Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-22-AC-min 2/22/2024 AC Minutes 1 Minutes Town of Lexington Appropriation Committee (AC) February 22, 2024 Place and Time: Remote participation via a Zoom teleconferencing session that was open to the public; 7:30 p.m.–9:30 p.m. Members Present: Glenn Parker, Chair; Sanjay Padaki, Vice-Chair; Alan Levine, Secretary; Anil Ahuja; Eric Michelson; Sean Osborne; Lily Yan Members Absent: John Bartenstein; Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager, Finance (non-vot- ing, ex officio) Other Attendees: Mark Sandeen, Select Board; David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee; Bob Pressman, Community Preservation Committee; Margaret Heitz At 7:35 p.m. Mr. Parker called the meeting to order and took attendance by roll call. All votes recorded below were conducted by roll call. Announcements and Liaison Reports There were no announcements or liaison reports. Warrant Articles for 2024 Annual Town Meeting After an introduction by Mr. Parker, Mr. Sandeen asked the Committee members to share their con- cerns about Article 33 Authorize the Select Board to Seek Affordable Housing. Mr. Parker summa- rized his understanding of the Committee’s position. He said the Committee members want a better understanding of the kind of development that could result if Article 33 is approved. At a previous meeting, Mr. Bartenstein voiced serious concerns because he felt the proposal was coming to town meeting with too few constraints on the outcome. Mr. Parker has shared this with Elaine Tung, Chair of the Affordable Housing Trust (AHT). Mr. Michelson stated that this article differed in many ways from earlier articles related to afforda- ble housing that have come before town meeting, and some town meeting members might hesitate to relinquish control over the project to the Select Board, even if there would be opportunities for public input as the project progressed. He said the Committee was looking for guardrails on the pro- ject, though he understood that we can’t insist on a specific detailed design. He wondered if the Se- lect Board and the AHT could clarify some limits on the future development, such as the total num- ber of units, which might improve town meeting’s confidence in the vision for the development. Mr. Padaki wondered how the Committee could write up a recommendation on a request without knowledge that would enable the Committee to examine the impacts of a development on the Town. Mr. Levine referred to a conversation he had with Mr. Sandeen earlier in the day. He has three con- cerns, starting with the total number and density of units. He objects to a 50-unit development due to the size of the parcel, but a 30-unit development would be acceptable to him, based on a density comparable to that at Locke Village. Next, he expressed a responsibility as an elected town meeting member to his constituents that he should vote to approve an article only on the basis of adequate information or expectations in terms of what the Town is looking for. Finally, he noted that a wide open RFP does not give guidance to affordable housing development outfits about the Town’s pref- erences, so that the outcome would likely reflect the developer’s preferences instead of the Town’s. 2/22/2024 AC Minutes 2 Rather than adding additional constraints to the motion, he would be satisfied if the Select Board and/or AHT offered acceptable public statements defining limitations to be included in the RFP. Mr. Osborne stated that he was less concerned about the details of the future development, and he was satisfied with the due diligence performed by the Town and the AHT while investigating the feasibility of the proposed parcel for an all-affordable development. Mr. Levine added that he did not think the Town should “push the envelope” for an all-affordable development. He suggested that the first major project supported by the AHT should aim for a strong vote of approval from town meeting, which would probably require a more measured scale for the development. Mr. Ahuja stated that he has heard concerns from residents in precincts five and six. He felt that 40 units would be too many, but 30 would be better. Ms. Yan stated that she has received many letters voicing concern from neighbors and constituents. She lives in the area just off Lowell St. and feels the traffic on Lowell St is horrible, so adding an- other development would increase traffic. She was concerned that a lack of public transportation in the area would require the residents to rely more on automobiles. Mr. Michelson stated that the proponents’ presentation on this article should cover sidewalks on Lowell St. that are in the Town’s 5-year capital plan, access to the shopping area and grocery store in Burlington that is within walking distance of the parcel, and provisions for mass transit in the area for residents who do not have cars. He reminded Ms. Yan that she lives in a “friendly 40B” de- velopment, and that, before it was built, faced similar criticisms. Ms. Yan agreed but noted that add- ing more units to a crowded area remains a concern. Mr. Osborne noted that 40B developers engage with the local boards to work on issues such as shared amenities, common open space, impervious surface, and stormwater runoff. They must also respond to traffic mitigation requirements. All these issues establish constraints that can lower the number of units that end up being created on a site. He reiterated that the AHT’s initial presentation had covered some of the infrastructure costs to the Town, and that he expected any development like this to undergo a permitting process and public hearings. The Select Board should emphasize that a friendly 40B development requires a certain amount of elasticity from the community. Mr. Sandeen summarized the discussion so far. He stated that the AHT met that morning. The AHT recommended that the motion for Article 33 be updated to include the requirement for an all-afford- able development, which is not stated in the current motion. They also encouraged the Select Board to engage in a public discussion of what they want to see in an RFP prior to town meeting. Mr. Sandeen noted that, independent of Article 33, the Town has proposed regional transit along Lowell St., and this would rise in priority if Article 33 is approved. Mr. Sandeen noted that the financial impacts on the Town also must include financial benefits. Lex- HAB’s previous attempt to finance affordable units at Vine St. failed due to the cost, estimated at $1 million per unit for six units. Under the all-affordable development model, Federal and state funds are leveraged so that the net cost of an affordable unit to the Town is roughly 10% of the rate, e.g., proposed at Vine St. Currently, the Select Board’s top priority is housing in Lexington, and Mr. Sandeen hopes Lexington will set a good example. Mr. Levine questioned whether an all-affordable development was only feasible using town-owned land. He asserted that the Town could purchase a reasonably sized parcel and finance the 2/22/2024 AC Minutes 3 construction of 20 units of affordable housing on it. The cost of the land would not be a major ob- stacle to the project. Mr. Parker disagreed, noting a contribution of land the Town already owns costs nothing, but the overriding fact is that the Town simply could not afford to build 20 affordable houses with no other outside funding. And that outside funding relies on a development having a certain minimum num- ber of units. Mr. Levine responded that if Parcel 68-44 could satisfy the requirements for an all-af- fordable development, then other sites in the Town could also work if the Town was willing to pur- chase the land, but he agreed that the Town could not finance 20 new units on its own. Mr. Michelson responded that he did not know where the Town could find another comparable par- cel, at any price. The large properties that are now available in Lexington would all require exten- sive site preparation before they can be developed, and they are expensive even without considering that extra burden. Mr. Levine stated that his comments were more in the context of future developments, and he agreed that there were no conveniently empty 3-acre parcels left in Lexington, but there are large parcels with houses that might be suitable, even if they cost more. Mr. Sandeen thanked the Committee for its input. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Sandeen how the Select Board might proceed on this matter. Mr. Sandeen responded that it would be useful to meet with Se- lect Board members encouraging them to place an item on the agenda for an upcoming meeting be- fore the town meeting begins. Mr. Parker hoped that the Select Board would publish a clear state- ment of their intent regarding Article 33. Status of the Report to Town Meeting Mr. Parker asked for comments from the Committee about their progress on drafting the report for the 2024 Annual Town Meeting. Some members have started entering text while others who have not yet begun to draft their sections agreed that they would start on them this weekend. Mr. Levine responded that he was waiting for information from Carolyn Kosnoff about stabilization funds, and, in regard to the article to appropriate funds for 173 Bedford St., for the Select Board re- sponse to the RFP for leased space to temporarily house the LPS Central Office followed by other departments in place of 173 Bedford St. Mr. Parker responded that responses to the RFP were sum- marized in the Select Board’s agenda packet, which he had already shared with the Committee by email. Mr. Levine stated that he would wait until the Select Board had actually met to discuss the matter. Mr. Padaki stated that he had flagged Article 10 for review. Mr. Michelson responded that the writeup was accurate. Mr. Parker noted that he is working with Ms. Impink and Mr. Michelson to link important numbers in the report to the data base. He will also work on the introduction and with Mr. Bartenstein to try to write something for Article 33. Mr. Osborne added his votes to the tally, which were all in support of the articles the Committee had voted on the previous week. Mr. Ahuja asked if there was a staff member who could answer questions about the proposed col- umbarium at Westview Cemetery. Mr. Parker noted that David Pinsonneault, Director of the DPW, would be attending the meeting next week and might be able to provide some information, although the cemetery building may be under the purview of the DPF, which is headed by Mike Cronin. 2/22/2024 AC Minutes 4 Minutes of Prior Meetings Minutes from the Committee meeting on February 8 and February 15 were both approved by a vote of 7-0. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Glenn P. Parker Approved: February 29, 2024 Exhibits ● Agenda, posted by Mr. Parker