Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-06-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 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 July 26, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. The Board agreed to review revised minutes for the meetings of August 9 and 23, 2006 at a future meeting. ************************************* TREES *************************************** John Frey, Karen Longeteig, Gerry Paul and Jim Woods were present to represent the Tree Committee. They asked the Board to consider adopting the following regulation: “The Developer of all proposed commercial or residential building projects requiring Lexington Planning Board approval must submit a Tree Management Plan as part of the permitting process to the Board. The Tree Management Plan shall address the preservation and protection of all existing trees with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 6 inches or greater, specifying all trees to be removed, all new tree plantings, and all plans for roads, driveways and structures. The Developer's Tree Management Plan shall follow the methodology and rules specified in the Lexington Tree Bylaw and the Lexington Tree Management Manual. The Board shall refer the Tree Management Plan to the Lexington Tree Committee and/or the Town Tree Warden for approval as part of the permitting process.” To address concerns about overlapping jurisdictions when the tree by-law was proposed, it was drafted to not apply in any instance where the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Conservation Commission had established jurisdiction. Mr. Woods stated that a worst-case scenario under current regulations could be the clear cutting of a subdivision. The Tree Committee wants to provide leverage for the Planning Board by requiring as part of the subdivision application a tree management plan that would outline a reasonable approach to tree preservation. The Board members expressed an interest in formally incorporating the tree by-law standards into the subdivision review process but were still concerned about how best to do so. There was some agreement that they should be incorporated into the Zoning By-Law in some way. They also debated whether or not Minutes for the Meeting of September 6, 2006 2 a tree management plan should include the entire site, or just the setback areas. There was a desire to preserve specimen trees that might be in the interior of lots. During the discussion it came out that the Tree Committee had not been receiving notice of developments going before the Development Review Team. The staff said that would be corrected by sending the notice directly to the Committee chair, rather than assuming the tree warden was forwarding the notice. The Tree Committee will also make sure that the Planning staff is notified of their public hearings so the Board can be made aware of any discussions. There was further discussion about how the tree by-law was working and the status of the tree fund. Mr. Paul said that in every case so far the applicants had chosen to replant trees rather than give money to the tree fund. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* SUBDIVISION OF LAND 17 Suzanne Road: The Board reviewed the new proof plan, submitted at its request, showing a complying subdivision. Mr. Hornig noted that it might be a bad idea to allow an intersection at a curve. Mr. Galaitsis said that the setbacks in the proof plan have limited the building space and that the house in a conventional subdivision would be smaller than what will be proposed. Mr. Hornig said that there is a policy governing house size in Reduced Frontage Subdivisions. Ms. McCall-Taylor added that there is no requirement to show a house footprint in a conventional subdivision. 177 Grove Street: The applicant has requested that the time in which the Board must act be extended 60 days to November 27, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded it was unanimously voted to extend the time in which to take action on the Definitive Conventional Subdivision application for 177 Grove Street by 60 days. 16 Shade Street: The Board unanimously voted to endorse the previously approved plans for the Reduced Frontage Subdivision at 16 Shade Street. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Form A/2006-4, 4 Jeffrey Terrace: The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at 4 Jeffrey Terrace. Ms. McCall-Taylor noted that the application still lacks the signature of one of the owners of the parcels involved. She suggested that the Board vote to approve the plan and to allow her to endorse it on its behalf when the application is complete. Minutes for the Meeting of September 6, 2006 3 On a motion duly made and seconded it was unanimously voted to approve the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, MA (Middlesex County)", dated July 26, 2006, prepared and certified by Clifford E. Rober, Professional Land Surveyor, of Rober Survey, Arlington, MA, with Form A 2006-4, submitted by Frederick Conroy for the applicants, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law; and to authorize the Planning Director to endorse the plan after all of the required material has been submitted. ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Planning Board Ms. Manz distributed the minutes from the most recent Design Advisory Committee. She said the 2020 sustainability drafting group is meeting the following Monday to review their draft report. She and Mr. Canale are planning on attending and she urged the others to go as well. Mr. Galaitsis announced that there would be signs at the schools about the anti-idling campaign. The number per school and exact locations are still to be determined. Mr. Zurlo said the Economic Scoping Group is making a series of presentations, the draft report is being circulated and the report is due September 14. Staff Ms. McCall-Taylor informed the Board that the new Zoning Administrator, Mr. David George, had started work last week. She distributed copies of the new zoning map. Mr. Schilt said that he had scheduled a meeting with MassHighway to get more information on the Hartwell Avenue project that is on the TIP list. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* The Board agreed to meet on October 4 and 18. ************************************* TRAFFIC ************************************** Mr. Canale did a presentation to the Board on considerations for traffic by-law revisions. He touched on the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, the increase in highway congestion over the last 20 years, the new MassHighway Design Guidebook, and the Planning Board Transportation Demand Minutes for the Meeting of September 6, 2006 4 Management Policy. Much of the discussion that followed concerned the slide on transportation policy, specifically the following: “INCLUSIONARY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES: In order to obtain a favorable recommendation, or where applicable, a favorable action, by the Planning Board on CERTAIN construction or other activity that will increase transportation demand, shall provide transportation services as described in this Policy. COMPENSATORY BENEFIT: Where an action of the Town increases the value of a property, by permitting more intensive commercial development or a higher density of residential development, or reduces an owner's or developer's expense, by granting a waiver or variance from normal standards, the Town should receive a benefit, such as some type of transportation demand management program in return. Further, the Town should refrain from actions which increase value, or reduce expenses, unless it does receive such a benefit.” Board members generally agreed with the first paragraph but expressed concerns about the second. Ms. Manz said the Board was not selling zoning, but supported changes because they were for the good of the town. Mr. Galaitsis stated that transportation improvements eventually bring more traffic, and there should be some mechanism to assess and account for the added impact. Mr. Hornig stated that increases in property values equate to increases in the tax base, which in itself is a benefit to the town. Ms. Manz added that land use changes bring the town other benefits, and the Town should not require more charges to pay the freight. Mr. Zurlo asked if the second paragraph was trying to apply TDM to all projects? Mr. Canale said to look at the state law and what it says. Mr. Hornig said that Article 12 has two practical effects: it makes it difficult to develop land, and, to the extent it can, gets mitigation money that is being used to fix things that are tangential - system improvements have little to do with the problem. Mitigation packages should go toward projects that improve greater needs in the town. The size of the project triggers an all or nothing mitigation level. Ms. Manz suggested that the next step be a look at including other modes in transportation demand management rather than just the level of service for vehicular traffic. ******************************* EXECUTIVE SESSION ******************************** At 10:50 p.m., on a motion duly made and seconded, by individual poll of the Board—Mr. Canale, Mr. Hornig, Ms. Manz, Mr. Galaitsis, and Mr. Zurlo— it was voted to go into executive session to discuss litigation against the Town and not to return to open session. Gregory Zurlo, Clerk