Article 43 – Amend Chapter 135 Zoning Bylaw (Citizen Article)

ARTICLE 43 – AMEND CHAPTER 135 ZONING BYLAW (Citizen Article) To see if the Town will vote to amend Chapter 135 of the Zoning Bylaw to zone for Medical Marijuana Cultivation Centers, Medical Marijuana Processing Centers, Medical Marijuana Distribution Centers, and/or Recreational Marijuana Establishments; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by Ethan Handwerker and 9 or more registered voters)

The current zoning restrictions for non-profit medical cannabis cultivators, processors, and distributors have become outdated and need updating to reflect the changes in state law regarding all Medical and Recreational Marijuana Establishments. This Article seeks to see if the Town will vote to amend Chapter 135 of the Zoning Bylaw to date the current restrictions.

Presentation from Ethan Handwerker HERE.
Planning Board Report on this Article is HERE - it is received and placed on file.

Recommendations
BoS: Unanimously OPPOSED
SC: Unanimously OPPOSED
PB: Unanimously OPPOSED

CITIZEN MIC: Lexington Chamber of Commerce -- did not take an official vote; supported the previous moratorium at the Special Town Meeting (STM) last Fall

Q MIC: TMM/P2 Will this be in a STM?
A: Yes - a STM in the Fall
Q: Is that enough time?
A: We think we can do it

NO MIC: TMM/P1
NO MIC: TMM/P3

Requires a 2/3 majority vote of TM
TM Votes
YES: 4
NO: 148
ABSTAIN: 6

The MOTION fails

Article 38 – Amend Zoning Bylaw

ARTICLE 38 – AMEND ZONING BYLAW AND MAP IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT/MARRETT ROAD (Citizen Article) To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw and Map to allow additional uses and density in the commercial district along Marrett Road near Spring Street by creating a new zoning district replacing the existing CN and CS districts; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. (Inserted by Charles Minasian and 9 or more registered voters)

There are five parcels on CS side of Marrett Road. This Article seeks to replace the existing CS commercial district along Marrett Road near Spring Street with a new district, CSX, which will expand the current uses to better reflect the needs of the community. By ensuring the properties have more uses to take advantage of the Article seeks to create a sense of space that can help re-energize this important commercial area.

MOTION: Full text, revised 3/28, HERE.
Planning Board's Presentation, HERE.
Planning Board Report on this Article is HERE.
View the discussion of Town Meeting Members on the Town Meeting Member Association's public
google group HERE and HERE.

Mr. Charles (Charlie) Manisian, the Article's proponent, presents his report to Town Meeting. His website, concerning this Article, is HERE.

Recommendations:
Board of Selectmen (BoS): Unanimously Supports (5-0)

Planning Board (PB): Opposes (4-1)
Appropriation Committee (AC):
Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC):

CITIZEN MIC: Lexington Chamber of Commerce in SUPPORT
YES MIC: TMM/P7

QUESTION MIC: TMM/P8 Clarify -- art galleries? Motion says cannot?
A: Artisan work is not a "by right use", Requires a special permit. Attempt to control for possible chemical use
Q: H.1.022 -- why proponent felt that would be inappropriate?
A: Some of the neighbors didn't really care for it, but you could sell artwork there.
Q: Interested in chart with "stories" -- Table 2. How does this differ from the CS zone?
A: It does not differ.
Q: What does "inoperable vehicles" mean.
A: It means what it says. Unregistered vehicles may be stored.

CITIZEN MIC: Resident, owner of Get in Shape for Women, is in SUPPORT
YES MIC: TMM/P6

QUESTION MIC: TMM/P5
A: This only applies to this.
Q: If we approve, does it encourage more developers to ask for more, small districts.
A: Can't presume to know.
Q: If approved, prevent Planning Board to modify later?
A: I think members of the PB feel this is temporary zoning
TMM says he will support this Article

CITIZEN MIC: Resident of Spring Street in SUPPORT
YES MIC: TMM/P8 in SUPPORT

TMM Calls the Question
The AYES have it (voice vote)

TM Votes (requires 2/3 majority approval)
YES: 144
NO: 12
ABSTAIN: 5

Article 41: Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

ARTICLE 41: Floor Area Ratio, FAR - the article would limit the size of new houses or additions in relation to their lot size

Inserted at the request of the Planning Board

Planning Board presentation: Includes basements; half stories

All peer towns is like comparing apples to oranges.

Fiscal impacts: 6 month study of data gathering, data was analyzed, then, an effects assessment. Case study of homes built between 2013-2015. Developed statistical models: Historical model; Current Model; Future Model. Not predictions but a range of projections. There is an appeals process

PB in unanimous support

Board of Selectmen hasn't taken a vote

Appropriation  Committee has no consensus

Town Moderator notes that more than a dozen citizens signed up to speak to the article

TMM at Q: Slide 9 - appreciate the many examples; based on Article 39 passage, are they based on previous bylaw?

A: yes

TMM - Appreciate the work of the PB. I intend to vote NO

TMM Q: why is the inclusion of the basement at full height in the process?

