Article 34 -Unit capacity, acreage, and major site plan review

[Kathryn Colburn]

Dear all,

I have a few questions on Article 34 for the Planning Board, Planning staff, and/or others knowledgeable:

1.  Please provide the acreage and unit capacity of each overlay district, using the Compliance Model set forth in Appendix 2 of the Compliance Guidelines for Multi-family Zoning Districts Under Section 3A of the Zoning Act.

2.  Do any districts other than the Center not count towards our minimum unit capacity requirement?

3.  I've seen several claims that our minimum acreage requirement is 80+.  I believe that is incorrect and that our minimum acreage is 50, as long as those 50 acres can produce a unit capacity of 1,231.  Please clarify our minimum acreage requirement.

4.  In the presentation at the Town Meeting information session, the Planning Board stated that development in the overlay districts would be subject to Major Site Plan Review, but I don't believe that is specified in the Motion.  Please clarify the type of site plan review that will apply if Town Meeting passes Article 34.

Thank you for providing this information.

Kate Colburn

Precinct 4

[Tom Shiple]

Hi Kate, 

We have some comments on your first question, and answers for your last three questions.

1. We have worked with the compliance model, and have studied the underlying spreadsheet calculations that are used to compute the unit capacity for individual parcels. It’s a rather simplistic formula and is used for all communities, whether dense like Cambridge or rural like Princeton, MA.  We do not have the GIS expertise to get a truly accurate unit capacity for the overlay districts, but we think the model grossly overestimates what we would actually see built in Lexington.

The formula is only applied to non-excluded parcels (e.g., publicly-owned land and hospitals are excluded), and then only to the developable portion of the parcel (i.e., not wetlands).  Of the developable area:

• 20% is assumed to be “open space”, regardless of the required setbacks and the site geometry.  

• 36% is assumed to be parking, independent of the number of stories allowed.

• The balance, 54%, is assumed to be the building footprint.  

The entire area of the building footprint (in square feet) is divided by 1,000 to arrive at the number of housing units per story, ignoring the area needed for hallways or equipment rooms, or the requirement to have exterior walls with windows in each unit.  The unit capacity of the parcel is reached by multiplying the unit capacity per story by the number of stories allowed.

It’s worth comparing these percentages to an actual development in Lexington that most people are familiar with.  Avalon Hills at Lexington Ridge is a fairly dense, 3 and 4-story apartment complex on 16.2 acres of land (after subtracting out the small wetland).  62% is open land, 24% is covered by roads and parking, and 14% by building footprints.  The compliance formula yields 1,187 units for this site, six times the 198 units actually in the complex. This is a large site; other sites will have different percentages, and in particular, smaller sites will likely have less space devoted to roads.

2. The Center is the only district that does not count towards our unit capacity requirement.  However, as noted above, excluded land and undevelopable land also doesn’t count towards our unit capacity.

3. Yes, 50 acres is our minimum as long as the other requirements are met.. The 82-acre figure was derived by dividing the unit capacity requirement of 1,231 by the minimum density requirement of 15 units per acre. By the time DHCD released their compliance model in late November and showed how compliance would be measured, 82 acres had been mentioned enough that it was hard to dislodge it from the conversation.

4. Correct, section 7.5.3 of the motion only calls for Site Plan Review. The type of SPR required for a specific project is dictated by the regulations in Section 176-9.3.1:

  Major site plan review. The following types of activities and uses require major site plan review by the Planning Board:

1. Exterior construction or expansion of structures which results in an increase of more than 5,000 square feet of total building gross floor area in any three-year period; or

2. The available parking on the site is increased by more than 20 parking spaces in any three-year period.

Anything that’s not major SPR is minor SPR (176-9.4.1).  We assume that new developments under the new multi-family housing bylaw will fall under major SPR.

We’re happy to explain any of these topics in more detail.

