1958-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9-11-58 -3- serve the district if the Town did not; no garages would be built; automobile space for 12 cars per apartment unit would be provided; although not shown because the matter needed further study, recreation areas for out- door ut-door cooking, picnic tables, etc. would be provided for each apartment building; back land would have landscape planting. Apartment buildings - Architecture would be Colonial; buildings would have four, eight, or ten units; develop- ment would contain 100 units, ten percent being three - bedrooms sixty percent being two-bedroom, and thirty per- cent being one -bedroom apartments; expected rents would. be $1751 $135 and $120, respectively; each unit would have kitchen with disposall, living room, bedroom, and bath as minimum elements and arranged as flats except in the three-bedroom units; each apartment building would be equipped with a clothes washer -drier; and there would be no outside clotheslines. Mr. Harry L. Garrett of 29 North Hancock Street asked how many children it was expected would live in the development. Mr. Tropeano replied that based on the num- ber of children living in apartment houses in Concord and Arlington there would be very few. Mr. William Roger Greeley of 1498 Massachusetts Avenue commented that in other towns it has been found that there are something like 1.0 school children per individual house and only 0.1 to 0.2 children per apartments. Mr. Garrett also commented on the amount of traffic he thought would use Worthen Road if it were extended around the Center playground area and the additional amount of traffic which would be generated by the apart- ment house development. Mr. Tropeano commented that the traffic situation resulting from said development would be better than that created by eight to ten driveways from residences fronting on Worthen Road. Mr. Jaquith said that traffic lights would be installed to regulate and slow traffic at the Waltham Street -Worthen Road intersec- tion. Mr. Robert M. Coquillette of 235 Waltham Street and Mr. Weiant Wathen-Dunn of 44 Maple street asked if in the area which was being considered for rezoning there was not land which had a restrictive covenant attached thereto. Mr. Tropeano replied that there were restrictive covenants on two parcels of land 3.n area, that these pertained to buildings which could not be erected on said parcels, and ' that these covenants expired in 1960 and 1967. In regard to this matter, Mr. Mansfield B. Patterson of 128 Kendall Road asked if the title to the land involved had been