Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-07-SPRD-min 1 Town of Lexington, Massachusetts Ad Hoc Special Permit Residential Development Zoning By-Law Committee Minutes (Draft) February 7, 2019 at 7pm Ellen Stone Room, Cary Memorial Hall 1605 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington Ma 02420 Present: Jill Hai, Betsy Weiss, , Scott Cooper, Heather Hartshorn, Joyce Murphy, Katie Lacey, Taylor Singh, Richard Canale, Wendy Manz, Carol Kowalski, David Trietsch and Katie Luczai Call to Order 7pm Approval of minutes from 1/7/2019 Ms. Hai stated that the minutes from the prior meeting were emailed to the Committee and that paper copies are available later at the request of the members. On a motion by Ms. Singh and seconded by Mr. Cooper, the Committee voted to approve the meeting minutes from January 7, 2019. Recap of last meeting Mr. Trietsch reminded the Committee that at the last meeting they were tasked with thinking about what the Committee wanted their value statement to be. Mr. Triestch recapped a few of the general values that the Committee considered including the diversity of housing, asking the Committee to further think about"who should be able to live here". Mr. Trietsch also reminded the committee of the discussion regarding the need for predictability from the developer's standpoint when evaluating the zoning by-law. Review of current zoning by-law 6.9 (Special Permit Residential Developments) Ms. Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager of the Lexington Planning Department presented before the Committee. 2 Ms. Kowalski reviewed the current zoning by-law focusing on what's allowed by right, vs. by special permit, and her professional observations about Special Permits Residential Development applications in practice. The zoning by-law is derived from a triangulation of zoning and subdivisions. Zoning by-laws act as the prescription for how land may be used while subdivision regulations control the layout of roads and lots within the larger parcel. Conventional subdivisions are allowed by right, but are a "blunt instrument" that assume the land will be made flat and cleared of existing features. When applying for a subdivision applicants have the opportunity to create one of the three optional Special Permit Residential Developments, 1) Site Sensitive—which allows the same number of lots as the conventional subdivision would, but sited smaller and closer together in order to preserve natural or historic features found on the parcel; 2) Balanced Housing, which allows the same amount of gross floor area as the conventional subdivision would, except that the gross floor area can be grouped into connected living units (rather than free-standing single family homes), or 3) a Public Benefit District, which allows a for density bonus if 10% of the units are made subsidized as affordable Mr. Canale, a member of the Planning Board spoke about how the Board has been approaching the currently zoning by-law. Mr. Canale helped explain that "two times proof' (being permitted to build twice as many units to so that you can build subsidized affordable units) has varied significantly, but the general consensus is that what people sort-of expect. This has been a point of contention of how many units as you need to offset costs. We don't want a special permit development to impact the town more than a conventional. The Planning Board used to use s metrics to measure how a development would fit into a surrounding neighborhood, like how many bedrooms and how many cars, but now they go off of Gross Floor Area. Ms. Kowalski raised some of the challenges of the current zoning by-law, including a contrast between the presumption of approval at the basis of special permits, provided the standards are met, vs. Lexington's SPRD bylaw,which states that the applicant is not entitled to approval. Section 6.9.4 also introduces subjectivity, which makes the time and cost unknown, and therefore risky for the builder/landowner. The subjectivity can introduce stress for the Board, the abutters, and the builder. The abutters may hope that with enough pressure on the Board, the Board might deny some or all of the alteration of the property, even if they meet the SPRD standards. An advantage of SPRD's is that the Planning Board can attach conditions on the Board's approval, and they can save a forest, a view, a historic building, or create affordable units or a variety of desired housing types that are not allowed in by-right conventional subdivisions. Mr. Canale said initially an applicant will talk to staff or maybe one or two members of the board. There have been cases where the board has said no, the board doesn't think what the applicant is proposing for an SPRD permit is going to work and tells the applicant they should build a conventional. In one case the developer threatened to sue because they didn't want to build a conventional. Mr. Canale said that he didn't think there are any Planning Brand members that are afraid to turn down an SPRD applicant. The challenge is to convince an applicant to have 3 a better SPRD plan than the conventional. In most cases the special permit has proven to be the better choice. As much as the PB approves things that the PB thinks are horrid, they are less horrid than the conventional. Ms. Manz stated that the SPRD by-law is aspirational in its language and residents often interpret the language as strict in that the PB has to make sure applicants adhere to each consideration, which can cause confusion. 7:27pm Presentation and discussion of zoning tools and existing bylaws in other MA communities (Katy Lacy of Massachusetts Housing Partnership) Ms. Lacy began by stating communities all across the state of Massachusetts are re-evaluating their zoning by-laws to accommodate modern times. All Massachusetts communities are looking at inclusionary zoning and how they can best integrate it into their by-laws. Ms. Lacy explained that the Massachusetts Housing Partnership is a non-profit affordable housing organization which assists Massachusetts communities in increasing the supply of affordable housing. MHP has a community assistance division which provides technical assistance for towns and cities. Ms. Lacy works in the community assistance division. She said we have this great tool called the Housing Tool Box (housingtoolbox.org). She also added that the MHP has an amazing new tool called "Data Town" (mhp.net/datatown)'Vvhere you can type in "Lexington" and get all sorts of information. Ms. Lacy stated that Massachusetts is one of the few states to require a super majority within their town government in order to change zoning by-laws. Lexington currently is under- producing housing compared to the demand for housing. The smaller houses currently in Lexington that the aspirational zoning by-laws may strive for are now considering non- conforming and illegal in terms of the current zoning by-laws. Lexington is doing a pretty good job as you have 11.1% SHI. Lexington follows a lot of"Best Housing Practices." Ms. Lacy continued on to give examples of how some Massachusetts communities are adapting their zoning by-laws. Ms. Lacy stated that communities such as Littleton, Andover and Acton are adapting zoning through senior residential development. They are implementing overlay residential districts in which if the district qualifies for senior residential development then residences can be allowed at a greater density. This allows for a greater variety of housing options within a residential district. Senior residential development is now being referred to as "livable"residential developments in order to approach residences as lifelong housing. Senior residential 4 development is causing additional conflict since families are a protected group as well, so you have to make a case to get senior affordable housing on the SHI. Ms. Lacy stated that communities such as Concord are focusing on adapting zoning through cluster development. Cluster development focuses on prioritizing open space and conservation within subdivisions. Cluster development is applicable in all residential districts. Concord's cluster zoning's process is an applicant presents their proof plan and finds out how many units they can get and then if they are willing to save 50% as open space, they can have the same number of units and the applicant can get a density bonus if the add affordable units. Lastly, Ms. Lacy explained that communities such as Canton are adapting zoning through village center districts. This allows for zoning reliefs for projects in exchange for affordable housing for seniors. Different adaptions to zoning by-laws are being implemented differently in every community because each community is unique in what they are aspiring to accomplish and how they believe they can best achieve their aspirations. Most communities however, Ms. Lacy stated, are attempting to adopt inclusionary zoning in some form or another. Out of the 351 towns and cities in Massachusetts, 238 communities have adopted inclusionary zoning in some form or another. Some towns' inclusionary zoning states all developments, say 6 units or bigger, have to include 10% affordable or payment in lieu. Some towns like Lexington have inclusionary zoning woven into their by-law. Continue conversation on public process and successful outcomes Mr. Canale stated it's hard to compete against the Conventional Subdivision laws. Mr. Canale stated that the Planning Board had an article about 10 years ago that they brought to the Town Meeting years ago but it was voted down by about 90% of Town Meeting. The Planning Board aspires to have mandatory inclusionary housing. Ms. Hai asked if there was one bylaw that Ms. Lacy could walk through with the Committee as a good example. Ms. Lacy reiterated that communities are unique so it may not be helpful. The Massachusetts Housing Partnership will know more in a year when the effects of new inclusionary zoning by- laws have completed being studied in their initial phase. Even other local communities such as Medford and Belmont are looking at what number of units will be the base for requiring affordable units,but those numbers cannot be replicated or closely copied because each town is very market specific. Mr. Hai stated that it is a wish of the Committee to add affordable housing options and attainable housing. 5 Mr. Trietsch asked if a developer would be willing to come in who has adopted more inclusionary zoning practices into their developments to speak with the Committee. Mr. Canale stated that most applicants who come to the Planning Board apply for both a conventional permit and a special permit. The conventional permit then becomes the "back-up plan"if the special permit is not approved. Mr. Cooper noted that whatever model that the Committee comes up with must be vetted by developers to make sure that they would buy into it. Mr. Canale speculated that the historic failure of Lexington to implement inclusionary zoning by-laws and the like is due to the cultural perceptions of Lexington residents and fear of change in their own backyards. Lexington residents who support these new by-laws in theory do not wish to see the by-laws implemented in their own neighborhoods. 8:12pm Ms. Hai asked the Committee if they wanted to change the aspirational goals listed in the SPRD by-law. Ms. Hai noted that housing panels that have been conducted in town are available for viewing on the LexMedia website. Mr. Canale noted that the Comprehensive Plan committee is sponsoring similar events in the near future. Mr. Trietsch brought up that Lexington has values that the town supports, yet those values come into conflict with neighbors that surround projects He said in some towns, the way they mitigate the conflict is to create a"Project Design Review Committee" and they give neighbors representation on that committee, so instead of making it a zoning issue, they make it a design issue. Mr. Canale gave the example of a recent development on Fairland where the developer, Mark Barons, worked with neighbors to accommodate their vision for the development. Mrs. Manz raised her interest in hearing from developers such as Mark Barons. Scheduling of public input sessions Ms. Hai asked the Committee would they would like to hear from as outside perspectives. Ms. Hai stated that Chris Klutchman will be presenting in Lexington in March for the Comp Plan. The Committee stated that they would like to see North Shore Developers and Mark Baron if it were possible. 6 Future dates and any other urgent business that may properly come before the Committee that could not be foreseen by the chair Ms. Hai stated that she will reach out to developers to see if they would be willing to meet with the Committee. If they are available she will figure out what date would work for them and base the next meeting date on that. 8:39pm On a motion by Mr. Canale and seconded by Mr. Cooper, the Committee voted to adjourn the meeting.