Lexington is evaluating its first Site Sensitive Development (SSD) application under Article 33, a set of zoning regulations passed by Town Meeting in 2023 with the goal of encouraging the development of smaller and more affordable homes.
The applicant, 28 Meriam Street Lexington LLC, proposed a development plan for 28 Meriam Street and 32 Edgewood Road, the center of Meriam Hill. The plan includes building three conventional new residential buildings and renovating a historic house, and, somewhat controversially, involves demolishing an old carriage house built in 1907.
Article 33 grants developers greater leeway in building different housing types. Under the new bylaw, the approval process for an SSD application requires a site plan review instead of a special permit. Site plan reviews ensure that the project will ultimately proceed, as the Planning Board cannot completely halt the project—unlike special permits, which give the Board veto power over projects. Both procedures involve public hearings and enable the Planning Board to set criteria for project approval.
The Planning Board held the first public hearing for the Meriam Street development in March. Developers unveiled the plan and peer reviewers commented on the proposal. At a second meeting in April, the developers presented changes to the plan and the Board addressed some of the earlier neighborhood concerns.
Details of the proposal
The property, shy of 1.1 acres, will support three conventional building lots consisting of 10 proposed dwellings. Buildings A and B at the northwestern end will be single-floor, garden-style condominiums. There will be three 1,600 square feet, 2-bedroom, 2-bath units in each building, with elevator and garage space.
Building C near Meriam Street will have two townhouse-type, single-floor, 3-bedroom, 3.5-bath units, each about 3,100 square feet. The building design will appear as a single-family home, “which better fits with the character of the neighborhood,” said the landscape architect Gary Larson.
The existing renovated historic house on the western side close to Edgewood Road will be converted to two single-floor units. One will be a 2-bedroom, 2.5-bath. The other will be an inclusionary, 4-bedroom, 2.5-bath home, meaning the unit is reserved for a family earning less than 80% of the area median income. All units will be ownership, not rental.
The buildings will have all-electric heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, all LED lighting, and Energy Star appliances, according to the proposal. Exterior lighting will be dark sky compliant. Electric vehicle charging stations will be installed. Developers also intend to build solar systems for onsite electric production.
The green space at the bottom of a 20-foot slope is a natural open space that will remain. The carriage house, mostly hidden by the Edgewood wall, which is “non-conforming and could not be converted into multifamily units,” will have to be removed, said the developer.
Developers have not revealed details of the timeline, cost, or expected price of the units.
Neighborhood’s varied opinions
Lexington residents gave a mix of responses to the Meriam Street and Edgewood Road proposals.
Concerns spanned issues like the loss of mature trees, stormwater mitigation, increased traffic density, and parking difficulties. However, the legality of demolishing the historic carriage house is the issue that most frustrates opponents, who claim the application violates the threshold requirements for a Site Sensitive Development (SSD).
They refer to §6.9.5 of the zoning bylaw, which reads, “An SSD shall be designed to preserve natural features, mature native trees, habitat areas, sloped areas, and historically or architecturally significant buildings or places.”
Attorney Gwen Nolan King, who represents eight neighbors and abutters, drafted a joint letter to the Planning Board. In the letter, King pointed out that during the drafting, presentation, and recommendation of the proposed SSD bylaw, the Planning Board emphasized repeatedly that these requirements are non-discretionary.
“The Planning Board cannot now ignore §6.9.5’s mandatory language and approve this application,” the letter states.
Resident Jeanne Desanto voiced her opposition in the April meeting.
“I would just ask you to either change the law to make this work or change the project to match the law,” Desanto said. “But don’t do what I’m afraid we’re gonna do, which is to set an example that when we want something, regardless of what the language of the law says, we find a way to make it work.”
The historic property owner obtained a demolition permit last year, Abby McCabe, the Planning Director mentioned. There was a one-year delay which will expire in July.
“After July 19th, the property owner does not have to keep those houses and they are free to demolish those buildings,” McCabe said.
McCabe also emphasized in the April meeting that this is a site plan review instead of a special permit. “The use is not something that you can deny,” she said. “Staff has reviewed the plans and we believe the proposal submitted does comply with the zoning bylaw.”
The project’s actual affordability and sustainability issues also stirred up public comments in both March and April meetings.
“It’s odd that we’ve spent so much time debating bike parking,” said Bridger McGaw, a Town Meeting member. “This isn’t about bike parking, folks. This is about a site sensitive design that fits into the nature of our community.”
“So get off the bike issue and get onto the fact that there’s too much parking on the site. Too many trees are getting cut down and the big house on the corner is too big,” said McGaw.
Alexandra Worden, a resident and professor in climate and earth sciences, expressed her deep concern about the project’s design, which did not include geothermal power and triple glazing, an efficient type of glass in a door or window that includes three layers separated by air spaces to prevent heat from escaping from a room.
“Why has there not been more appreciation for natural grades? Why is the building not designed in character with the neighborhood? Why is there not more attention to sustainability?” Worden asked. “It’s so emotionally distressing to have chosen this community because of its commitment to historical preservation and sustainability.”
