HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-07RE: Planning Office for Urban Affairs (continued)
BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS
August 7, 1973
The five regular members of the Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen's
meeting room at 7;30 p.m. to continue the executive session (so-called),
which is open to theup blic, except that spectators cannot interrupt or dis-
rupt the procedures as the Board members discuss and deliberate in an attempt
to come to a decision on the petition of the request of the Planning Office
for Urban Affairs, Inc. for a comprehensive permit under the provisions of
Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23, for the construction of sixteen town -house type
dwelling units upon approximately 97,801 sq. ft. of land located at 56 to 60
Worthen Road, said land being the northwesterly portion of Lot 9A on Map 57
of the Property Map of the Town of Lexington, made by James W. Sewell Company,
Old Town, Maine. Construction of this housing is proposed to be financed by
the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency and it is intended that the dwelling
units will be made available to persons of low and moderate income, without
regard to age, eligible for federal or state subsidy programs.
Notice of this date was posted on the bulletin board of the Town Clerk
and the Lexington Minuteman newspaper printed advice of the meeting in the
headlines on page 1.
The Board had invited Mr. Donald K. Irwin, building inspector, to attend
to give the Board further information about BOCA versus the Lexington Build-
ing and Sign By -Law. During a half hour questioning and according to a letter
' he wrote to the Board and other materials in which he explained that BOCA is
an organization which has been working for several years to prepare a code
which will hopefully be accepted by towns, cities and states, a room full of
people including a reporter from the Lexington Minute Man Publications listened.
If BOCA is accepted it would succeed the Lexington Building Code. Mr. Irwin
said that in some cases BOCA is less strict than our Lexington Code. He repeated
that he could give no recommendations to the Board in the case of these 16 units
until working drawings and specifications were prepared for his study. Mr. Irwin
could offer no guarantee that commission members would not come out with some-
thing entirely different then the BOCA code which the Planning Office (petitioner)
said they would follow. (see file folder for letter and other materials)
The Chairman read a letter from Palmer and Dodge, legal counsel for the town.
A review of all the testimony and supporting documents presented at`the July 31
hearing was carefully done. All material including a transcript are in the
petitioner's folder in the Board of Appeals' office.
Finally it was moved and seconded, by Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Brodhead that the
petition be granted with the reservation that if the vote were favorable that
conditions could be imposed if deemed necessary. After a short discussion the
motion was lost by a vote of 2 to 3, those in favor being Mr. Sheldon and Mr.
Brodhead, those opposed being Mrs. Morey and Messrs. Wadsworth and Nickerson.
(see the final Denial issued for details of findings and reasons for denial)
Respectfully submitted,
Z- cla_�
Evelyn F. Cole, Clerk