Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-09-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2005 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall, Cary Hall, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Kastorf with members Davies, Galaitsis, Harden, Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Tap present. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2005 TOWN MEETING ************************ Zoning Bylaw, Amendments to the Accessory Apartment Provisions, Public Hearing: Mr. Kastorf opened the public hearing on the Planning Board's proposed changes to the accessory apartment provisions of the Zoning Bylaw at 7:45 p.m. There were twelve people in the audience. Mr. Kastorf gave a brief overview of the accessory apartment bylaw, originally enacted in 1983. It was intended to create economic opportunities that would help maintain a diverse town population by making it possible for "empty-nesters" living in large houses to have additional income that might allow them to remain in their Lexington homes as well as contribute to housing diversity by providing small, more affordable units. He noted that a relatively small number of units have been created since then. The current Board, in keeping with its initiatives to implement goals identified in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, wants to make accessory apartments a more attractive option by changing some of the regulatory limitations on their creation. Ms. McCall-Taylor outlined the proposal, identifying the three proposed types of units: by right accessory apartment, special permit accessory apartment and accessory structure apartment. She referred audience members to the explanatory handout. Questions and comments were as follows: ?? Mr. Nyles Barnert, Board of Appeals, asked why the 5-year limit would not apply to special permit accessory apartments? The Board explained that they wanted to allow the option of a new house being built with an accessory apartment. Mr. Barnert said that he hoped that at Town meeting the 5-year limit would be placed on special permit accessory apartments as well. ?? In response to a question, Ms. McCall-Taylor said according to assessors and building department records there are currently 50 to 60 permitted accessory apartments. ?? Mr. Edmund Grant said that the proposed changes would encourage a more diverse population and help house-rich empty nesters stay in their homes. He felt the Planning Board should be commended for proposing these changes. They are truly needed, as there are many single- occupant and empty-nester homes in Lexington. ?? Mr. Bob Bicknell of the Housing Partnership pointed out that it is difficult for younger people and people with less income to buy into Lexington. A new home with an accessory apartment could help such house buyers defray the cost of the mortgage. ?? How many people could live in the apartment? The number of occupants in a dwelling is beyond town control. ?? Mr. Julian Bussgang asked if there could there be a home-based business in an accessory apartment. The Board indicated that there could be but any home occupations could not exceed the Zoning Bylaw's impact measures for home occupation or occupations in a single-family dwelling. ?? There was confusion about how an addition to an accessory structure would affect the maximum gross floor area of an accessory structure apartment. The Board indicated that they would clarify the language in that section. ?? Mr. Galaitsis indicated that he supports the by right and accessory structure apartment language but has reservations about the proposed special permit accessory apartment provisions. ?? Mr. Bussgang said that there was a clear need to change the current bylaw but it should be done in a more gradual way. Mr. Kastorf responded that much more dramatic market driven changes, e.g., the sharp increase in the price and size of homes, over which the Planning Board has no Minutes for the Meeting of February 9, 2005 2 control, are impacting Lexington housing now. ?? Responding to a comment that a house with an accessory apartment is really a two-family home, the Board pointed out that the house must still look like a single-family dwelling, with the apartment entrance to the side or rear of the residence. And, unlike in a two-family zoning district, the homeowner must live in one of the dwelling units. There was discussion about whether developers doing teardown/new construction would choose to build big new houses with large accessory apartments. In response, it was acknowledged by a number of people that builders typically avoid the special permit process if they can. Mr. Barnert agreed and characterized the Appeals Board special permit process as very effective. Mr. Harden commented that developers are primarily interested in single-family houses, not two-family or multi-family and that the accessory apartment provision is most likely to be used for small in-law apartments or au pair apartments. Mr. Bicknell reiterated the notion that developers, on the whole, prefer not to deviate from the by right process. The hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Grandview Avenue Comprehensive Permit Application, DEBCO Properties: Ms. McCall-Taylor updated the Board on the status of DEBCO Properties' 40B application. The public hearing is scheduled for February 10 and the Board of Appeals must issue its decision no longer than 40 days after the hearing is closed but if DHCD accepts the Met State LIP units within the 40 days, it can deny the comprehensive permit. Ms. McCall-Taylor noted that the town had received a letter from DHCD saying that its counsel is currently reviewing the regulatory agreement, but gave no date when they would add the units to Lexington's Affordable Housing Inventory. Mr. Bicknell, Lexington Housing Partnership chair, was in the audience and told the Board that while the Partnership welcomes affordable units it is very concerned about the impact of a development the size of DEBCO's project, 10 to 12 units, on the Grandview neighborhood. It is sending a letter to that effect to the Board of Appeals. Mr. John Clough, a resident of Grandview Avenue, implored the Planning Board to make comment on the proposal, saying that the 12-unit plan has not been replaced by a 10-unit plan in the application submittal. Both are part of the application material. Mr. Kastorf commented that the Planning Board had not been able to review the plans to date as the Board had never received a complete application but rather it had been submitted in a piecemeal fashion. Tonight was the first time they had seen some of the plans and they were very different from what had been available before. There was some confusion as to whether the plans before the Board tonight were a different application or a proposed alternative. The Board agreed to review the plans when they receive a complete application. As the 40B public hearing was scheduled for February 10, staff was asked to prepare a letter to the Zoning Board asking it to continue the hearing to a later date and to provide the Planning Board with a complete application to review so it may make informed comment on the proposal. The Board agreed to devote the meeting of February 23 exclusively to its consideration. Mrs. Manz said she would review the application before then and report to the Board. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* Replacing Karl Kastorf: Selectmen chair Dawn McKenna was present and reported that her Board took action at their last meeting and will have published a legal notice relative to recruiting a new Planning Board member to replace Mr. Kastorf who intends to resign in March. Notice of the vacancy will also be Minutes for the Meeting of February 9, 2005 3 distributed to Town Meeting members and neighborhood associations. The Planning Board indicated that it would plan to meet jointly with the Selectmen to interview respondents, deliberate on their merits and appoint the new member. The Planning Board scheduled meetings as follows: March 2, March 9, March 10 (Interview candidates for Planning Board), March 14 (a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen to appoint new member), March 15 and March 17. ************************************* REPORTS ************************************* Planning Board: 2020 Vision Committee, Recent Activity : Mr. Harden reported that the 2020 Vision Committee has published a report on the budget process, constructive discourse, and economic development. It proposes a joint meeting of town boards to review the report. The report is online. The Board agreed to invite representatives of the 2020 group to attend a Planning Board meeting some time in April for this purpose. Design Advisory Committee : Mr. Davies reported that the Design Advisory Committee has decided to change its regular meetings to Wednesday evenings, which effectively renders moot the question of which Planning Board member would act as liaison to the Committee. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk