Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-01-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2017 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Battin Hall, Cary Memorial Building was called to order 6:00 p.m. by Chair, Richard Canale with members Charles Hornig, Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, Tim Dunn, and Ginna Johnson and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Fields, and Lori Kaufman present. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** Recreational Marijuana and Local Regulation Update: Update, the staff has received some phone calls regarding the referendum. The Town is not taking any action at this Town Meeting. Staff and Town Counsel are working on some affirmative action and some regulatory items to determine what action should be taken for the next Annual Town meeting. General Updates: TMMA will be reviewing the Planning Articles on March 16 in Battin Hall. The Planning Board will meet with the BOS regarding Brookhaven on February 15. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ Lexington Hills Special Permit Convention Subdivision, Modification Request: Present was Don Borenstein, attorney and Habib Amanapour, the applicant requesting a relocation of a pedestrian easement and impervious surface coverage limit modification. The reason for the request is because there is a buyer for two lots. The remaining lots would be subject to the Floor Area Ratio adopted at the 2016 Annual Town Meeting. The applicant met with Greenways Committee and offered $3,000.00 for them to use for any maintenance, extension and improvements of footpaths in the vicinity of the Lexington Hills. Board Comments:  Grading of lots is not a smooth transition how would you ease that transition? Mr. Borenstein said the new location would be better for grading purposes.  Owners often come back to add additional impervious surface for additions, pools and other items how would that be dealt with? The remaining lots will be limited by GFA and site coverage. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 1, 2017  The site of the new easement is where there is a transformer and utility boxes will you be willing to relocate it? Mr. Borenstein said when walking the trail there was still eight feet of clearance, but would extend it if the Board wants that done. Audience Comments:  Mr. Ohmart has no objection to moving the easements  Ten feet seems narrow for an easement shouldn’t it be 20 feet?  How would the floor area ratio make up for the increased impervious surface?  This was approved in 2007 and this project needs to get moving.  If the restrictions on the impervious surface are removed there is concern about impacts to abutting developments like Potter Pond.  Concerned giving up too much by not regulating impervious on this site. All runoff must be addressed lot by lot. Board Comments:  The transformer and utility box should be moved.  The applicant should rework the numbers before we make the change so the applicant does not have to come back again since this is not the first time they have come back before this Board. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, that this is a minor change. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to approve the requested changes and add moving the transformer and utility box and the pathway will be constructed from the road to the property line. PUBLIC HEARINGS 0 Grove Street, Definitive conventional subdivision: Chair Richard Canale opened the continued public hearing at 6:43p.m.with approximately 50 people in the audience. Present was John Farrington, attorney, Ron Lopez, applicant and President of North Shore Residential Development, Jack Sullivan, engineer of record, David Jay, landscape architect, and Dan Mills, transportation consultant. We received many letters from abutters and residents regarding the project. Mr. Farrington received from staff a memorandum with all the conditions requested by the Board. If the water issue cannot be resolved, wells and pressurized tanks will be used. Jack Sullivan said that he met with Engineering on drainage, water connections, and water pressure. The Town hired a water consultant and believe they have a solution to address the low water pressure issue and are on a fast track for this year. The Town will do its own test and not allow any connections Minutes for the Meeting of February 1, 2017 Page 3 until they are sure it works. If there are any concerns, wells and pressure tanks will then be used by the developer. A low pressure sewage system will be used, and each unit will have its own E1 grinder pump which each homeowner will be responsible for its own system. The Engineering Department sent a response memo which was made public and shared with the Board that they were fine with provisions made by the applicant except the retaining walls, which will be addressed when they are done. All details will be released shortly by Engineering. Board Comments:  Trail access was only being committed to partially by the applicant. It needs to be completed when Vera Lane is constructed. Mr. Farrington said they would have to go to the Conservation to complete the trail. The Board wanted a commitment to finish the trail and if it cannot be completed then come back to the Board for alternatives. Mr. Farrington said they would do that.  This vote should be postponed since all documentation has not been seen by the Board Members. (A memo can be found in the Planning Office packet for this meeting). Mr. Farrington said he submitted a memo regarding conservation and the applicant has met with all the statute requirements and will require a vote tonight. Audience comments:  The trail locations were requested to be shown for clarification and need it wider than 8 feet. Town regulations should be made to comply with state laws.  Site lines seem to be an issue along the frontage of the property. If a fence was built or snow banks were created there could be an issue. Has this been considered?  Traffic is traveling faster then what is listed and site lines and crosswalks need to be modified based on that information.  The Greenways Committee would prefer a balanced housing development (BHD) to allow for more trail ways.  The Town should commission an independent traffic consultant to conduct a new traffic study since information used is outdated and based on other information was not accurate. There was concern regarding the crosswalks.  This vote should be either postponed or denied since this could exacerbate an existing problem until it is fixed.  Haven’t heard anything final from the Conservation Commission on the vernal pool and lot 5 should have been removed.  Concerned about this project from the start and especially with cars whizzing by at 40 miles per hour that is a dangerous concern. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 1, 2017  The Balanced Housing Development (BHD) would provide better trail access. Deny this conventional to get a better BHD project. Board and staff comments:  The action deadline is February 13, and if not voted on this will be a constructive approval.  The preference is for the BHD, but the Board must approve this plan if it meets the requirements of the regulations for a conventional subdivision.  The draft decision will have a condition regarding the water situation. If denied it must be because it does not meet the requirements and this is the only conventional plan that has been seen in the last several years that requires no waivers. There are 16 conditions that are listed in this decision.  Not sure this meets all the requirements like the access and all reports from Town Boards.  Was looking for an extension.  The reality is this is a waiver less plan and courts do not allow any relief from this.  The Board has to list specifically what the denial is based on, in order to show it is legally defendable.  Revise condition 9 that the path would have to continue all the way to the property line.  Drainage patterns, trees not listed and many accommodations have not been made that were promised. Mr. Farrington said the conditions listed do not fall within the realm of the Planning Board and the applicant does not have the legal ability to extend the time. This meets all the state requirements and regulations. Mr. Sullivan said that everything that was requested has been provided and now the Board looks to deny a family the right to develop their land. Mr. Farrington submitted all paper work and the only update will be on the path continuing to the property line. The limit of work (LOW) line is where trees will be removed and replanted on the right of way. Ms. Johnson will submit a list tomorrow morning to staff regarding her concerns, which will be on file in the Planning Office in the meeting file. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-2, (Mr. Hornig and Mr. Dunn opposed), to continue the public hearing Wednesday, February 8, 2017, 7:30 pm in the Planning Office 0 Grove Street, Balanced Housing Development: Minutes for the Meeting of February 1, 2017 Page 5 Chair Richard Canale opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. with approximately 50 people in the audience. The applicant requested a continuance to March 15, 2017. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1 (Dunn abstained), to continue the public hearing to March 15 in Battin Hall at 7:00 p.m. Cedar Street, Balanced Housing Development: The applicant has requested a continuance to February 15, 2017. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Dunn abstained), to continue the public information session to February 15 in Battin Hall at 6:30 p.m. ****************2017 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS*************** PUBLIC HEARINGS Definitions, Article 41: Chair Richard Canale opened the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. with approximately 10 people in the audience. Mr. Fields did the presentation on the article which can be found on file in the Planning Office in the meeting file. Audience comments:  Are these definitions going to require a two thirds vote? Yes.  Does eliminating the word cellar have any impact or is it just a word?  Do not think the Board should go through with this now but should wait to see how last year’s zoning bylaw changes play out.  This sounds like reasonable changes.  Can you put an elderly parent in the basement with this change?  The definition changes are hard to understand and need to make changes so it is clearer to get the two third votes needed at Town Meeting. Board comments:  Was there any substantive changes made since the prior draft? Small changes.  