Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-23-SPRD-min Page 1 of 4 Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc committee Meeting minutes of February 23, 2023 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, Betsey Weiss, Wendy Manz, Heather Hartshorn Lexington Staff present for the Public Meeting: Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Siqing Pan Moderator: David Trietsch Ms. Hai opened the meeting at 7:01 pm and introduced the members of the committee. Presentation of proposed SPRD zoning bylaw amendment Ms. Manz presented the slides describing the goals, purpose, committee process, features of the zoning proposal, including affordable housing requirements. She explained that the Committee received input from realtors, housing advocates, developers, and Lexington gro ups and committees. Steve Heinrich 11 Potter Pond introduced himself. He explained he was from a condo community. He urged that the Town build appropriate housing. Town Meeting conclusions has mostly resulted in large single-family homes. Homes have grown in size at Potter Pond from 1100 sq feet to 2300-2400 sq feet, the largest being 4-bedroom units. In 40 years, the cost to maintain the units have risen and they don’t get new families. They get retirees. They try to attract families to make it more of a community. Will the proposed new constructions be homeowner associations? With $500-$800 fees, and taxes, which added to the mortgage are high. It puts them out of the price range of many people. Lisa Harrington 47 Taft Avenue asked if these small developments don’t require acreage? Also, is committee considering relaxing zoning in individual neighborhoods to allow people to put duplex or two modest homes on their property? Lin Jensen, 133 Reed St asked, according to the current Town Meeting motion, does it mean that every lot could have multi-family or non-single family? Charles Hornig answered, only tracts that could host at least two compliant lots in residential parts of Lexington could host one of these developments, so very few places in Lexington. Ms. Jensen asked where in the bylaw does it say that? Second question: since only 6 units were built in SPRD to date, how many total homes have been built since 2008? Charles Hornig answered we don’t have that off -hand. Ms. Jensen responded, with the number she thinks it has produced hundreds, so it’s misleading. Page 2 of 4 Lexington negotiated to get affordable units because it wasn’t required. It would be more effective to have 6.9.7 and 6.9.8 combined into the current SPRD zoning bylaw. Ms. Hai said 6.9.4 is the section that states that two compliant lots are required. Jay Lucker 26 Rindge Ave. Town Meeting Member, asked if the Committee was just taking public comments. Mr. Trietsch responded that if it’s an easy, quick answer the committee will provide it. Mr. Lucker commented that “we want clear rules but also want to protect the tree canopy, how do we reconcile those, without unduly burdening production of new housing ? Article 25 will extend the Historical Commissions demo delay another 9 months. Would that create additional burdens?”. Sara Higginbotham 27 Byron Ave. explained she lived in the Peirce Lockwood Neighborhood Conservation District which has small houses like River Walk. The district was started to preserve small homes. She asked to hear more about how the developers will buy into this plan. Pam Hoffman, 4 Rangeway, TMM Precinct 7 asked if the new SPRD would apply to any of the parcels in the MBTA Multi-family districts. Charles Hornig replied yes, but the MBTA may be more worthwhile economically. Ms. Hai responded to Mr. Heinrich’s comment about “trying to keep things affordable”. She clarified that the committee is not able to put a restriction on what a developer decides to build; the developer may choose to do a purchase or rental, and that will be dependent on what the project is; but both are permissible, as they are today. Also, Ms. Hai explained that this Committee was charged strictly with proposing anamendment to the SPRD section of zoning to create incentives to build something other than single family, which is what the community has said it wants, but amending other areas of zoning is outside the committee’s authority M. Hornig responded adding to Mr. Heinrich’s comment that the subsidy for affordable housing considers whatever fees exist from an HOA. The pricing mechanism takes the HOA fees into account to keep to affordable. Regarding lots anywhere in Lexington, the Planning Board has looked at several initiatives over the years, this committee was created when Town Meeting ferred a citizen’s proposal on this topic to Select Board. In terms of developments in transit locations, the Planning Board is pursuing article 34. Mr. Hornig was sure it will be taken up again after these initiatives are acted on by Town meeting. Jenny Richlan asked what specific feedback have the committee received from developers. And asked to see the development slide again. Mr. Trietsch answered that the committee has asked developers, including Richard Perry, member