Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-11-30-BOS-min c) SS SELECTMEN'S MEETING November 30, 1970 A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen was held in the Bird Room, Cary Memorial Building, on Monday evening, November 30, 1970 at 7 30 p.m Chairman Cataldo, Messrs Mabee, Kenney and Greeley were present, Mr Legro, Town Counsel , Mr O'Connell , Town Manager; Mr. McSweeney, Town Engineer and Acting Superintendent of Public Works, and Mrs McCurdy, Executive Clerk, were also present At the request of the Town Clerk, two jurors were drawn as follows Jurors Darrell E Cain 16 Welch Road David Fishlin 23 Hathaway Road Mr O'Connell informed the Board of a matter heard by the Plan- ning Board He read a letter from Mr Zaleski regarding Brent Road, Adams Estates IV subdivision which was approved by the Planning Board on September 20, 1965 and on November 8, 1965, lots 22 through 31 and lot 39 were released by the Board for building and sale. John W. Castoldi , Inc., the then owner-developer furnished $35,000 surety in the form of savings bank books in the name of John W Castoldi for $20,000 and Yolanda M Castoldi for $ 15,000 to guaran- tee the construction by November I , 1967 of streets and utilities serving these lots On December II , 1967, the Planning Board voted to reduce the security to $4,000, returning deposits in ex- Brent Road- cess of this amount to the developer On December 18, 1967, the Adams Estate Planning Board voted to release lots 32 through 38 (the balance of Subdivision the subdivision) in $4,000 bond secured by $4,382.98 deposits in savings bank book in the name of John W Castoldi in the Newton- Waltham Bank and Trust Co , the required construction to be com- pleted by December 31 , 1968 Mr Castoldi died some months after this and the subdivision was taken over by Frank DiCarlo of Newton. Since the subdivision was still not completed 18 months after the required date and the residents were complaining about the lack of sidewalks next to lots 31, 32 and 34; the Planning Board wrote to Mr DiCarlo, followed by a telephone call and another letter and neither letter was answered By vote of November 23, 1970, the Planning Board instructed me to take the necessary steps to have the subdivision completed, realizing upon the developer' s security for this purpose We sug- gest the following course of action and ask for your assistance a. Prompt inspection of subdivision by Engineering De- partment to establish for each section the items not completed. 289 b Notice to Mr DiCarlo that the Town will commence construction any after 48 or 72 hours. c Discussion with contractor to have Brent Road side- walks installed by him at the contract price and to obtain an estimate of the total cost d. Written vote of the Planning Board authorizing you, the Selectmen or other designated officials to ex- pend the necessary funds not exceeding the amounts held for the completion of the subdivision. e. Contractor to install the sidewalks and other re- quired work to be done as determined under a f. Money to be withdrawn from the savings bank books and paid to the contractors in accordance with item- ized bills. Since the Planning Board is the responsible party to the agree- ment with the developer, it should have complete record of all steps taken. Mr O'Connell suggested that we get the additional background necessary for the Town Engineer and ask Town Counsel whether or not the Town is in a position to use the bank book for the completion of the sidewalk. If the Town is to take action, it is normally that a sidewalk contract will be brought to you for awarding. There will be a contractor here in Town for sidewalks when he goes forward with the sidewalks in the spring I think the concern on the part of the owners is to know if it were decided, something could be done, such as a decision has been made to do it and what the sched- ule would be The Chairman said he was sure there is more to the procedure than outlined in the letter. Before naything is done, we should take the necessary legal steps to bring it to a point. The Board instructed Mr Legro to outline to Mr. O'Connell the steps to be taken on the Brent Road subdivision. Mr O'Connell discussed the carriage house at 1508 Massachusetts Avenue which was damaged in a fire. The previous action of the Board was to hold the matter in abeyance on the recommendation of the Build- ing Inspector, as the owner, Mr Palmer, had called requesting inform- Palmer ation on permits required to demolish the building. Carriage Mr O'Connell read a letter from the Building Inspector, recom- House mending that action be taken by the Town The Bbard agreed that upon receipt of the necessary information on a hearing, a hearing will be scheduled and Mr Palmer will be so notified. 