The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-10-10-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2001 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m, by Chairman Galaitsis with members, Chase, Harden, and planning staff Garber, McCall- Taylor, Tap and Tyson present. Also present for the Comprehensive Plan discussion were Philip Herr, consultant, Karl Kastorf, Paul Hamburger, Candy McLaughlin, Marilyn Fenollosa, Joyce Miller, Bill Hadley, Sheila Butts, Karen Mullins, Michael Schroeder, Bill Hadley, Joe Marino, Jerry Moloney, Sheila Butts, Alan Lazarus, Susan Fisher, Thomas DeNoto, Jeanne Krieger, and William Hays. Patrick Maher, Lauren Wood, Andy Friedlich arrived later in the evening. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Form A/01 -6, 60 and 64 Hancock Street, The Windennere Group The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at 60 and 64 Hancock Street. On the motion of Mr. Harden, seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, the Board voted 2 -0 -1, Ms. Chase abstaining, to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, MA (Middlesex County) ", dated October 9, 2001 prepared by Meridian Engineering, Inc., Danvers, MA, certified by Michael J. Juliano, Professional Land Surveyor, with Form A /01 -6, submitted by John Austin, The Windermere Group, applicant, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Applications To Be Heard on October 11, 2001 After a brief oral review by Mr. Harden, on the motion of Mr. Harden, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board agreed to make no comment on the following applications: • 171 Massachusetts Avenue Eagle Bank, special permit to illuminate sign. • 83 Winter Street Thomas and Martha Byrd, variances from side and front yard setbacks for an addition. s 63 Bridge Street Debi Dulberg, special pen to use a portion of a residence for a part -time psychotherapy practice • 22 Eliot Road, Steve Resnick, special permit to construct a roof deck within setback • 271 Marrett Road Patricia deBonte, special permit to allow conversion of a nonconforming dwelling • 60 Westview Street ARE -60 Westview Street, LLC, variance from maximum site coverage a 29 Hartwell Avenue ARE -29 Hartwell, LLC * 3 8 Meriam, Darla Mendales and Mark Hastings, variance from side setback. SUBDIVISION OF LAND Roosevelt Road Special Residential Development. Ronald Lopez. Endorsement of plans: Ms. McCall- Taylor informed the Board that the Town Clerk certified that no appeals were filed within the 20 -day period following the Board's approval of North Shore Construction and Development, Inc.'s Special Residential Development plans for 32 Roosevelt Road. The Board then endorsed the plans. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Mr. Garber gave a brief overview of the comprehensive plan process thus far. He said that 70 action items across the four elements have resulted from the many meetings held to date. He explained that a wider group of people had been invited at this stage as many of them would be affected by the proposals and to help ensure that many groups will embrace the slate of action items and policies. Minutes for the Meeting of October 10, 2001 2 Mr. Philip Herr, consultant, spoke of the good work done thus far on the plan and said that two more elements, transportation and public facilities, will be done in the next fiscal year. After introductions all around, Mr. Herr led a discussion beginning with reference to previous planning efforts —the Selectmen's Strategic Planning and Implementation Group and the 20/20 Visioning Group — which, while not involving the whole Planning Board directly, identified residents' concerns and goals and are reflected in the Board's comprehensive plan. Many of those goals have been reiterated and incorporated into the draft comprehensive plan. The issue of sustainability appears repeatedly throughout the document. Initial discussion of "The Lexington We Want This will serve as an introductory piece to the comprehensive plan and those present were asked to critique it. Mr. Hamburger, a member of the Appropriations Committee, remarked that he was involved in the 1996 Strategic Planning and Implementation Group. Public safety was an issue that that group found important. He was glad to see that the current document urges the education of all ages. Mr. Harden, Planning Board, said be likes the opening description of Town values, but believes that sustainability seems to have been given too much weight. He believes that the core values are broader than that. Mr. Moloney, of Halyard Builders agreed. The following changes will be made: - Sustainability portion removed, probably to an appendix in revised form. - Reference being added re the Long Range Planning Study and core values. - Clarification being added regarding future plan elements. Land Use There was strong support for: The initial four goals. Working with rather than just opposing market forces in development. Enhancing regulatory predictability. Facilitating mixed use, including neighborhood service centers. Caution was urged regarding: Sacrificing other goals in using economic development for fiscal benefits. Expansion of neighborhood commercial areas. Housin There was strong support for: Housing that supports a diverse community. Efforts addressing specifically identified needs, e.g. young adults, Town employees. Recognizing housing as a regional issue requiring a regional approach. Developing new financial resources for housing. Addressing mansionization. Caution was urged regarding: Need for disclaimer: all interests can't possibly be met. Reconciling: policy "not to stop change," and stopping mansionization. Need for quantification of goals, need for numbers clarification. Economic Development There was strong support for: Fiscal support that comes through economic development. Convenient provision of goods and services for residents. Facilitating mixed use. Public facilities contributing to CN district focus. Caution was urged regarding: Service centers, not economic expansion. Not strip malls. Avoidance of "anti- business" image or burdensome rules, such as conveyed (incorrectly) by the language of the "balancing" policy (3.2a). Minutes for the Meeting of October 10, 2001 Natural and Cultural Resources Caution was urged regarding: Balancing natural resource description with some flooding and murky waters. Clarifying charts and graphs. Clarify open space land objectives. Description of post - Revolution history. Language: Town as sustainability exemplar only when fiscally justified. Over- emphasis on National Register. It was suggested that the language regarding the National Historic Register be abbreviated and that the Register chart be replaced with one showing locally inventoried properties. In addition, a chart of demolitions by year would be instructive. K] Observations were solicited about the four Plan elements taken as a whole. Those present were asked to consider those provisions to "hold inviolate" in later revisions, to identify items that may have been omitted, and to point out any inappropriate conflicts between elements as well as any unnecessary redundancies. There was further discussion of the Plan elements individually looking for clarification, revision and factual correction. Items nominated for more detailed discussion at the October 24` meeting included: Is housing in the Center really wanted ?; Is there concurrence regarding the approach to mansionization and tear - downs ?; Is there real concurrence re pursuing an inclusionary mandate ?; How "the last 1,000 acres" gets used. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Sara B. Chase, Clerk