HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-16-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2022
Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board
Held on February 16, 2022, Virtual Meeting at 7:00 pm
Present: Charles Hornig, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Clerk; Robert
Creech; Melanie Thompson; and Michael Leon, Associate Member. Also present were Sheila
Page, Acting Planning Director and Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner.
Charles Hornig, Chair, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on
Wednesday, February 16, 2022, at 7:01 pm. For this meeting, the Planning Board is
convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia may broadcast this meeting live and
will record it for future viewing. Detailed information for remote participation by the
public may be found on the Planning Office web page.
Mr. Hornig conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and
members of staff present could hear and be heard.
Mr. Hornig provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance.
It was further noted that written materials for this meeting are available on the Town's
NovusAGENDA dashboard.
***************************TOWN MEETING*****************************
Public Hearing: Article 40: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Sustainable Residential
Incentives (citizen’s petition):
Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing. Present was Ms. Cynthia Arens who presented her
proposed zoning bylaw amendment to reduce Lexington CO2 emissions in buildings as a
step in Lexington’s path to net zero to take effect January 2023. It encourages new
residential construction to be consistent with town emission reduction and sustainability
goals. She presented the proposed sustainable GFA Tiers, new incentives, HERS ratings
for new homes, new rebates available to builders, benefits for homeowners, and outreach
done with stakeholders.
Ms. Page said that she wished that staff had been included earlier in this proposal to have
a thorough review. Town Counsel reviewed the proposal, offered suggestions to the
applicant, and will continue to review the bylaw for any possible legal risks that may
come up in the future.
Board Members and Comments:
Ms. Thompson asked if there is a minimum GFA to which this proposed zoning
amendment applies and whether this would apply to smaller affordable housing.
She asked for clarification on how this would this apply to mixed-use and
affordable housing. Would this apply to existing homes for new modifications?
Mr. Creech asked for clarification on why the existing limits for GFA were cut in
half. He asked that the explanation be put in writing. He requested information on
how you determined how many houses were in each tier and whether it was
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 16, 2022
documented anywhere. He asked for a summary to be provided. He asked for
clarification on what better air sealing and ventilation meant since there is already
a standard. He said in principle he supported the idea but would have to be
convinced of the practicality of this.
Mr. Peters asked how close are you to meeting the staff concerns and what you
expect the timeline to be. Mr. Kelly said staff has worked with Ms. Arens to make
the bylaw successful as far as implementation and practicality and said there were
a lot of questions on the bigger picture on how we get there.
Mr. Schanbacher asked what the average lot size is in town, what GFA that would
produce between tier 0 and tier 1, and what is the metric? He asked for
clarification on whether the HERS rating is a fixed scale.
Mr. Leon said he reviewed the proposed language and believed this is a moving
target and a work in progress. He was in full agreement of the goal of achieving
the Commonwealth’s statutory requirements for reducing greenhouse gases and
emissions for the target dates in the state statues. He questioned if we are
exceeding our authority for the state building code. You cannot regulate
something that is governed by the state building code which is clearly prohibited
in the statutes.
Mr. Hornig asked for clarification if this was going to apply to special permit
residential developments. You placed language in section 6.13 which was in the
wrong place for gross floor area and should have been placed in section 4.4. You
said there are more changes coming; let us know when they will be coming so we
can meet to address them. Do you have evidence that the new proposed GFA
which would be cut in half is reasonable without the incentives? He said his
review showed that only 5% of recent houses would comply with this, especially
with those with small lots, and would produce a house that is 2,000 square feet of
GFA including garages and basements on a 5,000 square foot lot, which is too
small for a marketable dwelling. Half of houses built before 2000 would not
comply with either tier. Mr. Hornig asked that they exchange data. He asked for
clarification why, based on your outreach to builders, there are two tiers. Do you
expect them both to be used? Does this apply to accessory buildings on the lots?
In the fossil fuel section is that only to regulate the appliances or the pipes as
well? He questioned providing a solar system for roofs that are shaded more then
50% of the time. Historic homes are restricted from putting solar systems on their
roofs; please check with the Historical Commission regarding this. He asked for
clarification what happens if Eversource says there is no way to place solar
system somewhere. These would only apply for new construction and not for an
addition to an existing home so the wording would need to be clarified. He asked
for clarification regarding the parking spots. Mr. Hornig got different HERS
ratings and wants to exchange data for that. Are there any houses built in the last
year that has been built and that comes close to meeting the standards? You said
there was outreach to builders, what was the feedback you got from them? There
was feedback from many builders who felt there was no outreach on this matter.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 16, 2022 Page 3
Public Comments and Questions:
A resident builder said he spoke with fellow local builders who all agreed that
preserving the environment is important and using better systems, materials, and
technology to help accomplish this is necessary, but had an issue not being
involved in the process that produced this article which is not the Lexington way.
He said since this seems rushed; why can’t you bring this forward in the fall when
this is fully vetted since it is not to go into effect until January 2023?
A resident expressed concern why the Board only allotted one hour for something
that is so important. Change is hard this is a battle of our lives for our kids to have
homes that are not polluting.
