Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-30 Joint MeetingJOINT SELECT BOARD AND SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, June 30, 2025 6:30 PM Select Board Meeting Room, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA 02420 - Hybrid Participation* A Joint Meeting of the Lexington Select Board and School Committee was called to order at 6:30p.m. on Monday, June 30, 2025, via a hybrid meeting platform, in the Select Board Meeting Room. Present for the Select Board (SB): Mr. Lucente, Chair; Mr. Pato; Ms. Hai; Mr. Sandeen; and Ms. Kumar, as well as Mr. Bartha, Town Manager; Ms. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. Present for the School Committee (SC): Mr. Freeman, Vice Chair; Ms. Lenihan; Ms. Carter Also Present:Mr. Cronin, Facilities Director; Mr. Makarious, Town Counsel; Ms. Prestileo, SMMA; Dr. Hackett, Superintendent of Schools; State Representative Ciccolo ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Lexington High School Project Vote Timeline and Article 97 Update Mr. Bartha explained that it is not uncommon for high school, elementary school, or middle school projects in the Commonwealth to have an Article 97 component. The purpose of this meeting is to provide clarity on what the process is and a timeline. Mr. Cronin explained that the Article 97 group started in 2020 with a collection of 10-12 people who reviewed deeds and restrictions associated with the deeds, including a large amount of legal work. There was also a survey of the full property lines completed at that time. Erin Prestileo, SMMA, explained that, in order to authorize a change in use for Article 97 lands, the Town must secure a 2/3 vote at Lexington Town Meeting, a 2/3 roll call vote of both houses of the legislator, and a determination in finding from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). She reviewed the site and planning for different areas of the property. The Public Land Preservation Act (PLPA) was codified fairly recently in November 2022 and establishes a process for the legislator to make these types of changes in protected land. The process includes notifying the public and conducting an alternatives analysis. This would demonstrate that all other options to avoid this type of land swap have been explored and that there is no alternative that exists or is feasible. Secondly, the alternatives analysis is submitted to EEA and made public. Next, the replacement land of equal or greater value as determined by an appraisal is identified. Finally, the land is dedicated in perpetuity. She discussed the timeline for the process. Ms. Hai stated that the Board has heard questions about the alternatives analysis and the buildable quality of the land. Ms. Prestileo stated that the area proposed for the building is not all wetlands. This area was a former waterbody that was filled in overtime to allow for fields and development. The conditions are not ones that could not be overcome and there are contingencies in the budget to handle potential conditions. Town Counsel Makarious stated that there are three different layers of alternatives analysis which occur in a project like this. Two of them, under the Article 97 process and the Massachusetts Environmental Process Act (MEPA) process, include for an opportunity for the EEA to weigh in and make sure any issues have been mitigated to the greatest degree possible. Mr. Sandeen asked what experience the team has with other towns having gone through the Article 97 alternatives analysis part of the approval process through the State. Ms. Prestileo stated that SMMA has done Article 97 land swaps before, but not since the 2022 codification of the PLPA. Town Counsel Makarious stated that Anderson-Kreiger is currently in the process with at least two other projects. He explained that the PLPA replaces and codifies a process and provides clarity on a process, which has been roughly the same since the late 1990s, in the form of guidance from EEA. He believes the process is now less complicated. In answer to a question from Mr. Sandeen, the Town Manager stated that the team will present the LHS schematic design to both the Select Board and the School Committee. In answer to a question from Mr. Sandeen, Ms. Prestileo stated that the schematic design presentation to the Select Board would take place before the MSBA schematic design submittal. Mr. Lucente asked about the anticipated voting timeframe for the State legislature. Representative Ciccolo stated that the legislature is well-prepared and has been working to educate others on the future bill. The bill will need to go to the floor at a time when roll calls can occur. The hearing will likely be held in the fall or early January, and it will likely then take a couple of months to go to a vote. She does not believe that there will be an issue on this vote. Mr. Lucente expressed disappointment that the Little League field has been taken off the table for this project. He would like for this issue to be solved prior to brining this before the voters. Mr. Cronin stated that the Little League field is included in the project, but there are discussions as to where it should best be placed on the site. Mr. Lucente asked about the proposed timeline for voting on this project. Dr. Hackett explained that part of what drove the decision for the timeline as presented is the legislature. If this waits, it could push out the project for many months, which could be problematic. Mr. Sandeen asked about the debt exclusion referendum vote. He asked if the debt exclusion vote would be in-person only voting or if there would be early voting opportunities. Mr. Bartha explained that when Board calls for the referendum, the mail-in option would automatically occur. The Town Clerk’s suggestion was to complete an early mailing to notify and encourage people to participate in the early mail-in voting, if necessary. Peter Kelley, 24 Forest Street, expressed concern regarding the engineer reports which state that this is not a wise thing to pursue for the site. There is an opportunity to pursue a reasonable alternative, such as the present campus. Alan Seferian, 10 Augustus Road, asked about the Article 97 Disposition Policy which states that municipalities that seek to dispose of any Article 97 land must obtain a unanimous vote of the municipal Conservation Commission and a unanimous vote of the municipal Park Commission. He asked when these votes would take place. Town Counsel Makarious stated that typically these votes would come toward the end of the process, as the package is being sent to the legislature. Olga Guttag, Emerson Road, expressed concern regarding the cost, size, and proposed location for the project. She is also concerned regarding the Article 97 process approvals. She stated the Conservation Commission was supposed to make a ruling regarding the site for the proposed building, but this has not yet occurred. Jim Williams, 8 Stratham Road, stated that he believes that MEPA has no legal control to approve or disapprove the proposed transfer of 5,000 s.f. This is under local control and the Conservation commission decides if the wetlands transfer and other wetlands impacts are acceptable or not. He asked how that vote could come after a Town Meeting vote. Town Counsel Makarious stated that the Conservation Commission needs to review what will actually be built on the site and details of this. There has already been a delineation of where the wetlands are on the site, and this is usually updated closer to when a project occurs. Any complicated project has a series of approvals that are required, including authorizations. Town Meeting could decide that it does not want the project to move forward due to the fields, or due to the proposed size and the debt exclusion. There is no reason for the Conservation Commission to act prior to the Town Meeting vote. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, expressed concern regarding the Little League field. This is part of the Town’s history, and the proposal will rip this up as there are supposedly no alternatives. She would like to review potential alternatives to see if they are viable solutions. This field cannot simply be ripped up and replicated elsewhere. As far as the alternative analysis, the fact that the schools are choosing not to use the alternatives could lead to issues at the State level. She is also concerned with rushing the timeline for the process. On August 13, 2025 as people are returning from school vacations, etc., there is supposed to be a public hearing regarding the new cost estimate. The schematics are then proposed to be voted on two weeks later. She would like to see potential alternative timelines. There was discussion regarding the proposed timeline. Mr. Lenihan stated that, whether the debt exclusion vote occurs in mid-late November or early December, is the Select Board's decision. However, there needs to be some certainty on when the Town-wide debt exclusion vote will happen. The Board agreed to retake this conversation at its July 7, 2025 meeting. DOCUMENTS: Article 97 Presentation and Project Timeline ADJOURN Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at 8:00p.m. The School Committee followed suit. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary