Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-10-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2021 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on February 10, 2021, Virtual Meeting per Governor Baker’s Order at 7:03 pm Present: Robert Creech, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Ginna Johnson, Clerk; Richard Canale; and Charles Hornig. Also present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director and Sheila Page, Assistant Planning Director. Robert Creech, Chair, read the agenda into the record, introduced members of the Planning Board and Planning Department Staff, and called the meeting to order on Wednesday, February 10, 2021. Mr. Creech read the following statement relative to the recent outbreak of COVID-19. Good evening. Consistent with Governor Baker's Executive Order of March 12, 2020, suspending specific provisions of MGL. c. 30A, §18 due to the current State of Emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of COVID-19, this meeting of the Lexington Planning Board is being conducted remotely. In-person attendance is not permitted at this time. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access real-time proceedings via technological means. In the event access cannot be provided, an audio or video recording of this meeting will be available for review on the Town of Lexington website or through LexMedia as soon as possible after the meeting. For this meeting, the Lexington Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. Specific information for remote participation by the public can be found on the Planning Office’s web page. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. At this time, I will provide a brief review of the meeting proceedings. 1. For each public hearing, the Planning Board will request a presentation from the Applicant or petitioner, followed by an opportunity for the Planning Board to ask questions or provide comments. Then the floor will be open for public comments. 2. All comments during public participation need to be limited to 2 minutes or less and must be respectful. 3. When the time comes for public participation, if you are dialing in, you may use *6 to mute or unmute yourself and *9 to raise or lower your hand. 4. If at any time during the meeting you have a question, please use the Q&A feature, and staff will respond. Town Meeting a) Public Hearing: Retaining Walls, Article 40 - Amend the Lexington Zoning Bylaw to regulate retaining walls over four (4) feet in height. Chair, Bob Creech opened the public hearing. Ms. Gingras, Zoning Enforcement Administrator and Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner were present. Ms. Gingras presented a power point presentation to explain this proposed Article 40 and its changes. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 2021 Board Member Comments and Questions: Ms. Johnson said that by changing the grade of an area over three or four feet you are significantly changing the character of the neighborhood and did not believe this article goes far enough. Her concern was if the wall was unattractive the abutter would then need to find a way to screen it to mitigate the impact at their expense. The major concern was to protect town character and abutters from impacts of construction on neighboring properties since we cannot control the material or height of the wall we should not allow walls four feet or greater to be constructed closer than six feet to the property line. Mr. Peters asked for clarification on a fence being constructed on a lot line would they then be sharing the ownership with the abutter. Ms. Gingras said that would be a private matter between two neighbors as in the bylaw. Is it correct that a fence currently needs to be setback six feet? Ms. Gingras said currently you can put a fence up to six feet high on the lot line. Mr. Peters believed a wall should not be permitted to be built up to the property line and should be setback, but a fence could be built on the property line. Mr. Hornig asked was there any distinction made between a wall and a retaining wall? Ms. Gingras said no. Mr. Hornig said there should be a clear interpretation on how we should treat retaining walls. Mr. Hornig said the wording could be made to read more clearly in 4.3.1.3. Mr. Creech said we should differentiate between a wall and a retaining wall and the wall should setback from the lot line and not disturbing the neighboring property. Mr. Kelly said this proposed article would create a setback for walls from the property line based on the height of the structure and that is how far it would be set back. Ms. Johnson asked if this had to be coordinated with the Planning Board Subdivision Regulations. One wall not greater than four feet in height may be located the distance of the height of the wall from the existing natural grade prior to disturbance away from the property line. Mr. Hornig wanted to provide clarity that this would be beyond the scope of the article and showed that we can regulate retaining walls over four feet, but can’t touch the ones under four feet. Ms. Johnson said we should not allow retaining walls higher than five feet for safety reasons. Mr. Hornig asked if they were talking retaining walls anywhere on a property that needed to be thought through. Board Members should send their thoughts to Ms. Gingras by next week. Public comments: Mr. Leonard Morse-Fortier asked for clarity on if a two foot wall and a four foot fence on top of it would be allowed. Ms. Gingras said you could not put the fence Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 2021 Page 3 on top of the wall. th This will be discussed