Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-20-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2002 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Conwell Hall at the First Baptist Church, 1580 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA, was called to order at 7:30 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOWN MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Article 18, Zoning By -Law, Setbacks for Sheds, Continued Public Hearing Mr. Galaitsis opened the continued hearing on Article 18, Setbacks for Sheds at 7:30. He asked the other members if they still wanted to withdraw this article as had been discussed at the February 27 hearing. A lack of support or of a need for such a change was evident at that time. Mr. Galaitsis polled the Board, which unanimously agreed to withdraw Article 18. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Ms. McCall - Taylor reported that the Planning Board reports to Town Meeting on all the articles except for Article 20 will be available in draft form on April 1. She also informed the Board that their praTown Meeting meetings would be held in the Carpenter Room at the National Heritage Museum and will begin at 7:00 p.m. Town meeting sessions are scheduled for March 25, April 1 and 3, 8 and 10, 22 and 24. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Metropolitan State Hospital Site Reuse Mr. Garber reported that the Board of Selectmen approved the Second Amendment to the Met State Hospital Reuse Plan at their meeting on March 18, 2002, culminating nine and a half years of meetings and machinations. Their signed decision will be sent to the State department of Capital Asset Management. It is not yet known what Waltham and Belmont will do. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOWN MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Article 20, Zoning By -Law, House Impact Review, Second Public Hearing Mr. Galaitsis opened the hearing at 7: 45. There were 60 people in the audience. Mr. Galaitsis yielded the floor to Mr. Garber and Ms. McCall- Taylor who showed a PowerPoint presentation, explaining Article 20, House Impact Review. It described the amendment's evolution and current state, including the meaning and effects of the thresholds, how the process works, and other approaches to the problem of large new houses in existing neighborhoods. Mr. Garber likened site plan review to the special permit procedure, the use of gloss floor area to living area, and explained the proposed height definition change. With regard to the proposed exemption for all additions to existing houses, a definition of addition was put forward. Responding to a concern raised at the first public hearing on March 6, issues around the amendment's possible effect on property values were addressed. Mr. Galaitsis opened the meeting to questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Paul Looney, 9 Pheasant Lane, asked for a definition of (house) "teardown ". The answer was if more than 50% of the exterior walls and roofs of the house were razed, it would no longer be an addition, but be termed a "teardown ". Mr. Tim Counihan, 27 Percy Road, said he thought the comparison to Lincoln's house size control bylaw was inappropriate as Lincoln has much larger lots than most of Lexington. He also believes that the subjective nature of the house impact review amendment would polarize people, pitting neighbor against neighbor. He asked the Board to set some objective criteria, such as setbacks. Mr. Scott Caron, 241 Massachusetts Avenue, asked about the cost of the site review process to the Minutes for the Meeting of March 20, 2002 2 applicant and if the neighbors could stop a project. Mr. Peter Kelley, 24 Forest Street, said he believes that the process could end up in the court costing both time and money. Elaine Dratch, town meeting member, precinct 5, asked if the new definition of height will only go into effect of the Article 20 passes or if it will become part of the Zoning By -Law. Mr. Patrick Mehr, town meeting member, precinct 3, stated that he believes that using a neighborhood context method with volumetric measure, instead of gross floor area, as a threshold would be more effective. He is concerned that the Planning Board seems not to want to reduce the size of proposed large houses and that Town Meeting would not approve a weak by-law. Mr. Gerry Moloney asked why additions to existing houses are being exempted. Mr. Galaitsis responded that more data would have been needed to determine if they were indeed part of the large house problem. During the comprehensive plan discussions additions did not emerge as a significant problem. He added that if that changes, it could be dealt with in the future. Mr. Moloney said that the proposed bylaw would profoundly affect home values and private property rights. In answer to a question asked by Mr. James Yale, Precinct 4, Mr. Kastorf said the Board would decide whether or not to replace additions in the amendment. Mr. Peter Kelley said that amendments can be made on Town Meeting floor. Mr. Galaitsis added, however, that an amendment's effect cannot be more restrictive than that of the motion as printed in the warrant Ms. Judith Moore, a local realtor, said that she believes that house shoppers are avoiding Lexington due to the uncertainty caused by this proposed zoning amendment. Many people are confused by it and feel they will not have a voice in the issue. Mr. Garber responded that every effort has been made to disseminate information to the public. Ms. Laura Taylor, 24 Rumford Road, said that if passed, the by -law would penalize the owners of the least expensive homes. Another woman pointed out that though the neighbors objected to her large house in their neighborhood, she believes they will make much more money on their houses when they sell than they would have if her house was not there. Mr. Garber said that the by -law would affect about 15 new houses a year, a modest amount. Mr. Matthew Thenin, a local developer, asked what the point was if it does not affect house size. Mr. Jay Taylor, 24 Rumford Road, asked if the issue of denying a building permit if an applicant does not accept the Board's conditions will be written into the by -law. Mr. Kelley added that this is crucial and deserves a fair answer. Mr. Garber replied that he would discuss this with Town Counsel. Other comments from the audience Mr. Michael Martignetti, 17 Highland Avenue: This amendment does have "teeth" and it is too open - ended. Mr. John Austin, local developer, asked why new data is presented at each meeting? People don't have time to see and consider it. Ms. McCall - Taylor replied that new data is presented in response to questions from the public as they arise Mr. Gerald Moloney, local developer, said that the fact that in Lincoln, which has a site review process in place, builders come in just below the triggering threshold, shows that the process does affect the economics of a project. In effect, it asks the smaller homeowners to subsidize the process. Mr. Kastorf pointed out that house prices in Lincoln and Weston went up after their site review by -laws went into effect. Minutes for the Meeting of March 20, 2002 3 Ms. Elaine Dratch, town meeting member, precinct 5, observed that before Article 20 was put forth, many people asked the Planning Board to do something about the very large new homes being built. Now everyone is afraid of Article 20. We need more definition in the process. Others agreed that the process is currently too subjective. Mr. Kelley, town meeting member, precinct 4, said that the. new height definition will cause awkward . design, especially in Victorian style structures_ He recalled that when the updated cluster regulations were being developed, the Planning Board worked with the development community. He urged the Board to back off from Article 20 this year and try another approach in the future. Mr. Thenin concurred. Mr. Galaitsis closed the hearing at 10:05 p.m. and adjourned the meeting. T) Sara B. Chase, Clerk