HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-08-PB-min
JOINT PLANNING BOARD RESIDENTIAL POLICY COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 8, 2015 MEETING
A joint meeting of the Lexington Planning Board and the Residential Policy Ad-Hoc Committee,
held in the Parker Room, Town Offices. The Residential Policy Committee meeting was called to
order at 7:15 p.m.
Planning Board members present: Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, Timothy Dunn, Richard Canale,
Charles Hornig, and Ginna Johnson. RPC members present: Richard Canale, Jeri Foutter, Tom
Harden, Ginna Johnson and Michael Leon.
Members of the public who participated: As per Sign-in Sheet (Attached).
INITIATIVES DISCUSSION
1.Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD): Richard Canale said he had met with Byron
Street neighbors who are interested in forming cooperative agreements; precedents for this
include homeowners’ associations. Mr. Canale and Sally Zimmerman described the
process on NCDs. Decisions for a Lexington draft would include: How a neighborhood is
defined, what percentage of residents would be needed to proceed with a district, the rules
for opt in and opt out, the threshold between minor and major changes, and how decisions
could be appealed. Ginna Johnson suggested the RPC should present the Wellesley By-
Law as a point of departure for discussion at the Public Workshop \[on September 24\].
2.Site Plan Review: Tom Harden described a Special Permit process by which specific
criteria could be required for approvals by a Permit Granting Authority. Mr. Harden said
the provision would allow homeowners to enlarge up to 50% but larger projects or
teardowns would require the review process and provide a disincentive for larger homes.
Michael Leon pointed out that other towns require a public process to increase non
conformity but in Lexington residents can increase non-conformity without public process.
The review process would allow abutters to voice opinion, and the permit granting
authority would determine how to diminish impacts with (for instance) landscape screens
or location of structures on lot. Mr. Leon said the proposal would bring Lexington more
into conformance with adjacent towns for abutter review. Todd Cataldo said that most
residents do not realize they are on non-conforming lots and the review process will affect
13
Page of
land values. A discussion ensued about whether the proposal should address both
conforming and non-conforming lots. Tim Dunn said that a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would
be a more appropriate. Charles Hornig said that an across the board FAR would obviate
the need for the special permit review proposal.
3.Dimensional Controls: Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The discussion on FAR continued. Mr.
Hornig said that case law was clear; the Town can regulate FAR and that FAR addresses
what residents are concerned about. Mr. Hornig said an across the board FAR in a
reasonable range would be suitable. Mr. Harden said that Newton’s FAR was graduated by
lot size; that it was not a blunt instrument. Mr. Hornig queried if big houses are bad or were
big houses on small lots bad? Mr. Canale said too many big houses was bad. Mr. Leon said
that there was more value in a public process, but suggested picking an FAR where 50%
of existing dwellings conform.
4.Height Restriction: Mr. Cataldo described redeveloped housing on Waltham Street south
of Marrett where a lower height unit fits into the neighborhood and a taller house does not
due to the narrow side yard setback. The proposal would restrict the height of houses with
reduced setbacks.
5.Tree By-Law: Gerry Paul described the existing Lexington Tree By-Law and then
described proposals to try to prevent significant trees being removed by requiring a
consultation. Mr. Canale said it would be difficult to regulate trees on private land. Mr.
Canale advocated for adopting the Scenic Road By-Law which would preserve trees and
stone wall in the right of way of on designated roads. It was decided a subgroup would
meet to discuss tree preservation ideas.
6.Teardowns: Matt Daggett described his analysis of housing trends using the Assessor’s
database for the eight year period from 2008 to 2015 (attached). Mr. Daggett quantified
recent trends including an average of 130 teardowns per year. Mr. Daggett also discussed
the limitations of the database—for instance it lists stories, but not height and it is difficult
to determine whether a lot is conforming or non-conforming. A discussion of the teardown
trend followed: Some expressed concern for the impact on Town finances if teardowns
were restricted and others expressed concern about the removal of housing when
replacements were unaffordable. Increased density was proposed as a means to add hosing
23
Page of
and more diverse units and others countered that the Town has to be mindful of the impact
of increased density on school population.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:34 pm.
Ginna Johnson, Clerk
Documents Attached: Agenda, Sign-in Sheet, Lexington Housing Redevelopment Data
Analysis Initiative
33
Page of