HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-27L
1
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF APRIL 270 1988
The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office
Building, was called to order at 7:12 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Uhrig, with
members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Williams, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer and
Assistant Planner Nordby.
******************* ARTICLES FOR 1988 TOWN MEETING **************
124. Article 41, Accessory Apartments: The Board reviewed three amendments
to be proposed by Town Meeting Member Margaret Rawls who was present.
Her first amendment would set the maximum percentage of floor area which may
be occupied by an accessory apartment at 30% and would eliminate the proposed
Planning Board restriction that sets the maximum size of an accessory apart-
ment at 900 sq, ft. Mrs. Rawls argued that there should not be a maximum
size. If an older dwelling had 4,000 or 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area, it made
no difference to her that the accessory apartment had 1,200 or 1,500 sq. ft.
as long as the limitations of 30% of floor area and a maximum of two bedrooms,
were still in effect. Mrs. Klauminzer argued that the accessory apartment
provision was intended to provide smaller apartment units while the conversion
of a one family dwelling provision was intended to provide larger apartment
units. In an informal poll of the Board, Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Williams and Mrs.
Wood were in favor of her proposed amendment; Mrs. Klauminzer and Mrs. Uhrig
were opposed.
Mrs. Rawls second amendment would strike out those parts of the Planning
Board's amendment which would allow additions to existing dwellings so that
they could reach the 2,000 sq. ft. threshold. Mrs. Rawls argued that a large
number of single family dwellings could qualify for this amendment, far more
than the Town Meeting intended in 1983. She thought this could lead to a wave
of accessory apartment construction which could change the character of the
Town. Mrs. Klauminzer responded that the objective was to encourage addition-
al accessory apartment construction to meet the Town's housing needs. The
evidence in Lexington and in other communities is that only a limited number
of people use the accessory apartment provision, only a small percentage of
those that are theoretically eligible. Mr. Sorensen expressed his concern
that practically any dwelling that met the minimum lot requirements in the RS
and RO districts could qualify. In an informal poll, Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Willi-
ams and Mrs. Uhrig supported Mrs. Rawls' proposed amendment; Mrs. Klauminzer
and Mrs. Wood did not.
The third of Mrs. Rawls' proposed amendments would strike out the Planning
Board's proposed provision that would allow accessory apartments in new con-
struction, either dwellings constructed after January 1983 or those that may
be constructed in the future. Mr. Sorensen commented that this could be a
"back door" route for the construction of new two family dwellings. Mrs.
Klauminzer noted the requirement for an extraordinarily large lot and a spe-
cial permit from the Board of Appeals after a public hearing would reduce the
utilization of this provision. In an informal poll, Mr. Sorensen was in favor
of Mrs. Rawls' amendment; Mrs. Klauminzer was opposed to it; the other three
members were undecided.
Meeting of April 27, 1988
-2-
125. Article 40, Nonconformity: Mr. Bowyer reported, and several members
concurred, they had received a great deal of negative feedback about Part B of
Article 40 which would require that adjoining non -conforming lots have at
least 75 feet of frontage and 7,500 sq. ft. of area. He distributed a draft
of an amendment which the Board might offer. The amendment would treat all
lots, isolated and adjoining, at the same standard --- at least 50 feet of
frontage and at least 5,000 sq. ft. of area.
The Board agreed with the substance of the amendments, but thought it best to
hold them in reserve until it saw how the debate on the article went.
******************* ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS *********
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
126. Graystone, Completion: Mr. Bowyer reported that Ms. Nordby and he had
inspected the Graystone subdivision. The report it had received from the
Engineering Department (see Item 120 in the April 25, 1988 minutes) was incor-
rect. A revised planting plan had been submitted last summer and approved by
the Board. The planting installed is in conformance with the revised planting
plan. Thus, there is no need for any stop work order.
127. Pond Court, off Lowell Street, Sketch Plan: Ms. Nordby showed the sketch
plan. She suggested the design could be improved by grouping the buildings in
a cluster facing southward and relocating thedriveway to the northerly side
of the site. The Board concurred in that recommendation and suggested the
staff prepare a more detailed analysis recommendation and decision.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
Eleanor Klauminzer, Clerk