Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-21N O co W a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 21, 1983 213 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Offices, was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Smith, with members Nichols, Sorensen, Uhrig and Planning Director Bowyer present. Mrs. Flemings was absent. 53. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of March 14 were corrected, and on a motion by Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, were approved unanimously as corrected. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, the minutes of the Execu- tive Session of March 14, 1983, were approved unanimously as written. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 54. 1983 Report on Housing Policy Resolution: Robert Pressman was present to offer comments, under Public Participation, on a newspaper account of the Plan- ning Board's 1983 report on the housing policy resolution. Mr. Pressman noted that there had not been much progress on implementing the housing policy resolu- tion during the last year. He took issue with the statement in the report that concentrating on affordable housing was a pragmatic approach to a lack of funding. He pointed out that funding did exist and the Housing Authority had turned back over one million dollars to HUD and more than $500,000 to the State. He argued that other uses could have been found for that money. He commented that Greater Boston Community Development Corporation was not selected as the developer for Muzzey even though they offered more low and moderate income housing. He thought the "pragmatic problem" is that other boards and agencies do not have the will or desire to implement the policy. Mrs. Smith responded that he had given the Board much to think about and that time would be scheduled at the next Planning Board meeting for further discussion of the points he had made. EXECUTIVE SESSION After a poll of the Board, it was voted unanimously to go into Executive Session to discuss a matter of current litigation involving the Town. It was stated that the Board would return to its open session after the Executive Session to take up other items on the agenda. At 7:56 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session. The Board returned to open session at 9:27 p.m. At 10:35 p.m., after a motion by Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, and a poll of the Board, it was voted unanimously to go back into Executive Session to continue consideration of the litigation. At that time, it was indicated that the Board would return to its open session only for the purposes of adjournment. Following that part of the Executive Session, the Board returned to open session at 10:43 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 55. Meriam Street Parking Lot: Eugene Vogt, 18 Grant Place, was present to call attention to the opposition of abutters to the proposed expansion of the Meriam Street parking lot. He commented particularly on the effect of the expansion on the environmental quality and the loss of residential seclusion. Even though an opaque fence will be constructed, some of the houses on Grant Place are at a Planning Board Meeting: March 21, 1983 2 215 higher elevation and will look down over the fence into the parking lot. He said a letter of protest is being circulated and signed by abutters. It was agreed that the Board would discuss the expansion at the next meeting. ARTICLES FOR 1983 TOWN MEETING 56. Article 14, Accessory Apartments: Steven Clark, Cornelius Cronin, George McCormack and Margaret Rawls of the Accessory Apartments Committee were present. Mr. Clark reported that the Committee had agreed to three changes in the article to be presented to Town Meeting: 1) to increase the required minimum floor area from 2000 square feet to 2500 square feet, 2) to include a requirement that the Building Commissioner notify abutters prior to the issuance of a permit, and 3) to LO make all vehicles parked on a lot with an accessory apartment subject to the park- ing controls and not just the vehicles that comply with the minimum number of O parking spaces. Mrs. Rawls reported that the effect of increasing the required Q minimum floor area from 2000 to 2500 square feet is to reduce the number of eligi- ble units from 2194 to 998; 19 units in the post -1961 group are affected by the L1J change. a Mr. Sorensen requested that a comparison be shown of the proposed amendment with the regulations affecting a one family house. He said that would show the pro- posal is more restrictive than the regular zoning requirements for a one family house. Mr. Sorensen proposed to delete the third paragraph in Section 1, which deals with the effects of accessory apartments on rent levels and affordable housing. Mrs. ' Nichols, Smith, and Uhrig thought the paragraph should be left in. Mr. Sorensen expressed concern about the tone of Section 10, dealing with "by right" and special permit. He pointed out that some of the factors referred to as subjective criteria are measurable. He volunteered to draft alternative lan- guage for that section. Other suggestions for changes were made in the first para- graph of Section c, in Number 7, Decline in Property Values; Number 8, Parking; and Number 11, Treatment of Illegal Apartments. 57. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS The Board reviewed a staff analysis for cases to be heard by the Board of Appeals on March 31, 1983. On a motion by Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to make no recommendation on the following applications: 454 Lowell Street, Douglas H. McDonald: Variance, yard 44 Paul Revere Road, Lorraine Holmes: Variance, maintain existing house 16 Bennington Road, Kenneth Nill: Variance, side yard 384 Waltham Street, Wayne Malcolm: SP, Service Station: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Nichols, it was voted unanimously to make no recommen- dation on continuation of the property as a service station but to recommend that special conditions be attached to the decision which are consistent with Peter DiMatteo's proposal for all service stations. Mrs. Smith will attend the Board of Appeals hearings for March. I' ; 1 Planning Board Meeting: March 21, 1983 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, POLICIES 3 21'7 58. Report on Housing Trends: Mr. Bowyer commented on an outline, dated March 16, of housing data to be included in the first volume of a projected multi -volume series analyzing returns of the 1980 Census and other data series. He asked the Board to review the outline and make suggestions for other correlations that may be desirable. It is intended to have the report available sometime during the Town