Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-23-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 23, 2018 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Parker Room was called to order at 5:32 p.m. by Chair, Richard Canale with members Ginna Johnson, Charles Hornig, Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, and Bob Creech, and planning staff Aaron Henry, David Kucharsky, and Lori Kaufman present. ***********************2018 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING************************** Discuss Reconsideration of Town Meeting Article 42 Action: Mr. Canale said that after the Planning Board meets tonight they will meet with the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to discuss reconsideration of Article 42. Mr. Canale explained that he made the reconsideration of Article 42 because he was not aware that there could be resources made available to do work on Article 42 instead of adding it to the staff’s work load. If that information had been made available he would have recommended that Article 42 remain under the Planning Board’s control. He met with the chair of the BOS and Town Manager and if reconsideration was done there could be a reopening of Article 4 for additional resources. Mr. Canale met with the planning staff to discuss options and said they would ask for a $40,000.00 appropriation to hire the consultants. The BOS although may not be as well versed in this matter, but are anxious to learn. The question is does the Planning Board want to continue with the request for reconsideration since it may not be taken up until 10:00 p.m. and was not sure of the appetite of Town Meeting to take this matter up at that time. Mr. Henry spoke with the Town Manager to discuss that this is referred to the BOS it would be with the agreement to work with the Planning Board. Individual Board Comments:  This does not need to be referred to us for the Planning Board to work on it. It seems that reopening Article 42 just to change the name to the Planning Boards in the minutes and will still have the same outcome.  It was expressed that it is important for it to remain with the Planning Board as it is the legal responsibility of the Planning Board. The BOS did lead us to believe that they were going to listen to the robust conversation and that should have taken place and was surprised that an amendment was proposed to refer it back to them.  Does the Planning Board plan on making the motion to refer it back to the Planning Board? In principle how would the BOS handle this and from what point?  How does our Board want to interact with the BOS? Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of April 23, 2018  There should be a committee formed to deal with this and where the consultant comes in could be as a facilitator or article writer. This should not go beyond this fall. We could take more time, but have concerns about some new developments coming down the pipeline.  What is on the Planning Board workload? Mr. Henry said there are seven potential articles for the fall and will be a very busy four months. Public hearings would have to begin immediately after Labor Day. Public Comments:  There was clarification from Ms. McKenna about her substitute motion and the reason was her personal feeling was there would need to be a policy discussion on the level of affordable housing. If this refers back to the Planning Board then it has to open Article 4 and the BOS would not have to reopen Article 4. There is nothing stopping us from doing work on this but need to have a o discussion on funding. Concerned that some people would see this as a power play by the BOS. o  This Article should be reconsidered under your authority and do not need the additional overhead process.  If you reconsider it will open the entire Article 42. Individual Board Comments:  The question is what kind of collaboration we would have with the BOS?  There needs to be consensus building.  There is a large number of stakeholders and want to give fair discussion and include a number of different stakeholders. We can do more outreach if it goes to both boards.  The major obstacle is the financial feasibility.  How much time do we want to invest in this and really do not need to have a policy for everything.  If we can be on the same page with the BOS it does not matter who it is referred to but need a functional starting point.  There is a risk that Article 42 could unravel, but by working with the BOS we could give a more robust outreach.  Are we going to amend and ask to refer back to the Planning Board? Do not see the appetite for Town Meeting to open Article 42 again.  The hope is to get a sense of what the BOS plans when we meet tonight. Minutes for the Meeting of April 23, 2018 Page 3  We do not have the final say about the reconsideration and see no need to open it ourselves, but Town Meeting can if they so desire.  Not sure the Planning Board should take position until we see what the BOS have in mind and then determine the best way forward. Not sure opening reconsideration is the best way and will discuss this matter with them at the meeting.  What discussion was the discussion with the Town Manager. The Discussion was that would be putting in the reconsideration of Article 4 for Professional services for the FY19. Consensus for the work program:  Do we have an idea of scope?  Should include affordable housing, accessible housing, and real open space and the presentation material from Mr. Daggett.  Work with Mr. Daggett’s proposal and the existing bylaws comparing them and working out the differences.  Heard the accessible housing was too prescriptive  Get a solid set of numbers and how it plays out including future numbers that have been vetted among various stake holders  If we are on the same page with the BOS move forward with this if not will have to work it out after the meeting. On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted to recess and resume the meeting the meeting at 6:30 p.m. upstairs in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. Bob Creech, Clerk