Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-07-PB-minPage 1 of 8 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2022 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on September 7, 2022 Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Present: Robert Peters, Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk, Robert Creech, Charles Hornig, and Michael Leon, Associate Member. Also present were Abby McCabe, Planning Director, and Molly Belanger, Planner Robert Peters, Chair, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, September 7, 2022, at 6:03 pm. For this meeting, all members are participating remotely via Zoom. LexMedia is filming this meeting 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. Peters conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Peters provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that materials for this meeting are available on the Town's Novus AGENDA dashboard. Development Administration 95 Hayden Avenue & 128 Spring Street (99 Hayden Avenue) –Public Hearing (Continued from 8/17) Major Site Plan Review Ms. McCabe- the meeting was opened on August 17 and continued to tonight. The Applicant submitted plans since the last meeting, however, staff didn’t have enough time to review them. We suggest continuing to 9/21 at 6 PM, on Zoom On a motion made by Mr. Schanbacher, seconded by Ms. Thompson, the Board voted 5-0 on a roll call vote to continue the public hearing for a major site plan review at 95 Hayden Avenue and 128 Spring Street (99 Hayden Avenue) to Wednesday, September 21 on Zoom. (Board vote: Hornig – yes, Leon – yes, Peters – yes, Schanbacher – yes, Thompson – yes, Creech – yes). 6 Park Street -Street Adequacy Determination (SAD) The Applicant’s Attorney, Phil Lombardo, gave an overview of the project and requested that the Planning Board waive the minimum 20’ pavement width requirement to allow for the current 16’-18’ varying width to remain. The Engineer, Fred Russell, highlighted the test pits that are shown in the details of the submitted plan and mentioned that the roadway would be a candidate for reclamation based on the results. Board Discussion Page 2 of 8 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2022 • A board member stated that they hesitate to disregard a recommendation from the Fire Department for 20’ • Another member agreed and commented that if Fire feels 20’ is best for public safety, then they don’t believe we should ignore that. • A third member commented that they will defer to the opinion of the Fire Department and their need for emergency vehicles. The fire department has the right to impose 20’ under the fire code. In this case, I don’t see a reason to disagree with this. It looks like any retaining wall would be 4” high at most. No grading may be needed. Land that was described as being lost is a part of the right of way and not a part of the abutter’s property. Maybe you can work with the Fire Department to see if there is a compromise. • A fourth member stated their agreement with everyone. If Fire needs 20’ then we should listen. I understand the applicant’s attempt to be reasonable with improvements, but the Fire Department's suggestion is important. A waiver for width was approved previously for a road that had much more sloping than this road, and I don’t feel this site will have issues widening the road. • I have heard the support of the abutters, and I drove by the site and noticed it did seem narrow. • The Applicant stated that a past street adequacy determination on Park Street was not required to pave to a width of 20’. o I understand your point, however, there was a past practice that may have not been appropriate, and the current staff is working now to have more of a best practice. Public comments • Two abutters raised concerns about potential speeding if Park Street were to be widened to 20’. • An abutter asked which side the road would be widened on. o Fred Russell responded that the Applicant would consult the Town Engineer to determine which side of the road will cause the least amount of impact to neighbors. • Two abutters requested that the Planning Board require a 20’ width, stating difficulties with delivery trucks blocking the road at times. Board Discussion • A board member clarified that the default rule on widening a road is to center the pavement in the right of way, but there’s no reason why we couldn’t instead do what Mr. Russell said. I’d suggest that we approve the staff motion requiring widening the pavement to 20’ to Reed Street. • Ms. McCabe pointed out that if the Planning Board votes to require different improvements than what is shown on the Applicant’s plans, then the motion should be expanded to include a requirement for the Applicant to update their plans to be submitted to Planning and Engineering staff to review. Page 3 of 8 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2022 • The Applicant requested a continuance. • A board member asked Ms. McCabe if allowing the Applicant to return on September 21 would be enough time for staff to review new plans. o Ms. McCabe responded that it depends on when the applicant would submit revised plans. Ms. McCabe also pointed out that the Fire Department recommended 20’ feet, so the revised plans should show which side of the road will be widened. o Mr. Lombardo mentioned that the Applicant would like to discuss the concerns with the Fire Department, and a two-week timeframe seems adequate for that. • A board member requested that the Applicant write a letter to the Planning Board, requesting an extension on their action deadline as the action deadline will have nearly passed by the time of the next meeting, and staff will need time to write a decision. On a motion made by Mr. Schanbacher, seconded by Ms. Thompson, the Board voted 5-0 on a roll call vote to continue the public meeting for a street adequacy determination at 6 Park Street to Wednesday, September 21 on Zoom, and to continue the action deadline to October 5 at the written request of the Applicant. (Board vote: Hornig – yes, Leon – yes, Peters – yes, Schanbacher – yes, Thompson – yes, Creech – yes). 