Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 03-11-1996 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1996 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Estabrook Hall, was called to order at 7:50 p.m. by Chairman Davison, with members Canale, Davies, Grant, Merrill, Planning Director Bowyer, and Assistant Planner Marino and Secretary Tap present. Steven Colman, a candidate for the Planning Board, was present. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 1996 TOWN MEETING ************************ 54 PUBLIC HEARING. Article 28. Zoning By-Law Living Facilities for Seniors: Mrs. Davison opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. She explained the purpose of Article 28, Living Facilities for Seniors, the Planning Board's proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law It is a technical amendment to make the terminology in the Lexington Zoning By-Law consistent with that used by the State agencies that license and regulate the various types of housing for senior citizens. Some of that terminology has changed since the terms were first introduced into the Zoning By-Law and there are new types of living facilities and terms that are not defined in the By-Law The amendment was prepared by the Board based on the study of state regulations prepared by the Executive Office of Elder Affairs, the supplement to M.G.L. Chapter 19D, and a Metropolitan Area Planning Council study of assisted living facilities. Assisted living, a concept for elderly living that is halfway between independent living and a nursing home, is a new term that will be added to the Definitions section. Assisted living is less costly than a nursing home because the units are smaller and there is no medical staff. Rather, there are support services available to assist the frail elderly with daily living needs for an hour or so a day Other changes to the Zoning By-Law include redefining "living facilities for seniors", adding it to the Use Table and changing the way parking spaces are calculated. Assisted Living facilities will only be allowed in an RD district, with a special permit. Frank Sandy, Town Meeting Member for Precinct 6, asked about the legal ramifications of referring to state laws, which change from time to time, in the Zoning By-Law Mr Grant answered that the changes would be monitored and cross references would change with state laws, which have supremacy In answer to a question about parking calculations, Mr Bowyer stated that the parking requirement is based on studies done at other facilities and that employees of the facilities are no longer included in the calculation. There being no further questions, Mrs. Davison closed the hearing at 8:09 p.m. 55. PUBLIC HEARING: Article 29 Residential Development in Subdivisions and RD Districts: Mrs. Davison opened the hearing at 8.10 p.m. Mr. Merrill explained why the Planning Board is proposing this comprehensive revision of Section 9, Planned Residential Development of the Zoning By-Law, and showed a series of slide illustrating the benefits of cluster type developments compared to conventional subdivisions. He said there are 400 acres of privately owned, vacant land, and 1,600 underdeveloped acres of land left in Lexington. This revision is an attempt to see that land is developed in the most attractive way possible. This comprehensive revision of the existing Section 9 of the Zoning By-Law provides incentives to permit "cluster subdivision" to be an attractive alternative to development by a "conventional" subdivision. Subdivisions constructed in the one-family zoning districts in recent years have been, almost exclusively, "conventional" subdivisions in which very large single family houses are built on individual lots. Houses and roads are often sited to provide the maximum number of lots without respect to the natural features of the land being subdivided. No common open space is provided. The Planning Board wants to encourage cluster subdivisions because they provide an opportunity to maintain some open land in its natural state and the flexibility to site buildings better in relation to the natural features 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 11, 1996 of the land. Few cluster subdivisions have been built because there was not sufficient incentive for builders to use this alternative. Some have argued that the present By-Law has disincentives for cluster subdivisions. At the least, this proposed revision seeks to level the playing field so that the development of cluster subdivisions is as attractive as conventional subdivisions. There were numerous question from the audience. Some of these had to do with the possibility of additions to homes in cluster developments, ownership of the common open space, how impacts of the development will be measured, and what constitutes a public benefit. Ephraim Weiss, 462 Lowell Street, suggested publishing the number of occupants per unit according to the number of bedrooms in a table in the Zoning By-Law so the figures are fixed. They could be amended in later years if the data changes significantly Concern was expressed that purchasers of dwellings in a cluster subdivision should be informed about restrictions on the ability to add on to the dwelling or any other conditions set out in the cluster process. Mr Bowyer suggested that builders should leave some opportunity for expansion and that buyers should be on notice of the restrictions. Charles Hornig, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 8 inquired about restrictions on the construction of new accessory apartment. He was told they were as close as possible to the existing sections of the Zoning Bylaw Tony Galaitsis, 7 Burroughs Road, made a brief presentation, on behalf of a group of residents, illustrating their belief that the new regulations would allow even greater impacts than a conventional subdivision, to the detriment of adjacent residences. Others in the audience refuted his claims. I There being no further questions, the hearing was closed at 10:08 p.m. 56. PUBLIC HEARING: Article 30. Frontage Reduction. Lots in a Small Subdivision: Mrs. Davison opened the hearing at 10:09 p.m. She explained that the Planning Board wants to amend Section 7 4.5, Frontage Reduction, Lots in a Small Subdivision, of the Zoning By-Law by reducing the amount of frontage required, in subdivisions of two lots or less, from 60% to 50% This is seen as a way to include more small subdivision proposals and avoid building streets with hammerhead turnarounds that use up much of the land in the subdivisions. A shared driveway would be allowed instead. These exceptions would need a special permit and would not be allowed by right. The Planning Board would be the Special Permit Granting Authority Questions from the audience included. What is the rationale for any prescribed frontage? Why not eliminate it entirely? Why not include 3-lot subdivisions? How many projects used this provision this year? The answer was one. How many remaining parcels might this apply to? In response to a question from the audience about why the Board of Appeals would not continue to be the Special Permit Granting Authority for a common driveway, Mr. Canale answered that the Planning Board has responsibility for subdivisions and this would eliminate the requirement for an applicant to appear before two boards. There being no further questions, the hearing was closed at 10:30 p.m. i IThe meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m. ' 74--121/7 E Frederick L. Merrill, Jr , Clerk I