Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-09-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on September 9, 2021, Virtual Meeting at 7:00 pm Present: Charles Hornig, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Clerk; Robert Creech. Melanie Thompson will join the meeting shortly. Also present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director and Molly Belanger, Planner. Charles Hornig, Chair, call to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Thursday, September 9, 2021, at 7:00 pm. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. Lex Media may broadcast this meeting live and will record it for future viewing. Detailed information for remote participation by the public may be found on the Planning Office web page. Mr. Hornig conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present can hear and be heard. Mr. Hornig provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that written materials for this meeting are available on the Town’s Novus AGENDA dashboard. *****************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* 69 Pleasant Street-Sketch Plan for Site-Sensitive Development: Mr. Hornig opened the public meeting and provided a summary for the discussion of this proposed project. Present were Michael Novak, project engineer from Patriot Engineering, Todd Cataldo, applicant, and Jeff Thoma, landscape architect. Mr. Novak presented the plans which included the existing parcel size and slopes, the single- family dwelling, accessory structure, proof plan, the information on the slope from the Fire Department and the proposed sketch plan for 10 dwelling units and trees that would be protected. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters requested clarification on how would the applicant proceed on delineating the lot lines for this site-sensitive plan.  Mr. Creech said it would be great to provide walkability to the Moon Hill Road neighborhood and through the development on Pleasant Street by the farm. Have you given that any thought to that? Mr. Creech asked for clarification on the plan for the renovation of the existing house? Mr. Creech stated he would be disinclined to approve a plan with houses with a larger gross floor area then what the zoning allowed.  Mr. Schanbacher asked for clarification if they considered how the traffic would be moving through the tricky existing intersection at that site.  Mr. Hornig said he would expect them to negotiate a preservation restriction on the exterior of the existing house with the Historical Commission. Mr. Hornig said that this project does not do enough to preserve the natural features of the site since there appears to be a lot of grading and clearing of the site. Any ways to preserve more of the site Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of September 9, 2021 would be appreciated. The development hides itself from Pleasant Street and not sure that is the best approach along this frontage and consider the units to give the appearance of frontage on that street. Public Comments and Questions:  Jonathan Gruber, 83 Pleasant Street asked if this is a driveway or a road. That intersection will be a nightmare and already gets backed up at rush hour and wants to make sure a traffic study gets done for this project to make it safe.  A resident from 16 Moon Hill Road asked for clarification on how the town addresses the change of a single property to change to a property for 10 houses and the impact it would have on the existing habitat.  Matt Daggett suggested potential architectural modernist principles concept for this development that would fit with the surrounding existing neighborhoods and is highly desirable.  Cindy Ahrens asked for clarification on building homes for the future and building fossil fuel free homes. Ms. Thompson joined the meeting.  Jamie Frankel asked for clarification on the number of properties on Pleasant Street, the location on the entrance of the road at the triangle, the house on the northwest corner of the plan is it part of the site, and there was concern expressed that the link wasn’t updated for the meeting. The application is the based on a purchase and sale agreement: did it go through and is Mr. Cataldo now the owner?  Paul Goodrow asked for clarification on the time frame for the houses to be built. It was better to not front the houses on Pleasant Street since it is so loud there.  An abutter was concerned about the ecological standpoint and asked would it be better with a cluster housing. The intersection is dangerous and needs a traffic study.  Alex Whitney, 28 Moon Hill Road expressed concern with the environmental impact of this project and also on traffic and the impact of construction. Is there a potential impact to the neighbors regarding taxes?  Gorkoc Bravo, 7 Moon Hill Road asked for clarification about curb cuts on Pleasant Street, putting a secondary road on Pleasant Street will that impact the size of the lots and not make them conventional, and how they would determine the house sizes.  Lin Jensen was asking for the new homes to be electric and not use fossil fuel. Board Comments and Questions:  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on how traffic will move here since Pleasant Street is already backed up a lot of the time.  Mr. Peters believed there is value in preserving the existing house. The traffic is a concern but the issue is bigger than this project. Another pass at this project would be good to see what other natural features like preserving more tree canopies and lastly the Town has strong goals to get to net zero and any developer for new construction should do their utmost to help the Town to meet those goals and buyers will appreciate it.  Mr. Creech said the proposed site layout is preferable to the conventional plan. Mr. Creech was happy Mr. Cataldo was looking into alternative HVAC systems and he hopes that the street names will be in line with important issues of today. Minutes for the Meeting of September 9, 2021 Page 3  Mr. Schanbacher wanted a better design for tree canopy and grading of this site. Consider that these homes could be a little denser and more compact to reduce the grading and allowing more common open space.  