Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-04-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 4, 2023 Page 1 of 4 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building 1605 Mass Ave. Lexington Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Robert Peters, Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Robert Creech, and Charles Hornig. Also present were Mina Makarious, Town Counsel (via Zoom); Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Planning Coordinator. Robert Peters, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Tuesday, April 4, 2023, at 6:00 pm in the Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue. Article 40 – Amend Section 135-4.4 of The Zoning Bylaw-Reduce Residential Gross Floor (Citizen Petition) Ms. McCabe informed the Board that there were no amendments filed for Article 40 and informed that the Board was discussing Mr. Daggett’s revised motion dated March 15 based on feedback from the Building Commissioner and the Zoning Administrator to address the concerns raised at the Planning Board’s public hearing. Ms. McCabe added that the Town staff was comfortable with the language and said that it can be administered and enforced if adopted. The Board members had questions for Town Counsel regarding applicability of the Article and the Article’s interaction with non-conforming structures. Town Counsel said the protections of the zoning bylaw and state law pertaining to alterations of nonconforming structures still apply. A Board member suggested taking more time to update the zoning next year to revise how gross floor area is calculated such as by removing porches and basements. Also, consider amendments to the allowable massing. Chair Peters opened the discussion up to any public comment. Public Comment: Mr. Charlie Minasian, 3 Fulton Road, felt that the language of Article 40 is too complicated for people to comprehend. Board Discussion: The Board voted 5-0 to maintain their position of recommending Town Meeting refer the Article to the Planning Board for further consideration so more time can be spent developing a more comprehensive zoning amendment. Article 33 - Amend Zoning Bylaw - Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 4, 2023 Page 2 of 4 Ms. McCabe informed the Board that two floor amendments were submitted and informed the Board about the upcoming meeting of the SPRD committee to discuss the proposed amendments. Ms. McCabe explained that one of the amendments, by Ms. Lin Jensen, was to change the review process for applications from Special Permit to Site Plan Review. Ms. McCabe said that the other amendment, by Ms. Cynthia Arens, was to remove the payment in-lieu for 6 or fewer dwellings. Mr. Hornig, as a member of the SPRD committee, explained the reasons why the committee opted for site plan review instead of a special permit and the basis for the committee’s proposal on payment-in-lieu. Site plan review was important because it is a more predictable process because it is not discretionary. The payment-in-lieu for small projects was imposed because it’s not financially practical to construct an inclusionary dwelling for small projects so imposing such a requirement would prevent small projects from going forward. The payment-in-lieu is there to provide some contribution without making small projects impractical. Chair Peters opened the discussion up to any public comments. Public Comments: Ms. Cynthia Arens explained that her amendment is to remove payment in-lieu for six or fewer dwellings, because she feels this would lead to more multi-family and inclusionary houses being built. Ms. Jensen and Ms. McBride explained their amendment to change the applications process from site plan review to a special permit. They felt the special permit would provide more control over projects from the neighbors. The Board discussed the differences between Special Permit and Site Plan Review. Town Counsel also clarified the points that were discussed and detailed the voting process for both. Site plan review is a majority vote of the board while special permits require a super-majority – 4 of the 5 members. The application and public hearing process including the abutter notification process is the same for both applications. For site plan review the burden is on the Board to verify the project complies with zoning and there is a presumed ultimate approval; for special permits the burden is on the applicant to prove the application complies with the zoning. Site plan review is an application process that can impose reasonable conditions on any approval. Ms. Ricki Pappo said she felt there was a lot of ambiguity associated with the calculation of payment-in- lieu. The Board agreed to not take a position on the amendments to Article 33 until the SPRD Committee’s meeting on April 6th and to discuss it further on April 10th. Article 34 – Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map for Village and Multi-Family Overlay Districts Ms. McCabe reported that two amendments were submitted. Town Counsel suggested a few edits to the amendments that were submitted by the working group. Mr. Hornig went over the amendments and stated that the proposed districts were on the edge of the Town with no neighborhood amenities and not ideal for multi-family housing. Mr. Hornig also felt that Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 