For some proposed buildings this may have some impacts, but this is mostly for the new buildings. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. Two Family Homes, Article 42: Chair Richard Canale opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. with approximately 7 people in the audience. Ms. Johnson presented the article and the presentation can be found on file in the Planning Office in the meeting file. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 1, 2017 Audience comments:  Requirement that a garage cannot face the street is not fair and should not keep that restriction.  Can this be sold as a condo? If a senior unit, it must be owner occupied and the other senior restricted.  Look at the demographics to address changing needs.  Look to change the requirements, many of the existing houses do not meet the current standards.  What about input from the Historic Districts Commission, Historical Commission and potential Neighborhood Conservation Districts? This would not be impacted by them.  Want clarification on the deed restrictions. How will the town enforce senior residency?  What happened last year with this proposal? It was indefinitely postponed.  Recommend the Board not bring this article forward. This should not be allowed throughout the Town. This is so restrictive that it makes it not useful. Every article from Planning Board is trying to get it more affordable at the expense of the landowners and homeowners.  Time to have a bigger conversation for the Comprehensive Plan and visioning before telling everyone what they can do with their property.  Currently there are two homes priced under a million dollars like this and this will allow developers to create less expensive homes. This will possibly allow homes for less than a million to be on the market.  If this is not feasible, then why upset Town Meeting? This needs to be vetted out more. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Deliberations Definitions, Article 41: Discussion included deleting the dormer and finding out the fire requirements and the building codes. Staff will follow up on the building standards as discussed. On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to bring this article forward to Town Meeting with modifications that staff will research regarding dormers. Two-Family Homes, Article 42: The ZBA would be better setup to be the SPGA to deal with these small streamlined processes. The senior housing requires owner occupancy and makes it not viable. Affordable units won’t even meet the cost of the construction. Need to keep this within being economically feasible and make it useable. Talk to some builders to see what could make it work. Minutes for the Meeting of February 1, 2017 Page 7 Some restrictions are too strict and need to be scaled back to make them economical. Need to loosen up a bit on some of the performance standards. Given current market believe there is a market for this type of housing. More work is needed on this Article to get consensus before voting on whether or not to bring it forward to Town Meeting. Special Permit Residential Developments, Article 40: Mr. Henry updated the Board on the three proposed drafts that were provided to the Board. Mr. Henry said staff needs the Board to provide direction on the variable provided in the third draft. The Board should review all three proposals. Scenic Roads, Article 33: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Canale recused himself, Mr. Dunn abstained) to remove Bennington Road from the Article. ****************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************* Minutes: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the minutes of November 2, November 30, and December 7, 2016 as amended. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 10:43 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Application for Vera Lane subdivision (0 Grove Street) (4 pages).  Narrative statement on 0 Grove Street from Ron Lopez dated December 26, 2016 (6 pages).  Memorandum from Engineering on 0 Grove Street, dated December 30, 2016 (4 pages).  Letter from Keith Ohmart (Greenways Committee), dated January 4, 2017 (1 page).  Draft decision regarding 0 Grove Street, from staff (5 pages).  Memorandum from John Farrington regarding 0 Grove Street Conservation Commission memo, dated 1/4/17 (4 pages).  Definitive subdivision plan Vera Lane, dated 10/27/16 (11 pages).  Cross section plan regarding Vera Lane, dated December 21, 2016 (1 page).  Conceptual Pedestrian Improvements regarding 0 Grove Street, dated January 13, 2017 (4 pages).  List of outstanding issues regarding 0 Grove Street from Ginna Johnson (2 pages).  Application for Lexington Hills for special permit modification (17 pages). Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of February 1, 2017  Article 42 Amendment to Zoning bylaw two-family homes (2 pages).  Article 41 Amendment to Zoning bylaw revised definitions (2 pages).  Power point presentation on Zoning bylaw articles 41 and 42 (28 Pages).  Letter from Assistant Fire Chief, John Fleck regarding blasting operations, dated January 27, 2017 (2 pages). Ginna Johnson, Clerk