Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-09-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 2002 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members Chase, Davies, Harden, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall - Taylor and Tap present. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** EXECUTIVE SESSION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Mr. Galaitsis took an individual poll of the Board, which voted unanimously to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation against the Town. The Board returned to open session at 7:45 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Affordable Housing Initiative: Mr. Galaitsis welcomed Mr. Anthony Gentile, of Cornerstone Concepts, and Mr. Frank Carney and Mrs. Patricia Carney, of Mark Moore Homes, all local developers and Lexington residents, to the meeting. The Planning Board is seeking ideas from those involved in creating housing in Lexington in order to learn their perspective on the Board's affordable housing initiative. Discussion centered on a memo prepared by the staff, and distributed a few days before this meeting, that outlined the issues. Mr. Galaitsis stated that the town has a choice: to produce affordable housing itself, which is the right thing to do; or, to remain vulnerable to 40B comprehensive permit developments until ten percent of its housing is affordable according to State definitions. The Board is considering liberalizing accessory apartment provisions, making affordable housing the preferred public benefit in reduced frontage subdivisions, having a minimum affordable housing requirement in developments, and /or establishing a central housing advocacy group. AccessM Apartments Mr. Gentile said that he, for one, would welcome a liberalizing of the accessory apartment by -law. He would like to build a garage with an apartment upstairs for his daughter. He said that other parents would likely welcome a chance to provide housing for relatives who cannot afford to buy a house in Lexington. Mr. Kastorf noted that possible unintended consequences of this should be carefully considered. A discussion of a number of issues around accessory apartments ensued: • Expand the allowable size of accessory apartments. • What about finished basements? • Would accessory apartments for relatives count as affordable housing? Mr. Gentile said that requiring affordability (per DHCD) for apartments would likely discourage their production. He added that older garages are probably not sound enough to support living space above. • Why wouldn't an apartment rented to someone who makes 80 percent of the median income pay back the owner for construction or conversion of space for it? • Accessory apartments, even if not affordable per DHCD, provide another layer of housing as an alternative to single - family houses. Mr. Gentile said that he believes developers would be willing to help build affordable housing. For instance, he is building elsewhere in town and could serve as general contractor for a LexHAB house at the same time. Reduced Frontage Subdivision: The Board discussed whether the preferred public benefit should be affordable housing, perhaps in the form of money to LexHAB or an accessory apartment in a new home. Mr. Carney suggested allowing duplexes to be built, instead of single - family units. He said that there need to be incentives to produce affordable units, as land costs in Lexington are so high. In total, they must meet or exceed the value of a single - family house. Mr. Davies commented that the developer of a two- Minutes for the Meeting of October 9, 2002 unit development needs the option of a cash contribution. PJ Planned Residential Development Mr. Garber gave a brief overview of the planned residential development concept, suggesting that it could operate like a local "4013" mechanism for producing affordable housing. Mr. Carney said that an affordable unit in a development costs as much to build as a market rate unit. A density bonus in these developments would be an incentive to the builder as it would allow the land and infrastructure costs to be essentially zero for the additional units. Mr. Carney suggested "back- testing" the board's ideas on existing developments. He said that the construction costs are roughly the same per square foot, in the range of $105 to $125, no matter where you are; the real issue in Lexington is the cost of land. He added that expedited approvals would be an incentive as well. The shortage of land on which to build was also noted. Mr. Gentile suggested moving houses instead of tearing them down, but acknowledged that the price of land on which to site the house, again, is the problem. The concept of spreading the burden of affordable housing more fairly through some sort of mechanism to collect money from existing housing stock arose. Reaction from the guest developers was negative, Mr. Harden said that the "big picture" goal of getting articles to the town meeting in 2004 should remain paramount among the Boards objectives. To meet that goal the Board must start now and keep at it. Mr. Carney cautioned that the Board should not spend too much time addressing larger developments as there are so few built these days and little land available for them. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND _Scottish. Glen, off Summer Street, Andrew Curran, Continued Mid -term Review Present for this item were Mr. Andrew Schwab, applicant; Mr. William Hubner, architect; and Mr. Ronald Wood, landscape architect. Mr. Wood presented "Plan C ", with four dwelling units, which he said addressed the size and density concerns the Board expressed at the previous meeting's mid -term review of the Scottish Glen cluster subdivision plans. He also presented section drawings of the development, showing the one -story feel of the dwellings. Two of the units have a walkout lower level. Mr. Hubner presented elevation drawings showing the traditional clapboard and shingle construction of the proposed houses, which mirror the character of the neighboring houses. The gross floor area of the dwellings will be, at 2,490 square feet, about 2,000 square feet less each than the houses in Winship Common. Four bedroom units are proposed. Mr. Galaitsis pointed out that Scottish Glen's closest neighbors are three single - family dwellings on Summer Street, not the Winship Common development, and that the clustered units of Scottish Glen are as big as those single - family homes. Mr. Hubner said that his figures differ from those of Mr, Galaitsis and it may be because of differing methodologies. He also said that the cluster homes' attics are small due to the lowering of the roofline to lessen the visual height. Audience Questions/Comments: An abutter remarked that one of the Winship Commons houses has 5,000 square feet of living