A Few Thoughts Following Yesterday's BESE Meeting

This was our third Zoom/remote public meeting since the Governor's emergency declaration in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Meetings are shorter and have fewer presentations. Admittedly, agendae have been abbreviated and this meeting covered considerably more content than the first one in March.  

While in and of itself this is not a remarkable accomplishment, it is remarkable to see just how quickly the Board can get through a lot of detail in two hours, instead of five or six. I'm grateful that we can get into the heart of the discussion, or to what's essential, in an efficient manner.

It's been wonderful hearing directly from so many diverse students, parents, and teachers from across the state. They bring a much-needed perspective to Public Comment, voices that aren't heard at most regular meetings in Malden. I'm grateful to Chair Craven for acknowledging that in our meetings, too. And I hope the 'new normal' will continue to have people Zoom-in for Public Comment.

The most frequent comment heard yesterday (and at last month's meeting, too) concerned educational equity (that it doesn't exist), along with advocacy for use of adaptive assessments and for the elimination of age-based classrooms.

As others have noted, CoVid has shone a spotlight on inequities that existed long before this pandemic, ability to access remote learning among them.

More than 10% of students in our public schools are English Learners (ELs) -- 10.8%, or 102,861, according to Commissioner Riley's testimony to the Joint Committee on Education. What's more, he said, "they also have one of the widest achievement and opportunity gaps in the state". 

Remote learning poses particular challenges for them, as was also noted by Takeru Naguyoshi ("TK"). TK is Massachusetts' 2020 Teacher of the Year. He teaches 11th and 12th grade AP Literature in New Bedford where 1/3 of students are ELs. He raised three key questions for the Board and DESE:

1. How to support internet access and tech literacy?
2. How to address (missing) attendance and engagement and the skills gap in remote settings?
3. How will we balance concern for equity with (lagging) motivation? He noted that students question why they should put in their best efforts for a pass/fail grade?

Commissioner Riley referred to a letter addressing Remote Learning Expectations that was sent to families on May 8, 2020. Yesterday, he announced that summer guidance is coming soon and fall guidance is coming in mid-June. He has tasked Anne Gilligan, DESE's Safe and Healthy Schools Coordinator, and Ventura Rodriquez, Senior Associate Commissioner for Strategic Initiatives, to co-chair the Return to School Working Group (RTSWG). RTSWG includes students, parents, teachers,  School Committees, School Superintendents, Facilities Administrators, School Nurses, School Counselors, School Transportation Operators, School Business Officials, Fire Chiefs, Public & Private Schools, Emergency Management.

As I noted earlier today on Facebook, they seem to have all the bases covered, considerably better than the Governor, who neglected to include essential representation from everyday workers on his advisory task force.

But, I digress.

The very thought of physically returning to school classrooms for instruction THIS FALL fills me with so much concern--for the health and safety of students, staff, and families; for the gaps in educational equity; for the need to realize realistic expectations (and how to reset them?); and coordination up, down, and sideways for everything that will be needed in schools and communities for at least the next year.

There's a place to provide comments to RTSWG, along with a list of its members, at this link on DESE's website: http://www.doe.mass.edu/covid19/return-to-school-workgroup.html)

So much I'm not covering here: like the emotional toll on everyone across the system; addressing the trauma; continued support for mental health services and access to food. These should remain among our highest priorities.

Senior Associate Commissioner/CFO Bill Bell updated the Board on the education budget matters before us. Right now, CARES Act (federal) funding is the "most concrete bit of funding" and some districts will utilize it this year and next (available through September 30, 2022). 

Pair that with, "It's tough to budget at the municipal level without state funding" (understatement of the year) and you have a real, dramatic sense of the funding challenges before us. 

Bell further noted that the Governor's budget, introduced back in January ("pre-pandemic") is in the Legislature's hands.

I'm very concerned about potential austerity budgeting. We've been here before. We know that the way to grow revenue is to invest. While the Commissioner gave testimony at the Joint Committee on Education's oversight hearing on Wednesday, May 13 (copy of his testimony may be found HERE, video of the hearing, HERE), those at our meeting said that they haven't participated in any behind the scenes conversations when I asked about it. Bell said that those conversations were happening at the legislative level and that it's likely that we will "move forward with 1/12 budgets" (meaning that if budgets aren't in place by July 1, they will operate on 1/12 of the budget at a time in the interim).

My questions remain:

1. What number is the 1/12 budget going to be based on?
2. How long will 1/12 budgets be able to go on?

- - -

Header image: Creative Commons

Joint BESE/BHE Meeting in December

Note: this meeting was postponed due to an impending weather event.

The Joint Meeting with the Boards of Elementary and Secondary Education and Higher Education on Tuesday, December 17* is scheduled for 9:30-11:30 AM. Agenda has not yet been posted, but is expected to include discussion of early college programs, teacher diversity initiatives, and "evidence-based policy-making" (quotations mine).

BESE regular meeting is scheduled to follow from 12:00-3:00 PM. Do look for the agenda (which is not yet posted) and any backup docs once they are posted (sometimes on Tuesday, often on Wednesday, definitely by Thursday before a Tuesday meeting) and read them for context and to learn more about any agenda items of particular interest.

• The regular meeting agenda is expected to kick off with discussion of Competency Determination (CD) and includes: 
• a.) preliminary results from a Brown University Study and 
• b.) a vote to extend the interim CD passing standard for one additional year to the class of 2023.

