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

Sixth Session | 2019 Town Meeting

We're in Battin Hall, Cary Memorial Building
Call to Order comes right at 7:30 PM

A few announcements from Town Moderator (TMod)

Article 2: Report of the Planning Board
MOTION to receive the report and place on file PASSES on a VOICE VOTE (VV)
Ginna Johnson, Town Meeting Member in Precinct5 (TMM/P5) and Planning Board Member with an update on the Comprehensive Plan

Article 38: Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map, 186 Bedford Street (Owner Petition)
REVISED MOTION that this project be referred back to the Planning Board
MOU is HERE
Handout is HERE
Presentation is HERE
Planning Board's Report on Article 38 is HERE, placed on file by VV
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Board (PB): Supports referral back to PB
Select Board (SB): Unanimous support to refer back
Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC):
Appropriation Committee (AC):
Question Mic (Qmic) TMM/:P7 Please highlight the areas to be further refined
PB: Our report outlines what we are happy with and what we think is needed.
YESmic: TMM/P4 Cites 'Overlay Districts' under MGL Ch.40R; hopes Town will adopt before taking this up again, perhaps in the Fall
YESmic: TMM/P8
No further questions
VOTE on the REVISED MOTION is a simple majority:
YES: 160
NO: 2
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION as REVISED CARRIES

Reconsideration of Article 28 (due to a technical correction): Confirm Street Acceptance and Title (Portion of Pelham Road)
James Malloy, Town Manager this correction address a concern raised by Town Counsel
VOTE to RECONSIDER Article 28 PASSES on a VV
SB Chair MOVES to remove 9 words in the original MOTION (removes 'on file in the office of the Town Clerk'
VOTE on Reconsidered Article 28 requires simple majority and PASSES on a VV

Debate continues on remaining parts of Article 16 (g,h,i,m,n,o,p): Appropriate for Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment
MOTION (all parts), HERE
Article 16g (removed from Consent Agenda): Sidewalk Improvements
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SB: Unanimously supports
Appropriation Committee (AC): Unanimously supports
Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC): Unanimously supports
Question mic (Qmic): What color will the ramps be?
Town of Lexington (ToL): Concrete with the brick red panel
No further Qs requires 2/3 majority:
YES: 159
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION CARRIES

Article 16h: Hill Street New Sidewalk Project; presentation is HERE
RECOMMENDATIONS:

SB: support

CEC: support

AC: support

Qmic: TMM/P8: What's the timeframe for completion?

ToL: On the golf course side by next construction season

YESmic: TMM/P8

Citizen's mic (Cmic): Resident urges support

Qmic: TMM/P8 What's the process for determine sidewalk?

ToL: The process begins with a submittal to the transpo safety group; is it buildable? From there, a survey to determine if Town owns land to put in a sidewalk

Qmic: TMM/P8: Seems we have a queue. We have a process. What prevents from building more sidewalk?

ToL: Financial aspect to do more than one in a year; also bandwidth for the Town and for the Public

YESmic: TMM/P5 

Qmic: TMM/P4 Cost is about $400/foot of asphalt, why so high?

ToL: With a 5-foot width; some unique and challenging aspects on Hill Street -- steep slopes that require retaining walls, sloping issues

No further Qs (2/3 majority):

YES: 164

NO: 0

ABSTAIN: 1

MOTION CARRIES

Article 16i: Equipment Replacement (DPW); presentation is HERE

RECOMMENDATIONS:
SB: support
AC: support
CEC: support
VOTE requires 2/3 majority:

YES: 164
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION CARRIES

Proposal to take three Articles together:
Article 16m: Municipal Technology Improvement Program
Article 16n: Application Implementation

Article 16o: Network Core Equipment Replacement
All three have support of SB and the financial committees (AC, CEC)
No Qs

VOTE requires simple majority for Article 16m,n,o:
YES: 165
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION CARRIES

Article 16p: Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations; presentation is HERE
SB and Finance Committees support
Qmic: TMM/P8 People charged or free service?
SB Member Hai: Users will pay for the cost of electricity as well as parking fee
YESmic: TMM/P2
Qmic: TMM/P3 What is the power that is going to be charging?
ToL: 240KW
Qmic: TMM/P3 Do you have plans to upgrade through Eversource? That's very slow charging rate
ToL: Current electrical output supports a Level 2 charger; depends where Eversource goes with this
Qmic: TMM/P3 Can they charge more rapidly with a higher charger?
SB Member Sandeen: Eversource's program is to charge Level 2 charges; Level 3 chargers are in special areas, like on the MassPike; can't be supported in Town Center
Qmic: TMM/P3 How will the metering be charged?
ToL: Charging stations have a charge point card or app and the Town can adjust the rates and get the appropriate amount of money over time
YESmic: TMM/P8
CALLS THE QUESTION
PASSES
VOTING is a simple majority:
YES: 164
NO: 2
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION CARRIES

Article 20e: Appropriate for Lexington High School Field House Track Resurfacing

MOTION is HERE

Presentation is HERE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SB: Unanimously supports
AC: Unanimously supports all items
CEC: Unanimously supports remaining parts
School Committee (SC): Unanimously supports
Qmic: TMM/P6 Q about safety
ToL: Tour of facility; researched time is now
Qmic: TMM/P6 is also an Assistant Coach for LHS Track. Is this just the track or Basketball?
ToL: Just the Track
VOTE on Article 20e requires simple majority
YES: 164
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION CARRIES

Article 20h: Appropriate Design Funds for a Feasibility Study to Improve the Cary Library Children's Room

Presentation for Article 20h, HERE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SB, AC, CEC are all in Unanimous Support
Qmic: TMM/P3 Support columns cost?
ToL: Don't want to comment on that yet until we understand the program
Qmic: TMM/P6 Estmated cost of $2.2M. What are likely outcomes based on what we know?
Koren Stembridge, Cary Library Director: Teen spaces was about $1.1M that didn't require structural changes. We'd like to scoop out the U-shape into more of a Square with improved sightlines. One of the busiest spaces. Want to have better flexibility and safety. Haven't invested since built/renovated in 2005
CEC: Call attention to the footnote to a capital campaign
Qmic: TMM/P6 Inadequate space. Where will that space come from?
Stembridge: We need to reallocate the space so that it is flexible (within the footprint)
YESmic: TMM/P8
YESmic: TMM/P2
Qmic: TMM/P8 Will the Memorial plaque remain in the Children's Room following rennovation?
Stembridge; Yes
No further Qs
VOTE on Article 20h requires simple majority
YES: 161
NO: 1
ABSTAIN: 3
MOTION CARRIES

Reconsideration of Article 39: Amend Zoning Bylaw—Limited Site Plan Review (Citizen Article)
MOTION to reconsider requires 2/3 VOTE because notice wasn't offered within 30 minutes of the initial vote
RECOMMENDATIONS ON REOPENING THE ARTICLE:
SC: Unanimously supports
PB: 4-1 OPPOSES REOPENING
SB: 5-0 SUPPORTS REOPENING
CEC: 5-1 IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION
Qmic: Does the MM school fall under the purview of Town Land
ToL: it does not
YESmic: TMM/P4
Qmic: TMM/P8 Proponent did not realize the impact on LPS?
Proponent: Had not considered LPS would be impacted by the Article
YESmic: TMM/P6
Cmic: Thinks there's no harm in keeping the Article in place
YESmic: CALLS THE Q
DEBATE IS CLOSED ON A VOICE VOTE
VOTE to RECONSIDER REQUIRES 2/3 MAJORITY:
YES: 137
NO: 19
ABSTAIN: 5
MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSES
MOTION to AMEND Article 39:
Qmic:
YESmic:
NOmic:
VOTE on (RECONSIDERED) ARTICLE 39:
AMENDED MOTION adds language: [A New Part:] 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter the use of land or structures for educational purposed by the Lexington Public Schools on land owned or leased by the Town of Lexington or the Lexington Public Schools shall not be subject to site plan review pursuant to §9.5
PB: 4-1 OPPOSES AMENDMENT
SB: 4-1 SUPPORTS
CEC: 4-2 in SUPPORT
Qmic: TMM/P3 Does the PB have the bandwidth to undertake this?
PB: Yes
YESmic: TMM/P8
Qmic: TMM/P1 asks about GC districts, building heights
TMM CALLS THE QUESTION
THE AYES HAVE IT BY VV
Final comments
VOTE on Article 39 AMENDMENT requires simple majority
YES: 120
NO: 34
ABSTAIN: 6
MOTION CARRIES

VOTE on AMENDED Article 39 to change the Zoning Bylaw requires 2/3 majority
YES: 139
NO: 12
ABSTAIN: 8
MOTION CARRIES

Article 27: Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements
MOTION is HERE
Presentation is HERE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SB: 5-0 support
CEC: 4-2 in support
AC: 6-2 in support
Tourism Committee: Unanimously in support
SB Member Lucente is RECUSING
MOTION to AMEND will be for an A Part and a B Part:
Insert "a)" before the current language of the MAIN MOTION under the article and furthermore Insert "b)" That the town make a supplemental appropriation of $117,100, and authorize an increase by said amount in the appropriation made under Article 10 of the 2018 annual Town meeting, for the Center Track and Field Reconstruction, so that the total appropriation authorized by Town Meeting for these purposes by $3,457,100, and to meet this supplemental appropriation that $58,550 be appropriated from the Recreation Enterprise Fund
SB: Opposed
CEC: Opposed
AC: Opposed
SC: Opposed
Cmic has a long line of students there to speak in support
YESmic: TMM/P1
NOmic: TMM/P7
Qmic: TMM/P9 Are there grass sites for track throwing events?
ToL: Yes, on natural grass at center complex
Cmic: Resident opposes amendment
NOmic: TMM/P5
Qmic: TMM/P1 Health risks on synthetic turf?
ToL: Peer reviewed scientific studies show no negative effects
Qmic: Lincoln ever tested for toxic materials?
ToL: Yes, all tests came back that materials are safe
Qmic: TMM/P1 How is synthetic turf recycled?
ToL: Not returned to landfills, recycled into other products
Cmic: Resident is a Student at LHS and is a hammer thrower on the Track Team. Needs a Hybrid field to play on. Same for Javelins. Synthetic turf is much hotter.
TIME IS EXPIRED
Final comments
MOTION to EXTEND DEBATE FAILS by a VV
VOTE on ARTICLE 27 to AMEND to add the "A" part and also the "B" parts to the MOTION requires simple majority:
YES: 38
NO: 104
ABSTAIN: 6
MOTION to AMEND FAILS
Back to the original MOTION
There were Qs
No further Qs
FINAL VOTE on ARTICLE 27 requires 2/3 majority:
YES: 129
NO: 13
ABSTAIN: 4
MOTION CARRIES

No further business from previous nights
MOTION to DISSOLVE 2019 TOWN MEETING PASSES by a VOICE VOTE
2019 Town Meeting is DISSOLVED
TIME OF DISSOLUTION: 10:40 PM

⸻⸻⸻

Image credit: Town Meeting Members use an electronic voting device to record their votes on most Articles; other votes are taken by Voice Vote. View the record of their 2019 Town Meeting votes to date HERE ~ mas

Call to Order, TMMA Awards, and Article 2

7:30 PM
Deborah Brown, Town Moderator, calls the meeting to order.

Very Special Member has a Very Special Birthday today -- Dan Fenn is 95 years -- more than half of his life spent in Town Meeting. Dan was interviewed by the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate - that interview is HERE.

Town Meeting Member Association (TMMA) Awards Brief recess to acknowledge Marsha Baker's 30 years and Frank Sandy's 50 years (!) for their civic commitment to the Town in Town Meeting.

Back in session.

ARTICLE 2 – REPORTS OF TOWN BOARDS, OFFICERS, AND COMMITTEES This Article remains open throughout Town Meeting and reports may be presented at any Town Meeting session by Boards, Officers, or Committees.

Report of the Planning Board is received and placed on file with the Town Clerk. Planning Board Chair, Richard Canale, presents the report.

Later in tonight's session, it is anticipated that the Report of the Superintendent of Lexington Public Schools will be received and placed on file with the Town Clerk.

If any other reports are filed tonight, this post will be updated.

Lexington Planning Board Meeting - Predevelopment Activity: Hanover Development & Belmont Country Club

Lexington Planning Board Meeting
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building,
1625 Massachusetts Avenue
7:00 PM

Agenda is here.
Site Plan is here.
The Hanover Company meeting presentation is here.

The item of interest is Predevelopment Activity: Belmont Country Club & Hanover Development (7:30 PM). I'm writing this as the meeting is being live-streamed on LexMedia on Verizon Channel 37 (Thank you LexMedia!) I missed some of the detail of speakers during Public Comment; omissions and errors are mine - apologies in advance.

Appears to be a standing room only meeting. Chair Timothy Dunn called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and announced that he would take up the Hanover Project at 7:30.

