Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-12-REC-min (2) Town of Lexington Recreation Committee Frederick DeAngelis, Chairman Tel: (781) 698-4800 Christian Boutwell, Vice Chair Fax: (781) 861-2747 Carl Fantasia Lisa O’Brien Claire Sheth Renen Bassik Weiwei Li Recreation Committee Minutes of Meeting November 12, 2024 A meeting of the Recreation Committee was held on Tuesday, November 12, 2024 via Zoom at 10:00am. Members Present: Rick DeAngelis, Christian Boutwell, Renen Bassik, Carl Fantasia, Weiwei Li, and Claire Sheth Staff Present: Melissa Battite, Director of Recreation and Community Programs, Peter Coleman, Assistant Director of Recreation and Christine Dean, Community Center Director Others Present: Jon Himmel (66 Hancock Street, Lexington), Peter Kelley (24 Forest Street, Lexington), Jeanne Krieger (44 Webster Road, Lexington), Kathleen Lenihan (School Committee liaison), Bridger McGaw (89 Meriam Street, Lexington), Dawn McKenna (9 Hancock Street, Lexington), Ricki Pappo (16 Bloomcrest Road, Lexington), and Tom Shiple (18 Phinney Road, Lexington) 1. Public Comment None 2. Special Town Meeting – Article 7 Rick DeAngelis opened the meeting and suggested that each member go around and state their comments with regards to Article 7. Christian Boutwell asked the Committee if they wanted to revise the language, and/or add language to clarify what the design process is and specify that all field surfaces and components will be evaluated. He posed revising the language to reflect an open design concept to include our user groups and abutters, then decide on the best option to bring forward. He added that there is an amendment proposed by Jeanne Krieger, that grass and synthetic turf would be included in the design process. Mr. Boutwell suggested that the Committee may be asked about their position on the Krieger Amendment and they should take a stand on whether they oppose, are friendly to it, or revise language to make clearer what the Committee’s intention is. Mr. DeAngelis summarized the proposed amendment for the group. Claire Sheth confirmed that she was fine with adding language to clarify that all field surfaces will be considered. Ms. Krieger asked to comment, as the maker of the amendment. Her intention is to ensure there would be an explicit option for grass in the proposals that are presented to Town Meeting. Mr. Boutwell cautioned the group against bringing forth multiple options to Town Meeting to let it be decided on the floor; this is not typical practice. Ms. Sheth added that Lincoln Park can provide a good example of how the process works – the working group was part of the process of vetting the designs and a compromised decision brought forward. They would apply the same process to this Article as the plans are devised. Ms. Krieger asked for clarification on what would be involved in the evaluation process. Mr. Boutwell explained that during the process, they explored options with various others in the community, evaluated the pros and cons, took their input, then came up with what best meets everyone’s needs. This collaborative process 2 39 MARRETT ROAD, LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02421 assures people that we are going to look at all options and there are no preconceived plans for what option the committee will bring forward. Ms. Sheth added that the they have the Field Assessment to advise the process, a very sound document from which to inform the community. Mr. Boutwell stated that in addition to an attempt to revise the language of their motion, a position on the Krieger Amendment would be needed. Mr. DeAngelis offered that he agrees with the last paragraph in the amendment and suggests broadening both Ms. Krieger’s and the Committee’s. He is not opposed to the Krieger Amendment, but rather takes no position because it is included in the Committee’s broader amendment. Mr. DeAngelis makes a motion: to revise the motion as written, which would include design processes for natural grass, synthetic turf and hybrid options, and in so doing we have incorporated the Jeanne Krieger Amendment into our own. He moved that the Recreation Committee approve the revised motion as drafted by Christian Boutwell and the 3rd paragraph of the proposal in front of us. Renen Bassik seconded the motion. Ms. Krieger offered that she would like to withdraw her amendment and accept the revised statement by the Recreation Committee. The motion passed unanimously, 5 – 0. Christian Boutwell moved that the Recreation Committee take no position on the Jeanne Krieger Amendment. Claire Sheth seconded and the motion passed unanimously, 5 – 0. 3. LHS Building Project Mr. DeAngelis led a discussion on the LHS Building Project, which was hindered by technical difficulties in the previous meeting. The agenda included four main topics: The Article 97 process, the status of meetings between the School Building Committee “SBC” and SMMA, the SBC and SMMA's responses to Jim Williams' email, and the impact of massing, height, parking areas, and landscaping on the abutting neighborhoods. Mr. Boutwell suggested discussing the Field House first due to its time sensitivity, and suggested they take a position to share with the SBC before their meeting at 11:00 a.m. Ms. Sheth questioned the purpose of discussing the SBC's process, as it seemed to exceed their purview. She asked the Committee if any of the members had changed their position from favoring the “revised Bloom.” Ms. Sheth confirmed her position and added that it did not change after spending 6 hours hearing all the options. She added that some of the arguments in the email came across as inflammatory, and contradictory at times. Mr. Bassik stated that there was no new information presented to change his opinion. He is in favor of the current proposed plan for a revised Field House, not a new one using existing field space. Weiwei Li expressed that he did not have a position yet. Mr. Boutwell felt that the renovation meets the needs of the community as opposed to a new build. Ms. Sheth was in favor of expansion and renovation as opposed to a new larger facility. She added that a new facility would be on a park, and every time we expand the amount of building, we reduce the amount of park. We can expand opportunity with a large Field House without the necessity of building one. Mr. DeAngelis shared that he would like to see an enlarged Field House; however, he concedes that there is only a limited amount of field space. He stated that this is a High School project under the purview of the MSBA. Article 97 will play out the way it’s supposed to. He went on to add that it would be helpful to know where the SBC and the Massachusetts School Board Authority are with Conservation Commission. The Committee took a position on the Bloom, but Mr. DeAngelis shared that was going to modify his vote to suggest that the impact of massing, and height and parking on neighborhoods needs to be taken into consideration to make sure a building is not constructed in the middle of a neighborhood. It is a High School project, he added, but the proper impacts should be considered before approving the plan. Mr. Bassik inquired if there were procedures that they didn’t follow, to which Mr. DeAngelis suggested that they not reject the plan, but possibly modify. Ms. Sheth stated there is nothing to suggest that abutters interests have not been considered in the process. Mr. Bassik heard that there were raised concerns about lighting from the project and has been repeatedly told that abutters concerns and part of the process. Mr. DeAngelis felt the impact needs to be considered in future neighborhood meetings. Where from here? We have already taken a vote on the Bloom. Mr. DeAngelis suggested a motion; however, Ms. Sheth did not see the need for a position and suggested a statement be created instead. 3 39 MARRETT ROAD, LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02421 As the process unfolds in development, there would be a series of hearings before the Planning Board. Staff would chime in on the various concerns they have about massing of height, parking, etc. Mr. Bassik suggested more of a team-building approach; a paragraph as a supplement to reinforce, not a motion to consider everyone in the community. Mr. Li makes a motion to adjourn and Mr. DeAngelis seconds it. The motion passes to adjourn, 5 – 0, at 10:58 a.m. The next meeting of the Recreation Committee is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, December 18th at 7:00pm. The November 12th, 2024 meeting of the Recreation Committee adjourned at 10:58am. Respectfully submitted, Christine Dean Community Center Director