HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-14-PB-minThe meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Guard Room in the Police Station, was called to
order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Harden with members Chase, Davies, Kastorf and planning staff Garber,
McCall- Taylor, and Tap present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent.
***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of October 29, 2004.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended.
* * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * **
PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW
Marrett Road at Tufts Road Approval Not Required Plan 2004 -1: The Board reviewed an Approval Not
Required Plan for land at Marrett and Tufts Roads. On motion duly trade and seconded, it was voted to
endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington in Mass., dated December 8, 2003, prepared and
certified by James R. Keenan, Professional Land Surveyor, Winchester, Mass., with Form Al2004 -1,
submitted by Glenn Comeau, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law.
There were questions about whether or not an ANR is required to meet the minimum lot area. It is not but
the two lots on this plan do meet the requirement in this zoning district.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ZONING WORKSHOPS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Zoning Initiative, Impervious Surface in Residential Developments Mr. Harden conveyed Mr. Galaitsis's
objections to the proposed amendment to impervious surface calculations in cluster -type subdivisions.
Mr. Galaitsis believes the change would give developers additional advantage over that already inherent
in the bylaw. Mr. Galaitsis belives a cluster already allows a density bonus and this would increase that
because the calculation for a cluster involves the entire parcel area whereas a conventional calculation
uses only the collective fee simple lots. Mr. Garber explained that this amendment was not about density
or advantages to developers but about correcting a significant inequity in the interpretation and
administration of the bylaw in terms of calculating impervious surface ratio in cluster and conventional
developments. If the Board does not subtract interior drives in clusters, according to legal counsel and in
the opinion of our consulting planners and staff, the Board would be subject to challenge of that kind of
inconsistent administration of this requirement. It is about consistent administration between two different
types of subdivision.
The members felt that Mr. Galaitsis's concerns should be fully acknowledged and examined perhaps in a
future revisiting of the entire Article 9 and cluster provisions, particularly in the context of density
discussions and impact based calculation. Mr. Harden and others pointed out that the intent of the existing
cluster bylaw, in terms of impact measures —such criteria as floor area created site coverage traffic and so
on —was that cluster would have the same impact as conventional subdivisions even if the cluster
typically involved some extra units.
Mr. Davies indicated that he does support the concept of "fixing" this problem of inequitable
administration of the impervious surface ratio requirement between conventional and cluster subdivisions,
and that broader issues pertaining to the cluster provisions in the Bylaw can be discussed in the future.
The second topic relative to impervious surface had to do with existing impervious surface on a
development site, e.g., buildings and parking lots. Ms. McCall- Taylor and Mr. Garber explained that the
original intent perhaps was to simply provide a mathematical formula to control the situation where old
Minutes for the Meeting of January 14, 2004
impervious surface was preexisting and the developer was proposing removal of it but still could not
meet, after removal, the impervious surface ratio. The feeling was that if developers are malting an
attempt to move toward a more 'greenfields', undeveloped condition, that should be acknowledged and the
developer should be given some slack in terms of slightly exceeding the ISR, provided, however, that the
overall site coverage for the entire parcel still represents a net reduction.
There was further discussion of a possibly more aggressive provision about preexisting impervious
surface in terms of whether in some instances applicants shod be encouraged to retain impervious
surface for good, public benefit reasons, such as retention of historic buildings, avoidance of a road right-
of-way through a wetland or environmentally sensitive area or reuse of a site for affordable housing. In
the end, the Board asked the staff to redraft this provision addressing redevelopment of a site to more
clearly state its intent.
***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** REPORTS ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
LIAJSON REPORTS
Center Committee Mr. Kastorf reported that the Lexington Center Committee intends to submit a parking
amendment for the central business district. This amendment would essentially place parking for
individual properties into the discretionary special permit granting authority of the Board of Appeals, in
terms of waiving or reducing the parking requirement in the Zoning Bylaw. There was extensive
discussion by the Board and Mr. Garber handed out his critique of the draft amendment that had been
received through Mr. Kastorfs efforts earlier in the day and Mr. Garber pointed out a number of
deficiencies starting with the concept itself, that it could be a short term fix that would potentially worsen
the problem and create issues of equitable granting of relief to the Bylaw for downtown businesses. He
also mentioned the lack of clarity within the list of possible public benefits and the absence of a common
value basis for requiring them. He also pointed out that some of that list did not involve public benefits at
all but really just involved improvements that would be special permit conditions and should be provided
by anyone as part of downtown parking for basic function and safety.
It was agreed that Mr. Kastorf would attend the Lexington Center Committee meeting the following
morning and urge them to communicate with the Planning Board on this and perhaps, if the group was not
ready to go with a fully realized bylaw and article, suggest they should consider deferring to a future date.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** BOARD ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Meeting Schedule Ms. McCall- Taylor reiterated the January and February schedule of Planning Board
meetings every week for certain regulatory items such as Luongo Farm Lane and Clelland Road definitive
plans and the pending Hazel Road preliminary plan. She also listed out some proposed hearing dates of
the major rezoning articles for the 2004 Annual Town Meeting.
Pass - through Plan Review Mr. Garber explained the pending changes to the engineering review of plans
for the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission in particular. Due to staff reductions and
transfer of personnel, the Engineering Division will not be able to provide plan review services in terms
of storm water management and has requested that the Planning Board require a pass though fee
arrangement to bring in outside consultants to perform the function of reviewing stormwater plans.
Similarly, engineering has indicated that they can no longer not charge for site inspections. They intend to
farm out these services to an outside consultant. Staff explained that they would send communications to
the development community and invite them to a meeting if they want to speak on this issue. Tentatively,
it is scheduled February 1 1`"
Minutes for the Meeting of January 14, 2004
3
Staff explained the peer review sight distance analysis for the Luongo Farm Lane subdivision. The newly
completed effort has indicated that all sight distances from vehicular turn movements from the future
Luongo Farm Lane, even with the existing conditions, including the retaining wall, will exceed both
Town and AASHTO standards. In addition, Mr. Hayes, the consulting engineer on the peer review
indicated that Pleasant Street is clearly a collector street by AASHO standards, not an arterial street.
STAFF REPORTS
Aaron Road Subdivision Homeowner's Maintenance A eement: Mr. Garber reported that Town legal
counsel is close to worl6ng out with Mr. Connor's attorney an agreement where Mr. Connors (owner of
Lot Two) would buy into the homeowners' maintenance agreement. He has previously refused to do so
due to his conflict with Mr. Barons, the developer. This is a positive occurrence that could help lead to
resolution, if successfully implemented.
On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:45 p.m.
John /ADavies, Merl