Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-01-SPRD-min Page 1 of 6 Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) Ad-hoc committee Meeting minutes of March 1, 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; Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner; Julie Moore, Zoning administrator; Ragi Ramachandran, Administrative Assistant – LUHD Other attendees: David Trietsch, Consultant Ms. Hai chaired the meeting and called the meeting to order at 8:30am. 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 explained the specific tasks to be covered as part of the meeting. The committee has completed a large number of outreach sessions, presented to Sustainable Lexington and the final hearing with the Planning board is scheduled for the evening of March 1. The Town Meeting Members Information session is on March 2nd and on March 3rd is the session with the League of Women Voters. This is the committee’s chance to incorporate feedback and any final adjustments prior to the March 1 evening meeting with the Planning Board where the article will be voted on. Two major items to review in this meeting are the 1. Inclusion of an open space requirement and 2. Discussion about the maximum building size in an SSD. Ms. Hai explained that the main point of this entire bylaw is to create an alternative to an existing by right development of conventional subdivisions, which historically, are at the maximum building size, and have site plan review but cannot be stopped. The goal is to improve on what we already have in the bylaw. The improvements to the SSD are eliminating single family home requirement, adding requirement for inclusion housing production or payment, addingrequirement for regulations that protect natural features, and strengthen ing the language in the bylaw to protect the natural resources. In addition there have been requests to see if the committee could mandate some amount of open space and based on “test-driven” research and extensive consultations, it is proposed to be at 15%. There is no conservation restriction but this is common open space for the development. Mr. Perry thinks SSD will allow 15% common space and agrees with Ms. Hai. Page 2 of 6 Ms. Hai feels that it is a reasonable request for revision. If the changes are voted on this morning it can be presented to the Town counsel, to present to the Planning Board in the evening. Ms. Hai invited comments from anyone about including a 15% open space requirement – would apply both to SSD and CND. Mr. Hornig asks for clarification on the term “common space”. It is purely a common space with no additional limitations on the use of common open space. Ms. Hai affirms to that understanding that it is an unbuilt space, and accessible to all units. Ms. Manz suggests we take comments from Barbara Katzenberg and Tom Shiple who advocate for the 15% open space requirement. Barbara Katzenberg says she is a great proponent of this initiative. She feels it’s a modest request, and beneficial. She is thankful to the committee for taking it up. Mr. Hornig presents the definition for common space and shares that it is not open space or open woods, or such. It is a defined, developed, and maintained space. May comprise of a play structure, shade structure, or a shed for storing play equipment or be open. The 15% space is cumulative in the development. Place no additional requirements; leave the flexibility to put where it is appropriate; bound to decision following the site plan review. Ms. Murphy has a question on how it would impact individual common space or each unit ’s patio space or exclusive use space. Ms. Kowalski clarifies that there is presently no requirement for exclusive open space per dwelling or per building. She raises a question to clarify whether the setbacks can constitute some of the 15% requirement or not. She states that whatever the committee decides, it needs to be made clear in the motion. Mr. Hornig responds that it may not be required as the setbacks have always been allowed to be counted as open space, as long as the open space is accessible to everybody. Ms. Kowalski acknowledges the understanding to be true, and feels its necessary everyone recognizes that. Mr. Perry supports the 15% on the SSD but feels it could be restrictive on the CND. Ms. Hai clarifies that with regard to CND, the idea was it would be a way of encouraging the cottage court style development. Mr. Cooper supports for both SSD and CND’s although he recognizes Mr. Perry’s point. He feels it improves the bylaw, and assure people that we are not packing a ton of units onto a very tight space. Tom Shiple states 1. Should there be specific language on what would go in the open space and how it will be maintained. 