HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-17-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2021
Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board
Held on February 17, 2021, Virtual Meeting per Governor Baker’s Order at 7:02 pm
Present: Robert Creech, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Ginna Johnson, Clerk; Michael Leon, Richard Canale;
and Charles Hornig. Also present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director, Sheila Page, Assistant Planning
Director, and Sandhya Iyer, Economic Development 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 17, 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.
*********************DEVELOPMENTADMINISTRATION************************
Continued Public Hearing: 9 Keeler Farms Way (71-79 East Street) Special Permit
Modification:
Bob Creech, chair opened the continued public hearing and said Mr. Leon sat in for Mr. Hornig at
the previous meeting and will continue with this meeting for Mr. Hornig. Present were Mr. Erik
Bednarek, landscape architect, Mr. Ray Chang, applicant, and Mr. Nicholas Skoly, engineer. Mr.
Bednarek presented the updated plans dated February 11, 2021 for the impervious surface
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021
calculations with the removed and added impervious surface for the plan. Mr. Skoly presented the
updated stormwater design plan dated February 11, 2021.
Board Comments and Questions:
Mr. Leon, asked for clarification that even without a new investigation to determine the
maximum ground water level and based on the records available from the previous
approval the top of the stormwater system was several feet below and concluded that the
Town Engineer would not have approved the infiltration system if it was submerged in
ground water at that time? Mr. Skoly said that was correct. Do you have any records from
the construction of the subdivision regarding the ground water and the plans from the
digging of the foundation? Did you check with the company for as-builts for the
stormwater infiltration system and its location? Did you review the Town Engineer’s
memo and the error he pointed regarding the table. Mr. Skoly said that was corrected and
would submit the corrections. Mr. Leon asked for an explanation on the high-flow runoff
that would be created with the pervious stone being used. Mr. Leon asked for clarity on
the maintenance responsibilities for these pavers. Mr. Bednarek explained how the pavers
will continue to be reliable and there is some maintenance which the applicant would be
made aware of and require them to be followed up with. Was there any guarantee that the
maintenance would be done to keep them pervious and functioning to continue to meet
their objectives? Mr. Chang would be happy to follow through with the guidance from
manufacturing requirements. Mr. Leon asked had there been any additional outreach with
the other residents of the subdivision? Mr. Bednarek said Mr. Chang has spoken with
residents and has not gotten any negative responses. There were concerns from abutters
on negative impacts on abutter properties from stormwater and lighting. Since there have
been unexpected impacts on lighting and ponding from stormwater runoff has any
attempt been made to address those existing impacts. It was shown that the water that
flows off the property would now be captured on the property and picked up in the
reservoir on the property and would reduce the additional runoff and the lighting would
be minimized and they would respond to any abutters concerns. Mr. Leon asked have you
considered strengthening the conditions from the existing conditions to make sure it
would improve the situation. Would you consider adding vegetation to the open space?
They would be open to that. Mr. Chang said the lighting issue was resolved as soon as
the abutter complained and the light was uninstalled for the last four years. He would
add more trees and add more drainage on the property. Mr. Chang said 7 Keeler Farm
Way was allowed a one to one swap on permeable to un-permeable pavement.
Mr. Canale said when this was approved there was a condo operation and maintenance
operation agreement in place, was there a reporting system and reports requirement in
place and have they been done? Mr. Chang said he was not aware that the Town required
a maintenance plan and reporting. Why did you not withdraw your plan and work with
staff to make this impervious surface work with the Town. Ms. Page said if they were
below the impervious surface requirements they could just move along to get a building
permit through staff if they can convince Planning and Engineering that they would be
below that impervious surface requirements with the required documents. Ms. Page said
this decision was not clear in this case and we do not have a copy of the operation and
maintenance manual. Do we have evidence from the Association that that drainage has
Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021 Page 3
been maintained and properly checked? If it was in the plan we could ask for that. The
rear of the house is not part of the common drainage system.
