1984-09-BOS-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

T Selectmen s Meeting September 10, 1984 Mr. Stusse requested execution by the Board of a document entitled, "Classification 'Tax Allocation," notifying the Department of Revenue of the action of the Board in adopting the Residential Factor and percentages for each classification derived from the Computation Rep art Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to sign notification to the Department of Revenue of . the adoption. by the Board of the Minimum Residential Factor of 90.3849%. The Board reviewed a Draft of Modif ied Criteria for Board of Appeals Appt . Criteria Appointees, prepared by Selectmen McLaughlin and Marshall. Bd /Appeals Regarding #4, "shall have no land-holding interests in Lexington that might present conflict of interest pr lems ," Mr. Sacco expressed disagree- ment with the terminology as too restrictive since , it would apply to almost everyone who owned a home or commercial property. He felt that Board of Appeals members would excuse themselves from acting on any petition which might involve conf lict of interest and that the ck- iterion . excluded a segment of the population which could provide effective members of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Marshall clarified the intent of Item #4 as referring to those who deal in land as the major means of. making their living such as a developer or builder -, and whom he didn't f eel should be members. of the Board of Appeals while actively engaged in that business. Mr. McLaughlin felt it should be noted that he and Mr. Marshall were in agreement with the intent of Item #4 as noted above and added that the con- flict of interest laws would probably cover any such situation, however it had seemed appropriate to include some language to suggest that � applicant s for B fA membership should be sensitive to the possibility that a conflict might - ar is e. He said he would be amendable to suggested rewording or advise from Town Counsel on the matter, but felt that getting more specific might be re- gr(!-ltted . He felt that the intent of the language. was, clear, but that notation in the minutes of that intent might be useful for future reference. Mrs. Bat t in asked for clarification of Item #2, regarding the-three criteria mentioned under "Sha have knowledge of land use and zoning matters as evidenced by:" and asked if service as an Associate Member was to be a requisite in each instance despite prior service on other Town Boards. Mr. McLaughlin pointed out that there are cases of individuals with prior experience and knowledge of land use and zoning who wold be sufficiently qual- ified to serve as full members without serving as an Associate, i.e. former Planning Board memb er s or Selectmen, mentioning a person of Mr. C ohen' s ex- perience specifically, and that there are some applications which should be judged on a case -by -case basis* Mrs. Battin noted that she felt strongly that service as an Associate Mem- ber was crucial in order to serve as a full member of a Board whose functions differ so greatly from other Town Boards. Mr. Sacco opposed inclusion of reference in the collect ive criteria to desirability of Board of Appeals appointees having "environmental and/or con- servationist experience," because he felt that those qualifications did not re- late to the functions of the Board of Appeals. He felt that the other "collect- ive" criteria listed were professional in nature, but that a person of any level of conservation experience or interest could claim to be qualified. Following further general discussion of various aspects of the criteria, upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4 - 1, with Mr. Sacco voting in the negative,, to accept the Criteria for Board of Appeals Appointees as presented:.