“I understand the zoning bylaw change, but that does not mean we need to ignore the characteristics of this town at the expense of large amounts of profit,” she said.
On the other side, supporters believed this development would create more diverse housing types and mitigate the town’s housing shortage.
A local senior Margaret Heitz said the project would add more possibilities for elders who are considering downsizing. “Having the option of staying in Lexington and potentially buying a unit that is smaller than our current house is very attractive,” Heitz said in the March meeting.
Both the Housing Partnership and the Regional Housing Services Office advocated the project.
Wendy Manz, a former member of the Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) committee, which designed the new zoning bylaw under Article 33, spoke in the March meeting as the chair of the Housing Partnership.
“This very much meets the intent of the law,” Manz said. “This will be one of the more impressive examples of what the new zoning can do.”
Updates from the April 11 meeting
At a follow-up meeting, the applicant developer, 28 Meriam Street Lexington LLC, presented changes to the project, addressing issues raised in the first meeting like bicycle storage and trash removal.
A major revision was the infiltration system, which was redesigned to eliminate the water overflow, said Michael Novak, civil engineer of the developer’s team.
About 10 of the 50 trees with trunk diameters larger than six inches would be removed, said Gary Larson, the landscape architect. The proposed planning will also provide additional 33 trees to reinforce the visual buffer, according to Larson.
The tree committee of Lexington commented on the development plan. It recommended detailed protection plans for the retained trees, particularly the large shade trees and the giant oak at the center of the lot.
“We support the suggestion by planning staff that contingent on acceptance of these conditions by the applicant, the tree by law be waived in order to provide administrative clarity in communication, documentation, and oversight,” said Nancy Sofen, member of the tree committee.
Peer reviewer Tom Houston, who has over 35 years of experience in civil and site engineering, reviewed the original project report and provided 84 comments in the March meeting. At the second meeting, 49 of those comments have been fully resolved, Houston said.
For what remains, nine outstanding comments await additional information, Houston pointed out. One of those was the building height. The rest of the comments require changes to the plan set, stormwater report, and construction phases.
“I would characterize all of the outstanding items as capable of being resolved,” Houston said. “I don’t think there’s any show stoppers that would preclude a resolution of the outstanding issues.”
The next public hearing will be held on May 8.
This development makes my blood boil. What a travesty to have this housing going up in the historic area of Meriam Hill. This important home and carriage house should be saved not torn down or destroyed beyond recognition. I cannot believe the town is allowing this to happen in the name of providing more housing. There are appropriate places for this type of development but not in the middle of an historic neighborhood, steps from Lexington Battle Green. This could have been prevented if the owners of this property chose to not sell to a developer. Shame on them.
Fantastic! Great to see Article 33 being put to work. Hope we see more housing projects in the future.
There are quite a few reasons I wouldn’t want to live there, and I believe those could be remedied if the developer chose to do so. 1. There is way too much pavement and almost no area for recreation or communal use. The development is a community. Sloped areas are not communal spaces. 2. The site plan calls for the demolition of the carriage house. The developer said that it could not be used. I want to reiterate, as some neighbors mentioned, that it could be renovated, but the cost would cut into developer profits. 3. My question is this: how many issues are not being addressed by the developer because if the desired profit margin. The developer should be able to make a profit, but how much is enough? I am strongly in favor of developing the site in a “site” and neighborhood sensitive way. Like many neighbors, the development does not affect me directly (it, absolutely affects abutters). However, what is approved this time will set a precedent, and not necessarily in a positive way. This site a challenging in its composition. Not all sites are.
Meriam Street is a different type of development from the development on Lowell Street that was recently approved by town meeting, but the reasons being given to not do it or change the project feel like the same old song and dance. If we start cancelling viable projects that help us to meet the town’s goals for cluster housing and affordable housing because the neighbors are upset we won’t have any cluster housing or affordable housing.
This is not about creating affordable housing whatsoever. This is about the pure greed of a developer (Finnegan/ Speedwagon). We are all trustees of one of the most historic towns in our country – and Meriam Hill is at the heart of that history. After listening to the various meetings, the Planning Board was useless. The article is a waste. We all deserve better.
The demotion of the beautiful historic and architecturally significant building is not somewhat, but very controversial. As mentioned, the bylaw specifically requires preservation of historic buildings, so should not be part of the plan. Many participants in the public meetings expressed their disbelief that the Planning Board would allow their own bylaw to be abused in this way. The Historical Commission wrote an unusually strongly-worded letter to the Planning Board urging them to preserve what may be the only remaining carriage house in Lexington as so many others have been demolished. It was designed by the same architect as Cary Library and other important buildings in Lexington. The Board has chosen to ignore the widespread opposition among the public and to contradict their own language in the bylaw, which was relied upon when Town Meeting voted to approve Article 33 last year.
Massachusetts is the third most densely populated state, after New Jersey and Rhode Island (around half of which is Providence or otherwise citified). That dense population is eating into the quality of life, making it hard to get from one place to another throughout much of the day, a problem which has gotten considerably worse over the last 25 years.
Five years ago, my primary care doc took a call during my annual physical, something she’d never done in the previous 20 years I’d been seeing her. I asked her about it, and she told me the traffic had been getting so bad that patients frequently were calling her from their cars, late, asking if they could still come in.