69 Pleasant Street – Public Hearing (Continued from 8/3 & 6/28) Site Sensitive Special Permit Residential Development Definitive Subdivision Mike Novak of Patriot Engineering gave a brief presentation of changes made to the plans that were based on feedback given at previous meetings, including a trench drain at the bottom of the drive, a designated mailbox location, the designation of a moderate-income unit, and how the new plans address Engineering’s previous stormwater comments. Mr. Novak was accompanied by Todd Cataldo, the project developer, and Jeff Thoma, the project landscape architect. Board Discussion • A board member asked the Applicant to clarify whether “moderate-income unit” meant 150% of the area median income (AMI). o Mr. Novak confirmed that the unit will be 150% of AMI. o The board member made a follow-up comment that the price of this unit should be around $500,000. o Mr. Cataldo mentioned that the unit may be rented out instead of sold, but that a decision has not yet been made on this. • A board member recalled the Applicant planning to build homes with low-pitched roofs. o Mr. Cataldo confirmed that some of the units will have low-pitched roofs. • Ms. McCabe noted that the Applicant has applied for a fifth waiver request, to allow retaining walls to be within 4’ of the property line. • Ms. McCabe also noted that the Historical Commission has revised their recommendations. They request an exterior architectural plan of the existing house, so they may approve any changes, and that the exterior remain as it is, in perpetuity. The Page 4 of 8 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2022 Applicant was not agreeable to submitting architectural plans to be approved or denied by the Historical Commission. Yesterday, staff submitted a revised memo that requires the Applicant to submit architectural plans to the Historical Commission for their review, with the understanding that the plans will not be subject to the approval of the Historical Commission. • Ms. McCabe pointed out that Engineering reviewed the updated plans and confirmed that they do comply with stormwater regulations that are relevant to this project. The Applicants’ plans were responsive to the feedback received at the last meeting. The Applicant should submit their stormwater permit to engineering. There was a concern about site visibility and driveway cuts. Engineering said the roundabout for the area is in the design stage and they have been working with the applicant. They don’t have any major concerns with this proposal. • A board member asked Ms. McCabe to share the timeline for the new intersection construction. o Ms. McCabe mentioned that there is no timeline yet and that the project is in a preliminary stage. • A board member asked for clarification on whether the common drive will be a subdivision road or not. If not, then the decision will need to be written around this. o The Applicant clarified that the common drive will not be a subdivision road. • A board member noted that the lots being proposed don’t need a minimum frontage due to the special permit for which the Applicant is applying. Public comment • An abutter voiced their concern for the retaining wall that is proposed on the side of 6 Moon Hill and asked if the trees near the property line will be affected. The abutter also mentioned that the existing hemlock trees on Pleasant Street are infected with a disease that kills hemlocks. If you stick with hemlocks then they will require constant maintenance, and I request planting another species. o Mr. Cataldo mentioned that there may not end up being a need for a retaining wall and that all work will be done on 69 Pleasant Street, within the property lines. Mr. Cataldo also mentioned that he believes hemlocks will work best for this project. o Mr. Thoma mentioned that he looked through the list of plantings, and the Hemlock tree was chosen for the screening it provides. The trees will be maintained through the Home Owner’s Association and will be inspected regularly for any disease. • An abutter voiced their concern for traffic safety at the intersection that is located right next to the property. o Mr. Novak noted that the 69 Pleasant Street development team has had multiple discussions with the Engineering Department and that they have complied with Engineering’s request. The plans will also tie into Engineering’s plans for the new intersection. Page 5 of 8 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2022 • Another abutter pointed out their concern with the potential traffic safety issue, stating that a rotary slows traffic, but also creates an opportunity for multiple accidents. The board should require more from the Engineering Department to manage this. Board Discussion • A board member noted their appreciation for the Applicant working so closely with the Engineering Department. The member also acknowledged that the Engineering Department has made it clear that they prefer the current design of only one curb cut to the four curb cuts shown in the proof plans. The member is inclined to support the preference of Engineering, and the member also supports the existing dwelling being turned into a multi-family unit. They think the issues have been addressed the best they can and they read through the draft decision and are happy to go forward with it. • Another board member mentioned that they don’t have any concerns with the current decision. • A board member sympathized with the abutter who voiced their concerns for traffic safety, but the current design is much safer than the by-right proof plan and noted that the Historical Commission should not have authority to approve or deny the architectural plans of the existing house that is to remain. • A third board member mentioned