Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1929-12-30C Planning Board Meeting., Lexington, Mass. December 30, 1929. Present: Farriery, Glynn, Butler, Bowers, and Cosgrove. Five Forks ?one: Petition of Mr. Sarano to restore part of this junction to a residential section read by Chairman Emery and matter discussed. Board unanimously agreed to recommend that Town restore this junction as petitioned. Board agrees that Mr. Cosgrove should cooperate for the Town with State and County engineers in matter.of widening and improving of Concord Avenue from Cambridge to Concord. ' PLANNING BOARD REPORT FOR 1929 The activities of the Planning Board during the first two months of the year were devoted almost entirely to considera- tion of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Law. The original Zoning Law, that had been in force since April, 1924, had been found by experience to require amendment in order to provide adequate protection for the town. Proposed amendments to that end were presented by the Planning Board to the town at a Town Meeting held on December 17th, 1928, and were refered back by the town for further consideration by the Planning Board jointly with a committee appointed by the Selectmen. This joint committee held frequent meetings for considera- tion of the subject and arranged several public hearings to give all citizens opportunity to appear to inquire as to various as- pects of the proposed amendments and to offer suggestions and objections, with the result that upon the unanimous report of this joint committee, the town at the session of its annual meet- ing held March 18, 1929, adopted the amendments reported, and which were in the main as originally proposed by the Planning Board. The Zoning Law as amended now affords the town the best protection that is probably to be had against unduly congested and other undesirable developments. The most important of the amendments adopted are those Increasing the minimum frontages of lots in any development from 50 ft. to 75 ft., and minimum areas from 5,000 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft., and the adoption of a provision that dwellings hereafter erected upon back lands shall have the same minimum lot areas as those that front upon the main highways and shall be provided with approach streets established under the Board of Survey Act and following hearings by the Board of Survey. In- creasing the minimum frontages and lot areas will tend to pro- tect the town against the most dangerous kind of lot develop- ments, and the amendment relating to the erection of dwellings upon back lots will protect the town against dangerous and con- gested developments on the rear ends of excessively deep lots that some developers have found it expedient to lay out. Our present Zoning Law is generally pronounced to be among the best in the Commonwealth. It is, however, too much to expect that it will stand without further amendment because from time to time, as conditions change, it will be necessary, as well as desirable, to amend it in various respects, to keep it abreast of the times. One possible amendment is already before the Planning Board. Prior to the adoption of the principal amendments of March last, a petition was received from residents in the .2- vicinity 2- vicinity of "The Five Forks" so called, asking that the Zoning Law be amended to eliminate business on both sides of Lincoln Street except the southerly corner lots on NIarrett Road, and upon both sides of Marrett Road and School Street north of Lincoln Street. The petition was based upon the feeling of the residents that there was no present call for the large business area provided by the existing Zoning Law, and that it was better to restore a substantial part of it to the status of a residential district until a real need for an enlarged business district in that locality should develop. At the request of the Planning Board, the petitioners generously consented to defer consideration of this petition un- til after the other and more important amendments were disposed of. It was felt that to inject this particular matter into the broader project then under consideration would tend to con- fuse the entire subject. Now that the main amendments are out of the way, this particular matter will be brought before the town at an early date. In this connection it is well to state that there is at present a preponderance of opinion that it is better not to provide business districts very much beyond immediate require- ments. Vihen our Zoning Law was adopted, the best opinion was to provide business districts in advance of immediate require- ments, but experience in Lexington, as well as elsewhere, has ' shown pretty conclusively that to so plan means a scattered development within the business districts, by isolated stores, ill -arranged and undesirable from every angle. Such scattered business development does not add appreciably to the value of the property as business property, and it practically ruins inter- vening residential properties so that no worthwhile improvement. comes from the development. By keeping the business districts down approximately to immediate or immediately prospective needs, a more compact business development is assured, appreciation of values is attained and unnecessary depreciation of residential values is avoided. While it is probably unwise to undertake to interfere very much with what has already been allotted to business development, it will henceforth be well to be governed by past experience and not unnecessarily increase provision for future business beyond the then immediate requirements; and where, as in "The Five Forks" district, a strong sentiment has developed for a return of a part from business to residential uses, such change may well be made. Following disposal of the Zoning Law, the Planning Board has been busy throughout the year upon other and miscellaneous matter, many of which were and are of substantial importance. One of these matters related to the display of "For Sale" and "Sold" signs upon various properties throughout the town. Being of the opinion that the increasing number of such -3 - signs upon our principal streets - frequently several