2021-11-08-STM#1-min-as Amended June 2022

Browse Search

November 8,2021 Special Town Meeting#1(2021-1),cont. Ms.Barry, Select Board Member,echoed those concerns and stated that she felt the Article didn't seem ready yet,and needed further discussion and wide-spread conversation. Mr.Boudett asked what for an example of a type greenhouse gas requirement would be more acceptable. Mr.Pato stated that those requirements enacted by Article 29 were appropriate,but at the current time they were being held in abeyance by the Legislature for all new growth in zoning. 8:20 p.m. Betsey Weiss,Pct.2,stated that she fully supported OSRD as another tool to be used and that they needed more affordable and attainable and diverse housing. She had attended the September 21st meeting for CPAC on Housing and the Summary seemed to back that up and that zoning needed to be amended to allow for a more diverse housing stock,while preserving open space. She further stated that waiting for CPAC study did not seem to be a reason to not pass the Article at this time. 8:23 p.m. Thomas Shiple,Pct.9,stated that he supported the idea of greater housing as well as denser housing,but that the proposal did not seem fully vetted. He would prefer a financial analysis and modeling. He commended Mr.Daggett on his work,but stated that they needed more time. 8:24 p.m. Sarah Higginbotham,Pct.5,asked if the Article were not passed,whether the Planning Board would refine it and take it up for another meeting. Mr.Hornig stated that due to staff challenges they were unlikely to take the OSRD approach at this time. He further noted that they no longer had a Planning Director and that the staff did not feel they had the capacity to address any zoning initiatives until the reorganizational process was complete and are able to hire a new Director— he noted that the staff strongly suggested that the Planning Board not pursue any zoning initiatives in Spring 2022,which meant waiting until 2023. Ms.Higginbotham stated that she deeply cares about diversity in Lexington and was disappointed with this answer. 8:26 p.m. Robert Creech,Precinct 7,moved to Amend Article 15,as follows: MOTION 1: A) Amend the proposed Table of Uses,Row A.1.06,under Item 1,as follows: In the RO,RS and RT Districts,require a Special Permit instead of the proposed Site Plan Review. a. For the RO District,replace"R"with"SP" b.For the RS District,replace`It"with"SP" c. For the RT District,replace"R"with"SP" Mr. Creech then made a Presentation relating to changing the Main Motion. 8:29 p.m. Charles Hornig,Chair,Planning Board,reported the recommendation of the Planning Board with a vote of 4 to 1 to recommend rejection of the proposed Amendment. He noted that 1)the State Law deliberately encourages"by right"OSRD provisions by making them easier to approve. Approving the Amendment would remove that encouragement and make the Main Motion require significantly more votes to pass, likely defeating it and making the Amendment pointless;and 2)it was impractical as they removed the criteria judge it,and the Planning Board would have no guidance to offer and developers would not have guidance,either. 8:32 p.m. Jill Hai,Select Board Chair,reported that the Select Board had 2 members in favor and 1 opposed with 2 awaiting discussion. 8:33 p.m. Jeri Foutter,Housing Partnership Board Chair,noted that Housing Partnership Board had not voted on the Amendment.