HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-15-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2016
A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Battin Hall, Cary Memorial Building was
called to order 7:07 p.m. by Chair Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, with members Charles Hornig,
Tim Dunn, Richard Canale, and Ginna Johnson and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Fields
and Lori Kaufman present.
************* UPCOMING MEETINGS AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE**************
Discussion of upcoming meeting schedule and known agenda items:
The Board decided to meet June 29 instead of July 6, 2016.
*********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************
8 Adams Road, sketch Site Sensitive Development (SSD):
Gary Larson, Landscape Arichtect and Mr. and Mrs. Hiller, the owners, Pat Nelson, attorney, and
Rick Waitt with Meridian Associates were present. Mr Larson said this is a sketch site sensitive
development for a 1.4 acre site. There are two structures and on the site a single family home and
detached garage. The proof plan shows by right the site can be developed with two lots.
Board Comments:
Was the driveway curbcut changed? Yes but maybe moved closer to the original curbcut.
Recommend that the looped driveway be removed to add open space.
The main concern is to preserve the existing house and the existing characteristics of the
site.
Want conditions added for preserving parts of the house and some trees. The applicant
would consider those conditions.
Do you know the historic history of the house and property? Mr. Larson said there was
history but he not familiar with it. Look up the history of the site before you come back
before the Board.
Show how a conventional subdivision plan would fit in.
Audience comments:
The attorney for the 10 Adams Street abutter was concerned about about the screening,
scale, massing, and materials of the proposed building. The next step should include
those items and photo simulations.
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 15, 2016
Board Comments:
This project should have a carriage house vibe and not use a kit.
There should be deed restrictions for the house and also not allow the site to be
subdivided again in the future.
The applicant should decide how to proceed.
0 Grove Street, sketch balanced Housing Development (BHD):
John Farrington, attorney, Ron Lopez, applicant, David Jay, landscape architect, and Jack
Sullivan, engineer were present for this informal sketch plan. The site is 12.42 acres on Grove
Street. This property has been family owned for 75 years. A proof plan would allow a 13 lot
conventional subdivision. If a conventional subdivision is built it would possible be designed by
different developers. Jack Sullivan with Sullivan Engineering Group explained that there would
be a roadway in and out.
A majority of the site is pine trees and more details will be provided later in the process. David
Jay, landscape architect said they will need to be carful with what will be removed and what
would be keep. Mr. Farrington said the GFA would be approximately 40,000 square feet less then
a conventional plan allows and leaves 2.5 acres untouched compared to the conventional
subdivision. The impervious surface would be less then a conventional plan.
There would be a mix for empty nesters and single family homes. Lexington has asked for new
family homes with smaller sizes and more affordable and the new construction in this
development would start at $850,000 not inexpensive, but less then what is available for new
construction in Lexington.
Mr. Farrington said they were in touch with the Trails Committee to allow for relocation of the
trail.
Planning Board Comments:
The center common use, the back of the site being left untouched, a variety housing
types, allowing public access, and trails being addressed are favorable parts of this
development.
The preference would be for a public benefits development instead of balanced housing
development.
Where did the 28 foot road width come from? Mr. Sullivan said the next time all those
details will be provided the next time and the reason for the width was to address snow
events and allow for visitor parking and emergency vehicle access.
Minutes for the Meeting of June 15, 2016 Page 3
Lots 5 and 6 are extremely encumbered by wetlands and Ms. Johnson would like to see
what the situation really is.
The 10% road grade how substantial is it? How walkable is this development?
Where do you see the trail access if approved? Talking about giving an easement to the
trail committee and build a gravel parking lot.
To allow 36 units seems excessive, but the Board does not want to see a conventional
development here that would be a lost opportunity. The Board would like to see the
smaller units limited to 1,500 square foot homes for empty nesters and make the single
family homes larger.
This site shows a steep slope and a diverse, mature eco system.The loss of the tree
canopy is a large concern.
The roadway width seems too wide.
What is the presence of ledge? What extent would you be blasting. Many of these houses
would require a lot of site destruction.
The neighborhood character may be impacted and with all the garages and impervious
surface the applicant could consider using shared parking.
The common space is a concern since it abuts the neighbor.
Concern about noise mitigation from Route 3.
Audience Comments:
This development may impact wild life.
The schools are currently overcrowded.
Support trail access for this property to link to open space and abutting towns.
Citizens for Lexington conservation submitted a petition.
This is the second time our zoning has been challenged. The hope is to preserve the
neighborhood. This plan does not match the zoning.
Concern about increased traffic and lights flashing in our homes and ruining the quality
of life.
This does not support the comprehensive plan. The rural character would be ruined and
the 36 unit development would be worse then the 13 unit conventional subdivision.
This project is not compatible with the current character of the existing neighborhood.
The fiscal impact to Town of Lexington regarding student count and operating cost is a
concern.
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 15, 2016
Cost for police, fire department and public works will create a deficit for this
development.
The BHD is suppose to provide economic diviersity and there is a need to provide
moderate housing prices and this is not providing that.
These are not really for empty nesters.
Traffic safety is a major concern and the blind spot at the top of Grove Street is very
dangerous for bikers.
This is a narrow street and putting all these homes is making it more dangerous.
Water pressure in the early morning is very low. Water pressure this low does not
meeting sanitary, fire and other standards and this proposed project may require booster
pumps and could create a fire hazard for lack of water pressure.
There should be a study on the water flowing through there.
This proposed development would be out of scale with this part of the neighborhood.
This large development is being built on a country road.
Mr. Farrington said the applicant would look at the BHD proposal, but if the only option is a
conventional subdivision, they will consider both plans.
Board Comments:
The property owner has the right to sell the property. If residents want the property to be
purchased by the Town go to the Conservation Commission or the Board of Selectmen.
More smaller units are the only way to bring prices down.
“No” is not an answer the Planning Board can give.
Let the Town purchase the land if so desired.
****************************BOARD MEMBER REPORTS************************
Mr Canale wanted to know if the Board wanted to add recreational marijuana to the final work
plan.
****************************STAFF MEMBER REPORTS**************************
MA Senate Adopts 2311:
Mr. Henry summarized some of the amendments made on the floor of the Senate. The goal is to
try to get this bill to the House before July 31, 2016. The amendments can be found in the packet
Minutes for the Meeting of June 15, 2016 Page 5
for floor amendments to Senate 2311. Mr. Henry explained that there will be some changes that
will be required to the zoning bylaw if the zoning reform bill passes.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 10:17 p.m.
The meeting was recorded by LexMedia.
The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:
Planning Board representatives/Liaisons to Town Committees 91 page).
Draft Planning Board Procedural Rules dated June 15, 2016 (10 pages).
Application for 0 Grove Street dated May 26, 2016 (4 pages).
Sketch plan submittal for 0 Grove Street BHD, dated May 23, 2016 (4 pages).
Application for 8 Adams Street dated May 31, 2016 (8 pages)
Sketch plan submittal for 8 Adams Street BHD, dated May 31, 2016 (8 pages).
Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance, dated June 14, 2016 for “Summary: Floor
Amendments to Senate 2311” (1 page).
Ginna Johnson, Clerk