Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-04-BOS-min Selectmen – April 4, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Selectmen’s Meeting April 4, 2018 A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 6:02 p.m. on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Ms. Barry, Chair; Mr. Pato; Ms. Ciccolo; Mr. Lucente; and Ms. Hai were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town Manager; and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary. Selectmen Concerns and Liaison Reports Mr. Lucente reported that a one-hour interactive program about communicating with adolescents called “The Secret Life of Teens” will be held at Clark Middle School auditorium on April 5, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. The event is funded by a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) grant and co-sponsored by Lexington’s Health Department, the Human Services Department, and the Public Schools. Mr. Pato reported that he and Ms. Barry recently joined representatives from a variety of Town groups including members of the Chamber of Commerce and the Retailers Association to work on the Board’s diversity goal. In an Open Circle format, the participants addressed the question of how to make Lexington more welcoming to all who visit or live in the town. The group plans to meet again in a few weeks to discuss recommendations, particularly those that target how to make businesses more accessible to all. Ms. Barry said a discussion about an appeals process for Cary Hall rental application rejections, prompted by a question raised by resident Jessie Steigerwald, will be a Selectmen’s agenda item on Monday, April 9, 2018. Ms. Ciccolo reported that a Council on Aging program will take place on the afternoon of June 6, 2018 to kick off Lexington’s Age-Friendly Community efforts. The event will potentially include a presentation by the consultant working on the project. Ms. Hai reported that the Westview Cemetery project was discussed at the most recent Permanent Building Committee. Some aspects of the project have been revised; the Selectmen will be updated prior to Annual Town Meeting. Board Discussion Regarding Annual Town Meeting Article 45: Amend Historic Districts Commission Special Act Responding to feedback about the proposed Historic District Commission member nominating process, Anne Laurin Eccles, Chair of the Historic District Commission and the ad hoc 40C Study Committee, said revisions to Article 45 have been made with the goal of achieving a “balanced and representative commission.” Town Counsel has not yet reviewed the latest draft. Other than this, the motion remains the same as presented to the Selectmen on March 7, 2018. Mr. Valente said that Town Counsel had reviewed the original motion and suggested revisions to the motion’s legal form, but not its substance. The date on which Article 45 will be presented to Town Meeting is not certain. Selectmen – April 4, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Pato said his suggested edits predate the ad hoc committee’s most recent draft and mirror concerns he expressed at the March 7, 2018 Selectmen’s meeting following the ad hoc committee’s presentation on Article 45. Taking the proposed edits in order as they appear in the text, Mr. Pato explained his concerns and offered potential remedies in the revised language:  aii: Definition of Structures: Mr. Pato sees the issue of sidewalk jurisdiction as a policy question, noting that in the existing Special Act, jurisdiction over sidewalks is ambiguous. Given that sidewalks are a passionate issue in Lexington, he would prefer not to establish HDC jurisdiction over them. Chapter 40C, Section 8 of the General Act allows structures, including sidewalks, to be excluded from HDC authority; individual communities can determine which type of structures to exclude.  b: Nominating Authority: Mr. Pato has a number of concerns in this area. 1) He recommends that the length of term for both full and associate seats be changed from 5 to 3 years to encourage potential nominees and to match generally accepted term lengths; 2) Mr. Pato recommends broadening, rather than narrowing, the selection of nominating bodies; 3) Mr. Pato proposes that an HDC Nominating Committee be added to the current process and sees the number and identity of the appropriate groups as a policy question; 4) Mr. Pato added language that limits consecutive terms to three (of 3 years each, rather than two terms of 5 years each) to ensure turnover of permanent members; 5) Mr. Pato added language directly from 40C that allows the HDC to solicit nominations from the community at large if an identified nominating entity fails to provide candidates when called upon to do so; 6) Mr. Pato added language about how to identify quality nominees other those who reside or do business in the historic districts, in case no candidates are found that fit the primary criteria.  Section 6 Exclusions d (i): Mr. Pato has restored previous language about public safety inspections because he feels they are best done by the Building Inspector rather than by two Public Safety staff members (from the Health and Fire departments) as recommended by the ad hoc committee;  Section 9: Powers (a): With the exception of the Center District, Mr. Pato generally agrees with the language about the HDC’s jurisdiction over building/structure massing in the historic districts. Because he has not been able to study the revised draft, Mr. Pato does not yet know if he will have additional comments. Ms. Ciccolo noted that Center Committee has not yet provided input and that the Selectmen have also recently received lengthy, multi-page comments from a resident. She asked that the resident’s comments be forwarded to the ad hoc committee for consideration. She stressed her appreciation for the ad hoc committee and the amount of thought and effort that has gone into the recommendations but, given the amount of input still to be processed, she would like to see the work continue until