Disease prevention is a major ecosystem service. Increasing human population interferes with ecosystem services. Lyme and other tick-borne diseases are examples that emerged in the US likely due to interference from population growth; likewise HIV in Africa, and quite possibly COVID in Asia as well. Several years ago, a major paper in Nature warned of pandemics to come if the population is not stabilized. Merriam Hill is very unlikely to become the proverbial straw, but we need to realize that a growing population is no longer a good thing.
(reposting from a message to a local email list for the benefit of the handful of people who might still wander by this week-old posting)
An important thing to keep in mind is that this property is under a purchase and sale agreement by the developer, and it will be redeveloped one way or another. Our bylaws provide a number of options for the owners to transform what’s there into new housing. They chose to use the new Site Sensitive Development (SSD) option that was enacted last year by Town Meeting as part of Article 33. I take them at their word when they say, they looked at the overwhelming approval of Article 33 last year and wanted to create something that satisfied what Town Meeting, the Select Board and the Planning Department say would be beneficial to the town. The developers instead could have chosen to quickly and easily subdivide the lots and create three or four very large “McMansions”. A third option would have been something called a Compact Neighborhood Development (CND), which was also created by Article 33. All three of these options are “by-right”, meaning, so long as the bylaws, regulations, building codes, etc, are met the project cannot be rejected.
By far the easiest of these options is the traditional approach of simply building very large, exorbitantly expensive, single-family homes. That is 100% what would be happening if this project had occurred any time prior to the adoption of Article 33. Some developers would have chosen this approach regardless because it generates the least amount of friction and uncertainty. There would be no Planning Board public hearings, no site plan review, no preservation of one of the two historic structures, and no inclusionary dwelling. The site would likely be razed of most of the trees, the topology would be extensively modified, and both existing historic structures would be demolished. The neighborhood would receive a few more McMansions, which pretty much everyone seems to agree are terrible for a variety of reasons. In the absence of Article 33, this is what has been happening in Lexington for decades, and this is what will continue to happen if alternative forms of development are not encouraged and supported. Providing better alternatives to large-lot, single-family subdivisions was the fundamental motivation behind Article 33. It’s the reason an ad-hoc committee of residents, staff and elected officials worked for five years on the new bylaw that defines SSDs and CNDs.
Under a CND approach the developer would still be required to provide some affordable, deed-restricted units, but there would be no requirement to preserve either of the historic structures or open space. The result would be a denser development with more units.
From the planning board site plan review decision document, under “PROJECT SPECIFIC FINDINGS”, part 7:
“Alternative redevelopment scenarios would result in demotion of both structures.”
(Full decision available at https://lexingtonma.portal.opengov.com/records/86244#files, scroll to the bottom and look for the document named Decision-SPR-Meriam-28-Edgewood-2024-05-08.pdf)
There is no decision path here that preserves both historic structures. If a legitimate reason was found to reject the SSD plan, the alternatives, if you care about historic preservation, are worse. The neighbors who have organized in opposition to the project know this, which makes me wonder what exactly is their goal. If the Planning Board had decided the SSD plan was invalid, the developers made clear what I mentioned above: the property was going to be redeveloped one way or another. An alternative CND plan was actually submitted to show feasibility. It was not their preferred approach, and I can’t imagine how it would be anyone else’s either.
Another note about historic preservation: a demolition delay was appropriately applied by the Historical Commission. The point of a demolition delay is that it gives a window for preservation efforts “during which time it is hoped that a way can be found to save the building”. In other words, if an individual or an entity values the carriage house enough, they can BUY IT. I appreciate historic buildings as much as the next person, but I don’t have that kind of money. Neither did anyone else apparently as the delay is set to expire in July. Perhaps if the neighbors had pooled their money for something besides hiring private lawyers, architects, and hydrologists. In the absence of a buyer we are constitutionally limited in what restrictions we can apply to other people’s property.
In my view the process worked and the planning board’s decision was correct. The resulting homes will represent the type of housing our town needs more of and has collectively expressed that it wants over and over in many ways:
– the LexingtonNext comprehensive plan
– an elected Select Board and Planning Board, all of whom have vocally supported increasing the diversity of our housing stock
– Town Meeting approval of Article 33 (146-22) and Article 34 (107-63)
– endless threads on this and other town lists, lamenting the preponderance of McMansions
The problem is the new housing has to go somewhere, and inevitably there are neighborhood defenders who say, “yeah, but not here,” or “no, not like that”. Developers attempting to create alternative types of housing are demonized and called greedy, whereas millionaire homeowners whose property values are continually inflated by scarcity and bidding wars get a complete pass. Wealthy and privileged residents will be over represented at public meetings, and the whole process amplifies their undue influence. It happens again and again, all over Eastern Massachusetts, and the result is what we have today: a housing affordability crisis because there’s twice as many people who want or need to live in the Boston area as there are homes; unsustainable, climate incinerating, open space devouring sprawl, and the isolation and traffic misery that goes with it; and a pending economic disaster of out-migration among young, talented people who are fed up trying to afford to live here.