space, dwarfing Scottish Glen units; one includes a home theater in the attic. Board Questions /Comments Four members expressed approval of the plan shown tonight and encouraged Mr. Schwab to proceed in that direction. Mr. Davies would like to see the crushed stone fillets in the courtyard restored to the plan. Mr. Schwab commented that he wants to build the best - looking cluster development in Lexington. Minutes for the Meeting of October 9, 2002 DETERMINATION OF GRADE AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNACCEPTED STREETS Bartlett Avenue, Continued Discussion of Street Status Present for this item were Mr. Wayne Jalbert, engineer and Mr. Athan Vontsalides, attorney. There were six people in the audience. Mr. Vontsalides summarized the issues for the Board, who had seen the plan for improvements to the stub end of Bartlett Avenue at an earlier meeting. The applicants want the Board to determine that the existing 40' stub is adequate to provide access and frontage for the lot at the end of Bartlett Avenue. Mr. Vontsalides said that they had meet with Assistant Fire Chief William Middlemiss and learned that the fire department does not wish to have to turn around on private property. (The applicant has proposed putting the turnaround on the building lot and granting an easement to the town for access in emergencies.) Ms. McCall- Taylor mentioned that town counsel is not enthusiastic about such an easement as, legally, this can be quite awkward and enforcing parking restrictions difficult. The Board asked staff to get an opinion in writing from the Fire Department. Mr. Galaitsis and Mr. Davies reiterated the importance of the Zoning By -Law's 650 -foot limit on dead end streets. The Board asked the staff to do some research on other similar proposals and the actions taken by the Board. They suggested looking at Garfield, Denver, Dunham, Marvin and Morris for a start. PLANNING STAFF REPORT FY04 Town Budget Process Mr. Garber reported on the fiscal year 2004 budget process. He said town departments have been asked to prepare for 20 -22% cuts in their budgets at a time the town is facing another override election. He added that he might ask for the Planning Board's support when he presents the Planning Department budget. The Board agreed to offer its support. PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Form A/2002 -5 Walnut Street former Middlesex Hospital site): The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land off Walnut Street. On the motion of Mr. Harden, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted unanimously to approve the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, MA (Middlesex County) ", dated February 18, 2002 and revised June 4, 2002, prepared and certified by Kevin W. Hinds, Professional Land Surveyor, of Precision Land Surveying, Inc., Southborough, MA, with Form A/2002 -5, submitted by HCRI Holdings Trust, applicant, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COORDINATION WITH OTHER BOARDS, COMMITTEES * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Mr. Davies agreed to serve as the Planning Board's representative to the committee reviewing the contract for the town counsel. Ms. McCall - Taylor reported that the Met State Task Force had met and discussed the priorities for development of the site. Most of the task force initially felt that the buildings were in bad shape or had nothing worth protecting, but in the end were persuaded to support asking that at least half the units be contained in existing buildings. They also supported a diversity of housing, not just for the elderly. Although rental units were mentioned several times at the meeting, no one came out strongly in favor of 100% rental housing. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard on October 10, 2002 Ms. Chase gave an oral review of the following: 95 Gleason Road — Variance to erect a storage shed with 5 foot rear and side setbacks Minutes for the Meeting of October 9, 2002 4 15 Valley Road - Variance to erect a storage shed with a side yard setback of approximately 5 feet Members noted that these are not small sheds. They agreed to transmit their concern about allowing such large structures so close to the lot lines. 37 Coolidge Avenue special permit for placement of approximately 80 additional cubic yards of fill; a variance to erect storage shed with 5 foot rear and side yard setbacks, and a variance to install an 8 foot high fence with supporting posts up to 8.5 feet high, on the side property line instead of with the required 8 to 8.5 foot side yard setback. While the Planning Board did not feel that they had enough information to recommend a particular course of action, they believed that the amount of fill being placed into a fairly level area was unusual and warrants a very careful review. The plan appears to show the clearing of a fair amount of wooded area, which is a concern. The Planning Board does not see the justification for an 8 -foot high fence. It agreed that, as in the above cases, this is a large shed and should not be so close to the lot lines. The Board had no comment on the following applications: 23 Fairbanks Road - variance from 30 -foot front yard setback to build new front steps and an open portico for a new front entry that will have a 23.3 -foot setback 27 Meriam Street — variance from 20 -foot side street yard setback to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming side street porch that will have a side street side yard setback of approximately 16 feet 10 Brigham Road — variance from 30 -foot front yard setback to rebuild two front entries to a nonconforming single- family dwelling that will have a front yard setback of approximately 24.6 feet; and a special permit to construct an addition above nonconforming portions of a single - family dwelling 14 Pine Knoll Road — variance from the required 30-foot front yard setback to construct a new front entry with living space above for a nonconforming single- family dwelling that will have an 18.9 front yard setback; and a special permit to construct a 2 IIa floor addition above nonconforming portions of a single - family dwelling 6 North Hancock Street special permit for substitution of a nonconforming use in order to operate a personal health and fitness training business in the CN district. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Affordable Housing Initiative (Continued) The Board agreed to proceed with their housing initiative as follows: Make a commitment to produce a report to Town Meeting 2003 Use the consultant (Philip B. Herr and Associates) to work on the larger issue of designing a mechanism for inclusionary housing. Mr. Harden remarked that it will be important to move ahead with strong focus on the most important goals. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Karl P. Kastorf, Clerk