Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-06 SB-min Select Board Meeting April 6, 2022 A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:01 p.m. on Wednesday, April 06, 2022 via hybrid meeting services. Ms. Hai, Chair; Mr. Lucente; Vice Chair, Mr. Pato, Ms. Barry and Mr. Sandeen were present, as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; Ms. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk; and Mina Makarious, Town Counsel. 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 in person in the Select Board Meeting Room using the Meeting Owl Pro device. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pam Hoffman, Precinct 7 Town Meeting Member, stated that she is one of more than 300 Lexington residents who have made public their opposition to Article 39 - Rezoning 475 Bedford Street. Everyone agrees Lexington needs more housing diversity, and more places for people to live, but the conversation regarding reasonable housing options at 475 Bedford Street cannot begin until Article 39 is voted down. The Town needs a plan to provide workforce housing options for downsizers and multifamily housing as well. 475 Bedford Street is an excellent parcel for site-sensitive multiunit housing and should be included in Lexington’s town wide plan to meet its housing goals. Doris Wong, 12 Drummer Boy Way, also spoke against Article 39. She stated that this proposed development would have a variety of negative impacts in terms of size, proximity, traffic, noise and vehicular pollution, loss of privacy and risk posed by bio lab accidents and emissions. The potential $1.8M tax revenue from this bio lab is less than 1% of the Town’s annual budget. She noted that there are million-dollar homes located close to the high-tension power lines of this site and thus, that should not be used as reasoning to rezone the site. Arnold Clickstein, 19 Drummer Boy Way, spoke against Article 39. He stated that there is ample space in the business development area of Hartwell Avenue and the south side of Bedford Street. 475 Bedford Street is a bad example of imposing an industrial, commercial, biological building into a residential district. SELECT BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS AND LIAISON REPORTS 1. Select Board Member Concerns and Liaison Reports Ms. Hai noted that the Special Permit Residential Development Ad Hoc Bylaw Committee is meeting tomorrow morning and expects to finalize its report. TOWN MANAGER REPORT – none at this time ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Request from Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee for Select Board Support of Bill S.2309 in Clarifying the Definition of Electric Bicycles (E-Bikes) Within Massachusetts General Laws Betty Gau, Chair of Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee, explained that the Committee unanimously voted to recommend to the Select Board that it endorse Bill 2309, which clarifies the definition of electric bicycles. This bill is supported because it defines e-bikes into three classes, which is in line with 42 other states. So far, the lack of clarity around how e-bikes are defined has presented challenges when promoting active transportation. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to authorize the Select Board Chair and Town Manager to sign onto the e-bike municipal letter of support. DOCUMENTS: LBAC Letter to Select Board_Ebike Bill S2309, DRAFT Letter of Support - E-Bike Bill S.2309, Mass Bike Summary, S. 2309 2. Review and Approve Additional American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for Business Assistance Mr. Malloy explained that the full $250,000 that the Board initially approved for ARPA spending on Business Assistance Grants has been expended. He noted that the Town currently has between $250,000 - $300,000 in additional applications that have been submitted. He suggested that there be $500,000 available for these funds in 2022, to then reduce this amount to $250,000 for 2023, and then further reduce it to $0 for 2024. Mr. Lucente noted that Arlington, for example, recently stated that it has expended $639,000 in ARPA grant money to 81 small businesses. He believes this is a good use of the funds, and that it fits with the goals and objectives previously set. Mr. Pato stated that he believes more funding is needed, based on the number of additional applications mentioned by Mr. Malloy. In response to a question from Ms. Barry, Mr. Malloy explained that the grants thus far have been fairly equally dispersed for different types of businesses in Town. $25,000 is the cap at this time for requests. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Malloy explained that this new round of applications seems to be from businesses that took additional time to gather their application materials. This has not yet been opened up to receive a second round of applications from businesses that already received a grant. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to increase the Small Business Grant program for 2022 from $250,000 to $600,000. 3. 