HomeMy WebLinkAbout1937-02-19PLANNING BOARD HEARING
February 19, 1937
A Planning Board hearing was held in the Selectmenfs Room
of the Town Office Building, Lexington, on Friday, February 19,
1.937, at 8:00 P. M., upon the initiative of the Planning Board
to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law and asap as per attached
notice of hearing. Messrs. Borden, Kimball, Ferguson, Kraetzer,
and Nickerson were present.
Mr. Borden declared the hearing open and Mr. Kimball read
the notice of hearing which had been published in the February
4th issue of the Lexington Minuteman and sent to the property
owners affected by the change.
Fir. Borden explained that Item A of the notice of hearing
was in regard to the redefining of the description of the metes
and bounds of the Bean Amendment adopted,in 1930. The.Planning
Board is recommending this merely to make the text uniform, in
anticipation of a reprint of the Voning,By-Law. The original
description was not properly`placed,in the By -Law and is based
on non -permanent marks. The new description has been furnished
by the Engineering Department.
Mr. Borden asked if anyone wished to speak in regard to
this section, and as there were none, he stated that it would
be assumed that there were no objections and.proceeded to Section
In,regard to the first paragraph of Section B. with respect
to changing the Peterson property on the Concord Turnpike near
Blossom Street from C.1 District to a T.1 District, the Chair-
man asked if anyone wished to speak. There were none, and Mr.
Borden stated that it would be assumed that there were no ob-
jections and,discussion would proceed to the second paragraph
of Section B. dealing with the same change from a C.1 District
to a T.1 District of the property at the corner of the Concord
Turnpike and Watertown Street.
At this point Mr. Curlys L. Slocum.entered, and Mr. ,Borden
asked if he wished to speak in regard to the changing of the
Petersonroperty on the turnpike at Blossom Street from a 0.1
to a T.1 District. Mr. Slocum replied that he did not.
Mr. Borden then asked if anyone wished to speak on the
change of the Childs property from a C.1 to a T.1 District.
Mr, Calvin W. Childs stated that a few days before this
hearing he mailed a letter to the Board opposing the change,
explaining.in it that he had already placed restrictions on
the property when dealing with the Board of Appeals and that
considerable time had elapsed from the time the zoning was
changed until he received his permit. After some time, he
71
agreed with the Board of appeals that by consenting to eliminate
any use other than that of a filling station, (practically as
defined in a T.1 zone, with the exception of provision for an
automobile showroom), he would get his permit, and did so after '
signing the agreement drawn up by the Town Counsel.
He stated that he was very much surprised to get the
letter from the Planning Board regarding its intention to pro-
pose the change from a C.1 to a T.1 and asked to be recorded as
opposing it.
He said the possibility of stands and stores had been
spoken of at the various hearings, but he felt that a majority
of the people would not question his -sincerity in carrying on
of his own business. He stated that he would much rather have
had the land free and clear of restrictions but it seemed better
to compromise with the Board of Appeals to get the filling sta-
tion permit.
Mr. Kimball asked Mr. Childs what objection he had to
changing his property into a T.1 District when the restrictions
he now had made the property virtually in a,T.l Zone. Mr. Childs
replied that his objection was: that.the property had been
changed to a C.1 District with no restrictions; that at the time
of the Town Meeting he had been approached regarding changing to
a T.1 District but that he had always stated that what he wanted
was a filling station. He pointed out that Mr. Ryder stated at
the Town Meeting that Mr. Peterson would sign an agreement '
restricting his business to that of a filling station and
suggested Mr. Childs might agree to a similar restriction. At
that time, however, he had refrained from committing himself to
any such agreement. If he.had desired so to,restrict the prop-
erty.he would have said so then, but he did not so desire and did
not answer Mr. Ryder. Mr. Childs felt that he had taken a chance
on getting the property changed from a residence zone. He had
the property on an option to buy at that time but since then has
paid for it in full and feels that he should not have been asked
to sign as many restrictions as he has on the property.
