Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-25 SB-min Select Board Meeting October 25, 2021 A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 7:01 P.M. on Monday, October 25, 2021 via Zoom meeting services. Chair Ms. Hai; Vice Chair Mr. Lucente; and members Mr. Pato; and Mr. Sandeen were present, as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager and Ms. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; and Ms. Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance. Select Board member Suzie Barry was absent. Ms. Hai stated that the meeting was being conducted via Zoom as posted, with the agenda on the Town’s website, noting that some members and staff were participating from the Select Board meeting room using the Meeting Owl Pro device to test the technology for hybrid meeting participation. Ms. Hai provided directions to members of the public, watching/listening via the Zoom application, regarding the procedure for making a public comment. Mr. Lucente reminded Board members, staff, and members of the public about Lexington’s Standard of Conduct regarding civil discourse during Town Government meetings. SELECT BOARD CONCERNS & LIAISON REPORTS Mr. Lucente reported that LexHab will hold a public meeting this Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 7 p.m. regarding the continuation of the planning phase for affordable housing planned for 116 Vine Street. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve Submission of 2021 Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Municipal Election Ballot To approve for the Chair of the Select Board to complete and submit a ballot casting a vote in the 2021 Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) election on behalf of the Select Board. DOCUMENTS: Boston MPO 2021 Municipal Election Ballot Email 2. Battle Green Use Request—Veterans Day Car Parade Event The Police Department, Department of Public Works, and the Fire Department have no objections to this request. To approve the request from the Town Celebrations Committee to use the Battle Green on Thursday, November 11, 2021 from 12:30pm to 2:30pm for the purpose of the Lexington High School Band Members playing music and Boy/Girl Scouts honoring veterans during the Veterans Day Car Parade. 3. Approve Select Board Meeting Minutes To approve and release the Select Board meeting minutes of:  September 20, 2021  September 22, 2021 Fall Fiscal Guidelines Summit DOCUMENTS: DRAFT September 20 2021 Select Board Meeting; DRAFT September 22, 2021 Summit 4. Approve and Sign Proclamation—Employee Recognition Day To approve and sign a proclamation for Employee Recognition Day to honor all Town employees and to 1 recognize those employees with 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 years of service. DOCUMENTS: 2021 Employee Recognition Day Proclamation. 5. Approve Memorial Plaque in Tower Park—John W. Frey Memorial To approve the Lexington Tree Committee's request to install flush mounted granite stone, 3 feet x 4 feet x 1 foot, in Tower Park in memory of John Frey as outlined in the Monuments and Memorials Committee Report. DOCUMENTS: Memo from Tree Committee; Monuments and Memorials Recommendations regarding request for memorial plaque. 6. Select Board Committee Resignation To accept the resignation of Rev. Kate Ekrem from the Fund for Lexington Board effective immediately. DOCUMENTS: Resignation Letter—K. Ekrem. 7. Accept and Place on File Report for Community Feedback on Police Station Project and Policing in Lexington To accept and place on file the final, integrated report for the Community Feedback on Police Station Project and Policing in Lexington. DOCUMENTS: Final Report for Community Feedback on Police Station Project and Policing in Lexington. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 4-0 by roll call to approve the Consent Agenda. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Verizon Cable Television Renewal License—Extension of Negotiation Period Kenneth Pogran, Chair of the Cable Advisory Committee, reported that new contract negotiations with Verizon have been frustratingly slow and a number of issues remain unresolved. Cable Counsel Peter Epstein has been brought in to try to move discussions along. The current contract will expire on October 29, 2021. Options to reach a resolution are being considered. One is to informally agree to extend negotiations for 45 days, which can be accomplished by an email exchange between the two parties. A second option is more official and requires a letter from the Select Board with notification of a “preliminary assessment of denial” in which Lexington would formally reject Verizon’s most recent proposal. Normally, such a letter would go on record with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable (MDTC) but Mr. Pogran reported that the MDTC has made an alternative recommendation in which Lexington would instead apply to defer filing the preliminary assessment of denial but state the hope that negotiations will reach an agreeable outcome. If no progress is made in the next couple of weeks taking this course of action, the Select Board still has the option to authorize the Chair to send the preliminary assessment of denial letter. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 4-0 by roll call to grant authority to Cable Council to enter into an informal agreement with Verizon to extend negotiations on the Verizon 2 cable license renewal license for a period of 45 days. And to delegate authority to the Select Board Chair or designee to extend negotiations by taking any action up to an including denial of Verizon’s latest proposal and communicating with the Massachusetts Department of telecommunications and cable in relation thereto. 2. Special Town Meeting (STM) 2021-1 Background on several of the STM articles was presented and Select Board members had the opportunity to pose questions. Ms. Hai encouraged members of the public and Town Meeting Members to stay abreast of information about the articles by visiting the Special Town Meeting page on the Town website.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 10: Reducing Noise from Landscape Maintenance Equipment Mr. Lucente asked if switching to electric leaf blowers from gas leaf blowers would translate to additional labor costs for landscape contractors and more spent by homeowners who do their own yard work. Daniel Koretz, Chair of the Noise Advisory Committee, said data shows that switching from one type to the other may have no impact on either labor cost or time on task but, depending on the type of leaves being cleared, it might be as much as a 30% increase. Mr. Koretz added, however, that there are also costs to remaining with gas-powered leaf blowers: the impacts of noise levels and the pollution generated, particularly for landscape workers who use them all day, every day. Mr. Lucente acknowledged these are important points but he is not sure the landscaping community has caught up with understanding the hazards and/or increased costs, and this will impact how agreeable companies are to making the switch, especially given current labor shortages. Mr. Koretz noted that since there are costs associated with either gas-powered leaf blowers or battery- powered leaf blowers, it depends which costs are more acceptable. Public comment has overwhelmingly favored regulation of gas-powered units due to noise and pollution, as well as impacts to hearing of employees. Clarifying that homeowners would also be subject to the regulation, Mr. Koretz said that commercially- used leaf blowers require replacement every two to three years whereas residentially-owned units last far longer. Mr. Koretz reported that, after debate, the Committee does not support giving residents an exemption to the regulation but he believes a longer transition time from gas to electric might be acceptable. Mr. Pato said he supports the article in general but encouraged the Committee to take another look at extending the transition time for homeowners. He is concerned about the health impacts of gas-powered units on homeowners, as well as workers, but recognizes that the duration of use is shorter for homeowners than for commercial operators and the noise impact of a single leaf blower is less than the impact of a group of them operating simultaneously. Ms. Hai questioned the effective date of the bylaw for commercial users, saying that having a uniform date is simpler. She asked for data from other communities that have phased out gas-powered blowers and about the effective dates those communities have chosen. Ms. Hai also asked about the fine/penalty structure for those who continue to use gas-powered units. Mr. Koretz cited other communities around the country but believes Lexington would be the first in Massachusetts to ban gas powered blowers. With regard to fees, he stated that Town Counsel had inserted a fine structure that is consistent with other Municipal codes. The fine would be levied on homeowners 3 rather than on the commercial landscapers because the Committee wants residents to be responsible for who they are hiring and because of comments made by commercial crews that there are fly-by-night scofflaw operators who might not act responsibly. Ms. Hai said she is uncomfortable making residents responsible and also uncomfortable with how enforcement would work. Mr. Koretz said the Committee has been in discussions with interim Police Chief McLean about enforcement, noting that if no one complains, there is nothing to enforce. Chief McLean also told the Committee the department is comfortable with this type of enforcement. Ms. Hai said she remains uncomfortable with codifying a full ban and being the first in Massachusetts to do so. She would like to know, for example, how many gas-powered leaf blowers there are in town and how many residents would be affected. Mr. Sandeen asked if the Committee has asked the DPW Director about the department’s move to electric-powered units by 2024. Mr. Koretz said Director Pinsonneault’s concern was the replacement cycle which would require budget support, although Mr. Pinsonneault also stated that a 2024 timeline seemed fair, for not only the DPW but for private contractors. Mr. Sandeen supported the article, noting current leaf blowers violate the noise bylaw. He is encouraged that: the Police are comfortable enforcing the bylaw; the DPW is comfortable with the timeline and is on track to hit the transition target date of 2024; there might be a higher return on investment from switching to battery-operation; and there is less toxic pollution. Interim Chief of Police McLean commented that the type of enforcement the department does now on landscape crews is not noise-based but usually about hours/days of operation. However, enforcement of the type of machines being used is a stickier matter because the expectation is that neighbors would report the violations of their neighbors. He believes a conversation with other departments about enforcement protocols should take place.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 9: Amend General Bylaw - Mount Independence Historic District Mr. Pato recused himself on this discussion because he lives within a 500-foot radius of the proposed Historic District. Because the article emerged in response to a proposed development project, creation of an historic district would potentially have a financial impact on Mr. Pato. \[Pertaining to this matter, later in the meeting and once out of recusal, Mr. Pato emphasized that his position on Article 9 should not be inferred or presumed.\] Anne Eccles, Chair of the Historic Districts Commission, presented materials in support of the creation of the new historic district. Charles Hornig, Chair of the Planning Board, reported that on August 20, 2021 the Planning Board voted 4-1 to recommend that Town Meeting disapprove of district as proposed and encouraged the Historic Districts Commission to reconfigure the district to more closely follow Massachusetts Historic District guidelines. Mr. Hornig reported that the planning board's major concerns are that the district, as presented, does not: adequately protect the settings of the historically significant properties; while some adjoining routes are included in the district, others have been left out; none of the lots across the street have been included; and because current boundaries are stated as appropriate without explaining the departure from MHC guidelines (which says that using streets as boundaries is not preferred); and why some adjoining lots were included, but others were not. 4 Mr. Lucente reported that the Select Board has gotten a lot of feedback about this article. He asked why this particular district is being put forward when, in the past, other resident requests to create a district, or be included in an existing district, have not been taken up. Ms. Eccles agreed there are a lot of significant homes in town that are not attached to any historic district. She noted that this particular request from homeowners to form a district encompassing a cluster of historically significant homes will not stop development but it would add another layer of oversight. One the argument cited against the district calls the proposal an impediment to affordable housing, Ms. Eccles noted there have been older homes in other districts that have been converted into multiple residential units and she reported that the HDC is not against this potential. Ms. Axtell asked Ms. Eccles to send her the most recent FAQ document pertaining to Article 9 so it can be posted to the Special Town Meeting webpage. Mr. Pato rejoined the meeting.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 12: Amend Zoning Bylaw - Structures in Yards Charles Hornig, Chair of the Planning Board, described Article 12 as an outgrowth from discussions a year ago about walls and fences inside yards. Mr. Pato said that after reading the proposed amendment, he had concerns about the way fences and retaining walls would work together in terms of combined height limitations. Mr. Hornig said that the reasoning behind the limitation is the same reasoning as is currently behind height limits of fences along lot lines. Mr. Pato said he remains unsure about that element of the bylaw and added a second concern about limiting fences to 4 feet along the street. Preservation of sightlines—addressed in another section of the bylaw— would seem to be more to the point. Mr. Hornig responded that this element came about from a compromise during discussions between himself, Planning Department staff, Building Department staff, and the Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), some of whom wanted no fences, or lower fences, and others who favored leaving that current bylaw element in place. Mr. Pato stated he does not support the article as presented. Mr. Lucente asked if a chain link fence would be limited. Mr. Hornig said it would apply since fences are defined independently from the material they are made of. He clarified that if a fence is further back from the lot line than 4 feet, the fence can be as tall as the distance to the lot line. Speaking to the term “near” in the proposed amendment, Mr. Lucente asked for a definition. Mr. Hornig stated that if a retaining wall is 6 feet tall and a fence is 4 feet tall, “near” would mean the height of the taller structure—in this case 6 feet. Mr. Lucente asked if the amendment preserves the ability to disapprove of any wall or fence that occludes a sightline. Mr. Horning affirmed that it does preserve this ability and added that even if the fence or wall meets the other criteria, but infringes on a sightline, it would not be permitted. Mr. Hornig clarified that this prohibition does not include hedges or bushes. These require a separate bylaw amendment. Mr. Sandeen asked who would determine whether a fence complied with the safe sightline standard and if existing fences would be grandfathered or subject to the amendment. Mr. Hornig said most fences do not 5 require a building permit—although retaining wall plans are subject to Building Department scrutiny. If something is built that does not need a permit, but sightlines prove to be occluded, the Building Department will inspect and work with the property owner if necessary. Existing structures, that as a result of the amendment fall outside of what is allowed, would be termed “non-conforming” and may remain if they are maintained but they may not be expanded without a Special Permit from the ZBA. Mr. Sandeen asked about the proposed changes to the definition of “yard”. Mr. Hornig said that the term has become complicated over time and there were disagreements in separate clauses about what was allowed and what was not. “Yard” has therefore been re-defined for clarity to mean any portion of a lot not occupied by a building. Residents are allowed to place anything in a yard as long as it meets the height restriction.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 13: Amend Zoning Bylaw - Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Permitting Mr. Hornig stated that Article 13 was inspired by resolutions passed by Town Meetings 2020 and 2021. There was explicit reference in these resolutions to the Town’s permitting processes which has provided an opportunity for the Planning Board to propose language that would clean up what it sees as historical problems. Ms. Hai applauded the Planning Board’s proactivity and hopes this will prompt similar revisions throughout Town boards and committees. Mr. Pato applauded Section One of Article 13 that deals with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) but questioned sections two and three because they seem to remove provisions protecting the environment and also remove permit-related assessment of Town services impacts. He suggested that either the article be restricted to Sections One and Four, with the other sections coming back to a later Town Meeting after more work is done, or waiting to submit the whole article until comprehensive changes have been made to the article. Mr. Hornig said the proposed amendments were made for a variety of reasons: diversity, equity, and inclusion— such as eliminating coded language intended to hide discriminatory purposes; streamlining the amendment process; and clarification that all transportation modes are being considered, not just vehicular traffic. Mr. Pato stated that, in his opinion, important regulatory environmental and transportation safeguards would be stripped out that are most needed for commercial properties and zones and doing away with them would not be prudent. Mr. Sandeen agreed with separating the article into one DEI article and one permitting article. He is troubled by what he sees as a relaxation of Special Permitting requirements such as those for traffic, safety, and the environment. Mr. Lucente applauded the Planning Board’s quick response to direction from Town Meeting. He believes a lot of thought and effort went into the proposed amendments and sees that some of the changes are intended to clean up current language yet preserve language pertaining to sustainability, climate sensitivity, and conscientious site design practices. Ms. Hai concurred that the proposed amendment cleans up current language. She would like the Article 13 presentation to Special Town Meeting to make note of how specific issues of safety and fiscal impact would be addressed. 6 Mr. Hornig said, based on the concerns expressed, it appears as though a word-for-word analysis might be needed for the proposed amendment. Mr. Pato agreed this is why he recommends removing the article for now and taking it up after more work has been done.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 14: Amend Zoning Bylaw - Solar Energy Systems Mr. Hornig stated that the purpose of Article 14 is to try to streamline permitting for ground-mounted solar energy systems. He noted that Massachusetts General Law 40A, section 3 prohibits zoning from regulating solar energy systems. Effectively, the amendment would update zoning bylaw language to reflect this.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 15: Amend Zoning Bylaw - Open Space Residential Developments (OSRD) Mr. Hornig stated that Article 15 is intended to create new alternatives to conventional subdivisions in order to better achieve the Town's housing goals. The intent is to provide more options for: creating open space, smaller dwelling units, affordable housing, and to preserve historic structures. Mr. Lucente asked if the Special Permit Residential Development Ad hoc Committee (SPRD) has weighed in on this proposal. Ms. Hai reported that although the Committee members did not have the final motion in front of them at their meeting last week, a majority of the nine SPRD members support this article, seeing it as an enlargement of the Town’s housing/zoning tool box. Two of the nine SPRD members felt there was not enough information available to make such a decision. Mr. Pato said there is a lot to like in Article 15 but he is not completely comfortable with it as it is and would like, instead, if it was within a larger toolbox such as what the SPRD committee might propose. Ms. Hai said she sees Article 15 as a path forward toward creating more affordable units by mandate, something that has heretofore been elusive. Mr. Sandeen said he would like to see more data that ensures the things the article promises will transpire. Mr. Hornig said that, in consultation with developers about this article and its earlier versions, the answer to the question “will this work?” is: sometimes yes; sometimes no. A developer could choose one of three types of development to pursue—conventional, SPRD, or the Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) based on the Article 15 format. Once chosen, the developer would have to meet criteria related to the type. Mr. Lucente asked if any other communities had adopted OSRD and created housing under its provisions. Mr. Hornig said that, so far, there are no other communities but the closest Lexington has to an OSRD is the Drummer Boy development which has clusters of residences about the size the article refers to with adjacent open space.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 16: Amend Zoning Bylaw - Residential Parking Mr. Hornig said that Article 16 is in response to the realization that the requirement to have at least two parking spaces per dwelling unit increases the cost of housing construction. Mr. Lucente said that anecdotally he sees many dwelling units that have more than two cars and believes this amendment might cause even more on street parking than there currently is. Mr. Hornig said that limiting parking spaces should have a limiting effect on the number of cars a residence has since on street parking is not possible all year in Lexington. 7 Mr. Sandeen supported the article and said that he preferred using lot space for housing rather than for parking. He noted that the amount of parking created would be at the discretion of the developer but not mandated by zoning as it is now. The Select Board took a brief recess at 9:19 p.m. and reconvened at 9:24 p.m.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 17: Amend Zoning Bylaw - Sustainable Design for Hartwell Avenue (Citizen Petition) Cynthia Arens, Citizen Petitioner, stated that passing Article 17 would result in attracting desirable tenants to Hartwell Avenue; promote new sustainable development with lower emissions; and provide predictability for developers. Ms. Arens said that Article 17 continues to be revised, most recently changes were made so that the Building Commissioner would have a clearer understanding of how to certify compliance. Charles Hornig, Chair of the Planning Board stated that the Planning Board will hold its Public Hearing on Article 17 on Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7 p.m. Ms. Hai asked where the data in support of article has been drawn from. Ms. Arens said that some of the data came from Boston’s Planning Department and from other public zoning documents or presentations. Ms. Hai noted that Ms. Arens’ group has done an impressive amount of outreach and asked if there was feedback to report. Generally, Ms. Arens said that feedback has been favorable or neutral.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 8: Climate Action Plan This article will be Indefinitely Postponed (IP’d). The Town’s Sustainability Director is leaving to take a job in the private sector and this article will be postponed at least until a new director is hired.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 2: Appropriate for Prior Years’ Unpaid Bills This article will also be IP’d.  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 4: Amend FY2022 Operating and Enterprise Budgets  Presentation - STM 2021-1 Article 3: Establish, Dissolve and Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Fund Ms. Kosnoff said that New Growth had been budgeted at $2.75M but actual New Growth, although still uncertified, will be about $4.979M. Ms. Kosnoff also itemized other changes to the FY2022 budget. Once the budget adjustments have been made, remaining new tax levy growth will be $770,000 of which $200,000 would go to the Transportation Mitigation Fund. The remaining amount of $570,000 would go to the Capital Stabilization Fund, reflecting the Town’s current financial goals of assigning surplus funds to minimize borrowing for upcoming Capital projects.  Article Discussion, Positions, and Presenters Ms. Hai noted that she has distributed a draft document with presenter assignments for Special Town Meeting and that Articles 2 and 8 can be eliminated as they have been IP’d. The Select Board then took positions as they saw fit on the remaining articles. The resulting article position chart is appended to the end of these minutes. 8 DOCUMENTS: Art 10 Landscape Maintenance; Art 10 Motion; Art 9 Mt. Independence; Art 9 Motion; Art 8 Motion—I=P; Art 2 Motion unpaid bills; Art 3 Motion Stabilization funds; Art 4 Motion Operating Budget; Art 3 and 4 budget summary; Art 12 Walls; Art 12 Motion; Art 13 DEIP; Art 13 Motion; Art 14 Solar; Art 14 Motion; Art 15 OSRD; Art 15 Motion; Art 16 Residential Parking; Art 16 Motion; Art 17 Sustainable Design; Art 17 Sustainable design summary; Art 17 Motion; STM 2021-1 Position Chart. ADJOURN Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 4-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m. A true record; Attest: Kim Siebert, Recording Secretary 9