• The second item is another regulatory matter on a topic discussed recently at a meeting of the Board's Educator Diversification Committee^. During that meeting we heard about initiatives to increase educator diversity in Massachusetts, including recruitment/pipeline development^^; hiring, retention, and culturally responsive workforce; and educator licensure policy, including waivers and teacher licensure assessments. This item is an initial discussion with the whole Board about a proposal to amend the Ed Licensure Regs (603 CMR 7.00) in order to provide a pathway to pilot some alternatives to the MTEL (Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure). The need for this flexibility (the proposed pilot period would run through June 30, 2023) is based on data and research the Board has been hearing about over the past year: 40% of MA public school students are students of color, while only 8% of teachers are of color and if students of color have even one teacher who looks like them in their elementary school experience, improved high school completion and life outcomes result. We'll discuss the proposal, then vote to solicit public comment for amending the regulations.

• Next, we'll get an update on the Student Opportunity Act, signed into law on November 26. Among the specifics we'll hear about are new responsibilities for the Commissioner/DESE (ushered in as a result) and anticipated next steps.

• Closing out the meeting will be: 
• a.) Discussion and Vote to accept the surrender of the charter for City on a Hill Charter Public School New Bedford and 
• b.) Update and Discussion of City on a Hill Charter Public Schools located in Dudley Square and Circuit Street in Boston.

The meeting will be held at:
Mount Wachusett Community College
Main Building, First Floor, South Cafe
444 Green Street
Gardner MA 01440
Direction and maps may be found HERE.

⸻

* The Board will not meet Monday, December 16.
^ The Committee is Chaired by Board Member Fernandez and includes Members Doherty, Rouhanifard, Stewart, and Chair Craven (ex-officio). Chair Fernandez and Senior Associate Commissioner Ventura Rodriguez worked together to prepare the Committee's meeting agenda/presentations.
^^ You'll note some agenda overlap on this issue with the two Boards; DESE is partnering with DHE on initiatives to increase educator diversity.

Special Town Meeting 2019

East Lexington, November 2016

We're in Battin Hall of Cary Memorial Building. There's a lot to cover, so Town Meeting Members (TMMs) have been asked to hold tomorrow night, too, just in case a second session is needed.

Deputy Moderator Barry Orenstein is Moderator of the Meeting.

This is a Special Town Meeting (STM), in accordance with the Acts of 1929, Chapter 215, §8 and there are a total of nine Articles to be acted upon by the elected members of Town Meeting (TM): three Articles are budget adjustments, three others are zoning amendments, and two are capital improvements. Article 1 remains open to receive the reports of any Town Board, Officer, or Committees at any time.

The list of Articles (Warrant) is HERE.
Articles 5 & 7 have been designated "Date Certain", so they will go first.
We expect to hear reports of the Special Permit Residential District Committee, and of the ad hoc Crematory Study Committee, as well.

Call to Order at 7:30 PM and we are in session.

Updating as we go.

—
A few housekeeping notes from Town Moderator (TMod)

ARTICLE 1: Reports of Town Boards, Officers, Committees

This Article remains open throughout STM. Reports may be presented at any session by Town Boards, Officers, or Committees.
MOTION is HERE

—
ARTICLE 5: Amend Zoning Bylaw from CD-1 District to CSX District — 7 Hartwell Avenue (Owner Petition)
This Article requests an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw and Map in order to allow additional uses at the site.

MOTION is HERE
Kristine Hung with the presentation (HERE)

Bob Creech with Planning Board's Report HERE is received and placed on file

Planning Board (PB): UNANIMOUS APPROVAL

Select Bboard (SB): UNANIMOUS APPROVAL
Chamber of Commerce: SUPPORTS

Zoning changes require a TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE

Vote taken by ELECTRONIC DEVICE (EDev)
YES: 149
NO: 1
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION CARRIES

—
ARTICLE 7: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Map — 186 Bedford Street (Owner Petition)
To see if the Town will vote to amend Chapter 135, the Zoning Bylaw, of the Code of the Town of Lexington, and the Zoning Map of the Town of Lexington, by changing the zoning district designation of Lot 68 of Assessor's Map 64 located at 186 Bedford Street from the current RS Zoning District (Single Family Dwelling District) to a Planned Development District (mixed-use, commercial & residential) or to act in any other manner relative thereto.

The Applicant, 186 Bedford Street, LLC, proposes to renovate the main building and barn, to partially demolish the wing that was built in 1969, and to construct a 2.5-story addition with related site improvements.

This Article was referred back to the Planning Board at 2019 Annual Town Meeting. The pertinent documents about this project (since April), including PSDUP revision/s, related MOUs, agreements, have been posted to PB's page of the Town's website HERE.

MOTION is HERE
PB's Report is HERE
Article 7 MOU is HERE
Applicant's Presentation is HERE

SB: 5-0 in SUPPORT
PB: 5-0 in SUPPORT
Housing Partnership Board: in SUPPORT
Housing Assistance Board: in SUPPORT
Chamber of Commerce: in SUPPORT
Commission on Disability: in SUPPORT
Economic Development Advisory Committee: in SUPPORT

Questions and Comments:
NOmic TMM/P8: Remains opposed to this project. Not opposed to affordable housing or mixed-use.
YESmic TMM/P8: Good arguments on the other side, but there are trade-offs worth supporting this project that outweigh any downside.
TMM with Question: How many units would be counted as affordable?
Town Mgr James Malloy: 13
TMM/P8: We were told at the first meeting at Knights of Columbus that Mr. Grant understood the Selectmen had their support. Is it true that Selectmen can have that weight before hearing from resident?
Select Board chair Lucente: Short answer is no. Following discussion, support for the concept. We don't always "rubber stamp".
Citizen's mic: is a direct abutter to this project, is opposed to the negative impact.
Citizen mic: citing small size of lot, urges TMMs to oppose the project.
TMM: How does the rental rates work for the four affordable units?
Mr. Grant: Six paragraphs in the MOU, submitted as part of the site plan review, State Dept. of Housing
YESmic TMM/P9: particular site ideal for mixed-use developments
TMM/P3: What's going to happen to the current Ciampa property?
Mr. Grant: Dictated by CN zoning
Citizen mic: Massing is too large, buffer zone too small.
YESmic TMM/P4: Benefits outweigh its burdens.
TMM/P4: Guarantees that we'll get the pretty picture shown to us?
Town Counsel: All of the details in the PSDUP would be part of the Zoning.
Citizen mic: Chamber of Commerce supports and urges TM to support it
YESmic TMM/P9: A previous supporter spoke to "smart growth"
YESmic TMM/P6: have friends and family who live on Reed Street. There are commercial buildings there and there are residences there already. This is an appropriate use of this site.
TMM/P8: Will there be any parking be covered?
Doug Hartnett, Highpoint Engineering: None
Mr. Hornig, Planning Board: Abutters would be contacted, public input, for substantive changes
NOmic: calls the Question

