Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-21-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2006 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Galaitsis, Hornig, Canale, Zurlo and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Schilt and Tap present. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of May 31, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND 'Doran Green' Sketch Subdivision Plan for land off East Street, Guy and Elaine Doran, Presentation by the Applicant: Present were Mr. and Mrs. Doran, the applicants, Attorney John Farrington and Mr. Gary Larson, landscape architect. Mr. Farrington introduced the Dorans' sketch proposal for a cluster subdivision on their 3.63-acre site in the RO, one-family, district, at 150, 168 and 172 East Street. The existing three units (a single-family and a two-family) will remain and their style will set the architectural theme for six new units. Mr. Doran briefly described his family's long history of agricultural use of the property. He said that the trends in economics and agriculture have lead the family to take stock of their future and their son's future and likely lifestyle. The next step up in the industry is not attractive to them so they have chosen to write the final chapter on their business in a way they believe is right. Mr. Larson presented locus, proof and site analysis plans and a sketch proposal for a nine-unit cluster subdivision, dated May 24, 2006. There is currently a commercial greenhouse and farm stand operation at 150 East Street. Because the greenhouses would be demolished and the paved parking lot removed, there would be less impervious surface on the site in the end. Mr. Larson cited the cluster impact measures for the proposed development, which indicate 25 potential residents. The Board expressed regret, and understanding, about the loss of the Doran Greenhouses, but were pleased that the Dorans are planning a cluster subdivision and that they will continue to live there. The proposed intensity of the development, which the impacts worksheet calculations show is near the maximum, was the Board's chief concern. Other concerns were sight lines from the driveway off East Street serving three of the dwellings and the size of the two dwellings with driveways off Holmes Road. Mr. Larson said that the driveways were located according to the topography and to achieve the best sight distances. Responding to the Board's query about the applicant's intentions regarding an affordable housing component, Mr. Farrington indicated that an affordable component would be offered. The Board offered a number of suggestions: to access four dwellings with shared driveways from Holmes Road; build a development similar to Doran Farm Lane, which is on the other side of East Street and contains some attached dwellings; and, reduce the development’s impacts by building smaller and/or fewer units. It was agreed that another sketch plan should be submitted next. 147 Shade Street Sketch Reduced-Frontage Subdivision Plan: The applicant for the 147 Shade Street sketch proposal was not present. Mr. Schilt said he would contact the developer about rescheduling. Mr. Hornig asked the staff to inform the applicant about the need for 25-foot setbacks and that the locus plan must show existing dwellings. 31, 33, 35 Cary Avenue Cluster Subdivision, Sheldon Corporation, Release of Lots: Mr. Schilt reported that Mr. Todd Cataldo, the developer of the 31, 33, 35 Cary Avenue Cluster Subdivision, requested the release of Lot 1 from the 31, 33, 35 Cary Avenue Subdivision covenant. He added that the Conservation Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2006 2 Commission would not sign off on the subdivision work until work on the storm water system is completed. The Board decided to sign the release of Lot 1 with the condition that it would be provided to Mr. Cataldo only after the Conservation Commission notifies the planning staff that it has signed off on the required work. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Galaitsis abstained) to release Lot 1 of the Cary Avenue Cluster Subdivision from the Covenant dated July 15, 2005, subject to the Conservation Commission's approval of the drainage installation. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* Election of Officers: The Board held its annual election of officers, as is customary at the end of June. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board elected Ms. Manz to continue as Chair of the Planning Board. On a motion duly made, seconded and voted, Mr. Hornig was elected Vice Chair of the Planning Board. On a motion duly made, seconded and voted, Mr. Zurlo was elected Clerk of the Planning Board. Conduct of Meetings: The Board discussed ideas to more efficiently use meeting time. Ms. Manz pledged to move things along, and to set out time limits on agenda items if necessary, although in the case of public hearings she would make sure everyone had an opportunity to be heard. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that if corrections to the minutes could be returned to the planning office by the Thursday before the meeting at which they are to be reviewed, they could be incorporated into a draft that goes out in the packets. This would reduce meeting time spent on reviewing the minutes. It was suggested that board reports be limited to a few sentences, and if more time is needed, the member should request time on the agenda. Mr. Canale said that time is needed for the discussion of planning issues but that it should not be after 10:30 when everyone is too tired. Other members agreed but acknowledged how difficult it was to find the time with all the regulatory matters that had to be scheduled. Minority Reports: Ms. Manz said that she was coming to the view that there was a need to minimize minority reports as it was trivializing the Board by making it appear fragmented. Mr. Canale said that what had happened at this Town Meeting in regards to the Starwood rezoning was troublesome. He felt the primary role of the Planning Board in its advisory role to Town Meeting was to present information. He felt a majority report was not good when it was trying to sell a point. The report should be balanced and represent the entire Board, not just the majority. Ms. Manz said she assumed that this would apply when the Board is responding to a third party rezoning proposal, but what about Planning Board initiatives brought to Town Meeting? Mr. Canale said it would be the same with a little different flavor. Mr. Hornig said he did not think the current reports were that bad and that they attempted to give some sense of both sides. He commented that Town Meeting is trained to expect minority reports but that the Moderator has agreed to help train Town Meeting to not expect a minority report. He stated that there is only one Planning Board position. He doesn’t believe that there are minority reports, only individuals speaking. Mr. Galaitsis said that the Planning Board position is advisory and the report should be written with all the pos and cons and no sales pitch. Ms. Manz felt that while the pros and cons should be fairly presented in Board reports when the Board was reporting on its own proposal, it would be self-defeating to present the opposing view. Mr. Hornig said the purpose was to advise and that the report should be factual and give a recommendation and that it should be selling the recommended action while making an effort to cover the range of opinions. Mr. Galaitsis said that he would continue to do minority reports unless 1) all the pros and cons are presented in the reports; 2) there was a town-wide agreement by all the boards and committees to have no minority reports, or 3) town counsel says that there is no constitutional right to Minutes for the Meeting of June 21, 2006 3 minority reports. Mr. Zurlo felt it was the Board’s responsibility to relay the facts, take a position and stand with it. He hoped the reports could be crafted with language that would be satisfactory to all members. Ms. Manz felt that the real distinction should be whether one was speaking for Board or as an individual and that was a fair thing to ask one to do. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that when one is elected to serve on a board it sometimes involving sacrificing some of the things one could do as an individual. As an example she pointed out how Mr. Canale had recused himself from the discussion of 16 Shade Street. She urged the Board to act as a board rather than as five individuals. Joint Meeting with Board of Selectmen on June 26, 2006: Ms. Manz stated that the Selectmen are seeking ways to generate more revenue as the Town faces another override election and that increasing tax revenues from commercial property has been cited as a potential avenue to pursue. The Planning Board has been asked to meet with the Board of Selectmen on Monday June 26 to hear about the Selectmen's interest in changing the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) in some commercial zones - along Hartwell Avenue and Hayden Avenue, in particular - as a way of stimulating economic growth, the Planning Board discussed the ramifications of such a move. It was noted that no requests for increased FAR have come from businesses or commercial property owners in those areas and the effects on traffic of increasing the maximum FAR would be problematic. The Board agreed that it wants to support the Selectmen but also recognizes the importance of carefully considering its own goals before committing Board and planning staff time to them. Setting priorities will be an important aspect of its own work program for the coming year, which it is slated at its next meeting. The Board of Selectmen's goal-setting session is set for July 11. Mr. Zurlo remarked that the 20-20 Vision economic development scoping group he is part of would be considering how to stimulate commercial growth in Lexington and increase the tax base. Ms. McCall-Taylor noted that neighboring towns, e.g., Burlington, are experiencing new development while Lexington is not. Lexington's FAR limit could be part of the reason why. Meeting Schedule: The Board set a meeting for Wednesday, June 28, which it intends to devote to setting its goals and work program for the coming year. Staff will post the meeting. ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Staff Smart Growth Grant Proposal Ms. McCall-Taylor reported that staff is assembling an application package for a grant being offered by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. The grant money is intended for projects that advance smart growth principles and staff believes it could be used for consultant services in support of potential amendments to Article 9 of the Zoning By-Law, the cluster development provisions. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Anthony G. Galaitsis, Clerk