HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-21-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 2009
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town
Office Building, and called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Zurlo with members Manz, Canale, Hornig
and planning staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent.
**********************************TOWN MEETING***********************************
PUBLIC HEARING
Lexington Center Committee, proposed Zoning Changes: Mr. Zurlo called to order the public hearing for
Lexington Center Committee proposed zoning changes at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Jerry Michelson and Ms. Pam
Shadley presented the proposed changes. Mr. Michelson said that the proposed changes would allow for
more variety of uses, exempt the Center from the traffic regulations and clarify language for catering,
take-out food and fast food.
Board Comments:
?
A primary concern was that some of the changes would impact other districts.
?
There could be difficulty in sections 9.12 & 9.13 (take out food and fast food) with possible
collateral affects in other districts of town. The language would need to be changed or added that
would limit it only to the Center, or wait six months and do it “right.” Ms. Shadley said it wasn’t
in their purview to address changes in other zones.
?
There were issues with storefront definitions and office use on the first floor. More consideration
of the long term vision for the Center was needed. Office use might be fine as a temporary use
and non-renewable after two years during these economic hard times, but not beyond that.
Perhaps there should be first floor setback requirements to help prevent misuse.
Audience Comments:
?
Nyles Barnert, chair of the ZBA, was opposed to having restaurants as by-right instead of by
special permit. In granting a special permit, the ZBA can address concerns about hours of
operation, cooking odors, delivery times, dumpsters and beautification issues especially with
residential units now being located in the center.
?
Allowing storefront office space was dealt with in a specific case last month by the ZBA. The
restriction that came before the ZBA was determined to be dimensional and could be handled
through a variance but they would prefer it as a special permit.
?
There could be unintended consequences for uses such as athletic facilities regarding the
Page 2 Minutes for the meeting of October 21, 2009
parking bylaws. It could produce a constant amount of in and out traffic and would not
encourage any shopping in the Center.
?
The Chamber of Commerce supports this article. Changing the definitions of some uses to be
by-right would be important.
Was the Zoning Enforcement Officer consulted? Ms. Yanofsky said that the Building Commissioner had
a level of comfort with most of this article.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
The Board, at a later date, will be deliberating further on the following areas of concern:
?
Should food service be allowed by right anywhere with 9.11 & 9.13?
?
Consider the collateral effects on other zones regarding 9.11 & 9.13.
?
Discussion of catering in the Center under 9.14 as an appropriate use.
?
Artisan use including production under 8.22 in the CM zone.
?
Indoor athletic uses.
?
Storefront uses.
The Board also wanted to seek more information from the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building
Commissioner.
PUBLIC HEARING
Site Plan Review Regulations: Mr. Zurlo called to order the continued public hearing for Site Plan
Review Regulations at 8:35 p.m.
Audience Comments:
Mr. John McWeeney, chair of the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC), and Mr. Larry
Smith of the Chamber of Commerce said the regulations were giving more rights, but putting in more
requirements than if an applicant was applying for a special permit with site plan review.
The following issues raised by audience members require further discussion:
?
Advisability of requiring compliance with fees and other requirements before the application
would be considered complete.
?
Small changes to allow any alterations that don’t change the footprint or use of the property
should not require the applicant to come down to Town Hall.
?
Landscaping should not require site plan review.
?
Try to make the process move as speedily as possible and perhaps try to get all the Boards
together at one joint hearing.
Minutes for the meeting of October 21, 2009 Page 3
?
Peer review should not be required before determining if there is an issue.
?
Determine what the applicant wants to do and work through the issues, then decide if waivers are
needed.
?
Surety should not be required for private property.
?
Economic conditions should be added as a legitimate cause for a delay in acting on a permit.
?
Adequate parking would be important for whatever uses were being brought in.
Board comments:
?
Site Plan Review regulations were supposed to give concrete steps while providing clarity and
transparency to the applicant regarding expectations. It would be a good compromise and could
be revisited in two years.
?
Submit in writing the comments from the EDAC with the specific items that were objectionable.
Audience Comments:
?
Mr. Nyles Barnert said that “minor site plan review” should apply to spaces of less then 8,000
square feet with fewer then 24 parking spaces (both limits should apply). In the Section 175-83
design standards, signage was left out.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to close the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Board Discussion:
?
There would be no reason not to approve the regulations now and then revisit in January if
warranted. It would be a”low cost fix”.
?
It would be prudent to let applicants know what was important to the Board.
?
This should not be made an onerous process to scare off applicants, but should provide clarity.
Limiting the number of things the Board could impose would be helpful, 51 items would not send
the right message.
?
Stay with the current definition of minor site plan until there were complaints.
?
The appeal process would be 60 days from when the appeal was filed.
?
Keep peer review, but do not use it unless there is an exceptional case.
?
The standards could be pared down especially on some of the aesthetics.
?
Draft 11A of the Site Plan Review Standards is the departure point going forward.
?
Surety should not be encouraged on private property only on public property.
Page 4 Minutes for the meeting of October 21, 2009
?
In the Lapse section allow economic hardship as a ground for delay explicitly not implicitly.
This discussion should be continued after Town Meeting.
*****************************APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED******************************
Opi Circle (three towns); 2009-5: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to endorse the plan
entitled “Plan of Land Lexington, Massachusetts showing proposed conditions at #1-2 Opi Circle and
Sorelle Place” dated September 15, 2009, prepared and certified by VTP Associates, Inc., Land Surveyors
and Civil Engineers, Newton, MA, and submitted with Form A/2009-6, as it does not require approval
under the Subdivision Control Law.
**********************************TOWN MEETING***********************************
Deliberations on 65 Hayden Avenue, Cubist Pharmaceuticals:
The Board discussed the following recommended changes to the Preliminary Site Development and Use
Plan (PSDUP) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU):
?
On page three Section II, Dimensional Standards should be reworded from “maximum
dimensional standards” to “maximum site coverage and floor area”.
?
On page five regarding structures other than buildings, the Board would rather not change the
definitions, but use increased numbers to reflect the building height to keep consistent with the
Zoning Bylaw.
?
On page six reword the reference on paving to a 10 foot perimeter setback.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 3-0-1, (Mr. Canale abstained) to recommend the
rezoning of 45-65 Hayden Avenue conditional on changes in Section IV of the PSDUP: the provision in
the third bullet referencing the 2009 ZBL applies except where there would be a conflict with the PSDUP
and also include the other suggested changes discussed above in the PSDUP. Mr. Canale abstained and
would wait to see the responses to the suggested changes.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0, to recommend the approval of the MOU for
Cubist Pharmaceuticals to the Board of Selectmen, with a change to the second paragraph inserting the
word “additions” and deleting the last sentence.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:02 p.m.
Wendy Manz, Acting Clerk