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing for Article
40, Sustainable Residential Incentives, to February 23, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Michael
Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-
0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes;
Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED
The Board recessed from 8:37 to 8:40.
Public Hearing: Article 36: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map – Mixed-Use
Developments and Multi-Family Housing:
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing for Article
36 without testimony to Wednesday February 23, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Michael
Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-
0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes;
Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED
Continued Public Hearing: Article 39: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map –
475 Bedford Street:
Mr. Robert Peters recused himself from this hearing.
Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing. Mr. Ed Grant, attorney, introduced the
project team which included Mr. Ed Nardi, from Cresset Group; Mr. John Sullivan,
architect of SGA; Mr. Erik Bednarck, landscape architect from VHB; and Mr. Robert
Michaud, traffic engineer from MDM. Mr. Grant provided the updates since the last
meeting. He said the Town Manager believed that the MOU would be completed by the
end of February. Mr. Nardi responded to Mr. Creech’s request for mixed-use
development and other requests and explained the limitations, easements, and wetland
restraints of the site. The plan change response to the request was to shrink the lab
science building, remove the green space, move the garage toward Bedford Street, and
add in a single loaded residential structure with fire access along the front of the
residential building. With these changes it did not leave a lot of outdoor space which is
desirable on the site. He also showed the site sections elevations, the fiscal benefits, and
some of the MOU discussions that are ongoing.
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 16, 2022
Board Members and Comments:
Ms. Thompson said that she would like to reserve her comments until after the
public speaks.
Mr. Creech said he would have to make concessions to this proposed project.
Mr. Schanbacher asked how deep is the apartment block.
Mr. Leon had no questions.
Mr. Hornig said your section 9.8 (Sustainable Building Designs) has to go into the
MOU and be removed from the PSDUP.
Audience Comments and Questions:
A resident would recommend the Board go forward with this proposal in a
favorable way since the site is not good for adding housing and not good for
children with the major street corridor, power lines, and wetlands. The financial
impact would be better for the town with the lab/science building and help with a
potential new high school.
A resident appreciates the effort to put housing on the site, but it is a mistake that
we evaluate only on the economic promise of tax revenues. We need senior
housing and this is not a commercial corridor as the last resident said that. The
building height would be 98 feet and would not be appropriate zoning. This is not
a gateway to Hartwell Avenue and should remain a residential zoning.
A resident wanted to correct something he said that there would be cut through
traffic from Route 3 not Route 2. He asked if the developer has seriously
considered the issue of making the left turn from Bedford Street on to the site. He
asked for sign onto Winter Street about children playing.
A resident is a full supporter of this project for the financial considerations.
A resident asked for clarification about a linkage fee for housing mitigation that is
being done in Somerville that they were involved with. Have they considered
that? Could you describe how you came up with the amount for the
affordable/workforce housing in the MOU?
A resident had concerns about biosafety accidents that happen more often then
reported and had issues about it being within a residential area. Where will the
expertise, response, notification and cost from any accident come from? How can
residents report any suspected issues from a possible safety concern from a lab?
A resident was strongly opposed to a bio/lab building being built on this site
which is in the middle of a residential area. Putting a 98-foot tower in the middle
of this residential area is a major concern and we have not been notified. The
noise, light spill, and emissions will pollute the entire area and we are concerned
with the biosafety issue.
A resident fully supported the project; if this moves to Bedford we would lose the
revenue and this would also bring some retail here.
A resident said there is no need to impose this proposed commercial project here
in this residential neighborhood. What we need mixed moderate-income housing.
Minutes for the Meeting of February 16, 2022 Page 5
A resident is very much opposed to this rezoning from a residential area to a very
busy commercial project. There is a lot of commercial and lab space available at
Hartwell Avenue. This proposed project building has a very large footprint for a
very small area and worried about firefighting and rescues here. Let us keep this
as a residential area and not rezone it and keep the character of the area.
A resident said this project is not a good proposal. For over five years the Town
has been embarked on the Hartwell Avenue project and this site was always said
by the consultants to be best to be multi-family housing for 400 units. He asked
the Planning Board if we can’t get housing in this particular site for mixed-use
and be vibrant and if there is big financial package for multi-use with housing
where will we put multi-family housing to get that funding.
A resident said this is not really a commercial area and mostly residential and this
should redirect these efforts to across the street by Hartwell Avenue and does not
support this.
Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing for
Article 39 to Wednesday February 23, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Robert Creech seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech –
yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes)
MOTION PASSED
The Board recessed from 9:42 to 9:45 p.m.
Mr. Peters rejoined the meeting.
Continued Public Hearing: Article 38: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map –
95 & 99 Hayden Avenue (128 Spring Street):
Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing. Mr. Peter Tamm, attorney from
Goulston and Storrs introduced the project team which included Brad Cardoso, director
of design and construction from Hobbs Brook; Rui Ribeiro, project architect from
Margulies Perruzzi; and Bob Michaud, traffic engineer from MDM.