that the current plan of one curb cut instead of four curb cuts as shown on the proof plan, is much better and that they support the project. • Ms. McCabe pointed out that condition #35 is the suggested comprise condition to require that the Applicant submit plans to the Historical Commission, but that the plans aren’t subject to their approval. Condition #36 may not be necessary and was added in case there was a future demolition of the house. However, the applicant is okay with preserving the house. If they tear down the house, they would need to go back to the Historical Commission and Planning Board. • A board member pointed out that there the project is requesting a waiver to retaining wall height requirements, but that the Planning Board is not actually permitted to waive this requirement through a waiver, and instead should be modified under a special permit. This should be changed in the decision. o Ms. McCabe noted that the decision could expand on this within the project findings. • A board member asked the Applicant to clarify how long the project may take to construct. o Mr. Cataldo stated their goal of beginning in November and finishing in around three years. o Mr. Cataldo expects the first occupancy about one year from the commencement of the project. Page 6 of 8 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2022 Mr. Peters announced that Mr. Leon is participating as a voting member for Mr. Creech who was absent at the initial public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Schanbacher, seconded by Ms. Thompson, the Board voted 5-0 on a roll call vote to approve a site sensitive special permit residential development and definitive subdivision at 69 Pleasant Street, with conditions. (Board vote: Hornig – yes, Leon – yes, Peters – yes, Schanbacher – yes, Thompson – yes, Creech – yes). Board Administration Review of OSRD Draft Regulation Bylaw Ms. McCabe updated the board members that staff has not yet updated the draft with comments from August, and that staff is requesting a continuance to October 12. There were no public comments. Mr. Hornig mentioned that the Planning Board should wrap up the Comprehensive Plan review so that we can engage with the OSRD draft regulation bylaw in October so that there is time to create an outreach plan. Review Final Guidelines for MBTA Communities Ms. McCabe mentioned that Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development, has summarized the new MBTA guidelines and has sent this summary to staff and to town elected officials to review. Mr. Leon asked if the plan is to incorporate overlay districts and whether the Planning Board has enough time to review this for the 2023 Spring Town Meeting. Ms. McCabe recommends that the Planning Board bring an article to the 2023 Spring Town Meeting. The Comprehensive Plan has taken longer than expected, but the Planning Board should still push to review the MBTA guidelines. We were initially required to zone for a much higher zoning capacity so this should help with timing. Mr. Peters asked Ms. McCabe if there is an estimate of when this will be scheduled on an agenda, and Ms. McCabe said that the agenda date is to be determined. Staff Updates Ms. McCabe mentioned that there is no draft annual report to review at this meeting. Mr. Hornig asked if a motion is needed for the Chair or Planning Director to submit the report on behalf of the Planning Board. Page 7 of 8 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2022 McCabe clarified that the Chair will need to sign off on the annual report, or that we should authorize the Chair to submit the report. On a motion made by Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Thompson, the Board voted 5-0 on a roll call vote to authorize Ms. McCabe to approve and submit the annual report. (Board vote: Hornig – yes, Peters – yes, Schanbacher – yes, Thompson – yes, Creech – yes). Board Updates Mr. Hornig announced that the SPRD Committee met this morning, didn’t get as far as hoped, but we are moving along with modeling what the new bylaw may look like. Ms. McCabe announced that the Hosmer House public hearing was scheduled for September 13, but this will not occur, as the applicant has not submitted updated plans. Staff recommend the public hearing be opened and continued to a new date and time. Members should show up at 7 PM to open and continue the public hearing to October 19, so that the advertisements don’t have to be redone. Mr. Hornig asked if the ZBA will also be able to meet on October 19, as the September 13 meeting was a joint meeting. Ms. McCabe was not immediately aware of the ZBA’s availability for September 13, but if they are not available, then they can meet separately. Review of Meeting Minutes Some board members requested changes to the draft meeting minutes. On a motion made by Mr. Schanbacher, seconded by Ms. Thompson, the Board voted 5-0 on a roll call vote to approve the meeting minutes of August 17, with amendments. (Board vote: Hornig – yes, Leon – yes, Peters – yes, Schanbacher – yes, Thompson – yes, Creech – yes). On a motion made by Mr. Schanbacher, seconded by Ms. Thompson, the Board voted 5-0 on a roll call vote to adjourn the meeting. (Board vote: Hornig – yes, Peters – yes, Schanbacher – yes, Thompson – yes, Creech – yes). Meeting adjourned at 8:47 PM Page 8 of 8 Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 7, 2022 List of Documents: 95 Hayden Avenue & 128 Spring Street (99 Hayden Avenue) Online application link: https://lexingtonma.viewpointcloud.com/records/64765 6 Park Street -Street Adequacy Determination (SAD) Online application link: https://lexingtonma.viewpointcloud.com/records/65095 69 Pleasant Street – Public Hearing (Continued from 8/3 & 6/28) Site Sensitive Special Permit Residential Development Definitive Subdivision Online application link: https://lexingtonma.viewpointcloud.com/records/56878 Draft Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2022.