HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-31-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF MARCH 31, 2021
Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board
Held on March 31st, 2021, Virtual Meeting per Governor Baker’s Order at 5:05 pm
Present: Charles Hornig, Chair; Robert Peters, Vice-Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Clerk; and
Robert Creech. Also present was Amanda Loomis, Planning Director and Sheila Page, Assistant
Planning Director. Melanie Thompson joined the meeting later.
Mr. Hornig stated that this remote participation meeting was being held in accordance
with Governor Baker’s March 12, 2020 Executive Order suspending certain provisions of
the Open Meeting Law to allow remote participation during the State of Emergency due
to the outbreak of COVID-19. Mr. Hornig provided instructions to members of the
public, who were watching or listening to the meeting via the Zoom application,
regarding the process for making a public comment.
*****************************TOWN MEETING**********************************
Consideration of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Articles: Articles 39, 41, 44, and
45:
There were no proposed amendments to Articles 39 and 41.
Article 44:
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the amendment to Article 44 as
proposed which would change the threshold for requiring a loading bay for office uses in the
Table of Loading Requirements to 10,000 square feet. Michael Schanbacher seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes;
Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED
Article 45:
Ms. Arens presented a proposed amendment from the Sustainable Lexington Committee
on height limitations based on energy use.
Staff Comments and Questions:
Ms. Iyer said they reached out to many developers and others who said the goal
was to get to a place we all could agree on, the 15 BTU was too prescriptive, we
should be more flexible, and it would send the developers elsewhere. It would be
better to do this on a case-by- case basis. We do not support adding building code
language to the zoning bylaws.
Ms. Loomis said they spoke with a lot of people, did a lot of research, and kept
getting other numbers. Staff was not against sustainability, but this was a very
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 31, 2021
narrow focus since there are a lot of other sustainable features that go into a
project other than just electrification of a building. This should not be in the
zoning since it was a building code issue. The concept is good, but does not
belong in the zoning bylaw.
Ms. Carr agreed the goal is achievable, but does not belong in the zoning bylaw.
Board Member Comments and Questions:
Mr. Schanbacher asked Ms. Iyer for clarification on how a case-by-case basis
would work. Ms. Iyer said they have a framework from Eversource for each
development that came through and we are also working with a consultant that
deals with Life Science buildings who would work with the Town. Mr.
Schanbacher requested clarification on what the approval process would be if it
was done on a case-by-case basis versus if we approved this amended language.
Ms. Iyer said the framework includes Mass Save and other incentives that the
State has been providing. Once the site plan review is done and seeing if the site
is approved or not then we would have this conversation on how everything would
move forward. Ms. Loomis explained there would be a programing check list,
Planning Board Regulations, and the framework from Eversource.
Mr. Peters asked for clarification on whether the developer have to follow the
checklist in the regulations. Mr. Peters asked Ms. Arens if she discussed the 15
BTU per hour per gross square foot with other property owners. Was there any
feedback from them? Ms. Arens said no.
Mr. Creech asked what prompted these companies in Boston to develop the
buildings with all triple glazed windows, passive solar, and geothermal to reach
these sustainability goals. Ms. Arens said she believed that the tenants were
requiring them to do that. Boston is a city and can do a lot more than a Town can
do a lot more in their requirements. Mr. Hornig said Boston has its own zoning
act from the state which is different from everyone else.
Mr. Hornig asked for clarification of the wording “primary heating system” --
does it mean a single system or a group of systems? He was concerned about how
it would be interpreted by others and needed clarity on that. Ms. Arens responded.
Mr. Hornig said he looked at the permitting records for the three projects
presented as examples in the slides and their heat pumps systems generate
between 5-6 BTUs per hour per square foot. Do you have actual evidence that
those three systems would meet the standard being proposed since they claimed to
be the best of the best in Boston? Ms. Arens responded.
Mr. Hornig said that we spoke with the developer and his message to us was it
could be met in a specific site, specific building, and specific use, but isn’t
Minutes for the Meeting of March 31, 2021 Page 3
something that could done in a broad area. Mr. Myers clarified he was an expert
on sustainability and in theory it could work on a specific project, but couldn’t
claim it would work for every project. He also felt at this point zoning would not
be the best place to put these requirements for energy carbon performance
engineering standards that are this prescriptive.
Audience Comments and Questions:
Mr. Smith said he agreed with staff this should not be put in the zoning bylaw.
Lexington does not need to make it more expensive to build and operate these
buildings and is not a wise idea.
Ricky Pappo said incentive zoning is being asked by the Attorney General to be
incorporated to reduce the carbon emissions. That is where climate change comes
from and if we do not take it on we are missing the boat on sustainability. The
number of 7 BTUs is more reasonable.
A member of the audience said no one has ever said they wish they had not built a
more efficient building and it is all about being hybrid.
Lin Jensen said we need to find the best builders by keeping standards high so
that we find the better developers. Were the buildings at 1040 and 1050 Waltham
Street hybrid or all fossil fuel? Ms. Loomis said we need to hear from the Building
Commissioner. If it is not clearly in writing in the zoning bylaw what we can
expect if the building can do fossil fuel by right.
Board Member Comments and Questions:
Mr. Schanbacher was torn on this and was leaning towards the staff
recommendation that this does not belong in the zoning bylaw. Building codes are
changing and will be in the building code before too long. I am against adding the
language from this amendment.
Ms. Thompson joined the meeting earlier. I believe in the staff and feel over time
we will have more sustainability and for now will vote for the article as it stands.
Mr. Peters said staff work was excellent as well as the Sustainable Lexington
Committee and this does not belong in the zoning bylaw and oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Hornig said he was in favor of hybrid systems and the specific language in
this amendment had some issues which could prevent us from getting larger and
taller buildings that we want. This article amendment is not ready yet.
Mr. Creech said hope this amendment would come back sometime in the next
year and at this time would not support this amendment.
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of March 31, 2021
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board recommend that Town Meeting disapprove the
proposed amendment to Article 45. Robert Creech seconded the motion. The Planning Board
voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes
Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED
Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of March 31, 2021.
Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion
5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes;
Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED
Meeting adjourned at 6:19 p.m.
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.
Town Meeting:
Proposed Amendment to Article 45, Hartwell Innovation Park (11 pages).
Michael Schanbacher, Clerk of the Planning Board