Article 34 - Rationale for McKenna amendment from the Amendment Working Group

Tom Shiple

unread,

Apr 6, 2023, 1:29:30 PM4/6/23

to LexTMMA

Dear Town Meeting Members,

Each of us in conversations with constituents about Article 34 has heard comments that run the gamut from full support as written to minimal or non-compliance with state law. Our group came together to see if we could compromise on our own major points to reach an agreement with the goal of getting something passed now.

The members of our group started from 3 different positions:

Refer Article 34 back to the Planning Board or indefinitely postpone it
Pass an amended version of Article 34 that would split the 227 acres/12 districts into two phases
Pass an amended version of Article 34 that would include 110 acres/7 districts where four of the districts included all of the properties suggested by the Planning Board and three of the districts included most but not all of the PB-recommended properties

The goals agreed to for the amendment were to:

Comply with the MBTA communities multifamily housing law beyond the minimum.
Include approximately half of the acreage of the original 227-acre proposal.
Take advantage of the opportunity to pass at this Town Meeting multi-family districts that have broad support.

Different members of the group preferred different districts to get us to roughly half of the acreage of the original proposal. In the end, the set of districts we chose was purely a compromise. The 7 districts we settled on are:

East Lexington (subject to special permit)
Bedford Street/Reed Street (subject to special permit)
Concord Avenue/Waltham Street
Bedford Street North
Hartwell Avenue/Westview Street
Maguire Road
Hartwell Avenue/Wood Street

Regarding East Lexington and Bedford/Reed, some members wanted to remove certain parcels from these districts, and other members wanted to keep them intact, so the compromise was to accept them but by special permit.

Besides the choice of districts, another concern that some members of our group had was the effect of 60-foot buildings on residential neighbors in the VO district. The compromise we reached was to create the concept of a “height buffer area” for commercial lots in the VO district. This says that the maximum height is 52 feet for all parts of a building within 100 feet of a residential lot. The part of a building that is more than 100 feet from the residential lot may reach 60 feet high. Given the small size of many commercial lots in the VO district, and their proximity to residential lots, the effect of this on many commercial lots is that the entire building will be constrained to 52 feet.

All of us are excited about eventually revitalizing Lexington Center, and creating inviting and great-feeling walkable neighborhoods in places such as East Lexington and other districts identified by the Planning Board. We look forward to working with others to bring back additional districts to future Town Meetings and would include the same principles while making adjustments that are appropriate for each particular location that could not be done in the context of the MBTA Zoning Law.

We want to get started now on bringing more multifamily housing to Lexington. We also decided not to let "the perfect be the enemy of the good." Ultimately, we agreed that proposing 134 acres for multi-family zoning, with 98 acres by-right, was a good way to more than meet the MBTA requirements now but with an eye towards continuing the conversation after Town Meeting.

As an update, the Planning Board voted on April 4th to not recommend this amendment to Town Meeting. The vote was 3 against the amendment, 1 in favor, and 1 abstaining.

Article 34 Amendment Working Group:

Kate Colburn, Pct 4

Pam Hoffman, Pct 7

Lin Jensen, Pct 8

Barbara Katzenberg, Pct 2

Steve Kaufman, Pct 5

Alan Levine, Pct 8

Jay Luker, Pct 1

Tina McBride, Pct 7

Bridger McGaw, Pct 6

Dawn McKenna, Pct 6

Tom Shiple, Pct 9

Deborah Strod, Pct 6

Ruth Thomas, Pct 4

Avram Baskin

unread,

Apr 6, 2023, 2:18:32 PM4/6/23

to Tom Shiple, LexTMMA

Article 34 is being amended to death. This should be a straight up or down vote on the original proposal.

--
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/CAK6YrbdmK3841rhM43aBc%2Bt449%2BxGoo7zYs%3D2QUWkCPiiZpnGw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

Donate to Support The Ukraine

andrei rădulescu-banu

unread,

Apr 6, 2023, 2:28:24 PM4/6/23

to Tom Shiple, LexTMMA

Thank you Tom, and others. Compromise is hard. Sending a flaring email here and there - a lot easier.

For me, if the amendment included the Lexington Center, in some form, I would be leaning in favor.

In more detail about the Center:

- Alan Levine made good points earlier when he described a situation with a very tall building next to a low building; or with setbacks for taller buildings, and step backs for higher floors. I'd also add that the sidewalk on the side of the Cinema is pretty narrow. It's unclear to me what setback would be necessary for taller buildings on that side.

- Earlier, I thought that the Historic Districts Commission could handle these kinds of concerns. After listening in on the conversation, I'm beginning to think that, perhaps, it's too much for the HDC to handle such details. Setbacks, building height - these are planning issues, more than historic aspects. Landscaping, in particular, does not even seem to be in the HDC charge.

We are running out of time to sort these things out. Though you & others have done tremendous work, and I am appreciative of the time you put in.

Andrei Radulescu-Banu, Pct 8

afri...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 6, 2023, 2:41:30 PM4/6/23

to Tom Shiple, LexTMMA

I support this Working Group’s amendment. I agree with their recommendations and with the collaborative, detail-oriented, and thoughtful process they used to develop this well- researched proposal.

Andrea Fribush

Pct 6

On Apr 6, 2023, at 1:29 PM, Tom Shiple <tsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Innessa Manning

unread,

Apr 6, 2023, 2:53:46 PM4/6/23

to Tom Shiple, andrei rădulescu-banu, LexTMMA

Thanks all. I agree that compromise is hard and there are many important concerns and perspectives that have been highlighted.

I just want to be sure that when evaluating HDC's ability to handle changes in the Center, that everyone reading this has ready access to the HDC Guidelines (in particular I would point to Section G): Microsoft Word - Lexington HDC Guidelines Distribution Draft 1-9-19.docx (lexingtonma.gov)

My understanding is that the HDC process involves: notice to abutters, open meetings, ability to consider if "alterations and new construction will be in harmony with existing historic buildings and their settings" as well as scale & massing in the context of the neighborhood, and the ability to say no to proposed projects. (If my understanding is not correct, please let me know.)

I also wonder if anyone on the HDC can chime in on their ability to handle concerns as Andrei points out below? I agree this is a key question.

We should all also remember that proposals will also be subject to the PB's Major Site Plan review process which will also involve: notice, open meetings, and a review by the Planning Board to ensure proposals are in line with relevant regulations. (and again, if my understanding here is not correct, please let me know).

- Innessa Manning (Precinct 6, member of the Center Committee but only writing as myself)

--
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/CALJb0skfg86%2BbrhvPzoWcmjJ4uYrUdmKvFj4Mhg32ELtj16zqA%40mail.gmail.com

.