signs to a lot - not only seriously disfigured the town, but also tended to create a false impression that something was wrong with the town, the Planning Board sough the co-operation of the Realtors In some agreement to regulate the practice. Accordingly, in June last, communications upon the sub- ject were addressed to a large number of Realtors - opinions were sought and suggestions were invited, following which, upon Invitation of the Planning Board, some twenty Realtors doing bus- iness in Lexington met with the Board in the Selectmen's room on the evening of October 21st, for a discussion. The possibility was considered of an agreement to refrain from posting such signs altogether, there being a large body of well considered opinion that the display of signs does not pro- mote advantageous sales of properties. Surprising as it may seem, the Realtors, themselves were willing to agree to dispense with the signs but, since no way could be found for bringing individual property owners within such an agreement, it was necessary to abandon the idea as im- practicable. The Realtors, however, did agree unanimously to erect no "Sold" signs thereafter in Lexington; that all existing "For Sale" or "For Rent" signs that did not conform to the new ' Zoning Law restriction or six square feet maximum area should be replaced by signs conforming to such restriction; that all "For Sale" or "For Rent" signs should thereafter be mounted upon one or more posts instead of being nailed upon trees, and that all existing signs that were nailed to trees should be re- moved as promptly as possible; that all signs thereafter erected should be set back twenty feet from the sidewalk to conform with the Zoning Law set -back requirement; and that none of the Realtors would thereafter install a "For Sale" or "For Rent" sign upon any property in Lexington that already carried one such sign. It is believed that the appearance of the town will be much improved when the foregoing agreements shall have been put into effect. A gratifying result of the conference was the unanimous expression from the Realtors present of their belief in our Zoning Law, their willingness to work for its enforcement and their confidence in the town itself. They were outspoken in their emphasis of the high standing of Lexington among the towns of the betropolitan District and pledged their efforts to maintain that standing so far as within their power. A great deal of time has been given to the general sub- ject of the drainage and development of the Vine Brook drainage area. The project itself is a large one and of very great im- portance to the town. If that area is not drained and rendered -4 - suitable for first-class residential development, it is certain to go to a low -class, undesirable development. If well developed, it will bring a large taxable return to the town; if it goes to an undesirable development, it will become an actual charge upon the town. We are very glad. to report that the principal owner of property in that area, Mr. Charles W. Ryder, is co-operating heartily with the Planning Board, with the end in view of ob- taining the best possible development for residential purposes. Coir. Ryder's engineer has been working closely with the Planning Board and, as the result of the many studies and conferences that have been had, the Planning Board has recently informally approved the proposed layout of streets, etc., and that layout Is now before the Board of 6urvey for definite and authoritative action. The area above referred to as having had intensive study, is that located between Highland Avenue and Waltham Street, and extending from Vine Brook Road to the vicinity of Marrett Road. The Planning Board now contemplates detailed study of the remainder of the area to the west of 1,11altham Street, embracing what gener- ally may be referred to as the "Playground" area. The Planning Board is of the opinion that the importance of'this development justifies any amount of time and study that may reasonably be required for its adequate presentation to the town. Considerable study has been given to the proposed estension of East Street through to Bedford Street. In addition to the preliminary hearings held by the Selectmen, which the Planning Board attended, the Planning Board, with representatives of the Selectmen, attended a joint hearing in Arlington at which Chair- man Harriman, of the Metropolitan Planning Division, explained plans to make of the proposed East Street extension a more im- portant highway than had been originally planned. This project has developed to a point where the Metropolitan Planning Division has now introduced before the Legislature a bill to provide for the widening and development of the Alewife Brook Boulevard and to amplify its connection with the Mystic Boulevard, which is to be straightened and widened to its connection with Summer Street, which latter is also to be straightened and widened, continuing up Lowell Street to East Street. Thence East Street is to be widened and straightened, or a new boulevard built, that will extend across the open area to the west of Adams Street and, touching Grove Street, will cross the open country to the west thereof and join Bedford Street in the vicinity of the Lexington-3edford line. This will provide an ample cut-off for traffic originating in New Hampshire and destined for Medford, Revere, Malden and points north of Boston, and will remove the major part of such traffic from Massachusetts Avenue through the center of the town. The bill proposes that this road, so far as Lexington is concerned, shall be built at the sole expense of the Commonwealth except that the town will be required to cover the land damages. Since the land is not at present particularly valuable, and since the owners would be benefited by the construction and are generally in favor of it, the cost to the town should not be much more than nominal. It is under- stood, however, that the bill, if passed, will be conditioned upon the town, at some later date, providing at its own ex- pense a cut-off from Summer Street to Maple Street, to eliminate the present sharp junction point, so as to improve the present way from Summer Street to Marrett Road