1988-04-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

L 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 270 1988 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:12 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Williams, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer and Assistant Planner Nordby. ******************* ARTICLES FOR 1988 TOWN MEETING ************** 124. Article 41, Accessory Apartments: The Board reviewed three amendments to be proposed by Town Meeting Member Margaret Rawls who was present. Her first amendment would set the maximum percentage of floor area which may be occupied by an accessory apartment at 30% and would eliminate the proposed Planning Board restriction that sets the maximum size of an accessory apart- ment at 900 sq, ft. Mrs. Rawls argued that there should not be a maximum size. If an older dwelling had 4,000 or 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area, it made no difference to her that the accessory apartment had 1,200 or 1,500 sq. ft. as long as the limitations of 30% of floor area and a maximum of two bedrooms, were still in effect. Mrs. Klauminzer argued that the accessory apartment provision was intended to provide smaller apartment units while the conversion of a one family dwelling provision was intended to provide larger apartment units. In an informal poll of the Board, Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Williams and Mrs. Wood were in favor of her proposed amendment; Mrs. Klauminzer and Mrs. Uhrig were opposed. Mrs. Rawls second amendment would strike out those parts of the Planning Board's amendment which would allow additions to existing dwellings so that they could reach the 2,000 sq. ft. threshold. Mrs. Rawls argued that a large number of single family dwellings could qualify for this amendment, far more than the Town Meeting intended in 1983. She thought this could lead to a wave of accessory apartment construction which could change the character of the Town. Mrs. Klauminzer responded that the objective was to encourage addition- al accessory apartment construction to meet the Town's housing needs. The evidence in Lexington and in other communities is that only a limited number of people use the accessory apartment provision, only a small percentage of those that are theoretically eligible. Mr. Sorensen expressed his concern that practically any dwelling that met the minimum lot requirements in the RS and RO districts could qualify. In an informal poll, Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Willi- ams and Mrs. Uhrig supported Mrs. Rawls' proposed amendment; Mrs. Klauminzer and Mrs. Wood did not. The third of Mrs. Rawls' proposed amendments would strike out the Planning Board's proposed provision that would allow accessory apartments in new con- struction, either dwellings constructed after January 1983 or those that may be constructed in the future. Mr. Sorensen commented that this could be a "back door" route for the construction of new two family dwellings. Mrs. Klauminzer noted the requirement for an extraordinarily large lot and a spe- cial permit from the Board of Appeals after a public hearing would reduce the utilization of this provision. In an informal poll, Mr. Sorensen was in favor of Mrs. Rawls' amendment; Mrs. Klauminzer was opposed to it; the other three members were undecided.