Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-12-SPRD-min RECEIVED 2022 25 Mar, 9:40 am Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) TOWN CLERK Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2022 LEXINGTON MA Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc Committee Members present for the Public Meeting: Jill Hai, Chair; Scott Cooper,Joyce Murphy, Charles Hornig, Richard Perry, Heather Hartshorn, Wendy Manz, Betsey Weiss. Lexington Staff present for the Public Meeting: Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Administrative Assistant. Other Attendees: David Trietsch. Ms. Hai conducted a roll call to ensure all the members of the SPRD ad-hoc committee and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Ms. Hai, chaired the meeting and called the meeting to order at 8:15 am. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia for future on-demand viewing. 1. Review of most recent draft of bylaw revision Ms. Hai said that the latest draft of the Residential Development Bylaw was sent to the town counsel to simplify the language, with the main goal being able to provide a path to housing creation that would be an alternative to conventional subdivisions. Ms. Kowalski shared a draft of the Residential Development Bylaw with the committee and said she had discussed with Town Counsel whether two types of Special Residential Developments were necessary(Site Sensitive Development and Alternative Residential Development).Town Counsel opined that they should be combined into one, since there was no apparent difference between the two. Ms. Kowalski asked if the bylaw should be repurposed to reduce the top size of dwelling units to be less than 2500 square feet in net floor area, and if it should be made to gross floor area instead; also to create a mix of housing units, including smaller and affordable units. Ms. Kowalski also said that the Town Counsel wants the committee to be sure that with site plan review,there is some kind of time frame and specific criteria that have to be met before the permit is issued.Town Counsel cautioned that Site Plan Review not be unfairly prolonged. Ms. Kowalski posed a few questions to the committee asking if, with the structures involving historical and architectural preservation,whether the committee intends to go by what the draft says that the first twenty dwelling units shall not be counted for the purpose of determining the required number of inclusionary housing units,which would exempt historical projects from providing affordable housing units. With the deeded open space, the draft says that with every unit there will be 500 square feet of dedicated deeded privately controlled space, which may be excessive. Ms. Kowalski then asked the committee if it wants to allow it or provide a waiver or give some flexibility. Regarding the size of the unit, Ms. Kowalski suggested it be a percentage rather than a fixed square feet. With regards to design, Ms. Kowalski asked the help from the planning board with the design guidelines and that the idea of designing a dwelling to look like a one family home is problematic because it is vague and it inhibits creativity and the design question has to be addressed in a better way. With Inclusionary housing, Ms. Kowalski wanted to know the interest of the committee with regards to buyout (payment in lieu of building the required affordable units), as throughout the region a buyout does not produce affordable housing units. Lexington has the money but not the land and if swapping was an option, as suggested by Mr.Trietsch and Ms. Hai,where a future developer could provide units if today's developer cannot provide the units that they owe but can somehow provide the units in a future development. Ms. Kowalski then shared site requirements that needed discussion with the town counsel.And also some decisions that has to be taken about the inclusionary housing,whether inclusionary housing is for low income or moderate or both. And Ms. Kowalski felt that waivers have to be more specific. Ms. Kowalski's intention was to take the feedback and comments from the committee to the town counsel and simplify the document. Ms. Hai wanted inputs from the committee regarding creating a single comprehensive, but a clear alternative, by eliminating balanced housing and public benefit and just having a single concept of site sensitive development with two different options. Ms. Hartshorn was in favor of the merger with a limited time. Feels that with indefinite timeframe, it is not fair to anyone. Ms. Hai asked Ms. Kowalski to give more clarity on the whole proposal. Ms. Kowalski said that special permit process is provided in state law;whereas site plan review is not; and in Lexington both are present. Ms. Kowalski also said that the planning board has regulations that detail what it reviews in site plan review. Mr. Hornig went on to say that both site plan review and special permit process, have reviews and public input. Mr. Hornig then went on to explain the differences between the two;with special permits, they have a small number of fairly broad subjective criteria regarding approval process and gives a lot of discretion to the granting authority about how well things meet that criteria. On the other hand,with Site plan review, there is a strong presumption that, as long as all the regulations are met, it will almost certainly be approved.There are also times when certain waivers have been granted under appropriate circumstances. In terms of time frame, Site plan review is sixty days from the application, which can be extended by mutual agreement, but the applicant does not have to agree. So there is a strong pressure on the planning board to approve them in sixty days. Special permit,on the other hand, has a much longer time frame, sixty days from application to start of a public hearing; public hearing can take an indefinite but reasonable amount of time; with no upper limit on time.The planning board has ninety days after the end of the public hearing to come to a decision;which means a minimum of one hundred and fifty days, but probably a lot longer. And because the criteria for special permit are more subjective, it makes it easier for anyone who objects to an approval to go for an appeal, which can cause a delay for many years. So Mr. Horning went on to say that there is a reason for the planning board to lean towards site plan review rather