The Planning Board wants to know whether Harvard residents prefer an outright ban or just stricter limits—if they want any change at all—on drive-through windows at retail establishments.
Board Chairman Joe Sudol said last week that any new ban or limit would improve the existing bylaw, which allows windows as an accessory use to a commercial building. The definition of ‘accessory’ “changes over time,” Sudol noted, which leaves the town exposed to unexpected, unwanted uses. Either banning the windows outright or banning them with exceptions would best avoid the problem, he said.
The limit under consideration—recently drafted by town counsel Mark Lanza—would allow drive-through windows only at newly built banks and pharmacies. On the advice of Lanza, the limit is constructed as “prohibition with exceptions” rather than a list of allowed accessory uses. At hearings on the issue last year, Lanza explained that a ban or a ban with exceptions offered better protection than a list of approved uses, which almost always opens a legal loophole.
A ban would prohibit any new drive-through windows from being built into commercial properties. Windows at Rollstone Bank and Dunkin’ Donuts could remain. The board has cited Acton, Concord, and Lincoln as towns that banned new drive-through retail as a remedy to traffic congestion, pollution, and the proliferation of fast-food restaurants.
If the Planning Board presents at Annual Town Meeting a bylaw to end or limit drive-through-windows, it will mark the second time the topic has been debated in as many years. In 2008, on an amendment from the floor, a proposed ban turned into a proposed limit which would prohibit all drive-throughs except those for banks and pharmacies. That proposal was defeated when it failed to win the two-thirds majority necessary for all bylaw changes.
Sudol said he is concerned that the 2008 vote, when only 129 voters weighed in on the question when it was considered in late afternoon, might not represent town opinion.
