Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-24-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 1 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday January 24, 2024, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Robert Peters, Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Robert Creech, Charles Hornig, and Michael Leon, associate member. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan McNamara, Planner; Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator; Sandhya Iyer, Economic Development Director; James Kelly, Building Commissioner; Lorraine Welch, Senior Economic Development Coordinator; Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Planning Coordinator. Robert Peters, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, January 24, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia is filming this meeting and will record it for future viewing here. Detailed information for remote participation by the public may be found on the Planning Office web page. Mr. Peters conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Peters provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that materials for this meeting are available on the Town's Novus Packet dashboard. Development Administration 69 Pleasant St./Linc Cole Lane – Minor Modification request to modify the 2022 site sensitive special permit residential development’s site coverage and impervious surface Applicant requests minor modification of 2022 special permit decision to increase the site coverage and impervious surface as the plans for the individual houses have developed. The applicant, Mr. Cataldo, was present was represented by his project engineer Mr. Michael Novak, from Patriot Engineering. Mr. Novak explained that the amendment request was to allow an increase in both the total maximum allowed site coverage and the approved total impervious surface as the house plans have now been further development. Mr. Novak said that the reason for the request was to accommodate the architectural features of both the existing house and the construction of the moderate housing unit and that no increase in GFA was requested. Mr. Novak shared the property rights plan and Mr. Cataldo gave a little background about the proposed plans for each of the lots on the plan and shared a rendering of the contemporary house. Mr. Novak also shared pictures of a few houses built by Mr. Cataldo on plots similar to 69 Pleasant St. Mr. Catalod reminded the Board which lots were to have houses of the transitional style and showed photos. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that Engineering staff reviewed the application and they did not have any concerns over drainage and stormwater management due to the modification and that she did not have any concerns. The updated plans include accommodations for stormwater. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Creech said that the size of the proposed houses and architectural design are agreeable to residents. Mr. Peters agreed with Mr. Creech and checked with Mr. Cataldo on the mitigation plans for storm water runoff. Mr. Cataldo responded that the designed erosion control was inspected by Engineering and was functioning as designed. Mr. Peters opened the meeting up to public comments. Public Comments: Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, wanted to know if any additional porch areas were being proposed and if GFA will be changed. Mr. Cataldo assured that the GFA on completion of the project will not be over the approved GFA. Laurel Carpenter, 94 Pleasant Street, wanted to know how this development could be termed a Site Sensitive Development. Mr. Peters and Mr. Hornig explained the process of Site Sensitive Development. Mr. Schanbacher moved to find the applicant’s request to increase the site coverage and impervious area to be a minor change to the plan approved in 2022 and does not materially change the project. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Schanbacher moved to approve the applicant’s request as described in narrative dated January eighth, 2024 and submitted a site construction plan revised through January fourth, 2024. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Mr. Schanbacher moved to allow the Chair to sign the decision. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Town Meeting Related Affordable Housing Trust (AHT) - Request for support for Town Meeting article seeking authorization to pursue affordable housing at Town-owned Parcel 68-44 at Lowell & North St. The Affordable Housing Trust is proposing a Town Meeting warrant article seeking authorization to pursue affordable housing opportunities on a Town-owned parcel at the corner of Lowell St. and North St. (Map 68, Lot 44). Elaine Tung, Chair of The Affordable Housing Trust (AHT), discussed the article with the Planning Board and sought support for the article. Ms. Tung gave an overview of the AHT’s work that culminated in bringing Article 33 to Town Meeting. Ms. Tung explained Article 33, the Article that is to be proposed by AHT to Town Meeting. Ms. Tung shared street views and a topographic plan of the parcel under consideration and gave details of its neighborhood amenities. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 3 of 9 Ms. Tung explained the anticipated process upon approval of the Article at Town Meeting. Ms. Tung stated that developing income restricted housing requires a multitude of funding sources and listed the potential public sources of funding. Ms. Tung emphasized the value of a demonstrated local commitment in leveraging funding and gave details about the tax credits and subsidies that can be availed. Mr. Peters asked if the type of affordable housing developer who would be interested in bidding for the projects. Ms. Tung replied saying that though it would be open for all, they anticipate a non- profit affordable housing developer would be interested. Mr. Peters added that Lexington is in the safe harbor for Subsidized housing inventory and this project will provide the advantage of improving the position to maintain the safe harbor with respect to 40 B. Mr. Creech thanked Ms. Tung for explaining the process and added that it helped him to understand the benefits of affordable housing. Ms. Thompson wanted to know the frontage details of the proposed development and the details of the amenities such as play area and where the driveway would be. William Erickson, a member of the AHT, responded saying that the frontage will be on Lowell Street and explained that they don’t know the amenities yet because it will be determined when a development comes forward. Mr. Leon thought this was a good location for affordable housing and asked if a preliminary feasibility analysis was done to determine the acceptable density on the property to determine the scope of the project. Mr. Erickson responded saying that a preliminary feasibility study was done to analyze the physical aspect of the site. Ms. Tung said based on the study it was determined that the site could support up to 50 units. Mr. Peters opened the meeting up to public comments. Public Comments: Andrei Golesteanu, 4 Northgate Circle, expressed his concerns to develop more than 50 units in the parcel citing parking and disturbance to wildlife in the area. Mark Lang, 2 Opi Circle, said he opposed the 50-unit development as it is a single-family neighborhood, and overcrowding of schools. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, wanted to know the height restriction on the property. Ms. McCabe responded that no specifications were available at the moment because when an RFP goes out a developer will respond with the specifics of a development project that will then go through the permit process. Mr. Hornig said it would be based on the comprehensive permit process which is an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Ms. Kowalski stated that all affordable developments, in order to be built, depend on a great number of subsidies from a great number of sources and that those sources might have different criteria. And the actual development will be dependent on many factors. Mr. Shiple added that at the maximum density of 50 units, the development would have 16 units per acre and said it was comparable it with other developments in Town. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 4 of 9 Tina McBride, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, wanted to know the area of the parcel. Nyles Barnert, Vice Chair of ZBA explained that the specific development project will need to go through the approval process will need to go the ZBA and also other boards. Mr. Lang said he believes this development would impact the neighbors. Ms. Jensen wanted to know who the ultimate owner of the development would be. Ms. Tung responded that the property would either be owned by the developer or it would be on a 99-year-old lease with the Town. Mr. Golesteanu wanted to know if all the units will be affordable housing. Ms. Tung replied saying that the AHT anticipated it to be all affordable rental units. Mr. Schanbacher said that though it is not the most ideal location for affordable housing, it is a good opportunity for more affordable housing development and it’s an opportunity because this is a property the Town owns. Mr. Hornig extended his support for this to go to Town Meeting and felt there was a lot of value in creating affordable housing. Mr. Peters added that the main advantage of the property is that it is owned by the Town and the Town can create affordable housing without land acquisition costs. Mr. Creech conveyed to the neighbors that their concerns will be addressed, as the development process proceeds and specifics of the project will be further developed. The Planning Board agreed to review the warrant article closer to Town Meeting and take a position. Tree Committee – Request for support for Town Meeting articles related to Tree Bylaw amendments (Tree Protection Plan, Mitigation Plantings, Exemptions) The Tree Committee has submitted three warrant articles to amend the Tree Bylaw (General Bylaw) for Annual Town Meeting. One requires a tree protection plan for retained protected trees, another adds a planting mandate to existing mitigation requirements, and the third creates administrative procedures around trees that are exempt from the bylaw. The Committee chair, Nancy Sofen, discussed their proposal with the Planning Board and sought the Planning Board's support. Ms. Sofen shared the screen and the details of Article 34, the proposal to amend the tree Bylaw and the tree protection plan. Ms. Sofen gave a brief recap of Lexington’s tree bylaw and its