HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-11-17BOARD OF APPEALS
November 17, 1977
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Thursday, November 17, 1977,
beginning at 7:30 p.m., in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building.
Present: George P. Wadsworth, Chairman
Woodruff M. Brodhead
Thomas G. Taylor
Natalie H. Riffin, Associate
Irving H. Mabee (acted on all but the "Arnold" hearing)
Ruth Morey (for the purpose of acting on the "Arnold" hearing).
Public hearings were held on the following petitions, notices of the hearings
having been mailed and hearings advertised in the Lexington Minute -Man newspaper
as required by statute.
Michael L. and Josephine Colangelo - special permit to erect a free standing sign
at 24 Hartwell Avenue.
Sara F. and Kenneth E. Arnold - variance of Section 27, pursuant to Section 12.3,
to construct an addition attached to existing house at 15 Washington St. Addition
will have a sideyard of 11.5 instead of 15 feet.
Alice Adams - special permit, pursuant to Section 30.2, to rebuild a garage using
existing foundation area of previous structure at 23 Charles'Street.
William M. and Carolyn Aitken - variance of Section to maintain existing house at
59 Tarbell Avenue with a front yard setback of 23.1 feet instead of the 30 feet
required, and to build an addition which will be set back 27 feet.
Antonio P. Ferro - variance of Section 27 to maintain a shed on property at 18
Chadbourne Road, which shed is located one foot from rear fence and twenty inches
from the side fence instead of the required 15 feet from rear and side lot lines.
DECISIONS: The Board made the following decisions, all in open meeting. See
decisions filed with the Town Clerk and in Board of Appeals' files for more details.
Colangelo - granted unanimously.
Arnold - granted unanimously.
Adams - denied 3 to 2: Thomas G. Taylor, Irving H. Mabee and George P. Wadsworth
voted in opposition; Woodruff M. Brodhead and Natalie H. Riffin voted in favor.
Aitken - granted unanimously.
Ferro - granted unanimously (peaked roof must be replaced by a flat roof.)
Other information and action: The Board members present approved the Board of
Appeals positions on Articles 8, 10, 11 and 13. See copies attached.
Board members approved of the proposed wording for the Howard decision, re.
82 Waltham Street. A copy of the decision when typed will be shown to the Town
Counsel for his approval.
' The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
(�-Ce-e.,
Evelyn F. Cole, Administrative Clerk
Edi
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE -TOWN MEETING MEMBERS
ON ITS POSITION ON THE ZONING ARTICLES 8, 10, 11 and 13
Article 8 - Use Variances Eliminated
Article 10 - Section 33 - Cluster Development
Article 11 - Correction to Section 30.3
Article 13 - Section 39 - Special permits for Subdivisions
'a
MacRae P. waoswoRT". C:.iff . Bo" */ A"=4
1&X0 MA00i►QNU49W@ AYCNUC • LCX{MOTON, M40016HU0CT'f9 C2273 • TCI.CPNONC (N7) 0&3-0400.
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE T.M.M.'s
Article 8 - Use Variances Eliminated
THE BOARD OF_ APPEALS IS UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED
TO THE ELIMINATION OF USE VARIANCES AT THIS TIME.
We are sure that the T.M.M.'s are aware that the Board of Appeals is always
reluctant to consider a use variance at a hearing; rather, we feel that our function
is to consider situations which may be permitted by the zoning by-laws, giving us a
choice of granting or not granting in each case depending upon the reasonableness or
the unreasonableness of the request. In this way we act as a judicial board to
carry out the basic zoning policies of the citizens of Lexington as indicated by the
Town Meeting votes. The use variance occurs when the by-law is very vague and/or
the situation considered was not foreseen at the time the by-law was written.
Nevertheless Court decisions have in general indicated that the Board of Appeals has
the power and obligation to make up for these discrepancies.
Lexington is fairly well developed now and we should he able to update our by-
laws to clearly characterize the situations which may arise so that use variances
would be unnecessary and could be eliminated. However, this is a big job and it
must be well done. We are way over due anyway on our revision of the zoning by-laws
since there are many sections which are vague and contradictory including Section 25,
which, if properly developed, might well eliminate the need of use variances.
If the Town Meeting Members are expected to vote on a set of zoning by-laws
which will decide how Lexington will develop, expand and be controlled in the coming
years, the least T.M.M.'s can expect is considerable input into this revision from
all the town boards and their own T.M.M.'s interested members as well. The Board of
Appeals will do its part by appointing a committee to consider these needed changes
and give them to the Planning Board for their.information and comment. Hopefully,
if every effort is made by everyone involved these would be ready a year from now so
that the Town Meeting Members would have ample time to consider them before voting
at the 1979 Town Meeting.
In the meantime it is not only unadvisable but unfair to eliminate the use
variances. They have played an important part in the lives of the citizens of
Lexington as you will see in the Appendix showing the type of variances (i.e. Arts
and Crafts, medical buildings, Mystic Valley, etc.) In most cases the use variances
which have been granted have been applicable to individuals who own certain parcels
of land, rather than applicable to the land, regardless of the owner. If there is
no provision to extend these use variances, no matter how desirable, the individual
owners may not be able to sell their property nor can their heirs recoup any invest-
ment made. Variances have been granted to many businesses in the Hartwell Avenue
and Marrett Road vicinity for light manufacturing (mostly soldering and assembly) of
parts involved in their research and lunchrooms. It would be completely unfair to
the taxpayers of Lexington, as well as to the owners of these light manufacturing
facilities, if use variances could not be continued as it could seriously jeopardize
their operations, or prevent the sale of these facilities to others who may wish to
use the same light manufacturing techniques.
Therefore we hope you will continue the use variances with their imposed condi-
tions until a revision of the by-laws.
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE T.M.M.'s
Article 10 - Section 33 - Cluster Development '
THE BOARD OF APPEALS IS UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED TO ANY
ONE BOARD HAVING COMPLETE DECISION POWERS IN THIS CASE.
Some of the present T.M.M.'s held office at the time when cluster
developments were introduced and accepted as a zoning by-law. They
undoubtedly remember that those who spoke and expressed doubt as to
the advisability of smaller lots with additional common land were assured
several times that their worries were needless inasmuch as the approval
of two boards was always necessary. The situation has not changed.
The Planning Board is elected and impowered to administer the Sub-
division Control Law. Additionally the Planning Board is responsible
for developing and recommending zoning changes to the Town Meeting. If,
in addition to the foregoing responsibilities, the Planning Board were
given permit granting authority for cluster developments, the checks and
balances built into our present system would be eliminated completely.
Currently two major Town Boards, the Planning Board and the Board of
Appeals, are required by law to provide input before a special permit is
granted. The proposed change at this Town Meeting with respect to
Cluster Developments would concentrate, centralize, and transfer all
special permit granting authority to one single Board. Thus, there is a
siknificant reduction in safeguards under the proposed new system of
permit granting authority, a matter which we believe the Town Meeting
will wish to consider seriously.
At the present time, the system offers a very good check and balance
with possible input affecting the decisions from all Town Boards as well
as excellent input from the citizens themselves at the hearings.The
Planning Board's input into the hearing of the Board of Appeals is always
the important one affecting the Board of Appeal's decisions as the record
will show but, nevertheless, the opportunity of the citizens directly
involved to come in and express themselves at another hearing is important.
We feel the extra time and effort is well worthwhile in order to insure the
proper land development of Lexington with adequate safeguards.
The Board of Appeals believes that the vote presented to the meeting
on Article should be rewritten. Those changes necessary to comply with
Chapter 808 along with the improved requirements by the Planning Board
should be retained. -However, the procedures necessary to obtain such a
permit for Cluster Development should incorporate input and approval of two
boards, the procedures for which are now in effect in the present By-law of
Lexington.
REPORT OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE T.M.M.'s
Article 11 Correction to Section 30.3 (non -conforming uses) s
THE BOARD OF APPEALS FAVORS A RESTRICTED 25% ADDITION TO
NON -CONFORMING DWELLINGS WITHOUT A BOARD OF APPEALS PERMIT.
It is the position of the Board of Appeals that when you add on to a
non -conforming house, you have a larger non -conforming house even if the
side, front and back yard, etc. of the addition are conforming. At the
Town Meeting at which the present by-law was passed the T.M.M.'.s attempted
to protect those owners who were now forced to conform to the present zon-
ing by-law by insisting that additions to older non -conforming houses get
a permit from the Board of Appeals and thus prove that the additions would
not be a detriment to the neighborhood. One of the stated introductory
purposes of the by-laws was to eliminate non -conformity in the Town.
The Board of Appeals feels that the present by-law is too rigid in
that everybody has to come in for a permit if he adds anything to a non-
conforming house. Instead of the present law, an increase up to 25% over
the original foundation area would be reasonable without a hearing and
this would allow the addition of a piazza, sunroom, etc. Anything over
this should come before the Board of Appeals and prove that the addition
will be no detriment to the neighborhood which would protect those who
have much less flexibility because of the later zoning requirements.
We recommend the 25% figure instead of elimination of the requirement
for a hearing on one and two-family houses.
Article 13 - Section 39 - Special Perm' r
p Permits fo .Subdivisions.
This is a completely new zoning by-law not mandated by Chapter 808.
Several members of the Board of Appeals personally feel that the Town
Meeting should ponder seriously whether or not they want developers to be
controlled to this extent and whether or not this restriction is "too much`r
and will have an adverse effect on Lexington's future development through
the type of developer who is willing to be so controlled.
1
I have been asked by several Town Meeting Members to indicate the number of
"use"' variances which are now active in Lexington. This is difficult to do since
the Board of Appeals, since 1940 anyway, never gave a USE VARIANCE as such but
always a permit or permission to the petitioner. Whether or not the permit in
actuality is muse variance depends upon the interpretation of the by-laws by the
individual making the decision. A broad interpretation might make the granting
of a permit under Section 25, and a narrow one, a variance. Back in the 1940's
"use variances"were more common and granted usually for a very few years and
rarely renewed even for a short time. Thus the following is the opinion of only
one person of what "use" variances are now in Lexington but they should give the
Town Meeting Members a rough picture of the situation by categories.
1. Medical (3)
2. Professional Buildings (partly medical) (2)
3. Veterinary Hospitals (2)
4. Conversion of old houses on the edge of business zones into restricted
business uses (3)
5. Recreational buildings or uses (4)
6. Developments with mixed housing units (F. Wm. Smith and Mark Moore's Centre
Estates)
7. Duplex house - (opposite Trinity Pharmacy) (1)
8. Non -conforming structures (one has changed tenants several times) (2)
9. Telephone Answering Services (1)
10. Places for taking care of disabled automobiles to get them off the street (4)
TOTAL. 22
AN..
George P. Wadsworth