Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-15-PB-min JOINT PLANNING BOARD RESIDENTIAL POLICY COMMITTEE MINUTES\] October 15, 2015 MEETING A joint meeting of the Lexington Planning Board and the Residential Policy Committee was convened and called to order at 7:18 pm in the Reed Room, Town Offices. Planning Board members present: Richard Canale, Charles Hornig, and Ginna Johnson. RPC members present: Richard Canale, Tom Harden, Ginna Johnson and Michael Leon. Members of the public who participated: Bob Pressman, Tina McBride, Diane Pursely, Todd Cataldo, Marianne Lazarus, Ed Feinman, Wanda Koetz. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Feinman said that he had met with the Planning Director earlier in the day, that he had been surprised that initiatives to revise the zoning bylaw were being considered and discussed, and that he didn’t want his property “down-zoned.” He complained about the lack of public notice for this meeting, cited the inconvenience that he had experienced from the demolition and new construction across the street from his house, and said that he wanted to be able to sell his house to a developer who would demolish it if he chose to. Ms. Johnson responded by acknowledging his concerns, but informing him of the extensive outreach that has occurred regarding the RPC process and the open nature of RPC meetings. She invited his future participation. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1.Draft meeting minutes of the 8/25/15 meeting were distributed, but not discussed or approved. 2.It was agreed that the next meeting of the RPC will be Wednesday 10/28 at 7:15 pm. 3.Ms. Johnson stated that the Planning Board has requested that first drafts of any initiatives that are expected to be placed on the TM warrant be available by November 1. 4.Ms. Johnson opened a discussion of public outreach and publicity of the RPC and Board initiatives. The general conclusion was that available feasible channels for outreach were being utilized. Mr. Pressman suggested that if the warrant for the Fall TM has not yet been mailed, that mailing might be a vehicle for some kind of notice/publicity. Ms. Johnson said she would follow up on this. Page 1 of 4 INITIATIVES DISCUSSION 1.Neighborhood Conservation Districts. Mr. Canale reported that the NCD working group is using the Wellesley General Bylaw as a model for a Lexington draft, and that Sally Zimmerman and Marilyn Fenolosa have begun working on the draft. Preliminarily, the draft would require 80% of a designated neighborhood district’s participation to be able to petition Town Meeting, and a maximum of 20% opt out prior to an NCD’s approval. A draft is expected to be ready prior to the Planning Board meeting on 10/22. A discussion followed regarding the scope of regulation that an NCD might promulgate and Mr. Pressman asked whether, for example, and NCD’s regulations could prevent a teardown from occurring or could prevent LexHab from undertaking a housing development in a district. Mr. Canale responded that a property could only be regulated by an NCD if its owner had opted in. 2.Dimensional Controls. Mr. Hornig reported that the working group has discussed two initiatives, a height limit reduction and a floor area ratio (FAR) limit, and that there is consensus on moving forward with the height limit change. He described the height limit proposal, saying that it would limit the height of a house on a nonconforming lot to a height of 20’ plus 4/3 times the shortest side yard setback distance. On a lot with 50’ or less of frontage where side yards are allowed to be reduced to 7.5’, and where a house was proposed to be 7.5’ from the lot line, the height limit would be 30’. On a lot with 75’ or less of frontage where side yards are allowed to be reduced to 10’, and where a house was proposed to be 10’ from the lot line, the height limit would be 33’-4”. And on a lot with 100’ or less of frontage where side yards are allowed to be reduced to 12’’, and where a house was proposed to be 12’ from the lot line, the height limit would be 36’. Working group members Cataldo, Leon, and Harden agreed that the proposed height limit reduction would limit the perceived negative impact of large new houses on small lots. Mr. Cataldo said that he thought the height reduction would not have a negative impact on sellers of existing houses, because it would still allow a well-designed new house to be constructed. Page 2 of 4 Mr. Hornig reported that the working group has not reached consensus on a proposal to add an FAR restriction to the ZBL. Proposals for “high” and “low” FAR limits had been rd presented at the 9/24 forum, and since then Mr. Harden had drafted a 3 proposal for review by the working group. Mr. Hornig said that there was no agreement in the working group that an FAR limit should be used to prevent teardowns. Mr. Harden said that he thought that one of the important goals of the RPC should be to encourage the maintenance and construction of smaller or moderate-sized housing as a way of preserving a level of housing diversity in Town. He said that housing diversity has a value in itself, even if the more moderate-sized houses will be priced well above a level that could be considered “affordable” or “attainable.” Others agreed that FAR restrictions would not address the need for affordable housing. More discussion ensued related to the impact of possible FAR restrictions on the sales value of existing houses. Mr. Cataldo said that he thought that a lower FAR could result in a seller of a house on a small lot receiving $100k or more less for the property. More discussion ensured on this topic, with some agreement about the need to balance the concerns. Mr. Harden said that his proposal would limit Gross Floor Area (GFA) on a 5,000 square foot lot to 3,250 sf, on a 10,000 sf lot to 4,500 sf,, on a 15,000 sf lot to 6,000 sf, and on a 30,000 sf lot to 9,000 sf. Asked by Ms. Johnson, Mr. Cataldo said that limits he might be more comfortable with would be 4,000 sf of GFA on a 5,000 sf lot, 7,000 sf of GFA on a 10,000 sf lot, and 11,000 GFA on a 30,000 sf lot. Ms. McBride, Ms. Pursely, Mr. Canale, and Mr. Leon express support for a balanced FAR limit. Ms. Johnson asked the working group to provide the Planning Board with a table indicating the different FAR limits being considered. Mr. Harden said that any proposal for an FAR would also need to address how GFA is defined, and what zoning relief would be available for those proposing to exceed the allowed FAR. More discussion followed on these topics without conclusions. 3.Tree Protection. Ms. Johnson reported that she had met with the Tree Committee and the group decided not to proceed with an initiative that would require a consultation before any large caliper tree could be cut down. She said that the group liked and wanted to pursue the idea of a “Tree Summit” with the Planning Board. Page 3 of 4 4.Diversity of Housing Types. Mr. Hornig stated that he is interested in bringing forward several initiatives to promote housing diversity: a.Allow 2-family housing by right wherever single-family housing is currently allowed; b.Amend the accessory apartment bylaw to remove some of the more unnecessary and complicating rules; c.Make changes to the Special Permit residential requirements to encourage smaller houses. Discussion followed on the 2-Family-By-Right idea. Ms. Johnson asked what would prevent the bylaw from enabling large and expensive houses to be built under this provision. Mr. Pressman said that he thought that an initiative that would allow 2- families could be the most important initiative that the RPC could bring forward, in that it could enable more affordable/attainable housing to be built. In response to the idea that such an initiative may be too ambitious to bring to the spring TM, Mr. Harden encouraged efforts to bring it forward further, so that there could be more vetting and development of the proposal. Ms. Johnson said that she was interested in an initiative that would address some of the shortcomings of the Balanced Housing provisions in the ZBL. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Mr. Cataldo asked whether Aaron Henry had made progress in researching the fiscal impact of limiting FAR on new construction. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Harden to follow up, and ask Mr. Henry for an update. Planning Board members Johnson, Hornig, and Canale discussed the coordination of outstanding tasks and agreed to continue the discussion with the Planning Director. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm. Documents Attached: Sign-in Sheet Tom Harden, Scribe Ginna Johnson, Clerk Page 4 of 4