applicability and went over the process of protecting trees during a development. Ms. Soften explained the need for the amendment and the problems that it will address. Ms. Sofen shared pictures of the problems faced in protecting trees. Ms. Sofen informed that the Town manager had convened a bylaw enforcement working group to look at issues with the Tree bylaw enforcement group and came up with a tree protection plan and shared the process of the plan. Ms. Sofen summarized the proposed article and explained the protective measures. Mr. Peters wanted to know the rationale for the Town Council to remove some of the enforcement options offered by the enforcement working group. Ms. Sofen said that concerns were raised when the Tree Committee presented the options to the Select Board and promised to keep Mr. Peters posted on the developments. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Hornig wondered if the Tree Committee looked at the Planning Board’s site design regulations in section 176-12, and saw compatibility with what they are trying to achieve with their current Tree Bylaw amendment. Ms. Sofen said she will take a look at it to check the compatibility. Mr. Leon wanted to know if a landscape architect can help the Tree Committee and the specific reason why a certified arborist was required, especially with regards to the added cost to the developer. Ms. Sofen said that they took the advice of the bylaw enforcement working group and decided on it. Mr. Peters opened the meeting up to public comments. Public Comments: Jay Luker, Precinct one Town Meeting member, wanted to know who will be responsible for determining the cause of death of a tree within the one-year period. Ms. Sofen said that in the event of a natural disaster, they could file an appeal. Mr. Luker also asked the Board if Open Space Residential Developments could be scaled down to apply to a smaller lot to allow alternative forms of housing to be built by which trees could be retained. Ms. McCabe said that with the recent zoning changes, the regulations are consistent with the Tree Bylaw and liked the idea of a certified arborist certifying that the tree protection was in place, before signing off any building permits. Mr. Hornig said his interpretation of the Tree Bylaw was that it allows appeals on tree permits, but it does not allow the body to which you appeal to waive the provisions of the bylaw and asked Ms. Sofen to consider putting in a possibility for waivers of these requirements. Ms. Sofen said they will consider the suggestion. Ms. Jensen, wanted to know if the Town has the manpower to inspect the trees at the end of the year and wanted to know who will be in charge of checking it. Ms. Sofen said that usually nosey neighbors are the ones who report the health of trees to the Tree Committee. Ms. Sofen then explained the next Article, Article 36 that was proposed for the Annual Town Meeting. Ms. Sofen gave a brief recap of the bylaw, and went over the definition of hazardous and invasive trees. Ms. Sofen went over the current process of dealing with hazardous trees and the problems with the current process and how the new process would fix those problems. Ms. Sofen explained the exemptions for invasive trees. Mr. Hornig supported the new process of dealing with hazardous trees. Mr. Hornig had a concern about the provisions relating to hazardous trees that were expected to fail under normal conditions in the next two years, impacting a frequently used area causing personal injury and wanted to know the rationale behind it. Ms. Sofen said that the City of Cambridge had the same process and that an arborist had advised the committee to follow the approach. Mr. Hornig also felt that it was a better approach to deal with invasive trees with regulations just like how the Planning Board did by moving a lot of detailed lists from the bylaw to regulations and stated that invasive trees should be managed. Mr. Peters and Mr. Leon agreed with Mr. Hornig’s suggestion. Mr. Leon also stated that due to public safety concerns, he preferred the hazardous trees to be removed when appropriate and was not sure if the City of Cambridge could be Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 6 of 9 taken as a source of guidance. Mr. Schanbacher said the cost of hiring an arborist should be compared to the mitigation cost. Ms. Sofen gave a comparison of the costs and said that the mitigation cost was way more expensive than hiring an arborist. Ms. Sofen shared the presentation on Article 35 on mandatory street tree planting when mitigation was due, prepared by Dan Miller. The presentation started with the motivation for the Article and a brief summary of the proposal. Mr. Miller reviewed the Tree bylaw and shared pictures of examples around the Town where the Tree bylaw was not fully followed. Though Lexington has a 60% tree coverage, Mr. Miller stated that most of our trees lie in deep reservoirs like conservation land and big backyards. Mr. Miller shared 3D data to identify the tree canopy along a typical street in Lexington and a typical street in Cambridge and concluded that only 26% of the streetscape is shaded and that Lexington lacked public shade. Mr. Miller showed pictures to demonstrate how the tree canopy can make a 30o F temperature difference on hot summer days. Mr. Miller then discussed the