290 The Chairman read a letter from Jenkins Realty, Inc , requesting Jenkins the purchase of a share of Grandview Avenue, a paper street, to in- Grandview Ave crease the depth of two tots, 5-B and 5-C, as shown on Map No 50 Lots as Lot 5-A, parcel 219A The Chairman said that because of our vote to sell lots to two neighbors, Mr Esserian has taken us to court and there will be no consideration given to any requests until the matter is settled. The Board agreed Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to sign the Battle Green application to the Alcoholic Beverages Commission for approval , and Liquor to sign the liquor license to be issued for the sale of all alco- License holic beverages to RHD Realty & Development Corporation, Battle Green Motel , 1720 Massachusetts Avenue. Brewster' s Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to sign the Com Vict Common Victualler License (renewal) to be issued to Brewster' s License 913 Waltham Street Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to certify Cert. of the character of Leonard Kirsch, 28 Mason Street, who has applied Incorp for Certificate of Incorporation, "University of Massachusetts - Boston Faculty Club, Inc " Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to grant the Elks - request of Lexington Lodge of Elks to serve liquor until 2 00 a.m New Year' s on New Year' s Eve The Chairman read a letter from Barbara Degan of the C Y 0 Degan group at the Sacred Heart Church for permission for Christmas Request carolling on the common on the night of December 23 or 24, 1970 The Board agreed to inform Miss Degan that if she presents a specific program and sponsorship, the Board would consider her re- quest Meagher- The Chairman informed the Board that the Planning Board has ville submitted a draft report of Justin Gray Associates on the Meagher- Report ville study, it is available to Board Members The Chairman read a request from the Lexington Pre-School Cary Hall P T.A to waive the rental fee of $35 for a performance on February Rental 17, 1971 from 9 00 a.m to I2N in Cary Memorial Hall Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to inform the Lexington Pre-School P.T.A that the rental fee of $35 will be re- tained but we would not charge for custodial fees The Chairman read a letter from the Town Manager, enclosing a Master Tax copy of the Master Tax Plan report which is now under review for Plan consideration at the next session of the Legislature 1 IIIThe Chairman said that he and Mr. O'Connell had attended a meet ing held by the Massachusetts League of Cities and Towns and we had a preview of the tax plan We felt there were many items in this that should concern the Town of Lexington, this is a most important piece of legislation and we should become familiar with it, if adopted as now drafted, we would be hurt financially. They are going to have hearings around the state and we should have evalua- tions made with the reasons why we have taken that position The Board agreed with the Chairman Members of the Board are to submit to Mr. O'Connell what their thinking is and he is to put together a draft for consideration by the Board The Chairman said that copies of the report from the Committee of Street and Sidewalk Reconstruction have been sent to the Board The approach outlined by the Committee was that it should be in four phases Phase I Publish street and sidewalk list, hold prelimin- ary June Hearing Phase II Preparation of Preliminary Plans Phase III Fall Hearing on Preliminary Plans Sidewalk Commm i ttee Phase IV Preparation of Final Plans; Town Meeting Action Report Committee of Three Should appoint a three-member Citizen Advi- sory Board to act as a liaison between the Engineering Department and the property owners and citizens involved during the design phases of the plan The Chairman asked Mr McSweeney for comments Mr McSweeney said that the overall approach is very good. The Chairman said that, basically, they are saying it takes two years to do what we are now doing in one year Mr Greeley said that one of the preliminary reasons is to give people a chance to object, like Downing Road, and if the Board con- siders it desirable at that time to withdraw rather than go ahead when the owners change their minds. I think we shoud let the people know that is one of the steps involved to have preliminary designs for more streets; I think this should be a phase The Board agreed to come back next week with recommendations of additions or deletions. The Chairman commented on an underground wiring section of the report and said that if we adopted it like Sudbury, we could accom- plish underground wiring with no cost to the Town Mr Herbert Eisenberg and his group, which included members of Clematis Trinity Covenant Church met with the Board to discuss Clematis Brook Brook Village, a multi-unit project under RH zoning proposed in a citizen- Village petition article for the January II Special Town Meeting `292 Mr. Eisenberg introduced Mr. Norman Richards as spokesman for the group Mr. Richards said that, as you know, Trinity Covenant Church has caused to be inserted an Article on zoning on a 22-acre par- cel on Clematis Road, easterly and northeasterly from the Church and extending over the land of the Town which surrounds and abuts the Bowman School . Everything