Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-21-RPC-min PLANNING BOARD RESIDENTIAL POLICY COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 21, 2015 MEETING A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board Residential Policy Committee (RPC), held in the Reed Room at Town Hall, was called to order at 7:15 p.m. Members present: Jeri Foutter, Tom Harden, Ginna Johnson and Michael Leon The following members of the public also participated: Matt Daggett, 11 White Pine Road, Todd Cataldo, 168 Grant Street, John Frey, 1133 Massachusetts Avenue, Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, Marianne Lazarus, 22 Woodland Road, Karen Longteig, 143 Concord Avenue, Gerry Paul, 43 Highland Road, Elain Ashton, 32 Cliffe Avenue, Diane Pursley, 21 Turning Mill Road, Nancy Corcoran Ronchetti, Lowell Street. Scribe: Tom Harden Documents Attached: Agenda, Sign-in Sheet 1. COMMITTEE BUSINESS a. Review of June 23 Meeting Minutes: The June 23 meeting minutes were unanimously approved. b. Upcoming meeting dates: The next meeting of the RPC will be on August 4 at 7:15 pm. The date of the Public Workshop was confirmed for September 24 after discussion regarding its conflict with Back-to-School Night. Ms. Johnson pointed out the potential conflict with the Jewish holidays if the date was changed. In response to a suggestion that the meeting be re-scheduled for a Saturday afternoon, Mr. Cataldo pointed out potential conflicts with youth sports. c. Public Workshop Format: Ms. Johnson suggested that the format for the Public Workshop include an introductory plenary session followed by a breakdown into 3 or more discussion groups, followed by a plenary summarizing session. Ms. Johnson stated that Planning Board member Tim Dunn has requested that the RPC provide a list of possible initiatives for 2016 Town Meeting for the Board’s meeting on July 22. d. Sites to Visit for the August 23 Field Trip: Discussion was deferred until after Mr. Canale’s return. 2. INITIATIVE UPDATE AND DISCUSSION a. Tree Bylaw: Karen Longteig summarized the history and impact of the Town’s Tree Bylaw, which was implemented in 2001. The Bylaw applies in the case of demolition or 50% increase in site coverage, and only regulates tree removal in the setbacks. Mitigation is required inch for inch, or a payment to a fund may be substituted. Problems with the Bylaw include that the Tree Warden is not always notified (less a problem now than at first), large lots have very large unregulated area, the 50% threshold for lot coverage increase may be too high. Mr. Henry will coordinate. Mr. Paul discussed the importance of mitigating with shade trees, and of preserving plant-able areas. Mr Cataldo stated that comparison of aerial photos indicate that tree canopy in Town is greater now than in the 1950’s and 60’s. b. Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs): Ms. Pursely reported on her research and discussion with Wellesley Planning staff regarding their NCD bylaw. The NCD concept is that the basis for property values goes far beyond a property’s lot lines and includes the qualities of the neighborhood. A General Bylaw was approved by Town Meeting in 2007, enabling neighborhood initiatives to establish their own NCD, and outlining a process. It requires joint Planning Board and Historic Commission involvement in approving and regulating an neighborhood NCDs. A Commission would be established for each NCD with members of both boards and 3 NCD residents. The Denton Road NCD was approved a year later and includes about 30 properties. Denton Road There is now a second new Wellesley initiative that may seek Town Meeting approval that is focused on neighbor scale as the basis of character, rather than a particular architectural idea or style. In addition to Wellesly, other Massachusetts towns with NCDs include Winchester, Cambridge, Brookline, North Andover, Northhampton, and Winchester. Discussion followed on whether NCD’s would create compulsory participation within a neighborhood, or whether or how particular owners could opt out. Further discussion considered the advantages and feasibility of bringing a neighborhood NCD initiative to Town Meeting at the same time as a General Bylaw initiative in Lexington. Ms Johnson concluded the discussion by asking whether the group was in favor of adding an NCD initiative to the list to be presented to the Planning Board. By a show of hands, the group was unanimously in favor. c. Dimensional Controls, Site Plan Review, and Data Research. Mr. Daggett reported on a meeting the previous Friday in which Planning Director Aaron Henry said that data from the Assessor’s office back to 2007 would be made available. The hope is that good data would provide an objective basis to justify and shape any regulatory initiatives. Mr. Leon discussed Lexington’s outlier status in not regulating non-conforming property in the same way that nearby Towns do, notably Weston and Wellesley. He described the potential value of there being a public process that would allow input from neighbors when significant changes occur in a neighborhood. Mr. Harden said that good data on teardown and replacement construction could help fine-tune a zoning bylaw initiative similar to Concord’s that would regulate redevelopment on nonconforming lots. Ms. Johnson asked why regulation should be focused on nonconforming lots only. Mr. Leon discussed the State’s Chapter 40A statute which gives Town’s authority to regulate nonconforming property, but does not otherwise enable the restriction of house size. Mr. Cataldo noted that in the past, Town Meeting has rejected zoning controls that might reduce the potential sale value of property that could be sold for development. Ms. Johnson described her own experience with property that may have its value limited by environmental controls, and that the benefits of such policy may outweigh any negative impact. Mr. Harden asked how is it that it is true that developers pay more for property than prospective homeowners would. Mr.Cataldo cited a particular example of a developer paying more. Further discussion focused on other possible dimensional controls. Mr. Leon and Mr. Cataldo suggested a revision to building height limits that would reduce height on narrow lots to 4x the width of the side setback requirement. Ms. Johnson concluded the discussion after an indication from the group that possible zoning bylaw amendment initiatives to regulate nonconforming lots and to change height limits should be added to the list to be presented to the Planning Board. Housing Affordability. d. Ms. Foutter reported on her and Ms. Johnson’s meeting with Jennifer Van Campen of the Metrowest Housing Collaborative to discuss the option of scattered site affordable housing development. For conversion of a single family house sold for $650k, Ms. Van Campen estimated the subsidy gap needed to make the house affordable to a low- or moderate-income household to be $470k; for conversion to a two-family building, the gap was estimated to be $740k. Discussion ensued regarding zoning changes needed to facilitate the conversion of some single- family houses to 2-family buildings that could be designated for seniors and/or households with lower incomes. Ms. Johnson suggested that the Balanced Housing provisions of the bylaw could be used to allow such conversions. The question was raised whether existing provisions for accessory apartments already provide a viable option for such conversions. After more discussion, Ms. Johnson asked whether the committee would consider a 2-family conversion initiative a priority. Mr. Pressman said that it should be a priority, since scattered site affordable housing is the most viable path to generating any new affordable housing. After further discussion, a consensus was reached that an initiative for 2-family conversion would be advanced on the list of possible initiatives, but that there were many unanswered questions, and at this stage it would be considered a lower priority. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm. Documents Attached: Agenda, Sign-in Sheet