Tom Shiple (TMM 9)

Barbara Katzenberg (TMM 2)

Jay Luker (TMM 1)

Lexington Cluster Housing Study Group

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CACm3TREZb6xWneoZKrDufBVUvwaaM0zy81Xh3Y4Zt5CxBBQ6%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lin Jensen]

Hi Tom,

You mentioned a spreadsheet calculating the maximum number of units allowable by Article 34. Has this spreadsheet been shared with the Town Meeting and town residents? 

Avalon and other existing dense developments were built under either special permit or Planned Development, both of which involved a lot of public input. The latter has to be approved by Town Meeting. 

Article 34 is proposing by right dense developments, which has not been done before in Lexington. 

Builders are know to build to the maximum allowable in by right constructions in Lexington. I do not see any reason why they would not continue their understandably profit-driven practice and build the maximum number of units allowed by Article 34. 

It is a good policy to know what the maximum number of units is allowed by Article 34, even though we understand this estimate is based on reasonable but inexact assumptions. 

Thank you.

Lin Jensen

TM P8

Sendt fra min iPhone

Den 10. mar. 2023 kl. 10.26 PM skrev Tom Shiple <tsh...@gmail.com>:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAK6YrbeVFEbX20PmOp6zmbzYGtN%3Dj2wr6rdK1REjvOqK6Of1jg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Shiple]

I made a careless error in my math.  The following two sentences should read:

The balance, 44%, is assumed to be the building footprint.  

The compliance formula yields 933 units for this site, 4.7 times the 198 units actually in the complex.

Sorry about that.

Tom Shiple, TMM 9

[Jay Luker]

Hi Lin,

The spreadsheet calculations Tom mentioned are part of the compliance model that goes with the DHCD guidelines. It's an excel workbook anyone can download, along with a user guide and other documentation.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities#compliance-model-

--

Jay Luker, Precinct 1

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:02 PM Lin Jensen <linjen...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CE88B5AA-4C4E-4ACA-9575-4E288C828806%40gmail.com.

[Lin Jensen]

Thank you Jay.  

Sorry my question about the spreadsheet was not stated clearly. I was hoping that *the maximum number of dwelling units allowed by Article 34* is shared to the TMMA and the wider community, not necessarily the spreadsheet behind the calculation. 

Is this number in the range of 3,000-5,000? Has such a number been made widely available?

While we understand an estimate is never exact, and the thousands of dwelling units allowed by Article 34 to be built by right will not be built immediately, this important data point should be made clear to the public. 

Lin Jensen

TMMA P8

[Kathryn Colburn]

While I'm sure there are plenty of TMMs who love a good spreadsheet, town staff are in the best position to use the Compliance Model to determine the unit capacity of the districts.  The Planning Director told me that the town will not do this until after Town Meeting passes Article 34 because of the complexity of the model and the time required to use it.  I have asked Ms. McCabe to post her responses in the FAQs so that TMMs can see her full explanation.

I'm concerned about this response.  While I understand the demands on staff and Board time, the unit capacity resulting from this proposal is basic information that TMM should have in order to try to determine the impact of this article, not something that should only be revealed to us after the fact. I understand that it won't matter to some TMMs who believe that the more units we can create, the better, in order to help alleviate the regional housing crisis.  I also understand that the model is not a precise predictor of the amount of housing and when/if it will be built.  But for those of us who are trying to envision and evaluate what could be built in these districts, the model seems like the best tool available.  

To respond to Tom Shiple's post, first, thank you!  I agree with Lin Jensen that comparing Avalon to by-right development doesn't support an assertion that the model's prediction of a unit capacity of 993 is flawed.  Although I wasn't in Town Meeting at the time, I understand that Avalon was highly negotiated, in part to incorporate some of the old Met State buildings.  

I appreciate the clarification on site plan review.  My current understanding is that Article 34 doesn't require major site plan review, but rather that major site plan review will occur if the proposed development meets one of the regulatory thresholds (+5,000 GFA over 3 years or +20 parking spaces over 3 years).  So the statements that all by right multi-family housing under Article 34 will be subject to major site plan review assume that every project will meet one of those thresholds.