of the committee. Ms. Weiss then reviewed the details of the slide that Ms. Richlan asked about, the table comparing Open Space Residential Page 3 of 4 Development and Special Residential Development. Ms. Richlan appreciated the work and thanked the committee, and hopes it will get the Town to its goals. George Sacerdote 15 Loring Road, asked about the affordable units, and the level of subsidy. What is there to stop people from flipping them after they buy them? Mr. Hornig explained the legally binding restrictions that are placed on the affordable units. Lin Jensen expressed concern about going from Special Permit to Site Plan Review. She wanted to know, in researching this, have we seen other communities in metro Boston that do this? In Concord, River Walk was by a Special Permit. Have other towns done this by right? Mr. Hornig replied that there are alternative development bylaws that use Site Plan Review or by right. We can identify some. In the next few years 175 communities will have site plan review, by right. It will be extremely common in a just a few years. Ms. Jensen asked why no limits are proposed around the property. It will be more likely to combine two homes to qualify for this. Ms. Hai clarified the existing setbacks and lot requirements on the perimeter of the lot . It’s just for the individual lots in the interior that will not have specific requirements. Lizabeth Yass 47 Coolidge Avenue Precinct 6, mentioned that she represents many residents. When would applications go into effect, how long will it be binding? She was curious about developer pressure to make changes to this bylaw. Could it be changed in a year or two? Mr. Hornig replied, technically in effect when Town Meeting votes, in practice, 3-6 months after Attorney general approves it. Any bylaw can be changed by Town Meeting. Eric Spenser 43 Coolidge Avenue was curious about the goals, measurability, considering entire housing inventory, if the plan succeeds what is the ideal percentage of different housing types the committee want to see? He expressed that if it hasn’t been developed that he’d love to see that. He asked if there is a plan to adjust it to get closer to the goal the committee seeks. Mr. Hornig replied that this committee is temporary, will dissolve after this Town Meeting. The ongoing maintenance of the zoning bylaw is the Planning Board’s responsibility, and housing will continue to be on our minds. Final decision will be made at the Town Meeting. Ms. Hai added that the Planning Board, Select Board,the Housing production Plan, and Lexington Next, the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Planning Board this past fall and the last two Vision for Lexington surveys all expressed goals of allowing a diversity of housing types to encourage a variety and diversity of people to live in Lexington. Jay Luker mentioned that he is on Cluster Housing Study group. He asked about the payment in lieu option. Does the committee think there are scenarios when a developer would build an affordable unit anyway, and how did the we calculate the fee? Did we reference the Regional Housing Service Office’s guidelines? Richard Perry replied, we had a subcommittee. We knew we wanted 15% inclusion, came up with a formula for how a builder would. Ms. Manz asked/re-stated the question; would a builder opt to build? Mr. Perry said it would be unlikely. Mr. Hornig said that a landowner Page 4 of 4 would know ahead of time what they would have to pay. It would be in the regulations, not in the bylaw because construction cost will change. Lin Jensen asked about the “purposes” section of the bylaw, specifically preserving the site and historic resources. Is there specific language on sustainability? Mr. Hornig replied that the flexibility of these developments helps us protect historic buildings or environmentally sensitiveareas, through site plan review. The Planning Board can absolutely tell the builder to move the buildings to a different part of the site. Ms. Hai add ed,6.9.5 the threshold criteria, which now say that a Site Sensitive Development must be designed to protect these features. Ms. Jensen said she would prefer specific requirements on sustainability. Mr. Treitsch and Ms. Hai then asked the Committee members to describe more about their interest and expertise, and what they brought to the Committee. Committee then, since no further public comments were made, continued the meeting by planning the agenda for the next meeting on March 1, 2023. Ms. Manz said the committee may want to look at having an open space requirement for the Site Sensitive Developments, and it may want to limit the size and units in Site Sensitive Developments. Mr. Hornig added that the SPRD Committee needs to discuss its strategy considering the Planning Board hearing, which continues to the evening of March 1st. Ms. Hai added that we are scheduled for March 2 at about 8:15pm for Town Meeting Members Association. Adjourn Betsey Weiss moved that the SPRD committee to adjourn the meeting. It was duly seconded, and approved. The meeting was adjourned at 8:24pm.