Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-14-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 14, 2006 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Vice Chairman Hornig, with members Galaitsis, Canale, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Schilt, Tap and Tapper present. Ms. Manz arrived at 8:00 p.m. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* Signature sheets for Registry of Deeds and Land Court As required by State statute, the Board endorsed signature sheets, required to be on file with the Registry of Deeds and the Land Court, reflecting the current membership of the Board and staff members authorized to sign for the Board. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND Cedar Street- Ms. McCall-Taylor gave a brief preview of the definitive subdivision plan that has been submitted. A public hearing will be scheduled. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2006 TOWN MEETING ************************ PUBLIC HEARING Article 5, Zoning By-Law, Impervious Surface Amendment: Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing on Article , Impervious Surface, at 7:45 p.m. There were five people in the audience. 5 Mr. Hornig explained that the Planning Board's proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law would adjust the maximum impervious surface ratio (ISR) permitted in cluster subdivisions. The area of a proposed subdivision street is not included in the ISR calculation for conventional subdivisions, but it is included for roadways/driveways in clusters. In past approvals of cluster subdivisions the Planning Board has tended to relax the ISR permitted maximums of .15 in the RO district and .20 in the RS/RT districts, in order to get better site design. But developers contemplating development in Lexington find the permitted ISR a disincentive to using the cluster provisions, as roadway/driveway area represents the bulk of impervious surface in a development. The proposed amendment would raise the maximum ISR for cluster subdivisions in the RO district to .20 and in the RS/RT district to .30. Mr. Hornig provided examples of two recently approved subdivisions, one cluster and one conventional, to demonstrate that the proposed ISR would make the total impervious surfaces allowed in clusters consistent with that allowed in conventional subdivisions. The Board believes that equalizing ISR calculation factors for cluster and conventional developments would result in higher use of the cluster provisions and improved site layout. Mr. Frank Sandy, TMM Pr. 6, asked how many cluster subdivision applications were approved in recent years and how one could tell that developers were discouraged by the cluster requirements. He urged the Board to be ready to answer these questions and to provide other quantitative data, as Town Meeting members will surely ask for it when Article 5 is taken up. Mr. Galaitsis indicated that he does not agree with the majority of the Board about impervious surface in cluster subdivisions. He believes that cluster subdivisions, which typically result in more units and greater impacts than conventional subdivisions, already provide great incentives to developers; therefore he finds the additional advantages offered to developers under Article 5 unnecessary and permissive. He pointed out that for years the majority of the Planning Board misinterpreted the cluster by-law and, despite his objections, and permitted higher ISR values than specified in the existing by-law. He said the way to fix the past problem is to enforce the existing by-law rather than legitimize its past misinterpretation. For a level playing field with conventional developments, the ISR should be equal, but it would be substantially higher for clusters should Article 5 pass. He also cited the “Equal ISR Option” (that he submitted to the Planning Board Members and Planning Office staff on 12/7/05), which would ensure nearly equal ISR for conventional and cluster subdivision, while giving an additional small advantage to the cluster Minutes for the Meeting of March 14, 2006 2 subdivision. Mr. Sandy asked why there were so few cluster subdivisions approved by the Board when the ISR had been relaxed. Mr. Galaitsis said that he could recall only one proposed cluster subdivision approved at the preliminary stage came back as a conventional subdivision at the definitive stage. It happened last year, and it was unclear to him whether the change resulted from the ISR requirements or from the developer’s acquisition of a different parcel (for a different roadway and development layout) at the border of the property. Mr. Sandy stated that information should be provided for Town Meeting on the number and type of subdivisions recently approved by the Planning Board, as well as the number of affordable housing units that have resulted from approval of cluster subdivisions. There being no further questions or comments, Mr. Hornig closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Manz joined the meeting at this point. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of February 15, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Galaitsis and Mr. Zurlo abstained, as they had not been present at that meeting. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2006 TOWN MEETING ************************ Article 8, Resolution for a Scenic Byway: The multi-town Scenic Byway group met today and discussed a draft presentation. The Planning Board has not yet taken a position on this article, but agreed to discuss it at the next meeting after reviewing information that will be provided in their packets. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* Committee Assignments: Ms. Manz said that at a previous meeting of the Board of Selectmen they had appointed the Planning Board chair to the Traffic Mitigation Group (TMG) but that she will defer to Mr. Canale if he wishes to serve on the TMG. She stated that the TMG had met that afternoon and discussed the kinds of mitigation that it would want to see for Starwood/Sheraton project. The group felt they would look for: some of the current mitigation to be carried through; an appropriate LEXPRESS contribution; and to engage Starwood prior to the public hearing on March 28. Mr. Schilt said engineering is looking at improvements to the Marrett and Massachusetts Avenue signal that might improve the level of service. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to accept Ms. Manz’ resignation from TMG, and to appoint Mr. Canale in her stead. Mr. Zurlo said that he is already a part of the discussion of the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) and that he would prefer another member who would hear design issues and broaden the discussion. Mr. Canale said he thought it would be a loss for the Board if Mr. Zurlo did not continue as a member of the DAC. Mr. Canale brought up the HATS committee, which has 16 members from the four towns, each twon having a representative from the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, the Conservation Commission and an at-large member. The Development of Regional Impact sub-committee (DRI) has not meet in the two years since it was created. The Starwood/ Sheraton project would fall within their review criteria, as would a development in Lincoln. The catchment area of the DRI is everything on the outside of 128 between Route 2 and Routes 225/4. Sarah Holden of Lincoln is the chair of DRI. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2006 TOWN MEETING ************************ Reports under Article 2: Mr. Galaitsis said that the Article 40 (Engine Run-up) committee wants to Minutes for the Meeting of March 14, 2006 3 remain in existence for a third year. It has been meeting about once a month. He will update Town Meeting on its activities. Mr. Frank Sandy spoke from the audience, saying that when he had been holding a sign at a polling place he noticed that a bus idled for 15 minutes. He filed a complaint with the police but nothing was done. Mr. Galaitsis said that usually a warning was issued at first but that enforcement was for habitual offenders. PUBLIC HEARING Article 6, Zoning By-Law, Center Parking Amendment: Ms. Manz opened the public hearing on the Planning Board's proposed amendment to the center parking provisions at 8:30 p.m. There were 8 people in the audience. Supported by a PowerPoint slide show, Ms. Manz explained that the Board wishes to 1) remove the words "within the CB zone" from the center parking provisions and, 2) remove the requirement that parking leases be recorded at the Middlesex County Registry of Deeds. The first part of the amendment would correct an inadvertent inconsistency in the center parking provisions created in the early 1980s when the Town's permit parking program was initiated in a well documented public process. Spaces leased to businesses through the Town’s permit program in the Depot Square and Church of Our Redeemer lots are located just outside of the CB boundary, in the RS, Single Family, district. The proposed amendment would remove the requirement that the parking spaces be within the CB district. Town Counsel has advised the Board that residential property in the RS zones around the center may not be leased for commercial parking. The proposed amendment would not change this. The second part of the amendment would remove the requirement to record parking agreements at the Registry of Deeds. The Board feels this requirement is cumbersome, difficult to enforce, and in no way makes it more binding. Audience Questions and Comments Selectman Richard Pagett asked if leasing parking in the Arts & Crafts Society parking lot is illegal. Ms. Manz replied that the Society did not renew its parking lease arrangement with the Town as it wanted to offer the use of their lot as a benefit to members of the Friends of Arts and Crafts Society, a group formed to support the Society and the building. Mr. Pagett inquired wondered if this amendment would be creating more obstacles to the parking situation in the Center, and stated that more is needed to address the current lack in the available supply. Mr. Julian Bussgang, 2 Forest Street, made a number of statements: it is his belief that it is not difficult to record deeds at the Registry and that the requirement to do so should stand; the by-law should require, as a condition of a special permit for a business, a guarantee that the deed for the parking spaces the applicant provides is for a period at least as long as the length of the special permit; and, the by-law should make clear that no residential property may be leased for commercial parking. Ms. Manz responded that there is no provision in the