was going along well but we were recently informed by the Chairman of the Planning Board of diffi- culty regarding completion of a section of Worthen Road which now stops across from the Bowman School site and the Trinity Covenant Church Subsequent to that, I talked with Mr. O'Connell and he informed me that the Town had run into difficulty with plans for that section to be built under Chapter 90 and prospects to have the road built are not optimistic at this time and considering that the Church thought the road would be built and the logical pattern would be to connect. It would have advantages to the developer and if this road is not going to be built by the Town on which land the Church relied on, this makes a substantial difference to the development or asking for rezoning without a traffic pattern. I am aware that the developer would have to build from Allen Street which would be important and helpful but if it is difficult to get a reasonable traffic pattern or to get egress, this is the principal problem uppermost in the minds of petitioners on what is the prospect of the road being built and what reliance on the current situation, is the Town going to go forward to build or would the Town participate with or in the construction of this section of the road? We figure $60,000 was originally appropriated for that purpose; it did pass and the money was appropriated. We are interested, and what can we do and what is going to be done? The developers feel it is a very important connection. The Chairman said that these should be separated, the ac- cess over Worthen Road and the land use. At this point in time, our concern is primarily the access and Worthen Road. You have stated the history, it came up two or three separate times at the last Town Meeting. The original concept was to extend Worthen Road through the Church property Once we were informed that the concept changed and the Church was no longer going to extend Worthen Road, we discussed it with the State and they in- formed us that they would not participate under Chapter 90, if that concept were adopted. We met with the Planning Board and said it was their obligation to tell the church before time and money were spent. It is not that we didn't want it built but it was the position of the State that the road could not be built under these conditions We had met with the Church and they said they had to act basically with what was before them. The State will not build it and we cannot build it with the authority we now have, as far as the authority on Worthen Road. 293 Where we go from here? We are willing to listen to proposals with the authority we have and for the sake of this Town Meeting, I can see no way of getting the section built Mr Richards said that in the scope of the Church's planning, in order not to lose what has been done to date, it was thought to go forward with the possibilities of participation with the Town in the construction of the road, whether or not this can be done or whether the developer can build a section on their own. .. it isn't going to require taking of property, and whether it can be laid out. .. whether or not we could put it in if there was a possibility.. . we hope there is a chance of it being finished by a state or fed- eral agency for the work which is now being permitted, for the developer for public facilities, etc. As for the changing of the zoning, I told the Church that the only thing the RH vote would do would be to permit them to apply for a special permit We are not going overboard by asking this door to be open to it. If this ac- cess can't be worked out, we can't expect financial aid, if solved, the door would be open for a special permit The Chairman said that the question can't be answered on the road going to be built. If this were just an ordinary residential street to be extended 500 feet to accomodate a neighborhood, Town Meeting would accept it but the nature of the road is, we have a different picture on our hands; we can't sit here and say, yes we will The only sensible approach is to come in with a feasible approach and would Town Meeting buy it if you came up with a defi- nite proposal for us to consider Mr Greeley asked if they have a proposal? Mr Richards said that we have thought about proposals but don't want to place them at this time I know the amount is $60,000 and I know the time has gone by, and there are pockets of peat 20' or 30' deep, and the water table is down 15" from the top of the present grade I haven't talked with Mr. McSweeney but Mr McSweeney feels $60,000 is somewhat on the weak side. Mr. Kenney asked if the intention is to go forward in Town Meeting for rezoning? Mr. Richards said that with this type of zoning, if there was a change to zoning where they were locked in where it would only be possible to build motels a la Bedford Street . if we could use the land for exactly the same purpose it is used for now This does mean in future time a possibility of another vote on the same subject. Mr Greeley asked whether it were critical with the access problem to go forward under RH or single family? The cul de sac would defeat it Mr. Richards said that we have to have another means of ac- cess Mr Greeley said he would like to see them figure out how they could do that 294 The Chairman said that these are separate issues, it is safe to say that, by and large, the Board would like to see Worthen Road built Come back to the Board with a proposal so we will know what you are talking about. Mr. Eisenberg showed the plans to the Board and said that there would be 190 units in four groups Mr. Richards said that when this section of the road was go- ing to be built under Chapter 90 and funds appropriated and an estimate given of $60,000, I believe that was to extend the road for 550' at the 70' width If the developer would propose to build this section or at least reimburse the Town, would he ber required to reimburse the Town for constructing a 70' right-or- way pavement or required only to go for the 50 feet? I assume this $60,000 is based on 70' ; would the developer be required to go to 70' or 50 feet? Mr. Legro said that this was not based on an estimate but Chapter 90 funds The intention was to make the wide construction but the $60,000 had no relation to that; this money was to be used to go as far as it could. Mr. Richards said that lets call the figure necessary for con- struction "X"; if the developer made the proposal to the Town, would the developer be required to meet the entire figure for 70 feet? The Chairman said that we don't know. Mr. Greeley thought they ought to come in with a proposal that meets normal subdivision standards. The Chairman said to send the Board a proposal and we will take it from there Mr Richards and the group retired from the meeting. The Chairman said that last week we received the report of the Building Inspector on the Harrington Property We told Mr. Adler of the Parish Committee of the First Parish Church we would come back with our thinking What is the Board's feeling? Harrington Mr. Greeley said he would like to get an appraisal and make an Property offer. Mr Mabee felt we ought to broadcast it among our Town agen- cies. Essentially, they are giving us first refusal . Mr Kenney asked if we should inquire among our own group, particularly the Library Trustees? The Chairman said that a letter will be sent to the Parish Committee and a copy will be sent to the Library Trustees, Appro- priation Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee, Planning Board and Historic Districts Commission with a request for their comments The Chairman said that last week we discussed the request of Mrs. Walsh on Bertwell Road for a sign; I talked with her today and Bertwell she would like to try the Caution-Children sign to see if it would Road help the situation with her blind children. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to install a Caution-Children sign on Bertwell Road. •1 L A 0 The Chairman informed the Board that an appointment must be made of an observer to the Suburban Liaison Committee. The Planning Board has nominated Mrs. Sanborn Brown Mr. O'Connell recommended that the Board ask the observer to re- port back to the Board after a meeting is held. SILC Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to designate Observer Mrs. Sanborn Brown as official observer to the Suburban Intertown Liaison Committee, with the request that she so report back to this Board and to the Town Manager after each meeting. The Chairman informed the Board that we have finally agreed on the contract for the Air Force sewer. We agreed, reluctantly, to include Clause 6-Contract Work Hours Standard Act, and Clause II , which is examination of records These clauses are included in the Air Force water contract so we felt, in the interest of an agreement, we would Sewer include them in it. Contract Mr. Legro said it was a matter, primarily, of the conclusion of all the grant provisions, some of which were not in the 1953 con- tract. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to sign Con- tract No. FI9650-71-C-0382 between the United States Air Force and the Town of Lexington for the construction of phase of the relief sewer. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to sign Contract No. F19650-71C-0381 between the United States Air Force and the Town of Lexington, which is the actual leasing of the 14-inch main and the provisions to increase gallonage from 625 gallons to 1500 gallons per minute. The Chairman informed the Board that a letter has been received from Morris Lindman, President of Lexington Association for Moderate Cost Housing, with three nominations for a representative on LCSR, as follows Mrs. Bonnie Jones, Mrs Lee Lindman and Mrs. Martha Nagy LCSR Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to appoint Mrs. Bonnie Jones, 45 Middle Street, as the representative of Lexington Association for Moderate Cost Income Housing on the Lexington Commis- sion on Suburban Responsibility The Permanent Building Committee met with the Board. Mr. Taylor said that the