I urge the Planning Board to try to find a way to provide members with the unit capacity of their proposal and complete information about site plan review.  We are all trying to make the best decision we can for our constituents and these are important pieces of the puzzle.

Kate Colburn

Precinct 4

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAFBHbNZRJVq0tSDLcU%3DKC%3D8VTqyAub_Gi8rqXyC3Vvhv_v%3Dt-g%40mail.gmail.com.

[THOMAS FENN]

If the center was excluded from this Article, I would be inclined to vote for this.

Tom Fenn

Pct. 9

On Mar 11, 2023, at 11:27 AM, Kathryn Colburn <kathryn...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CACm3TRF4vZyD7iwVahthpebp41EqGc091X0FKs7ebweU9BY%2BkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ruth Thomas]

On Tom's point number 2, there is a question whether or not the Amory site is excluded.  Probably, because if the state sold it to Lexington for $1.00 as it did to Newton, only affordable housing could be built and the MBTA Zoning Act is primarily for market-rate development.

Ruth Thomas, 4

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAK6YrbeVFEbX20PmOp6zmbzYGtN%3Dj2wr6rdK1REjvOqK6Of1jg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lin Xu]

A naive question: For the approval of Article 34, what percentage of TMM "Yes" votes is needed? 50% or 67%?

Thanks, Lin

TMM, Pct 5

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CADvQVgxJG04QLaTmTk1RiPa73ZZx5U%2B_n3MkxFi4d1%3DA90O9cg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Avram Baskin]

I believe that because this is a zoning change it would require 2/3 to pass.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CABmSBs2siiuWMpSXhx-gVJijZmDTvgN8fa%3DkveFEg-QsQbSZaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Avram Baskin
Be yourself, 
everyone else is already taken
Oscar Wilde

Donate to Support The Ukraine

[er...@michelsonshoes.com]

Hi All,

 

State statute has changed, and residential zoning changes now require only a simple majority (50%) to pass

 

Eric Michelson

Precinct 1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/DDEF018A-33E7-4863-A0A9-BC07AF44E7B4%40icloud.com.

[Joe Pato]

Only certain residential zoning changes have had the vote threshold reduced to majority. These are:

 

 (1) an amendment to a zoning ordinance or by-law to allow any of the following as of right: (a) multifamily housing or mixed-use development in an eligible location; (b) accessory dwelling units, whether within the principal dwelling or a detached structure on the same lot; or (c) open-space residential development;

  (2) an amendment to a zoning ordinance or by-law to allow by special permit: (a) multi-family housing or mixed-use development in an eligible location; (b) an increase in the permissible density of population or intensity of a particular use in a proposed multi-family or mixed use development pursuant to section 9; (c) accessory dwelling units in a detached structure on the same lot; or (d) a diminution in the amount of parking required for residential or mixed-use development pursuant to section 9;

  (3) zoning ordinances or by-laws or amendments thereto that: (a) provide for TDR zoning or natural resource protection zoning in instances where the adoption of such zoning promotes concentration of development in areas that the municipality deems most appropriate for such development, but will not result in a diminution in the maximum number of housing units that could be developed within the municipality; or (b) modify regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures, yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements to allow for additional housing units beyond what would otherwise be permitted under the existing zoning ordinance or by-law; and

  (4) the adoption of a smart growth zoning district or starter home zoning district in accordance with section 3 of chapter 40R.

And

 

  Any amendment that requires a simple majority vote shall not be combined with an amendment that requires a two-thirds majority vote.

 

Mass General Law - Part I, Title VII, Chapter 40A, Section 5 (malegislature.gov)  )

 

 

- Joe Pato, Select Board Member

please use jp...@lexingtonma.gov for town correspondence

(When writing or responding please understand that the Secretary of State has determined that emails are a public record and, therefore, may not be kept confidential.)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/004401d95441%244e3e1840%24eaba48c0%24%40michelsonshoes.com.

