Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-12-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis, with members Chase, Davies, Harden, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall - Taylor, Tap and Tyson present. A photographer was present to take the Board's picture for the 2001Annual Town Report. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 41 Lincoln Street 7.4.5 Subdivision, Release of Lots 1 and 2 After a brief discussion, on the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted unanimously to release Lots 1 and 2, shown on "Section 7.4.5 Definitive Subdivision, #41 Lincoln Street, Property Rights and Dimensional Standards Plan," from the requirements of the Covenant recorded in the Middlesex Registry of Deeds Book 32258, Page 066. Davis Road — Release of Covenant and Performance Surety The Board did not act on this item. Ms. McCall - Taylor said that the developer was not able to provide sufficient documentation at this time. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOWN MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ZONING AMENDMENTS House Impact Provisions The Board discussed two documents representing the latest thinking of board members and staff relative to the issue of large new houses. Mr. Garber reiterated that part of the impetus for this article was the priorities arising out of public input to the comprehensive planning process, with promoting community being a very prominent one. The basic approach of the house impact provisions is that houses that exceed a threshold will be subject to site plan review to mitigate visual impacts. The trigger for site review would be a certain gross floor area in relation to lot size. Mr. Garber said that approval criteria are listed pretty much as they will go to Town Meeting: massing and design, location on the lot, site orientation, vegetation, tree retention, landscaping within the front yard setback area, garages, topography, light and sun. The first method discussed was exempting from site plan review houses of under 4,500 square feet and those over 4,500 but not exceeding that floor area by more than .25 times the lot area over 10,000 square feet. Method 2 exempted dwellings where gross floor are would not exceed the sum of .35 the lot are up to 10,000 square feet, plus .25 time the lot area between 10,00 square feet and 30,000 square feet, plus .05 time the lot area, in excess of 30,000 square feet. Mr. Davies said that he saw no clarity between the two methods. Mr. Harden had devised some methodological alternatives, which the board discussed. Various other possible triggers of site review emerged. Mr. Garber commented that the staff has reviewed by -laws used by other towns, e.g., Weston and Lincoln, but said they are too simplistic for Lexington, which is more developed and has a wider range of lot and house sizes. He said that the intent of the proposed amendment is to make the special permit process difficult and expensive so that builders will try to keep the house below the threshold for site plan review. But it cannot capture so many houses that the board would be over - burdened with plans to review. The board reviewed some data that Mr. Galaitsis had produced. Concern over what happens at the lower end of the scale arose, about how many small lots would be affected. Mr. Harden pointed out that additions to existing houses would be affected. The Board agreed that the by -law should affect only the worst abuses, the ones that look out of place in neighborhood streetscapes. In response to a reference to Minutes for the Meeting of December 12, 2001 2 the cluster subdivision regulations the staff said they believe it would be best for the new language to be in only one part of the Zoning By -Law. Ms. Chase said she would like to have cluster development affected. She also commended the staff for making explicit the conditions that will be looked at, as it will put builders on notice. Definition of Height the Board discussed the issue of height, thought by many one of the key contributors to large house impact. The subject of turrets as architectural enhancements, as well as a way to get around a height limit, came up, but the Board decided not to introduce them into the article, as it might be distracting at town meeting. Meg and Jon Himmel, 66 Hancock Street, were present. Mr. Himmel, an architect, offered some ideas on height and floor area ratio relative to the proposed amendment. He also said that in some other towns the finished height of a new dwelling requires certification. Mrs. Himmel asked if there is data available for the height of recently built homes. Mr. Garber replied that it is not included in the assessors' database. Housekeeping Measures and Technical Corrections Ms. McCall - Taylor gave a brief review of the other suggested zoning amendments having to do with setbacks for sheds, definitions, handicapped parking spaces, swimming pool fences, wireless communication facilities and typographical errors. Codification Ms. McCall- Taylor explained the codification of the Zoning By -Law article. The state attorney general ruled last year, after the recodified zoning by -law was approved at Town meeting, that the article should have had a public hearing prior to taking it to town meeting. That is why this article is being taken up again this year so it can have that public hearing. Zoning Amendments suggested by the Building Commissioner Ms. McCall- Taylor told the Board that the Building Commissioner would like to ask Town Meeting to allow sheds closer to lot lines, as the Board of Appeals grants most petitions for variances to place a shed closer to lot lines. He believes that when most appeals of a certain regulation- are granted, it is time to reconsider the regulation itself. He also suggests the removal of unnecessary language in the Zoning By -Law relating to parking spaces for the physically handicapped, as state law now regulates these matters. Ms. McCall - Taylor explained the other technical corrections which are corrective in nature or changes meant to simplify the Zoning By -Law: typographical errors, references to other sections of the by -law and clarification of the section about fences around swimming pools and racquet ball courts. REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES Met State Hospital Reuse Mr. Garber reported on progress toward accord, relative to the second amendment to the reuse plan for the Metropolitan State Hospital site, at recent meetings of the Met State Hospital reuse stakeholders, Waltham, Belmont, Lexington and the State Department of Capital Asset Management. He said that there is an emergency meeting of the stakeholders next week. ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS UNACCEPTED STREETS Earl Street Construction Plan, Mark Barons Ms. McCall - Taylor reported that Mr. Mark Barons, the contractor who is improving a portion of Earl Street, has requested an extension of the time for the planting of the trees called for in the landscape plan dated, March 10, 1999. The board agreed that there would be little purpose in calling in the surety for the planting of trees as it cannot be done until spring. However Mr. Baron will be put on notice that the surety will be called if the trees are not planted next spring. Minutes for the Meeting of December 12, 2001 Aaron Road Subdivision After a brief discussion, on the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded by Mr. Harden, the Board voted unanimously to grant an extension to January 8, 2002 of the Aaron Road decision, should the developer so request. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 10:35 p.m. 3 Sara B. Chase, Clerk