Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-08-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2020 Present: Robert Creech, Chair; Charles Hornig, Vice-Chair; Robert Peters; Ginna Johnson; and Richard Canale (Remote Participation). Also present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director; Eve Tapper; and Lori Kaufman, Department Assistant Robert Creech, Chair, read the agenda into the record, introduced members of the Planning Board and Planning Department Staff. He also welcomed Ms. Loomis as Lexington’s new Planning Director. Mr Creech called the meeting to order at 7:01pm on Wednesday, January 8, 2020. Mr. Creech stated that Richard Canale was participating via remote participation. Board Administration 1. Affordable Housing - Moderate Income Criteria Present for the Discussion: Liz Rust, Director of Regional Housing Services Offices Ms. Rust presented the concept of moderate income housing and a review of the draft Town of Lexington, Eligibility Criteria for Moderate Income Units regulations. Ms. Rust noted that such document was based on DHCD and the Town of Concord’s moderate income housing regulations. Robert Creech, Chair, mentioned that he and Mr. Peters had reviewed the document in August/September of last year and had only minor questions at that time that were resolved by Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager of Land Use, Health, and Development. Mr. Creech requested comments from members of the Planning Board. The following comments were provided.  Charles Hornig provided a brief review of the moderate income housing relative to the Lexington Zoning By-Law, which would require the need to define moderate income housing in the definition. Mr. Hornig requested clarification regarding the differences from DHCD regulations and the Concord regulations, specifically regarding assets limits and household size. Mr. Hornig stated his worry for the underutilization of households if left as drafted relevant to household size.  Richard Canale requested clarification regarding the eighty (80) to one-hundred and fifty (150) percent, and what a developer can build and sell a moderate income unit for. Mr. Canale further requested clarification as to how the moderate income housing regulations work in Concord. Ms. Rust provide a review of the Area Median Income (AMI) and a review of the calculation of the sale price for the affordable units. Members of the Planning Board briefly discussed the proposed moderate income housing range. A majority of the members did not want to see the maximum be one-hundred and fifty (150) percent. Planning Board member comments continued.  Robert Peters requested clarification regarding deed restrictions, in addition to the enforcement of a deed restriction. Ms. Rust provided an overview of the ongoing monitoring process for such efforts. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of January 8, 2020  Ginna Johnson stated that the work product is good and is a good set forward, such efforts may include the addition of an affordable housing by-law for an upcoming town meeting. Ms. Johnson stated that she was in favor of the eighty (80) to one-hundred and twenty (120) percent range for affordability. The Planning Board requested Ms. Loomis to provide direction for future efforts and what their options were relative to moderate income housing. Mr. Creech opened the floor for public comment. The following public comments were provided.  A presented conflict between two (2) definitions of moderate housing.  A statement of encouragement to the Planning Board that the moderate income housing range should be up to one-hundred and fifty (150) percent for moderate workforce housing. The Planning Board requested updates to the draft Town of Lexington, Eligibility Criteria for Moderate Income Units regarding the moderate income housing range, asset levels, and household size. Development Administration 1. 840 Emerson Gardens Road – Public Discussion - Balanced Housing application of Seaver Construction - Special Permit Residential Development Sketch Plan under Section 135-6.9 of the Zoning Bylaw Present for the discussion: Attorney John Farrington; Frederick Russell; and Scott Seaver, Seaver Construction Robert Creech opened the public discussion, welcomed the project team, and requested an update regarding the project. Attorney Farrington provided a brief overview of the amendments made since the December 18, 2019, public meeting. It was noted that the number of units were reduced from twenty-four (24) units to twenty (20) units, structures were moved further from the wetlands and associated buffer, and other associated improvements as shown on the revised December 28, 2019, site plans. Attorney Farrington further provided an overview of trail improvements and fire truck access. Mr. Creech requested comments from members of the Planning Board. The following comments were provided.  Ginna Johnson request clarification as to where the infiltration would be located. Mr. Russell provided a review of the redesign relevant to the infiltration system. Ms. Johnson presented concerns regarding the impacts on the land relevant to the construction process and the installation of the structure.  Charles Hornig requested clarification as to why additional units could not be added. Mr. Hornig presented his view of a project and his request to see more density. Mr. Hornig recommended that the developer consider an alternative design of the project. Minutes for the Meeting of January 8, 2020 Page 3  Richard Canale stated his interest in flats, understanding that they were not permitted as proposed by the applicant and asked the Applicant to explore a redesign to incorporate flats. Mr. Canale stated that flats could be incorporated into Town Houses if there was no dwelling unit above or below a flat. He further gave Journey’s End as an example of a flat built above a garage that works well. Mr. Canale also said that a two-family duplex on one level would be permitted also. Mr. Canale requested that the developer pursue smaller units to get more units. Mr. Canale further requested the inclusion of affordable or moderate income units. Mr. Canale recommended that the developer consider a smaller multi-unit project similar to what they had proposed previously submitted under the LIP program.  