Meeting. REPORTS 59. Planning Director a. Kitson Park Revisions: Mr. Bowyer reported he had received a drawing with tive minor next Board some proposed revisions to construction details shown on the defini- subdivision plan. He assumed the revisions could be handled as revisions to the plan. It was agreed to schedule the item for the Planning Board meeting and to invite abutters to attend. If the or abutters think a formal public hearing is required, then one can be set up. b. Town Meeting Schedule: Mr. Bowyer reported that the Town Manager had indicated the Selectmen would present Articles 3-18 to the Town Meeting starting on April 4; the financial articles, 19-52 would be taken up in May. He recommended deferring the preparation of Planning Board reports on financial articles until later, when more information may be avail- able. 60. Planning Board Members, Subcommittees a. Housing Needs Advisory Committee: Chairman Gail Colwell and Eleanor Klauminzer of the Committee were present. Chairman Smith acknowledged receipt of the edited procedings of the October Conference on Affordable Housing. She suggested that an executive summary be prepared for distri- bution to Town Meeting. It was agreed to send a formal thank you to Arturo Gutierrez whose office had typed and reproduced the procedings. Chairman Gail Colwell reported the Committee is working on a comprehen- sive housing policy statement. It was agreed there should be closer col- laboration between the Committee and the Board. After the conclusion of the second part of the Executive Session, the eeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m. dith J. Uhri , Clerk PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION March 21, 1983 After a unanimous vote, by poll of the Board, the Lexington Planning Board met in Executive Session in Room G-15, Town Offices, at 7:58 p.m., with Chairman Smith and members Nichols, Sorensen, Uhrig, Planning Director Bowyer and attorneys Norman Cohen and Steven Anderson of Palmer and Dodge, Town Counsel, present for a dis- cussion of litigation involving the Town. Mrs. Flemings was absent. Mr. Cohen and Mr. Anderson explain that an appeal had been filed by attorneys for Butts -Campbell and for the Board of Appeals in the Butts -Campbell case. The Town has a ten-day period in which to file a cross appeal on points in the decision that it feels should be improved. They outlined three issues that the Board may wish to consider for cross appeal: 1. The judge relied, in part, on an interpretation of three adverse Town Meeting votes as meaning that Lexington intended to have a liberal inter- pretation of the grandfather clause for substandard lots and to permit recorded lots to maintain a separate identity for building purposes. The legal issue is the reliance on negative votes of Town Meeting as a means of determining the intent of the Zoning By -Law. 2. Since 1924, the definition of accessory use in the Zoning By -Law has re- quired that an accessory use be on the same lot as the principal use. With the garage located, in part, on a second lot, that would require a finding that the two lots were one because of the presence of the acces- sory use. The court did not find that a compelling argument and did not cite that in the decision. 3. The judge's decision returned the case to the Board of Appeals for a deci- sion on the original application for a variance. That part of the deci- sion contradicts his ruling that there is only one lot. Dealing with the first issue, Mr. Anderson observed that the judge, in effect, has said that the common ownership provision in Chapter 40A does not apply because the Lexington Zoning By -Law is more liberal than the statute. Mr. Sorensen responded that while one might like to see abutting lots in common ownership combined, the Lexington Zoning By -Law does not seem to say that. Mrs. Smith observed that other by-laws in other towns are clearer on this point. She believes our by-law is ambiguous but the matter should be re- solved by an amendment to the Zoning By -Law and not through a judicial interpreta- tion. After a poll of the Board, it was agreed not to file an appeal on the first issue. On the second issue, Mr. Anderson observed that this decision does not help in the conflict between combination by deed and combination by use. There is no reference in the decision to the "scrivener's error" argument, i.e., that combination by deed is a common conveyancing practice. The court did not pick up on that argument and the opposition did not pursue it either. After some discussion, the Board agreed not to file a cross appeal on the second issue. HE 211 On the third issue, the decision is clearly contradictory. The first petition for a variance dealt with setback requirements on one of the two "lots." Since the decision has ruled there is only one lot, the first petition for a variance is now moot. After a poll of the Board, it was agreed to file a cross appeal on this issue. The Executive Session was recessed at 9:25 p.m. so that the Board could return to open session. It was agreed the Executive Session would be reconvened after the completion of the items on the agenda of the business meeting. The Executive Session was reconvened at 10:28 p.m. Discussion centered on a peti- Q the Middle Street case and the Butts -Campbell case. Mrs. Smith reported there had M been a meeting with Town Counsel, the Building Commissioner, the Planning Director LLJ and members of the Board of Appeals. The result of that meeting was that the Build- ing Commissioner and Town Counsel would draft a policy statement, to be circulated for discussion, that would outline some ground rules for determining where the principal of "combined by use" would apply. The Executive Session was adjourned at 10:43 p.m and the Board recon ned in open session. dith J. Uh g, Clerk 11 tion for a variance dealing with lots at Middle Street and Cary Avenue. There a LO chicken coop had straddled the lot line but was removed recently. There are a num- N ber of parallels to the Butts -Campbell case. The Planning Board is being asked to O take a position on the Middle Street case. The concern is the connection between Q the Middle Street case and the Butts -Campbell case. Mrs. Smith reported there had M been a meeting with Town Counsel, the Building Commissioner, the Planning Director LLJ and members of the Board of Appeals. The result of that meeting was that the Build- ing Commissioner and Town Counsel would draft a policy statement, to be circulated for discussion, that would outline some ground rules for determining where the principal of "combined by use" would apply. The Executive Session was adjourned at 10:43 p.m and the Board recon ned in open session. dith J. Uh g, Clerk 11