Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-21-SPRD-min Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc Committee Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2022 Special Permit Residential Development committee members present for the Public Meeting: Jill Hai, Chair; Scott Cooper, Joyce Murphy, Charles Hornig, Richard Perry, Betsey Weiss, Wendy Manz. 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 8:02 am. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia for future on-demand viewing. 1. Review of objectives in draft Comprehensive Plan and decisions made in earlier meetings Ms. Hai reiterated to the committee that the current goal of the committee was to come up with substantive decisions and based on these decisions and draft a bylaw later. Ms. Hai mentioned the upcoming vote on the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Board. Ms. Hai read out the objectives related to production of a range of housing types, which called for amending the Special Permit Residential Development provision of the Zoning Bylaw to encourage development consistent with the Town’s housing goals. Ms. Hai also read the objectives relating to adopting housing policies that foster the development of subsidized housing, which stressed the need for developing an inclusionary zoning policy that required developers to provide for lower-income residents. Ms. Hai reminded the committee about the details of the votes passed by the committee in earlier meetings, with the ultimate goal of increasing the diversity of the unit type and reducing unit size and listed them. 1. Number of paths – to retain 2 options, SSD and a to-be-named alternative (ARD) 2. Not to change the setbacks and the existing dimensional controls in conventional subdivisions. 3. No minimum unit size Ms. Hai also reminded the committee about the agreement by the members to remove the story limit, as long as there is no impact on the visual element of the house. 2. Decide on the affordable component, including incentives, and whether to allow payment in lieu of units for smaller SPRD’s Based on the votes and decisions by the committee, Ms. Hai wanted the committee to reflect on the extent of affordability that should be prescribed and come up with a required percentage and a reasonable cut off point, which will not hinder production. Ms. Kowalski recollected her conversation with a local developer, who came up with a percentage of 15%, and added that the Planning Director recommended 20% contribution towards affordable housing. Mr. Hornig reminded the committee that Open Space Residential Development came up with 20% towards affordable housing, with 50% of it being SHI and 50% of it being workforce housing, and since it passed the Town Meeting, it is a good number to aspire for. Mr. Cooper wanted to know if the 20% requirement will impact developments of 5 or more and wanted Mr. Perry to think if it was reasonable for a developer having one out of his 5 units set aside for affordable housing. Ms. Hai said that his point stresses the importance of coming up with a formula that makes a true contribution to affordable housing, and at the same time being feasible for the developers. Mr. Perry thought that 20% would be high, especially for small developments which are 10 units or less. Mr. Perry thought a stepped approach will be a good option. Mr. Perry suggested having something like 15% for 1 to 10 units and 20% for more than 10 units and under 5 units will have to make a financial contribution. Ms. Weiss agreed with Mr. Perry, who confirmed that the cost of the land should not be factored in for the calculation of payment in lieu. Mr. Hornig said that with ARDs, he is not sure if we will be getting the maximum average unit size and he does not think that there will be many small developments. Mr. Hornig also thought that payment in lieu can work towards full cost of production and that allowing partial units to be done as a payment in lieu was reasonable. Mr. Hornig added that 20% actually amounts to 10% towards Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) and 10% at a higher price than SHI. Ms. Hai said that for the 15%, it should amount to 10% for SHI and 5% for the moderate income housing. Ms. Kowalski said that members of the public will expect that the future SPRDs will always produce at least one affordable unit and wanted the committee to come up with a reasonable explanation for the public to understand that some SPRDs may not produce affordable units and the reasoning behind that proposition. Ms. Kowalski also said that when accepting a payment in lieu, it is actually accepting payment for a future unit that will be produced on a to be purchased land and it has to be factored in the calculation of the payment in lieu figure. Ms. Hai said that the calculation of payment in lieu should be outside the purview of the bylaw and should be part of a regulation, so that it will be more reactive to the current environment. Mr. Cooper wanted clarification on 15% for units less than 10, and he recommended that maybe for units 5 and under to require a payment in lieu and, for up to 10 units have one unit and payment in lieu in addition and, over 10 units would require a 20% of units. Ms. Hai confirmed the recommendation and added that of the 20%, 10% would be SHI and 10% would be income restricted housing. Mr. Hornig said that this percentage would only impact SSDs and since the units in ARDs will be much smaller, it will not create much impact. Mr. Perry recommended that for units under 6, there should be a payment in lieu equaling a 15%; for units between 7 and 10, the requirement should be one unit and additional payment that would equal 15% in total; and for units over 10, the requirement would be 20%. Ms. Kowalski said at least an outline of the required regulations and the optional design guidelines must be drafted before the draft bylaw is presented to the Town Meeting. 3. Set up Timeline, Milestones to meet Annual Town Meeting 2023 deadlines Ms. Kowalski shared a document which listed the milestone dates for the SPRD committee to prepare and present to the annual Town Meeting and Ms. Hai went over the dates and the tasks in detail. Ms. Manz volunteered to reach out to the stakeholders in town who have common agendas with the committee and approach them and share the committee’s proposal and get their feedback. Mr. Hornig informed the committee that the Planning Board is also planning to reach out to the stakeholders regarding the MBTA community housing and that the communication should clearly demarcate the purposes of both the efforts. Ms. Weiss suggested having a slide deck which will help communicate clearly. Mr. Cooper wanted the committee to come up with a name for the bylaw. The committee members gave their preferences on naming the bylaw. It was decided to create a list of preferred names and decide on one by vote. 4. Upcoming Meetings The Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc Committee decided to tentatively hold the next meeting on Wednesday October 12th at 8 a.m. Adjourn Mr. Perry moved that the SPRD committee adjourn the meeting of September 21st, 2022. Mr. Cooper seconded the motion. The SPRD Committee voted in favor of the motion 7-0-0 (Roll Call Hornig- yes, Perry-yes, Cooper- yes, Weiss- yes, Murphy- yes, Hai- yes, Manz-yes). MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting was adjourned at 9.39 a m. List of Documents 1. ATM 2023 SPRD Milestone dates.