HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-20-PB-min-2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF MAY 20, 2015
A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Clarke Middle School Auditorium, was
called to order 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig, with members Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti,
Tim Dunn, Richard Canale, Ginna Johnson, and planning staff Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman
present.
*****************RESIDENTIAL POLICY LISTENING SESSION*********************
Mr. Hornig explained the guidelines for the listening session before it began.
Audience Comments:
Figure out a way to balance the pace of development so not to stress the Town’s
infrastructure for example school over-crowding, increased traffic, accidents and
fatalities on the road due to increased traffic.
There is a lack of housing for senior citizens. There are very few options for seniors who
want to downsize. Most seniors have to move out of Town.
Create a system to monitor and maintain public access to open space during the
development process.
The Planning Board should take a more active role in the variance process, which should
only be granted based on the land, not other hardships.
There needs to be housing for older residents the cluster developments were created to
address those needs, but were not used in that way. The Planning Board should look at
mechanisms that could be used to achieve that goal.
Trees are a significant asset to the Town and are being removed unnecessarily in the
development process. There should be a procedure in place that would trigger a required
notification process if a resident wanted to remove a substantial number of trees.
There has been a significant reduction in the tree canopy in Town. If houses are built to
the setback line it is hard for trees to flourish. Trees soften the impact of development,
provide a degree of traffic calming and tree-lined streets soften hard infrastructure.
The Balanced Housing Developments (BHD) are not producing the types of units the
Town was looking for and was putting more stress on the schools. This type of
development should be fixed or gotten rid of.
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of May 20, 2015
Restructure the regulations to address large houses on small lots (mansionization) by
using larger setbacks and the FAR as possible solutions. There should be a diversity of
housing types to preserve a mix of incomes throughout Town.
Sponsor the passage of a bylaw allowing the creation of neighborhood conservation
districts throughout the Town.
The Planning Board should support two concepts social and economic diversity; make
the purchase of public land include an affordable housing element. Use CPA funds more
regularly to subsidize the Leary and similar projects.
Some of our neighboring towns are doing more to create affordable housing projects
including 55 plus housing developments. Consider requiring developers to provide
affordable units in developments and support denser construction.
New homes do not create bad developments. Is there a more nuanced approach then the
blunt options previously mentioned?
Lexington has had dramatic redevelopment, 12% of homes have been replaced in the past
ten years and over 400 of them are more than 12,000 square feet, which is driving prices
up dramatically. Consider a limit on the FAR, incentivize rehab, and make sure the
middle income housing is not lost.
Place multiple cameras around Town to track the cars and paths they take.
Developers should contribute to accommodate the school age impact especially in multi-
unit developments. Designate some units to the homeless.
Lexington is an affluent community it is what it is; how much is under our control?
Consider form based zoning for setbacks, there is a need for housing procedures
especially those with middle income especially in the 100-120% AMI band and seniors in
their 60s have few choices.
Commend the 2014 HPP, loss of moderate income units - increasing affordability gap;
focus on the HPP implementation items, spending more than $500,000 per year. Compact
neighborhoods exist, but couldn’t be rebuilt today. Economic necessity of providing more
affordable units.
The top thing in 1981 was the excellent schools and economic diversity that gave the
Town character. There is no longer economic diversity.
The demolition delay is hollow and has no guts to it. There needs to be a way to ensure
property owners could find a bona fide buyer for the existing house. Developers are now
finding a way to build three-story homes.
Minutes for the Meeting of May 20, 2015 Page 3
Economic diversity is very important. There is a lot of energy being put into subsidized
housing, which has created a double peak one high and one low. Encourage preservation
of the average house. Cluster zoning has contributed to this process and failed and now
there are all these mega mansions, which does not help this issue. Get medium range
houses, the FAR may be a way to accomplish this.
Encourage the Planning Board to promote green buildings.
Other Towns have a different approach to setbacks schemes than Lexington. House
placement needs to be changed in Lexington.
It does not pay to waste money on a renovation or rehab when you know the house will
be torn down in the end.
There are neighborhood transitions occurring as houses get torn down land larger homes
are being built and the ratio of open space to buildings is changing. Many trees have been
removed to make space for the new large houses and some may not have been allowed to
be cut down if there was some enforcement of procedures. How can rules be enforced?
School enrollment group correlated purchased units and rented units to enrollment-
decisions should incorporate these findings. Pushing maximum density in town
affordable projects should try to match context.
The Planning Board should put together a comprehensive list of options of what the
Board can do and then have this conversation. Explore a progressive tax based on square
footage.
Cluster housing is not working and prices from these projects are not what was intended.
Get data between the special permit projects and then compare what conventional
projects would bring for sale prices, how big the homes would be, the possible FAR, and
open space.
Houses are being built not because of demand, but because of the economics of the
developers. There are ways to ensure that folks who do not want their house torn down
can find buyers.
The best way to get sustainability would be through the FAR.
This could be used to try to shape the community into a great community.
There are legal constraints on what the Planning Board can do. It is ultimately up to
Town Meeting for the final say.
Not sure end users will pay over asking price. By restricting optimum use of lots will
harm not just developers but property owners. Distribute the burden across all residents.
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of May 20, 2015
What is the responsibility of the homeowner versus the Town to ensure the preservation
of trees?
What are the consequences for builders who do not follow the rules?
The problem is it would be more profitable for builders to build large houses since there
is no land left to buy anymore so make it more expensive for builders to build large
houses versus smaller houses. Create a variant of the cluster housing and make more
houses that are affordable and for moderate income households. Use the FAR and roof
heights as constraints.
There were questions on the process and next steps.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 8:32 p.m.
Timothy Dunn, Clerk