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