2008-08-06-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of August 6, 2008 interpretations of the by-law. Mr. Constable said it may be good for towns to have quid pro quos in place. Allowing an increase such as from .15 FAR to .35 FAR could double land values. He said the Board needs to look at the whole regulatory gamut and examine what the developer’s objectives are versus what the town wants. In the case of commercial development, allowing 250,000 square feet where before only 100,000 square feet were allowed should be contingent on the developer agreeing to do certain things, or a set amount of money per square foot that could go into an infrastructure fund. Mr. Galaitsis asked Mr. Constable’s opinion on what percentage of increased value the Town could receive. Mr. Constable said 20, 30 or 40 percent of the increased value. Mr. Henry felt that once the Board begins to ask for pro formas, the discussion might change to one of monetary values, rather then looking at the quality of the development itself; that could be a slippery slope. Ms. Manz said this seemed to be an abandonment of the idea of mitigation, and instead the Town simply tries to get a piece of the profit in return for the rezoning. If the Town says it would take 40% of the increased value created, isn’t this selling zoning? Mr. Constable said this “value capture” would be a source for mitigation funds. As Hartwell Avenue develops there would be a certain amount of impact on the Town; decide on a generic amount instead of doing one developer at a time to get the maximum value capture. This would best be done collectively and not incrementally to avoid potential legal complications. Development agreements rather then impact fees should be used since impact fees might have difficulties at the federal level. Development agreements could to be entered into with the Board of Selectmen for quid pro quo, which would be good for developers - giving predictability, extending grandfathering and other possible benefits. Mr. Henry asked about development agreements with the special permit process. Mr. Constable said the state law was not perfectly clear. If the Town was giving back something it could work as an agreement through the Board of Selectmen where the developer does something the Town requests and in return the developer receives something back. The most defensible agreement would be to offer an interest in real estate, for instance give town land in return for getting something from the developer. Mr. Canale said Lexington should keep the base FAR at .15 and allow higher density with impact fees