further at the February 24 meeting. b) Public Hearing, Article 41: Structures within Setbacks - Amend the Lexington Zoning Bylaw to establish regulations for accessory structures (such as sheds) of limited size and height to be located within a side or rear setback. Chair, Bob Creech opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Kelly presented the power point presentation for the proposed Article 41, for structures in the setbacks. Board Member Comments and Questions: Ms. Johnson wanted to see structures five feet off the lot line to allow some separation and screening by the property owner on their land. She asked for clarification if it was based on the footprint or roof overhang size? Mr. Kelly said roof overhang size. Please spell out that it refers to the roof overhang. Mr. Hornig was disappointed that this didn’t include playsets for their children. The only change suggested would be to change “chicken coop” it was too specific but listing something about keeping containers for animals. Mr. Peters said playsets should be included and should look for a way to accommodate for solar in the setbacks. Mr. Creech said this is seeming to deal with large conventional lots. Can something be added that addressed irregularly shaped large lots where abutters could be hugely disturbed by a structure being added and require a variance for a playset or something related? Mr. Kelly said you should not be able to get a variance at any time for a shed. Mr. Creech will look into another option to not stop this amendment. Audience Comments and Questions: Mr. Barnert brought this to the Planning Board 15 years ago to allow sheds since there was so many requests for sheds to be allowed no closer than feet from the property line. Tina McBride felt five feet would be too close to the lot line. People should be good neighbors and discuss with them before doing something like this since some yards may be small. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearings for Articles 40 and 41 to Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Richard Canale seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll Call: Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 2021 c) Public Hearing, Article 44: Amend the Use and General Regulations including Table 1, Permitted Uses and Development Standards; § 5.1 Off- street Parking and Loading; §9.5, Site Plan Review; and §10, Definitions) and updates from the 2020 Special Town Meeting (such as Short-Term Rentals and requirements from the Attorney General review) Chair, Bob Creech opened the public hearing. Ms. Loomis presented the updated information based on comments received since January 21, 2021 for the overview of Town-wide Amendments in Article 44. The following items were updated: §135-3.4 Table 1, Permitted Uses and Development Standards Board Member Comments and Questions: Mr. Canale said he hoped we would not expand the CM District to any other locations. With sites that are not readily accessible within the CM District, what is the value of adding new uses like food trucks which may be problematic for the Town and what would be the implications on potential development in the future? Ms. Loomis said they were added for clarification based on questions that they were receiving. Mr. Hornig asked for clarification on if Biotech manufacturing would be included in the Pilot and Wet Manufacturing definition. Ms. Loomis said yes. In Q.1.08 Accessory Uses for Commercial Uses Mr. Hornig asked for clarification on the section regarding distribution and did not believe we should prohibit distribution and should just allow it. The Board recessed at 9:14 pm and resumed its meeting at 9:17 p.m. Ms. Loomis presented the amendment §135.1.5 Table of Loading Requirements. The staff received comments and based on a conversation with property owners in the Hartwell Zoning Area. Ms. Loomis wanted to discuss proposed changes in the revised amendment from January 21, 2021. It would reduce the number of loading bays Board Members Comments and Questions: All Board Members liked the revised numbers. Ms. Page presented the amendment §135-5.1.7 Preferential Rideshare Parking. This article remains the same as proposed on January 21, 2021, but increases the number of required carpool or van pool parking spaces town-wide. Mr. Hornig asked for clarification on loading bay sizes. Staff will discuss that. Ms. Page presented the amendment §135-5.1.8 Bicycle Parking Facilities. This article remains the same as proposed on January 21, 2021, but increases the number of required bicycle parking spaces town-wide. Ms. Page presented the amendment §135-5.1.9 Location of Off-street Parking Spaces and Loading Bays. This article remains the same as proposed on January 21, 2021. The new section added was §135-5.1.9.1 and was taken from Article 45 Hartwell Innovative Park (HIP) and was meant to encourage shared parking Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 2021 Page 5 lots everywhere and not just in the HIP zoning area. Another piece would be that off-street parking spaces on the parking and loading plan may be land- banked for future use to decrease impervious areas. Ms. Loomis wanted feedback from the Board. Board Member Comments and Questions: Mr. Canale asked if the number of parking spaces granted in a special permit or site plan review are granted forever and they can just build them or would there be circumstances where they may need to get permission. He requested the last sentence inserted reflect that it was based on the previous plan approval process. Mr. Canale §135-5.1.9.1(a)(ii) said the shuttle service would be available during business hours; it should