Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-29-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 2000 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Vice Chairman Galaitsis, with members Chase, Davies, Planning Director Garber, and Assistant Planner McCall- Taylor present. Mr. Colman joined the meeting prior to the Davis Road discussion. Ms. Bridge - Denzak was absent. x***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of November 11, 2000. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 3 -0 to approve the minutes, as amended. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBDIVISION OF LAND 41 Lincoln Street Definitive Subdivision Plan, Ronald Lopez, Endorse Plan Accept Covenant - Mr. Lopez presented plans to be endorsed and a covenant to be approved. On a motion made by Mr. Davies and seconded by Ms. Chase, it was voted 3 -0 to endorse the plans for 41 Lincoln Street as presented. On a motion made by Ms. Chase and seconded by Mr. Davies, it was voted 3 -0 to accept the covenant as worded. Davis Road Definitive Subdivision Plan, Ronald Lopez, Decision —The Board reviewed a draft decision that incorporated the concerns of the neighbors as raised at the public hearing and in letters. The Board was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Grant, the attorney for the developer, Ronald Lopez, requesting an additional waiver so that the existing electric wires could remain above ground. Mr. Davies sought clarification of where the trees and the line of boulders are on the site. He said that the waiver of the grade should allow all trees of over 8" caliper to remain. There was discussion of how to manage the protective tree barriers, as a fence at the drip or root line would be in the right of way, and interfere with road construction. It was decided to use the phrase "but not obstructing the right of way" and allow the fence to run along the edge of the right -of -way. Board members then discussed the use of speed bumps or humps in the roadway. Ms. McCall- Taylor cautioned against over designing for a small road and Mr. Garber felt that engineering might object to two speed humps. On a motion made by Mr. Galaitsis and seconded by Ms. Chase, it was voted 4- 0 to require two speed humps, not to exceed 3 ", provided the Town Engineering Division has no objections. Then on a motion made by Mr. Davies and seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, it was voted 4 -0 to approve the decision of the Davis Road Definitive Subdivision Plan as amended. *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *ANNUAL REPORT*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 2000 Annual Town Report, Draft Planning Board Report The Board reviewed the draft of the Planning Board Annual Report to be placed in the Town Annual Report. Mr. Colman asked where the definition of the role of the Planning Board came from. Ms. McCall - Taylor replied that it was carried over from previous years. Mr. Colman asked why the budget amount was down and Mr. Garber said that it was just a preliminary figure for working purposes and didn't include benefits. It was the sense of the Board that the report was fine. REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES Metropolitan State Hospital Mr. Garber reported that the Met State Reuse Committee has turned into a bit of a donnybrook. Lexington has said there is not enough inforination on economic feasibility, traffic, etc., regarding the housing portion in Lexington. These concerns have been basically overruled; Waltham wants its golf course, the Metropolitan District Commission wants its land, and the Department for Capital Asset Management wants to go forward. The big summit meeting scheduled for today was canceled. Lexington seems to be on its own in its desire for housing on its portion of the lot. The latest version of the second Minutes for the Meeting of November 29, 2000 2 amendment to the reuse plan tapes out the numerical thresholds on traffic trips and square footage, the rationale being that it is not necessary to repeat numbers from the original document and that it might be easier to sign without them. Mr. Garber reports that Jeanne Krieger, Selectman Chair, has said that the removal makes the document more signable. Ms. Chase expressed concern about the developers who want to maximize their gains, and that is not the greatest good for the greatest number. Mr. Garber said that the committee's response has been that our own review and rezoning process will protect our interests. Ms. Chase said that she had worked on reuse plans, and the more detailed the development guidelines, the better. She felt that the detail should come before the proposals go to developers. Mr. Garber said that he had made those arguments but the political winds have changed to expediency. Mr. Davies asked if there was any way the land could be used for a conventional subdivision. Mr. Garber replied that the reuse plan has the weight of law, and with the call for 25 % affordable units, and 25% available to the Department of Mental Health as guidelines underlying future use, that will not be possible. The demolition costs will be a factor that affects the economics of the site, although the state is interested in the site and might provide demolition money. It is an open -ended planning process. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Comprehensive Plan Consultant Selection - Mr. Colman reported that he had attended the consultant selection interviews, along with Mr. Davies, Mr. Garber, Ms. McCall - Taylor, and Mr. McLaughlin, the chief procurement officer. The unanimous choice was Herr & James Associates. He said he felt that they were more emotionally interested while Carol Thomas's was a pro forma proposal, although both are very qualified. The bid proposals also made Herr & James the most advantageous. The selection committee has recommended that the Town Manager negotiate a contract with Herr & James. Mr. Garber said he wanted to put in a word for Sarah James and her work on sustainability. She has a cutting edge perspective and was the co- author of the American Planning Association's statement on sustainability. Mr. Colman said that sustainability might be a theme for Lexington's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Davies said it was essential to have a persuasive progress report for Town Meeting. Mr. Colman observed that a good RFP such as this one generates good responses. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Representation - The Board discussed the expansion of CPAC in response to a suggestion by Mr. Belvin. Mr. Belvin serves on the CPAC and feels that there should be greater representation from the development community within the Town. The Board discussed the issue and in the end felt that they did not want to expand the committee at this time. They pointed out that anyone is welcome at the meetings and there will be other opportunities for input. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Applications To Be Heard on December 14, 2000: Mr. Colman had not had time to review the cases and said that he would look them over and, at the next meeting, bring back any that he felt needed Board review. The petitions were as follows: i 54 Blake Road — Variance for shed • 12 Hancock Avenue — Variance for addition 0 173 Bedford Street— Variance from 7.5.2, generator screening fence 0 40 Hartwell Avenue — Modification of special permit for accessory storage building Community Preservation Act. Ms. McCall- Taylor did a brief presentation on the Community Preservation Act, giving a summary of the act, how it is implemented. She recommended that the Planning Board ask the Board of Selectmen to establish a task force to explore the Community Preservation Act. This task force would be charged with assessing the fiscal impacts of the Act, recommending an appropriate surcharge level, and drafting a bylaw for Town Meeting action. 3 Minutes for the Meeting of November 29, 2000 While expressing enthusiasm for the Act, the Planning Board felt it would not be not advisable to enter hastily into the Act without having analyzed the fiscal impact, the tax revenue options, or the feelings of a broad array of those on whom the law would have an impact. It is not something that should be rushed to the annual Town Meeting but may warrant a special Town. The sense of the Board was that the Board of Selectmen should be asked to appoint a task force with a six -month life. The committee should be charged with assessing the fiscal impact of the Act and with drafting a by -law to be acted on as quickly as possible by a special or annual Town Meeting. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNINGBOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** CPAC meeting -- It was decided to not have a December meeting, but the planning staff would send out a mailing to the CPAC regarding the consultant selection. The committee would meet in early January. REPORTS Planning Board, Subcommittees Mr. Davies said he had been talking with David Kelland, chair man of the Historical Commission, about creating a zoning exemption for utility sheds of under 120 square feet, perhaps allowing only a 5'setback from property lines. He suggested that this be considered for a future amendment. Ms. Chase said that based on her discussions with the owner of Overall Music, which is going out of business, planning might want to look for ways to enhance private entrepreneurship. Perhaps the owner could be asked to come speak with the board. Mr. Garber said that would be appropriate for a comprehensive planning session. Noise By -Law Committee Mr. Galaitsis reported that the Noise Bylaw Committee had held a second session and may have a draft by -law to circulate after the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.