A: Basements and attics are routinely included in residential development.

TMM - this does not make sense to me.

Citizen: I oppose this Article.

TMM Q: I'm asking on behalf of a Citizen. How is conservation land included in this calculation?

A: Is the conservation land adjacent?

TMM: I believe it is adjacent

A: Special permit was required for structure to be built initially (ZBA or PB), would need to go to that authority for special permit.

TMM at YES: I would like to talk about basements. It turns out you can have a crawl space that is under 7 feet high and that is plenty of room for storage, playroom, and other uses. It's a modest proposal. Other towns have these restrictions - it is not a big thing. If there are unintended consequences we can fix them. We have to start somewhere. I think we should support it.

Citizen: speaking in opposition. Could affect almost every property in this town. The standards set in this article are arbitrary, without sufficient due diligence of the Planning Board.

TMM at NO: None of us can appreciate the particular and unique circumstances of families. We're trying to legislate how people build and renovate. We are over regulating. Town Meeting needs to say, "enough".

Citizen: Moved here over 20 years ago - trees, green space - now, 8 tear-downs, enormous houses being built instead. Agree that we need to balance and think this is a very balanced proposal. Please support the Article

TMM at YES: I'm supportive because it will help to prevent flooding (reduce impervious surfaces).

Citizen: Horrified by this proposal. 

Eight TMMs now queued at the YES

TMM at NO: I'm disappointed to be standing at this mic. I'm concerned about the impact of this bylaw. Stated intention is to reduce shadowing, dismantling tree canopy - needs more analysis.

Citizen: Speaking on behalf of 12 families and my family who strongly support. Our neighborhood is one of the more denser and smaller homes. We are concerned about the tear-downs. Impacts are real:

1. open space, tree cover, run-off on drains, shadowing on houses
2. from our perspective, we don't want to become another enclave for ginormous homes
3. none of us wants to lose money on our homes.

The time to act is now. The tear-downs are proceeding; the market is very strong.

TMM at YES: these are very modest changes; developers will become more creative. These are not onerous regulations at all. Urges TMMs to support

TMM at NO: I'd like to remind TM that we passed Article 29 to form neighborhood districts. We're trying to over-control

Citizen: Let's separate fact from fiction. Received fliers from realtors. Open space has value. Keep that in mind.

TMM/Selectman: I'm opposed. Takes substantial value from tax base. It focuses on Gross Floor Area

TMM calls the question , which is a MOTION to close debate on Article 41

MOTION PASSES

YES= 102           NO=60            ABSTAIN=6       

Main MOTION to Amend Zoning Bylaw on Floor Area Ratio - requires 2/3 majority to pass

MOTION PASSES

YES=127            NO=41            ABSTAIN=2

Town Meeting adjourned until 7:30 PM Monday, April 4, back in Cary Hall

Article 40: Amend Zoning Bylaw: Accessory Apartments

Article 40: Amend Zoning Bylaw: Accessory Apartments - This article would relax some existing conditions and requirements that limit the ability to construct accessory apartments. These requirements include lot area, presence of rooming units, connection to Town water and sewer, ownership, location of parking, and age of structure.

Article inserted at the request of the Planning Board

Planning Board presentation: We have a lot of very big houses but do not have ample small dwellings for:

• older parents
• adult children
• rental income

Comprehensive plan to address changes, including:

1. Under the current bylaw, if you have an accessory apartment, you can't also rent out a room - - we don't see a reason that these be mutually exclusive, but that there are no more than 4 unrelated people in the apartment. (Also applies to B&Bs).
2. Public water & sewer: currently, we say that if you h.ave public water and sewer you can't have an accessory apartment; we think there are reqs from the board of Health, so we are changing
3. Parking: currently, very long section on dealing with parking; those rules don't apply to single family houses, so this is why we are recommending the change.
4. Lot Area: right now you can't build an accessory apartment unless you have a lot of a certain size. but, many lots to not apply to this amendment.
5. Age of building: right now, the two smallest kinds of apartments, have a req that it has to have an existing building that's at least 5 years old. We want to encourage the growth of these small apartments, 1,000 square feet or less.

Planning Board unanimously supports

Board of Selectmen unanimously suppports

Appropriation Committee: a majority supports

TMM Q: for Planning Board - is PB concerned at all that with the adoption of this article, and that a single mother with 3 children and the potential impact on our school system?

A: no reason to think there will be more children; every reason to think there will be fewer

TMM at YES: I'm 25, recent college grad; crushing debt. Full disclosure - I live with my parents. I'm the only TMM under the age of 30. We need to facilitate young people to come back to live in Lexington. Urge TM to think of young professionals, others like himself; need to build a new generation of young people for public service.

TMM at NO: rise in opposition and agree with Appropriation Committee. This Article isn't ready and this is not the right time. Urge you to vote against

TMM Q: Enforcement - only for neighbors to rat on their neighbors; what's the enforcement process?

A: not making any changes WRT enforcement. It's up to the Building Department.

