planning Board in the spring. Christine McVay is beginning a parking study at this time. There is a possible citizen’s amendment to remove the Traffic Bylaw in total. Mr. Galaitsis and Mr. Canale indicated that they would not be in favor of such an amendments. Mr. Galaitsis needs to see why it should be removed. Height: This is being kept as a separate article from the Residential Development amendments and there is nothing at present to discuss. ******************************* BOARD MEMBER REPORTS**************************** Mr. Zurlo said that there would not be an EDTF meeting tomorrow. Mr. Canale left at 9:10 p.m. as he has recused himself from the discussion of Residential Developments. ******************************** ZONING INITIATIVES******************************** Residential Development: Ms. McCall-Taylor reviewed the two handouts on Residential Development Bylaw revisions and issues to discuss. Mr. Scanlan, the consultant, was present for input during this discussion. The following are Board comments to the modifications on the handouts. Definitions: Dwelling: This addressed two family dwellings, but Mr. Hornig asked about how three unit dwellings would be handled? Moving all RD to Article VIII: All RD sections from Article IX would be relocated to Article VIII. The only change would be useable open space. Members indicated they were in favor of this. Accessory Apartments: 135-19C (by-right apartment) GFA less than 1,000 square feet. 135-19D (special permit apartment) GFA not to exceed 40% of GFA. Instead they would be applied as to the conventional subdivision. Attachment: Refer to one-family detached or attached as two-family. Minutes for the Meeting of October 24, 2007 Page 7 Mr. Hornig saw no reason to impact parking. Conventional Subdivision: Increased setbacks would only apply to new three lot conventional subdivision lots and does not need to be pulled into Article VII Dimensional Controls. A general outline was presented of Article IX after the modifications are done. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the warrant closing is in December. The warrant article will just categorize the changes and not include the draft bylaw. On December 5, 2007 there will be the draft to review. Mr. Galaitsis requested a marked draft of the document, showing the deleted and newly inserted text, so one could more easily appreciate the proposed changes to the by-law. Mr. Henry asked if Article IX should be taken up before the height amendment. Mr. Hornig said to leave it a separate issue. He asked if the changes to the Residential Development needed special outreach. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that it needs more than a public hearing. Mr. Galaitsis said it was already too late. There will be a public information session in January and public hearing in February. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk