Planning Board Minutes, 1991-05-06

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES OF MAY 6, 1991 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7 34 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Wood, with members, Davison, Domnitz, Grant, Williams, Planning Director Bowyer, Assis- tant Planner Marino and Secretary Peters present. ******************* PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ************************** 104. Planning Director a. Rollout Lot 16 Orchard Crossing: Prior to staff review, the Board looked briefly at an amended definitive plan for Lot 16 of Orchard Crossing Subdivision. The plan proposes a subdivision of lot 16 into four lots, with a primary and an accessory dwelling unit in one building on each lot. b. Recent Court Decisions Mr. Bowyer reported on some recent signifi- cant court cases that were discussed at the Massachusetts Association of Planning Directors' Retreat two weeks ago. Gage vs Town of Egremont a recent Supreme Judicial Court deci- sion seems to have reached the opposite conclusion from the SCIT vs Town of Braintree decision, which held that a town can not require a special permit for all uses allowed in a district; some uses must be allowed by right. The Gage vs Egremont decision seems to have allowed what the SCIT decision prohibited. The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the zoning that allows uses in the multi-use district, which are mentioned by name in the By-Law. It struck down, as too vague, the portion of the By-Law that left it up to the Planning Board to determine that a use is not offen- sive or detrimental to the Town. Mr Bowyer commented that what is troublesome, from a zoning perspective, is that what might make sense in a small western Massachusetts town forms the basis for a ruling that will apply across the state in larger, more complicated cities and towns. i Rockwood vs. the Snow Inn Corporation. In a confusing decision, the Supreme Judicial Court seems to have ruled that expansion of nonconforming structures can only be done through application for a variance. This contradicts the provision in Lexington's zoning regulations, and many others, which allows expansion of certain types of nonconforming structures by special permit. A lot of questions over the implications of the decision have been raised, and there is a great deal of disagreement as to what it actually means.