Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-23-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2022 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on February 23, 2022, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Present: Charles Hornig, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Clerk; Robert Creech; Melanie Thompson; and Michael Leon, Associate Member. Also present was Eve Tapper, interim administrative planner. Charles Hornig, Chair, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, February 23, 2022, at 6:01 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. **********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************ Approve the appointment of new Planning Director under Section 2(e) of the Selectmen-Town Manager Act - Abby McCabe: Ms. Abby McCabe introduced herself and provided her background. The Board welcomed her and looked forward to getting to know and work with her. Ms. McCabe said she and the Town were aiming for a start date of March 21, 2022. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the appointment of Abigail McCabe as Planning Director. 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 ***************************TOWN MEETING***************************** Continued Public Hearing: Article 35: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Open Space Residential Developments (OSRD): Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing. Mr. Peters gave a presentation on Article 35: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Open Space Residential Developments. Board Member Comments:  Mr. Schanbacher had no comments or questions.  Ms. Thompson had no comments or questions.  Mr. Creech had questions that he will hold until after public comments.  Mr. Leon said he would wait until after public comments.  Mr. Hornig said with this and Article 36 he will recommend they will use the Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2022 same provisions for inclusionary housing. There is every intent that the changes proposed in Article 40 would apply to these developments as well. Public Comments and Questions:  Mr. Shiple and Ms. Katzenberg gave a presentation from the Lexington Cluster Housing Study Group and provided the purpose of the study group on cluster housing issues that include simplifying bylaw language, restating the incentive in terms of site coverage, how open space would be managed, protected, and the purpose.  Will the buffer zones of the wetlands areas will be part of the 35% open land required? Would the 10% affordable units be enough?  The Vice Chair of the Historical Commission, representing the Commission, said it does not support this OSRD in its current form since it does not require explicit approval for the overall preservation plan for the entire site. The committee made suggestions to expand the purpose to include historic features, recognize standards for preservation, include the Historical Commission in the Site Plan Review process, and include a look-back period for at least 12 months.  Who would own the common land?  How would this affect the population of Lexington over time if it was approved as opposed to if it wasn’t approved? If someone qualifies for an affordable unit at first and over time no longer qualifies what how does that affect the property and does it still count towards our quota of affordable housing?  A request for clarification was made for a definition of “In its Natural State” for this article and there should be a clause to define that. Restoration of degraded land should be included in this proposed article.  There should be a requirement added for a minimum tract of land of 60,000 square feet. The GFA should be based on conventional proof plans minus the wetlands. The inclusionary housing should be constructed to be equitable to market-rate units and have a universal design and developed for those with disabilities. There should be joint regulations created by the Select Board, Affordable Housing Partnership and Planning Board for AMI levels. Units should not be constructed on historical structures, there should be a strong purpose statement regarding equitable construction materials and site amenities, and regulations to accompany bylaw changes.  Find a way to add sustainable design standards to this article as incentives.  Clarification was requested for what is the minimum viable lot size for an OSRD and said it should be stated in the article.  Is it possible to create a visual representation of what a possible site could look like under this proposal as opposed to other existing proposals for Town Meeting?  A resident is opposed to the by-right position of this article. Mr. Hornig asked the Board whether to move this Article forward to Town Meeting.  Mr. Schanbacher said yes with adding some of the suggested changes.  Mr. Peters said he was comfortable with that as long as we can still get written comments.  Ms. Thompson said yes and incorporate some of the changes to provide more Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2022 Page 3 clarity.  Mr. Creech said regarding affordable it would benefit to have a hypothetical example, he wanted this article to be made by special permit and not by-right. He will be more flexibe if there is enough specificity in the bylaw. He was concerned that we can get what we want through site plan review.  Mr. Leon said there was a lot of thoughtful comments tonight and was concerned about processing issues of the by-right as opposed to special permits.  Mr. Hornig said that the SPRD committee chose to let this OSRD article move forward last year and run parallel to their work and that they did not want to take this up. The SPRD will be doing everything as by-right with site plan review and no special permits. It was requested that the public hearing should be kept open since people were on school vacation. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board close the public hearing Article 35, Amend Zoning Bylaw for Open Space Residential Developments. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4- 1-0 (roll call: Bob Creech – no; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes) MOTION PASSED The Board took a two-minute recess. Continued Public Hearing: Article 36: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map – Mixed-Use Developments and Multi-Family Housing: Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing but said he would continue this public hearing so to allow time for the staff to send out notices, which were not done because of a flood in Town Hall which impacted the Planning Office. Mr. Schanbacher gave a presentation on Article 36, Amend Zoning Bylaw for Mixed-Use Developments and Multi-Family Housing. Board Member Comments:  Mr. Peters had no comments.  Ms. Thompson no comments.  Mr. Creech said this is a big deal and six stories is controversial. We have not done enough public outreach and staff could do research and provide us with guidance and we are not ready since this proposal is not vetted yet. He did not believe this was ready to bring to Town Meeting now.  Mr. Leon was concerned with public process, other items and are needed to make this more feasible, and we should take nine months to try to achieve a workable proposal and do more outreach to the public.  Mr. Hornig said this proposed article was brought forward since it was an important issue and believed it was necessary to bring it to a public hearing to make the public aware and understand this proposal. Audience Comments and Questions:  A resident offered support for this proposal. Having visuals to show people what the Center would look like would be helpful.  A resident supported some aspects of this proposal but was opposed to tall Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2022 structures which would create canyonization of the Center and was especially opposed to tall structures on the west side of the Center which would impact by removing a lot of the sun during the day. It would be good to see something in the proposal that would limit the height on the west side of the center.  A resident said this is not ready to go to Town Meeting in any event. The height of 65 feet is too high especially in the Center and the issue of parking is a concern. We need to think broader than Lexington Center if we are going to build this type of multi-family housing.  The resident who proposed Article 40 (Sustainable Residential Incentives) wanted to make sure that any housing under this article complies with Article 40.  A resident asked for clarification on what is the required vote at Town Meeting. It seems the Planning Board is doing a trial and error to pass an article, which is not the Lexington way and is not ready to bring this forward to Town Meeting.  A resident is neither for or against this but is very important that allow Town Meeting Members to be part of this and allow them to vote on proposals and which developers should be allowed to bid on them.  We need to look well beyond the Lexington Center and see a thorough town-wide plan on how we would meet the 2400-unit requirement for the MBTA Guidelines completely before rezoning the Center. When the zoning is changed we need to provide information that there is room to build all those units and a minimum site size. There should be some training sessions so the intended and unintended consequences are known before there is a vote on this.  A resident believes this is a good idea and said we have an opportunity here to meet a need and move forward to meeting requirements at a state level. We should continue this discussion to see what the future needs would be to make this Center vibrant. Would like to continue this discussion to see how this develops.  A resident loved the idea of housing in the Center, but 6 stories is too tall and bringing in sustainable clean energy for those buildings would be important. 475 Bedford Street would be a good place for this housing project.  A resident thought this is a great idea but it needs a lot of work. It would benefit by fleshing out a more comprehensive plan before bringing it to Town Meeting.  This is not ready for Town Meeting. This should be added to the Comprehensive Plan and should be brought to the new Planning Director. This needs more outreach to develop a more plan that is vetted out for this proposal.  A resident says this is a lot to take in and too dense for the Center and this should be done in another section of Town. When does this have to be in the bylaw before the penalties kick in?  The Executive Director of the Lexington Chamber of Commerce said if we do not start to build out more housing and we will lose out to other cities. If we do not provide housing for workers to live closer to work we will lose out in the future and need to take up these housing issues.  The Chair of Lexington Center Committee spoke on behalf of the committee and said they believe that this article is not ready yet with issues for parking, step- backs with larger buildings, and tall buildings on the westside of the street. The Committee wants to work with the Planning Board to make this article work. The question is if the Town is ready to add 2,000 more units here. Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2022 Page 5  A question was asked for clarification on what we would miss out on if we do not move forward with this proposed article. The Board discussed whether they would prefer to meet at 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. The Board decided that they prefer meeting at 6:00 p.m. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing for Article 36: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map – Mixed-Use Developments and Multi- Family Housing to March 2, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-1 (roll call: Bob Creech – abstained; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig - yes) MOTION PASSED The Board recessed for two minutes. 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, and Mr. Robert Michaud, traffic engineer from MDM. Mr. Grant provided the significant updates since the last meeting which is a 20% reduction in the proposal. Mr. Nardi said the revisions included removing a floor from the building and reducing the penthouse by 2,000 square feet. He showed the before and current reduction in the presentation. He also said the building is 15 feet shorter with a 45,000 square foot reduction in the GFA, they relocated the garage entrance away from Drummer Boy Way, and removed half of a level of the parking garage with a reduction of 53 spaces of parking. He showed the new massing of the revised building along with some drone footage from different locations and provided the revised fiscal benefit. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Schanbacher had no questions.  Ms. Thompson asked if they met with Drummer Boy since you made those changes and what were their responses? Will you set up a meeting with the Drummer Boy members to hear their thoughts on the changes?  Mr. Creech had no comments and wants to hear from the residents.  Mr. Leon had no comments and wants to hear from the residents.  Mr. Hornig said this public hearing will need to be continued since we do not have all the background materials. Audience Comments and Questions:  A resident was opposed to this rezoning since this is a residential area and we do not want a biolab in our backyard and they should not be allowed to build this project in a residential area. The other concerns include a safety risk with spills and leaks that can go into the wetlands. The third concern is the traffic and is a high accident-prone area with 400 cars going in and out and have a concern about our safety. HVAC systems for a building this size can be very intrusive to the residents with noise. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2022  A resident in Drummer Boy is against the proposal and said I can see the roof of the existing building from my home and trees do not cover the roof. This giant biolab HVAC system will create a lot of noise. We need to protect the community from this harmful commercial rezoning in this residential area.  A resident on Bedford Street for 20 years said this will have a terrible impact on traffic on this street.  A resident had a concern with the under reporting of biolab accidents and provided some statistics and had an issue with biolab safety and possible accidents containing lethal pathogens that can accidentally be released.  A resident voiced her disapproval of the proposed project for this site. There was a question with if the garage is solar ready. We will be looking at up at this huge building and the vegetation being shown on the drones will be cleared when the project is built. We support commercial development on Hartwell Avenue but this project on Bedford Street is not the right location and not sensitive to the area.  A resident appreciated the changes to this project, but this is still not the right location and should not be considered part of the Hartwell Avenue commercial district. It is located between two residential areas and is zoned residential and is not an appropriate use of this site. This site should be used to provide housing that is needed.  A resident said that considering the need for housing we will not support this project, we cannot allow this to happen, and I will do what I can to persuade my colleagues who are Town Meeting Members to not to vote for this.  A resident supported this project based on an economic and a revenue standpoint.  A resident since 1987 was concerned that the traffic report was not accurate, the traffic is very heavy and dangerous here, and would hate to see any traffic increase here.  A resident bought the house 10 years ago and is opposed. To rezone it as commercial area is unacceptable. Who would want to live next to this building in a residential area?  A resident said regarding revenue there are other places that are already zoned for commercial that can be used for this project. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing on Article 39 to Wednesday March 9, 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 Mr. Peters rejoined the meeting. Continued Public Hearing: Article 40: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Sustainable Residential Incentives (citizen’s petition): Mr. Hornig opened the continued public hearing without testimony. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing on Article Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2022 Page 7 40: Sustainable Residential Incentives to Wednesday, March 2, 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 **********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************ Board Member Updates: Mr. Hornig said on February 28 he will present the warrant articles to the Select Board. Mr. Hornig said if there is anything the board members want to share before the presentation to send to staff before that date. Upcoming Meetings: nd th The March 2and 9 meetings will be at 6:00 p.m. March 16 will include 35 Hayes Lane and 75 Outlook Drive. The reports will be ready soon. th March 4 is an MBTA Guidelines presentation at the League of Woman Voters meeting. Adjourn Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 23, 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 10:00 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. 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).  Revised Presentation dated February 23, 2022 (11 pages).  Letter to Planning Board dated February 23, 2022 (2 pages). Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of February 23, 2022 Article 36: Mixed use development and Multi-Family Housing:  Presentation dated February 23, 2022 (12 pages). Article 35: Open Space Residential Development:  Revised Draft Motion from the Lexington Cluster Housing Study dated February 23, 2022 (3 pages).  Presentation by Lexington Cluster Housing Study dated February 23, 2022 (10 pages). Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board