Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-10-05 SB-min SELECT BOARD MEETING Monday, October 5, 2026 A meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, October 5, 2026, via a hybrid meeting platform. Mr. Pato, Chair; Ms. Kumar, Vice Chair; Ms. Hai; Mr. Lucente, and Mr. Sandeen were present, as well as Town Manager, Mr. Bartha; Deputy Town Manager, Ms. Axtell; and Executive Assistant, Ms. Katzenback. PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, expressed concern about the content of the Town's news release on recent State funding for two affordable housing initiatives, one being the 40-unit affordable Housing Trust and Causeway Development Lowell Street project, and the other LexHAB ADU initiative involving a much smaller number of housing units. There is no mention in the release of the Housing Trust’s role, its chair, or other members in terms of the Lowell Street project. This is a glaring omission. SELECT BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS AND LIAISON REPORTS 1. Select Board Member Announcements and Liaison Reports Ms. Hai stated that she and Mr. Bartha attended the MMA Fiscal Summit and she will circulate the slides from it. DOCUMENTS: 2026-10-05-Email-update.pdf 2. Lexington High School Project Update to Board Mr. Pato noted that on Wednesday, September 30th, the Mass Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a superseding order affirming the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions for the high school project. Mr. Bartha explained that the two-month delay that the project is now exiting probably cost the project between $1M-$2M in lost time. If no appeal is filed on the decision that was just rendered by the DEP to the Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution, the expectation is that the team will begin mobilizing later this month and the project will stay on track for the start of school in 2029. There are additional appeal windows available. Should the project be appealed further, there could be serious implications for the project budget. A December 2029 move-in would bring roughly a $20M additional cost to the project. Anything beyond that, to the summer of 2030 or later, would be roughly an additional $30M in additional cost. TOWN MANAGER REPORT 1. Town Manager Weekly Update None at this time. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve: Select Board Committee Reappointments  Noise Committee o Laura Rosen To reappoint Laura Rosen to the Noise Committee for a term to expire September 30, 2029. 2. Dissolve: Ad Hoc Crematory Study Committee II To dissolve the Ad Hoc Crematory Study Committee II. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve the Consent Agenda. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Vote: FY2027 Water/Sewer Rates The hearing reopened at 6:43pm. Carolyn Kosnoff, Asst. Town Manager for Finance, stated that this is the second and final meeting on the proposed water and wastewater rates for FY2027. The proposed rates remain unchanged from the initial presentation during the public hearing last week. The combined increase between the water and wastewater funds is 2.8% over last year's rates. This reflects a 3.8% increase in the water rates and a 2.3% increase in the wastewater rates. Typically, with all of the rates, staff review the five- and ten-year averages of consumption in order to come up with a number estimated for the coming year. She explained the process for determining irrigation rates. Staff use baseline consumptions and these will be revisited during the process of redoing the water and sewer rate study, with new tiers for the coming year. A comment was received regarding increasing the irrigation rate further in order to save some of the lower tiers of water and sewer. This is not currently how the model is structured. Currently, all of the rates go up or down by the same percentage each year. This can be revisited in the future. The combined increase of 2.8% will result in an increase for the average Lexington user of $30.80 in FY27. John Bartenstein, member of the Appropriations Committee, stated that he understands a rate study will be completed and that residents will be moving to four bills a year from two. He is interested in hearing more about that process but it is otherwise comfortable with the proposal at this time for the water rates. The hearing closed 6:51pm. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve the proposed FY2027 water and wastewater rates as presented: Residential/ Water Sewer Commercial/Industrial Tier 1 $5.43 $10.86 Tier 2 $8.14 $17.75 Tier 3 $10.74 $28.23 Irrigation $10.74 N/A Municipal $4.00 $3.68 Hanscom/Lincoln Labs $8.00 N/A VA Hospital $9.56 N/A Bedford-water $3.85 N/A Flat Sewer Rate (Annual) N/A $497.04 DOCUMENTS: FY26 Water and Sewer Rate Setting Presentation_10.2.2026.pdf 2. Hearing for Liquor License Compliance Check Second Violation - Il Casale Mr. Pato explained that on Tuesday, August 4, 2026 Alcohol Compliance Checks were conducted by the Lexington Police Department on establishments in Lexington that sell or serve alcoholic beverages. During this compliance check an incident of serving alcohol to an underaged person occurred at Il Casale. The Officers indicated that there would be a follow-up from the Select Board due to the incident. This is the second offense for Il Casale within three years. The prior violation occurred on August 14, 2024. Sale or service of alcohol to under aged persons is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws and the Lexington Alcohol Licensing Board. The Lexington Select Board and Police Department share with business owners/manager and members of the Lexington community, the common goal of consistent responsible sales of alcohol. In accordance with the Select Board Alcoholic Beverages Enforcement Regulation, the following courses of action are taken upon violations occurring within 3 years: 1st offense – written warning placed in the licensing file and required training for personnel; 2nd offense – hearing before the Select Board to determine a course of action. Filippo DeMagistris, Il Casale Restaurant Owner and Manager on Record on the Liquor License, was informed that for Il Casale's second offense he must attend this hearing before the Select Board. He was instructed to provide to the Select Board Office, prior to the meeting, copies of the Alcohol Training certificates showing that all wait staff and managers have been trained in alcohol awareness. Mr. DeMagistris reviewed the training and mitigation undertaken after this offense. Mr. Pato noted that the Board’s practice has been to issue a three-day suspension of serving license on a second violation, but to waive two days of the suspension as long as there are no additional violations within one year. If there is a violation within that one-year period after the penalty has been imposed, those days would be reinstated, and there will be a penalty for the third violation. There was no public comment, and the hearing was closed at 7:02pm. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to suspend the restaurant liquor license of Il Casale Restaurant for a period of 3 days with 2 days put in abeyance unless there is another violation within one year, then number of days suspension will then be doubled. Further that the 1-day liquor suspension will be served on Monday, October 12, 2026. 3. 2026-1 Special Town Meeting  Review and Sign 2026-1 Special Town Meeting Warrant  Review and vote Moderator's Request for Hybrid Meeting to be included in warrant Ms. Axtell reviewed the two proposed Warrants for Town Meeting, one without the Planning Board ask of Article Seven, and one with it. Also in the packet is the Moderator’s request for a hybrid special town meeting. Michael Schanbacher, member of the Planning Board and resident of 516 Concord Ave., explained that he was the sole dissenting vote on asking the Select Board to add this to the warrant this year. The latest draft fixes real problems. For one, it resolves which floor area table applies to SRDs. His concern is that more time is needed to fully understand the implications this change will have on future projects. In the 3+ years since Town Meeting passed the bylaw, two projects have been approved, with a third in review. Two of the three could not be built under this Article. One exceeds the new floor area cap by about 1,400 s.f.; the other by 4,000 s.f., which is roughly 18% of its market rate floor area. The third fits but is on a very large lot with a large portion of unbuildable area. Mr. Pato asked the other members of the Planning Board present to leave the room temporarily while one member presented his opinion due to quorum concerns. Mr. Schanbacher stated that on a site with nothing historic to preserve, the premium for using this bylaw, instead of tearing down and building three houses, drops from somewhere between 40%-57% to exactly 15%. The inclusionary requirement is 17.6. and it is unclear if this still works. If this does pencil out, it is unclear if it will allow for inclusionary housing. Second, the preservation provision is exceptionally broad and seems to allow only repairs to existing structures because it is now tied to the federal standard of preservation. This would mean no additions, no adaptations, and no relocations. There are 2,000 homes on the cultural inventory and he noted the ease at which a house can be added. When the Planning Board created their regulations, it included a request for a meeting with abutters prior to their first site plan review with the Board. Every one of the projects has conducted that meeting. This kind of outreach should be encouraged, and he believes that, if this provision were to pass, that outreach would not happen again. Finally, he expressed concern with the process. The Select Board is being asked to put this on the Warrant tonight before any public hearing has occurred. The first hearing is October 21st, and Special Town Meeting is November 9th. There will only be 19 days to respond to public input. Wendy Manz stated that this proposal to amend the RSRD Zoning statute is supported by some members of the Planning Board but there are loose ends. The SRD might benefit from some tweaking at some point but this proposal, coming after only one project has been built under the law so far, and with only two in the pipeline, is precipitous. The amendments proposed by the Planning Board are not minor adjustments. The imposition of new dimensional limits, the requirement for greater open space, and the broadening of the protection of any structure that is put on the cultural or historic inventory, creates a situation where it becomes so difficult to go forward that it is less likely that a builder will attempt any of these projects. Bringing a more carefully drafted proposal to Spring Town Meeting is a reasonable idea, and she urged the Board to take that course. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, stated that he does not believe two public hearings is enough for this proposed amendment. There are many technical and legal problems with some of the language and components which cannot be addressed with public hearings. This needs to be vetted and fixed with Town Counsel and the Planning Department. It is unclear whose interests are served by putting something that is half baked with so many objectively flawed pieces on the Warrant. Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, stated that she is in favor of having this on the Special Town Meeting. Approximately 1/6 of the homes in Lexington are on the inventory and the percentage of those homes will be less and less as more MBTA housing comes into Town. It is possible to keep those homes on their properties and kept up, which is important. Kunal Botla, 40 Grapevine Avenue, stated that this amendment seems premature. Lexington exists amongst many other towns in the region with a massive inventory of historic and significant homes. If the Town does not follow best practices, it may put itself at risk of being isolated in a way that makes it vulnerable to development and things that impact these historic homes. Sumitra Sujanani, 29 Ledgelawn Avenue, expressed strong support for Article 7 and its inclusion on the warrant for the Special Town Meeting. The Article refines the existing bylaw and captures learnings from the existing, in-process SRD developments. It adds more specific details and encourages the preservation of unique and historic structures, while also providing incentives to do so. It encourages the development of a variety of housing types that will be accessible to residents of differing wealth and income levels. It was developed while taking into consideration wide-ranging community feedback, and is in line with the Planning Board's responsibilities, oversight, and purview. Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, stated that it would be irresponsible to place this on the table. The demolition delay bylaw in Lexington has been in place for 50 years. A delay would not permanently override the strong priority that there is for affordable housing. There is a balance of priorities to consider in terms of stating that something could never be demolished, regardless of how the property could otherwise be utilized. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, stated that at the last meeting she was in support of delaying this, but has changed her mind. The Town should address this now. As the former chairman of the Historical Commission, she understands the demolition delay bylaw in a way that many people do not and believes it is being used as a red herring. The Planning Board has two public hearings planned for this. Removing it precludes the opportunity for discussion. The Planning Board is responsible and has the right to IP it if concerns are brought up during the public hearings. Tina McBridge, 45 Turning Mill Road and member of the Planning Board, stated that the Planning Board has been very responsive, is very familiar with the material, and is capable of responding with changes quickly. As far as the timeline, this process is well within the timeline seen for other articles. In terms of concerns about the historic structure incentives, this does not preclude development and can only enhance it. Mr. Lucente stated that he believes the correct place to have this litigated is on the floor of Town Meeting. He does not want to set a precedent where the Select Board reviews and overrules Planning Board items. He is in favor of supporting Article 7 to be in the Warrant and having more discussion on it. Ms. Hai stated that it is very important that all four of the elected boards in this Town give respect to each other's areas of expertise and authority. However, the community at large has no idea that this item is being discussed. The purpose of this type of zoning, SRD, is to create an attractive, realistic incentive for development as an alternative to conventional subdivisions, which are zoning-by right. The SRD as it currently stands may have flaws, but it is the subject of a lot of data-driven calculations and professional input, as well as a significant public input process. There has not been a time period that allows for the vetting of unintended consequences of the amendments. This has been on the books for three years, and there have been three applications and only one project. She does not see the urgency for this item at Special Town Meeting. Ms. Kumar stated that it is the Board’s responsibility to consider zoning Articles. There are several stakeholders that could be impacted by this, and they have approximately 2.5 weeks to go through the process. She remains uncomfortable with putting this on the Warrant and also does not see an urgency. Mr. Sandeen stated that there are over 2,000 properties in Lexington on the registry, and those properties could be those resident’s main material asset in this world, and this proposal will affect them. They should be allowed enough time to become comfortable with this proposal and understand it better. Mr. Pato stated that there should be a lot of public outreach for this type of item. Town Meeting is not a place for casual debate. It is a location for that engaged debate after a broad public awareness process. He believes this should be brought forward to Annual Town Meeting and not be placed on this Warrant for a Special Town Meeting. Mr. Lucente reiterated that he believes taking this off the Warrant would be a mistake by the Board. He does not believe the Board should use its power to remove an Article that the Planning Board would like to hear more information on during the upcoming public hearing and at Town Meeting. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 4-1, with Mr. Lucente against, to move forward with the draft warrant that excludes Article 7- Amend Zoning Bylaw- Special Residential Developments. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve the request of the moderator that Special Town Meeting 2026 One scheduled to commence on Monday, November 9, 2026, at 7:30 p.m. be held through hybrid participation, using a combination of one the Zoom video conferencing platform and two the online voting tool developed by Select Board member Joe Pato, and an online queuing function developed by Select Board member Joe Pato to facilitate debate, and further to approve and sign the special town meeting 2026-1 warrant, and authorize staff to make non-substantive edits as necessary or as recommended by Town Counsel or Bond Counsel. DOCUMENTS: Moderator Request 2026 STM1.pdf; STM 2026.1 final without pb art 7.pdf; STM 2026.1 final.pdf; DRAFT Article 7 SRD MOTION 09.30.26.pdf; SB Memo SRD 10.2.2026.docx; Slides SRD Article 7_10.2.2026 .pdf ADJOURN VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to adjourn at 7:55 p.m. The next meeting of the Select Board will be held on Monday, October 19, 2026 at 6:30pm. Financial Summit II will be held on Thursday, October 22, 2026 at 7:00pm. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary