HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes, 1993-06-28 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1993
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office
Building, was called to order at 8 13 p.m by Chairman Williams, with members
Canale, Davison, Domnitz, and Planning Director Bowyer present Mr. Grant
arrived during Item 101.
***************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************
PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW
99. Form A/93-3. Phillip Road The Board reviewed a plan showing that
parcel A and B, as shown on the plan, which have frontage on Philip Road, are
to be deeded to lot 42B, as shown on the plan, which has the required frontage
on Phillip Road. On the motion of Mr Canale, seconded by Mrs. Davison, the
Board voted 3-0, with Messrs. Grant and Domnitz, who was out of the room, not
present for the vote
to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", dated
June 23, 1993, certified by David J. DeBay, Professional Land Surveyor,
with Form A/93-3, submitted by the Engineering Division, Town of
Lexington, applicant, as it does not require approval under the Subdivi-
sion Control Law.
100. Form A/93-2, Waltham Street and Vinebrook Road. The Board reviewed a
plan showing that lot B, as shown on the plan, now part of a lot with frontage
on Waltham Street, is to be deeded to lot 78A, as shown on the plan, which has
frontage on Vinebrook Road. Lot B is not considered to be a building lot
c On the motion of Mr Canale, seconded by Mrs. Davison, the Board voted 4-0,
with Mr Grant not present for the vote
to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", dated
June 21, 1993, prepared by The BSC Group, Inc , Bedford Mass. , certified
by Donald J Forand, Professional Land Surveyor, with Form A/93-2,
submitted by Frank J Carney, applicant, acting for Kevin P McGrath and
Ivar and Lillian Nielsen, owners, as it does not require approval under
the Subdivision Control Law
*************************** COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ***************************
101 Review of Land Use Change Report The Board started its review of the
report Land Use Change During the Eighties discussing Chapter 12, Policy
Implications.
Mr Domnitz commented that while there is data in the report on tax revenue
from commercial buildings constructed in the eighties, it would be interesting
to know what changes occurred in the value of commercial buildings in exis-
tence in 1980. He wanted to know whether the Town would benefit, in the long
term, by purchasing open land and avoiding the service costs of residential
development
The Board discussed techniques for acquiring or protecting open space used
elsewhere that Lexington has not used yet. Mr. Williams reported on the
attempt, years ago, to use the partial acquisition of development rights
' technique to protect the
part of the Gray Nuns property that faces Massachu-
setts Avenue. Town Meeting did not understand the concept and did not approve
the proposal.
Minutes for the Meeting of June 28, 1993 2
The "transfer of development rights" technique, in which the development
potential of one lot is transferred to another lot, often some distance away.
One difficult feature of that concept is that the "receiving" lot has a higher
than otherwise permitted density while the public benefit, i.e no or little
development, occurs in another neighborhood. Mr Williams pointed out the
Carroll property on Waltham Street is a good example because the Carrolls own
other land nearby to which the development potential could be transferred.
Both the benefit and the burden would be in the same neighborhood.
Mr. Canale commented on the approximately 560 acres of remaining vacant land
that is in private ownership. He suggested the Board might want to set a
target of acquiring a certain percentage of that land for protected open
space. It was agreed the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission had
to work closely to identify priority parcels for open space protection.
Mr Williams suggested and others agreed that the Board members should
systematically review all the existing commercial districts in town to see if
they should be changed to another commercial classification or even to a
residential district.
Mrs Davison commented that combining residential and commercial development
in carefully controlled situations, that is not now permitted by the Zoning
By-Law, could be a good land use tool in certain situations. She asked that
the Planning Director find good examples of mixed residential and commercial
development.
At the next meeting in which the Board reviews the Land Use Change report, the
review will resume with policy choices for commercial development.
The meeting was adjourned at 10 15 p.m.
)� ✓ Leuvt�?,
Jacqueline B. Davison, Clerk