Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-05-AAC-rpt.pdf RECEIVE') SELECTMEN n MAY 131982 ACCESSORY APARTMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE TOWN MEETING UNDER ARTICLE 2 APRIL 5, 1982 Article 64 of the 1979 Annual Town Meeting and Article 62 of the 1980 Town Meeting were Planning Board articles proposing a change in the Zoning By-law to allow accessory apartments in single fam- ily houses in RO and RS Residential Zones, with specific limita- tions, and subject to issuance of a Special Permit by the Board of Appeals Both were turned down by the Town Meeting In both cases, the vote in favor of the zoning change was large, but not the necessary 2/3 vote (105 to 63 in 1979; 107 to 69 in 1980) The acknowledged existance of an unknown number of unauthorized, and therefore illegal apartments in single family residential zones, coupled with a lack of information concerning the number of single family houses eligible for conversion under the pro- posed limitations were factors contributing to the negative votes. In 1981, the Annual Town Meeting authorized the appointment by the Board of Selectmen of an "Accessory Apartment Committee" to study the whole problem, and to report back to the 1982 Town Meeting. The original motion authorized only a study of the existing il- legal apartment situation; but it was amended to include a study of a possible zoning change to allow new accessory apartments On October 6, 1981, the Selectmen appointed a 5 member committee Steven Clark, Chairman; Cornelius Cronin; Jean Gaudet; George McCormack; and Margaret Rawls. The charge given to the committee, adopted by the Selectmen on August 3, 1981, was "The Committee shall review past and present proposals regarding the existing disposition of accessory apartments within the Town of Lexington and propose recommendations to the Board of Select- men regarding any recommended changes in the existing situation for accessory apartments and also recommend a course of action regarding future accessory apartments within the Town of Lexing- ton. The Committee shall report back to the Board of Selectmen no later than January 1, 1982" . The Committee agreed to define an accessory apartment as "a sepa- rate and complete living unit within a single family residence and subordinate to the main living unit" Between its first meeting on November 3 and mid-January, the Committee met almost weekly, beginning the study with a review of the Zoning By-law, of past proposals by the Planning Board, and of several accessory apartment By-laws and accompanying commen- taries from other communities and from MAPC. The Planning Board proposals and other town's by-laws were useful in that they covered most of the possible arguments for and against allowing accessory apartments, and most of the possible conditions a town might impose on their legalization. None, however, addressed the special problem posed by existing, illegal apartments that hale been in use for years, but that might not meet the often very limiting proposed conditions. The Committee decided that to confront and try to solve that problem, we would need as much information as could be obtained regarding the number and location of existing apartments in RO and RS zones, the age and the size of the houses containing them, and if possible, the age of the apartment itself, as any apartment existing before Lexing- ton introduced its first zoning by-law in 1924 would automati- cally be legal. Dave Stusse, our Town Assessor agreed to obtain as much of the needed information as possible from the computer files of the firm responsible for the Town' s recent appraisal. He obtained a print-out of data about all houses containing known apartments, many of which are in 2 family zones, but 186 of which are in single family zones He also obtained a print-out of 93 single family houses known to have two kitchens. Some of the latter do not con- tain apartments. Some others have apartments not in use as such at present. Discussions with residents of many neighborhoods have led the Committee to believe that there are numerous other apartments not known to the appraisers. An effort to locate some of these by a search of the Assessor' s card files for the 10% of the Town' s houses not entered by the inspectors was not very fruit- ful. All known apartments were mapped, and information regarding age of house, lot size and house size has been compiled While reviewing the print-outs and the card files, the Committee also met with the Town Manager, Assessor, Building Inspector, and a member of the Board of Appeals, and held several conver- sations with the Planning Director. The present illegal apart- ment situation was discussed, and the implications of various approaches to legalizing apartments in single family zones The Zoning By-law already permits conversion to a 2 family dwell- ing, so long as each unit is at least 700 square feet in size. The Board of Appeals, however, has interpreted this to refer only to a more or less equal division of a house, and not to an apart- ment unit subordinate to the main unit. The Committee, on the other hand, agrees that any house with two complete living units is a 2 family dwelling, and that the present by-law does allow permits for apartments over 700 square feet in size. We also agree, however, that smaller units are often desireable, and that there must be more control over apartment conversions than is afforded by the present by-law. The Committee has compiled a list of arguments in favor of legal- O Ft ization of accessory apartments, to guide us in weighing the ad- vantages and disadvantages of various limitations and conditions We have also prepared a preliminary list of conditions that would have to be met by anyone wishing to construct an accessory apart- ment. To test for the possible number of houses that could qualify under various lot and house size limitations, we request- ed a print-out containing various cross-referenced indicators (for instance, all houses of a stated minimum size on lots of a stated minimum size) . Information has not been programmed to give such cross referenced results, so the Committee has recently ob- tained and is now analyzing a print-out of all the single family houses in RO and RS districts, a formidable task. The Committee requested a place for an article in the Warrant for the 1982 Annual Town Meeting, but soon determined that time did not allow preparation of an article with all the back-up material and justification we think it desireable to present to Town Meet- ing. Our present view is that a by-law change to allow accessory apartments is warranted; but we hope to obtain more information about possible impact on the Town before determining what condi- tions new apartments should meet, and what special rules, if any, should apply to existing apartments. We also wish to have further discussions with the Board of Appeals concerning their possible role in the approval process. Our intention is to prepare an article before the Warrant closes in December 1982, if information gathered in the interim does not cause us to alter our course We would appreciate any help Town Meeting members and others can give us in locating existing accessory apartments We hope to provide a mechanism for legalization of those that either meet the conditions proposed for new apartments, or meet a combina- tion of other conditions. We have tried to keep the Town Meeting members and the Select- men informed, sending reports of our activities to the TMMA Newsletter and copies of our minutes to the Selectmen. We shall attempt to continue to keep them informed, and welcome attend- ance at our meetings, the time and place of which is posted on the Town Office Building bulletin board. Respectfully submitted, Steven A Clark Cornelius Cronin Jean Gaudet George McCormack Margaret Rawls 4