Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-29-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 29, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in Room G -15, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Manz, Galaitsis, Zurlo and Canale and planning staff McCall - Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Walnut Street, Lexington Hills Paving: A condition in the special permit was that the developer was responsible for a curb -to -curb overlay of a section of Walnut Street that was trenched. Engineering reported that after an inspection they had found the area designated for paving was in good condition, but another section of the road was in poor condition. Engineering had recommended to the planning staff that it would better serve the Town if the developer repaved a different part of Walnut Street. The Board decided it would have no objection to the applicant coming forward with that request and would most likely treat it as a minor modification. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *OTHER MATTERS*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Battle Green, Master Plan: Mr. Hornig attended one meeting but does not have time to participate in this project and asked if anyone on the Board wanted to be involved. Mr. Canale said that since he was on the Battle Road Scenic Byway Committee it would make sense for him to participate. Ms. McKenna gave a brief overview of the project to the Board. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *ANNUAL TOWN MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Article 49, Ledgemont Center, Report and Recommendation: The applicant for the project submitted changes in response to the Planning Board's request. Mr. Zurlo said the roof penetration was setback from the residential abutters; the second floor setback removed 1,600 square feet from the corner closest to the Spring Street and the Monroe Road neighbors without changing the foot print which softened the edge of the building; and the memorandum of understanding (MOU) provided the release of $35,000 of the total amount upon the Attorney General's approval. Based on the additional information, Mr. Zurlo moved to reopen the recommendation on Article 49 and to recommend approval with conditions. Ms. Manz seconded the motion. Mr. Canale said this was a preliminary plan and based on past performance, one could not be sure what the ZBA would approve, so in essence this was not much of a change and he saw no reason to consider it. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of April 29, 2009 Ms. Manz was uncomfortable with the implication that the final plan would vary widely from the PSDUP shown. The apparent height of the stacks would remain the same despite the shift of the upper story. This type and size of development would result in a substantial traffic increase, which would be unaffected by the recently proposed design changes. Finally, he found the close proximity of the long side of the proposed building along the length of the wetland excessive and unacceptable. Mr. Canale said that commercial development (CD) approvals should be bound by the bylaws and the Planning Board should make written comments to the ZBA for any CD. Mr. Hornig said the last two CD's the Planning Board did review and comment and he expected that the Board would make a recommendation to the ZBA for this project to make sure it conformed. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3 -2, (Mr. Canale and Mr. Galaitsis opposed) to reconsider the vote and recommend Article 49 with conditions to be included in the DSDUP to Town Meeting. The Board took up the Zoning and Site Development Analysis that had been prepared by staff. Mr. Hornig said that his revisions excluded some of Mr. Canale's changes since he considered that they were not neutral. Mr. Canale disagreed with his assessment, but more importantly, Mr. Canale said that taking out a member's proposed changes was a non - collegial precedent for this Board and he strongly objected to the Chair's ruling. Mr. Canale wanted the Board to review the zoning analysis page by page with all of the member's proposed changes. The Board went through the document line by line. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5 -0, to approve the Ledgemont Zoning and Development Analysis to be placed on the table for Town Meeting on Monday evening. Mr. Hornig asked who should give the oral report? Mr. Zurlo said the chairman should give the report. A motion, duly made and seconded, to have multiple reports failed for lack of a majority. The vote was voted, 2 -3, (Mr. Hornig, Ms. Manz and Mr. Zurlo opposed) Article 48, Financial Support for Transportation: Ms. McKenna presented the changes in the motion for Article 48, which incorporated some of the Boards recommendations. Mr. Zurlo said he would not change his vote, but supported something similar in the TMOD plan. Mr. Canale said it was a fairly sound concept, but was not sure of the execution and if it was ready for Town Meeting. Ms. Manz said that there were some tempting parts, but making it an absolute requirement that monies go to a specific cause was a Minutes for the Meeting of April 29, 2009 Page 3 concern. Ms. McKenna asked were there any changes that could be made that would change the Board's vote? Mr. Hornig said the right way would be to do this under Article 45. Mr. Galaitsis said if Articles 44- 46 had not passed he would have supported it but if they did this Article would create a double tax. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *SPECIAL TOWN MEETING*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Article 2, Amendment to PSDUP at 125, 131, and 141 Spring Street (Lexington Technology Park) Mr. Canale had recused himself from the consideration of the Lexington Technology Park application since he was an abutter to an abutter. Mr. Zurlo had reviewed the audio recording of the public hearing on April 16 for the Lexington Technology Park and signed an affidavit to that effect, which is on file with the Planning Department. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was still in process. Mr. Hornig said the nature of this project was the same as Beal, but was twice as large on a lot that was three times larger. Mr. Zurlo said that this was too much too soon and questioned if the mitigation was enough to offset the development. There were too many open questions as to the Town's goals and the monies were not tied to any specific mitigation. Mr. Hornig said the Town would control what the monies would go to and the applicant would not have a choice. Mr. Galaitsis said the two projects were very similar and the proposed increases were premature. He wanted to first see what the traffic impacts would be of the current buildout before considering additional development in the area. He felt the Town was trying to accommodate the developers, and he would like to see the same consideration for the residents who would have to live with the outcomes. Furthermore, Mr. Galaitsis continued, since Lexington Technology Park has not completed its present buildout, and since it has no construction schedule for the currently proposed expansion, it was not known when the Town would see any income from the newly proposed development. Ms. Manz said she was torn by this project. The developer was asking for a rezoning approval so he could seize the tide when it changed. Compared to the Ledgemont III proposal, for Lexington Technology Park there seemed to be much concern about traffic issues but less about the visual impacts.. Mr. Hornig said in terms of money there would be over $2,500,000 from the Shire, Beal and Lexington Technology Park developments. This would allow for some studies to be done and help with mitigations without tapping into the Town funds. Mr. Zurlo said that giving property owners the opportunity to expand without a tenant was not an issue, Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of April 29, 2009 but was not sure the monies would fix all the traffic problems. Mr. Zurlo said this was too much of a leap of faith. The Town needed to plan first and make sure the development would be meeting its obligations. On a motion duly made and seconded, to not recommend the approval of Article 2 to Special Town Meeting failed for lack of a majority vote. The vote was 2 -2 (Ms. Manz and Mr. Hornig opposed). Since there was not majority on either side, there would be no recommendation made by the Planning Board on Article 2 to Special Town Meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk