Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-01-SPRD-min Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2021 Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc Committee Members present for the Public Meeting:Jill Hai, Chair;Joyce Murphy; Matt Daggett, Scott Cooper;Taylor Singh (Clerk); Heather Hartshorn, Betsey Weiss, Charles Hornig, Richard Perry Lexington Staff present for the Public Meeting: Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Amanda Loomis, Planning Director Consultant:Ted Brovitz Other Attendees: Bob Creech (Planning Board),Tina McBride, Liza Leventhal, Christine Connor and Mike Hurt Jill Hai, Chair of the Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc Committee, called the meeting to order at 8:45am * Mr Hornig requested that the minutes note his disapproval of the need to switch zoom links for this meeting last minute. Ms Hai noted that the change had the approval of the Town Clerk's office. * 1. Staff Review and Committee discussion: SPRD prior presentations and alternatives, PB update, Zoning Bylaw v Regulations Carol Kowalski noted , Charles did try to create a simplified version of what we're trying to achieve and fused it to the OSRD with an eye to trying to get it to conform to the changes that came out of the state's housing choice bill. Amanda Loomis addressed the committee and said the big topic area that we were talking about was, affordability and workforce housing, but then we know that that is only a small component of the entire bylaw; we want to allow for more diverse types of housing. OSRD would set a maximum of an average house size of 2100 square feet, which is what we know is a good size three bedroom. Previously open space requirement was 33%we increase that to 35%, and that would not allow for wetlands, or other restricted areas to be in the 35%. We know that affordability is a requirement in definite need, so that is why there is a strong piece of affordability, but also workforce housing on that sliding scale kind of item. So we are going to be taking that out to developers to see is this even feasible, can it actually work, and how will it work. We did not forget, universal design, universal design is a huge component. But, universal design is actually more of a regulation than a bylaw piece because it gets into the building code. So that is why some of the pieces that we did talk about are actually going to be in the regulations and not in the actual bylaw but they haven't been forgotten. Joyce Murphy asks: What definition we're using for the 2100 square feet?Are we using gross or net living space? So can someone please explain from 2100 what the actual heated living space will be on this 2100 square feet? 1 Charles Hornig responds almost 2100 of living space by not having a garage by not having a basement. Ted Brovitz adds that he likes the fact that it's by-right rather than by special permit. He likes the idea that the average lot building sizes 2100 GFA. He likes the inclusionary process. He doesn't like the proof plan. He thinks proof plans give the neighbors sort of a false sense that there's a real choice to be made here, and they can influence that choice, and try to go with a conventional subdivision and he thinks that if there's a simpler way to do it, something like identifying the upland areas, and then subtracting a percentage of that for utilities and roadways, and then calculating the GFA off of that is a much simpler process, it basically amounts to the same thing. Amanda Loomis discusses Zoning Bylaws versus Regulations. She said you're looking at close to a year before anything gets changed in the Zoning Bylaw. Zoning regulations are a little bit different. These actually take the Zoning Bylaw and build on it. Zoning regulations actually let a community, tell the developer, what they actually want. Where the buildings are placed, how things are added on to would be zoning, and then how they actually feel, and like kind of mesh with the neighborhood that does go into regulations. 2. Discussion of SPRD process, next steps and timeline Jill Hai announces that Taylor Singh will become the SPRD Committee's Clerk. She also noted Mr Hornig had mentioned earlier that there was a discussion at the planning board a week ago, which included the OSRD proposal, and asked Mr. Hornig wants to speak to that. Mr Hornig said the Planning Board will be working out its work plan in June and we'll see whether this makes the cut as something to be persued. It's up to this committee, whether it feels that the OSRD is within the scope of what you want to work on. If you do, then I think it makes a lot of sense for you to meet with us, perhaps sometime in July. Taylor Singh advocated that the SPRD committee meet with the Planning Board. Carol Kowalski asked if communities had to update their open space residential development bylaws to conform now with the Housing Choice Bill. Charles Hornig answered No, our only response we have to do under housing choice is the MBTA community which this would not address. So that's a separate thing on the side, we don't currently have open space residential developments in Lexington. Housing Choice encouraged the creation of this draft OSRD bylaw by making it more likely that this could be put through successfully by decreasing the required vote from a two thirds to a majority. Scott Cooper asserted he is concerned about submitting multiple proposals to the public if that's what's being suggested. He thinks we'd be much better off agreeing on a single proposal, and putting that forward. Otherwise there's going to be a lot of confusion, and he is not sure whether we're going to get to a point of finality. Mr Perry and Ms Weiss agreed. 3. Gathering public input 2 Jill Hai said it seems at the moment that we have at least from among those who have raised their hands a consensus that we need to narrow down, and potentially further define what we're looking at that we're not ready yet at this point to go public with adding OSRD as an additional tool. We need to clarify what we mean by 2,100 square feet. We need further clarification to make it as easily understood by the general public as possible and to further the goals. We want to make the process easier, we want to increase the diversity of the stock of housing in town;The first homebuyer, to the downsizer. We want to increase the accessibility and preserving natural resources. Richard Perry asked where the 2,100 square feet came from. Charles Hornig said the 2,100 came from him. It was intended to be significantly smaller than the units that have been being produced by the existing special permit residential development because one of the complaints about it has been that the units are too large. Joyce Murphy notes the difference though in the Manor House, those condominiums don't include the garages that are in the basement. So that is actually 2100 sq ft of living space, which is a big difference. She thinks the 2100 came from keeping the price of these units, lower, and she is not sure that that goal will be accomplished. Jill Hai stated that two weeks ago, the Planning Board, the Select Board and the various groups in town involved with affordable housing all met jointly to discuss the possibility of creating a local housing trust, an affordable housing trust as well as some sort of a nonprofit, independent Housing Development Authority which could potentially be a successor to LexHab in order to hold affordable housing in perpetuity, so that we can control both the creation and maintenance of affordable housing. Such a Trust and Development Authority or corporation would also be able to produce and hold what we've been terming "missing middle" which doesn't qualify as a state recognized entity, but we want to encourage in town. Agreed with Ms. Murphy that we cannot control the price simply by limiting the size. Betsey Weiss asks what if we put together some examples of two-bedroom, three- bedroom, two bathrooms etc. to give us, and the public, some idea of what a 2100 square foot living space would look like. Jill Hai said she will re-circulate a development she had previously shared. Richard Perry said he had some details on the Riverwalk proposal and could run through the numbers, figure out the GFA for each one. He said he was happy to do the exercise for anything, any particular house that project that somebody wants to forward to him. Ms. Hai agreed examples would be helpful. Joyce Murphy adds that she has mentioned this before needs to say it again that she sees much of our workforce housing existing in the condominiums built in the 70s and 80s, and in our schools like Muzzey High that had been converted to condos. She went back the last three years, there were 36 sales of condominiums built before 1980 that sold in the low of 250s (Muzzey condos; least expensive) all the way up to seven or 800. About a dozen or so sell every 3 year. There are many two or three bedrooms at the same size we're talking about. Because these condominiums can't be added onto because they can't be torn down like a single family house, they still are here and they do provide Lexington, with good workforce housing. Probably 700 of those units, if you add up Drummer Boy and Emerson gardens and large complexes; Potter pond is 100. There's lots and lots of units here that fall into the workforce housing where your monthly payment is going to be $2000 up to $3000 a month. Ms Murphy asserts we need to keep that in mind. 4. Approval of minutes No meeting minutes offered for approval. S. Any other urgent business that may properly come before the Committee that could not be foreseen by the chair Jill Hai said let's say definitively that the next meeting of this committee will be Sam on Tuesday morning,June 22. The question is whether it's in person or virtual, and then our hope would be to meet with the planning board on the evening of July 14. Scott Cooper:This may be a little out of sequence, but I just want to go back to one point that Ms. Loomis had said in her proposal that wetlands would be excluded from the open space calculation. Is that correct? I would favor giving some credit to wetlands. I think it creates an ambience, and it adds to the development and it will give more flexibility to developers if we give some credit to the wetlands. So I would suggest that we not exclude it totally but may want to give some percentage credit. Not 100% credit. Taylor Singh: I respectfully disagree with Mr Cooper's comment. I agree with the ambience, no doubt about that. And it is open space that's not going to be developed. But as I've brought up in front of this group before, there have been developments that have come before town meeting where it's been said the town will get all this open space, but really it's unbuildable wetlands, so it's not something that the developers could build on anyway and I felt, sort of, I don't know what the best term is, but like tricked by that in the past. And so that's why I personally wouldn't want it included there. Betsey Weiss: I want to bring up something for next time. Mr Hornig has a By-Right Affordability Table which I support, if we could go through the table to get some clarity on it, since it is complex. I also want to make sure that developers think that it is feasible. Therefore, it is a two- part question, but I do like the fact that the affordability table is by- right. Jill Hai adjourned the meeting with a roll call vote at 9:50am. Next Meeting set for Tuesday,June 22 at Sam EST 4