Planning Board Chair, Timothy Dunn (Dunn): Board is having an early discussion about this project in advance of filing under new zoning bylaw. Could file in late December and there would be a Public Hearing in January. A report would have to be written up and a recommendation provided to Town Meeting (TM). TM requires a 2/3 vote to approve. Under first right of refusal, if project passes TM, it comes back before the Planning Board (PB) .Tonight is an opportunity to provide feedback to the proponents. Will begin with a presentation from proponents.

Quick intro by Mark Vaughn, Attorney; introduces David Hall and Steve Dazo (sp?) of Hanover Development. 

Mark Vaughn (Vaughn): Looking forward to dialogue. Planning for an age-restricted (55+) property, 18 acres  at Watertown Street/Route 2 exchange. Belmont Country Club (BCC) is very interested in acquiring and developing the property, as a seller and as a neighbor (to Lexington). BCC has entered into an agreement with Hanover. Our plans are very much preliminary at this time. No plans developed as yet; very much at the conceptional. Looking at maintenance-free living at an age-restricted property. That segment of our population (55+) is without question the fastest growing - this project could help fill that void. Introduces David Hall

David Hall (Hall): He's a development partner with Hanover Co. Hanover wants to be open and transparent with the Town. Want to introduce our company [by way of slide presentation]:

• Hanover is based in Houston TX; has developed over 40,000 high-end, luxury properties all over the country.
• Also want to go over what we have done in Boston: Over 4,000 apartments all over Boston. Nearest ones in Hanover/Cambridge Park. Multiple projects in Towns - Westwood, Needham.
• Interested in developing two parcels of about 18 acres, total. Parcel A is a smaller parcel, east side of Winter St (used for storage and maintenance by BCC). Parcel B is larger, wooded, virgin forest.

Here's the concept of the plan - it's not the plan were filing with the Town, but the framework - looking at circulation, visuals from club. May resemble the plan we ultimately file with the Town, but this isn't it, yet.

• 4-story wood frame bldgs with parking below the buildings.
• Parcel B is 161 units (?); great amenities, pools, gyms
• Not sure how the two parcels will work together - no answer on that yet
• Age-restricted, very high-end, luxury homes; customized somewhat;

We recognize the school-age enrollment issue in Lexington; we believe something like 90% of the units will be child-free...Keep up on your good progress on 10%+ of low-income housing.
Recognize that it impacts Golden and Bowman Avenues [north of the green area shown in the embedded link for BCC].

Issues identified to address:

• Number of school-aged children
• Neighborhood impacts
• Traffic & circulation (will do a very thorough study before filing plan)
• Utility connections
• Affordable housing
• Mitigation

We are in a period of due diligence. Recognize it's a controversial project. Project Site Development and Use Plan (PSDUP) will involve multiple meetings with this board and other boards. We're going to be open and transparent as we consider

Charles Hornig, PB (Hornig): Very much the start of the process. I believe you've heard about the very real affordable housing component. If 55+ turns out not to be feasible, would you look at putting another project on the site?

Hall: We need you not to buy it. We need TM to pass it. The BCC would probably leave it forested. No assisted living-care facility, or shopping.

Hornig: based with our past experience, you're being aggressive and sometimes these things take more time than you may like.

Richard Canale, PB (Canale): We're a popular group, but we don't always have a packed audience at our meetings. What kind of outreach have you had with immediate neighbors?

Hall: None as yet, because we wanted to have this meeting first. I will come to kitchen tables. No limit to how many meetings. Small and private; large and public.

Canale: Each of these sites would require an emergency access (not showing that tonight), have you considered it? Also, reconfiguring the state highway? [RC asks this with apparent incredulity - or, at least, he's amused at the thought!]

Hall: We don't have complete answers. Need some sort of emergency egress, we think we can do with a split driveway...

Canale: The BCC has no interest in cutting across any of their fairways for access, I assume...

Hall: Correct.

Canale: This is zoned: Residential. Have you done the required "how many people could fit on the parcels"?

Hall: Parcel A = 5 homes. Parcel B = 14-16 homes.

Canale: One of the things that will come up for sure, the Town doesn't get the "right of first refusal" if zoned as Residential. Have you looked at the numbers on zoning for Residential and for high density? If TM rezones it, it's a higher calculation...have you done that?

Hall: We've negotiated a Price/Permitted Unit with BCC - it's a private agreement that we won't disclose. Agreement will be drawn.