Mr. -Borden asked Mr. Childs if his understanding was correct
that the contract provisions placed restrictions on the property
only so long as it was used as a gasoline station and that if
he or a subsequent owner decides to give up -the gasoline station
he could use the property for any uses permitted in a C.1 District.
Also that at the present time the agreement made definite•pro-
vision for the possibility of a showroom in conjunction with the
filling station.
IVr. Childs stated that he had not as yet made definite plans
for a showroom but one is provided for in the agreement. He stated
that Mr. Borden's understanding was correct.
Mr. Borden inquired of Mr. Childs if it had not been clear '
that the Planning Board had recommended the establishment of T.1
Districts for the highway from the start, and Mr. Childs replied
that he knew nothing of that plan until after he had acquired
the property. Mr. Borden then asked if Mr. Childs had been
present at the Town Meeting when the T.1 Zone was adopted and
when it was stated that it was the Planning Board's intention
' to propose changing the, C.1 Districts along this highway into
T.1 Districts at the next Town Meeting. Mr. Childs replied
that he did not go to the Town Meeting and did not know, that
the Planning Board was going to ask for the changes.
Mr. Borden asked Mr. Childs If he thought the Planning
Board should treat the two C.1 Districts differently and Mr.
Childs replied that he thought.they should be treated separately.
Mr. Kraetzer asked Mr. Childs if he did not think business
alont this highway would be detrimental to the Town, and Mr.
Childs replied that there was not much opportunity for,business
if it is limited to filling stations.
Mr. Borden pointed out that Mr. Childs could still give
up the filling station and convert it to a business zone.
Mr. Childs replied that if a $25,000.00 investment was
involved in a filling station he would not throw it over.
Mr. Borden remarked that he could not see why Mr. Childs
objected to the establishment of a T.1 District when this zone
permitted the business for which he had asked and in which he
was making his heavy investment. Mr. Childs replied that he
' had obtained the change from an R.l to a C.1 District and in
asking for his permit felt the property should have been left
100% C.1. He stated that he did not have anything to do with
hot dog stands and the chance of them is remote, and he thinks
the property should be left alone.
Mr. Borden asked Mr. Childs if he had talked with Mr.
W rightington in regard to the terms of the agreement he had
signed, and Mr. Childs replied that he had no conversation
with Mr. 47rightington but had talked only with the Board of
Appeals regarding the terms of an agreement. Mr. Borden pointed
out that the Planning Board had no connection with what the
Board of Appeals had done. Mr. Childs remarked that he had worked
with the Board of Appeals and asked them why he did not get his
permit, and that they finally gave it to him after he had signed
the agreement.
Mr. Slocum stated that he thought Mr. Childs► rights
should be respected and that he should not be tied down, as the
things to be guarded against might not occur until 10 or 15
years hence. He asked why Mr. Childs' property should be made
T.1 District when other properties nearby might be made C.1
Districts.
Mr. Borden replied that the situation could only be dealt
' with as it is now, and that the establishment of a T.1 District
does not mean that should changes develop, Mr. Childs coup
not petition for a change from 'i'.1 to C.1 at a later time.
Mr. Childs stated that if the other highway properties
were made into C.1 Districts, he was still bound by the agree-
ment into which he had entered while other people could conduct
any sort of business without restrictions. '
Mr..Borden suggested that under such conditions, the
Town might probably remove his restrictions.
h1r. Kraetzer asked Pair. Childs If he had a plan of his
development and Mr. Childs replied that he did not have it with
,him. However he realized that Mr. Kraetzer was a new member
of the Board and stated that he would get in touch with him
and show it to him.
Mr. Borden asked if there were further questions or
comments in regard to this section and as there were none, de-
clared that portion of the hearing closed.
The Chairman then took up Section C of the notice of
hearing and explained that it merely established the same set
back for the T.1 Zone -as applied to all other zones. He asked
if anyone wished to be heard and as there were none, declared
the hearing closed at 8:45 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
Clerk
7