Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-09-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 9, 2011 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Greg Zurlo with members Richard Canale, Charles Hornig, Michelle Ciccolo, Wendy Manz and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. TOWN MEETING *********************************** ********************************* PUBLIC HEARINGS Article 39, Traffic and Renovation: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. There were approximately seven people in the audience. Ms. McCall-Taylor explained that this article seeks to remove the word renovation from section 135-71B of the zoning bylaw as this serves as a disincentive for maintaining and updating existing properties. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to recommend the approval of Article 39 to Town Meeting. Article 40, Rezoning 1095 Massachusetts Avenue from RS to CRS: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 7:42 p.m. There were approximately seven people in the audience. Mr. Thomas Fenn, attorney, and Mr. Douglas Chapman, property owner, were present. Mr. Fenn distributed a handout and said the site is located at the corner of Maple Street and Massachusetts Avenue and its grandfathered use is exclusively for a gas station. Mr. Chapman’s petition is to rezone this site to the commercial zone CRS to maximize the potential use and make it a legal site. There have been mixed reactions in the neighborhood. Board Comments:  What is the building setback? Mr. Fenn said the building is on the property line;  There is concern that there should be predictability for any owner and this rezoning has potential issues; Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2011  Many uses could be allowed through the substitution of nonconforming uses through a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA);  Why not request a CD district, which has the ability to make the property conforming from day one? Mr. Fenn said it was costly and there were no specific plans for future use of the site.  There was discomfort expressed with such an expansive list of allowed uses on this constrained site adjacent to residential lots. Audience comments:  While many neighbors like the gas station and owner and would like to support this rezoning. there is concern about future potential uses and they want the protection of the ZBA to prevent undesirable uses.  One neighbor supports changing the zoning.. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Board Deliberations: The Board discussed appropriate uses for this site and the most appropriate zoning. While there was a desire to allow more uses, there was no way to allow a limited set of uses without a CD rezoning, which would be costly and not appropriate for this site. The Board expressed a desire to work with the owner to see if another approach would serve the owner’s needs and protect the neighbors. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to not recommend the approval of Article 40 to Town Meeting. Article 41, Rezoning Hartwell Avenue Land from RO to CM: Mr. Zurlo called the public hearing to order at 8:18 p.m. There were approximately seven people in the audience. The owner of the property, Mr. Ashok Patel, was in favor of the rezoning of this parcel and the Board requested that he put that in writing. This parcel is classified by the assessors as an unbuildable residential lot, and would be classified as an unbuildable commercial lot if rezoned. Rezoning this lot would allow abutting commercial properties to develop with fewer restrictions if the lot was rezoned as a commercial lot. Although the adjacent property is owned by the same entity, due to the wetland/flood plain constraints, the Board expects the change to provide little additional development potential on this site. Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2011 Page 3 Audience comments:  Mr. Fenn wanted to know if this was a residential property being rezoned to a commercial zone and if there was a plan? On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to recommend the approval of Article 41 to Town Meeting. Ms. McCall-Taylor left the meeting at 8:30 to attend the TMMA meeting. Town Meeting Reports: The Board discussed the reports for Town Meeting and decided to keep Article 39 & 41 together and Article 40 would be done separately. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adopt the report for Article 39 as modified tonight. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adopt the report for Article 40 as modified tonight. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adopt the report for Article 41 as modified tonight. Tree Bylaw: Board Discussion and Comments: The Tree Committee originally came to the Planning Board in the fall to discuss amending the Tree Bylaw to bring projects within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, Board of Appeals and Conservation Commission within the bylaw. The Planning Board members felt that this proposed amendment would not be acceptable since it would be duplicative, adding an extra layer to the process and not change the standards. The Board would have to waive the requirement for every project so the Tree Warden and Tree Committee did not have to be involved with every development and application. The goal should be to try and minimize the loss of trees without adding more to the process by allowing the SPGA to be the agent to carry out procedures under section 120-8C of the Tree Bylaw and substitute for the Tree Warden. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2011 It would be good for Boards to have some discretion when working with the standards and not to add committees to the review process. Boards should maintain flexibility for developments such as site sensitive developments that do not have separate lot setbacks. The Board was comfortable with a presumption that it would enforce the Tree Bylaw, as long as it could waive the requirements, with a written explanation, in appropriate instances. (Ms. McCall-Taylor returned to the meeting.) Mr. Paul from the Tree Committee said the goal was to make the Tree Bylaw more transparent to the developer and in subdivisions the boundaries would be from the undivided lot prior to development not the individual lot lines. The Board discussed the importance of mitigation when protected trees are removed. The Tree Bylaw provisions regarding mitigation, Section 120-8C, are the only part that the Board should be bound to follow. Another Board member said that process sections of the Tree Bylaw were also important and should be included in the provisions the Board could waive. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ****************************** ************************ The Board discussed the draft RFP from Tetra Tech Rizzo for the Hayden Avenue Commercial District. Board Comments:  Part 1 looked more like a traffic plan and not a transportation plan;  The study is a very narrow automobile study;  This RFP does not include the impact on residents in the area;  The study area is constrained and does not include what the TMO-2 District area should be;  Will there be enough technical data to write a TMOD for the Spring Street area?  It is critical to have an advisory group to coordinate and look at transportation in Lexington. There should be a successor or continuation of TMG. The public process is very sketchy and there should be more buy-in from other departments and the Board of Selectmen to get a more unified approach.  There needs to be more outreach for public process;  Discretion may be necessary since the development potential in that part of Town is limited by the little CRO zone remaining. Most of the area is a CD and it is questionable whether a TMOD is necessary;  Two additional intersections should be included Lincoln Street and 2A and Cary Avenue/Middle Street and 2A and the plan should incorporate any findings on Shade Street traffic calming; and Minutes for the Meeting of March 9, 2011 Page 5  The Board intends to work collaboratively with staff and committees to prepare a proposal for a TMO-2 District to bring to a future Town Meeting. MINUTES *************************************************************************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 4-0-1, (Ms. Ciccolo abstained) to accept the minutes for February 9, 2011. PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* ****************** On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 5-0, to nominate Michelle Ciccolo as the Planning Board liaison to the Greenways Corridor Committee until the reorganization at the end of June. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 5-0, to nominate Michelle Ciccolo as the Planning Board liaison to the Energy Conservation Committee until the reorganization at the end of June. On a motion duly made and seconded it was voted, 5-0, to nominate Michelle Ciccolo as the Planning Board Clerk until the reorganization at the end of June. The meeting was recorded by Lexmedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department: 1. Memo from Karen Mullins regarding Article 41, dated March 9, 2011 (1 page). 2. Draft Report for 2011 Annual Town Meeting, from staff (8 pages). 3. Draft Report for 2011 Annual Town Meeting, modified by Charles Hornig (8 pages). 4. Draft motion of tree bylaw change from the tree committee dated March 4, 2011. (1 page). 5. Updated copy of the Tree Bylaw (8 pages). 6. Copy of the petition of the Article 40 submitted by the owners for 2011 Annual Town Meeting (14 pages). On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:02 p.m. Michelle Ciccolo, Clerk