2. Are there any lessons learned from the few balanced housing, and public benefit projects done over the years that have open space requirement, particularly on the lines of Keeler farm, where the open space was potentially absorbed into the individual space. Page 3 of 6 Mr. Hornig explains the history of how common space has been perceived and implemented according to public needs and demands in various developments, the influence of people in the development and around the development in the decision making. For instance, the support for a large stand of trees or a play area or a picnic bench, it varies. Ms. Katzenberg asks if site plan review and by right development would help allev iate the excessive influence from the neighbors/residents in the development. Ms. Hai states that the Planning Board has the ability to determine in its own judgement under the site plan review, design and guidelines whether something is in fact compliant or not. Mr. Perry asks if we can vote separately for the SSD’s and CND’s. Ms. Hai responds in the affirmative. Mr. Cooper asks if we can have two categories, 15% for the SSDs and at least 10% for the CNDs. Ms. Hai explains that we are late in the game to make such a decision. She asks Zoning Administrator Julie (Krakauer) Moore for her feedback; given the current GFA calculation and the setbacks, what is the amount of existing open space? Ms. Moore feels it depends on the development. Mr. Kelly says 15% open space is feasible and certainly achievable. An open space is essentially setbacks. Ms. Hai says the general tone from the Public hearing is that people aren’t fond of adding an HOA so it is important to keep things affordable. Mr. Shiple feels that this proposal is weak as the 15% is met by the setbacks already, and there are no additional requirements. Ms. Katzenberg supports Mr. Shiple’s argument. Ms. Manz feels from a political standpoint and as part of the wide input received, it would be better to include a number even if only for the SSD’s. It would be reassuring for people. Ms. Hai asks if we need to restrict it to “common open space” or is having 15% of open space sufficient, undeveloped land in essence? Mr. Hornig feels it should be common open space as that is defined whereas an “open space” doesn’t have a proper definition. Mr. Cooper favors it for both categories, SSD and CND. He feels it helps drive design when developers are planning their development. Mr. Perry is open with both as long as it could include the setbacks in the common open space. Ms. Hai moved, to ask the Town counsel to amend the language of Article 33 Motion to include a 15% common open space requirement in both SSD and CND. It was seconded. The SPRD committee voted in favor of the motion 7-1-0 (Roll call: Cooper – yes, Hartshorn – yes, Manz – yes, Hornig – No, Murphy – yes, Perry – yes, Weiss – yes, Hai - yes). Motion passed 7 to 1 in favor. Page 4 of 6 Ms. Hai mentioned the next topic of discussion is the maximum building size in an SSD. She provided the background on why this change is necessary. It is based on much feedback received and in consultation with the Town counsel on how it might be addressed. SSD – limits the number of buildings CND – limits the size of the units Mr. Hornig shared a write up of what Ms. Hai was proposing, Proposed 6.9.7.1 and 6.9.7.4. Ms. Hai said the essence of the proposal was correct though the verbiage will be finalized by the Town counsel. Mr. Hornig says he is in favor of this proposal. Ms. Manz agrees but would like to hear from the other members as well. Mr. Cooper asks what if there is an existing historic building that exceeds those limits. Ms. Hai clarifies that it is exempted elsewhere, similar to in an OSRD. They agreed to add the historic building exemption to section 6.9.7.4. There is a definition for the historic building in the bylaw. Ms. Weiss asked if the historic building will be included in the total GFA. Ms. Hai and Mr. Hornig responded Yes. Mr. Shiple is in favor of this approach and likes how well it computes and is presented. Ms. Hai requests for Ms. Moore and Mr. Kelly’s feedback. Ms. Moore feels if the developer makes a payment-in-lieu option, how do those numbers compute? Mr. Hornig clarifies. Ms. Moore is comfortable with this approach. Ms. Hai moves to amend the maximum size (under 6.9.7.4) of the SSDs to conform to the existing GFA maximum size table, and that the number of buildings be limited to the minimum number required to accommodate the amount of the total allowable GFA. Exempting historic structures from that individual GFA cap. The verbiage to be finalized by the Town counsel. Mr. Cooper seconded. The SPRD committee voted in favor of the motion 8 -0-0 (Roll call: Cooper – yes, Hartshorn – yes, Manz – yes, Hornig – yes, Murphy – yes, Perry – yes, Weiss – yes, Hai - yes). Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Hai asks if there is anything else that needs to be addressed with respect to the tweaks to the language. Mr. Hornig suggests that given the brand-new language for Article 40, the committee change the Article 33 motion language to disconnect it from Section 4.4 so they don’t have to react in real time to every single change made to the proposal under Article 4 0. Mr. Hornig proposes Page 5 of 6 the committee adopts a simplified version of the current formula in 4.4, on which all of the SPRD Ad Hoc committee’s work to date is based, for its calculation. He presents the formula. Ms. Moore verifies that the formula works out fine. Ms. Hai summarizes that, in effect instead of referencing a particular table they would embed the effect of the current table in the Article, using the new language (involving the formula) as put forth by the Town Counsel. Ms. Murphy requests for further clarification on the change to the table in section 4.4. Ms. Hai explains that the table in section 4.4 is the one they are trying to incorporate. There is a separate article, Article 40, that initially exempted SRD, but now proposes to reduce that table. A late amendment was received on Monday, 2/27/23 that the reduction will now be applied to the SPRD or SRD. This will impact all the vetting they have done with all the builders as the numbers would change per the new math. There isn’t sufficient time from this meeting until the Planning Board meeting the same evening to review and address this change. The approach is to adopt this formula that Mr. Hornig is proposing to keep the SPRD efforts free standing. Mr. Shiple is concerned with this “decoupling” approach and feels it is a temporary fix and doesn’t address the actual problem. Ms. Hai clarifies that the problem is due to how late this notice was received. They don’t have the opportunity to vet the numbers. The alternative is to refer back Article 40 to the Planning Board to figure out the implications elsewhere throughout the zoning bylaw. Mr. Cataldo shared his thoughts about Article 40. Though it says it is a data driven effort, he hasn’t seen any data. He asks where is the data? He references to the approaches taken by other towns such as Concord, Carlisle, Newton, Brookline, Bedford and Weston. Mr. Cataldo is unhappy with the process for Article 40. He feels there should be more collaborative and transparent work in terms of following process and presenting data. Ms. Hai says these uncertainties are a reason why we are trying to decouple from Article 40. Ms. Kowalski says that the Town Meeting starts in 19 or 20 days. It’s possible that the Article 40 motion will continue to change in the upcoming days. The SPRD committee has vetted these assumptions and worked diligently for years to get to the point they are today. The inherent assumptions and decisions made by the committee has been well received. She recommends the committee move forward with the amendments/motion agreed upon today so that subsequent actions can take place. Town Meeting will make its decision on the separate articles based on their respective merits. Ms. Hai and the committee deliberate on the best way to include the table in section 4.4 with the intent to incorporate the numbers as they exist today into the bylaw. Ms. Hai will review this with the Town Counsel. Mr. Hornig further asserts that decoupling from Article 40 doesn’t impact the goals we are trying to achieve, and it is in-line with the goals. Page 6 of 6 Ms. Hai moves to incorporate into the bylaw the GFA table as it exists now, to be worded by the Town Counsel, in coordination with the zoning administrator, Building commissioner, and all the appropriate parties. It was seconded. The SPRD committee voted in favor of the motion 8-0-0 (Roll call: Cooper – yes, Hartshorn – yes, Manz – yes, Hornig – yes, Murphy – yes, Perry – yes, Weiss – yes, Hai - yes). Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Hai asks the committee if they wish totake a position and endorse a statement to the Town Meeting that says because Article 40 was not vetted, was received last minute, the committeerecommends that it be referred to the Planning Board because it requires more vetting, more research, and more understanding of the implications throughout the zoning bylaw. A statement will be written to the Planning Board in this regard. Town Meeting will be requested to either refer it to the Planning Board or simply not adopt at this time. Ms. Hai moves to make a motion and it was seconded. The SPRD committee voted in favor of the motion 8-0-0 (Roll call: Cooper – yes, Hartshorn – yes, Manz – yes, Hornig – yes, Murphy – yes, Perry – yes, Weiss – yes, Hai - yes). Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Hai and the members discuss the logistics of presenting to the Planning Board in the evening. The same will be presented at the TMMA session on Thurs 3/2/23, and at the League of Women Voters on Friday 3/3/23. Adjourn Ms. Hai moved to adjourn the meeting at 10.01 am. It was duly seconded, and approved by a roll call vote.