Canale: In past developments, with this size project, the Town looks at 25% for affordable housing.

Hall: If 25%, friendly 41B

Ginna Johnson, PB (GJ): I may be the first to say that I feel this is too many units. The scale is large. Up to you to really make a case. For almost 2 yrs we've talked about senior housing being a need; affordability is a big part. Assisted-living development at a range of scales would be more interesting. Want to make aware, on aesthetic, this is a dark rural stretch, massive stretch making for a beautiful entry. Our gateways have been assaulted. This is local knowledge for you to consider. Things that may work in Texas may not be valued here. This has a long way to go. Thank you for listening. I have not heard a peep about transit: Age-restricted project, have you considered mass transit...? Need a responsible, well-designed project that gives seniors access to mass transit.

Canale: What gives you any sense that 2/3 of TM would approve this? Make your best argument.

Hall: Recognize that we're at the beginning of the proposal. There is a need for senior housing; somewhat mitigated impacts. Unique situation when a country club would sell their land. It is on the edge of Lexington. We're assuming a high tax rate for the Town. [Meaning, more revenue].

Vaughn: Economic return would be substantial. We see this as a good, sensible alternative. [To virgin, wooded forest??]

Dunn: Have you looked yet at market rate units - average rents?

Hall: Cambridge Park rent is about $3,000 - range of $2,500-5,000. This project could be $1,800 to $4,000 in rent/mo

Dunn: As for your contract with BCC - at what point does that become impractical?

Hall: Anything between 220-240 units or the BCC will leave it as is.

Dunn: Numbers in the rent - concerned about the actual costs to seniors. 40% of Lexington seniors are cost-burdened already. I'm struggling to find a reason why the Town would take on the added risk. Is there a reason why the 161-unit is so small?

Hall: The serpentine driveway is going around a hill. BCC wanted a "green belt" between the holes.

Canale: 10% of units = units could potentially have school-age children

Vaughn: With potential school-age children: 10% affordable, at least one occupant needs to be 55...

Canale: In general, when looking at affordable units, we have the responsibility of mixed bedroom size. I assume that is your intention?

Hall: It is.

Chair Dunn opens for Public Comment. We have received a large number of comments/emails already. Please speak for no more than 3 minutes. Will take about an hour's worth of comments.

1. David Kanter, Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee: Regarding school-age children, have you had experience with considering some number of school-age children? What is your presumption of them in the 10% distribution? We had a project a few years back where a "mitigation fund" was provided by developer, would lead to a payment to the Town, as an offset to the impact of school-children. How do you document and validate? Audit and verify?

The Hanover Co: We manage these projects based on unit size and limit school-age children. We believe 90% of units will not have school-age children living there. Then, the question becomes, of the remaining 10%, how many will become school-age children? Those units still require at least one occupant to be age 55 and over. Much lower propensity. We will provide data. We've not done an age-restricted in Boston, as yet. Operate as we always operate. We will work with the Town on a monitoring program.

2. Lauren Capatanie (sp?), Belmont: We love where we are, except for the quagmire at commuting times. How will you work with the Town of Belmont?

The Hanover Co: We recognize we're going to have to do a traffic study. With this age group, there's a substantial number of trips but not at the commuting times per day. No way to widen the road.

3. Belmont resident: What street are we talking about? How many people total? How will the two buildings connect - with an overpass?

The Hanover Co: Street is in Lexington. Could be 500-600 people. No sidewalks. Substantial amenities: Library. Gym. There will be plenty to do. Residents are not likely to drive on and off the campus. The area is not pedestrian friendly. There will be shuttles and programs throughout the day: to the mall, to cultural events. Not sure about how to connect - not an overpass, perhaps a tunnel; not sure.

4. Bijan Afshartous, Lexington TMM Pct 2: Surprised about this meeting. Running out of space for our school-aged children in schools. Concerned about the impact on our schools.

5. Bill Ford, Arlington: The majority of Golden Avenue is in Arlington. We're concerned about traffic. If Golden Avenue is extended, it's going to be a disaster area for Route 2. Please contact Arlington. I just found out about this project and I don't think the Town knows about it yet. It's Arlmont Village and it will be impacted.

6. Jenny Richlin, Lexington: You seem pretty confident that you can restrict the population. Have you done it in other states? Have you ever sold one of your developments - is it age-restricted in perpetuity? At beginning of presentation you said that this project wasn't fully planned - I'm confused about how this works.