Mr. Hornig said they could work harder at minimizing site disturbance using the flexibility of the site-sensitive development and would prefer a development that didn’t result in nine large new houses. 75 Outlook Drive-Sketch Plan for Site-Sensitive Development: Mr. Hornig opened the public meeting and provided a summary for the discussion for this proposed project. Present were Michael Novak, project engineer from Patriot Engineering, Mr. Alvarez, applicant, and Jeff Thoma, Landscape Architect. Mr. Novak presented the plans which included three plus acres with a house and detached carriage house, a grand driveway, trees and slopes. He also showed a conventional proof plan with four lots. Mr. Novak presented the proposed site-sensitive development which would use the existing drive, house and was not sure about maintaining the existing carriage house plus three additional dwellings. Mr. Alvarez gave an update on the carriage house and said they are still evaluating what would be needed to make it structurally viable. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters asked for clarification if the carriage house was also on the historical inventory. The assessor’s card and historic survey have two dates do you know which one is correct?  Mr. Creech asked for clarification regarding the level of restoration to be applied to the existing house. Mr. Creech was happy to hear that it would be gutted allowing for the best possible energy efficiency.  Mr. Schanbacher asked if they were trying to preserve some of the existing garden.  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on if they were going to make the house as close to net zero as possible since they will be gutting the house. This seems to be a good size development to make this a future forward looking type home in this development with sustainability.  Mr. Hornig said he would expect them to negotiate a preservation restriction on the existing house with the Historical Commission. He would like to see less site disturbance and tighten this project up a little with less grading in the west and east where the retaining walls are. He would prefer to see a development with less single-family homes using other facets of our special permit residential developments. Public Comments and Questions:  Lin Jensen said she appreciated using solar panels and other technology avoiding the use of fossil fuels for close to net zero homes.  Matt Berg, 67 Outlook Drive asked for clarification on what will the retaining walls look like, any landscaping plan around the retaining walls, size of the houses and what would be done if the carriage house cannot be made viable.  Martha Kaval 18 Highland Avenue said please try to remove as few trees as possible.  Cindy Ahrens requested they try to go fossil fuel free buildings. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of September 9, 2021  Leslie Mosley 22 Fair Oaks Drive please try to keep the old existing trees.  Joe Costello across from the project the section of the driveway where the driveway comes up is there any plan to repair the road? There is a cut through to the high school so the speed of cars is really fast so can a speed bump be added along the road.  Mr. Patel, 91 Outlook Drive asked for clarification on the sizes on the new dwellings, duration of the construction, we are a hill has anyone done an impact study with the removal of the trees with concern of the soil being washed off.  Christine Churnoff, 24 Fair Oaks Drive asked for clarification on where the retaining wall would wind up for concern of potential flooding on our property.  Annie Roy, 37 Wachussett Drive asked for clarification on what protection is provided by the Town to regulate new homes that are not always a positive to the look and feel of the neighborhood and for the environment.  A resident was concerned with massive homes and that the materials that will be needed will be massive and have an impact on the environment and would be worth looking at.  Ben Ives, 22 Fair Oaks Terrace had a concern that a house just got destroyed down the street and had all the lead paint and dust coming off the house. What will the builder’s oversight be on the removal of these environmental materials that could be toxic? Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters said this is a historic house and a site sensitive development has value in preserving the house. We should also strive to meet net zero goals of the town and as you refine the plan preserve as much of the tree canopy as possible.  Mr. Creech said this is a good looking layout and better than a conventional plan. Go with being as energy efficient with the buildings and do whatever they can to achieve the best energy efficiency that they can. He mentioned specifically that extra effort should be put into insulating above the conditioned spaces.  Mr. Schanbacher said to be as sensitive to the site as possible and liked that you are trying to preserve some of the existing gardens. Try to limit the paving in Town as much as possible to help prevent runoff and other impacts that too much paving can cause.  Ms. Thompson said this is the perfect size lot to reach out to the market that is interested in sustainability. Ms. Thompson said she looked forward to see what could be done for the future housing.  Mr. Hornig said listen to what the board and neighbors have said to move forward. **********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************* PUBLIC HEARINGS Solar Regulations-Public hearing: Mr. Hornig said this was in response to changes made in the past town meetings for solar projects. Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing. Minutes for the Meeting of September 9, 2021 Page 5 Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters requested clarification that in a large-scale solar installation regarding the requiring of a Knox Box does it then require a fence as well.  Mr. Creech, Mr. Schanbacher and Ms. Thompson had no comments. Public Comments and Questions:  Lin Jensen requested clarification if trees were not allowed to be cut down to install solar panels. She wants to have the Town not allow to cut trees down for solar panels.  A resident requested clarification on who they could talk to protect trees. The Tree Committee could ask the Town to protect trees in the Tree Bylaw. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board close the public hearing. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adopt the solar regulations as presented and amended, dated May 27, 2021, with authorization for non-substantive technical corrections in consultation with the chair if necessary. Bob Creech seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Fee Schedules- Public hearing: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing. Mr. Loomis presented the most recent changes in the fee schedule. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters requested that at the next meeting to show what the overall economic impact on the Town would be on the change in fees for providing these services.  Mr. Creech agreed with Mr. Peters.  Mr. Schanbacher has no comments or questions.  Ms. Thompson was shocked the Town was not making any money on these services.  Mr. Hornig asked for clarification on the 81x plans. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing to Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of September 9, 2021 Special Permit and Site Plan Review Regulations-Public hearing: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing. There have been substantial changes and this will need to be continued, but will discuss tonight the big issues for design regulations §176- 11. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters said since this was distributed late he would need more time to review to have intelligent questions on this point.  Mr. Creech asked about fill coming onto a site and where the fill would be coming from do we need more detail on that. Mr. Creech asked for clarification on what section 11.3.6.5 Sidewalks and Pathways and was not sure what it meant. Mr. Creech said he liked the statement on Surface Parking Section 11.3.7.2.f. canopy solar energy but how does it get measured.  Mr. Schanbacher did not have enough time to review this.  Ms. Thompson had an old copy and would like to read the updated version and discuss the next time.  Mr. Hornig said section 11.4.5 Sustainable Structures will need to not conflict with the building code. He will work with staff on this. Section 11.5.3 on materials why some should not be used. He was concerned with operational requirements on how sites will run in the future. Tree requirements must be consistent with the Tree bylaw. th Board Members should send comments to staff and staff get these out well before the 18 in the Novus Agenda. Public Comments and Questions:  Mr. Weinman a member of Sustainable Lexington Committee provided a background part of the Three Town Committee on sustainable landscape issues. He looked forward to your review.  Lin Jensen asked on harmful materials section to add green-house gases. For the solar canopy can large healthy trees be specified for what is considered is large when considered to be replaced by solar panels? Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing to Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Work Plan: The Board will discuss this at the next meeting. Staff will distribute it in the next packet. Staff Updates Ms. Loomis said for LexingtonNext there is a virtual housing public forum on September 21 at 7:00 p.m. There is also a get involved mapping exercise and survey and a post-it wall which will help with the drafting on the LexingtonNext Comprehensive Plan on the Lexingtonnext.org website. Minutes for the Meeting of September 9, 2021 Page 7 Board Member Updates: Mr. Hornig presented to the Human Rights Committee the Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Permitting proposed zoning bylaw amendment, which was well received. Upcoming Meetings: The next meeting is Wednesday, September 22 public hearings and continued public hearings and the work plan. The next meeting is October 6 for a Major Site Plan review for 440 Bedford Street. October 20 and November 3 are the next meetings. Adjourn Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of September 9, 2021. Robert Creech seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Robert Creech – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 9:59 pm Lex Media recorded the meeting. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. 69 Pleasant Street:  Sketch Subdivision Plan set dated August 9, 2021 (5 pages).  Project narrative dated August 9, 2021 (1 page).  Application dated August 3, 2021 (5 pages).  Civil Engineer Design Form dated August 9, 2021 (1 page).  Landscape Architect For date August 9, 2021 (1 page).  Staff memo to Planning Board dated September 7, 2021 (2 pages). 75 Outlook Drive:  Sketch Subdivision Plan set dated August 10, 2021 (5 pages).  Application dated August 5, 2021 (5 pages).  Civil Engineer Design Form dated August 9, 2021 (1 page).  Landscape Architect For date August 9, 2021 (1 page).  Project narrative dated August 9, 2021 (1 page).  Staff memo to Planning Board dated September 7, 2021 (2 pages). Zoning Proposals:  Site Plan Review and Special Permit Design Regulations dated September 7, 2021 (11 pages). Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of September 9, 2021  Draft Lexington Preferred Planting List dated September 8, 2021 (5 pages).  Draft Solar Energy Regulations dated May 27, 2021 (4 pages)  Draft Fee Schedule dated September 8, 2021 (3 pages) Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board