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