The Hanover Co: I'm familiar with other projects in MA where it is allowed, for example, on the Cape. As long as 80% are established as age-restricted (HOPPA), it can be done. The zoning is permanent. The age-restriction is permanent. This was the framework we used to present to Belmont (98%-2% approval). They did ask us to address the density. We will have to go back to BCC before we present a plan to the Town.

7. Resident from Pct 2, Belmont: Sad that BCC is doing this. Winter street is very different now than 30 years ago. Implore you to do your traffic study first.

8. Resident, Peacock Farm Lexington: I feel I'm not anti-development, but your plan is extremely concerning. Small fraction of people are here tonight; if this meeting were not happening in summer, there would be many more. I have real concerns. The school-age children capacity issues are real issues with real impact. Impact on surrounding land and neighbors is going to be really significant. Housing isn't going to remain at the same level.

9. James Ferris, Belmont: I share the concerns about traffic. Problems at Concord Avenue in Belmont and at Mass Avenue in Lexington (at Wilson's Farm). Work with all of the Planning Boards in Belmont, Lexington, Arlington.

The Hanover Co: Need to do the traffic study and engage with Arlington, Belmont, Lexington. With age-restriction, we feel it isn't going to be as dire as some may otherwise think or suggest, but we're fully committed to ascertain the impacts and how to mitigate with in-depth analysis.

10. Steve Heinrich, Lexington TMM Pct3: I want to be sure I understand "right of first refusal": if you decide to go forward to TM and you get 2/3 approval, it is at that time that Lexington gets first refusal, correct? (YES). 2/3 approval is a very high hurdle to get over. Many projects have not been approved. This is going to be very, very hard to get through TM. I don't see this as a viable proposal - it's too big, it's a traffic nightmare - and I'm not even mentioning the impact on the school system. This scale and this project is just too large.

11. Jennifer Page, Belmont TMM PCt3: My concerns - share the strong and rich concerns about traffic on Winter Street - and want to extend that concern to Mill Street. In the traffic study that you do, please include beyond Winter Street. My other concern is beautiful, pure - you said virgin forest - I'm surprised that there is no one here from Conservation - it's a real concern that it would all be gone.

12 Frank Sandy, Lexington TMM Pct 6: There's lots wrong with this project. I want to address Land Use Planning in Lexington. The Town needs to acquire a new school site. We need a large piece of large open land. We should reject this proposal until such time as we acquire a school site.

13. Lexington resident: Concern about Route 2 exit ramp.

14. Sarah Forrester, Blossom Street, off Concord Avenue, Lexington: Trees. It's been a very long, dry, hot summer. Oak trees seem to survive. We should do everything to preserve them. Also, developers know we're concerned about school enrollments, yet you think it's OK to discriminate people of a certain age. And, what do you think of people 55+ who do not get up and go to work every day?? You need to revise the way you project who will live here. Is it legal to say they have to be 55 yo and older?

The Hanover Co: I apologize. I meant no offense to any age group.

15: McCarthy of Belmont: Is the presentation going to be made public?

Dunn: We will make the PPT available on our website.

16: Lilly Yen: This development will bring in $5M+ in revenue, but what do we lose in process and gain in problems?

17. Resident of Golden Avenue, Lexington: I think we will get the brunt of the impact.

Dunn: What is the situation with water and sewer?

The Hanover Co: all utilities will have to come under existing lines at Golden Avenue, with an inter-municipal agreement. We have to have utilities or we don't have a project.

Canale: Our feedback is to help you. Should you decide to proceed: critical convos with Belmont, MassDOT, that there be sidewalks and bicycles - could be a good place for a meandering sidewalk...the other part is kind of unfortunate to come in with this many units...my guess is most folks in TM will be able to make the argument that the Town will be more worse off as a result. Yes, we do need senior housing; yes, we need affordable housing, but not luxury apartments; something teachers could afford. Try to get a better understanding of what Lexington wants in their senior housing.

Johnson: I heard you specifically say that path connections would not be permitted by the BCC...I think that is unfortunate and is an essential amenity for your residents.

Hall: To keep on track for spring TM - we need a sketch plan by October; traffic numbers, typography, if you're aiming for spring TM.

End of Public Comments ~ 9:00 PM

This post was edited to correct names and to include the project site plan and meeting presentation.