Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-27-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MAY 27, 2009 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Galaitsis, Zurlo, Canale, and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry, and Kaufman present. Ms. Manz was absent. ***************************SPECIAL TOWN MEETING********************************* Patriot Partners; Lexington Technology Park: Mr. Robert Buckley and Joe Zink were present to discuss a letter submitted to the Planning Board regarding their proposed agenda for filing the Amended Preliminary Site Plan Development and Use Plan (APSDUP) and the hiring of a peer review consultant. Mr. Zurlo asked what was the role of peer review? Mr. Buckley said to assure that the scope of the work, methodology, and data collected was sufficient in determining the impacts. Mr. Zurlo asked what was the purpose of scoping peer review in a public session? Mr. Buckley responded it was to provide a forum to address any concerns or questions. Mr. Zurlo said to address the traffic component first then file the APSDUP. Mr. Buckley said they had to cull out the permitted uses first, since that would affect traffic. Mr. Zurlo asked when would the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) be proposed? Mr. Buckley said after the peer review came back with the impacts. Mr. Galaitsis was pleased with the number of meetings and with the proposed schedule, but questioned how one could achievea win-win situation with this project. Mr. Galaitsis wanted to see the parties get together and work out their differences. In that respect, he would be looking closely at the degree the proposed final plan addressed the concerns of those mostly affected by its size. Mr. Hornig said that Patriot Partner’s plan was to file an APSDUP next month; there would be public meetings in August and into September, peer review of traffic and at least two to three public hearing sessions before Special Town Meeting in November. **************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION**************************** 112 Laconia Street; Solly’s Way: The developer requested switching over to a performance bond of $10,000 covering the installation of the topcoat of asphalt, the Cape Cod berm, contingencies, and as-built plans. The Engineering division of the DPW approved the cost estimates. The developer would also provide $6,000 cash to cover the eventual Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of May 27, 2009 under-grounding of the utility wires now crossing Laconia Street. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to, 4-0, to modify the performance guarantee and accept a $10,000 performance bond and $6,000 cash surety. 63 Paul Revere Road; major/minor modification determination: Mr. Fred Russell and Jim D’Agostine were present. The applicant was requesting an increase in the size of the house since the third story would not fit within the 33.5-foot height restriction and asking for a 600 square-foot increase in the footprint from 1,800 square feet to 2,400 square feet. The gross floor area (GFA) would increase from 4,000 square feet to 5,400 square feet, which was less then the 5,500 square- foot maximum allowed. Mr. Galaitsis was disturbed that they did not have the actual figures available at the meeting. He also indicated that in the past a minor modification was limited to a less than 10% increase over agreed upon figures, which was not the case of the proposed 1,400 square foot increase over the approved 4,000 square foot residence. Mr. Zurlo asked what was the original maximum GFA? Mr. Henry said 5,500 square feet. Mr. Russell said the impervious surface and site coverage were still within the maximum limits. They had also increased the drainage structures. Mr. Zurlo asked if this request was the result of a discrepancy between the plan and decision, or marketability. Mr. Russell said it was both. Mr. Zurlo said there was still concern regarding the bulk and mass of the structure. Mr. Hornig said there was not enough information to make a decision tonight. Mr. Canale asked what was the distance from the stone wall and sidelines? Mr. Russell said five feet, and that everything was within the existing maximums. Mr. Zurlo said staying within the dimensional controls is important, but with a site sensitive development siting was also important. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-1, (Mr. Galaitsis opposed) that the changes presented were considered minor modifications. Mr. Zurlo asked the applicant to provide the before and after of the previously proposed plans. Mr. Russell said the level of detail would make it impossible to read. Mr. Henry said when the Board endorsed the new plan they could examine both plans. Mr. Canale said he did not need to see any Minutes for the Meeting of May 27, 2009 Page 3 additional information. Mr. Zurlo said the previous plans and the current proposed plans side by side would be sufficient. 341 Marrett Road; endorse plans: Mr. Henry said the applicant had met all conditions in the special permit pertaining to endorsement of the plans for 341 Marrett Road. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to endorse the plans for 341 Marrett Road. In accordance with the special permit granted for the development of 341 Marrett Road, the developer requested that the construction of the common drive and installation of municipal services be secured by a Tri-Partite Agreement. The amount covered by the agreement was the same as detailed on the Estimated Cost to Construct Form, which was approved by the Engineering Department. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained), to accept surety in the amount of $204,000 in the form of a Tri-Partite Agreement. ***************************HARTWELL AVENUE STUDY AREA************************* TMOD plan RFP: Ms. McCall-Taylor said the RFP went out last week and there would be a meeting on June 2 for interested parties; the responses were due by June 18, 2009. Site Plan Review Guidelines: Ms. McCall-Taylor said monies would need to be committed before the next fiscal year for the development of Site Plan Review Guidelines, and the hope was to hire a smaller consultant for this project by the end of June. ***************************OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN********************** Board and Staff Comments: Mr. Zurlo asked how this would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McCall-Taylor said it could be an element of the plan. Mr. Zurlo suggested it utilize the format of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McCall-Taylor said the Board should consider goal seven, the creation of a Land Acquisition Committee through the Board of Selectmen. The current document addressed open space, recreation and Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of May 27, 2009 historic protection needs, but not housing. This section should be broadened to include Planning Board representation in this committee and all elements be considered, including affordable housing. Ms. McCall-Taylor also stated that there was some cluster subdivision open space that was not listed and should be added. Mr. Hornig said any more detailed comments should be sent to the planning staff. This will be going to the Board of Selectmen on June 8. ***************************REGIONAL INTERTOWN ISSUES**************************** Ms. McCall-Taylor said the Selectmen asked a group of five planners representing the municipalities from Burlington to Weston to look into a common TDM policy. The group determined that would not be possible because there were too many differences between the municipalities. The planners are now looking at creating a Transportation Management Association and have spoken with Caroline Connor of the 128 Business Council to get a quote for a zip code study. *********************************** MINUTES**************************************** The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for April 1, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained) to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for April 2, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for April 6, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained due to absence) to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for April 13, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained due to absence) to approve the minutes as amended.The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for April 15, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained due to absence) to approve the minutes as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for April 16, 2009. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes as amended. The Board will review the minutes for April 22, 27 and 29 at the next meeting. Minutes for the Meeting of May 27, 2009 Page 5 ***********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION SCHEDULE***************** The Planning Board will meet on June 10 and 24. The tentative July meetings are scheduled for July 8 and 29. th On June 24 the Board will work on Board reorganization and a work plan. The staff will inquire as to whether the current Associate Planning Board Member would like to continue as an associate member as the Board would be happy to have her continue in that position ************************************ BOARD REPORTS******************************** Mr. Canale said there would be a report at the June 9 MAPC meeting about the Battle Road Scenic Byway Management Plan. A forum on MetroFuture implementation will also occur on June 9. Last week, Lexington Engineering Department sponsored a traffic calming webinar and a disc would be available for purchase if anyone wanted to review it. Mr. Hornig said that Blueberry Lane was still before the Conservation Commission. Mr. Canale said there would be a hearing before the legislature on LUPA and CPA2. A number of Planning Boards across the State have written letters and urged the Board to support CPA2 and not LUPA. Mr. Hornig said the Historical Commission determined that the sheds should be preserved at 91 Hancock Street. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:37 p.m. Wendy Manz, Clerk