Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-18 SB-min Select Board Meeting July 18, 2022 A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:01 p.m. on Monday, July 18, 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; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. Ms. Hai stated that the meeting was being conducted via Zoom as posted, with the agenda on the Town’s website. PUBLIC COMMENTS Robert Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, requested that the next Chief Equity Officer be a member of the senior management team. SELECT BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS & LIAISON REPORTS 1. Select Board Member Concerns & Liaison Reports Ms. Hai noted that the Board would like to be kept apprised of any progress toward Ms. Duffield’s replacement. She also noted that Mr. Lucente and Mr. Sandeen are conducting interviews for the Select Board appointee to the School Building Committee relative to the High School project. Ms. Hai stated that Senator Friedman made an earmark for the Town for $1.75M in transportation improvements, as well as funding for the expansion of the Blue Bike program. Mr. Pato noted that the Tree Committee is looking to bring a warrant article to the next Town Meeting. DOCUMENTS: Select Board Concerns and Liaison Reports - July 18, 2022 TOWN MANAGER REPORT Mr. Malloy stated that the HDC approved a Certificate of Appropriateness to move the Hosmer House from its current location to a location on Waltham Street. The proponent will still need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. He also noted that the Massachusetts Avenue project regarding utilities switching poles is underway and he will continue to keep on top of the progress. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Select Board Committee Resignation To accept the resignations of Dan Koretz, Stu Smith, Joe Campbell, and Vicki Blier from the Noise Advisory Committee effective immediately. DOCUMENTS: Resignation Letter - M. Talal VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve the Consent Agenda. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. 2022 Primary and State Elections - Vote and Sign Warrant for Primary Election and Early Voting Location and Hours for Primary and State Elections VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve and sign the September 6, 2022 State Primary Election Warrant. Further, to approve the designation of the Cary Memorial Building as Lexington's early voting location for the September 2022 Primary Election for the following dates and times:  Saturday, August 27, 2022 9:00 AM TO 5:00 PM  Monday, August. 29, 2022 8:30 AM TO 4:30 PM  Tuesday, August 30, 2022 8:30 AM TO 7:00 PM  Wednesday, August 31, 2022 8:30 AM TO 4:30 PM  Thursday September 1, 2022 8:30 AM TO 4:30 PM  Friday, September 2, 2022 8:30 AM TO 1:00 PM Further, to approve the designation of the Cary Memorial Building as Lexington's early voting location for the November 2022 State Election for the following dates and times:  Saturday, October 22, 2022 9:00 AM TO 5:00 PM  Monday, October 24, 2022 9:00 AM TO 1:00 PM  Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:00 AM TO 6:00 PM  Wednesday, October 26, 2022 9:00 AM TO 1:00 PM  Thursday, October 27, 2022 9:00 AM TO 1:00 PM  Friday, October 28, 2022 9:00 AM TO 1:00 PM  Saturday, October 29, 2022 9:00 AM TO 5:00 PM  Monday, October 31, 2022 8:30 AM TO 4:30 PM  Tuesday, November 1, 2022 8:30 AM TO 7:00 PM  Wednesday, November 2, 2022 8:30 AM TO 4:30 PM  Thursday, November 3, 2022 8:30 AM TO 4:30 PM  Friday, November 4, 2022 8:30 AM TO 1:00 PM DOCUMENTS: 2022-09-06 Primary Warrant, TownClerkRequestlettertoSelectBoard-EarlyVoting 2. Appointment of Election Officers for 2022-2023 Mr. Pato and Ms. Barry recused themselves from this item. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 3-0 to approve the list of election officers for the period of September 1, 2022 through August 31, 2023 as recommended by the Town Clerk and Registrars of Voters as presented in the memo dated June 14, 2022. DOCUMENTS: Memo – appointment of Election Officer Candidates 2022-2023 3. Vote to Authorize Town Manager to Execute Regulatory Agreement for Low Income Units for Waterstone at Lexington, 53-55 Watertown Street Ms. Hai explained that the agreements are between the Town, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and Lexington Senior Housing Owner LLC. DHCD has reviewed and approved the agreements, as has Liz Rust, Regional Housing Services Officer. Mr. Sandeen noted that he hopes this can be made a priority, as he has received requests from many residents regarding interest in the low-income units. Ms. Hai asked that information on this item be added to the Town website. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve the regulatory agreement between the Town of Lexington, Department of Housing and Community Development and Lexington Senior Housing Owner LLC as attached and further to authorize the Town Manager to execute the regulatory agreement. DOCUMENTS: Regulatory Agreement 4. Review Vision Zero Traffic Safety Plan Assistant Planning Director, Sheila Page, introduced Environmental Partners: Margot Schoenfelder, Project Manager and Jim Fitzgerald, Director of Transportation. Ms. Schoenfelder explained that Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries but doing so in a manner that also promotes safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all users. Vision Zero proposes that traffic injuries and deaths can be prevented by taking a proactive approach that prioritizes traffic safety as a public issue. Designers and policymakers should improve infrastructure and policies to lessen the severity of any crashes that do occur. A multidisciplinary approach in which engineers, planners and policymakers work together, is necessary to achieve these goals. The Safe Streets and Roads for All program was established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and it's being administered through the US DOT at the federal level. It supports initiatives that are made at the local and regional level, but not at the State level, to prevent fatalities and serious injuries. It runs through fiscal years 2022 to 2026, with $1B being allocated each of those five years. The goal of developing the Town's Vision Zero plan now is to allow the Town to apply for grant to fund a top priority project that aligns with the action plan. Ms. Schoenfelder reviewed a preliminary list of strategies that have been identified, including infrastructure changes, intersection improvements at critical locations, potential corridors that could be used to implement a road diet to expand bike/ped infrastructure, and establishing a bike network for those that aren't comfortable traveling on high-speed roadways. She explained that the action plan will be finalized next month, the Board’s approval will be sought at the end of August, and the deadline for applying to the grant is September 15, 2022. Ross Morrow, Assistant Town Engineer, noted that data from the past two years has not been included in this Plan, but it will be updated if the project is approved and funded for the first year. Mr. Sandeen noted that many communities that have adopted Vision Zero, have had their traffic death rates have increase. There are, however, notable success stories. Hoboken, New Jersey, for example, has four years without any traffic fatalities. His recommendation is to spend time talking to communities that have had successes and communities that have had failures. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen, Ms. Page explained that this Plan will essentially feed into the Bike/Pedestrian Plan. This document focuses on what exists now, whereas the Bike Pedestrian Plan will focus on what currently exists and where the Town wants to go. Mr. Sandeen asked that the Plan focus on improving the perception of safety, as much as safety itself. Mr. Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, asked if this Plan would address the following issues: along Marrett Road persons jogging in the narrow bike lane towards traffic approaching at 40 miles an hour, and trees entirely leafing out a sign warning of an upcoming crosswalk Also, when turning right from Mass Ave onto Miriam Street, shrubbery that entirely blocks vision of bike riders in the bike trail. Mr. Morrow explained that Marrett Road is a State highway and, thus, the State is in charge of its maintenance. Part of the Vision Zero Plan does have an element of education as to how travelers should behave. Trimming around the signs could be part of regular Town maintenance. DOCUMENTS: Vision Zero Traffic Safety Plan update presentation 5. Update on Bedford Street/Hartwell Avenue 25% Design Mr. Morrow explained that the survey work and existing conditions plan have been completed. The consultant, VHB, has been working with that plan to design corridors and different alternatives for the roadways themselves. A business stakeholders meeting was held to get input from local businesses along the corridors to see which direction they thought the project should go. A traffic analysis showed that the weighted full build out would add 3,000 extra trips per day. The roadway network started to fail, even with the proposed improvements, at approximately 60% of that build out. All of the alternatives looked at pedestrian and bicycle mobility. One of the major issues is that as the percentage of the development increased, backups onto 95 also increased. Mr. Morrow explained that the current scope for the consultant looks at the southbound offramps only. A roundabout or traffic signal design helped slightly, but not enough. Thus, one of the options being considered is a full interchange study, including the northbound ramps. This is currently being considered by MA DOT. As another option, VHB is asking if the Town has any interest in allowing for residential uses in the Hartwell and Bedford Street corridor. Another option includes allowing multifamily housing on Hartwell. If 40% of the buildout were to be residential, the volumes could work on the current design alternatives. Other options include unbundling parking, as paying for parking is often a motivator for people to find alternative transportation. Finally, creating an alternate offering from the highway could be great for the traffic network but has a number of cons as well. Mr. Pato stated that he believes multifamily housing should be allowed, although the 40% recommendation may be too high. He is skeptical regarding charging for parking in this area which is not readily serviced by Mass Transit. He would like to further explore the option to create an alternative route from the highway. Ms. Barry agreed with Mr. Pato regarding multifamily housing at Hartwell and charging for parking. She stated that she is also interested in hearing more about an alternative highway ramp project. She suggested looking into this option with MIT Lincoln Labs. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen regarding the Transportation Management Plan, Mr. Morrow confirmed they are working with the Town of Bedford. Mr. Sandeen agreed with his colleagues regarding the multifamily housing and charging for parking items. He suggested that the value of free parking is provided as an incentive or a payment to people who take public transportation, ride their bikes, or walk. Mr. Lucente agreed that he agrees there some multifamily housing should be allowed but does not believe 40% should be a target. He is not in favor of charging for parking but is interested in exploring the alternative ramp option. Ms. Hai stated that she believes multiuse zoning should be considered in many places around Town as a functional matter. There needs to be a balance between traffic reduction and the viability to make a vibrant community center. In terms of charging for parking, she stated that aggressive transportation demand management requires robust alternative transportation options. She does not see this occurring in this area. She is interested in the alternative ramp concept. It was noted that the Board would like this information to be brought to the EDAC for their input. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen, Ms. Page stated that the Town needs to advocate for buses and public transportation to be increased in Town. Bridger McGaw, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member and Economic Development Advisory Committee member, stated that he is supportive of mixed-use housing in this corridor. He explained that he would like for the Town to consider where workers will be coming from and how they want to commute into the future. DOCUMENTS: Memo to Select Board, 25% Design Presentation 6. Discuss Updates to Town of Lexington Application for Board or Committee Membership Ms. Hai explained that Ms. Duffield suggested a series of self-identification questions be included on the application, in order to further the Town's ability to continue tracking its progress against the goal of increasing the diversity of representation among appointed residents. Ms. Barry asked who will have access to this information when submitted. She expressed that these types of questions should not be tied to the committee application process. Mr. Malloy stated that this information would be used internally and reported back to the Board in total terms only. Mr. Lucente stated that he believes seeking the proposed self-identifying information in a committee application may make some applicants uncomfortable. He suggested an annual survey of boards and committees for such information. Mr. Malloy affirmed that an annual survey could be performed. Mr. Pato stated that, as long as this is purely voluntary, that the information will be used for statistical analysis, and that any reports from the Equity Officer only contain aggregated information, he would support going forward with this on an annual Request for Information basis. The Board agreed to table this item to a later review once a new Chief Equity Officer is hired and has had an opportunity to come up to speed. DOCUMENTS: Potential Equal Opportunity and Diversification Questions for Board/Committee Application 7. Review and Approve Participatory Budgeting Sean Dugan, Public Information Officer, explained that participatory budgeting is a democratic process in which there's a set amount of money put aside for the community to directly decide how those funds are spent. In Lexington, $500,000, of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds are available for this process. There are certain criteria that must be met, such as a project that benefits the public, a one-time expenditure of $500,000 or less, a capital project, the project cannot require the Town to hire additional staff to implement, and it has to be implemented by the Town on Town property. For six weeks, the community will be able to submit project ideas. In September and October staff will review the proposed ideas, and the public will be able to vote in November. Mr. Lucente suggested a short YouTube video to explain the process to the public. Also, postcards could be handed to those doing early voting. The Board asked Mr. Malloy to verify if the software can ensure that only one vote per eligible voter can be submitted. Additionally, they Mr. Malloy to check that the software can accept multiple eligible votes from one IP (Internet