reason for the meeting is to clear up the confusion with the Junior High plan in regard to the use of the Stedman Road portion from Brookside to Allen Street and to ask for an Article to take the property for school purposes. I believe that Jr. High the Article is going to be in the Warrant Members of the Committee and the Architect met with the Town Manager and it came out that he thought the taking was for a public road through there That is not intended and we want everybody to know what our plans called for. Originally presented, it called for a building located at Brookside 296 and, at one point, we came to the Board to request Stedman Road from Brookside up to Allen Street to be laid out as a footpath. The Selectmen, with a recommendation from the Planning Board, said if anything was done, it would be laid out as a public way and we said it didn't make any difference. Unfortunately, that proposal dropped. When working on a new proposal, we examined three proposals and settled on the location at the Franklin School property, we never contemplated Allen Street at Stedman. The proposal at the last March Meeting did not have a street connection, there was an entrance on one side from Allen and one from Brookside but no connection; a walkway connection, this has always been the plan on the second proposal I am sure this was the plan We are asking for the taking of old Stedman Road so we can add it to the school as access and parking We examined and re-examined the road configuration a number of times for a true connection. The School Department feels it is not neces- sary at all for the proper function to the school and were happy if there were no connection as a point of safety problems; they want to limit the circulation There is access, one from Allen and one from Brookside; both go onto Waltham Street. As far as Police and Fire, there will be a paved walkway and fire trucks can get in over a curb. A street for a public through-connection in there would be quite costly. The planning Board is in favor of this, not asking for a connection as long as there is a paved walkway for emergency vehicles. We are making sure the Board understands what we are asking for. The Chairman said that before going into the plans, it is the policy of the Board that we will insert any Article that a Com- mittee asked us to Because we vote to insert the Article doesn't mean we agree with it or would support it. We voted to insert the Article In your minutes, you said we agreed to lay out the walk- way. We agreed to insert if you ask us to, in any form, to accom- plish anything you want to do, but it doesn't mean we support it Although you feel the Fire, Police, etc. are wrong, we will submit it but don't get upset when you don't get the support. We would like to make our position clear and if you want this laid out we will vote to insert the Article, but whether there is some support on this, is another situation; we want that understood. Mr. Taylor said that our main function is understanding of what we are asking for. The Chairman said we understand full well what you have asked to be inserted in the Warrant. We will insert it exactly as you requested, although we do not agree with your approach Mr Greeley asked if it were appropriate to discuss the rea- sons for what they are asking? You say it is a lot more costly to put it all the way through than to have the two approaches; 1 am wondering if that is so? Have you made comparative costs on putting a single road through? 1 297 Mr. Taylor showed a plan of the area and said that we are talking about a strip of a road, and showed the access driveway It is my understanding to put the sidewalk in rather than building a road, in terms of width and everything else it would be less expensive Mr. Greeley said it depends on what you do with parking It might not be necessary if you had a through road. A member of the Committee said that you couldn't park school buses there for loading purposes. Mr. Greeley wondered if they had looked at this without studying the true situation. Mr. Taylor said they had studied it The School Department says this is the way they would like it, the feeling is, a walkway for students. Mr. Greeley said they are going to have the same number of poten- tial conflicts; children cross one of the traffic routes, anyway, I think the School Committee has an obsession that they want to come at their school in two directions, such as at Estabrook and Diamond, and I think they are basically wrong I think their basic premise that there is something wrong with a through route is wrong for fundamental safety. Mr Taylor asked what is the advantage to a through connection? Mr. Greeley said that people can go through. The Chairman asked how can anyone get in these complexes if the road is blocked. Mr. Taylor said the understanding is, this walkway is going to 111 have to be plowed wide enough Mr. Kenney said that your objection is, then, the cost, and the School Department recommends against it How about a limited com- promise, to suggest a walkway