Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-03 PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 2016 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Battin Hall, Cary Memorial Building, was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chair Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti. Present were board members Charles Hornig, Tim Dunn, Richard Canale, and Ginna Johnson, supported by planning staff Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman. **** 2016 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING – ARTICLE HEARINGS **** FHA: AIR OUSING CT Mr. Hornig explained the Fair Housing law, which prohibits the consideration the potential presence of children in housing when making recommendations or decisions in land use. RFAR: ESIDENTIAL LOOR REA ATIO Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti called the public hearing to order at 7:07 p.m. there were 86 people in the audience. Ms. Johnson delivered a presentation on the background on the Residential Floor Area Ratio Article, explaining the trends, teardowns, and dimensional controls (setbacks), including Gross Floor Area (GFA). Residential zoning in other communities was discussed. Mr. Tom Harden presented the article for GFA and how it was calculated and what those homes would look like next to the smaller homes on smaller lots. Two proposed GFA maximums were discussed. Audience Comments:  Which limit are the permits at risk being held to the high or low? The date of advertising will run through the FAR through the low filter. Developers may proceed at their own risk.  Want to support the changes but would not support anything that would not permit a garage, basement and first floor bedroom.  How many lots in Town conform to those side requirements? About 2/3 of the lots in each district are non-conforming on lot size.  The Assessors Database was considered to have inaccurate data and now we are being asked to vote on these questionable statistics. The data was collected to provide useful background information.  I have a house that is a teardown and am in contract as of January 14 will have a significant impact? Is there way to not be in limbo? Staff said that Planning Board could do a date certain and there are some downsides. This could create long-term backlash and needs to be considered. The Board should not commit tonight and discuss this issue at a future date.  I am afraid Floor Area Ratio (FAR) will affect very small lots because they cannot build a livable home with that FAR. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2016  This effects other teardowns and may force people out of Town who want one additional bedroom on an undersized lot.  Has there been a financial study done on the fiscal impact this would make on the Town. The Town itself has not performed a fiscal analysis at this time. It would be reckless to go ahead with this proposal.  Is it possible to put a date on it now for homeowners and developers? It is possible.  When the Planning Board makes a proposal it is creating a law and urge the Planning Board to put a date to this.  The Planning Board does not make the law; Town Meeting makes the law, including the effective date.  When the Board decides on the high or low line, will there be another public meeting on that? No, not like this. How will the high and low amounts be determined and where did they come from? It came from two different approaches. All dimensional controls are a balancing act and based on different opinions on what is appropriate, what other communities have done, and looking at site design based on what has been done.  Why are you looking build smaller houses? Lexington is losing smaller houses, prices are rising, and this proposal is a way to maintain diversity and moderate pricing. This is also about large houses that are affecting abutters’ quality of life.  I live on a small lot in a small old house and was told that it would be more cost effective to rebuild this old house. I feel the high option would be best and allow us to rebuild to a reasonable size.  Create solar rights provisions.  Zoning requirements could make properties more valuable. Add the four corners limit to height. Central Air conditioner units and generators should not be allowed inside setbacks.  The Board should consider making the analysis at the time the building permit is pulled not when the CO is issued.  There is strong support the low option, which will really make a difference.  We are running out of time – 10 percent of houses in the past 10 years have been torn down and waiting any longer would jeopardize more houses.  We were told our house would be worth $50,000 less if this proposal goes through but not affect the large lots. The standards are arbitrary and based on preferences.  This is very controversial and needs more work. Consider putting it off to next year due to impact on the elderly and their property.  Do not believe the property value will not go down but the quality of life is will get better.  There has not been a professional assessment done. There are many professionals working hard on this project to help the residents of Lexington.  Lexington had 13 open houses and there was nothing under one million. Lexington is losing its diversity. Believe this is moving in the right direction by bringing this proposal to Town Meeting to address this problem on small lots.  This has a large impact on the elderly and losing $50,000 to $100,000 is a problem. There should be something to address the problem, but take pause to consider the impact on these big changes. There will be data submitted to the Planning Board with fiscal impacts to be considered by the Board.  Drive around Town to see what is happening: the houses are too big on too small a lot.  My house was built in late 1950s and with the proposed dimensional controls if I sold the property I could be out $50,000 to $100,000 and this is our investment so we can retire comfortably when we get older. Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2016 Page 3  A 3,600 square foot house is a reasonable size to raise a family and is worth over $1,000,000 and support the low level dimensions. Do not listen to developers or realtors any house in Lexington will sell.  Want the lower sized houses to be approved, when put your house on the market people will buy it. There should be more diversity in houses made available.  This is going after the wrong problem try to reduce the height.  Adopt the higher FAR and if it needs to modify then lower it.  Support fully to bring forward to Town Meeting and let them decide. Comments can still be sent to staff at planning@lexingtonma.gov. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. SYHL: IDE ARD EIGHT IMITS Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti called the public hearing to order at 8:33 p.m. There were 86 people in the audience. Mr. Canale delivered a presentation on limiting the height of houses on lots with reduced setbacks. The proposed heights are based on the reduced setbacks showed how it would affect an abutter’s property. Audience comments and question:  Explain that the restrictions on dormers may be found in the definition of half story.  Consider lowering the maximum height to 35 feet from 40 feet.  The graphics here do not show how much shadow these houses create. It can affect people with seasonal affective disorder.  