TMM: I think Lexington has met its 10% - I will not support

TMM at YES: Town has been working really hard on sustainability - I urge TMMs to continue along the path of sustainability and support

TMM at NO: I moved into Town in 1959 with 2 children. The schools are over-populated. If you build these apartments, they will come - and the children will come and then we will have to take care of them and schools will be over enrolled

TMM Q: Schools - enrollment problems, also affordability problem. Do we have any other splution to this problem? How do we make Lexington affordable if we do not do this?

A: this is the plan we are proposing concerning accessory apartments

TMM: Do we know that there will be increase in number of school children?

A: Whether or not they do, we cannot discriminate against families with children

TMM - urges support

Citizen: speaks in favor of this amendment because of increasing diversity in housing

TMM Q: Limits of 4 people - what does that mean?

A: A family is one or more individuals living together. A roomer is one individual in an accessory apartment

TMM at YES: when my parents retired, they moved to ME with my sister in an accessory apartment. That they did with my sister and her kids, made their lives longer and fuller.

TMM at YES: this is about building diversity like the previous TMM addressed. Please support

TMM at NO: I'm concerned that even 2 bedrooms or more can support a significant number of people.

TMM at YES: We hear a lot about seniors being forced out, so this gives another option and I urge support

TMM at YES: I support this article. If people had tried to stop people from moving into this community, I may have never lived here. Wants to pay it forward

TMM Q: is it true that an owner can be away from their house for 2 years?

A: existing bylaw (we are not proposing a change) permits absences by the owner for up to 2 years; may rent the main dwelling and accessory apartment with certain procedure for doing so

Citizen: speak in favor of this amendment; currently building an accessory apartment for my brother.

TMM at NO: I support all of the intent behind the accessory apartments. We can bring all the families we want to Lexington, but this seems risky for school over enrollment

TMM at YES: would be a sea-change to have such a number of children. Removes a number of restrictions for smaller homes

TMM Q: struggling with this - why lifting the restriction to build accessory apartment at time of new construction?

A: only applies to 1,000 sq ft. types (accessory apartment). Demand isn't driven by the market, but by particular family circumstances.

Citizen: if we really care of there being "too many children", then, you should support this article

With no one standing at any of the mics, Town Moderator asks for any closing comments from Planning Board.

PB: we have had accessory apartments for more than 30 years. Feels this proposal gives everyone the same shot at building an accessory apartment.

Town Moderator calls for vote on Article 40 - requires 2/3 majority

MOTION passes

YES= 148; NO= 41; ABSTAIN=3

Article 39: Amend Zoning Bylaw - Maximum Height of Structures

We're at the high school (again) for tonight's session.

Zoning/Land Use Articles brings out lots of residents - Town Moderator has just called for a second "citizens' microphone".

Article 39: Amend Zoning Bylaw - Maximum Height of Structures: The article would limit the height of new houses or additions located close to lot lines.

• 15-ft setbacks for 40 ft. height dwelling
• Issue raised during the residential policy committee's listening tour
• No change in measuring height or yard setbacks
• Properties with 15 foot yard setbacks, bldg no higher than 40 feet

Planning Board presentation. "This article is a fair and reasonable measure for dwellings near lot lines."

Planning Board unanimous supports.

Board of Selectmen supports the article.

Town Moderator opens floor for debate

Citizen: speaks in support

Town Meeting Member (TMM) speaking in opposition at NO mic

Another TMM speaking in opposition, noting too many controls being imposed

TMM with a Q: similar zoning rules for other towns?

Answer from PB: we would not be an outlier

TMM then, says he will support

TMM at YES mic - says it is a modest proposal and will support

Citizen: opposed to Articles 39 & 41. Lives in small house, but real estate taxes have never been small - too many restrictions. Wants more incentives instead

TMM at Q: why is text "strikeout" at top of chart?

A: didn't want to use double negatives

Citizens: have lived in Lexington for 30 years - throughout this time, lived in same small house, but neighborhood building has ramped up. Putting a large home on a postage sized lot - should have been addressed long ago. Urges support

TMM with Q: there is an appeal process, correct?

A: there's a whole section in the bylaw that addresses nonconformity

TMM: not sure I understand

A: no specific appeal to nonconformity

TMM Q: substandard lots and homes - any attempt to quantify these?

A: PB is trying to quantify

TMM Q: as I look at the setback and max height, seems reasonable - - is there any lot in Town where one could not build because of this article?

A: not that we know of

TMM will support because it is very reasonable.

Citizen: speaking in opposition. Urges TMMs to reject proposal

TMM at YES: I was part of the RPC process to address issues from residents. Recommended from someone from the development community.

TMM at YES: I live in a small  house on a small lot in a neighborhood with a lot of tear-downs. I look at Article 39 & 41 and think they are reasonable. I'm really not concerned; they are very small steps forward.

Seeing no one at any of the mics, Town Moderator calls for the vote - requires a 2/3 majority to pass

MOTION passes

YES=138; NO=31; ABSTAIN=3