Robert Peters provided his interest in the previous plan that included flats, noting that such project was much more appealing. Mr. Peters stated the need for the project to support the diverse housing stock. Scott Seaver provided a review as to why they choose the option of a Balanced Housing project. Mr. Seaver provided a review of the size of the units (2240 sf of living area), the internal layout of the project, in addition to other amendments that would be undertaken. Mr. Creech provided brief review of the development potential of the land that the developer could utilize. Such project could include a conventional subdivision or a variety of special permit housing options. Mr. Creech provided a review of the project and requested that the developer consider potentially flipping the roadway to the outside of the units, which would provide a center common. Mr. Creech requested that the developer include at least 1 moderate income unit in the project. Mr. Creech stated that he would be willing to support a 16 unit project and above that number he would have to think about it. Ms. Johnson stated that the number of units should be based on the layout of the street. Ms. Johnson encouraged the developer to provide affordable housing. Mr. Creech provided a review of the project completed in Woburn, which he recently visited. Mr. Creech noted several things that pointed to a good intentions on the part of the Applicant/developer but the vinyl siding was not one of them. Mr. Seaver noted that he builds a lot of houses in Lexington and that he uses a number of siding materials. Ms. Johnson provided a review of the layout for the project, noting that the siting of the units will determine what the site can hold. Ms. Johnson requested that the developer pull all structures out of the resource area. Ms. Johnson stated her concerns regarding the structure within the two-hundred (200) foot buffer zone, which will impact the water quality. Mr. Hornig provided significant support for the Balanced Housing Development option or the previously submitted Friendly 40B permit that was submitted to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Peters requested that the developer revisit the proposal that included a mixture of townhouse and flats. Mr. Creech opened the floor for public comment. The following public comments were provided. Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of January 8, 2020  A statement of opposition for the previously submitted Friendly 40B proposal. It was stated that such project would not be supported at town meeting.  A statement of support for the proposed project which includes a variety of housing options. Followed by a statement of concern that the property could become a Dover Amendment project.  A statement of support for the project that includes less units and a comment that a conventional single family development would certainly fit in the neighborhood. Ms. Loomis suggested that the she meet with the project team to amend the project appropriately. Mr. Creech concurred that this was a good idea. 2. 9-11 Pelham Road - Approval Not Required The Planning Board reviewed the Plan of Land for the Approval Not Required (ANR) at 9-11 Pelham Road. Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board endorse the Plan of Land for the properties at 9-11 Pelham Road. Robert Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call vote was taken). MOTION PASSED Board Administration 1. Appointment representatives to the Neighborhood Conservation District Robert Creech provided a brief overview of the Neighborhood Conservation District appointments. It was noted that both Richard Canale and Mr. Creech have interest in continuing to sit on these committees.  Pierce-Lockwood – Bob Creech  Turing Mill – Richard Canale Charles Hornig moved that the Planning Board reappoint Bob Creech to the Pierce-Lockwood Neighborhood Conservation District and Richard Canale to the Turning Mill Neighborhood Conservation District. Robert Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call vote was taken). MOTION PASSED 2. Board Member and Staff Updates  Robert Peters provided an update regarding the 20/20 Vision Committee.  Charles Hornig provided a review of the upcoming (January 9, 2020) Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (Magic), which would include a discussion on 2020 priorities and MPO.  Robert Creech said that a recently completed retail strategy report would be available soon and that Economic development Staff was pleased with ideas presented in the report.  Richard Canale advised the Board that the Federal Highway Administration has promulgated a process through which states and entities may apply for Federal Scenic Byway designation. The Battle Road Byway Committee intends to apply by the May Minutes for the Meeting of January 8, 2020 Page 5 2020 deadline. An application for funding as a District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) grant from The Metropolitan Planning Council is anticipated. 3. Minutes of December 4, 2019 Members of the Planning Board reviewed the minutes and edits were provided. Charles Hornig moved that the Lexington Planning Board approve the minutes of December 4, 2019, with grammatical and editorial changes. Bob Peters seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call vote was taken). MOTION PASSED 4. Town Meeting update: Discussion of possible zoning articles for Annual Town Meeting including but not limited to: short term rental by-law; site plan review; solar; ground water; bank/automatic teller/financial services; and technical corrections.  