2022 Annual Town Meeting & Special Town Meetings 2022-1/2022-2 Article Discussion/Positions Regarding Article 27 – Zero Waste Resolution, Mr. Malloy stated that this article does not effect real change in Town and simply restates what is already the Town's position. He expressed concern regarding some of the clauses in the article that relate to waste energy incinerator plants, and some of the article language, “to prioritize solid waste reduction programs that minimize the impact on environmental justice communities.” He is concerned that this will become a mandate for the Town. Ms. Hai noted that Section 90-9 of the Town bylaws states that the Select Board shall provide and maintain a suitable place or method for free public disposal of refuse and rubbish. It also gives the Select Board authority to make the rules and regulations regarding that disposal. The Select Board regulations on refuse provide in Section 181-57, that the town of Lexington is committed to reducing generation of solid waste within the community by working to educate residents to reduce solid waste that they generate, accelerate recycling and composting efforts, commit the remainder of solid waste to waste-to-energy resource recovery disposal, reduce toxicity in the waste stream, etc. She explained that the Town already has a commitment and an explanation of the importance of waste reduction. There are already goals for converting waste to waste recovery, reducing toxins, and increasing recycling via existing Town regulations. The regulations also, per Section 181-61 B, provide for the pickup of a maximum of six approved containers per week, plus one bulky object. She believes the goals of this article could be served either by amending the bylaws to eliminate the requirement of free refuse disposal, or by this Board, through amending its regulations, reducing the six-barrel minimum to some lesser number. Mr. Pato stated that he does not see the basis for these concerns. The resolution says to prioritize waste reduction programs that minimize the impact on environmental justice communities, and to the impact being created for other communities. He does not see the implications being suggested and supports the resolution. Mr. Sandeen explained that he supports this article, as he believes it calls for creating a plan to help reduce the Town’s waste and will consider curbside composting which is not included in the Town’s current bylaw. This plan would then help to inform the Select Board on the items brought up by Ms. Hai. Ms. Barry stated that she is struck by the divergence between the non-binding resolution and what the Board has heard from the Town Manager. She will abstain on this item as she believes further work is needed. Mr. Lucente stated that he will vote in favor of this article because he believes in planning, and does not believe this article, as written, is too restrictive. Ms. Hai stated that Article 27 will have two Board members abstaining and three in favor. Regarding Article 31, Ms. Hai noted that the moderator will be moving this item off the agenda for tonight’s Town Meeting and bringing it back later in the schedule. Ms. Hai explained that Article 34 and Special Town Meeting Article 3 are intertwined. The Special Town Meeting article proposes to change the bylaws to permit remote participation to count towards quorum. It requires that operating rules for such participation be adopted by Town Meeting before any use can be made of the allowance, and it only provides for hybrid, not fully remote meetings. Any bylaw change has to be reviewed by the Attorney General. Article 34 provides for a Home Rule petition, which would authorize the Town to amend its bylaws to allow for remote participation for hybrid meetings. It also allows the Board to make future adaptations to the bylaw through Town Meeting only. Section 2 in Article 34 provides for the relocation of a particular session of Town Meeting, which has already been called to a fully remote platform under specific circumstances. Existing law allows us to relocate to an out-of-town physical location under the same specific circumstances. Mr. Makarious explained that Special Town Meeting Article 3, Section 1 is an amendment to Chapter 118 of the bylaws. This does not change the 100 person quorum requirement but adds a new section that 75 members shall be present at the physical location identified, for a hybrid Town Meeting. Section 2 defines the hybrid Town Meeting process, including a requirement that the Town Meeting authorize the use of a hybrid Town Meeting and the corresponding rules by two thirds majority. Mr. Lucente stated that he would like to have a majority of the members of the quorum present in person. He has concerns that people will abuse this, instead of using it when necessary. Mr. Pato noted that 75 in person implies that a significant majority of the quorum are available in person. This proposal is to make it clear that remote participants are peers of the in-person participants. He is okay changing this to make a 90% majority required in person or removing the quorum change altogether. Ms. Hai noted that, with the 90% requirement in person alteration amendment, the Board is five in favor of this Special Town Meeting Article. Regarding Article 34, Mr. Makarious explained that this has no effect until a bylaw is passed. That bylaw would then govern items such as when it's appropriate to have other versions of hybrid meetings, or fully remote meetings, for instance. If another emergency occurs, this gives the Board the tool to hold meetings in other formats, through the bylaw amendment process. Mr. Sandeen supports this article and recalled that the Select Board wished we had this authority in March of 2020. He stated that he would not want to tie the hands of future Select Boards to operate in a manner that they felt would be in the best interests of the Town, especially considering that this article would still require Town Meeting’s approval to fully achieve alternate meeting styles, if desired. Mr. Lucente explained that he would support this article if it was altered to reinstate that a public emergency is required in order to allow fully remote Town Meetings. Ms. Hai explained that the Board is 4-1 in favor of supporting the motion for Article 34, as submitted on April 4, 2022. DOCUMENTS: 2022ATM, STM 2022-1, STM 2022-2 Select Board Position Working Document, Proposed Town Meeting Schedule as of 4-5-22, South Lexington Civic Association Comments, Updated 95/99 Hayden MOA The next regularly scheduled Board meeting will be held prior to Town Meeting on Monday, April 11, 2022 at 6 p.m., via remote participation. ADOURN Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary