HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-03-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF MAY 3, 2004
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room 227 of the Clarke Middle School, was called
to order at 7:10.m. by Chairman Harden with members Davies, Galaitsis, Kastorf, Manz and planning
staff McCall- Taylor present.
****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Review of Minutes The Board postponed review of the minutes until the next meeting.
* * * * * * * * * * ** 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 endorsed a second original
of an Approval Not Required Plan for land at Marrett and Tufts Roads. As there was Land Court land
involved there needed to be two originals, one for the Registry and one for Land Court. The other
original had been signed on January 14, 2004. The members endorsed 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., submitted by Glenn Comeau, as it does not require approval under the
Subdivision Control Law.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ARTICLES FOR 2004 TOWN MEETING
Articles 12 and 13 — Metropolitan State Hospital Redevelopment — The Board received various
correspondence on these matters, including a proposed amendment to Article 13 by Steven Heinrich. Mr.
Heinrich's amendment would limit the development to no more than 331 units.
Mr. Harden reported that the Appropriations Committee was voting on a recommendation on Article 13
that evening. The Committee had already spent some amount of time discussing the report put together
by Loren Wood critiquing the fiscal analysis. Mr. Kastorf said that AvalonBay had appeared to address
the issues raised by Mr. Wood in considerable detail. Ms. McCall - Taylor said that the Planning Director
Mr. Garber was at the Appropriations Committee, which was meeting concurrently, in order to answer
questions. The Board discussed the issue of fiscal neutrality and felt that it was important to emphasize
that fiscal neutrality was a goal, not a requirement. Mr. Kastorf reported that in talking with people who
had read the Planning Board's report, many had commented that they had not realized that fiscal
neutrality was not a requirement. He also said that he was amazed at how positive people were about
both the project and the Board's report.
Mr. Harden said that he would continue to worry about the fiscal piece and that the Appropriations
Committee report will carry a lot of weight.
The Board then discussed the process that would be followed at Town Meeting as Ed Grant, on behalf of
AvalonBay, would be offering an amendment to the PSDUP that would incorporate the latest mitigation
offers and the change in unit mix. Ms. McCall - Taylor said that there was an issue of a covenant as well as
amendments to the PSDUP. She reported that Town Counsel wants many of the special conditions
removed from the PSDUP and placed in a covenant instead. This is still being debated between the
attorneys. Members felt that the changes expressed in the Grant amendment would be important selling
points for the project and should come first before the Heinrich amendment.
Mr. Harden said that the Board would have to take a position on the 331 —unit proposal. He said it was
unusual for the Planning Board to not be advocating for reduced density but the benefit of being above the
40B threshold for several decades is a strong argument for the 387 units. Mr. Kastorf said that
Minutes for the Meeting of May 3, 2004 2
secondarily, should the reduction in units pass, no one would know if the project were revenue neutral or
what level of mitigations would be provided. Mr. Harden said that maybe the core argument against the
amendment is that it should not even be considered because if Town Meeting should approves it, it is
something that cannot go forward; the amendment without the consent of the developer does not make
sense. Mr. Davies agreed and said that the amendment is not backed up by a plan. Mr. Gataitsis added
that no one is proposing to build a 331 -unit development. Ms. Manz felt that people need to understand
that they cannot have the rest of the package, including mitigations, if they vote for 331 units. Mr.
Galaitsis said if one considers the entire site, the ratio of units per acre is consistent with the rest of the
town.
Mr. Kastorf made a motion to recommend disapproval of the Heinrich amendment because: 1) the
amendment proposes no plan that canbe evaluated; and, 2) the number of units proposed does not provide
40B protection for the length of time that the 387 units would provide. Ms. Manz seconded the motion
and the Board vote 5 to 0 in favor of the motion.
On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanim
0