Zoning By-Law to permit commercial parking in residential districts. Any use not explicitly permitted is prohibited. She said that town parking leases are for specific periods of time and recording at the Registry is not necessary. Ms. Judith Uhrig, Board of Appeals chair, confirmed that leases and special permits must be renewed, usually in one or five years. Mr. Frank Sandy, TMM, Pr. 6, asked about the loss of leased parking at the Battle Green Inn, soon to be converted to condominiums. Ms. McCall-Taylor replied that no businesses rely on those spaces any Minutes for the Meeting of March 14, 2006 4 longer. He also asked why special permits and parking leases are not coterminous. Mr. Richard Michelson, TMM, Pr. 8, stated his belief that the effect of this amendment, if approved, would be to kill the viability of the center business district. There would be no one to enforce it. Ms. Manz reiterated that the amendment would simply legitimize spaces that the Town has made available through its permit-parking program for years. Mr. Bussgang stated that the by-law is too permissive: it does not specify the number of spaces, nor does it indicate if they are for employees of businesses or for customers. Mr. Canale said that the Planning Board recognizes that the center parking regulations are problematic and the Board has been trying to find ways to address them for a long time. He said other boards and committees share responsibility for addressing center-parking issues. A comprehensive plan for parking in the center is needed which outlines a long-term plan with specific parties identified for implementation. The current amendment represents something the Planning Board can do on its own. Mr. Bussgang asked if he could submit some comments for the record. And was told he could not as the hearing would be closed tonight so the Board could proceed with writing its report to Town Meeting. Ms. Manz closed the hearing at 9:10 p.m. ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Planning Board - Mr. Canale reported on the MAGIC legislative breakfast held on Monday. The Pioneer/Rappaport study was highlighted. It assumes that local regulation is the reason sufficient housing is not being built and recommends taking away certain local controls. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2006 TOWN MEETING ************************ Article 4, Inclusionary Housing - Mr. Galaitsis said that he was having second thoughts on the articles as he saw it as having no requirements on the number of affordable units on site. He said that the article was important and he wanted it to pass but he had concerns about its current form. Ms. Manz and Mr. Canale had done a presentation on the by-law at a League of Women Voters forum last week. They reported that it was a replay of the public hearing with about 50 people present. Mr. Canale said he heard some new things but that the fairness argument got the most play. Ms. Manz said she felt more invested in the by-law as she heard the arguments against it, but she did wonder if they needed to withdraw the article at this time and work on community education to build support. Mr. Hornig said that there was an organized political movement against the article and little organized in support. He agreed with the political assessment but did not want to go back and study the issue further, or rework it for six months. He did think they should consider withdrawing it until there was strong organized support. Mr. Canale said this had to be one of the best drawn zoning articles he had seen but the Planning Board needed to take back the debate. Currently most of the arguments ware based on fear raised by some that land values would be adversely affected. The by-law can give the predictability that people say is lacking. Mr. Hornig reiterated that he would object to reworking the by-law. Ms. Manz said that what the Board needed to work on was outreach and public education. She felt that the opposition would not get more powerful and the support might grow with time. Minutes for the Meeting of March 14, 2006 5 Mr. Zurlo said that the argurments he heard concerned social engineering and fairness. The Board needed to be prepared to look back at the past two years and be able to provide numbers. Mr. Hornig said that what he heard was that any requirement is too much. Ms. Manz agreed that the sentiment of those opposed seemed to be that any reduction in anticipated profits was an outrage and too much. Mr. Galaitsis commented that most land owners and developers that are required to offer some of their units below market rate (i.e., as affordable) will not be persuaded to support the concept. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to recommend that the Planning Board accept the invitation of individuals from the Board of Selectmen to help the Planning Board build community support for the passage of an inclusionary housing by-law, and to recommend indefinite postponement of Article 4, Inclusionary Housing, when it is brought up for consideration at this Town Meeting so as to allow time to build community support. Article 6, Parking in the CB District - On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted unanimously to recommend to Town Meeting the passage of Article 6. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Anthony G. Galaitsis, Clerk