Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-03-04PLANKING BOARD MEETING WITH TYE BOARD OF APPEALS March 11, 1978 Planning Roard Office This informal meeting of the Lexington Planning Board with the Board of Appeals was called to order at 9:35 A.M. by the chairman, Albert Zabin. Those present were: Eric Clarke, Frank Sandy, Manfred Friedman, Iris 'Wheaton from the Planning Board and Bill Scouler, Ruth Morey, George Wadsworth, and Tom -Taylor from the Board of Appeals, along with Kenneth Briggs, Planning Director, and Laua Nichols, candidate -for the Planning Board. Article 669 Special Permits. Dr. Wadsworth said he was bothered by 13.1.2 where the time sequence is spelled out. He felt an applicant might object to the length of time of 5 months for the whole procedure. It was pointed out.that the time could be shortened, but that only the maximum time was delineated in Chapter 808. Vo minimum time was set forth by Chapter 808. Tom Taylor stated that he felt that while copies of the applications were submitted to various boards, the submittals were for information only and did not require a report in response under 13.1.1. Dr. Friedman stated that under 13.?.3 (SPS) there would be a time period Of 35 days in which the Planning Board could render its report. The second paragraph of 13.1.1 having to do with the diversity of the retail services caused the Board of Appeals a problem, and they said they would be much happier if it could be deleted. After much discussion it was deemed advisable by both boards to delete it. Aftor diaeussion on banks, real estate brokers, travel bureaus and insurance agencies it was felt that it might wise to have the town meeting amend out what it did not want under the Special Permit in Section 25, d�b,t„l (probably real estate, travel agents and insurance). Banks would then get a good deal of debate on the floor of Town �,Teeting. Dr. 'r;ric Clarke felt that it would be a good idea to have the tool in the laws, so that It (a bank) could be turned, d6rvn;'If-there was aIsnrplus of banks. ?yrs. R"orev felt we should take up Warrant. Article 66 (S.P.+s) first and then Article 63 (Variances). Some concern had been expressed earlier on whether we could operate with Article 63 (Variances) if Article 66 (SP) did not pass. Mrs. Morey pointed out that 13.2.2 (SPS) left out the part on landscaping. This was voted in at the April 1976 Town Meeting (Warrant Article 89) end must be included. All agreed it was an oversight. Re: Section 25. The suggestion was made that it would be a good idea to circle all the changes for the convenience of town meeting members to help them understand these changes. Taking up Section 25 line by line could result in capricious amendments, though It W0111" reflect how the 'Town l'eeting wants the land to be used. '^o r,revent these capricious amendments ARTIC LE 66 SPECIAL PERMITS ARTICU 66 DIVERSITY OF SERVICES ARTICLE 61 SECTION 25 BANKS REAL ESTATE ARTICLES 66 & 63 order LANDSCAPING T.M. 1976 Article 89 ARTICLE 61 Section 25 C [J P/B & B/A Meeting Page 2 3/4/78 it was felt that any amendment to Section 25 should be submitted in writing at least one week in advance of the presenting of the article. Last minute amend- ments from the floor will be opposed by the Board of Appeals, the Planning Board and hopefully the Board of Selectmen, who will be asked to join. The suggestion at the public hearing to change Sec. 25 to permit offices of salesmen in a ICN zone by S.F. was discussed. The suggestion was also made that there should be an S.P. on drugstores, because some of them are open all night. The consensus was td remove "Yes" for drugstores and put S.P. in its place in the CN zone. Various points of view on use variances were ex- plored. Mentioned was Karsten Sorensen's view that only on adverse topography, hardship, etc. could a use variance be granted. Tom Taylor seemed 'to feel . that the draf ting-of'Chapter 808 was .imprecise; bowever,'he did feel that the language of Chap. 868 denied variances, but the intent was to allow them. Irving Mabee feels strongly that he wants the use variance for flexibility, but it must be an extreme case. Progress appeared to be madE on usevariances In that the boards seemed closer an their thinking with the -possibility of the Planning Board bending slightly from its firm no "use variance" position and the 'Board of Appeals acknowledging that the law as written does not allow use variances, though they feel they are implied. There is a provision In the law that use variance powers can be granted to the Board of Appeals. There was no concensus at the meeting on use variances. The Planning Board promised to give their conclusions to the Poard of Appeals by Thursday, March 9. To sum up, the following changes were agreed upon: SECTION 25 AMENDMENTS SECTION 25 DRUG STO RES ARTICLE 63 USE VARIANCES USE VARIANCES NO CONCENSUS 25.6.3 Real estate agencies S.P. in CN, Yes in.CG..& CB 25.6.3 Remove insurance agencies 25 6.3 Travel bureaus S.F. in CN, Yes in CG u CB 25.4.3 Salesmen's offices No in CN, Yes in CO & CB 25.6.5 Drugstores, etc. S.F. in CN, Yes in CG & CB At approximately 11:30 the Board of Appeals members left. 'Frank Sandy left a little before 11, due to a prior committment. Laura F. Nichols, Clerk P/B & 3 ,�1/7eeting Page 3 PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION �4 The motion was made and seconded that Article 61 AF:TICLE 61 with changes noted will be the one presented. Passed The rezoning of the Howard Property at 82 Waltham Street was discussed, and it was felt that if he were allowed to develop under CG that he would probably need 24 parking spaces for 3600 sq. ft. (2 floors). The sentiment of the board was against that amount of parking space on that lot and was against the rezoning of the property. HOWARD PROPERTY WALTHAM ST. The proposal for the Corazzini land on Blossom St. was discussed and the following notes were made on CORALGINI it to report to Town 'Meeting: 1. Multiunit is as appropriate as single family development. 2. Design of unit layout is inadequate. 3. Layout of open space is not as useful as conceived by the intent of the zone. 4. Density is too high. The board suggests that they bring the density down to the order of 3 units per acre, comparable to other developments in town. Section 25. Redo the complete table and show the changes by underlining. A list of the deletions SECTION 25 should be made. An announcement should be made regarding the written amendment procedure; it should also be included as a Part of their report. A request will be made of the Town Moderator to announce at the opening of Town Meeting that only written amendments given 1 week in advance of the particle presentation will be con- sidered on Section 25. Any amendments from the floor without this prior written notice will be opposed by the Planning Board, The Roard of Appeals and hopefully the Board of Selectmen. A young couple who -had come to observe the meeting introduced themselves (Mr. & Mrs. Alan Bedford) of 11 Harrington Road and asked guidance in their problem. Their home was a 2 family house, which needed some kind of legal sanction in a single family neighborhood. They were in a dilemma as to how to solve the problem. The advice given was to go to the Board of Appeals, the body authorized to deal with their problem. Laura F. Nichols, Clerk