The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-10-02-PB-minPLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 2002 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members Chase, Davies, Harden, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall - Taylor, Tap and Machek present. Ms. Chase was out of the country. ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Review of Minutes The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of September 18, 2002. On the motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes, as amended. * * * * * * * * * * ** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANS NOT REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW Form A/02 -4 50 and 56 Bloomfield Street: The Board reviewed an Approval Not Required Plan for land at 50 and 56 Bloomfield Street. On the motion of Mr. Harden, seconded by Mr. Davies, the Board voted unanimously to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington in Mass., dated August 22, 2002, prepared and certified by Richard Nelson, Registered Land Surveyor, Belmont, MA, with Form A/2002- 4, submitted by Martin K. and Tanya White, applicants, as it does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The Board welcomed Mr. Philip Herr, of Philip B. Herr & Associates, who was awarded the contract for on -call consulting services relative to implementing the first four elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Herr introduced his guest, Josephine McNeil, an affordable housing activist in Newton, MA. Affordable Housing Initiative The Board, planning staff and Mr. Herr informally discussed possible approaches to solving the affordable housing shortage in Lexington. Mr. Herr provided the Board with a overview of Lexington's long history of commitment to affordable housing, saying that this history, along with the housing goals put forth in the recent comprehensive plan and the Town's special permit process, puts the town in a strong legal position. He described a number of mechanisms successfully used by other Massachusetts municipalities, e.g., Barnstable offers regulatory relief and technical assistance to people who will create affordable accessory units. He acknowledged the need to tailor any method chosen to Lexington's particular requirements. The Board considered potential zoning initiatives for Town Meeting 2003, such as: • Expand/liberalize accessory apartment provisions. • Make affordable housing the preferred public benefit for frontage reduction subdivisions. • Define an affordable housing (minimum 25 %? 20 %? as per state /federal area definitions) sub- category of the RD- Planned Development provisions, allowing the developer to take advantage of the design flexibility, but with special density limits established so as to avoid the lack of such standards in Chap. 40B projects. Also considered: Amend zoning use provisions to allow housing in selected commercial or industrial districts. Judged to he lower priority or less effective in short term. Make it easier to convert non - residential structures to residential uses. There are too few remaining structures to make much difference. Or allow affordable housing in most zoning districts by special permit, but with defined density limits and Minutes for the Meeting of October 2, 2002 2 other dimensional standards, to afford a high degree of control by the community. Needs much more study before chances of passage would reach minimal levels. Prepare an Inclusionary Housing Commitment for Town Meeting 2004 Create a Central Housing Advocacy Group or Housing Partnership Board The Board agreed that: • The package of zoning incentive measures that does go forward must be meaningful and capable of having a positive impact; it should not be a set of actions that is so weak that it functions merely as a holding mechanism until something more comprehensive can be proposed in the future. • At the same time, it must be a package that has at least a reasonable chance of passing town meeting, in whole or in part, and is capable of being done in this short time frame. • There must be a commitment to studying and pursuing some system of inclusionary housing provisions, one that is more mandatory, prescriptive and quantified than anything that has occurred in the past. There are a number of issues and decision points involved in doing this. • In the realm of non - regulatory approaches, the idea of a central housing advocacy group or housing partnership board seems to be receiving favorable support from the Board. Mr. Galaitsis asked Mr. Herr if any municipality had adopted an approach that mirrors the State's Comprehensive Permit provisions. Mr. Herr said that the Town of Barnstable had laws that required inclusionary units in larger developments and fees for smaller units. The fee was challenged in court as a tax and it was overturned, but it was a poorly crafted by -law. Cambridge requires inclusionary units for all multi - family and that is about all that is being built there. Mr. Herr indicated that requiring ten percent affordable across the board would be precedent setting and many attorneys would say you could not do it. However, Lexington requires a special permit for three or more units so it could require affordable units through that process. Other ideas were: • Create a tax on existing development because new development should not have to bear the entire burden of getting Lexington to the 10% mark. • Grant a density bonus in frontage reduction projects. • Ask for an extra unit from developers for just the cost of materials. • Request cash for LexHAB in lieu of affordable units. • Keep a positive spirit in negotiations. The Board agreed that it would like to bring developers, realtors, LexHAB, the Selectmen and representatives of housing committees into the debate and to keep the issue before the public eye. REGIONAL, INTERTOWN ISSUES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Hanscom Air Force Base: Draft response to ESPR (Environmental Status and Planning Report): Ms. Machek reported on her reading of the latest Hanscom ESPR. She outlined some issues on which the Board may want to comment, as follows 1) Possible new access road to Hanscom at east ramp area: • Wetlands impact • Traffic impacts • What opportunities will there be for community input? 2) New 200 -room hotel • Traffic impacts • Impacts on National Park • Impacts on natural resources • What are plans for mitigation? • Increase in air traffic? Minutes for the Meeting of October 2, 2002 The Board and staff agreed that Massport offered no more than lip service to traffic demand management. Relative to commenting on the ESPR, the Board agreed to talk further at their meeting on October 23. The deadline for comments is November 15, 2002 Metropolitan State Hospital Task Force; Priorities for the Reuse of the Hospital Site Ms. McCall- Taylor reported that the Lexington Met State Task Force is writing some guidelines for would -be developers of the Lexington portion of the site. The Task Force believes that the town's priorities for the site should be updated from the existing 10- year -old reuse plan so that developers' responses could be better geared to what is currently deemed appropriate. Mr. Kastorf thanked Ms. Chase for initiating Candace Jenkins' evaluation of the Met State Hospital buildings' historical value. He asked for the Board's reaction to the increasingly firm stance of the Task Force regarding reuse of the buildings versus demolishing them when development begins. Most developers indicate a belief that using them in a redevelopment scheme is infeasible. Mr. Kastorf believes this assumption should be tested in some way. Mr. Harden questioned how the site's "sense of place" could be preserved. Other issues discussed were: the possibility of reusing just some of the buildings, the potential resident mix, e.g. percent of developmentally challenged persons, low - income buyers (the Board's 1985 Inclusionary Housing Policy would rule), age of buyers, a mix of ownership and rental units, and the possibility of locating commercial services there. The Board agreed that a creative approach is needed. The next Task Force meeting is on October 8. Several members said they plan to attend the site walk on October 9 led by Michael Thomas of the State's Department of Capital Asset Management. Mr. Kastorf said that the Task Force is trying to arrange a meeting with Mr. Thomas and the town's state representatives to make sure the Town's input is considered in DCAM's deliberations on the development proposals. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION, SCHEDULE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Meeting Schedule: The Board scheduled meetings for October 13 and 23, 20002. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. /arl Kastorf, Clerk