Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-17 Joint BOS and PB-min Joint Meeting Board of Selectmen and Planning Board October 17, 2019 A Joint Meeting of the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:02 p.m. in Estabrook Hall of the Cary Memorial Building, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue. The purpose of the meeting was to hold a public listening session regarding whether to have an elected or appointed Planning Board. This meeting is a follow-up to a meeting held on July, 15, 2019. Present for the Board of Selectmen (BOS): Mr. Lucente, Chair; Mr. Pato; Ms. Barry; as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; Ms. Axtell, Assistant Town Manager and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. Selectman Hai and Selectman Sandeen were absent. Present for the Planning Board (PB) were Mr. Creech; Chair; Mr. Canale; Mr. Hornig; Ms. Johnson; Mr. Peters; and Mr. Leone, Planning Board Alternate. Also present: Mr. Jeffrey Nutting, Facilitator; Ms. Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development. ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Listening Session Regarding Elected or Appointed Planning Board  Overview Mr. Nutting, Facilitator provided ground rules for discussion, and described the meeting process. Those wishing to submit a written, rather than a verbal, comment were welcomed to do so using the notecards and sticky notes provided. Following the meeting, written input can also be directed to the Town Manager’s Office. Submissions will be archived for future reference at subsequent Joint meetings on this topic. Mr. Kanter, 48 Fifer Lane; and Ms. McKenna, 9 Hancock Street; asked to be provided with some context for the evening’s discussion. Planning Board Chair Mr. Creech said that it was intentional not to have Planning Board members speak prior to fielding public comments to guard against the perception of advocacy in favor or against the question of whether to establish an appointed Planning Board or maintain an election one. Mr. Lucente (BOS) summarized how the issue has arisen, saying that at the May 20, 2019 Selectmen’s meeting, Town Manager Malloy informed the Board that the most recent Planning Director had resigned, which raised serious concerns about the department’s ability to operate since it was the third Planning Director to resign within a year. To address how to proceed, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Selectmen, two Planning Board members, Mr. Malloy, and Ms. Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development met a total four times. Discussions topics included: department staffing challenges; status of ongoing projects; how best to recruit appropriate talent to the department. Consensus was reached at these meetings that additional 1 meetings on the subject were needed. However, at the precursor to tonight’s meeting on July 15 2019, public comment was not taken. Tonight’s meeting is intended to gather that input. After the May 20, 2019 Selectmen’s meeting, Mr. Malloy and Ms. Kowalski hired a part-time interim Planning consultant to work administratively to help projects move along. The search for a permanent director is ongoing.  Public Comment Mr. Sandy, 353 North Emerson Road, stated he was not in favor of a Selectmen-appointed Planning Board. He believes the Selectmen’s priorities and the priorities of the Planning Board are different and believes the Selectmen have already over-stepped Planning Board jurisdiction with unfavorable results. In response to a question about how the change to an appointed board would transpire, Mr. Pato said it would be a lengthy process, requiring an amendment to the Selectmen-Town Manager Act. A warrant article would be put before Town Meeting and, if it passed by a simple majority, a home rule petition would be sent to the State for permission to amend the Town’s charter. Between now and that time, a lot of public engagement would take place. Mr. Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, believes two of the three past Planning Directors would have left anyway because they either preferred to work closer to home or found another position more suited to their interests. Mr. Pressman believes the change in chairmanship of the Planning Board and improved communication between the board and staff have made substantive differences and the effort and controversy inherent in a change from an elected to an appointed board is not warranted. He believes that cooperation between the Planning Board and the Selectmen is necessary in many instances but information sharing needs to improve. Ms. Bloom, 17 Loring Road, said she looks for different qualities when she votes for a Selectman versus a Planning Board member. She would rather that voters have a say. Mr. Burnell, 4 Eaton Road, said it is too hard for citizens to comment on this question without knowing more about the context and the process. To him, this issue seems like overreach by the Selectmen. He believes the citizens should elect the people they believe are most able to create policies that staff then carry out. Mr. Martignetti, 37 Barberry Road, said the Planning process in Lexington needs to be fixed and it would not be unusual to have an appointed Planning Board in a town the size of Lexington. He is in favor of having an appointed board and allowing the Board of Selectmen choose people with expertise to serve and tackle complex development issues. The Board of Selectmen already ably appoints the members of many Town boards and committees and Mr. Martignetti believes it would do a good job appointing Planning Board members. Mr. Locher, 242 Grove Street, said he believes the Planning Board should be elected, and that the citizens are able to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for the Board. He wishes more 2 people would step forward to serve, however, and finds that the Planning Board has been making unfortunate decisions that do not serve the best interests a balanced and harmonious community. Mr. Fenn, 15 Shade Street, read a statement on behalf of his father Dan Fenn, 59 Potter Pond who stands firmly for having an elected Planning Board because he is not sure an appointed board would be one with greater expertise. He believes it is overkill to react to the current situation by changing the process and to do so might have unintended consequences. Mr. Smith, Cranberry Hill Associates and member of the Economic Development Advisory Committee, believes Lexington should have an appointed Planning Board because the Planning Board should be objective and not subject to political winds. He believes the Planning Board has been disruptive to economic development for a number of years. Ms. Coppe, 12 Barrymeade Drive, said that many of the proactive ideas put forward by the Planning Board have been voted down by Town Meeting members. Also, if the Selectmen appointed Planning Board members, understanding who they might appoint would be important to know before voting for them, complicating that decision and placing a heavy burden on the Selectmen. Mr. Kanter, 48 Fifer Lane, asked what problem making this change would solve. Unless he can understand the source of the friction, he cannot decide whether it is worth swapping models. Ms. Weiss, 8 Dover Lane, supported an appointed Planning Board. She expressed concern about Planning staff turnover and about the uneven actions of the Planning Board. She stated she believes the Town needs robust commercial development to support important capital projects and a competent Planning Director is needed to shepherd developments through the process. Ms. McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, stated she believes the Selectmen-Town Manager Act was very well written and that serious consideration is needed before making changes to it. She believes the community has an identity crisis in that it is not unified about what sorts of development it wants. Until it can decide, Planning and policy will remain challenging in Lexington, possibly irreconcilably so. She believes more conversation is necessary and that the Comprehensive Plan process is not the way to have those conversations.  