Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-06-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH b, 2002 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the CIarke Middle School auditorium, 17 Stedman Road, Lexington, was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members, Chase, Davies, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall- Taylor, and Tap present. Mr. Harden was absent due to illness. There were approximately 300 people in the audience. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOWN MEETING Article 20, Zoning By -Law, House Impact Review, Public Hearing Mr. Galaitsis opened the hearing at 7:45. He welcomed the audience, saying that it was good to see so much interest in the proposed house impact review zoning amendment. He asked for a show of hands by people who were there due to concern about additions to existing houses. A significant number of hands went up. Mr. Galaitsis explained that the proposed amendment would not affect additions to houses in existence before June 1, 2002. He invited everyone to an additional hearing on this same proposed amendment on March 20, before giving the floor to Planning Director Garber. Mr. Garber described the Planning Board's continuing efforts to gather and analyze data about Lexington's existing and newly built housing stock. He said the Board has made a commitment to make changes to the version of the proposed by -law that was published in the Town Warrant. He also reiterated that the amendment would not affect additions to existing houses. Mr. Garber and Assistant Director McCall- Taylor made a detailed PowerPoint presentation using Lexington housing data to illustrate the effect of the house impact review amendment if it is adopted. He said the intent was to "capture" only the most extreme cases. Looking at current housing stock, only about 2.8 percent would be above the threshold. (A printed version of the PowerPoint show and other data were available to the audience as handouts at this hearing.) Mr. Garber described the history of the impetus behind the development of this by -law proposal. It arose out of resident concern revealed during the Selectmen's Vision 2020 process and current comprehensive plan focus groups and working sessions. Residents believe that community character and diversity are being lost when moderately sized houses and many trees are removed to make way for large houses. He explained some of the mechanisms surrounding towns are using and why some of those work and some do not. What the Planning Board is proposing in Article 20, House impact Review, is a system based on Lexington- specific data, using the concept of gross floor area, data that can be found in the Assessors database. It does not limit house size per se but subjects to site plan review new houses that would be above defined thresholds of size. Mr. Garber acknowledged the consternation of the development community over when the by -law would take effect if passed and the perceived negative effects of the review process on development cost and time. Mr. Galaitsis thanked the staff for the effort they have put into developing the housing data. He invited comment from public officials, then from other members of the audience. Mr. Daniel Busa, town meeting member, precinct 1, said that he thinks that the term gross floor area (GFA) is misleading. He believes that living area is a more familiar concept. He also said that he has heard from a number of residents who feel excluded from the Planning Board's process vis a vis Article 20. Mr. Garber explained that GFA is being used because using living area in the article would likely trigger an adverse attorney general ruling. Minutes for the Meeting of March 6, 2002 Mr. Frank Sandy, town meeting member, precinct 6, asked how the Board is going to define addition. He expressed concern about creating a loophole by exempting additions from the proposed regulation, whereby a large addition, with high impact, could be built. Mr. Galaitsis responded that in the long process leading up to the current version of Article 20, including a project in which citizen participants took dozens of pictures of large new houses in Lexington, additions did not figure as a factor in large house impact. A number of people asked about the fiscal impact of the article, and how much revenue might be lost to the Town if house sizes are controlled. Maria Kostorizos, town meeting member, precinct 1, expressed concern about a number of issues, including what the mitigation measures of the review process can accomplish. Mr. Garber answered that a landscape plan will be one of the requirements, enabling the Board to help site the house and ensure a buffer between the house and its neighbors. A number of people, including Elaine Dratch, town meeting member, precinct 5, asked if the site review process would limit the actual size of a large house. Mr. Galaitsis said it would not, but that the Board can impose conditions that would mitigate its impact. Mr. Fred Martin, precinct 7, asked what the by -law would actually do and how the Board would deal with uncooperative applicants. Mr. Bill Rhodes, 4 McKeever Drive, listed several places where abutters to new construction seem not to have been protected by the subdivision permitting process, among them Old Smith Farm on Wood Street, Lexington Park,off Winter Street, and a new house on Grove Street that has garages at both ends. Mr. Sam Silverman, town meeting member, precinct 5, asked how the by -law would affect the value of his house. Mr. A] Zabin, town meeting member, precinct 1, observed that it seems the proposed by -law would not have that much effect, but that it certainly stimulated tremendous controversy. Ms. Debbie Harter, a real estate agent in Lexington for 18 years, commented that in her experience, people shopping for a house are most attracted to a coherent neighborhood. An out of scale house seems to make a neighborhood less desirable to many shoppers. Mr. Robert Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, said there are some huge additions in his neighborhood and they are impacting the abutters. He would like to see additions affected by article 20, as just landscaping would not solve the impact problem. Mrs. Meg Himmel, 66 Hancock Street, said that the Planning Board is certainly not alone in desiring this measure. She said that many residents are alarmed by the recent building trend toward very large houses. She urged the Board to look into limiting site coverage to 10% . Mrs. Jacquelyn Davison said that limiting the height of houses is a crucial component of this by -law amendment. Mr. Davies pointed out that the Conservation Commission successfully imposes conditions on development projects. Many people spoke, indicating their concerns with the by -law, ranging from the use of gross floor area rather than living area, to the effect any measures might have on property values. Both those who spoke in favor, and those opposed (the latter a majority), had questions about how the process worked and to what degree mitigation measures could be required. There were also questions about the seemingly open -ended nature of the review process. Some suggested they would be more comfortable with specific measures, for example a house of a certain size house would require an increased set back. Questions were asked about exactly what would be required as part of a site plan review submittal and how much such an application would cost the homeowner. Questions were also raised about enforcement and the appeal of any conditions established by the Planning Board. Minutes for the Meeting of March 6, 2002 3 Some people felt that additions should be treated no differently than new houses, as the impacts on the neighbors would be the same. The Board responded that in their investigations they had found the most intrusive houses to be those involving new construction, not the additions. In response to the many questions on the impact of a site review process on the value of the individual property and on the tax revenue gained, or possibly lost, by the town, Mr. Garber emphasized that this Article is meant to address community character issues, it is not a revenue -based Article. Someone asked if there would be any changes to the article at town meeting, e.g., could additions to houses be added back in. Mr. Galaitsis said that this is a possibility. Mr. Galaitsis thanked everyone for coming to the hearing. He emphasized the need to be sensible and to work together on this issue. He closed the hearing at 10:05 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 05 p.m. Sara B. Chase, Clerk