proposed amendment that would require street tree planting and shared the guidelines for suitable planting sites and shared examples. Mr. Hornig stated that there is a provision similar to the proposed amendment in site plan review regulations and expressed his safety concern about overhead utility lines and tall trees. Ms. Sofen said the minimum distance from overhead wires would be established where large trees were to be planted. Public Comments: Mr. Luker remarked that since a lot of trees are lost in the creation of parking lots, leading to high temperatures, he hoped a lot of tree committee members would show up in meetings where parking requirements were relaxed. Mr. Luker also stated that developers who preserve natural resources should be rewarded with a density bonus. Mr. Peters appreciated Ms. Sofen’s efforts in presenting the proposed amendments to the Board and added that they will be considered by the Board later at a meeting closer to the Town Meeting date. The Board recessed at 8:09 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. Work Session for Town Meeting Planning Board will discuss their sponsored zoning amendment articles submitted for Town Meeting relative to the following sections of the Zoning Bylaw: The Board continued their discussion on the proposed zoning amendment articles to be presented at the Annual Town Meeting and started their discussion on § 6.10 -Short Term Rentals. Ms. McCabe shared the draft motion and the Zoning administrator, Ms. Krakauer Moore explained the changes that were proposed in this motion and summarized the changes since the last Planning Board meeting. Ms. Krakauer Moore explained that the proposed changes were to reduce the impact of short- term rentals on the abutters and the neighborhood. Mr. Creech felt that articles on MBTA housing and special residential developments were approved by Town Meeting to create housing for residents and not for creating vacation rentals and that it should be Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 7 of 9 specifically stated that multi family housing cannot be used as short- term rentals. Mr. Hornig gave a contrary view and felt that the bylaw did not encourage short term rentals and that short- term rentals have to be owner occupied or owner adjacent and that putting special restrictions on village overlay districts might lead to violations of standard set by Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC). Mr. Peters said that in his condominium association, as per their condominium bylaws, short term rentals are prohibited. Public Comments: Mr. Shiple pointed out some minor edits to the language. John Sawicky 44 Grove St, suggested an explicit provision for the total number of guests that should be allowed, in the bylaw and reiterated the need for a monitoring service to enforce the bylaw. The Board decided to continue further discussion during the public hearing scheduled for the seventh of February. The Board then discussed § 3.4 Table 1 Permitted Uses and Development Standards and 10.0 Definitions. Ms. McCabe shared the draft motion and went over the changes since the last meeting. The Board then discussed § 5.2 Signs & Definitions. Ms. McCabe said that she does not recommend exempting all protected uses under 40 A section 3 which refers to churches, religious institutions, educational institutions, childcare centers from all sign regulations. Ms. McCabe felt that the requirements for all other non-residential uses should be followed, which is what the Courts have ruled. Towns can regulate the time, placement, illumination, and sizes for signs as long it’s not based on the sign’s content. Mr. Hornig proposed making changes to the language pertaining to applicability as he felt that the regulations of signs for churches is significantly limited compared to the regulation for other uses. Mr. Leon disagreed with Mr. Hornig’s recommendation because he felt everybody overstates the scope of exemption and this exemption will not exist at any time. Mr. Creech also felt that there was no risk to not state the exemption. Mr. Hornig felt that the churches and educational institutions have stronger protections and the protections are different for each of the exempt uses. Mr. Hornig wanted to add an exemption for signs located on property owned by a governmental agency. Mr. Hornig added that it is not possible to exempt some banner signs and prohibit others based on their content and felt that Government flags and insignia should be allowed as an exemption, and another section on banner signs has to be added to specify which banners are permitted and which are not. Ms. McCabe reminded the Board about her recommendation at the last meeting regarding not allowing internal illumination and the Board not coming to a consensus then. Ms. McCabe informed the Board about the meeting of a working group of the Lexington Center Committee and their support in allowing the internal illumination option. Ms. McCabe recommended that the Board not make any changes and allow internal illuminations by a special permit from the Zoning Board. The Board discussed the proposed amendments for wall signs and the maximum size of a wall sign. Ms. McCabe informed that the working group of the Center Committee was leaning towards a size of 150 or 160 square feet, but Town staff met and looked at samples and decided to set a maximum limit of 100 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 8 of 9 square feet per sign. Ms. McCabe added that the way to calculate the size of a sign will be based on the front façade of the establishment as 1 square foot per each linear foot of the façade. Mr. Hornig wanted to make changes to the provisions relating to downward lighting for standing signs and to allow the up lighting from the ground. The Board members discussed and decided to find some illustrations and discuss it further during the public hearing on February 7th. Public Comments: John Krawczyk 78 Outlook Drive, reminded the Board about the 2015 Court case involving the removal of temporary signs and stressed the need for coming up with clear regulations. Ms. McCabe said that based on the discussion with the staff and working group of the Center Committee, it was decided to remove the height restriction on wall signs and went over the changes made to non- conforming signs. Mr. Leon wanted to present an alternative language to the Board regarding pre-existing nonconforming signs, particularly directory signs, providing more relief to applicants unless it is a § 6 finding. Mr. Hornig agreed with Mr. Leon’s suggestion and felt that the proposed bylaw was much stricter than the general rule for non-conforming structures and offered alternative language that would align with the general rule for non-conforming structures. Ms. McCabe informed the Board that the working group for the Center Committee wanted to make changes to the provisions for standing signs in the CB district and shared the new language with the Board. Mr. Hornig said that the same language should be adopted for standing signs across all the districts as the needs across the districts are the same. Mr. Hornig shared his suggested language to the provisions pertaining to Standing signs. The Board decided to discuss further during the public hearing on February 7th and arrive at decisions then. Public Comments Jerry Michelson, Chair of Center Committee, gave examples of standing signs in districts across the Town and said they were valuable for businesses. The Board then discussed the proposed amendments to § 7.5.5.10.a Maximum Building Height in Village Overlay. Ms. McCabe shared the draft motion and reminded the Board about the discussion in the previous meeting on arriving at a calculation for the height bonus for mixed use and suggested that 30% of Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the street floor or building’s footprint, whichever was greater, occupied by commercial principal uses, be used as the basis for the calculation. Ms. McCabe said that she also wanted to add the language stating that the commercial uses exclusive of parking shall occupy 30% of the street floor or first floor, and uncertainties will be determined by the Building Commissioner. The Board members reviewed the language and came up with suggestions. Public Comments Lin Jensen, felt that the current language clearly defined Principal Use and it was important to prevent any misunderstandings in the future. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2024 Page 9 of 9 The Board decided to discuss it further during the Public Hearing on February 7th and arrive at decisions then. The Board next discussed §7.5.12 Inclusionary Housing in Village & Multi-Family Overlay Districts. Ms. McCabe went over the minor changes made to the draft motion since the previous meeting and the Board decided to consider it in the Public Hearing on February 7th. The Board did not have any suggested changes to the provisions relating to Technical Corrections and decided to consider it in the Public Hearing on February 7th. Board Administration Board Member Updates Mr. Hornig updated the members about the events related to housing being discussed in the Housing Partnership Board and the Fair Housing training provided by the regional housing group from Lowell Community Teamwork Initiative and encouraged all to make the best use of opportunities related to Fair Housing. Mr. Hornig added that the Center Committee was very interested in bringing changes to the Signs Bylaw. Adjourn Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of January 24, 2024. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10.06 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 69 Pleasant St./Linc Cole Lane – Minor Modification request: Linc Cole Lane Decision Amendment Request dated 01.04.24; Linc Cole-Amendment Plan dated 01-04-24; Decision of Planning Board for SPRD dated 9.13.22 2. Affordable Housing Trust - Request for support for Town Meeting article: Property visual; Presentation slides 3. Tree Committee – Request for support for Town Meeting articles related to Tree Bylaw amendments: Tree Bylaw-Articles with Draft Motions dated 1.17.24; Overview of Proposed Tree Bylaw Amendments. 4. Zoning Amendment Work Session for Town Meeting: Summary of changes since January 10, 2024 Planning Board Meeting; Draft motion of Short-term rentals; Draft motion of Permitted Uses and Definitions dated 01.23.24; Draft motion of Signs dated 01.23.24; Draft motion of Inclusionary Housing dated 01.12.24; Draft motion of Technical Corrections dated 01.16.24; Draft motion of Maximum Height for Village Overlay districts dated 01.24.24, Mr. Hornig’s draft motion on Signs.