Ms. Johnson said that they could work with staff if the Town Engineer agreed that the
calculations would be acceptable under Town definitions and procedures. Given amount
of input from neighbors on the design issues, abutter issues and open space protection
there was some concern and there should be no up lighting or light spill off the property
line and the additional planting would have a loss of the common open space which
would look like private property. She was also worried about a bathtub effect with the
wall fittings and soil compaction on the open space. There was concern expressed about
the exacerbating ponding of Mr. Chang’s property. Ms. Johnsons encouraged staff to
summarize to the Town Engineer the concerns the Board expressed. All dimensional
controls would need to be looked at.
Mr. Peters agreed if the calculations were correct it could be handled through the staff
and building department.
Mr. Creech said to make sure the infiltration system worked, the plantings were correct
and the wall would need to be lowered.
Audience Comments and Questions:
Leonard Morse-Fortier said this proposed type of landscape would reduce the amount of
water running off the site and would stay on Mr. Chang’s property.
Mr. Chang said this plan would open everything up.
Mr. Creech asked Mr. Chang to talk to the Association about the responsibility to do the
maintenance required every year. Staff would work with the applicant and Engineering
on this plan.
Mr. Canale said that if this modification was under the requirements for impervious
surface it would not need to come to the Board. Mr. Leon said he was concerned about
impacts on abutters and was fine with staff dealing but was concerned that safeguards
were not in place.
If there was a maintenance agreement issue then it would need to come back to the Board
and would need to include zoning enforcement.
Mr. Chang said he would withdraw his application and work with staff. Mr. Chang would
send an email to withdraw the plan to staff.
Ginna Johnson moved that the Planning Board accept the withdrawal of the
application for 9 Keeler Farm Way pending the written request by the applicant to the
planning staff by February 19, 2021. 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; Robert Peters – yes; Robert Creech – yes, Michael Leon-yes).
MOTION PASSED
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021
Subdivision Modification 109 Reed Street-Kay Tiffany Way:
Ms. Page said this request was not ready and they want to come back at a later date.
*************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION****************************
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) appointment: Larry Freeman:
Bob Creech moved that the Planning Board approve the appointment of Larry
Freeman to the CPAC. 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; Robert Peters– yes; Robert Creech – yes, Charles Hornig-yes). MOTION PASSED
*****************************TOWN MEETING**********************************
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continued Public Hearing: Article 45, Hartwell Innovation Park: Amend Zoning
Map to create a new Hartwell Innovation Park (HIP) Zoning and further amend the
Lexington Zoning Bylaw by adding new Special District Regulations, and amend
related zoning sections of the Zoning Bylaw, including the Table of Use;
Dimensional Controls; General Regulations; Site Plan Review; and associated
zoning amendments:
Mr. Creech open the continued public hearings for Article 44 and Article 45. Mr. Creech
requested sticking with Article 45 first. Ms. Loomis said they wanted to the first discuss
the changes for the setbacks and then the maximum building height on the Dimensional
Table that had been changed based on discussions during meeting they had and the
reviewing of documents.
Board Member Comments and Questions:
Mr. Canale said that with no requirement there could be a six to eight story parking
garage right on Hartwell Avenue by-right. Ms. Loomis said this would allow the building
to be pulled up to the street line, but parking garages would have to be in the back.
Mr. Creech asked wasn’t there a pedestrian way from the street to the construction? Ms.
Loomis said that was removed. Mr. Creech said that there would need to be a 10 foot
buffer.
Ms. Johnson said she was concerned about the deregulation and the very permissive
dimensional standards and that we would not get what the original vision was. The 10
foot buffer would be very important to the vision we had for this district and in the future
the Planning Board would be grateful to have it.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021 Page 5
Mr. Peters asked for clarification on how the 100 foot right of way was envisioned to be
allocated. Ms. Page said it had not been allocated yet, but it was anticipated there would
be two turning lanes, sidewalk and/or multi user path, and bike lanes with some trees and
it would be filled and have what we need but no extra. Given all that activity it would
make sense to have the 10 foot setback.