---

When writing or responding, please be aware that the Massachusetts Secretary of State has determined that most email is a public record and, therefore, may not be kept confidential.

[Sanjay Padaki]

In reviewing the mass.gov site, I found the following:

(b) An MBTA community that fails to comply with this section shall not be eligible for funds from: (i) the Housing Choice Initiative as described by the governor in a message to the general court dated December 11, 2017; (ii) the Local Capital Projects Fund established in section 2EEEE of chapter 29; or (iii) the MassWorks infrastructure program established in section 63 of chapter 23A.

Does anyone know how much Lexington receives from each of these funds on an annual basis?

Regards,
Sanjay Padaki

Predict 8

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/1ab72281e9334c638a93609cac806bb5%40lexingtonma.gov.

[Tanya Gisolfi]

Sanjay, I believe https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter23A/Section63

Beginning with the following...

 to issue public infrastructure grants to municipalities and other public instrumentalities for design, construction, building, land acquisition, rehabilitation, repair and other improvements to publicly-owned infrastructure including, but not limited to, sewers, utility extensions, streets, roads, curb-cuts, parking, water treatment systems, telecommunications systems, transit improvements, public parks and spaces within urban renewal districts and pedestrian and bicycle ways; (ii) for commercial and residential transportation and infrastructure development, improvements and various capital investment projects under the growth districts initiative administered by the executive office of housing and economic development; (iii) to assist municipalities to advance projects that support job creation and expansion, housing development and rehabilitation, community development projects, and small town transportation projects authorized under subsection (e); provided, however, that projects supporting smart growth as defined by the commonwealth's sustainable development principles shall be preferred; or (iv) to match other public and private funding sources to build or rehabilitate transit-oriented housing located within.5 miles of a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, at least 25 per cent of which shall be affordable. 

(b) Eligible public infrastructure projects authorized by clause (i) of subsection (a) shall be located on public land or on public leasehold, right-of-way or easement. A project that uses grants to municipalities for public infrastructure provided by this section shall be procured by a municipality in accordance with chapter 7, section 39M of chapter 30, chapter 30B and chapter 149.

Section Local Capital Projects Fund established in section 2EEEE of chapter 29

deals with gaming revenue fund, what I am unclear about  support education infrastructure projects.  According to this https://massgaming.com/regulations/revenue/   link 14% of gaming revenue goes to education, but it does not specify how or direct the funds.

Warmly,

Tanya Gisolfi-McCready

Pct 1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAHSsnu9Ua08UsHR%3DdDGHmSp6KGdzeC8zGU00m1_XQ8%3DN-vQqHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sean Dugan, Public Information Officer]

Please see the response below from the Town Manager:

There are three types of grants that could be affected as follows:

1.       MassWorks Grants

2.       Housing Choice Grants

3.       Local Capital Projects Fund

We found of these three, only the MassWorks Grant Program was applicable in Lexington.

On the question of how much in grant funds may be lost, the following are the MassWorks Grants that Lexington received over the  past 10 years that we would not have been eligible for under the MBTA Community Housing requirements:

• Hayden Ave sidewalk design and construction at $868,250
• Hayden/Waltham/Route 2 conceptual design $201,250
• Hayden / Spring intersection design and construction $425,500
• Concord / Spring intersection design and construction  $425,500
• Spring Street sidewalk and Waltham St intersection approximately $750,000

The total above is $2,670,500 over 10 years or approximately $267,000 per year.

Thank you.

[Sanjay Padaki]

Thank you Mr. Malloy and Mr. Dugan for the quick response.

Regards,

Sanjay

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/cc89782a-aea1-48f4-abff-ed5794281ab1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Lin Xu]

It was also mentioned in the planning board report under Article 34:

https://www.lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8317

Lin Xu

TMM, Pct 5

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAHSsnu_kHciy68wkatZZAJ8Y2EatwkNQ98RFHkVmR6d2qe9KUQ%40mail.gmail.com.