the community is comfortable and ready to support the motion. Ms. Barry said her understanding is that discussion of Article 45 is on the Center Committee’s agenda for later in the week. Selectmen – April 4, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Hai said she is also impressed with the ad hoc committee’s work and has been in favor of initiative as well as some of the changes it has proposed. She agreed that the Selectmen should hear from the Center Committee and she understands Mr. Pato’s reservations about including the Center District in the HDC’s jurisdiction vis-à-vis massing and structure size. She supported aligning the three-year terms with other Town committee appointments and election cycles. Mr. Lucente said he did not have negative reactions to the ad hoc committee’s proposals but acknowledged the changes may not entirely reflect what the community wants. He noted how long ago the Special Act was last updated; he asked the committee to provide feedback on Mr. Pato’s recommendations. Ms. Barry agreed that the ad hoc committee has done an enormous amount of work and that change is not easy. She asked Ms. Eccles to comment on Mr. Pato’s revisions. Ms. Eccles concurred that the committee had worked hard. She believes it a reasonable request to standardize member terms to three years instead of five but emphasized that the five-year term was a carryover from the original HDC charter. She noted that all the meetings were public, that it would have be easier to have this level of feedback earlier in the process, and that she is unsure how to incorporate feedback at this juncture. She sees the revision process as a longer effort with several phases. David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, said he believes the ad hoc committee’s initiative should go forward to Annual Town Meeting and proposed revisions such as Mr. Pato’s regarding term limits be considered “friendly amendments.” He does not believe forward movement should be subverted and that future changes can be made. Dan Fenn, 59 Potter Pond/member of the ad hoc 40C Study Committee, said he believes Mr. Pato’s thoughtful suggestions deserve consideration but there is not enough time for that process to take place before Annual Town Meeting. He is distressed to think forward momentum might be stopped. He proposed that Town Meeting discuss the current amendment but that the Board of Selectmen waive filing home rule legislation with the State until after fall Special Town Meeting when subsequent changes can be added. This would give the ad hoc committee a chance to review suggestions such as those Mr. Pato has supplied. Lynn Hopkins, 45 Munroe Road, expressed reservations about some of the Mr. Pato’s proposals. She disagreed that sidewalks should be excluded from HDC jurisdiction and felt strongly they should be within the Commission’s purview. She believes it makes sense for the Design Advisory Committee to be a nominating body for the HDC as the two groups have a strong affinity. Ms. Hopkins believes the HDC should have jurisdiction over height and size of buildings in the Center District. Susan Bennett, 64 Bloomfield Street, said she has been intimately involved with the HDC nominating process as the former Executive Director of the Lexington Historical Society. She believes everyone shares the goal of having the most qualified people on the HDC but members of the groups tasked with identifying candidates struggle with that role and the process should be fixed. Selectmen – April 4, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Lucente said he feels the issue should come back at a subsequent meeting to allow time to consider new information. Mr. Pato emphasized he appreciated the work of the ad hoc committee and said the reason he was unable to attend the ad hoc committee’s public hearing was because the Selectmen met at the same time in Joint Session with the Planning Board. Ms. Ciccolo asked Mr. Valente about Mr. Fenn’s suggestion: procedurally/legally can the Town postpone filing with the State until remaining changes are made at a later date? Mr. Valente said asking Town Meeting to do something like that is confusing and quite unusual. Ms. Hai and Ms. Barry agreed that further discussion is warranted. Article 45 will again be on the Selectmen’s agenda on Monday, April 9, 2018. Ms. Barry noted that, in order to provide time for the discussion, the meeting will start at 5:30 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. Annual Town Meeting—Article 42 Motion: Staff Review/Analysis Aaron Henry, Planning Director, provided staff comments requested by the Board of Selectmen regarding the presentation made at the March 19, 2018 Board meeting by resident Matt Daggett, proponent of Article 42. Article 42 seeks to revise Section 6.9 of the Zoning Bylaw titled “Special Permit Residential Developments”; Mr. Henry said Mr. Daggett’s proposal “essentially collapses” Balanced Housing and Public Benefit Developments into a single “Shared Benefits” category. A third Special Permit type, Site Sensitive Development, would remain unchanged. The proposed “Shared Benefits” category melds the affordable housing requirement of Public Benefits Development into the Balance Housing concept. Particulars, such as size thresholds and maximum unit count (either 1.5 or 2 times the conventional subdivision proof plan), are also revised. Mr. Henry said the current Special Permit models were adopted in 2007/2008 but they have not entirely yielded middle tier and affordable housing results as intended. Since 2008, the Planning Board has approved permits for seven Site Sensitive developments (creating the same number of units as conventional development), six Balanced Housing developments, and two Public Benefit developments (yielding four affordable housing units). All told, 88 units of Balance Housing and Public Benefit have been permitted in ten years, compared to the 43 by-right conventional units that would otherwise have been built. Analyzing Mr. Daggett’s proposals in Article 