HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-31PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
EXECUTIVE SESSION, OCTOBER 31, 1983
101
After a unanimous vote, by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in
Executive Session in Room G-15, Town Offices, at 7:48 p.m. to consider: 1) the
value of real property, and 2) to discuss strategy with respect to litigation,
which, in both cases, discussion in an open meeting may have a detrimental effect
on the Board's position. Present were Chairman Smith and members Flemings,
Nichols, Sorensen and Uhrig, Planning Director Bowyer and member Gutierrez,
Klauminzer and Nablo of the Housing Needs Advisory Committee.
Chairman Smith explained that the Planning Board was scheduled to meet with the
Board of Selectmen later in the evening. The Board of Selectmen were prepared to
act that evening on the Land Disposition Agreement conveying the Muzzey School
property to Sydney Noyes. The projected signing of the Land Disposition Agreement
LO would be before action on the special permit required under Section 9.3 of the
NZoning By -Law. The application for the special permit had not even been filed yet.
® She contended that signing the Land Disposition Agreement at this time was probably
Q illegal because the Board of Selectmen, who are the special permit Granting
Authority, are required to incorporate in the special permit, by reference, the
m development proposal approved by the Town Meeting and that proposal has to include
Q any literature and commitments authorized by the developer and presented to the
Town Meeting. She contended the Land Disposition Agreement should not be executed
outside of the context of the special permit and the document, as drafted, did not
include all of the commitments made by the developer to the Town Meeting. She had
had a lengthy discussion on this point with Town Counsel, Norman Cohen, who deter-
mined, in effect, that the special permit process was limited to the site plan and
need not include accompanying literature or commitments by the developer. She said
that one of the matters to be determined was whether the Planning Board should
request the retention of separate counsel to give an opinion on the interpretation
of Section 9.3 as to whether the supporting documents are required to be part of
the special permit procedure.
Mrs. Klauminzer reported she had discussed the draft of the Land Disposition Agree-
ment with attorney William Hayes and they shared the following observations: 1) the
timing allowed in the first stage, where the units may be purchased for the lowest
price and are available to persons with the lowest incomes and, hence, the greatest
need, is too short to obtain financing, 2) the cost of maintaining the senior cen-
ter is defined only for the first years and could increase substantially there-
after, 3) there is no expression of intent to achieve affordable housing, and 4) if
an owner defaults on a mortgage, the foreclosing bank would not be obligated to
keep a unit restricted as to resale price.
Mr. Sorensen observed that there needed to be more monitoring by the Town of the
project because the developer has the sole right to select buyers; there needed to
be specific criteria on how people were selected to purchase units. He also noted
a potential flaw in the procedure governing the resale of restricted units. As now
written, the seller finds the buyer and if the seller is unable to find a buyer,
the Muzzey Administrator can take the unit out of the restricted category.
The Board discussed the procedure and the desirability of entering into a suit to
insure that the objectives approved by the Town Meeting for affordable housing are
carried out.
After a poll of the Board, it was unanimously agreed:
[1
1
PLANNING BOARD EXECUTIVE SESSION
OCTOBER 31, 1983
2
1. That all documents that are part of the Muzzey development process should
be part of the special permit procedure; that is consistent with both the
letter and the spirit of Section 9.3 of the Zoning By -Law.
2. The Muzzey School development and its associated documents are innovative
and precedent setting; they should be subject to an extensive review in an
open process where persons knowledgeable in housing are encouraged to par-
ticipate and suggest improvements.
3. Based on a brief review, the Board finds substantive deficiencies such as
insufficient opportunity for Town oversight, an opportunity for waivers
which would remove units from restrictions as to resale, a short time
period for persons of lower income to obtain financing, the lack of expres-
sion of the Town's interest in producing affordable housing and the lack of
continuity in the resale process.
The Executive Session was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. ndthe Board reconvened in Open
Session.
-tom
udith J. Uhr' Clerk
OCT