than special permits. Ms. Hartshorn, reiterated that to make it less confusing for citizens and to come up with a process that is more certain, and does not go over a span of many years and to make it simple, she would go for the Site plan review. Mr. Perry, said that one of the main purposes of the committee was to eliminate the special permit process and the focus should be on site plan review. Mr. Cooper was in favor of the by-right process, with limited site plan review, but did not favor the elimination of any kind of review process. He said it is important for the public to know that the planning board is looking at the criteria and the parameters and making sure they are being complied with. He said that one of the goals is to provide more certainty to the developers on the approval process, and by eliminating special permit and having by-right with limited site plan review, there will be more certainty. Ms. Weiss said in order to simplify the process, she is fine with Site plan review, but wants more clarity on the aspects of density and affordability. Mr. Perry agreed that clarity is important and having more detailed information will make it easier for any developer with regards to what can be done and what cannot be done. Mr. Perry feels that SSD and ARD have to be kept separate, as SSD responds to site sensitivity. Mr. Hornig echoed the thoughts of others and thought that site plan review is the appropriate compromise for the permitting process. Mr. Hornig thinks that it is important that the provisions of the new SPRD covers all the uses of the current SPRD.The big distinction between BHD and SSD is that BHD has limits on the size of the dwelling units whereas SSD does not. He said it is hard to construct one alternative that addresses all those desires. So he recommends to keep at least two paths. In terms of sliding scale schemes, in the past it failed because of it being inexplicable to the public. Ms. Hai said that, to make things clear to all, some modeling would be done. Ms. Murphy believes that two separate paths, site plan review and special permit, are needed. She feels everything will be rushed with the sixty day or ninety day time frame and that builders will take advantage of it and it will lead to developments that are not appropriate for the area. Mr. Hornig asked for an example of what would be not appropriate. Ms. Murphy went on to say that overcrowding and architecture that will change the character of a neighborhood are some of the examples of inappropriate developments. Mr.Trietsch said that the challenge is to balance town wide priorities along with neighborhood concerns. Ms. Manz agreed with the majority saying that the committee should go with the site plan review. Ms. Manz thinks that with the long list of regulations that the planning board has, and the regulations that can be added when deemed appropriate, enough protection can be provided to address Ms. Murphy's concerns. And it would also provide a speedier and certain process. Ms. Manz also agrees with Mr. Perry to have two alternatives and to have an affordable housing component in both. Ms. Hai added her opinion by saying that she is in favor of the site plan review concept and said that the regulations can be bolstered in such a way that the review criteria are clear and they meet the goals of the committee. Ms. Hai had some concerns about going to a single path because each site in Lexington is different, leading to different criteria,which might make it challenging to put all the contingencies for each project into one single, linear path. Ms. Hai feels that there should be flexibility to allow creativity. Ms. Weiss said she is also concerned about one path and prefers more than two paths. She feels that balanced housing afforded more density but Ms. Weiss wanted a moderate component, and the site sensitive should have an affordable component; public benefit should have a higher affordable component to it. So she wants to make sure that there is enough flexibility to allow other options.There was a unanimous decision to add affordable housing units as a key element to whatever path was taken. 2. Discussion of open questions for draft Mr.Trietsch went over the list of questions that were earlier circulated among the members for discussion. Ms. Hai re phrased the question as to whether the committee wants to limit the number of buildings to the same number of buildings that would be allowed in a conventional development. Mr.Trietsch said the committee needed clarification on the permitted design features, that the language could be simplified and that with affordable units, density could be a tradeoff and clustering will be a factor to be noted. The next question was about the dimensional requirements for site sensitive development being 15 feet between buildings on a common lot, 500 square feet of outdoor space exclusive to each residence, 650 square feet minimum floor area for each residence. Mr.Trietsch asked the committee that with flexibility being a priority for the committee, how specific they wanted to be with these numbers? Ms. Murphy went on to say that she thinks 600 or 650 square feet is appropriate for a small unit, considering the one bedroom one bath units in Emerson gardens and Muzzey Condominiums, it is reasonable space. Mr. Hornig said that was no need to come up with a minimum number as there is a minimum number in the building code and he does not see a problem with the present 550 square feet. Mr. Cooper said that if Site Sensitive Development is being kept, as well as the alternative path and if Site sensitive development is working, the focus should be more on Alternative residential development, in terms of giving flexibility. But if there is an opportunity to improve the Site sensitive development, then it should be improved. Particularly with the individual outdoor space, Mr. Cooper feels that it is not necessary and it hampers developers in some ways and he wants the committee to consider eliminating that. Mr. Cooper said that though initially he thought that 650 square feet was small, hearing the opinions of other committee members, he feels since there is a market for that, and it would be affordable, he is in favor of the minimum being 650 square feet. Mr. Cooper is also fine with not coming up with a new minimum number as suggested by Mr. Hornig. Mr. Perry agreed fully with Mr. Hornig that since the minimum square feet is already specified in the building code, it should not be changed as it will allow more flexibility. Ms. Weiss agreed with Mr. Hornig with regards to minimum square feet and cited the example of 186 Bedford Street having a 500 square feet dwelling. Ms. Manz also agreed that there is no requirement for minimum size limit and the market will take care of that. Ms. Manz also feels that the 500 square feet open space is very problematic,feels maybe the committee needs to specify some level of designated private open space, but thinks that 500 square feet is too much. Ms. Murphy agreed with Ms. Manz on the requirement for outdoor space; feels it is too limiting. Mr.Trietsch discussed the draft for the site sensitive development, one affordable unit for every ten market rate units, and the option of paying into a housing trust fund if, the number of units is less than ten, once the fund is established.The issue, Mr.Trietsch said is not about money, but it is about site control and permitting to get an affordable development through and the option to relocate the affordable unit sites offsite. Mr.Trietsch asked the comments of the committee in this regard. Mr. Horning said that the issue with inclusionary housing in Site sensitive developments is that historically Site sensitive developments have had very few dwelling units. So Mr. Hornig wanted to know with as few as two or three units built, what will the ask be in terms of the number of inclusionary housing. And he went on to say that it is very hard to get the required ten percent on site, unless insisted and that makes the whole site sensitive development very unattractive. He said he is comfortable with the option of making payments in lieu of inclusionary housing. Mr. Hornig mentioned that Lexhab went to the select board asking for funding to execute their goals. He also feels that offsite option may also be appropriate. Ms. Manz said that it is key to have some Fund to receive the funds in order to be appropriately applied. And she liked the idea of creating a housing trust or housing corporation and in association with Lexhab, it could be used to create and maintain units and so was in favor of payment in lieu as long as the funds are used appropriately. Mr. Cooper asked whether the current Site Sensitive Development has an inclusionary requirement. Charles responded saying that it does not currently. He said he is fine with the ten percent and also with the payment in lieu. He said that if site sensitive development is retained, it should be for a different purpose, and the focus should be on inclusionary requirement. Mr. Cooper then said that the committee should focus on alternative residential development as the option for achieving inclusionary housing, especially workforce housing. Mr. Cooper said that he is in favor of two different options, in order to achieve the committee's goals, Site sensitive development should be tinkered with to improve it, but the primary focus should be on the Alternative residential development. Ms. Kowalski had two comments, one being the danger of an option of not requiring an affordable unit,which is the current situation.The other comment pertains to site sensitive developments with a very small number of units—by giving the option to the developer to build a minimum number of units in order to use this bylaw, the message conveyed to the developer is to produce a certain number of units. Instead it has to be designed to produce smaller units, since Lexington lacks smaller units. Ms. Kowalski hopes that the committee considers that there should be at least one affordable unit anytime this option was leveraged. Ms. Hai made an observation on a point that Mr. Hornig made regarding Lexhab, which is the largest producer of affordable housing in Lexington. Ms. Hai was wondering why when any kind of alternative to production on site is created, it could not be directly partnered with Lexhab, whose main focus is affordable housing. And Ms. Hai wondered that in the interim time between the forming of the housing trust or the housing board, if it is an option to partner with Lexhab and asked Ms. Kowalski to check the option with the town counsel. Ms. Manz said that the report is in its very early stages and there are a lot of decisions to make and she would appreciate if they could be deferred to the next meeting. Ms. Weiss mentioned about the affordable housing stabilization fund and she is in favor of directing the funds directly to Lexhab in order to produce more units. Ms. Weiss said it is important that the site sensitive development has an affordable housing component as part of it. 3. Update on proposed housing related warrant articles for ATM 2022 Mr. Hornig said that there are three articles on the warrant for the town meeting that are related to the committee.The first being the proposal of the planning board to bring back the open space residential development in essentially the same form as that was brought to the last town meeting. Mr. Hornig said that the public hearing for this article is on February 2nd and he encouraged people to participate in it. Mr. Horning also hoped the committee would support this proposal. The second being the planning board's proposal regarding bringing forward a mixed use development and the public hearing for it is on Feb 16th.The third one is a citizen petition from a group that wants to encourage various sustainable design requirements in new housing, and for more details Ms. Cindy Aarons should be contacted. Ms. Hai agreed that she has significant concerns about further encouraging conventional subdivision and single family large structures, both of which not being climate friendly. 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes for December 8, 2021. Ms. Hai moved that the committee approve the minutes of December 8, 2021. Mr. Perry seconded the motion.The committee voted in favor of the motion 4-0-2 (Roll call: Mr. Cooper-yes; Ms. Hartshorn-yes; Mr. Hornig-yes; Ms. Murphy—yes; Mr. Perry-yes. Ms. Weiss-abstained; Ms. Hai-abstained). MOTION PASSED. Adjourn Ms. Hai moved that the committee adjourn the meeting of January 12, 2022. Mr. Perry seconded the motion.The committee voted in favor of the motion 7-0-0( Roll call: Mr. Cooper-yes; Ms. Hartshorn-yes; Mr. Hornig-yes; Ms. Murphy—yes; Mr. Perry-yes. Ms. Weiss-yes; Ms. Hill — yes). MOTION PASSED. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 am.