Discussion of the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board Mr. Hornig (PB) said he is in favor of having an appointed board because the skills needed to be a good Planning Board member are different from those needed to run a successful town-wide election. He believes the Town Manager has done a good job of recruiting and appointing capable people to positions like the Zoning Board of Appeals and Conservation Commission and he can be entrusted to appoint Planning Board members as well. The argument that Planning Board members should be accountable to voters is problematic since, in his experience, average citizens have no idea of what the Planning Board actually does. Ms. Hornig noted that one of the main actions of the Selectmen Town Manager Act was to sweep away many of the formerly- elected Town government positions, making them appointed positions instead. He does not see 3 the Planning Board so much a policy-setting body as one that adjudicates special permits and evaluates sub-divisions plans. Robert Peters, (PB), supports keeping the elected board model. He believes the diversity of opinion on the Board is reflective of the diversity of opinion in town. Looking into how two other communities’ Planning Boards function— one with an appointed board, one with an elected board—he sees that the appointed board functions less smoothly than the elected board. He believes an elected board is more politically astute to get controversial projects through the Town Meeting process, having themselves been through the election process. He is not convinced that swapping the model would be worth the effort. Mr. Pato (BOS) said that Planning Board model might have been changed fifty years ago when the Selectmen-Town Manager Act was enacted, but the issue was too controversial even then. He believes the question bears re-visitation from time to time and he is interested in having that dialogue. Lexington’s recent troubles with its Planning department are well known across the state. In order to attract qualified candidates for the Director’s job, a healing process through dialogue is important. Having been on the candidate review committee for the position, he has not seen an abundance of desirable applicants. Ms. Barry (BOS) said she is not yet sure how she would vote on this question but the town is stronger when people work together. She hopes more people will get involved in the conversation. Mr. Creech (PB) said he came to the meeting to listen and does not yet have a position. He noted that four of the five current members of the Planning Board ran unopposed; an appointed board might have a bigger candidate pool because applicants would not have to go through the daunting process of running for office. He also believes there would be more regular turnover of board members. Ms. Johnson (PB) said that democracy is messy, communication takes effort, and zoning is complicated. She believes fundamental processes should not be changed because of some rough moments. She is proud of what the Planning Board has accomplished, given the complexity of what it has been asked to do. She has been under-whelmed by the amount of community involvement in the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Leone (PB appointed Associate Member) said he thinks there is value in having an elected Planning Board. He believes the Planning Board should be responsive to the community at large rather than any particular Board of Selectmen. The reason why it has been hard to attract and retain a Planning Director could be based in perception that there is conflict but there is also a perception problem if it is believed that the Planning Board is a puppet of the Selectmen. An elected Planning Board could serve as a check and balance at a time when a Board of Selectmen is out of balance or under pressure to achieve a particular agenda. Mr. Leone suggested that instituting term limits might be advisable because times and populations change. He noted that the majority of development, in his time on the board, has been approved, with conditions, at the same time as the board has been perceived as too conservative and dysfunctional. 4 Mr. Canale (PB) said he believes it is helpful to go through a contested election because the candidates get the chance to express opinions and goals. The re-development opportunities on Hartwell Avenue are compelling and should be advanced collaboratively.  Additional Public Comments Ms. Costello, 9 Preston Road, is not sure what an appointed board would look like and what the term lengths would be. She thinks it would be hard to find enough people to appoint. Mr. Smith, Cranberry Hill Associates, believes Lexington is losing out to other communities that attract companies by streamlining the permitting process. The Planning Board cannot re-write zoning bylaws without Town Meeting approval. Ms. Coppe, 12 Barrymeade Drive, said Mr. Smith is expressing the views of a developer, not a resident. Mr. Kanter, 48 Fifer Lane, said that development should not be considered an unalloyed good. There needs to be a balance and an understanding of impact. Mr. Shick, 27 Rangeway, asked what will be done to preserve neighborhoods like his from things like teardowns and large replacement houses. He believes the character of Lexington, as he knows, it is disappearing. Ms. Maliszewski, 310 Concord Avenue, said developers will come to Lexington whether it changes the zoning bylaws or not. She has faith that the elected Planning Board is able to discern development proposals. The voters chose the members and voiced their opinions about what they want. Ms. Barrentine, 100 Bedford Street, supports keeping an elected board. She believes the Board of Selectmen may undercut the Planning Board and that an appointed board can seem suspect to the public. Mr. Zhao, 10 Cooke Road, said either model—elected or appointed—could work but large issues need to be tackled. He would the root cause of the problem to be addressed rather than to opt for change, just for change’s sake. Ms. McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, said the town has always changed and change will continue. Developers should not be thought of as the problem; many of Lexington’s developers are also Lexington residents who care about the town. Mr. Martignetti, 37 Barberry Road, said the root of the problem is not a mystery since two of the three departing Planning Directors said they left due to conflicts with how the Planning Board functioned and because their professional opinions were disregarded. Mr. Ganshirt, 48 Fletcher Avenue, normally favors elected boards but suggested an advisory committee to the Planning Board as a potential resource. 5 A follow-up meeting on this issue will be scheduled. ADJOURN On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 3-0 to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. The Planning Board voted unanimously to adjourn. A true record; Attest: Kim Siebert Recording Secretary 6