Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-05-HC-minMEETING MINUTES April 5th 2022 Call to Order: A public hearing of the Historical Commission was held remotely through Zoom. The meeting convened at 5:01PM. Historical Commission Members in Attendance: Susan Bennett, Chair, Diane Pursley, Vice Chair, Marilyn Fenollosa, David Kelland, Wendall Kalsow and Robert Rotberg Planning Board Member in Attendance: Charles Hornig, Chair of the Lexington Planning Board AGENDA ITEM #1 (5:03PM): Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) proposed bylaw discussion -Mr. Hornig came to discuss the current draft of the bylaw, particularly focusing on the sections involving historic preservation. Definition of Historic Building: Definition of historic building: Historic Building: A building eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Historical Commission’s Cultural Resources Inventory for which a historic preservation restriction in a form acceptable to the Historical Commission is in effect. Mr. Hornig explained that the definition has been expanded to include buildings eligible to be listed on the Inventory or Register rather than those already on either list. Ms. Fenollosa asked when we would secure the preservation restriction in the OSRD process, given that it takes time for the restriction to be developed and approved. Mr. Hornig explained that if the developer wants the bonuses offered in OSRD in exchange for preserving the historic building then they have to commit to the preservation restriction, which becomes a condition of Planning Board approval. The Board has a number of enforcement mechanisms available, including withholding of a building permit pending the approval of the restriction. Ms. Bennett is hopeful that now that we have a generic preservation restriction approved by Town Counsel the process over time will be smoother and more timely. Mr. Rotberg asked about the wording “is in effect” and its impact on the Planning Board process. Mr. Kalsow said there should be no building permit for any construction until a preservation restriction on the historic structure is in effect. Mr. Hornig said we have a lot of tools to make sure this happens. Mr. Hornig said we cannot require preservation, only provide incentives that will encourage developers to preserve the home. Ms. Bennett said that OSRD can help us preserve structures that are not currently on the Inventory. There are two projects currently going through the Site Sensitive Development process where the Commission would have had no jurisdiction because the houses are not on the Inventory, but they potentially can be saved because of the incentives in the Site Sensitive Development bylaw. Purpose Section: Preserve historically or architecturally significant buildings or places, including consideration for siting, sight lines, and landscaping Mr. Kalsow said he perceives a gap between the purpose section and the actual requirements of the bylaw. Mr. Kalsow stated that by giving “by right” development powers to developers and not including regulation of siting in the bylaw, the stated purpose cannot be achieved. Mr. Hornig agreed that purposes are not enforceable. The issue of siting can be included in the preservation restriction. He recommended that the Administrative Assistant of the Historical Commission be included in the Design Review Team meetings, the staff-level group that is involved in site planning for Planning Board review. Requirements: Historic Buildings shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area under 6.12.3.7.a and 6.12.3.7.b Dwelling units within Historic Buildings shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area under 6.12.3.7.e and 6.12.3.7.f This provides incentives for preserving historic houses by giving bonuses for permitted development on the site. Ms. Pursley expressed concerns that the gross floor area bonus is too rich and inquired about the logic of including this instead of a bonus based on footprint. Mr. Hornig stated that the goal is to give developers more buildable land area when there is a historic house that is being preserved. The hope is that developers will have incentives to preserve historic structures rather than tearing them down, even if tradeoffs are involved. Ms. Pursley expressed concern about how the stated purpose of appropriate siting for historic buildings will be achieved. The bonuses make it difficult to preserve any appropriate siting around the historic structure, which can be as important as preserving the structure itself. The Open Land required shall be decreased by two times the site coverage of any Historic Buildings. Mr. Hornig noted that this bonus will make it more likely that historic buildings will be preserved than the alternative by-right development options. The open land that is required is decreased to create more flexibility on the buildable part of the site to encourage preservation rather than demolition of an historic building. Mr. Rotberg asked why we should permit such a limitation on open space to benefit developers. Mr. Hornig said our goal is not to hurt or help developers but to encourage developers to build what we want them to build – including inclusionary housing - by creating incentives. In his view, the incentives for historic preservation in OSRD should encourage homes to be preserved that are now more likely to be demolished. Ms. Bennett said the overall concern of the Commission is how the purpose for historic buildings is going to be achieved. Ms. Bennett asked how the Historical Commission will be involved in that site plan review process. Mr. Hornig indicated it was an evolving process and that the Commission’s staff should be involved in the Design Team Review process. Ms. Pursley asked if OSRD is passed, what will be the process for developing regulations. Mr. Hornig described a process with ample opportunity for public input including an advertised public hearing with the Planning Board, public input and incorporation of their comments before regulations are published. Ms. Pursley asked how long it would take to issue regulations. Because the legality of OSRD will have to be reviewed by the Attorney General, no developer will apply under the process until the bylaw receives legal clearance. Other comments: Mr. Kalsow is a strong supporter of inclusionary housing but feels OSRD is not an effective way to increase inclusionary housing. OSRD has the potential to dramatically and adversely impact neighborhoods in Lexington. Mr. Hornig said this is intended as an alternative for conventional subdivisions. OSRD would result in slightly more massing of buildings, significant amount of affordable housing, preservation of historic houses and preservation of open space. Mr. Kelland feels we are getting huge houses on small lots and is sorry to see this happen. Ms. Bennett asked about when this will be taken up by Town Meeting. Mr. Hornig said it is hard to answer that question. It is technically the last order of business on April 11th but it is unclear it will happen on April 11th, could be April 25th. PUBLIC COMMENTS: -Matt Daggett 11 White Pine Lane Mr. Daggett thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. He expressed concern about the generosity of the developer bonuses under OSRD. Mr. Daggett also expressed his concern regarding the conversion of historic properties to multi family dwellings. Mr. Kalsow feels we should take a position on OSRD. The Commission agreed. MOTION: Moved by Mr. Kalsow to oppose the proposed Open Space Residential Development bylaw. Seconded by Mr. Rotberg VOTE: 4-1 In favor of opposition: Ms. Fenollosa, Mr. Kelland, Mr. Kalsow, Mr. Rotberg with Ms. Bennett in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM #4 (6:28PM) Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Kelland Seconded by Mr. Kalsow 5-0 favor to adjourn Ms. Fenollosa, Mr. Rotberg, Ms. Bennett, Mr. Kalsow and Mr. Kelland Adjourn