Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-14-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2018 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chair, Richard Canale with members Ginna Johnson, Charles Hornig, Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, and Bob Creech, and planning staff Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. *******************************STAFF REPORTS******************************** Upcoming Meetings & Anticipated Meetings: On February 28 there will be two zoning public hearings, a development administration public hearing for 1106 Massachusetts Avenue for a definitive special permit, ANR for Lincoln Street, 7 Rangeway street determination, and 186 Bedford Street an informal meeting for a potential PDD for Fall Special Town Meeting. March 14 is a preliminary subdivision 1106 Massachusetts Avenue. March 26 & 28 will be pre Town Meetings. Once Town Meeting is done staff is requesting the Board consider meetings be changed from Wednesday to Thursday nights. The TMMA meetings are scheduled for March 14, 15 and 21, 2018. Comprehensive Plan Update: February 27 there will be the first panel discussion on the Transportation Forum Community Meeting. ***********************2018 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING************************** CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Article 38, Small Commercial rezoning Marrett Road/Spring Street: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the continued public hearing at 7:05 p.m. with approximately 2 people in the audience. The applicant has requested that the public hearing be continued to February 28, 2018. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing to February 28 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at 7:00 p.m. Article 37, 331 Concord Avenue PD-3: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the continued public hearing at 7:06 p.m. with approximately 16 people in the audience. Mr. Buckley said the applicant has requested to withdraw, without prejudice the warrant Article 37 in for consideration for the upcoming Town Meeting. Mr. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 14, 2018 Buckley said the applicant has requested to address their future plans with respect to this property at a later date. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to close public hearing at 7:07 p.m. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to accept the withdrawal without prejudice. Article 42, Special Permit Residential Development: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the continued public hearing at 7:26 p.m. with approximately 10 people in the audience. Present was Mr. Daggett to review his proposed warrant article regarding updates. Mr. Henry said he spoke with an expert regarding the age-restricted piece of the article and was advised that there must be at least 80% of the units restricted these days and the proposed warrant article Mr. Daggett presented is a problem and staff is not comfortable with this portion of the proposal in the form presented. Individual Board Comments:  What could be the consequences? This could be considered violating individual rights and could be a problem brought upon an appeal regarding children restrictions. Littleton and Bedford are trying to do this with a modification but no other communities have been found to proceed in this way. Mr. Daggett said he was not sure how to proceed with this and wanted this to be age-restricted 62 years and up and need someone who has legal experience regarding whether to continue with this portion of the proposed article.  The experts in the field say this portion of the proposal could be problematic and are concerned and not in favor of this.  What are the accessibility requirements?  If the Conservation Commission does not want ownership of the open space what would be an alternative? Mr. Daggett was open to suggestions on ownership possibilities.  The shared benefit development limiting the grade to 8% will have a potential impact on the site to achieve that grade would that be an acceptable consequence? Safety issues are a concern. Would it be up to Planning Board or just 8% is the limit? It would be an 8% limit.  Have not seen the financial model. Mr. Daggett will forward it to the Board. Mr. Daggett asked the Board what he should do.  The Board has made suggestions, which should be considered. Minutes for the Meeting of February 14, 2018 Page 3  The Board can ask for the motion to be amended or substituted.  If this was to pass with some fixes would applicants go through this process or just go conventional? Mr. Henry said that based on the data they have with reconstructed financials this bylaw might work on medium size developments in the RO zone with four to five units. There is a sweet spot which might work without the age-restriction and affordable. The 1.5 ratio will not work at all, but 2.0 might work and might be a little better than the conventional developments.  Regarding the housing for older residents should Town Counsel weigh in?  Would like to see the methodology being used.  We see the demand for smaller houses is growing and have a moral obligation to provide affordable units and should require it. The aging population needs to be taken care of and this proposal should go to Town Counsel or hire an expert for a few hours. Can we get some resolution on this and be able to target seniors?  Staff has consulted with our housing expert and we should not keep going till we find someone who agrees with this proposal and none of this will work in the RS district and cannot solve all problems with one solution. There needs to be a break from the RO and RS Districts and address each of the various goals that are trying to be accomplished with this bylaw.  There is a bylaw on the books that only helps the developer and even though this does not work on everything it is still better then what is on the books.  Like the proposal but not sure this would get a 2/3’s vote at Town Meeting. Is it the bylaw or the Board that is not working and maybe we need to establish what the Board needs to address? Audience comments:  Is the intent for the open space to be incorporated into the Homeowners Association or owned by the Town? Owned by the Town.  Would there be recreational space or roads that would be owned by Homeowners Association. There is no desire for the Conservation Commission to handle all this new land. Small parcels will be neglected with this bylaw should not make it mandatory for the Town to own open space based on experience it will detract over the long haul of the development and should leave flexibility on this part of the proposal.  There is a lot to digest and to bring something like this to Town Meeting there needs to be a complete understanding of what you are bringing and have concerns with the complexity of this proposal to get through Town Meeting at this late date could be an Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 14, 2018 issue. There needs to be a lot more knowledge and this is good, but do not think this is ready yet.  