Protocol) address. DOCUMENTS: Presentation - Participatory Budgeting 8. Update on Stone Building Re-Use Recommendations Mr. Malloy reviewed his recommendations for action regarding the Stone Building. He explained that the Stone Building Feasibility and Reuse Committee Report issued in May provided a recommendation that the building be renovated to provide space for one or more of the following items: an intercultural center, a Racial Social Environmental Justice Center, history museum, 21st century Lyceum, and/or branch library. The Board of Trustees has already agreed that they are not interested in a branch library at this point in time. There is a question as to whether the building will be managed as a Town function, or whether it would be leased to a nonprofit or other entity that would manage the building. There is also a question as to who needs to be responsible to oversee the renovation, preservation, and management of the building, and coordinate the request for proposal process. There was a recommendation that a coordinator be hired to move the project forward and lead the efforts as described. Mr. Malloy explained that any work on the building would require the Town to follow all public procurement and bidding requirements. Next week, Mike Cronin will sit with Marilyn Fenollosa, Community Preservation Committee (CPC) Chair, to discuss the potential of CPA funding for this project. The Town would likely seek funding for the design work at the 2023 Town Meeting. The Town would then pursue construction costs for capital improvements at the 2024 Town Meeting. This would likely include constructing an interior fire escape and accessible bathrooms, all in a space in the back of the building. It is hoped that an opening would occur sometime in 2025. He recommended that the Town seek an external entity to operate the facility/use selected and use an RFP to rate proposed uses. Jeff Howry, 5 Bennett Avenue, stated that the Stone Building Feasibility and Reuse Committee recommended partnering with a nonprofit that would take over, not only the rendering of the building, but the actual contracting and oversight of the whole renovation process. Mr. Pato expressed concern regarding the role of a coordinator for this project. He also noted that the Stone Building Feasibility and Reuse Committee clearly recommended a use of this building as a 21st century Lyceum, as the umbrella direction for the future. The building would fulfill that role, no matter what the other elements were. Mr. Lucente expressed concern that there is not yet a champion for this project. Mr. Malloy noted that his intention is to do a lot of public relations work to find the right party to become involved with the project. Mr. Sandeen stated that he would like to see someone champion the idea of the space including a 21st century Lyceum, Racial and Social Environmental Justice Center, intercultural center, and history museum, as these all seem highly interrelated and supportive of each other. Cristina Burwell, 6 Albemarle Avenue, explained that the Monroe Center for the Arts has the ability to have a lot more space for rental income. The rent revenues, along with fundraising, helps keep the management and the maintenance of the building feasible. This may be a more difficult issue when exploring a nonprofit and a smaller space at the Stone Building. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street and Chair of the Tourism Committee, agreed with the comments about finding a champion and the interplay of this project with tourism. Mr. Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, asked if there will be funding expended on the design of this project, prior to knowing whether there is a nonprofit, or other entity, willing to undertake the project and see to its funding. Mr. Malloy explained that during the initial design period, an end user would be sought, who would hopefully be selected before the end of the design work, so that any specific needs they had would be incorporated in the final design. This would occur prior to going back to Town Meeting to seek construction funding. Paul Smyke, 633 Massachusetts Avenue, explained that the Committee felt a very close link between the history of the building, and the very real contemporary issues that the country is facing right now. The proposal is to give a rebirth to this building and connect it to history and to the present in a way that very few other structures in the Town of Lexington can currently do. Ms. Hai agreed with meeting with CPC on this item. She feels the building needs to be brought up to code and modernized, while also deciding what the end use will be and who will champion the project. DOCUMENTS: Memo on Stone Building, Stone Building Final Report 9. Discussion Regarding Select Board In-Person Meeting Participation and Location Ms. Hai stated that she would like each of the Board Members to submit their written comment to the Select Board office for Ms. Katzenback culminate feedback on member needs and provisions to be willing to participate in meetings in person. ADOURN Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary