HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-24-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2005
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Estabrook Hall was called to order at 8:00
p.m. by Chairman Kastorf with members Davies, Harden, Manz and planning staff McCall-Taylor and
Tap present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent.
************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *************
APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Grandview Avenue 40B Plans, DEBCO Properties, Review of Application: Mr. David Burns, DEBCO
Properties, was present to show the Board his plans for a 40B development for three parcels of land on
Grandview Avenue. With him were Mr. Gary Johnson, architect, and Mr. Doug Miller, engineer.
Mr. Burns presented his proposal, which he described as a possible alternative to his previous 12-unit
plan, for ten apartments in three structures (five units in one building, three and two in the others) on three
lots of land. Three units would be affordable to someone earning 80% of the area median income and
would count toward Lexington's DHCD Affordable Housing Inventory. Mr. Burns indicated that he put
forth a ten-unit plan when town officials expressed concern over the severe impacts on the neighborhood
of the 12-unit plan. The 12-unit proposal is still on the table and would have three units affordable at 50%
of the area median income. He said that the Board had approved a three-unit subdivision for this property,
but the Board noted that this approval had been appealed by the neighbors and the Land Court had held
that the subdivision could not go forward without the neighbors signing the application.
Mr. Johnson displayed the current plans, saying that they had worked hard to reduce the size and massing
of the buildings, which were designed after the New England village style. He claimed that the buildings
complied with the setbacks of the RS zoning designation of the area. He noted the open and play space
and the provision of parking for residents and their guests on each site. One of the buildings complies
with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Miller described the storm water management system.
A majority of the Board's questions and comments had to do with placement of sidewalk, width of street
pavement and the potential for overflow parking on Grandview Avenue. They pointed out the existing
difficulty for emergency vehicles in negotiating the turn at the end of Grandview and indicated that street
parking would only exacerbate problems of access to the dwellings. Mr. Kastorf expressed concern that
an emergency vehicle called to another emergency from Grandview would be delayed getting to the other
location by conditions on Grandview. In response to a question, Mr. Burns indicated that he does not
intend to improve any part of Estabrook Road.
Ms. McCall-Taylor pointed out that the tandem parking proposed does not comply with the Zoning
Bylaw: tandem parking is not allowed in multi-family developments. She also expressed concern about
placement of the proposed retaining walls along the street and sidewalk. Mrs. Manz asked if the sightlines
on Welch Road are adequate for cars exiting Grandview.
Many audience questions and comments had to do with the density of the proposal and its attendant
impacts. Mr. James LaMarca, 9 Welch Road, described it as 2 ½ times as dense as the surrounding
neighborhoods. He presented comparative data using a zoning map he had marked to show the locations
of other affordable housing developments in Lexington. He described Mr. Burns's proposal as contrary to
the Planning Board's 2002 comprehensive plan and not compatible with Lexington's character.
Mr. Gary Larson, a landscape architect engaged by the neighborhood to speak about the 40B proposal in
terms of his profession, noted some potential public safety problems related to street width, grade and
layout, and a concern about a retaining wall being too close to one of the buildings. He recognized that
more engineering information would be available at a later stage in the permitting process but was
troubled about the close proximity of the drainage structures to the proposed buildings.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 2005 2
Mr. John Clough, 19 Grandview, commented that it was hard to make any sense of Mr. Burns's
application materials as they were so disorganized. Key pieces of information missing and Mr. Burns did
not provide requested items to the neighbors. Mr. Burns responded that at this stage he is not required to.
Attorney Emily Sample spoke in behalf of the neighborhood. Her points had to do with the proposed
density and its effects on the area, child safety relative to the play space on one lot, some comments made
by the independent reviewing engineer, Hayes Associates, and the absence of a subdivision plan. She
questioned Mr. Burns's use of engineering data from his three-unit subdivision plan in this 40B
application. She said the neighborhood seeks due process with all the necessary information available.
Mr. Howard Silver, 19 Welch Road, commented that this proposal would distort all of the regulations that
are meant to maintain a livable environment.
The Board summarized its thoughts on the proposal, saying that the proposed density creates nearly all of
the problems that were raised tonight. Given the limited information provided the Board could not
determine if a 20’ road would be adequate to serve this number of houses. Proposed off-street parking
appeared inadequate since it depends on tandem spaces to be shared by residents of different units.
Enforcement of no parking on the site would be an issue and well as the proximity of large structures to
existing modest homes. One of the proposed buildings received favorable comment as to its
appropriateness and in a development with, for example, six dwelling units, could be acceptable. But with
insufficient data being offered the current proposal seems unacceptable. There was concern about the
adequacy of the infiltration system, particularly the unit handling the stormwater runoff of the proposed
road.
Mr. Kastorf stated that the Board needs to see how Mr. Burns plans to solve the problems of stormwater
management and public safety. The Planning Board has approved other subdivisions that include
affordable units, but those plans provided information about impacts and ameliorations on which
informed decisions could be made. He felt there was very little of that here. He said that the Board
originally approved three units on this site and knows that that number can work, but given the lack of
information for other numbers of units, the Board is unable to know if the impacts can be appropriately
mitigated.
PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW
Form A/05-1, Piper Road at Waltham Street: The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for
land at Piper Road and Waltham Street. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted to endorse the
plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, MA (Middlesex County) ", dated February 16, 2005, prepared
and certified by James R. Keenan, Winchester, MA, Registered Land Surveyor, with Form A/05-1,
submitted by Joseph A. Marino, Homes Development Corp., applicant, as it does not require approval
under the Subdivision Control Law.
************************ ARTICLES FOR 2005 TOWN MEETING ************************
Article 4, CB to CD, Battle Green Inn, Mitigation of Impacts, Discussion: The Board discussed the merits
and mechanics of an appropriate level of mitigation measures to be expected of the developer of the
Battle Green Inn property which might include affordable housing, financial support of Center
connectivity project, and of Lexpress.
Members agreed that at least ten percent of the units should be affordable but debated as to whether or not
the units should be rental or homeownership opportunities and what would be the best way of assuring the
permanence of affordability. The Board felt it would be appropriate to ask to have four units donated to
LexHAB and require that all efforts be made to have the units qualify for counting on the 40B inventory
by applying under the Local Initiative Program (LIP). The Board felt that asking for a contribution to
affordable housing was appropriate.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 2005 3
Other mitigations were discussed, including having the developer be the point person in gathering support
for a Business Improvement District (BID), or at least providing some seed money to be used for the
same. The Lexington Center Committee is seeking funds for implementing connectivity projects in the
center. The developer might be asked to come up with a specific connectivity plan valued at
approximately $50,000.
The Board wondered if there was a nexus for requiring traffic/transportation mitigations as the traffic
study said there would be no impact from the change in use. They could see having six-month
LEXPRESS passes made available to the new residents upon the purchase of the unit, but did not see a
basis for a long-term commitment to LEXPRESS funding as there was no tie to an impact. Mr. Canale
felt that the Transportation Advisory Committee should weigh in before making a decision. Mr. Harden
said that the construction activity would have an impact but that there appeared to be no long-term
negative impact due to traffic relative to the existing use.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 p.m.
Wendy Manz, Clerk