Solar Present for the discussion: Dan Voss, Sustainable Lexington Dan Voss presented a PowerPoint (Solar 101 in Massachusetts, Planning Committee) regarding the overview, context, and trends in the solar industry, in addition to how solar works and examples of both commercial and residential installations. Members of the Planning Board asked clarifying questions regarding solar. Such questions included: o Robert Peters request for clarification regarding canopy system relative to snow. Mr. Peters further requested clarification regarding the installation on a single family home and whether coordination with roof repair is considered. o Robert Creech requested clarification regarding regulatory costs, in addition to how such solar installation is taxed. Mr. Creech questioned if the panels were recycled after their useful life. Mr. Creech requested further clarification as to why the installation of solar takes twelve (12) months. The Planning Board moved on to the review of the draft Solar By-Law. Charles Hornig presented the draft amendments. Members of the Planning Board provided the following comments. o Ginna Johnson provided concerns regarding the encroachment of a solar installation within the setback, removal of tree canopy, and implication/impacts to stormwater. Ms. Johnson stated her support for allowing solar installations by- right in the commercial districts, but had concerns regarding solar within residential zoning districts. o Mr. Creech concurred with Ms. Johnson regarding residential solar installation. Mr. Creech proposed that the Planning Board take up the draft Solar By-Law, if th it meets next Wednesday, January 15. o Richard Canale noted that the town meeting approval is going to be a challenge bringing both residential and commercial forward together. Mr. Canale Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of January 8, 2020 recommended that the Planning Board piece out the project by only proposing simpler changes. The Planning Board discussed the need to have zoning and regulations that balance competing objectives within in the residential zoning districts, while allowing more permissive regulations for solar in commercial zoning districts.  Ground Water and Short-term Rentals th The Planning Board agreed to review these two articles on January 15 due to updates being made.  Technical Correction The Planning Board reviewed the draft technical corrections proposed for Annual Town meeting. Ms. Johnson provided an amendment to footnote (i), which would delete “reduced” and replace with “smaller if allowed. “ The Planning Board further considered an amendment proposed by Ms. Tapper “For non-conforming one and two-family residential structures, reference Section 8.4.1”  Site Plan Review The Planning Board reviewed the draft amendments to Site Plan review proposed for Annual Town meeting. o The Planning Board discussed public hearing vs. public meeting. It was noted that the Planning Board did not want to have to advertise a legal ad for a public meeting. Mr. Canale stated the importance of notifying the public inasmuch as some Site Plan Reviews would have major impacts outside a 300-foot radius. o The Planning Board reviewed the numbers presented in Section 9.5.2. Members of the Planning Board questioned, specifically 9.5.2.2.c regarding twenty (20) off-street parking spaces. Ms. Loomis stated that Planning Department staff would meet with the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Fire Department to determine the appropriate numbers/where these number came from.  Bank/automatic teller/financial services The Planning Board had a lengthy discussion around the Table of Uses and where such use should be allowed. There was a drafting error in the Table of Uses, two districts were inverted (the CN and CS).  Wireless Communication The Planning Board briefly reviewed the topic of potential wireless communication bylaw amendments, which may be proposed for Annual Town Meeting. Statements of concern regarding the installation of such equipment followed but little discussion took place to understand how to revise the bylaw that meets FCC regulations but provides the Town a bylaw that protects a wide range of Lexington’s interests as well. . Any Other Business Minutes for the Meeting of January 8, 2020 Page 7  The Planning Board discussed the need to hold an additional meeting on January 15, 2020 to review only Town Meeting Articles. The Planning Board concurred to review Short-term Rentals, Groundwater, and Solar, and Wireless. Ms. Johnson asked that the meeting begin at 7:30 and Board members and Staff agreed. Mr. Creech further requested that the need to review the draft letter, Subject: Traffic Safety on Concord Ave in the vicinity of the Cotting School, dated January 8, 2020 Adjournment Robert Creech moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of January 8, 2020. Ginna Johnson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (roll call vote was taken). MOTION PASSED The Planning Board adjourned the meeting of January 8, 2020, at 10:38pm The meeting was recorded by LexMedia. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. 2020 Annual Town Meeting Articles:  Draft Groundwater Bylaw (2 page).  Draft Short term Rental Bylaw (5 pages).  Proposed Solar Bylaw (2 pages).  DRAFT ATM/Bank amendment (2 pages).  Chart of Possible 2020 ATM zoning Articles (1 page).  Nosie Bylaw BOS presentation (7 pages).  Discussion ideas (1 page). 840 Emerson Gardens Road:  Applicant dated December 18 (5pages).  Letter from Seaver Construction (1 page).  Plans dated December 11, 2019 (1 page). Affordable Housing:  Draft Moderate Income Standards- Updated January 6, 2020 (3 pages). Robert Peters, Clerk