HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-06-MGWG-min.pdf MINUTES OF WORK GROUP MEETING 4/ ao
Title of Work Group: Managing Growth: Development and Open Space
Meeting Date, Time, Location: Thursday, April 6, 2000 from 7 to 9 p.m., Town
Office Building Room 111
Present: Tom Harden (Chairman), John Andrews, Larry Belvin, Ione Garing,
Mike Hanauer, Karl Kastorf, Marianne Lazarus (acting scribe).Josh Murray,
Donna Rossi, Lee Sinai. Steering Committee Liason, Fred Merrill. Staff,
Marilyn Nordby.
Absent: Suzanne Caton, Gary Fallick, Karen Longeteig, Jerry Moloney, Markus
Pinney, Tiffany Papadonis, Ed Vail (attending another 2020 meeting).
Chairman Tom Harden called the meeting to order just after 7 p.m.
Minutes of the previous meeting (March 30) as distributed by email were
approved. Minutes of the March 16 meeting have pending editorial questions
which Marianne Lazarus will resolve with Tiffany Papadonis.
Larry Belvin reported about his attendance at the March 30 CPG meeting
(which has been reported in an April 4, 2000 email, "Feedback on
Environmental Scans from March 30, 2000 CPG Meeting" to All Work Groups
from the CPG and the Steeting Committee). Other than the CPG's suggestion
that our group focus more on questions about Hanscom (especially considering
one CPG member's commitment to that), Larry pointed out that the CPG advised
us to think not in terms of stopping growth but of controlling it. A discussion
ensued on this topic with, very briefly, the following points:
• Population growth may be OK (depending on how it's housed)
• It may be OK to have growth of some things, just not houses
• We may want to limit growth in some places, but not all
• The growth may be controlled with zoning;
Example: Santa Cruz, where accessory apartments are allowed so long as
number of parked cars is reduced
• Another example: Seniors, who don't drive, need to live where cars are not
needed
• In some areas it's recognized that cars are unaffordable to low income
people, and housing is built accordingly
• The effects of more houses are broad: not only more cars and traffic, but
school demands, services, etc.
• The town could buy a large house, divide it to house more people(seniors)
and specify these people not have cars (which are a burden to the town)
• There are alternatives to private cars: the $2000 a year usually spent on a
car could cover the cost of taxis
• Consider critical mass: increased density could increase demand for
alternative forms of transportation
• Traffic controlling measures could include reducing major traffic routes
• We maybe should think of creating an evironment specifically more
suitable for public transportation
• Businesses should be asked to offer transportation plans. (Fred Merrill
pointed out that a town Transportation Demand Management Policy was
implemented two years ago, and put to use in the development of the new
medical building on Hayden Ave.)
• Regional agreements on transportation plans are needed
• Reiterating our earlier decision about Hanscom: we should be dealing with
it in terms of its elements--traffic, noise, pollution, etc.
There was a report from John Andrews about the Community Preservation Act
which is currently before the state legislature and handouts: "4/6/00 [memo]
To Managing Growth Working Group, From John Andrews" (one page) and
"Legislative Update" reprint from MACC Newsletter, Late Winter 99-00 (one
page). This legislation, if passed, would enable towns to create and fund local
community preservation measures like land banks funded with real estate
transfer taxes, but John reports that real estate interests have squashed it.
Fred Merrill invited us to meet with the Planning Board at their regular
meeting on April 26 (time and location to follow--Glenn Garber, please note),
using this as an exercise to practice our outreach skills. In preparation for
this, we should read the documents about the comprehensive plan posted by
the Planning Board on the town web site. A handout about this was provided
(which has since been corrected: the web site address is:
httn://patriot.ci.lexington.ma.us/Planning/CompPlan.htm).
The item on tonight's agenda on public outreach was touched only briefly: Ed
Vail was at a CPG meeting at the time of our meeting and was expected to come
back to us with feedback on ideas previously proposed.
The major topic of the meeting was work on the Goals document. Karl Kastorf
presented his work, the 11-page handout "Goals for the Year 2000 [sic], Draft 3,
April 6, 2000." Karl explained how the document evolved from the complation
of individual submissions of goals presented at the previous meeting,
eliminating duplications and grouping ideas into eventually six "goal areas"
which then put more focus on the Objectives section of the proposed matrix.
His intention was to make a readable document that would influence opinion.
A first look at the draft document raised the following discussion points:
• The goals in the draft are not now numbered in priority order, but rather in
the order of the number of submissions, greatest to least. It might be
preferable to arrange them in another order, perhaps "logical" order.
• The inclusion of a goal about traffic was questioned, since another work
group is dealing with this, but we restated our decision that our view of traffic
might be different than that of the transportation group, and it was worth
including since it has such a large impact.
• Goal 1 and Goal 4 repeat the wording of "natural," "buffer," and
"recreational" applied to open space; perhaps this should be changed or
supplemented to "natural," "developed," "buffer."
• Goal 4, "Enhance the physical character of the town and its neighborhoods,"
some felt should be rephrased to address the "built up" character, to enhance
the idea of neighborhoods, and to give more emphasis to "pedestrian"
character.
• The idea of preserving "character" or "characteristics" was discussed; what
is meant should be more clearly defined. We might also talk about how we
expect character to change.
• The term "housing stock" was questioned, but decided to be understandable,
and approved.
• The draft's coverage was agreed to be good, comprehensive.
• The chairman asked us to consider what conflicts there might be between
goals. One is between "no growth" and "some growth" and another is in the
area of change of character--but more consideration about this topic is
needed. We should end up presenting a document in which the conflicts have
been addressed and resolved, and decisions are offered about how existing
conditions should be changed.
• Preservation of open land is now handled by the priorities of the
Conservation Commission, John Andrews reported, centering around wetlands,
corridors for wildlife, and biologically significant areas; we endorse this
process by our goals statements. Creative measures for aquisition of land will
probably be needed. Land bank legislation, which we propose, has failed to be
approved by the legislature (but might succeed later?). Likewise, Town
Meeting has not approved the idea of purchase of conservation restrictions.
• We may want to make greater density a housing goal, particularly in the
center, where there is easier access to public transportation.
• We should be thinking of proposing criteria or "filters" for development, as
well as criteria for measurement.
• Conservation Director Marilyn Nordby, one of our staff liasons, spoke about
current legislation related to our items 1.1.D (the Wetlands Preservation Act)
and 2.4 about environmental protections, stating that control should be
considered in regional context, rather than just town, or in "watershed
groups." She described the formation of "stream teams" and urged better
representation from Lexington. The term "watershed protection" should be
added to our document, either under 2.4 or under Goal 3.
• The idea of regional concern and cooperation should be emphasized, also in
relation to transportation.
It was decided that we should each study the draft document--Karl suggested
reading twice, first for cohesion, second for content--and continue our
discussion by email in preparation for further discussion at the next meeting.
The next meeting will be April 20 at 7 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room,
2nd floor of the Town Office Building.
Respectfully submitted, Marianne Lazarus