Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-28-PB-min JOINT PLANNING BOARD RESIDENTIAL POLICY COMMITTEE MINUTES October 28, 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 7:31 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 signup sheet. INITIATIVES DISCUSSION 1.Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD): Richard Canale described a draft circulated before the meeting for an NCD Bylaw (attached). Frank Sandy expressed concern that with the ability to “opt out,” there will never be sufficient support for a district. Mr. Canale said that Lexingtonians in several different neighborhoods seem to want one. During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Canale said that the Planning Board was included in the process because the NCD dealt with land use, but that the Historic District Commission would do most of the procedural work. Mr. Canale said that the appellate process would be to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and then to Land Court. Mr. Canale said that the percent of residents required in support of an NCD was reviewed, proposals ranged from 51% to 90%, and that 75% of residents in support was a compromise. As regard regulations of the NCD and Town regulations, the greater restrictions would prevail. As regards the characteristics of the districts, Mr. Canale said that the Study Committee would make recommendations specific to each NCD. Mr. Canale said the proposals in the draft were consistent with the NCD in Cambridge; Sally Zimmerman, who as City staff in Cambridge implemented the Cambridge NCD bylaw, helped to draft the Lexington draft under review. Mr. Canale clarified that a house that is sold stays in the NCD; properties in NCD realize “top dollar” because the neighborhood is predictable \[investment secure\]. 14 Page of 2.Scenic Roads Draft Bylaw: Scenic Roads Bylaw template was not available for distribution so discussion was deferred to an upcoming meeting. Aaron Henry suggested creating an inventory of roads and walls worthy of designation. 3.Dimensional Controls: Maximum Height on Non-Conforming (Narrow) Lots: Charles Hornig described the draft proposal “Amend Zoning By-Law – Maximum Height of Dwellings” to limit the maximum height on narrow lots with reduced side yard setbacks. Mr. Hornig said the proposal was intended to address the most egregious examples of out of scale houses located close to lot \[property\] lines. Mr. Hornig and members of the Dimensional Controls working group recounted how walking through Mr. Hornig’s Reed Street neighborhood illustrated the problem. Mr. Hornig said there was consensus among members of the working group that that the proposed height limitation would not be detrimental to property values as a marketable house could be developed under the proposal. Mr. Hornig clarifies that the proposed bylaw would measure height on sloping lots consistent with the existing by-law (average natural grade). Mr. Henry said there are about 10,000 single family houses in Lexington and 547 50’ wide lots. 4.Dimensional Controls: Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Timothy Dunn described the work in progress on Floor Area Ratio. Mr. Dunn said that in analysis of Assessor’s database, several properties on the edge of Town, properties with lot mergers or properties developed as a result of Zoning Board of Appeals actions or Planning Board regulations (with increased density) resulted in a higher FAR and were skewing analysis of existing FAR. Mr. Dunn said they should be dropped from calculations. A discussion of the goals of a proposed Floor Area Ratio ensued. Tom Harden said his goals were to prevent the construction of the most egregious over scale houses on small lots and to encourage smaller houses to be built. Mr. Harden added the proposal should be cohesive and understandable. Mr. Canale said that an FAR that was set too high wouldn’t solve any problems; that the Town can worry about resale value and let that drive numbers or set the numbers based on the “Lexington We Want.” Mr. Hornig said there was not consensus in the working group about the degree of change. Mr. Leon said an FAR restriction is a valuable complement to other zoning dimensional controls; an important zoning principle is that zoning should reflect where we want to go, not where we have been. Mr. Leon suggested focusing attention on smaller lots; he also said wider setbacks could make the massing of a house 24 Page of more proportional to its lot size. Mr. Henry described the current definition of Gross Floor Area and said it is consistent with the Zoning definition. Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti said she was concerned that this initiative was not ready to move forward. Public comments: Mr. Feinman said FAR was “downzoning,” that the process should address smaller lots first, and that notification of any proposed zoning changes should go out with the Town tax bill. Ingrid Klimoff said she was not in support of an FAR. Ginna Johnson requested that Planning Board members and Residential Policy Committee members present a statement about their goals for FAR at the upcoming Planning Board meeting on November 4, 2015. 5.Diversity of Housing Types/ Smart Growth Overlay Districts: Jeri Foutter described the Commonwealth’s Chapter 40S and 40R regulations, initiatives that would enable the Town to designate a Smart Growth Zone where density of development could be increased, and the Commonwealth would reimburse the Town for the additional cost of educating new school age children in the district. Ms. Foutter said that the Town could apply for a grant to cover the cost of studying where such a district could be located. The Smart Growth Zone can be site specific, like the Oakley Neighborhood Smart Growth Overlay District in Belmont. 6.Diversity of Housing Types/ Two-Family Housing: Mr. Hornig circulated a draft, “Amend Zoning By-Law – Two-Family Dwellings,” which would permit Two-Family Housing to be built by right wherever single family dwellings can be built. Mr. Hornig said that there are few existing two-family dwellings in Town, and this proposal would increase the number of smaller units. Mr. Hornig said it would allow rather than forbid people to do things. Mr. Hornig clarified that two dwellings on one lot would not be allowed, but that attached dwellings with 2 units were proposed. Ms. Johnson expressed a concern that even smaller attached units built under Balanced Housing have resulted in very expensive sale prices. Mr. Canale said he thought the Accessory Apartment By-Law should be simplified first. Mr. Canale said that the Scenic Road and Two-Family Dwelling proposals should be studied and for 2017 Town Meeting. Public comment: Tina McBride said if Two-Family Dwelling was not low income housing it was just a boon for developers and that she didn’t see it as advantageous to the Town. Ms. Klimoff said she supported the proposal as it would increase diversity. 34 Page of 7.Diversity of Housing Types/ Accessory Apartments: Mr. Hornig reviewed a proposal to ease the restrictions for Accessory Apartments. The group had not reviewed the changes against the existing bylaw and agreed discussion would continue. Meeting was adjourned at 10:43 pm. Ginna Johnson, Clerk Documents Attached: Agenda, Sign-in Sheet, and the following Draft Articles: Article XXX Neighborhood Conservation Districts, Amend Zoning By-Law – Maximum Height of Dwellings Article XX Amend Zoning By-Law – Residential Floor Area Ratio Article XX – Amend Zoning By-Law – Two-Family Dwellings Article XX – Amend Zoning By-Law – Accessory Apartment 44 Page of