Vote to Call the Question by Voice (VV): passes by VV

Zoning changes require TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE

Vote taken by EDev
YES: 132
NO: 24
ABSTAIN: 3
MOTION CARRIES

—
Glenn Parker, Appropriation Committee (AC) Chair, MOVES that the AC's Report be received and placed on file under Article 1.

—
ARTICLE 3: Appropriate to and from Specified Stabilization Funds (budget adjustment)
Lexington's first Stabilization Funds (SFs) were established at the 2007 Annual Town Meeting.  (ATM/TM) TM may create a specified SF, alter a Fund's specified purpose, or make an appropriation from a Fund by a two-thirds majority vote. Appropriations into specified SFs are approved by a simple majority vote. This Article requests the appropriation of funds into three of the Town's specified SFs whose funding and purposes are summarized below by the AC in their report:

• Traffic Mitigation SF is funded by commitments from developers to mitigate the impacts of rezoning. It supports, in whole or in part, projects to improve the Town's transportation infrastructure, such as street intersections, traffic signals, etc.
• Transportation Demand Management SF is funded by commitments from developers. Initially created to support Lexpress, the Fund's purpose has since been broadened to support "the planning and operations of transportation services to serve the needs of town residents and businesses." It now funds the Lexpress bus service and the Town's contribution to the REV Shuttle.
• Capital SF holds funds that TM has set aside for future capital projects of the Town.

MOTION is HERE

SB: 5-0 APPROVE

AC: 8-0 in SUPPORT
CEC: 6-0 in SUPPORT

No Comments or Questions

Requires a MAJORITY VOTE

Vote taken by Electronic Devices (EDev)
YES: 150
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION is APPROVED

—
ARTICLE 8: Appropriate Funding for 25% Design of the Route 4/225 Bedford Street-Hartwell Avenue-Wood Street Transportation Improvement Project
To see if the Town will vote to appropriate $1.6M to develop 25% design for a major transportation improvement project to include:

• on- and off-ramps of I-95
• Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue intersection
• minor improvements on Wood Street
• sidewalks or multi-modal path and bike lanes on both sides of the roadways
• safe pedestrian accommodations and crossings

This is the first step of a multi-million dollar project (~$49M) slated for completion with Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Mass DOT). The goal is to create a safe street for all users (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists). A future request for the Town to fund through 100% design (Plans, Specifications, and Estimates) would follow at a later Town Meeting. Funding request for 25% design now will enable the Town to stay on the state's Long Range Transportation Plan to eventually obtain external resources to fund construction costs to bring the project through completion.

MOTION is HERE

PB's Letter of Support to Select Board is HERE

Presentation is HERE

Town's FAQ is HERE

Area Map showing estimated project limits, HERE

Town Manager Jim Malloy with the presentation.

CEC: 5-1 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL

AC: 8-0 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL

PB: 5-0 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL

Comments & Questions
TMM/P6: How is Bedford involved?
TMgr: Invited Bedford TMgr to the beginning of this process
NOmic TMM/P6: Prop Dept Exclusion?
Select Board Member Pato: No plans as yet
TMgr: Prop 2.5 isn't supposed to be part of this MOTION.
SB Pato MOVES to STRIKE the Prop 2.5 language in the MOTION:

[From "...provided that no sums shall be borrowed or expended pursuant to this vote unless the town shall have voted to exclude the amounts needed to repay any borrowing pursuant to this vote from the limitations on the property tax levy imposed b y M.G.L. Chapter 59, section 21C (otherwise known as Proposition 2 ½.."]

TMod calls for a VV on the proposed amended language TO STRIKE in the MOTION: the ayes have it

TMM/P8: I look to the opinions of the finance boards. Disappointed to hear the CEC voted 5-1.
NOmic TMM/P6: Process. We should have the public process before voting on funding.
TMM/P8: Bus lanes?
TMgr: It's too premature, no studies as yet.
YESmic TMM/P2: Runs in parallel with Hartwell Avenue rezoning initiative: Police Station, High School getting into the pipeline soon...time is now.
Qmic TMM/P6: Used to seeing a scope of work associated with design funding. Will it have to follow the 25% scope of work?
TMgr: There is a section of Mass DOT's design guide, cannot do less than that, can do more.
Qmic TMM/P6: Clarify comments -- is there any risk in waiting til Spring or Fall?
TMgr: Looking at the Hartwell Avenue initiative, trying to do something about transpo in advance of rezoning.
YESmic TMM/P7: Have been working on this project for 35 years...if we don't act now, wel'' still be trying to do this 35 years from now...
Citizen mic: Chamber of Commerce is in Support
Qmic TMM/P2: Next phase of study?
TMgr: about 2024
YESmic TMM/P7
Qmic TMM/P6: What is in the plan that was objected to from the state?
Town Engineer John Livesy: Round-about design at the jug-handle would not process enough of the vehicles.