Mr. Tamm presented a summary of the submitted updates for elevations of 95 & 99
Hayden Avenue, development data table, additional renderings, and PSDUP zoning text
updates. Mr. Cardoso presented the site plan photo viewpoints of additional renderings,
view 1 from Route 2, view 2 from Spring Street and Shade Street, view 3 from Spring
Street and Hayden Avenue, and updated elevations with more details and elevations of
the existing buildings. Mr. Tamm presented the updated development data for the project.
Board Comments and Questions:
Ms. Thompson had no questions.
Mr. Creech said a resident suggested considering a conservation restriction from
the previous plan and believes that is appropriate to consider. The architectural
details need to be better then good and was concerned about all the metal and
Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 16, 2022
glass and did not know how they would look in 20 years. The column
smokestacks are more attractive then the penthouse. Is there is a way to keep the
historic building on the façade of the new building? The building appearance will
be discussed in the future at site plan review.
Mr. Peters said a question of parking came in from the public on the subsidy for
those who come in with other modes of transportation than single occupancy
vehicles and that will need to be addressed at site plan review.
Mr. Schanbacher had no questions.
Mr. Hornig had some comments on small things he found in the PSDUP text he
will send through staff.
Audience Comments and Questions:
A resident said that there are still questions we have not gotten answers to. The
public outreach has been abysmal. Usually applicants reach out more to the
neighbors. When do you plan to hold any public meetings to inform them?
A resident asked if there is a drawing of the new building being superimposed
over the existing buildings? For Town Meeting you should provide that picture so
Town Meeting members can see the actual comparison.
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board close the public hearing for Article 38.
Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the
motion 5-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher –
yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board recommend Town Meeting approve
Article 38, to Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map – 95 & 99 Hayden Avenue (128
Spring Street). Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted
in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael
Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION
PASSED
Public Hearing: Article 35: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Open Space Residential
Developments:
Mr. Hornig opened the public hearing.
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing for Article
35, Amend Zoning bylaw -- Open Space Residential Developments, to Wednesday,
February 23, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert
Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig -
yes) MOTION PASSED
Minutes for the Meeting of February 16, 2022 Page 7
**********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************
Board Member Updates:
Mr. Hornig noted that a lot of Town Meeting stuff is going on.
Upcoming Meetings:
We are meeting tomorrow on the Comprehensive Plan. There will be a meeting February 23
starting at 6:00 p.m. There is a meeting March 2 for development and overflow for Town
Meeting and MBTA comments and a possible report. Hold March 9 and 16 for a meeting.
Review Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2022:
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of the January 5, 2022.
Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion
5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie
Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED.
Adjourn
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 16, 2022.
Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion
5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie
Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Lex Media recorded the meeting.
The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning
Board packets.
Town Meeting:
Article 38: 95 & 99 Hayden (128 Spring Street):
Application Form B (5 pages).
Petition to change zoning (5 pages).
PSDUP text (9 pages).
Regulatory Plans dated December 15, 2021 (6 pages).
Non-Regulatory Plans part 1 dated December 15, 2021 (6 pages).
Non-Regulatory Plans part 2 dated December 15, 2021 (5 pages).
Environmental Impact and infrastructure assessment (part 1) dated December 15, 2021 (125
pages).
Environmental Impact and infrastructure assessment (part 2) dated December 15, 2021 (126
pages).
Fiscal Impact Analysis dated December 15, 2021 (15 pages).
Traffic Impact and Access Study dated December 15, 2021 (62 pages).
Traffic Impact Study attachments dated December 15, 2021 (170 pages).
Cover Letter dated December 22, 2021 (4 pages).
Counsel Letter of Support dated December 22, 2021( 4pages).
Responses to sketch plan comments dated December 20, 2021 (3 pages).
Preliminary Specifications and Compliance Table (2 pages).
Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of February 16, 2022
Staff memo dated January 28, 2022 (6 pages).
Applicant response to staff memo dated February 2, 2022 (5 pages).
Article 39: 475 Bedford Street:
Application Form B dated December 21, 2021(6 pages).
Letter to the Planning Board for PSDUP dated December 21, 2021 (6 pages).
Responses to sketch plan comments dated December 22, 2021 (9 pages).
Petition to change zoning (3 pages).
Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment dated December 22, 2021 (7 pages).
Regulatory Plans (part 1) dated December 22, 2021 (4 pages).
Regulatory Plans (part 2) dated December 22, 2021 (2 pages).
Non-Regulatory Plans (part 1) dated December 22, 2021 (6 pages).
Non-Regulatory Plans (part 2) dated December 22, 2021 (5 pages).
Environmental Impact and infrastructure assessment dated December 2, 2021 (45 pages).
Fiscal Impact Analysis dated December 15, 2021 (15 pages).
Traffic Impact and Access Study dated December 2021 (170 pages).
Traffic Impact Study attachments dated December 2021 (110 pages).
Staff memo dated January 28, 2022 (4 pages).
Final draft Fiscal Impact report dated October 1, 2021 (15 pages).
Article 40: Sustainable Residential Incentives:
Staff Comments dated February 11, 2022 (3 pages).
Response to Staff comments dated February 13, 2022 (5 pages).
Article 40 Presentation dated February 16, 2022 (15 pages).
Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board