reflect the frequency and how long they would have to wait for service. Mr. Hornig said he was concerned with frequency and that needed to be clear what that meant. Ms. Johnson said the intent might be good, but the results were not. She asked if they consulted with other communities for addressing similar issues. Ms. Page responded staff could do some research on that. Mr. Peters said he thought this was a good idea but there needs to be something on frequency for the shuttle service. Mr. Creech shared his edits to the plan for his vision and would share the document with staff electronically. Ms. Loomis presented the amendment to §135-5.1.9.11 Design Standards. There have been some recent changes based on discussions with the Sustainable Lexington Committee and landowners about electric vehicle charging stations. The question was how many should be installed at the onset of the project so what they install now will not be obsolete before the full need arose. They would be using LEED requirements of 2% of the total parking spaces. Audience Comments and Questions: Cindy Arens from the Sustainable Lexington Committee said in Boston the level/type of chargers determined how many would need to be installed and we should keep an eye on this and see how it would be growing. This was going to grow faster than we think and we need to make sure our properties are properly servicing the community and others who use the parking facilities. Board Member Comments and Questions: Mr. Canale said this does not say property owners would ever need to do more than 2% and wondered if the language is tight enough. Staff would look into it. Mr. Hornig said if there needs to be demand for the parking chargers and as things become clearer and we could review the zoning. Ms. Johnson said it was a little bit loose and needed more requirements in the zoning otherwise we would get the least amount of infrastructure. They might Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 2021 want it make it 25% of total parking spaces by 2030 and get relief from that requirement by special permit. The more we specify the requirements the better. Mr. Peters said he was of two minds. There ought to be tighter requirements that would get to this future sooner than later, but was also aware that equipment is changing rapidly and what do you require when you know the equipment would be obsolete and would have to be changed in 10 years. We should encourage an electric fleet for the future. Public Comments and Questions: Mr. Leonard Morse-Fortier said on behalf of the Disability Commission there was concern about making sure there would be handicapped spaces that were normally required remain as a percentage of the total parking spaces and make sure the language available tied to the populations of the buildings. Solar collectors are starting to show up on top of towers in parking lots and just something to consider. Ms. Loomis presented the proposed amendment §135-5.1.9.12 Design Standards regarding parking between a structure and a public right-of-way to which the property has direct access is not permitted, except if screened or for accessible or temporary parking. Board Member Comments and Questions: Mr. Canale asked for clarification if this would allow along Hartwell Avenue everything to be a parking structure. Mr. Hornig said this was about surface parking. Staff would look into that. Ms. Johnson suggested looking at language from other communities could be helpful. Ms. Page presented the proposed amendment §135-5.5.10 Traffic Standards Circulation it was requested that bicycles entrances and amenities be separated from car entrances for safety and comfort issues. Board Member Comments and Questions: Ms. Johnson asked for clarification on the separation of bicycles and pedestrian amenities: does it mean physically separated or grade-separated. She felt grade separation would be a safer option. Mr. Peters was confused if the bicycle amenities was really a bike path. Mr. Canale suggested that language for paths, routes and amenities and safely separated be added. Staff would work to finalize the concept. Ms. Loomis presented the proposed amendment §135-9.5.4.2 Procedures for Site Plan Review. This was still the same from the January 21, 2021 proposal there was no language change just brought it over from Article 45 and would be for all projects town-wide. Ms. Loomis presented the proposed amendment §135-9.5.5 Review Standards this was also brought over from Article 45 and shared for changes town-wide. Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 2021 Page 7 Board Member Comments and Questions: Mr. Canale requested staff double check to make sure nothing was left off the list for the review standards. Ms. Johnson asked they add Eco-system design and function to number 5. Ms. Johnson was looking for something for compliance with design guidelines. There were no teeth to the design guidelines and were just aspirational. Add number 14. Compliance with Design Guidelines as applicable. Ms. Loomis presented the definitions for the Table of Use changes and would send them to the Board. Audience Comments and Questions: Mr. Barnert had a problem with brew pubs which needed to be defined. The no more than 50% of the establishment’s production capacity is sold to other establishments should be put at 25%. Staff would look into it. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board continue this public hearing to Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Richard Canale seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll Call: Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED d) Public Hearing: Historic Preservation Incentives, Article 39 - Amend the Lexington Zoning Bylaw to allow special permits for historical preservation under § 135-6.2 to allow for additional uses where necessary to preserve historical elements. Chair, Bob Creech opened the public hearing. Mr. Hornig presented this update to the existing §6.2 which has not been effective in encouraging preservations of historic structures and sites. It was never used because of its inflexibility and could not be used in an effective way. Mr. Hornig explained the changes that were made were to simplify, reorganize and allow more flexibility. Board Member Comments and Questions: Mr. Canale asked if he had heard from the Historical Commission. Mr. Hornig said he spoke with the chair of the Historical Commission and was to be presented to the commission next week at their meeting, but the chair believes the commission would support this. Ms. Fenollosa of the Historical Commission said the commission has not met since we received this information and would discuss at the next meeting and could expect input at that time. Ms. Johnson said her concern was that we were enabling historic houses to be moved and lose the context of those houses. Maybe they can be moved back sometime in the future and supported this amendment. Mr. Creech asked for clarification of the language for removal of historic or architecturally significant buildings. Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 2021 Audience Comments and Questions: Diane Pursley asked to be shown a redline version for the moving of the structures and asked for an explanation for the difference in the proposed §6.2.5 Contributory Loss for the two deletions. Mr. Hornig said he would have to look into the first item. The second question Mr. Hornig said the language did not add to anything to what was there already and the new language was to streamline what was being proposed. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board continue this public hearing to Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Robert Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll Call: Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED e) Public Hearing: Floodplain Management, Article 42 - Amend § 135-7.1 of the Lexington Zoning Bylaw to identify and designate a Community Floodplain Administrator (FPA) per 44 CFR and FEMA. Chair, Bob Creech opened the public hearing. Ms. Loomis presented the power point presentation and said that the only thing needed to be done was to comply with the FEMA bylaw and to appoint a Floodplain Administrator who would serve as a single point of contact for the communication for FEMA compliance within our floodplains. Board Member Comments and Questions: Mr. Canale asked for clarification if staff checked with FEMA and Town Counsel to see if the wording fitted the need. Ms. Loomis said she sent it to Town Counsel and they were meeting tomorrow. Final language would be discussed on February 24. Planning Board Members were all fine with this. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board continue this public hearing to Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Richard Canale seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll Call: Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED f) Public Hearing: Technical Corrections, Article 43 - Amend the Lexington Zoning Bylaw to correct internal references, remove unreferenced definitions, reformat sections, modernize the language, and make other technical corrections. Chair, Bob Creech opened the public hearing. Ms. Loomis said at this time there are no technical corrections and recommended they indefinitely postpone this Article. Mr. Hornig suggested they kept this open and wait to hear from the Attorney General on the Fall Town Meeting. We should hear from them by next month before the Annual Town Meeting. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board continue this public hearing to Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Richard Canale seconded the motion. The Minutes for the Meeting of February 10, 2021 Page 9 Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll Call: Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED Board Administration a. Staff Updates: There were none b. Board Member Updates There was a panel discussion with the Sustainable Lexington and Boston Properties there was no problem with meeting LEED silver, and emission standards. There is a Lexington Next meeting next Tuesday. There are candidate forums tomorrow night and Saturday for Planning Board and Town Meeting candidates. Adjournment Richard Canale moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 10, 2021. Robert Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Richard Canale – yes; Ginna Johnson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. Town Meeting:  Draft Article 40- Retaining Walls, dated January 21, 2021 (1 page).  Draft Article 40- Retaining Walls, dated February 10, 2021 (1 page).  Draft Article 41 Structures in setbacks, dated January 21, 2021 (1 page).  Draft Article 41 Structures in setbacks, dated February 10, 2021 (1 page).  Proposed Alternate language for Article 41 for public hearing (1 page).  Background of Bylaw Article 41 dated February 10, 2021 (1 page).  Draft Article 39 Historic Preservation Incentives, dated January 21, 2021 (3 pages).  Draft Article 42 Floodplain Administrator, dated January 21, 2021 (1 page).  Draft Article 44 Amend Use and General Regulations, dated January 21, 2021 (3 pages).  Revised Article 44 Use and General Regulations for Consideration dated February 9, 2021 (5 pages). Ginna Johnson, Clerk of the Planning Board