Town Meeting met for the sixth and final session of its annual meeting on Monday.
Among other items, the group debated bringing more affordable housing to town-owned land, renovating Center Playground, and how to calculate affordable housing (again).
Here is every item Town Meeting discussed this week:
Article 30 – Calculating affordable housing
Matthew Daggett, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 2, proposed Lexington reconsider the motion under Article 30, which passed with approximately 77 percent support during the first week of this year’s annual session.
As the zoning bylaw was written before this year’s Town Meeting sessions, the amount of affordable housing in a Special Residential Development must equal at least 15 percent of the market-rate housing that could be built on the given property. That rule created an incentive for developers to build large developments.
The original motion under Article 30 called for changing the bylaw so at least 15 percent of the area of market-rate dwellings in a proposed development must go toward inclusionary dwellings. That change made it so affordable housing could be calculated based on a proposed development and not a property’s maximum capacity for market-rate dwellings. That switch could allow developers to build smaller developments, which is something many residents have been asking for at Planning Board meetings.
Many Town Meeting members and residents were confused by the math behind Article 30 when the group debated it two weeks ago. Others were concerned the change in the bylaw would ultimately limit the amount of affordable housing developments could host.
Daggett proposed an amendment to the motion, calling for the town to replace wording in the bylaw so incoming multifamily developments could actually host 15 percent inclusionary housing.
While some Town Meeting members voiced support of the amendment because it would help bring more affordable housing to town, others were weary.
“I don’t think we need to do this at this point,” Dawn McKenna, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 6, said, noting there is already more housing coming to Lexington than the state originally required of the town. “I think we should take more time to look at this.”
Charles Hornig, a planning board member, said he was against the amendment because it was not discussed at any public hearings, so residents’ feelings about it are unknown, and a feasibility study that was done two years ago suggested 15 percent was not doable. He noted that circumstances change over the course of two years, however, so the results of that feasibility study may not ring true today.
Ultimately, the motion under Article 30 with Daggett’s amendment passed with approximately 86 percent support.
Article 23 — Bring affordable housing to 116 Vine St.
The motion under this article asks the town to allow the Select Board to sell or lease the property at 116 Vine St., which is about 30,000 square feet of town-owned land, so affordable housing can be built on it. The motion passed with approximately 79 percent support.
Some neighbors complained the proposed multifamily housing development is too big for the neighborhood and the driveway to the new development would be too small for a firetruck.
“The neighborhood needs to be respected for what it wants to see built on this land, they’re afraid that it’s not just the safety but the quality of the environment,” Lexington resident Marianne Lazarus said, asking the town to better cooperate with residents on multifamily housing matters. “We don’t want to have some big six-unit development plugged in there.”
Pamela Lyons, a Town Meeting representative from Precinct 5, criticized the town for pursuing the development coming to the intersection of Lowell St. and North St. because it’s located too far from public transportation, she said. Lyons argued the town should “up [its] game with zoning” and explore building affordable housing on parking lots closer to MBTA bus stops.
Article 10g — Park and playground improvements at Center Playground
The motion under this article asks the town to appropriate approximately $1.5 million to replace the playground equipment and install poured-in-place surfacing at Center Playground. It passed with approximately 96 percent support.
In a presentation by Renen Bassik, a member of the town’s Recreation Committee, he states the current playground equipment is at end-of-life and the wood-chipped flooring makes the playground difficult for children with physical disabilities to play.
Jeanne Krieger, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 3, suggested the town consider using a cork material instead of poured-in-place out of worry that it could be toxic. Ricki Pappo, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 2, and Tanya Gisolfi-McCready, of Precinct 1, echoed Krieger’s concern.
Lauren Black, a Town Meeting representative from Precinct 8 and parent of a child who uses a wheelchair, said he appreciated the poured-in-place option because it will allow his daughter to access the structures.
“The important piece of this poured-in-place is that it allows children with impaired mobility…to use the structure,” he said, also noting that the new ground material could allow seniors who use walkers, for example, to enjoy the playground with their family.
Mona Roy, a Town Meeting representative from Precinct 7, supported Black’s argument.
Article 34 — New dimensional requirements for some multifamily housing
The motion under this article asks the town to adjust the zoning bylaw so multifamily developments that host dwellings and commercial space must have a front yard of at least 10 feet for amenities such as seating. The motion also asks the town to require the first floor of similar developments to be 14 feet high. The petitioner, Carol Sacerdote of Precinct 4, noted that will attract businesses to rent the spaces. And finally, the motion asks the town to adjust the bylaw to state there must be at least 20 feet of landscape between a building over 40 feet tall and the border of the property it’s on. The motion passed with approximately 92 percent support.
Luker asked, “why do we feel like we need to reduce development capacity in the wake of passing Article 2?” arguing this motion is a step in the direction opposite boosting housing in Lexington.
Kunal Botla, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 4, found the new dimensional parameters “arbitrary.”
“We’ll end up with a project that’s on a slope and will need stairs, the buffer zone won’t be relevant at a house in a certain place…we might lead to creating situations that have unintended consequences,” he argued.
But other Town Meeting members, like Lin Jensen of Precinct 8, liked the motion because she thinks it could help Lexington maintain its suburban feel.
“I have experience living in crowded cities, we don’t have to do that,” she said. “I think these setbacks are very reasonable and will be desirable for the neighborhood.”
Town Meeting passed a motion under Article 10i, which asks the town to appropriate nearly $2 million to renovate Lincoln Field No. 3 with an artificial surface carpet and an organic infill material. They also passed a motion under Article 19 that asks for approximately $6.5 million be appropriated into the Capital Stabilization Fund by raising the tax levy and approximately $14 thousand be placed into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund from the Affordable Housing Stabilization Fund. Finally, Town Meeting passed another budgetary item under Article 6.