Voting on the AMENDED MOTION REQUIRES TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY:
YES: 139
NO: 13
ABSTAIN: 3
MOTION CARRIES, REVISED MOTION IS ADOPTED

—
ARTICLE 6: Amend Zoning Bylaw to Restrict Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) as Principal Use in the Center Business District (CBD)
The intent of the Article is to prohibit stand-alone ATMs from being a primary use in the CBD. This requires an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw, Chapter 135, § 3.4, Table 1, Row H.1.07. It would close a loophole for ATM use only  i n store-fronts.

MOTION is HERE
PB Report is HERE
Jerry Michelson, Chair, Lexington Center Committee (LCC) and TMM/P5 with the presentation (which is on the website, but you can't just view, you'll have to download it.)

SB: UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTS
Lexington Center Committee (LCC): URGES SUPPORT
PB: 4-1 in SUPPORT

Qmic TMM/P6: Why have a stand alone ATM?
Hornig: Town sees ATM as "accessory use", not principal use

TMM/P4: Say CVS wanted an ATM in their store. Accessory use?
LCC: Yes
Citizen mic: Chamber of Commerce: we join the LCC in wanting to see this addressed

Zoning changes require TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE

Vote taken by EDev
YES: 145
NO: 2
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION CARRIES

—
ARTICLE 9: LED Streetlight Conversion
To see if the Town will vote to appropriate $875,858 for the purposes of acquiring and installing light emitting diode (LED) streetlights to replace existing streetlights in the Town, and for other costs incidental or related thereto. This Article is to fund replacement of 3,000+ streetlights in Town from induction lights to the more energy efficient LEDs (excluding Battle Green and Center areas, which will be improved once Center Streetscape project and Battle Green improvements are implemented.) The town is eligible for a state grant to pay a portion of this conversion cost (approximately 30%).

MOTION is HERE
Jim Malloy Town Manager recognized with the presentation, which is HERE

SB: 5-0 SUPPORTS

CEC: 6-0 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL

AC: 8-0 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL

PB: 5-0 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL

Comments & Questions
TMM/P3: Will all street lights be converted?
TMgr: Yes. All streetlights converted to LEDs
TMM/P2: Will they be bright enough to see by?
TMgr: 3,000 kelvin is what's recommended
TMM/P5: Do we know the life expectency of these lights?
TMgr: 20 years, 25,000 hours
TMM/P8: Replacing by end of May to get rebate?
TMgr: Yes
YESmic: TMM/P6 Calls the Question

VV to call the Q: the Ayes have it

Requires SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE
Vote taken by EDev
YES: 131
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION CARRIES

—
ARTICLE 2: Appropriate for Prior Year's Unpaid Bills (budget adjustment)
This is an annual article to request funds to pay bills after the close of the fiscal year. The FY19 Budget was closed out in July with only minimal adjustments.

MOTION is that this Article be Indefinitely Postponed (IP).
Select Board Member MOVES for IP

Select Board (SB): UNANIMOUS APPROVE
AC: SUPPORTS
Question from Town Meeting Member/Precinct 6 (TMM/P6):

Requires a SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE

Voice Vote taken (VV): the ayes have it
MOTION is APPROVED

—
ARTICLE 4: Amend FY2020 Operating, Enterprise, Revolving, and CPA Budgets (budget adjustment)
This is an annual Article to permit adjustments to the current budget (approved at 2019 ATM)

MOTION is HERE
Charles Lamb MOVES to appropriate the changes.
SB: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL
AC: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL

No Questions & Comments

Requires a MAJORITY VOTE to pass

Vote taken by Electronic Devices (EDev)
YES: 128
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 3
MOTION CARRIES

—
Under Article 1: Report of Special Permit Residential District Committee is received and placed on file.

Under Article 1: Report of the ad hoc Crematory Study Committee is received and placed on file.

SB Chair LUCENTE MOVES to DISSOLVE STM 2019
MOTION to DISSOLVE STM 2019 is APPROVED by VV of TMMs

10:30 PM

TMMA Information Session | Special Town Meeting

Town Meeting Members Association (TMMA) hosted an information session last night, Tuesday, November 5, 7:30 PM at Jonas Clarke Middle School Auditorium.

Lexington Selectmen have called a Special Town Meeting (STM) Tuesday, November 12, 7:30 PM in Margery Milne Battin Hall of the Isaac Harris Cary Memorial Building. The Meeting may carry over to Wednesday, November 13.

Town Warrant is HERE
TMMA's Warrant Information Report is HERE
Links to Articles, Reports, and Presentations will be added, once they are made available, HERE

At the Info Session, Town Meeting Members (TMMs) heard about four of the STM Articles: Articles 5, 6, 7, & 8

Notes, in order presented:

ARTICLE 7 is a proposed mixed-use development (commercial and residential) at 186 Bedford Street.

At last spring's Annual Town Meeting (Article 38), TM voted to refer this project back to the Planning Board (PB). 

PB's Report for this STM is HERE. 

PB concluded, "after careful review of the impacts expected from the project" they believe the benefits to the Town will "substantially outweigh any negative impacts, particularly in light of incorporated mitigations" and APPROVES passage of this Article by a vote of 5-0.

MOU is HERE. 

Proponent's presentation, HERE. 

Documents pertaining to this project from PB page of Town's website, HERE

The Article is on the Warrant to see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Map and Bylaw of the Town, based on the information provided in the applicant's (revised) Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan (PSDUP). 

The proposed Article would rezone the property from the present RS One Family Dwelling District to a PD Planned Development District, which would allow for renovation and addition to the existing buildings on the named parcel. 

Ed Grant, attorney (and TMM/P6), Doug Hartnett, Project Engineer from Highpoint Engineering, Inc., and Tony Ciampa, applicant, in attendance. 