Think this is a good plan, but the concern is there would be very few places that you could do anything but a conventional and if the developers do not like it the Town will be stuck with conventional plans for the next year. Individual Board Comments:  The Town would be given the right of first refusal for the land.  Concern about the 8% slope, which should be waivable.  Like what is being proposed, but not sure this is workable.  Work with staff on age-restriction.  The economic viability piece is needed.  There is significant changes on property values. Can staff get a copy of the Board of Selectmen’s report on property assessments to share with the Planning Board?  Review the methodology of assessments. All 2017 data has been used for the data. Did analysis on 10 different projects, what will help you understand the viability methodology?  Need to see the model and find three to six unit developments to compare.  The Planning Board is capable of determining what is needed on internal drives and that should be left to the Planning Board regarding slope and grade.  Try 62 plus with three units, which might possibly pass muster and need to see these units embedded in family neighborhoods.  Accessibility housing would be a better route then age-restriction.  This is an important discussion that the community and the Board need to have.  The Comprehensive Plan should look at the housing demand in detail. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing February 28, 2018 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at 7:00 p.m. Article 44, Medical Marijuana: Chair, Mr. Canale, opened the continued public hearing at 8:48 p.m. with approximately 1 people in the audience. Present was Mr. Handwerker to discuss his zoning warrant Article. Individual Board Comments:  The article presented to the BOS was very confusing. Minutes for the Meeting of February 14, 2018 Page 5  Mr. Hornig presented his substitution to the proposed Article with changes to definitions and not have any changes to the use table and where to allow it. This would be consistent with the Massachusetts Law and Regulations.  Where are these definitions from? The Cannabis Control Commission.  Not in favor of the Use Table and why would this be allowed since Town Meeting made clear their preference of where this should be allowed.  Should wait till the State finalizes the regulations and are adopted.  Want to keep everything as is since Town Meeting already made their preferences known for medical marijuana.  If these changes are not made then recreational marijuana will be allowed all over Town.  Feel have more than enough information on the regulations to make a decision. Audience Comments:  The understanding was the moratorium had no expiration date. It did in December 2018. What would be the impact if the moratorium expired? The general bylaw takes over until changed by Town Meeting or the Courts once the Zoning Bylaw Moratorium expires. The state has not rolled out the recreational marijuana the regulations and allow the BOS to make changes and the Planning Board should not make any changes at this time until the state regulations are in place. Mr. Hornig’s changes maybe ok but wait until things are finalized hold up any changes. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 9:42 p.m. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Johnson, voted 5-0, to not recommend approval of Mr. Handwerker’s article to Town Meeting. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, to pass the substitute motion of Mr. Hornig submitted today failed for lack of a second. The Board should to wait to speak with BOS and place this back on the agenda at a future date. Board Members should review Mr. Hornig’s substitution. *********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION************************ 1106 Massachusetts Avenue, Preliminary subdivision: The applicant has requested to continue the meeting to March 14, 2018. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the meeting to March 14, 2018, in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at 7:00 p.m. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Johnson, it was voted, 5-0, to extend the action deadline to March 16. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 14, 2018 15-17 Fairland Street, Preliminary subdivision: The applicant has requested to continue the meeting to February 28, 2018. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the meeting to February 28, in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at 7:00 p.m. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, to extend the action deadline to March 2. 85 Ward Street, Approval Not Required (ANR): On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0 endorse the ANR plan for 85 Ward Street. 7 Rangeway, Street Determination Modification: Based on field inspection done by staff none of the items the applicant said were completed were done. The applicant was doing this so he could get a CO, but since the items are still not finished staff recommends the Board not vote on this tonight. The new address for this house is on James Street so the applicant moved the curb cut to James Street and staff wants the curb cut on Rangeway Street to be closed. Staff wants the Board to authorize the curb cut change. On a motion of Mr. Hornig, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 5-0, accept the proposed modification to move the curb cut to James Street and closed the curb cut on Rangeway and staff to come back with the performance guarantee. *************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION**************************** Minutes Review and Approval: On a motion of Ms. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 4-0-1 (Mr. Hornig abstained), to approve the minutes of March 7, 2016 April 25, 2016, May 9, 2016, April 24, 2017, December 20, 2017, January 16 , 17, 31, 2018 as amended. On a motion of Ms. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, it was voted, 3-0-2 (Mr. Hornig and Mr. Canale abstained), to approve the minutes as amended for January 10, 2018. On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets.  Citizen’s Article 42 Special Permit Residential Development presentation by Matt Daggett, dated January 31, 2018. (14 pages)  Citizen’s Article 43 Medical Marijuana Zoning Amendments presentation by Ethan Handwerker, dated February 14, 2018. (15 pages) Minutes for the Meeting of February 14, 2018 Page 7  Amendment to Zoning Bylaw to Article 43 Medical Marijuana from Charles Hornig dated January 17, 2018. (1 page)  ANR Plan of Land for 85 Ward Street. (1 page)  Original Decision for 7 Rangeway, Street Determination from September 28, 2016. (1 page) Bob Creech, Clerk