4, 2023 Page 3 of 4 having the applicants go through the special permit process would lead to less housing being constructed. Mr. Hornig added that the 60-foot height limit was necessary to encourage much-needed commercial space on the first floor and housing units above to maintain the town’s commercial base since the overlays are primarily in business districts. Lowering the height would likely lead to more housing units but without nonresidential uses. He will not support the amendment. Ms. Thompson said that she felt zoning for multi-family housing along the edges of the town was exclusionary zoning and did not align with Lexington’s Comprehensive Plan. The most desirable and walkable districts in the middle of town have been removed. Ms. Thompson said that she was very sad to see this plan as it does not address the Town’s equity goals and prevents people from being part of the Town and said that it is not a good look for the Town. Mr. Creech went over the Planning Board’s process in getting the community involved with the workshop followed by public work sessions which gave a good starting point for the Planning Board. Mr. Creech felt that it was not necessary to go so far beyond the required acreage and supported going with a moderate proposal put forth by the amendment. Mr. Peters said the Board’s proposal was well thought out and spread across the Town and not primarily on Hartwell Avenue. Mr. Schanbacher said he was disappointed that proposed areas inside the Town were left out in the amendment. Mr. Schanbacher reminded everyone about the current severe housing crisis and that Article 34 is a good opportunity to address this crisis and be part of the solution. Mr. Schanbacher said that East Lexington and Town Center are ideal locations for multi-family housing and mixed-use developments. Mr. Schanbacher felt that by building new communities, there would be more commuters for the MBTA bus and hence the number of buses would also increase over time. Mr. Schanbacher said that he does not support the substitute motion for Article 34. Ms. McCabe reminded the Board that one of the goals of the state law is for the creation of family supportive housing in walkable communities and stated that the areas proposed by the substitute motion are in isolated locations that are less desirable for families with children. Ms. McCabe recommended not supporting the substitute motion. Chair Peters opened the discussion to public comments. Public Comments: Mr. Minasian said that the substitute motion eliminated the possibility of creating housing on Marrett Road, which aligned with Lexington’s Comprehensive Plan and excluded locations that could possibly be redeveloped. Mr. Minasian felt that the substitute motion was not a good idea. Mr. Waite, 28 Spring Street, said that he believed this proposal would change neighborhoods and that not enough people were aware of the zoning changes. Ms. Tina McBride, 45 Turning Mill Road, said she supported multi-family housing and participated in the housing workshop, but was not aware of the proposed heights. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 4, 2023 Page 4 of 4 Ms. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock St., said that she was not comfortable with the by-right permitting. Ms. McKenna said that though she felt the Town Center should have some housing, but it should be addressed later in a future zoning amendment. Mr. Jerry Michelson, 3 Clyde Place and chair of the Lexington Center Committee, said that the Town Center should be included in the proposed zoning to make the Center more vibrant. He was not supportive of the substitute motion’s map. Ms. Barbara Katzenberg, 37 Moon Hill Road, said that though she liked the Planning Board’s proposal, she was not sure if it will pass the Town Meeting and hence worked on the substitute motion, hoping it would be more widely supported. Mr. Tad Dickenson, 48 Hancock Street, was concerned about the lack of public control with a by-right process, particularly in the Center. Ms. Innessa Manning, 46 York Street, noted that although any housing in the Town Center would be by right, it would also be subject to the Historic District Commission approval process. Mr. Hornig moved that the Planning Board recommend that the Town Meeting not adopt Ms. McKenna’s substitute motion. Mr. Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-1-1 (Roll call: Thompson- yes; Schanbacher - yes; Hornig- yes; Creech- no; Peters- abstained). MOTION PASSED. The Board then discussed Mr. Berger’s amendment. Mr. Creech had a few questions on the amendment and practicality of upper story step-backs and Mr. Schanbacher responded. Mr. Hornig moved that the Planning Board not support Mr. Berger’s amendment. Mr. Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Thompson-yes; Schanbacher - yes; Hornig - yes; Creech- yes; Peters- yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Peters reminded the Board about the upcoming meeting on April 10 at 6:30 p.m. in the Parker Room. Adjourn Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of April 4th, 2023. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. List of Exhibits: • Substitute Motion from Dawn McKenna and Working group, Article 34 • Floor Amendment from Todd Burger, Article 34 • Floor Amendment from Cynthia Arens, Article 33 • Floor Amendment from Lin Jensen, Article 33