Has there been thought to address the issue with the shape of the house?  What can the Town do to prevent someone to prevent a tall basement and mounding up the land? The Building Department requires a certified plot plan that shows existing topography.  Why doesn’t Lexington have a site plan review? If there was a house that broke the rule and Building Department does not discover in time what happens? If someone created a zoning violation and is caught within a certain period then the developer could be required to correct the error. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. TFH: WO AMILY OMES Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti called the public hearing to order at 9:00 p.m. There were 50 people in the audience. Mr. Hornig delivered a presentation regarding two-family homes. The reason for their creation would be to create more moderate-sized and market rate units in new construction that are under one million dollars. There should be a place for two family units in the community. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2016 Audience comments and questions:  Would it have to be a duplex? The Board should encourage separate units, one above and below to provide housing for seniors.  Is the two-unit condominium considered a two family dwelling? Yes.  Do both units have to be owned by the same owner? Zoning may not distinguish ownership.  How much frontage would be required? It would be the same for a one family or two family home.  What neighborhoods would be targeted?  Be careful how this is presented otherwise the Town could wind up with condominiums in areas where it may not be appropriate. You could be restrictive with more items if left wide open it may not be supportive.  Have traffic impact studies been done when increasing the density of these homes? It would not really have any major impact as we have seen in the past.  Is this only for new construction? No existing homeowner could convert under this change.  Where could these houses be built? This proposal would be permitted town-wide by right. There has been a suggestion to require a special permit.  You are eliminating single-family houses.  Like two-families, they offer opportunity, but not the way they are recommended now. Many houses that are fine now would be replaced by two family homes to sell square footage. The proposal as is needs size constraints otherwise, they would be two large units.  This article should be indefinitely postponed and should stop trying to regulate size and it should be thought through before turning Lexington into a city. Long-term impacts are not being considered. This article would have a big impact on our lives.  This is a sensible proposal and would be a reasonable alternative for a more varied community for young professionals, the elderly, or families to be raised in a smaller home. Do not believe there will be a rush of two-family houses, but provide more sustainable and affordable opportunities.  The FAR should be considered for these.  Do not support this by right and some people may not want this in their neighborhood.  There are many staff that would like to live here, this article might allow for that opportunity.  There is a shortage of affordable housing in Lexington, we cannot hope to maintain the smaller houses in Lexington and must create more density.  Great to have two family homes but must decide where they should be located especially where there is transportation available.  It is too late to decide where to put these houses; this should be done by special permit.  Would it be lawful for to have a GFA specifically created for smaller two family homes. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 9:51 p.m. AA: CCESSORY PARTMENTS Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti called the public hearing to order at 9:52 p.m. There were 40 people in the audience. Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2016 Page 5 Mr. Hornig delivered a presentation regarding accessory apartments, which have been allowed since 1983. There are currently about 200 such units in Town. This would help families care for older parents or adult children. There are no restrictions on who can live in them. This is a flexible response to a need in Lexington. This article would reduce or eliminate six restrictions that are currently imposed. Not all homes would qualify. Audience comments and questions:  Consider doing this by special permit to allow for more room for children, caregivers, and older parents instead of limiting to 1000 square feet.  Roomers: Three seems to be excessive with this proposal.  Do not remove the ownership piece. If you do not require owner occupancy, it would create cause for concern.  A sensible increase in rental units is good.  This proposal should be tabled and needs more discussion.  The concept of accessory apartments is good but the owner should live in the building. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to close the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. Names of those who submitted comments for all these proposals were read off and a list are on file in the Planning Office. ************************* MINUTES ************************* The minutes of January 6 were deferred to the next meeting. ********************** STAFF REPORTS ********************** NIRL:BCC OTICE OF NTENT TO SELL ECREATION AND ELMONT OUNTRY LUB The Board discussed their thoughts on the Towns right of first refusal to purchase the land owned by the Belmont Country Club. The Board suggested that the Town purchase the land and lease it out to the Montessori School. This matter will be discussed at a future date in more detail. ***** UPCOMING MEETINGS & ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE ***** The Board requested an agenda item to discuss the CPC articles being brought forward to Town Meeting. The Board should also identify other articles they might want to take a position on. TMMAISZAM10,2016: NFORMATION ESSION ON ONING RTICLES ARCH The Planning Board chair should discuss with Mr. Friedlich the Warrant Articles to be presented on March 10 to the TMMA. Staff will send out updated future agendas. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of February 3, 2016 Staff is aware of the issues with the postings and wanted to advise the public that all posting requirements are being met, but wanted to let the Board and public know that the issues are being addressed. ********************* BOARD REPORTS ********************* The Annual MAGIC Legislative Breakfast will be on Friday. ********************** ADJOURNMENT ********************** On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to adjourn at 10:42 p.m. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on file with the Planning Department:  Names of people who submitted comments to the Board received since 1/27/16 (1 page).  Fair Housing Act PowerPoint dated February 3, 2016 (3 pages).  Residential Floor Area Ratio PowerPoint (5 pages).  Accessory Apartments PowerPoint (2 pages).  Two-Family Homes PowerPoint (2 pages).  Side Yard height limits PowerPoint (3 pages).  Amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to Accessory Apartments draft (2 pages).  Amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to two-Family Dwellings (6 pages).  Document regarding Notice of intent to sell the Belmont Country Club dated January 14, 2016 (58 pages). Ginna Johnson, Clerk