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