Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-24-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2010 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Zurlo with members Hornig, Manz, Canale, Galaitsis and planning staff McCall-Taylor and Kaufman present. *******************************TOWN MEETING ************************************** PUBLIC HEARINGS Article 37, Food Related Uses: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. There were approximately 20 people in the audience. Mr. Hornig gave a presentation, which looked at zones and purposes and how they matched with uses within those zones. Audience comments:  Changing takeout food services in CS zones in Town from Special Permit (SP) to No (N) would have tremendous impact on local businesses and there is little distinction between the CS and CN zones. Gas stations now include convenience stores with take out food.  Mr. Nyles Barnert, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), said that going from “SP” to Yes (Y) in CN & CS zones could bring out neighbors if there were extended hours of use. Perhaps making it a “Y”, but keep the “SP” for hours of operation between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am. The Board of Selectmen would not get involved if there was no seating involved, which would provide no public forum for review.  This would eliminate economic options for property owners. In 1987 comprehensive zoning was enacted to allow this setup for smaller service district like the CS zone. There would be no benefit to changing “SP” to “N”, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. The ZBA could still regulate if “SP” was left in place. Consider the message that change would give to local businesses.  Hartwell Avenue was governed by “SP”. Some properties maybe be zoned wrong, but taking away the “SP” would seriously impact property owners in a negative way. The property owners would have to find new uses during these economic hard times.  When the economy is bad it is even worse for small businesses; don’t limit or over regulate. The Town should welcome new businesses not create new problems for issues that do not exist.  There was concern about the removal of “prepared” in takeout service. It could become confusing with grocery stores.  These new restrictions would affect people’s quality of life if they wanted to walk to a local destination.  There was no thought at this time to put food services in some places, but with the office market 2 Page Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 2010 suffering, these options could become important. Board Comments:  Either “SP” or “N” was acceptable for the CS zone, but “N” could be better in an ideal sense to create diversity in Town. The goal, however, was to make local service people to feel welcome so food should be “SP”.  Obtaining feedback from property owners is why the Planning Board holds public hearings; this was intended to be a rational approach for consistency with the Center Committee’s zoning article from the last special town meeting.  This reaction was no surprise, but glad to hear that “SP” to “Y” was not always desirable.  There are some things that are broken such as types of food uses, definitions have become gray and the Board was trying to provide clarity. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing. Mr. Zurlo closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Article 38, Impervious Surface: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 8:24 p.m. Mr. Zurlo gave a presentation on the definition change for impervious surfaces. Audience Comments:  The idea of porous pavement was a good one, but a lot of problems could occur. Do not change the impervious surface ratio. The porous surface requires a lot of maintenance and expense and if it was to be seal-coated it would lose all the benefits gained. Not counting it as impervious surface might allow a larger house on the lot.  A small part of the change was to limit the size of a development by controlling runoff. If it was within 200 feet of wetlands the Conservation Commission would control the rate of runoff. If the focus was on flooding why would the Planning Board be involved and not the Conservation Commission? This would not be to control the amount of development built, but rather regulate the quality of the ground water.  Not sure about this article. The technical standards were very unclear such as technical release of 55. What does it mean? On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing. Mr. Zurlo closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Article 39, Flood Plain: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 8:39 p.m. Karen Mullins from the Conservation Commission said it was about map modernization. There were no major changes in the base flood elevations. Mr. Chris Markovitch from the State Department of Conservation and Recreation Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 2010 Page 3 was present to answer any questions. Audience Comments:  Was the flood map drawn on a 50 or 100 year storm? Mr. Markovich said 100 year.  Was the accuracy of the mapping better now? Mr. Markovich said that it was pretty much the same information but it would be a better product going forward as the digital format could be used with GIS making it easier to update. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing. Mr. Zurlo closed the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. Article 40, Technical Corrections: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 8:47 p.m. Mr. Galaitsis presented the changes were replacing the word “traffic” with the word “transportation” in section 135- 43C(6) and amend the title “Traffic Management Overlay District” to “Transportation Management Overlay District” there were no comments or questions. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing. Mr. Zurlo closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Article 41, Center Zoning: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 8:49 p.m. Present were Jerry Michelson, Howard Levin, and Dick Brown from the Center Committee. Mr. Levin said the goal was to create a positive pedestrian experience. Signs: All signs were subject to “SP” but should be allowed by right. The Historic Districts Commission (HDC) would still regulate the appropriateness of the signs through their public hearing process. Board Comments:  Consider removing all regulations and leave it to the HDC to make a determination on blade signs. Take the campaign to the HDC for revising their guidelines. Audience Comments:  Strongly support the policy statement to allow projecting signs, but oppose standing signs by right.  Nyles Barnert said the ZBA yields to the HDC in these matters. Parking: The Center Committee would work with the Planning Board and other committees on a parking management plan. If parking spaces could be counted by different businesses at different times, fewer would be needed to meet each business’ requirement. Board Comments:  In favor of the spirit of the article, but it would be helpful to have something to quantify the relationship. 4 Page Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 2010  Do you have a practical example in the center? Mr. Levin said restaurant versus bank, bread store versus ice cream store, but it was a very messy equation.  Want to avoid locking landlords into a particular use because of parking but this could do that. It could reduce flexibility. The Building Commissioner’s record keeping requirement and enforcement maybe a problem. Also how does it fit with §135-70C “attributed” spaces?  This proposed article puts the burden on businesses. Audience Comments:  Confused by the answer of banks versus restaurants, would there be any private spaces? Would this be a significant change?  Why do we keep pretending? The Board of Selectmen allows businesses with virtual parking and this was creating a mess and potential liability. Banks: Currently banks were allowed by right and should only be allowed by “SP”. They are closely related to office spaces. Banks have excessive frontage, are clustered together and occupy large retail frontage and square footage. Board Comments:  Why change ATM’s from by right? Mr. Levin said they were usually in conjunction with banks; stand alone ATMs were not an occurrence in the center.  Was there a problem in the area? The location of banks has not lead to the deadness of the Center.  Limiting a bank to 25 linear feet unless there were “exceptional” circumstances was an impractically low limit.  This would decrease options in the center.  Banks were easy targets and the Center Committee needs to give a sense of what they want the Center to be.  There was nothing established about limits on the locations of the banks. The only limit was on the 25 linear feet. Audience Comments:  Nyles Barnert said as the SPGA the ZBA is very confused about “character” and “diversity”; did that mean a new bank would only be allowed if another bank goes out? The language needed to be clear and able stand up to an appeal. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing. Mr. Zurlo closed the public hearing at 10:16 p.m. Article 42, Green Energy: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 10:17 p.m. Mr. Canale presented the Article brought forward by the Board of Selectmen, which would further the Towns Green Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 2010 Page 5 Community efforts by providing for Large-Scale Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations by right in the CM zone and the addition of some new definitions in section 135-8. Audience Comments:  It was unclear if it would be a good policy to adopt this article if it was only because it would meet a requirement of the state grant program,  Support the article, but there should be a line item for smaller generation. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing. Mr. Zurlo closed the public hearing at 10:25 p.m. ***************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION*************************** 137-139 Shade Street; sketch plan: Mr. Fred Russell and Mr. Fred Keefe were present. The proof plan was corrected to show a 50 foot tangent instead of the original that was 30 feet. Board Comments:  There would be more trees destroyed with the site sensitive development (SSD) than with a conventional plan. It preserves the house in front, but not the trees.  Find a way to preserve more trees perhaps clustering the buildings.  Looking at the hydrology, there would appear to be quite a bit of runoff.  The existing house at 139 would be less then 25 feet from the perimeter. Were there alternative sketches showing how this plan would work with the site and take advantage of the features?  Was there a commitment to retain both houses?  SSD should be an opportunity to place houses to fit better on the site. Bring the two proposed houses down off the hill and toward the front and out of the trees.  The property next door was also looking at additional development. Had there been any discussions with them? Mr. Russell said he mentioned it to the folks at 147 but they were not interested. The yield would be seven units combined.  Try to arrange a site visit for Saturday at 8:30 am.  A SSD would be better, but the house in the back was oversized. Audience Comments:  The woodland was the beauty of the neighborhood.  A resident bought the house for the woodlands and it buffered the noise of the highway.  Lived here 21 years and the woodlands offers shade and a sense of quiet.  A conventional plan would be catastrophic here. ********************PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE******************** March 11 the TMMA had an information session. Mr. Hornig and Mr. Galaitsis are away at that time. The 6 Page Minutes for the Meeting of February 24, 2010 Board asked Mr. Canale to do the presentation. **********************************MINUTES****************************************** The Board reviewed the minutes for the regular meeting of February 3, 2010. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1, (Mr. Galaitsis abstained since he absent) to approve the minutes. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:01 p.m. Anthony Galaitsis, Clerk