Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-15-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2006 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Cary Hall was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Hornig, Canale, Harden and planning staff Schilt, Tapper and Tap present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. ************************************* MINUTES ************************************** Review of Minutes: The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the executive session of November 16, 2005. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as amended. ****************** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE ******************* Change Date of Public Hearings on Impervious Surface and Center Parking Zoning Amendments: Because March 15 is the night of the Town Meeting members' information meeting on warrant articles, the Board agreed to reschedule the March 15 hearings on two of its own proposed amendments to the Zoning By-Law. to March 14, 2006. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to hold the public hearings on impervious surface and center parking on Tuesday, March 14, 2006. ************************ ARTICLES FOR 2006 TOWN MEETING ************************ PUBLIC HEARING Article 4, Proposed Inclusionary Housing By-Law: Ms. Manz opened the public hearing on the Planning Board's proposed Inclusionary Housing bylaw at 7:45 p.m. There were 40 people in the audience. Mr. Harden made a PowerPoint presentation, about one-half hour in length, explaining the Planning Board's reasons for proposing an inclusionary housing zoning by-law and how it would work. Audience Comments and Questions Mr. Alan Wrigley, 205 Grove Street, first indicating that he owns three acres of land in Lexington, spoke against the measure, citing its complexity and its effect on a small subset of residents. He said that the whole town should have an opportunity to vote on it, as it will on the Community Preservation Act (CPA) in March. He suggested that CPA funds, if the act is adopted, could be used to provide affordable housing. He added that AMI, an acronym that appears many times in the proposed motion, should be defined early on in the document. Ms. Manz replied that it is not necessarily known who and how many property owners would be affected by the measure. Developers frequently buy and assemble smaller lots to create areas large enough to develop. The bylaw is not aimed at property owners. The Town has reached the ten percent of affordable housing prescribed by MGL Ch. 40B. But in order to stay at or above ten percent, the supply of affordable housing must keep pace with new market rate units. The bylaw creates a mechanism for developments of three units or more to provide affordable housing for a wide range of income levels, which is needed to maintain the diversity in the Town. She added that the Zoning Bylaw already has provisions that limit development options that reduce property values, such as requirements for maximum impervious surfaces or minimum lot sizes in new subdivisions. Profits from property ownership is not a given, and when a person purchases property there is no guarantee that it will increase in value. The proposed bylaw amendment is not a taking of profits from a developer or landowner any more than any of the existing regulations. Mr. Chris Spilios, 110 Shade Street, who owns seven acres in Lexington and has lived here for 50 years, said that he feels targeted, estimating that the measure could cost him $385,000 if the land is developed. Minutes for the Meeting of February 15, 2006 2 He suggested waiting until the Town's Subsidized Housing Inventory (as calculated by the state's Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) falls below ten percent. Mr. Canale responded that the Board's responsibility is to ensure that new subdivisions do not unduly impact the Town’s ability to maintain DHCD's ten percent threshold, and the bylaw is a tool to mitigate any impacts to the diversity of the housing supply resulting from new development. Mr. Richard Pagett, Oakmount Circle, guessed that about 100 property owners would be affected. Mr. Hornig stated that the Board tried to research how many property owners would be affected, and found that without doing a thorough analysis on a lot by lot basis, it is impossible to assess. Many larger lots are not conducive for the amount of development that could be anticipated, and many smaller lots could be combined to create larger parcels for subdivisions. Therefore, even owners of smaller lots would be subject to the bylaw. Mr. Harden noted the history of subdivisions approved by the Board over the last decade, and stated that given past trends, the number of inclusionary units that would be produced may represent 20 to 30 units over the next decade. Mr. Nyles Barnert, Board of Appeals member, asked 1) for clarification on the 10 percent difference between the sales price of the affordable unit and the income restriction, and 2) could the requirement be waived in an RD, Planned Residential District. The Board responded that 1) it is a market-window to make the units affordable to a range of income levels (i.e. a unit restricted to a household earning a maximum of 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) would be priced to be affordable to a household earning 70 percent AMI), and, 2) it is unlikely that units would be waived in an RD district, as it would be difficult to prove any hardships to justify it. Mr. Howard Simpson, 67 Turning Mill Road, suggested that developers would probably build two large houses on land that could accommodate three in order to avoid the bylaw. Mr. Hornig replied that builders are building large homes on any lot anyway. Mr. Simpson also suggested that affordable dwellings would look out of place next to market rate units. Ms. Manz pointed out that the offsite option offered in the proposed bylaw helps to address that concern. Using this mechanism, a modest home elsewhere could be preserved by a developer. Ms. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, indicated that the potential for land taking lawsuits should be considered, along with the cost to the Town of revenue lost due to fewer market rate units. She questioned the need for affordable housing, adding that Lexington has not been and is not now an affordable town. Mr. Harden responded that Town Counsel has reviewed the wording of the motion as it has developed so a successful challenge is unlikely. Also, other towns have adopted similar measures that have not been successfully challenged. Mr. Harden went on to say that the Planning Board believes the Town should have a diverse range of housing. Keeping Comprehensive Permit development at bay is not the best or only reason to maintain affordable housing stock at ten percent. Several residents praised the Board for its efforts and expressed the hope that additional means could be found to retain and produce modest housing units in Lexington. They acknowledged the need for homes affordable to children who grew up in town, Town employees, and other persons of modest means. Ms. Kay Tiffany, 107 Reed Street, said that her house and several acres of land are her only investments and she worries that the inclusionary housing bylaw would negatively impact her financial well-being in retirement. She suggested that a real estate transfer tax would be a more equitable way to finance affordable housing. The Board pointed out that that is unlawful for communities to impose a transfer tax on real estate transactions. Minutes for the Meeting of February 15, 2006 3 Mr. Julian Bussgang, 2 Forest Street, characterized the proposed bylaw as grossly unfair, as well as too complicated and not needed now. He asked which other Massachusetts towns have adopted such a bylaw. Mr. Arthur Spilios, owner of seven acres in Lexington, agreed that young people need help in buying a house and suggested that with a higher permissible density in the Zoning By-Law, 30 to 40 units could be built on seven acres of land. Mr. Harden agreed that the cluster subdivision provisions allow more density than a conventional subdivision, depending on the impacts it would generate. Mr. Spilios suggested making the cluster easier to do. The Board indicated that it is willing and hopes to do this. Mr. Canale noted that some properties have a special character worth preserving. Ms. Martha Wood, Lexington Housing Assistance Board (LexHAB), stated that LexHAB does not see a need for four-bedroom houses. Two-bedroom affordable units are most in demand. Mr. Harden provided an example of the costs involved with the transactions of recent subdivisions, and noted that the Board is weighing impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods from larger homes and the associated financial returns to the landowners. Ms. Manz stated that the number of bedrooms required in an affordable unit provided in subdivisions of four units or less will be revised by the Board to allow for two-bedroom units in order to make the process more equitable for smaller subdivisions. Mr. Bob Bicknell, Housing Partnership chair, made a couple of points about the special permit process and provided the Board with his personal suggestions regarding simplifying some aspects of the bylaw. Mr. John Sellars, 430 Concord Avenue, expressed his appreciation for the Board's work but indicated that this bylaw seems almost unconstitutional to him. He suggested that the Board consider allowing smaller conventional lot sizes in order to allow more density, which would help to produce diverse housing. The Board made summary comments, observing that there are provisions in the Zoning By-Law that have affected and do affect land development, e.g., the Wetlands Act, much more than an inclusionary housing bylaw would. Such decisions, made over the years to promote the common good, have helped to make Lexington the desirable community it is today. They are values that the town has chosen. Ms. Manz closed the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. and declared a short recess. The Board reconvened at 10:15 p.m. to discuss revisions to the Inclusionary Bylaw based on comments made at the hearing. Mr. Canale suggested that provisions were needed for cluster subdivisions that would base the number of inclusionary units on the number of units allowed in the proof plan, rather than the total number of units approved by the special permit. Mr. Hornig stated that the provisions could be interpreted in the existing cluster regulations, but he felt that it added too much complexity to the process. Mr. Canale noted that the requirements for the bedroom mix of the inclusionary units should be revised. Mr. Hornig stated that he is willing to craft revisions for the Board to review including an idea he wanted to work through to combine the two separate tables that tie the inclusionary credits to the bedroom mix required. Mr. Harden suggested that another meeting be held with local developers to gain their input. Given the late hour, the Board agreed that it would be more productive to schedule another meeting to go over the latest draft of the Bylaw. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Richard L. Canale, Acting Clerk