42, Mr. Henry expressed some concerns: 1) Staff is unsure that the upper limit threshold of 1.5 or 2 times the proof plan will answer the need. Mr. Henry said perhaps Mr. Daggett included it to address the back and forth negotiations of the Special Permitting process regarding unit yield. He believes the current Special Permits already accomplish the 2 times proof plan, sometimes a slightly more, sometimes slightly less. He added that the bylaw would still reserve the Town’s right to negotiate the number downward; 2) The accessibility/inclusionary requirements in Mr. Daggett’s proposal would mean that, in addition to all other requirements, 20% of the units will be accessible. Mr. Henry said this is laudable effort that many towns are now tackling but staff is unsure that, when combined with the other requirements, this provision will work as intended and may work instead to disincentivize utilization of the Shared Benefits bylaw; Selectmen – April 4, 2018 Page 5 of 6 3) The amendment decreases Gross Square Footage to about 80% of that allowed in conventional development proof plans. This may be hard to achieve and, in concert with other requirements, may conversely encourage conventional development; 4) Open Space is something everyone wants more of but, given that developments are now small, there is less land to work with. One of the criticisms, even without Article 42, is that there is hardly any quality Open Space acquired as a result of Public Benefit Special Permitting; recently, Open Space, has served more as a buffer area rather than adhering to the spirit of concept; 5) There has been very little discussion about what “Shared Benefit” developments would actually look like. Mr. Henry said development will happen but it has to be attractive in order not to engender negative public reaction. Mr. Henry emphasized that the Planning office is eager to address all the issues, just as the community wants, and to that end the Planning Office proposed in 2013 doing a 5-year check up to see if the Special Permits were working as intended. He is not confident, however, that Article 42 will result in the desired changes. Mr. Lucente asked how many conventional developments were done during the same 10-year timeframe and if the new Shared Benefit option would have produced any different results. Mr. Henry recalled three conventional developments, none of which would have been affected by Shared Benefits. Ms. Hai asked Mr. Henry to comment about a statement expressed in a letter from John Farrington, lawyer for several local developers, who Mr. Daggett solicited for comment on the provisions of Article 42. Mr. Farrington contends that developers want to build smaller units but currently cannot. Mr. Henry said he could not comment on Mr. Farrington’s thinking but noted generally that Planning sees two patterns in Balance Housing developments: all units are similarly sized or some units are very small and others are very large. Asked for his comments, Mr. Daggett said the motion is now in its final form and has been reviewed twice by Town Counsel. Two major aspects of Article 42 that have changed since March 19 are: 1) the ability to put parking and other structures within the Open Space; 2) the accessible housing requirement was reduced to 15-20% because builders are unsure what the market is for universal design homes. Mr. Daggett noted that when he did not receive any direct feedback from the development community at the Public Hearing for Article 42, he reached out to several developers who have recently built housing in Lexington. The feedback he subsequently received was supportive. Richard Canale, Planning Board Chair, said that three Public Hearings have been held about Article 42. Following those, the Planning Board voted 4-1 in support of the article, although the actual motion had not been written at the time of the approval. The Board has since read the motion and suggested a revision but did not feel the change constituted a need to alter/rescind the previous vote. Selectmen – April 4, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Canale said the Planning Board shares some of Mr. Henry’s concerns but it strives to make evidence-based recommendations and feels that the revisions are worthy of Town Meeting discussion and adoption to test their effectiveness. He noted that Planning staff time has been consumed with the Comprehensive Plan effort which left little time for attention to Article 42. Betsy Weiss, Lexington Housing Partnership, said the Housing Partnership’s opinion is being written; the final version will be expressed at Town Meeting. Her personal opinion is that the removal of the age-restriction requirement in a previous draft, now replaced by an accessibility requirement, is cause for concern. Additionally, she noted that Gross Square Footage limits now need to be subtracted to achieve actual living space dimensions. She is concerned that no mid- sized units will be built and is not sure there are any large tracts of land left to which the Shared Benefit could be applied. Wrapping many requirements into one proposal is very complicated and Ms. Weiss is not sure Article 42 is ready to be vetted by Town Meeting. She would like it to be referred back to the Planning Board and for developers to have more time to provide input. Ms. Barry asked Ms. Weiss to send her comments, as well as the Housing Partnership’s opinion, to the Selectmen prior to the Board’s next discussion on Article 42 scheduled for Monday, April 9, 2018. David Kanter encouraged the Board of Selectmen to support Article 42, noting that the Planning Board has done so because current Special Permitting has not produced the desired results. 2018 Annual Town Meeting Positions and Presenters Ms. Barry asked Board members to be prepared to confirm their positions on all Town Meeting articles at the next meeting. Adjourn Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selection voted 5-0 to adjourn at 7:17 p.m. A true record; Attest: Kim Siebert Recording Secretary