Mr. Hornig said we looked at the ROW 12 years ago no one thought that 100 feet would
be needed and was not what we really envisioned. The way this was written it would not
be waivable. The original vision in the past was to have buildings right up to the ROW.
Instead of just having 10 feet of lawn or at least make it waivable.
Mr. Canale asked for clarification that if there was no requirements for setbacks could
parking garages be located with a zero foot setback? He also expressed concern about
curb cuts on Hartwell Avenue every 50 feet which would cut down on safety for
pedestrians and cyclists and make it uninviting. We would need the 10 feet for a refuge
area and safety. Was the number of curb cuts being limited since that could be
problematic?
Ms. Johnson agreed with Mr. Canale and expressed concern about the impact on the
streetscape and complete street approach. The 10 foot setback would allow for drainage,
utilities, signage, trees, and could serve as gathering areas.
Mr. Creech also agreed with the need for a 10 foot setback.
Audience Comments and Questions:
Mr. DeAngelis from Boston Properties said a 10 foot setback would be fine and
workable.
Mr. Barnert said the 10 foot setback would give a better appearance.
Board Member Comments and Questions:
Board members believed they needed the 10 foot setback with a waiver to be allowed
with a special permit.
Ms. Johnson asked if the building height in the CM District was already approved for a
115 foot tall building. Yes, it was approved at the Fall Town Meeting.
Mr. Canale said Town Meeting made a mistake by not matching the zoning to the vision
and suggested they revisit the height of the buildings go from 115 foot to 65 to 80 foot
height since they did not have visuals in the past. Mr. Canale said the vision team said the
115 foot building height was never the vision.
Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021
Mr. Hornig said the vision from long ago was to allow five to six story life science
buildings allowed by-right.
Ms. Johnson said she was surprised that this was approved at that this scale. Ms. Johnson
said she agreed that it would be possible nine to ten story buildings for public or
institutional buildings could be built and if it was a Dover Amendment application we
would have limited oversight and would prefer the 65 to 80 foot height limit. She would
defer to Town Meeting but she would want to scale this development down.
Mr. Peters asked for clarification on what was the height dimensions of the Life Science
Buildings approved last year. Mr. Hornig said 1050 Waltham Street was allowed up to an
80 foot height and 91 Hartwell Avenue was lower due to Aviation requirements. He was
concerned about revisiting what Town Meeting had recently approved for the height of
buildings so soon after it was approved. He was mixed on the height of the buildings
allowed and said that we could review this every five years which would allow us an
opportunity to see what may need to be modified.
Mr. Hornig said this was approved overwhelmingly by Town Meeting and saw no reason
to change it unless there is a change of circumstances then we could revisit this.
Mr. Canale asked whether we changed the definition of height regarding the addition of a
penthouse or roof structures. He suggested we do a presentation of visuals of what these
115 foot buildings would look like. Ms. Loomis said she would redo the visuals to show
buildings at that height would look like.
Audience Comments and Questions:
Mr. Barnert suggested to put a story limit of six or seven stories being allowed.
Ruth Ladd requested when you are doing a visual show 1050 Waltham height, a two or
three story building and then the proposed 115 foot height building to show the
comparison of what it could look like.
Board Member Comments and Questions:
Mr. Hornig responded to number of story limits and explained that there had been no
story of limits because they were more concerned about limiting the mass and not the
stories of the buildings.
Mr. Canale said there was a difference between Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street and
had anyone considered what these huge buildings would look like at the gateway to
Lexington on Bedford Street. Ms. Loomis said this would need to have a further
discussion later and to add residential would require an amendment to be added.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021 Page 7
Mr. Leon said this was about an urban design vision in a separate part of town and
Hartwell Avenue was capable of bearing the heights that have been approved and could
stand alone. The economics here would not be justified for a high-rise development and
do agree there is a difference between the Bedford Street and Hartwell Corridors but the
CM and C-HIP district height limitations could be considered differently. If we wanted
an innovative higher density development area on Hartwell Avenue then we should be
able to embrace more flexibility to carry the potential higher structures and it would be a
more valuable asset in the Town.
Audience Comments and Questions:
Mr. Burnell said listening to this conversation he was not exactly clear on what we
intended to have and this needed to be discussed further and be made clearer on what was
actually intended
Development Standards:
Ms. Loomis said 7.5.4 Development Standards presented the statement added to
encourage developers to go beyond what we were requesting. She explained that there
was were going to possibly see a lot of infill of structures and the existing structures that
would not be required to be updated only the new additions.
Mr. Hornig said that renovations should be changed to major renovations. Mr. Hornig
proposed some other changes he would send to staff.
Mr. Canale said in November we moved some parcels from CRO to CM and CD parcels
to CM and now most of CM to the new District. What would happen to special permits
once they were moved into the new District? Ms. Loomis said the permits would be active
as long as the act within the required time frame and would be allowed to exist. If they
need an amendment then they would use the C-HIP regulations. Mr. Canale asked what
would be frozen, what would still be in effect, and what would get tossed out and what
would be kept, and what would happen with the MOUs. How would this all get figured
out? Ms. Loomis explained everything permitted today and moved forward would be
conforming. Everything currently zoned as CM will be rezoned as C-HIP and we would
move forward with everything that was permitted in 2020.
Circulation:
Ms. Loomis presented the change regarding Circulation which was added back to Article
45 for scope purposes and that pedestrian and bicycle routes and amenities would be
physically separated from interior drives, driveways, maneuvering aisles and off-street
parking spaces.
Board Member Comments and Questions:
Mr. Canale asked for clarification on how the pedestrian and bicycle routes along
Hartwell Avenue will be separated? Ms. Loomis and Ms. Page provided examples of
Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021
possible ways to achieve that.
Audience Comments and Questions:
Mr. Evans of Boston Properties said that separating bike and pedestrian routes would
create more impervious surface and asked if either a sharrowed or striped type system
would suffice? He said it had worked successfully both in urban and suburban systems in
internal circular drives.
Mr. Burnell said there would be occasions where the bicycle and vehicles would be in the
same position and you may need more flexibility.
Mr. DeAngelis said the physical separation of driveways, pedestrians, bicyclists and
vehicle, would be difficult and there could be another effective way to design a safety
design to accommodate everyone.
Board Member Comments and Questions:
Ms. Johnson said there would need to be something more than a four-foot sidewalk
separated for pedestrian and bicycle safety. This was a good addition to the article.
Trees and Stormwater:
Ms. Loomis presented the amendment for Trees and Stormwater in 6.c and said they
discussed this with Town Counsel that trees and stormwater would be better addressed
through the general bylaws and so in 6.c they amended it to state that they need to
comply with the tree and stormwater general bylaws and make developers aware they
exist and need to be complied with.
Mr. Hornig said this would be confusing since there are other bylaws that they would
need to be complied with as well, but are not listed. He believed this goes without saying
it, but it might make developers confused and add wetlands bylaws as well if you keep it.
Ms. Johnson said they should add that the developers would need to comply with all
general bylaws, but keep these in the amendment language it would be a valuable
addition for the applicant.
Audience Comments and Questions:
Mr. Wyman said he was concerned when they saw the revised amendment and believed
that it was missing a strong policy statement that sustainable landscaping practices are an
important policy objective of the Town and should be reflected in Planning Board
Regulations. The existing town bylaws do not go far enough in laying out sustainable
landscaping practices especially in an environment like Hartwell Avenue. Staff would
work with the information that was discussed.
Mr. Hornig presented his concerns with Article 45.
7.5.4.6-Alternative Energy, Sustainability, and Best Management Practices presented
changes he recommended based on a meeting with some members of the committee on
Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021 Page 9
sustainability.
We should wait for the Attorney General’s response to Article 16 from the last Special
Town Meeting, which would provide guidance on what we could and could not regulate
and how to word it to get a positive response from the Attorney General.
Audience Comments and Questions:
Ms. Cindy Ahrens said a lot of these changes came out from a productive conversation
with Boston Properties and they were receptive to reducing their carbon emissions. We
would be happy to keep talking about this with all projects in the Hartwell Area and were
awaiting the Attorney General’s decision. We want to continue this conversation and
would like to have it in the Zoning Bylaw.
Mr. Hornig requested that this public hearing be held open until we get a response from
the Attorney General or until we have to close it because Town Meeting is looming to
allow changes to be made based on the Attorney General’s response.
Mr. Leon said this was going well beyond land use and zoning issues and was entering
into building and building code issues. There would be another generation of building
requirements and very dramatic changes to the building codes in the next three years
toward net zero. We could end up with zoning bylaws that were inconsistent in one way
or another from the emerging state building code requirements. These should be placed as
a regulatory program that could be amended more easily.
Mr. DeAngelis said Boston Properties takes the obligation for sustainability to higher
level. No matter what bylaw this ended up as we would stick to this because we partnered
in the language for sustainability.
Ms. Johnson said she was disappointed that the incentive zoning approved by Town
Meeting last fall was now being removed and it should be placed back in with LEED
standards.
Ms. Loomis section (f ) was getting into building code and out of scope and staff was not
included in those discussions. Staff would rework and rewrite this section 6 to decide
what would be in scope.
Mr. Barnert was strongly opposed to 7.5.5 for uses that were forbidden by not being
listed.
Richard Canale moved that the Planning Board continue this public hearing for
Article 45 to Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Ginna Johnsons 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 10 Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021
Discussion of Article 35- Scenic Road Bylaw:
Mr. Canale worked with Mr. Howry and the moderator on something that would be in
scope. Mr. Canale presented a resolution that the Town would request the Planning Board
and Select Board to act on the recommendations of 2006 Reconnaissance Report as they
pertain to Scenic Roads and Heritage Landscapes and ask the Planning Board to form a
Scenic Roads Committee in consultation with the Select Board, Historical Commission,
and Conservation Commission with a charge to make recommendations and address
concerns in the report and for the Planning Board to make a public report on the progress
of the committee within one year after formation and include an action plan going
forward.
Planning Board Comments and Questions:
Ms. Johnsons said this was a much better approach and more comprehensive and she
supported it.
Mr. Peters said he thought it looked good and supported the idea.
Mr. Hornig said this was within our capabilities.
Mr. Creech said he was fine with this as well.
Mr. Howry thanked Mr. Canale for working on this and appreciated the support.
Mr. Peters mentioned that the Battle Road Scenic Byway was in a press release that it had
been designated as an all American Road. Mr. Canale said it was one of only two in New
England.
Continued 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); or act any other manner in
relation thereto:
Mr. Creech opened the continued public hearing. Ms. Loomis had one item to discuss
regarding the loading docks and presented a possible change regarding the number of
loading docks being allowed to let the Board have input. The Board members had no
comments.
Robert Creech moved that the Planning Board continue this public hearing for Article
44 to Tuesday, February 23, 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
Minutes for the Meeting of February 17, 2021 Page 11
*************************BOARD ADMINISTRATION****************************
Review of Meeting Minutes January 20 and February 3, 2021:
Richard Canale moved that the Planning Board vote to approve the minutes of the January 20
and February 3, 2021 meeting as amended. 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
Richard Canale moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 17, 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 11:00 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.
9 Keeler Farm Way:
Staff Memo regarding Impervious Surface (2 pages).
Revised Plan, dated February 11, 2021 (7 pages).
Revised Stormwater Report, dated February 11, 2021 (133 pages).
Town Meeting:
Draft Proposed Table of Uses, dated February 12, 2021 (8 pages).
Draft Article 45 Hartwell Innovation Park, dated February 17, 2021 (6 pages).
Draft Article 44 Use and General Regulations, dated February 17, 2021 (6 pages).
Lexington Reconnaissance Report (33 pages).
Article 35 Citizen’s Petition (1 page).
Ginna Johnson, Clerk of the Planning Board