Mr. Grant and Mr. Hartnett spoke briefly to the Article, offered to take questions. 

Mr. Grant stated "not much has changed since last spring's plan", noting addition of a full basement, creation of a landscape transition zone, and relocation of dumpster away from residential property.

Mr. Grant noted that many of the public benefits remain the same as proposed last April at ATM.

Questions from TMMA (in the Warrant Information Book, page 16), may have been responded to elsewhere.

No additional questions were asked.

⸻
ARTICLE 5 is an owner petition to Amend Zoning Bylaw from CD-1 to CSX District-7 on Hartwell Avenue.
PB's Report is HERE, concluding they APPROVE the Bylaw and Map amendments by a vote of 5-0 and recommends Town Meeting approval by 5-0 vote.
Presentation is HERE.

Kristine Hung, attorney with Reimer and Braunstein for her client, Russian School of Mathematics (RSM), the applicant, gave the presentation.
Ms. Hung cited March 2018 when TM approved CSX Zoning District, stating that this would give her client the most flexibility to "determine their destiny".
She said she had received 500 signatures from Lexington residents who use RSM and support this change.

To questions from TMMA (Warrant Information Report, pages 10-11), Ms. Hung responded:
1. How many other parcels in Town have been rezoned due to a request by an article sponsor and what is to limit other businesses or homeowners from requesting similar rezoning? 
Property owners can file to rezone, which requires a 2/3 vote of TM.
2. What zoning is currently used by other tutoring organizations in Lexington?
Kumon, Math Club, Math and More, and Singapore Math fall under CD and CSO zoning.
3. What proposed uses in a CSX zone also require Planning Board site plan review (e.g., traffic analysis, building height and setbacks, landscaping)?
4. What proposed uses in a CSX one do not require a site plan review?
Ms. Hung answered questions 3 & 4 together: Site plan review and site plan approval are required when adding more than 500s.f.
5. How would changing this zone to CSX fit in with the larger Hartwell Avenue planning?
Ms. Hung stated that the CSX would be complimentary of Hartwell Avenue initiatives.
Additional questions:
Question from a TMM: What is the relative capacity?
It is comparable.
TMM/P6: Asks to go back to the Use Table (page 10 of presentation). Why not asking for an amendment to the CD-1?
Client wants most flexibility, sees CSX as providing that best

⸻
ARTICLE 8 seeks to appropriate funding for 25% design of the Route 4/225 Bedford Street-Hartwell Avenue-Wood Street improvement project.
Area Map is HERE
Town's FAQ/Information Sheet is HERE
Planning Board (PB) supports APPROVAL of this project 5-0, as stated in their letter to Selectmen.

First step in a multi-million dollar project (~$49 million), slated for completion with Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Mass DOT) in 2030-2034 time band.
If possible, the Town would like to see this moved to the 2025-29 time band.
Regardless of time band, 25% design process is critical to moving forward, since Bedford Street is a state road and any proposed improvements will be subject to Mass DOT standards design review process.
Goal of this project is to create a street that is safe for all users (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists) while improving traffic flow, including reconstruction of major intersections of Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue, on- and off-ramps to I-95, and minor improvements on Wood Street.

Jim Malloy, Lexington Town Manager, with the presentation and answers to questions, along with John Livesy, Town Engineer, who also addressed questions (two others also present, but I didn't catch their names, if they were introduced, and they did not address questions).
Cost for 25% design is $1.5 million.

See TMMA Question/Answer, page 20 of TMMA Warrant Information Report
Additional TMM Questions:
TMM/P8: What is the scope?
Bedford Street, Hartwell Avenue, Wood Street
TMM/P6: What is the cost to simply start the public engagement process, to appropriate at STM, then come to ATM?
Cost would be $1.6m or $1.7m, if appropriated separately, which Mass DOT may not likely approve. Cost for public engagement process would be at least $100K; the $1.5m cost includes public engagement process.
TMM/P8: Does Mass DOT have criteria?
John Livesy: Yes, significant. Improved safety, complete streets
TMM/P8: Has traffic spillover been considered?
Malloy: The use analysis is forthcoming, likely to impact Eldred Street
TMM/P5: Is there any info on bridges in Lexington to be done?
Malloy: No info as yet

⸻

Edit: Jerry Michelson has let me know that NO definition of ATM will be included in the Bylaw. Also, that the presentation slides, which did not project at the info session, will be posted to the Town's website, STM page, Thursday. It will include the full "Use Table", for those who would like to see it.

ARTICLE 6 would Amend Zoning Bylaw to Restrict Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) as Principal Use in the Center Business District (CBD)

The intent of the Article is to prohibit stand-alone ATMs from being a primary use in the CBD.

Amend Zoning Bylaw, Chapter 135, § 3.4, Table 1, Row H.1.07, to restrict ATMs in CBD (note there is no direct link to the Table via Lexington Bylaw website, but it is printed in the TMMA Warrant Information Book, bottom of page 12).

Amend Zoning Bylaw, Chapter 135, § 10.1, to add a definition for "automatic teller machine".

Jerry Michelson, Chair Lexington Center Committee and TMM/P5

Currently 12 ATMs in the CBD, which are in banks.

This Article would close a loophole for ATM use only in store-fronts.

See TMMA Questions/Answers in TMMA Warrant Information Book, pages 13-14.

Additional questions:

TMM/P8: Is there a negative impact from stand alone ATMs?

Banks and credit unions have ATMs. This closes the loop, provides clarification of ATM uses.

Info session concluded at ~ 8:40 PM

On the Road Again

Katherine Craven, Chair (Center-Right), at the June BESE Meeting in Revere June 2019
(Others, L-R: James Peyser, Secretary of Education; Jeff Riley,
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education; James Morton, Vice Chair)

This month, BESE kicks off the 2019-20 school year. A recent communication from Commissioner Riley's office informed the Board that the Tuesday, September 24, 2019 Regular Meeting will be held at Taconic High School in Pittsfield.

When Katherine Craven was with Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA Executive Director 2004-2011), she said that having monthly meetings in school districts across the state provided her with a valuable perspective. When Governor Baker appointed her Chair of the Board last March she said she would bring that practice to BESE meetings .

True to her word, our first meeting on the road was last June in Revere. It was held in Revere Public Schools' new Rumney Marsh Academy middle school.

There will not be a Special Meeting on Monday night, September 23.

The Board's September Agenda is not yet posted.

Friendly 40B | Neighborhood Meeting RE: 840 Emerson Gardens Road

I’m at the Neighborhood Meeting in Estabrook Hall in the Cary Town Building to hear about “the future of Golden Living Center” at 840 Emerson Gardens Road.

The Golden Living Center is permanently closed, it was shuttered in 2018.

Tonight’s meeting was billed as an informal dialogue to discuss the future of the site and the potential for the creation of multi-family housing.

Some background from me, which I looked up following the meeting:

• Posting a Google map, mainly for the purpose of showing the surrounding conservation lands (Arlington Great Meadows, including trail head) and the neighborhood being talked about: Emerson Gardens Road; Emerson Gardens, a 150 unit condo/apartment complex adjacent to the site; Bryant Road, leading out to Lowell Street from Emerson Gardens Road and connecting Village Circle, Page Road, Sanderson Road; Orchard Lane

• Select Board's Thursday, June 13, 2019, Agenda, which was referenced during the introduction; and Agenda detail, which includes links to a Letter from Riemer & Braunstein LLC to Select Board and to Nordblom’s presentation

• Notice of Joint Meeting between Select Board and Housing Partnership Board

• Town of Lexington Housing Partnership Board; and HPB’s website

• Select Board follow up Joint Meeting with Housing Partnership Board, Monday, July 22, 2019; and detail within the Agenda, which includes RHSO 40B Process Overview presentation, the Riemer & Braunstein Letter, and Nordblom presentation

• This may prove a helpful explainer for some: “friendly” and “unfriendly” 40B projects from Weston Planning Board (RHSO member). I looked for something similar on Lexington's Town website, but to no avail

• Here’s the law, in full: Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40B

• Link to some photos of the site

Nearly every seat is taken as meeting begins on time, 7:30 PM

(Stuff in parenthesis comes from me)

Todd Nordblom (I’ll be using TN)
Introduces himself (Vice President, Nordblom Company)

his colleague from Nordblom, Todd Fremont-Smith (who is Senior Vice President and Director of Mixed-Use Projects) and Scott Seaver (President, Seaver Costruction)

(Noting here that Nordblom's website homepage has visuals of recent projects and environments. Seaver has constructed the new Woburn Public Library and is in process of the Shannon Farm 112 luxury condos and Club House on Lexington Street in Woburn).

Doug Lucente, Select Board Chair 
Introduces:
Elizabeth (Liz) Rust, Region Housing Services Office (RHSO)

• (Info in the email I received from a local neighborhood group said: “Discussion to be moderated by Elizabeth Rust, Region Housing Services Office of the MAPC. The Regional Housing Services Office (RHSO) is a collaboration between the member towns of Acton, Bedford, Burlington, Concord, Lexington, Sudbury and Weston. It was formed in 2011 through an Inter-Municipal Agreement (and amended) assisted by Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the regional planning agency for Greater Boston. The RHSO serves its member towns by assisting with the municipal function of affordable housing, including proactive monitoring, program administration, project development and resident assistance. For more information on the RHSO, visit their website.”)

Selectman Joe Pato
Selectman Mark Sandeen
Town Manager Jim Malloy
Says Nordblom came to Selectmen to float their idea for a Friendly 40B project this past June
(link to that meeting Agenda and detail back at the top of this post)
This is a preliminary meeting
An opportunity to talk to the neighborhood
This is a good use for the land
Selectmen are here to listen
Those present are encouraged to speak up

Liz Rust:
RHSO is an affordable affordable housing group
Brief overview on 40B and Local Initiative Program, a.k.a., LIP
(for presentation, see link above for Monday, July 22)
Chapter 40B is state law that facilitates zoning permitting in exchange for restricted affordable housing
40B is primarily used as a zoning tool when the underlying zoning does not allow for the planned development
A highly regulated program with significant local input
SHI, State Housing Inventory, counts toward the 10% threshold set by the state
Lexington’s SHI is at 11.1%
Lexington has 1,327 affordable units recorded on the State’s SHI, they are created under different housing programs, including, MassHousing - 27%, Friendly 40B - 1%, Other at 42%
Two 40B housing processes: MassHousing and DHCD
(Department of Housing and Community Development)
DHCD is the Friendly 40B
Safe Harbor: ZBAs can approve or deny 40B and their decisions are held up in the courts
Friendly: local, upfront input before going forward
LIP -- local input process
LIP Application -- proposals to community, formal signature by Selectmen signifying Town support
Project viability is DHCD led

TN with the Nordblom/Seaver presentation
(it’s also in the link noted at top of this post)
Recent projects in Burlington and Woburn
“Local is somewhat regional”
Nordblom Co has been active at Third Avenue in Burlington, including Wegman's, Bancroft Hotel

Golden Living Center was built in 1970; closed in 2018
11.56 acres
90K gsf (gross square feet)
Nordblom is affiliated with Northbridge Senior Living; brought idea to them, they (Northbridge) didn’t anticipate interest
Doesn’t make sense to reuse the building as is
Site is neglected
Zoning process is LIP, 40B friendly to improve the real estate and keep on the tax rolls
Trends: own and manage about 1200-1500 apartment units
People want to live close to work, highways, these tend to be mature professionals; walk up, flat style buildings, professionally managed
Cambridge Linea is a vision; multi-family use 

(on their website and in their presentation to Selectmen, above)
Attention to scaling, massing
Access to Great Meadows (Lex), how to preserve and improve

Questions and Comments from the Public
(As there are no Question or Comment mics in play, TN takes questions of those few initially whose hands are raised)

Q: What’s current zoning?
TN: RO (Residential Only/one family dwellings) by right single family housing. Nordblom/Seaver want state zoning tool, 40B, to propose specific use, such as multi-family

Q: Change to 40B -- is it up to any builder or only SEAVER?
TN: This project is sponsored by the developers, Nordblom & Seaver
Not our intention to transfer

Q: Zoning approved first?
TN: Yes. Then building permit

Q: Are all rental units? How many? Market value? Seeking clarity on rental size, affordable units
TN: All units would be for rent. 130 or so units. 25% affordable

Q: 130 units -- any traffic studies? Water table studies? Also, most neighbors haven’t received anything (about this proposal), why?
TN: Traffic studies: haven’t studied this specific location
Water table: (no answer, I think)
Coordination: followed the recommendation from the Town for notice to residents within 300 feet of the site

(says as he reads room reaction):
Apologizes for not getting notice out to people 

(Noting here that this is where lots of interrupting, commenting, questions, reactions overtake hand-raising)

Comment: How is this good for the neighborhood?

Comment: Honestly, there are limitations.

Comment: This will generate more traffic. Very big impact. This is a big use.

Comment: There’s not really a benefit for the neighborhood.

TN: We're offering to collaborate with you.

Q: Who are you and how are you with this site? Do you own this property?
TN: We do not (own this property)

A group in NY leased it to the group that leased it under Excel
We have an agreement to buy this site from the group in NY
If not by this proposal, there are many “by right” uses: Day Care. Educational. Religious. Rehabilitation. Single family. Special permitting uses.
Friendly 40B needs neighborhood support.

Comment: In favor of affordable housing in Lexington. Senior friendly. Believe we all share same goals: concern for impacts from traffic, to the environment, strain on schools, Great Meadows 

Need help getting to this end point.
Asks everyone to be civil and respectful.

Asks if Liz Rust can moderate -- the flier said she would moderate the discussion
Liz Rust: Don’t think can be effective 

(declines to moderate)

Q: What would impact be on Arlington Great Meadow (AGM)?
TN: Entirely new site WRT drainage, etc. more vehicles

Q: Would this affect the AGM?
TN: This is private property, no easement to AGM trailhead, we would put that on the table early on.

Q: How many parking spots are you planning?
TN: Parking ratios are 1.7 per unit
Q: Is that necessary?
TN: We cannot build to 1 (per unit)

Comment: 1.7 cars/unit is equal to 2 cars to me; during commuting times that’s a lot coming from 130 units

Q: 130 units -- assume that includes amenities, like gym, swimming pool, playground, etc. What's included? The other thing is you said you’d like us to work with you...it is plausible that if you have an agreement to buy, something is there, maybe there are some other things we would like to hear about...educational uses means 9-5 ... how do you want us to work with you? What are our choices?
TN: Amenities: we’re very early, have not designed anything; already know no pool, because of ground water table; outdoor recreation, most likely. There’s a lot of land here, maybe a tennis court?
Collaborative nature of the process: this is the conversation we wanted to have, reassess options going forward

Q: Seaver builds single family houses...why not on this site?
TN: That’s a possibility

Q: What physical access for testing is allowed? Saw a drilling rig on the site last Friday/Saturday. What notification was given to Arlington?
TN: On notification to Arlington: followed recommendations from Town Manager on notification; did not provide notification to Arlington
Drilling rig: geo technical for soil boring, soil testing

Q: What other types of testing will be ongoing?
TN: No plans at this time

Q:The property surrounds conservation land -- limitations? Testing? Zoning variances for that?
TN: Proximity to conservation land -- Conservation Commission (rules) still stand

Comment: He and wife have lived here for 51 years. Former chair of planning board and rep to MAPC. This is a challenging development that may not work. We’re not an island here in Lexington. Terrible shortage in housing across the state, except for the very, very wealthy. Even our Republican Gov is talking about changing zoning bylaws for local decision-making. Keep 40B decision-making local. Completely open process. Shares cautionary tale about Enfield MA and how it ended up at the bottom of the Quabbin Reservoir (Look it up)

Q: Has Q for previous questioner: understands housing need. Separate from this ad hoc process, what has Lexington done for master planning process...one-way access; not amenable to 120 unit property...and they will have 2 cars, and children. Need a strategic approach. Needs to be supported by infrastructure. This isn’t.

Comment: Is a Realtor in town. 25% affordable means people living in complexes like this are not paying affordable rents without amenities. 75% rents are market rate.

Comment: Want to validate what was said before (about potential increase in # of cars): Nursing home was not a good neighbor. Was nearly hit several times. Second issue: woods and stuff were treated as a garbage dump, dirty diapers, drug paraphernalia, beer cans. Qualitative; living here because we want to live in a nice residential neighborhood.

Q: Not opposed to apartment building. 120 units sounds like a lot. Environment. Traffic. Is this project geared for elders or kids? How is it designed and marketed?
TN: Has yet to be designed/marketed. Probably an elevator-serviced building. Solar-ed carports. Intention is not to have children.

Q: Is it only economically viable for you if 130 units?
TN: It could be fewer

Comment & Q: Part of the problem with Emerson Gardens (Road) is it’s too wide, people go too fast. We were there when the nursing home was active and people did go too fast. Traffic is an issue. Is it possible to give some thought to mitigating?
TN: Understand that traffic is certainly on the top of the list. We will have resources to look at the neighborhood.

Q: Clarify process: opportunity for input from the community before selectmen signing off. How much detail: traffic study, transportation plan...how much of that will be cleared up?
Liz Rust: apply to the state, then permits. Water table analysis, parking studies, traffic all happens with permits...after application

Q: Still not clear: what are opportunities for this local input? When does the voice of this project have an impact?
TN: Clearly, this meeting is having an impact

Comment: We love the neighborhood. Bring other options, 130 units feels like a non-starter. Maybe there are other gradations. I’d be interested hearing about some of those

Q: In process of geo-tech studies to see what the property will allow? Are those public?
TN: Would not be accessible to the community. Types of soils, footings for types of structures ...
(reads room...quickly says:) Could make them available. Never have had people ask for them before

Comment: Studies, contact the Town, and Woburn -- Lowell Street impacts (from new development at Woburn's Shannon Farm project coming online, about 2.5 miles away), won’t know about those impacts on Lowell Street for year and a half, at least

Comment: Very worried about rental properties. Rents are so greedy. Targeting new immigrants, scams on water metering. Take advantage of foreigners, immigrants. Lots of families and kids. Only two exits, Emerson Gardens Road and Bryant Road. People enjoy it here, no place to play at Emerson Gardens.

TN: Wanted to have an Open House at the Huntington (in Burlington) so people could get a sense of the environment being thought about.

Comment: That’s a nice place, but it’s not a neighborhood.

Q: Studies on economic viability? On 130 units, perhaps upper limit; what’s lowest limit?
TN: Other types of housing exist on Town bylaws ...
(Bylaws are HERE)
… a variety of types ...7 single family homes, 50-60 units; duplex.
Could scale down.
Balanced housing provision through planning board and not 40B

Comment: Grove Street was balanced housing project with 10% affordable housing

Comment: For follow up meeting, please include residents at Emerson Gardens -- 150 units there

TN: Is there an association at Emerson Gardens?

Comment: (introduces self) Trustee of Emerson Gardens complex. Come to a community of residential families, been here for many years, with no real thoroughfare ... Bryant Road is a cut-through street. When we hear 130 units, 1.7 cars/unit ... real important point is to think strategically, consider impact on schools; systems are stressed. Did a little research on Register of Deeds, state & federal lien on Lexington Care LLC. Want to be strategic about this project; don’t want to create a hazardous situation with cars and traffic. Hope this is one of many conversations. Other than friendly 40B. Something that adds value for all who choose to live here.

Comment & Qs: Want to flip the conversation. Absolutely support affordable and aging in place. Affordable at all levels, not only at extremes of bell curve. Would love to support your project. What would we need to support your project? Some confirmation of traffic studies, mitigation, to demonstrate the scale, and so forth, works on the site without undue burden to the neighborhood. What are the conditions? If not attainable, some other option needs to be available.
TN: Yup, I hear you. Come back with some information on geo-technical; etc. is that something you want to have?
(Heads nodding all around)

Comment: Get the info to all in the neighborhoods: Page, Bryant, Sanderson

Q: What else can you tell us about other options and how we can work with you?

Q: As a gesture of good faith, could you hire someone to clean up the trash around the area

Comment: And when winter comes, plow the parking lot to access the AGM

Jim Malloy, Town Manager: The whole reason this meeting is occurring, and is Friendly 40B, is because Lexington is over 10% by a little bit. Affordable housing means it is deed restricted forever. If 40B falls below 10%, restrictions fall away after 10 years (I think he said…) Current building built in 1970. Property/surrounds could be enhanced (with this project_) ... How small a project? If single family homes, duplexes, condos, none of those units would be affordable. Last thing: good sized properties are appealing to "by right" projects

TN: Lots of feedback tonight. Next convo will be more inclusive. Because so many people not here, hope to have more of neighborhood represented. Will stick around if there are more questions tonight.

(End of meeting ~ 9:00 PM)

Ranked Choice Voting

 Training for RCV signature gathering at Robbins Library in Arlington MA | Photo: mas

More and more we're seeing one or more ballot initiatives being used as a tool by citizens for action in the Massachusetts legislature, which in turn means turning out for training on messaging and signature gathering.

Last night I attended a training on Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) at the Robbins Library in Arlington, presented by Voter Choice Massachusetts (VCMA). Their petition awaits approval from the Attorney General, along with about a dozen others. If approved, VCMA's current legislative proposal would need to be acted upon by legislators by next spring.

VCMA is advocating for the expanded use of RCV, which allows voters to rank the candidates on the ballot in order of preference. The effort, if successful, would make Massachusetts elections more competitive and fair by encouraging the participation of more candidates and parties, and by ensuring outcomes that more accurately reflect the will of voters.

Those of us who have gathered signatures for ballot initiatives are familiar with the process. If approved, RCV signature sheets become available. The legal process requires submitting 80K certified signatures, which means submitting many more than that, and not more than 25% of signatures may come from any one county in the state. See this guidance document from the Massachusetts Secretary of State.

In a nutshell, this petition, if passed in 2020, would see RCV implemented for the 2022 ballot. RCV is a simple upgrade to the way we vote. Currently, in a field of multiple candidates, we get one chance with our vote; that choice may not gather 50% required for the win. With RCV you can set your preferences and order your choices; if your first choice doesn't get 50%, your subsequent  choices are activated until one candidate secures 50% of the electorate.

Cambridge adopted RCV in 1939. More on that HERE.

Signatures would need to be returned to City and Town Clerks by November 20, 2019 and the deadline to submit to the Secretary of State by December 4, 2019.

We will hear more about this initiative very soon. Stay tuned.