HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-25-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2006
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office
Building, was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Manz, with members Galaitsis, Hornig, Canale
and Zurlo and planning staff Schilt present. Ms. McCall-Taylor arrived at 8:40 p.m.
************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
177 Grove Street, Definitive Conventional Subdivision, Request for Extension of Review Period:
Mr. Schilt informed the Board that as part of the negotiation to settle the appeal of the Planning Board’s
denial of an application for a cluster subdivision on the property, the applicant would like the Board to
consider an alternative proposal for a cluster subdivision. Mr. Schilt met with Doug Lees at the site, along
with a landscape architect the applicant has hired, to identify areas where open space and mature trees
could be retained. The proposed plan is a modified version of a concept plan the Board viewed during a
visit to the site earlier this month. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Board grant an extension
of the review period for the conventional subdivision currently before the Board in order to allow time to
consider the new cluster concept plan. The request would extend the deadline until January 19, 2007.
Mr. Hornig stated that he felt it was important that the Board have enough time to review and make a
decision on the conventional plan prior to the deadline. He recommended that the Board’s approval of the
extension be conditioned upon the continued public hearing being scheduled for the first week in January.
Mr. Schilt stated that he had discussed the extension with the applicant’s attorney, and suggested the
Board’s preference for a 90-day extension, rather than 45 days. The attorney stated that additional
extension requests would likely be forthcoming if the Board viewed the alternative favorably.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4 to 0, Mr. Hornig abstaining, to grant an extension of
the review period for the definitive plan for a conventional subdivision at 177 Grove Street, with the
condition that the public hearing will be scheduled for the first Wednesday in January 2007.
************************************* REPORTS *************************************
Planning Board
Vision 2020 Update
Mr. Zurlo reported that the first meeting of the Economic Development and the Sustainability Task
Forces had taken place, and there was a very good turnout. A representative from the City of Cambridge
Minutes for the Meeting of October 25, 2006 2
Economic Development Department was in attendance. The Economic Development Task Force is
working to build support for their initiatives, and the next meeting will focus on creating a work plan by
th
November 8. The first goals for the task force will be to create a job description for a new Economic
Development Director, and to develop a scope of work to solicit consultant services to develop models to
forecast economic development scenarios.
Mr. Canale reported that the breakout group for the Sustainability Task Force included about 20 people
who concluded that the first task should be to identify ways to address global warming issues and reduce
carbon emissions. Ms. Manz added that the task force is also looking at ways to include other town
groups in sustainability initiatives. Mr. Canale said that the first efforts will focus on the sustainability of
town buildings, but the group may not be ready to work on matters pertaining to private residential or
commercial uses. Ms. Manz stated that the Energy Committee is also working on energy efficiency for
town buildings with the purpose of reducing cost, but the sustainability efforts are not not necessarily
cost saving. Mr. Zurlo suggested that the task force should inquire with local developers to see if they
have any insight into best practices currently being used. Mr. Schilt added that the sustainability
committee in Arlington has been very active for several years, and they may have some insight to provide
as well. Mr. Canale stated that there was reluctance among the task force to come up with ready-made
solutions, and the preference is to advance lessons learned on their own. Mr. Galaitsis inquired whether
there was support for commercial buildings with “green” roofs. Mr. Zurlo suggested the task force seek
members who are LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified to assist with
identification of building construction and site design strategies. Mr. Canale stated that promoting
sustainability is already in the regulations, but the Planning Board does not enforce it. Mr. Galaitsis stated
that there is little awareness among decision makers about methods to promote sustainable design and
construction techniques. Mr. Hornig stated that construction techniques are a building code issue, and the
Town no longer has a building code. Mr. Canale stated that sustainable site design principles could be
incorporated into a Low Impact Development by-law resulting from the grant the town has applied for
through MAPC.
Center Committee
Ms. Manz stated that the Center Committee has been working with Bank of America on the proposed
connectivity enhancement to the town parking lot from Massachusetts Avenue. The Bank will be
contributing funds to construct the pedestrian connection, but more funding is needed.
The Center Committee has also stated their support for Carl Valente to hire an Economic Development
Minutes for the Meeting of October 25, 2006 3
Officer, as there is need to expand the town’s tax base as well as foster commercial vitality in the Center.
Mr. Zurlo added that there is also support from the 2020 Economic Development task force to help Mr.
Valente, and they are willing to participate in interviews and develop a job description.
Federal Highway Grant Opportunities
Mr. Canale stated that a two-year funding cycle will begin in February 2007 with grants for Federal
Highway funds for local projects. The state is recruiting project ideas, and the Scenic Byway Committee
will apply for funding to develop a corridor management plan. He suggested that the Center Committee
may want to participate, if they can find a way to tie connectivity issues in the town centers of the Byway
project.
Historic Commission
Mr. Hornig reported that Todd Cataldo has applied for a demolition permit for the Journey’s End
property, and the application will go before the Historical Commission next month.
******************************** ZONING INITIATIVES *******************************
Article XII Traffic By-Law
Ms. Manz suggested that discussion of revisions to Article XII commence with a review of policies for
transportation that were adopted by past boards to determine if they are still valid. She suggested
beginning with the Transportation Demand Management Policy dated September 16, 1998. Mr. Galaitsis
noted that the policy was very repetitive, and should be streamlined and condensed.
Mr. Hornig stated that he took exception to the paragraph discussing compensatory benefits, noting that
mitigations should be impact based and not determined by increases in property values. Mr. Canale stated
that he disagreed, emphasizing that decisions by the town that increase the value of a property should be
based upon what benefits the town will receive in return. Ms. Manz stated that she agreed with Mr.
Hornig, as entitlement to exactions should be specifically for mitigation to offset increased demands on
infrastructure. Mr. Canale noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals has stated they want specificity in
order to make decisions, and incentives are needed for decision makers to allow increased densities. Mr.
Galaitsis supported some degree of profit sharing (beyond tax revenue) for rezoning that increases the
value of a property significantly, if it is legally permissible, and asked for the town counsel’s feedback on
this issue. Mr. Canale noted that it was allowed under state law, and towns are entitled to require public
benefits in exchange for increased densities. Mr. Hornig stated that while he understood it was not illegal,
he believes it would be unwise. Ms. Manz stated that when approving projects, the Board is to decide
Minutes for the Meeting of October 25, 2006 4
what is better for the town as a whole, and it may be appropriate to request benefits and mitigation of
town-wide impacts rather than benefits that address only the nearest roads and intersections.
Mr. Zurlo noted that mitigations should be part of all special permits because all development has an
impact on traffic albeit at varying levels of intensity. Mr. Canale noted that state law allows for public
benefits to be provided in exchange for a special permit. Mr. Hornig stated that impact based mitigations
are more appropriate, and that it should be loosely proportional to the impacts on the transportation
system. He inquired whether impact fees are legal in Massachusetts. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that she
believed they might be allowed in cities but not in towns. Mr. Hornig stated that if mitigations were
proportional then everyone would pay, not just a select few. Ms. Manz added that proportionality creates
a wider and better scheme for the overall transportation system.
Mr. Canale stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals wants less flexibility in the process to determine
mitigations. Ms. McCall-Taylor noted that the Traffic Mitigation Group was established primarily to
negotiate and recommend improvements. Mr. Hornig stated that there have been problems with past
funding commitments for mitigation projects, and the funds get used questionably.
Mr. Hornig noted that local impacts from larger projects tend to be small. Ms. McCall-Taylor added that
the impacts tend to be cumulative. Mr. Hornig stated that future changes in development patterns are not
going to change what is currently good or bad about the existing transportation network. Mr. Zurlo added
that imposing a blanket upgrade in traffic level of service upgrades is not a good idea and would be unfair
to the owner/developer. Mr. Canale stated that rationality is based on the basic premise of maintaining the
quality of life. Ms. Manz stated that there is little land left to develop in town as it is, and most new
impacts will come in small increments.
Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that policies should describe how to implement the regulations. Mr. Hornig
stated that the Board should consider the lessons learned from the attempts to initiate the inclusionary
housing by-law last spring: improvements are the responsibility of the community as a whole and not just
the responsibility of newcomers. Mr. Galaitsis stated that a large commercial entity might be viewed
differently by Town Meeting, who may expect something in return for project approvals. Ms. Manz stated
that what really needs to be addressed is how to require commitments legally and fairly, and a rational
method is needed to tie mitigations to impacts. Mr. Hornig added that Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures deal with on-site matters, which are easy to mandate; off-site
improvements are difficult to negotiate objectively.
Minutes for the Meeting of October 25, 2006 5
Mr. Canale stated that what is needed is a vision for what the town’s transportation system should be. Mr.
Hornig indicated he thought that residents are content with the current land use patterns and
infrastructure; no one wants more building or bricks and mortar. Mr. Canale stated he felt most people are
unsatisfied with the transportation conditions but they don’t want to spend the money to fix the problems.
Mr. Hornig suggested that TDM measures should be part of the general by-law, rather than in zoning, so
the requirements would apply to everyone. Mr. Schilt commented that TDM is difficult to enforce from
both sides of the table: developers make promises to get projects approved, but tenants or management
companies have staff that are not aware of what is required; The ability to proactively monitor and
enforce the commitments is limited by town staffing levels. Mr. Hornig suggested tying TDM
requirements to the number of parking spaces in a development. Ms. Manz suggested tying the
requirements to the number of employees is more equitable as different establishments have different
parking capacities and needs. Mr. Zurlo stated that determining if a project must employ a TDM measure
is one factor for consideration, while the actual degree and type of mitigation should be discussed further.
Inclusionary Housing
Ms. Manz stated that efforts are underway to garner support for the Inclusionary Housing by-law at Town
Meeting next spring. A group from Temple Isaiah and other interfaith groups are helping to promote the
by-law and have hired a professional organizer. Members of the Housing Partnership Board are also
providing support. Mr. Zurlo stated that he would like to revisit the by-law to find a way to make it apply
to a broader population. He also has concerns that providing affordable units in existing houses may
overburden developers with construction costs, or providing poorly maintained units may burden new
buyers with expensive repairs. Although in some cases financial contributions in lieu of inclusionary units
are seen as a developer’s way to circumvent the intent of these requirements, Mr. Zurlo stated it may be
appropriate given the size of the projects our By-Law is applicable to. He would be in favor of the board
considering fees in lieu of units. He suggested requiring fees in lieu of providing units. Ms. McCall-
Taylor stated that fee-based inclusionary requirements had not been successful in other communities;
funds accumulate without housing units being produced.
*****************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE******************
It was decided that additional discussion is needed to make progress on by-law revisions. The Board
agreed to schedule an additional meeting in November, adding a one-hour meeting before the November
th
29 Special Town Meeting.
Minutes for the Meeting of October 25, 2006 6
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Gregory Zurlo, Clerk