Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-03PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1983 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Vice Chairman Nichols, with members Sandy, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Chairman Smith was absent. 1. APPLICATIONS TO BOARD OF APPEALS The Board continued its discussion of cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on January 6, 1983. 959 Waltham Street, Elks Lodge: SP, temporary use of trailers: Mr. Bowyer re- ported that the Elks Lodge had sought permission for the use of a part of their parking lot through February 28, 1983 for six trailers used in conjunction with the distribution of telephone directories. On the motion of Mrs. Uhrig, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted 4-0 to make no recommendation. 17 Hartwell Avenue, Kendall Company: SP, storage shed for solvent wastes: The Board reviewed a memorandum from Fire Chief John Bergeron to the Board of Appeals, dated 1/3/83, recommending that the special permit be approved but subject to various restrictions on construction. On the motion of Mr. Sandy, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, it was voted 3-0, with Mrs. Uhrig abstaining, to recom- mend that the special permit be granted with the conditions recommended by the Fire Chief. Mr. Sandy suggested that the staff and the Fire Chief report on how hazardous materials are handled in the Town, what state and federal agencies regulate the use of toxic materials, do they regulate adequately, and who is assuring that the electronic industries within the Town are run in a safe manner. He noted that Line 10.1 of Table 1, which prohibits various hazardous is very general and needs to be improved. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES 2. Accessory Apartments, Issues Analysis: Chairman Steven Clark, Cornelius Cronin, and Margaret Rawls of the Accessory Apartments Committee were present for continua- tion of the review of the Issues Analysis paper, dated December 21, 1982, and the revised recommendation of the Accessory Apartments Committee as of December 30, 1982. Mr. Sandy objected to the elimination, in the latest committee draft, of the restric- tion on increases in floor space to 10% for a five year period prior to the issuance of a permit for an accessory apartment. After discussion, the Board and the Commit- tee agreed the provision should be restored. Mrs. Nichols suggested that a requirement be added that accessory apartments be per- mitted only on accepted streets. There was discussion about permitting accessory apartments on unaccepted streets in the same manner as'an application for a new house on an unaccepted street. The Board agreed not to include a requirement on the status of the street because it would further complicate an already complex subject. One major issue is whether a permit for an accessory apartment may be obtained "by right" from the Building Commissioner or whether a special permit should be granted by the Board of Appeals. Mrs. Rawls restated the Committee's conviction that the SET Planning Board Minutes: January 3, 1983 2 129 permits should be issued by the Building Commissioner. She said that method is fairer, it is not judgemental and applicants know what is expected of them. The Committee's research on Board of Appeals cases showed that neighborhood "input" pro- duced very little substantive information; most "input" was emotional reaction. Mem- bers of the Planning Board favoring the "by right" procedure commented as follows: Mrs. Uhrig preferred to have less reliance on Boards unless there are specific discretionary areas on which Boards need to act; none have been identified in this case. Mr. Sandy agreed with "by right" on the merits. He was concerned about polit- ical acceptability by Town Meeting which might favor the Board of Appeals procedure. He would support an amendment by either procedure. Mr. Sorensen noted the usual rea- son for utilizing the Board of Appeals is "other considerations" but no one has iden- tified what they might be. The alternative procedure suggested for the Board of LO Appeals has such a presumption of the right to obtain a permit that it would be most N unlikely that a permit would be denied; in that case, it would be simpler to have the ® Building Commissioner issue the permits. Thus, three members favor the "by right" Q permits issued by the Building Commissioner. m Mrs. Nichols preferred the Board of Appeals procedure and indicated Mrs. Smith did as Q well. She said abutters should have the opportunity for input; by the Committee's procedure, they could only participate after a permit has been issued, by appeal. Neighbors might not even know a permit had been granted. She was concerned about consistency among building commissioners; the Town might not always have someone as good as Peter DiMatteo. Mrs. Smith had commented that the Town's tradition was that permits of this sort are handled by a Board and not a staff person. Mrs. Nichols thought there might be some considerations, such as the location of parking and other site issues, which might justify Board of Appeals discretion. She said she could not think of many specific examples at the moment. Mr. Sandy commented on the preference of individual members as to the potential poli- tical acceptability of the "by right" procedure and of the potential for obtaining unanimous support of the Planning Board on one procedure or the other. The Planning Board agreed that a backup amendment for the Board of Appeals procedure should be available in the event the "by right" procedure is not accepted by Town Meeting and to avoid poorly drafted spontaneous amendments from the floor. There was discussion of a proposed prohibition against the conversion of existing garage space into living space. It was agreed that if the provision limiting expan- sion to 10% over the preceding five years were restored, the section dealing with conversion of garage space could be dropped. REPORTS 3. Annual Report: A draft of the Board's annual report was reviewed and several changes made. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 4-0 to approve the annual report as amended. 4. Planning Director a. Waltham Street Zoning Petition: Mr. Bowyer reported that the only citizens article for rezoning that had been submitted for the 1983 Annual Town Meeting was Dennis Lowe's petition for a CD district at 87-89 Waltham Street. He suggested that the public hearing on that petition be held the same evening as the public Planning Board Minutes: January 3, 1983 3 131 hearing on the conversion of the Muzzey School, which is scheduled for January 27, 1983. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 4-0 to schedule the public hearing on the 87-89 Waltham Street petition for the same evening as the public hearing on Muzzey with the exact date to be adjusted according to the final schedule for the disposition of Muzzey School, to be worked out with the Board of Selectmen. The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m. 2dith J. U Ig, Clerk LD Q m Q D