with room enough for emergency vehicles? Mr Taylor said that it would cost too much Mr. Mzbee came into the meeting Mr. Greeley said as I understand it, the situation is in order for the School Department to preclude the chance if the Town would put the road through Mr. Taylor said that we need the land for a walkway; it is not the intent in anybody' s mind to close it off . Mr. Greeley asked what is the status now of Stedman Road? Mr Taylor said that nobody seems to know; it is an abandoned Bounty road. Mr. Greeley asked what their Articles would do? Mr. Taylor replied that it would take it. Mr. Mabee asked about their objections. Mr. Taylor said that it would be impossible to make that into a public way; because of the grades. If a public way, it wouldn't meet the Town' s specifications; Stedman is about 25 feet and you would want 40 feet. Mr. Greeley said the fact of the matter is the site plan has been so designed that you couldn't tolerate a public way through there. A member of the Committee said that was all part and parcel of presenting the easement for a walkway. 29S The Chairman said that the Board understands the reasons for your Article and we have inserted it that way Mr Taylor said that, perhaps, it was not coordinated as well as it should be. Mr. Otis Brown asked if there were anything the Committee might do to ease the problem at a later date to make a public way connec- tion I feel there ought to be some sort of connection there The Chairman said that Mr. O'Connell and I met to discuss sepa- rate access at that point, there are good and valid reasons to take the approach that it would probably be done in the years to come. A member of the Committee said that provision has been made that it can be done if there is a desire for connecting The Chairman said that unless you take some more land, what can you do? Mr O'Connell asked if he understood Mr Taylor to say the Planning Board was in favor of this access arrangement as being ac- ceptable? Mr. Taylor replied they were as long as there was a connection that emergency vehicles could get over Mr. O'Connell said that the Planning Board is on record by letter of November 24, 1970 stating in the opinion of the Board, it is very desirable that an emergency connection be provided between the two accesses to the school . The connection should be such as to permit vehicular use in all seasons, i .e. of adequate width and construction and kept clear of snow. One possibility would be an extra wide paved pedestrian walk separated from driveways by Curbs which an emergency vehicle could cross. The Chairman said that ehy are asking for a paved walkway Mr O'Connell said the letter says that the Board is also concerned about the possibility of obstruction of traffic on Mar- rett Road by parents dropping off students, waiting to pick them up or parked while playfields are being used. The desirability of a sliding or a pickup lane near Stedman Road entrance should be considered for this purpose. Mr Taylor showed the area used as a footpath now We would like to see it paved but the suggestion was made why not make it wide enough for an emergency vehicle and we got a cost of some- thing like $25,000. The Committee has considered this a number of times and cannot see spending this to give another connection for emergency use. If something occurs during a storm, you would be tied up all over and you would have the problem of access. Mr. O'Connell said that the concept is, in the event of a storm, the travel way might be clocked and if you put in the second access, you can get in on an emergency access road. Mr Taylor said it doesn't seem to us to make sense to spend that kind of money. The Chairman asked if it cost $20,000 to build the walkway on the school property, what would it cost to build a footpath on, Stedman Road? I 299 Mr. Taylor said, I don't know. The Chairman asked how could you make this evaluation and deci- sion with no comparative cost? No answer from Mr. Taylor. The Chairman asked if there were any other questions? Mr. Legro said that he had been presented with a print of a plan marked preliminary plan by Miller & Nylander; there is no date and no title for me to refer to, perhaps it is possible to draw an Article without reference to a plan but the suggestion is that Miller and Nylander present a plan with a date. Mr. Taylor said it was his understanding that Miller & Nylander had delivered a final plan. Mr. Legro said that it was a preliminary print. I am requesting it before I can prepare an Article. The Permanent Building Committee retired from the meeting. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing, deliberating or Executive voting on matters which, if made public, might adversely affect the Session public security, the financial interest of the Town or the reputa- tion of a person. After discussion of matters of financial interest to the Town, it was voted to go out of Executive Session Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 10.25 p.m A true record, Attest Executive Clerk, Selectmen I