HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-15-AHTBT-min
Page 1 of 3
Affordable Housing Trust
Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2024 4:00 pm
Remote meeting on Zoom
Information session for Precinct 5 and 6 Town Meeting Members and Lowell Street/North
Street neighbors
Affordable Housing Trust Board Members present: Elaine Tung, Chair; Mark Sandeen, Tiffany
Payne, Linda Prosnitz, William Erickson
Staff present: Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Liz Rust, RHSO
Director; Ragi Ramachandran, Administrative Assistant
Ms. Tung chaired the remote meeting on Zoom, and called the meeting to order at 4:01pm. The
meeting was attended by Precinct 5 and 6 Town Meeting Members, Parcel 68-44 neighbors,
and members of the public.
Ms. Tung and Mr. Sandeen explained the format of the meeting. There was an initial slide
presentation from the Trust on Article 33. Ms. Payne explained the need for affordable housing.
Mr. Erickson provided a site analysis of the Lowell St/North St parcel 68-44. He explained the
features of the site, the due diligence performed by the Trust, and the test sketch produced to
evaluate the development feasibility on the parcel. Mr. Sandeen shared the community
concerns slide and provided an overview of how the Affordable Housing Trust plan to address
the concerns. Ms. Prosnitz explained the process once Article 33 passes, the opportunities for
community engagement and inputs.
The attendees shared their concerns, questions and comments after the introductory
presentation:
1) An affordable housing development in Lexington at this location is exclusionary
2) The due diligence that has been conducted
3) Quality of Construction - “Projects” will be built; the Developer will cut corners in
construction
4) Design of Building
5) Has Conservation Commission been contacted
6) The prospect of a more diverse housing stock is the direction of where we need to go in
order to address the housing situation in our town, region and state; the development
built behind her house has been the perfect a ddition with more sunlight and neighbors
with children
7) Has there been professional investigation or analysis
8) Are there other sites more adept to the density proposed
9) Mitigation of impact on neighbors; impact on quality of life
10) This is a very early exploration of how the land will be used for housing. This is not a
vote to approve a specific development plan. There will be plenty of opportunity for
public input and comment
11) Concerns about the financial cost to town
12) Walkability
Page 2 of 3
13) School enrollment; COVID has caused a rise in mental health concerns and worried
about special education students being shuttled around because of student numbers
and case loads
14) With our emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion and our feeling of how wonderful
our town is, we should be overjoyed to have children of lower income families have the
benefit of our schools
15) Concern that this neighborhood is targeted for affordable housing and affordable
housing should be in small units spread throughout the town versus a larger
development in one location
16) Concerns raised about transparency
17) Concerns about Bike lanes and sidewalks: We should only build where there are already
bike lanes and sidewalks in terms of ecology and sustainability and look at Town from a
holistic approach because there is a lack of wooded areas in Lexington. This is not
healthy for the environment.
18) Will the apartments be all-affordable
19) Confirmation that building height 40 feet is same as required for residential buildings
and will height be addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals?
20) Size of units are 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms. Cannot under house people pursuant to federal
regulations. Average # of children going into public schools is less than average family in
Lexington due to the sheer number of bedrooms
21) LexHAB: we’re not going to be warehousing poor folks; in fact, building affordable
housing in wealthy suburbs is the opposite of that. Lexington has existing projects –
over 100 units in Greeley Village; 50 units at Vynebrook Village. These developments
bring new neighbors, bring wonderful volunteers into schools, amazing students with
different possibilities and experiences. We should not look at this as a drain on
resources but enhancement to our community. HUD regulations limit the number of
people that can be put into affordable housing units.
Mr. Erikson and Mr. Sandeen clarified that the test plans shown were not proposals but
conceptual sketches prepared by one of the Trustees for an understanding of the development
potential on the parcel.
Mr. Sandeen stated there were 31 attendees and 9 panelists in the meeting.
Ms. Kowalski shared that the due diligence efforts conducted on the parcel were performed by
engaging the professional firms BSC Group, VHB, and Stamsky and McNary for Wetland
delineation, Phase 1 environmental assessment, topographic survey, soil and water table
evaluation. Ms. Kowalski stated that the test plans and due diligence provided a more specific
feasibility study of the site versus the feasibility study contracted by the Town on three sites in
the Town center.
Ms. Tung stated that the next informational session will be on Feb. 27 at 7pm by zoom.
Adjourn
Mr. Sandeen moved to adjourn, which was seconded by M r. Erickson, and on a roll call vote:
(Erickson – yes, Prosnitz – yes, Sandeen – yes, Tung – yes, Payne – yes), the meeting adjourned
at 5:29pm.
Page 3 of 3
List of documents reviewed:
Article 33 Info session Precincts 5 and 6 and Neighbors – slides presentation