in East Lexington. Other street matters considered by the Planning Board were: a new layout for Hill Street; Naltham Street widening; plan for proposed street leading off Massachusetts Avenue near Summit Avenue to connect with Columbus Street; Spencer Street layout; HInchey Road layout; and the rearrangement of the streets at "The Five Forks". This latter project has engaged the study of the Planning Board at several of its meetings, and has proved to be a problem of unusual complexity. The principal question has been whether to retain the present triangular area at the junction point or to remove it and, dispensing with the cut-off now flanking the triangular plot at its northerly side, bring the intersections down to the more simple form of crossing of Lincoln Street and Marrett Road, with wide curves at the four corners. The Planning Board has finally recommended the reten- sion of the triangular area. The matter of building lines on Massachusetts Avenue near the Arlington line has had very considerable further attention by the Planning Board, but as yet no definite results can be re- ported. The board is still at work upon the subject and it is hoped something by way of advance may be reported during the coming year. The Planning Board has considered the subject of sites for new Fire Engine houses, both at the center and East Lexing- ton, and has reported its recommendations to the Selectmen. Considerable study was given to the project of the Swim- ming Pool recently constructed by the town, and its recommenda- tions were reported to the Selectmen. A number of hearings were held for consideration of what is known as the Innis and McLellan development between School Street and Marrett Road, extending from Massachusetts Avenue down to the apex at "The Five Forks". The owners showed a very commendable willingness to co-operate with the Planning Board, with the result that a satisfactory layout was arrived at and recommended to the Board of Survey for adoption. Consideration was given to a proposed development of the Baker estate at 1404 Massachusetts Avenue, which was to serve as the basis for a sale. The plan submitted was not approved by the Planning hoard and the sale was not consummated. The owner of a property is of course privileged to develop it whenever he so desires and considers it to be to his interest to do so. It is not within the power of the town ordinarily to prevent such a development; all that can be done is to regulate it, so far as possible, for the benefit of the town - and that means usually for the benefit of the owner also, since the -6 - interest of both town and owner are in the final analysis ordinarily found to be identical. This regulation of development in general is the business of the Planning Board, and the Baker project was an instance in point. It would be better both for the town and for the owner to have the property developed, if at all, in con- junction with a larger scheme involving neighboring properties, but if this cannot be had, and development is insisted upon, the plan recommended by the Planning Board appears to be next best. At any rate, it cannot be developed otherwise than in accordance with that plan without further hearings and approval by the officials of the town. Plans were also considered and approved by the Planning Board for development of what is known as the 'Golden Guernsey Farm", property on Lincoln Street west of "The Five Forks". This development also has not yet progressed to actual accomplish- ment, but the plans are approved for such development if and when it becomes expedient to undertake it. More or less time has been consumed at a number of meet- ings of the Board in connection with the development by the Star Realty Company of property on and adjacent to Sylvia Street, East Lexington. No definite plans have resulted from this con- sideration. The various plans submitted from time to time by the owners have not been satisfactory to the Planning Board and approval has been withheld. ' Numerous other and minor matters have come up for con- sideration and appropriate action taken. The work of the Planning Board is still hampered by lack of engineering service, and it is hoped that at the coming Town keeting an appropriation may be made that will make possible the needed engineering staff. Instead of being in advance of the individual develop- ments in the town, the board in almost every instance is behind them, and instead of being able to outline broad constructive plans to which local developments shall be made to conform, the work of the board is largely confined to jumping from one in- dividual project to another, regulating as best it can the in- dividual developments without opportunity to coordinate them with the more important and larger plans. This unsatisfactory line of work must continue until the town provides additional en- gineers to permit the Planning Board to obtain the data that will make it possible to plan ahead in anticipation of individual developments. As it is now, when an individual owner wishes to develop his farm, or when a realtor purchases a farm for development, it is his right to have a plan therefor approved with reasonable ' promptness. Because of our inability to plan ahead and present a major scheme already developed, to which minor or individual plans shall be adapted, the Planning Board is now obliged to -7 - drop whatever work it is engaged upon and take.:up the individual plan last presented, act upon it as best it can, and then take up another, and so on, jumping from one scheme to another. While ' in the main we have been able to handle the various propositions with a fair degree of satisfaction and, on the whole, in a manner to protect the town, it is clearly not the best procedure, and a time will come at no distant date when these individual develop- ments will be found to block larger and more important plans that have to do with necessary through highways and open play- ground and park areas, all of which should have been laid out in advance of the subordinate developments. Respectfully submitted, Frederick L. Emery, Chairman C. Edward Glynn, J. Henry Duffy, William D. Milne, Clarence H. Cutler, Nelson J. Bowers, Clark. C 1