2004-02-11-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 2004 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Harden with members Chase, Davies, Galaitsis, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall - Taylor, and Tap present. ARTICLES FOR 2004 TOWN MEETING Article 8, Zoning Bylaw, Home Occupations, Public Hearing Mr. Harden opened the public hearing for the Planning Board's proposed amendment to the Home Occupations Bylaw. He explained that the Board seeks to refine the definitions of "home occupations ", to adjust the use table relating to home occupations and to establish specific performance standards for such uses and defining three tiers— instruction, minor and major. The home occupations bylaw has not been updated since millinery and taking in washing were listed as permitted occupations. Ms. McCall- Taylor gave a brief overview of the article, explaining that it was a change from a list of allowed uses to an impact -based regulation. Audience Comments and Suggestions: Ms. Judith Uhrig and Mr. Nyles Barnert of the Zoning Board of Appeals expressed some concerns over aspects of the amendment that would restrict certain uses that are now allowed. They suggested changes that would allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to regulate the number of clients that could visit the home at one time, thus allowing psychotherapists to hold group or family counseling sessions. They also thought that the hours of operation being proposed were too restrictive. Regarding permitted hours of operation, Mr. Michael Martignetti, resident and local realtor, noted that psychologists and psychiatrists often see patients in early morning hours before the workday begins. This was also thought to be something a special permit under the "major" category might address. Special permits must be renewed periodically. Ms. Dawn McKenna asked if there had been any attempt to ascertain what types of home occupations are currently being conducted in town. Ms. Uhrig said that the Board of Appeals mostly sees requests for professional home offices. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the proposed changes would affect the Zoning Board of Appeals' caseload. Mr. Barnert said it probably would not, as only major home occupations would come before the Appeals Board and the minor occupations would be allowed as of right. Those present seemed to agree that this amendment would make it more likely that people with home occupations would seek a permit, as it takes into account technology related occupations. The hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. Artic _ 7, Zoning Bylaw, Impervious Surface in Residential Developments, Public Hearing: Mr. Harden opened the hearing on the Planning Board's proposed amendment to the way impervious surface is calculated in residential developments at 8:05 p.m. He explained that the amendment is meant to codify current practice and equalize the treatment of cluster and conventional developments and has raised the question of whether or not the cluster regulations are doing what they were designed to do. Mr. Galaitsis expressed his belief that the amendment would remove an important control on cluster developments, which already get a density bonus. A number of the members of the development community were in the audience. Mr. Gerry Moloney, Halyard Builders, observed that the amendment seems like a big change, but Ms. McCall- Taylor responded that in looking back through completed cluster developments, she found that impervious surface was calculated in the same way in all of them; the amendment would simply put it in writing. So- called pervious paving materials were discussed. Staff indicated that they all become impervious by compaction in a rather short period of time. Anything less than 100 percent pervious would not be counted as pervious in plan calculations. Mr. Austin commented that mitigating structures in the drainage