HomeMy WebLinkAbout1938-03-04PLANNING BOARD HEARING
March 41, 1938
' Present:- Greeley, Kimball, Nickerson, Ferguson and Ellis.
A public hearing was held under the provisions of Section 17
in the Selectments Room of the Town Office Building at 8:00 P.M.
for the purpose of considering the following proposed amendment
to the Lexington toning By- Law and I,,iap.
To substitute under Area Regulations, Section 6, a new section
6 to read as follows:- I
Section 6. (a) In R.1 and R.2 Districts no dwelling shall be
erected within the areas hereinafter defined, except upon a lot
having a street frontage of not less than 100 feet, an area of
not less than 12,500 :square feet, and having no other dwelling
thereon. The first of said areas shall be bounded by the center
line or intersection of center lines, of Summer Street commencing
at the Arlington Line and continuing to Lowell Street thence in
a straight line to the Brownts Brook Culvert under the railroad
right of way, thence along the railroad right of way to Woburn
Street, along Woburn Street to Laconia Street, along Laconia Street
to Ridge Road, thence in a straight line to the junction of Vine
Street and isanley Court extended, thence in a straight line to
the intersection of Bayes Lane and Grant Street, thence along
Grant Street to Old Colony Road, along Old Colony Road to woodland
Road, along `,doodland Road to Adams Street, along Adams Street to
' Hancock Street, along Hancock Street to Hancock Avenue, along
Hancock Avenue to the railroad right of way, along the railroad
right of S=tay to Revere Street, along Revere Street to Hancock
Street, along Hancock Street to Burlington Street, along Burlington
Street to Grove Street, along Grove Street to Eaton Road extended,
thence along Eaton Road to Bertwell Road, along Bertwell Road to
,'7illiams Road, along 'VUlliams Road to Bedford - Street, along Bedford
Street as far as the southeast boundary of the school property,
thence along this boundary to Valley Road, along Valley Road to
the railroad right of way, along the railroad right of way to
Center Street, along Center Street to Ward Street, along 1'7ard
Street to Garfield Street, along Garfield Street to Locust Street,
thence in a straight line to the intersection of Cedar Street
and Freemont Street, thence along Freemont Street extended to
Wood Street, along Wood Street to Iviassachusetts Avenue, along
N'assachusetts Avenue to Old County Road, thence in a straight
line to the intersection of Roosevelt Road and Wilson Road, along
'Jilson Road to i_arrett Road, along Larrett Road to Lincoln Street,
along Lincoln Street to Weston Street, along Weston Street to
Shade Street, along Shade Street to Spring Street, along Spring
Street to Larrett Road, along Miarrett Road to Waltham Street,
along Waltham Street to Vine Brook Road, along Vine Brook Road
to 1!1inthrop Road, along '17inthrop Road to Highland Avenue, along
Highland Avenue to Pelham Road, along Pelham Road to Massachusetts
Avenue, along I"assachusetts Avenue to I+Jarrett Road, along Marrett
' Road to Follen Road, along Follen Road to Pinewood Street, along
Pinewood Street to Surmit Road, along Summit Road to Fern Street,
along Fern Street to Pleasant Street, along Pleasant Street to
Massachusetts Avenue, alongI�assachusetts Avenue to Oak Street,
along Oak Street to Carville Avenue, along Carville Avenut to
Butler Avenue, along Butler Avenue extended to the Arlington
Line, along the Arlington Line in a northeasterly direction
to the paint of beginning. The second of said areas shall
consist of the lots, outside the first area, which front
directly upon the said portions of said bounding streets.
'(b) In all other parts of the Town, outside the boundaries
of the areas above described, no dwelling shall be erected
except upon a lot having a street frontage of not less than
100 feet, an area of not less than 25,000 square feet and
having no other dwelling thereon.
(c) On each side of each dwelling or other permitted main
structure there stlall be provided a side yard of not less than
fifteen feet in width, which shall be kept open from the front
line of the main structure to the rear line thereof.
(d) Where a corner lot has its corner bounded by a curved
line connecting other bounding lines which if extended would
intersect, the frontage and area shall be computed as if such
bounding lines were so extended.
(e) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this sec-
tion, if adjacent lots, any of which has less area or frontage
than required by this'section, are recorded by plan or deed as
all in the same ownership at the time this by-law is adopted,
and if (1) substantial expenditures have been incurred, prior
to that time, toward the improvement of these lots or approved
ways giving access thereto, or towards utilities serving such
lots, which improvements or utilities would be diminished in
value in a substantial amount by a literal enforcement of the
terms of this section, or if (2) adjoining areas have been'.
prior to that time, developed to a substantial extent by the
construction of houses on lots generally smaller than is pre-
scribed by this section and the standard of the neighborhood so
established does not reasonably require a subdivision.of the
applicant's land into lots as large as is hereby prescribed,
then the owner of these lots may apply to the Board of Appeals
for relief from the terms of this section as applying to any
of these lots, and the Board of Appeals may grant such relief
by making special exceptions to the terms of this section,
subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of this by-law, where
desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without substantially derogating from
the intent or purpose of this by-law.
(f)'And furthermore, notwithstanding the said foregoing
provisions, nne dwelling may be erected upon a lot containing
less than the above required areas or frontages if such lot
was duly recorded by plan or deed at the time of the adoption
of this by-law, and did not at the time of such adoption
adjoin other land of the same owner available for use in
connection with such lot.
The Uhairman declared the hearing open at 8:00 and the
Clerk moved that the reading of the notice of hearing which
appeared in the February 17th issue of the Lexington Minuteman
1
r
be dispensed with unless requested.
Iir. ' ureeley outlined the two areas on the map and explained that the matter to be considered first was the subject of enlarg-
ing thm
e inimum lot size required for dwellings. The original
Zoning Law specified a minimum of 5000 square feet with a 50 foot
fronta#e and was increased in 1929 to the present 7500 square feet
with 75 foot frontage, which is uniform throughout the Town. The
Planning Board has studied what other Towns are doing and is in
step with the general trends. Consideration was given to sizes
of 15,000 and 401,000 foot areas and 100 and 150 foot frontages
but such indications as the Board was able to obtain, appeared to
lean toward smaller figures and the 12,500 foot lot and 100 foot
frontage for the built up part of the Town and 250000 foot lots
for the outlying areas was chosen for the amendment There is a
great deal of difficulty in preparing any law applying to the
whole Town which does not work a hardship on someone. The Board
believes this amendment will tend to help the development of the
lots nearer the center and due to the fact that there are miles
of street and sewer already laid, it seems advantageous to'the
citizens as a whole that the area already developed be used before
new areas are so serviced. It was the feeling of the Board that
it was wise to step up to 12,500 and 25,000 instead of a'flat
1.0,000 as there is a tendency toward larger lots and if set at
10;000 it would probably be necessary later on to inerease'it
again. It is felt that a stable policy is being advanced and is
not too drastic. Pair. Greeley indicated on a map the areas noW
served by the sewer system, the area which can be served by the
present system and the area which cannot be drained into the
present system. He explained that if the latter area is allowed
to develop, it will mean separate sewer systems with separate
pumping stations which will be a very expensive undertaking. The
lot sizes proposed will, in general, be sufficient to make each
lot self draining and avoid the necessity for pumping stations.
Mx. Walter Black asked if in laying out the 12,500 and 25,000
foot areas, drainage was considered and asked about drainage of
his land in back of Highland Avenue.
Mr. Greeley replied that that land could be drained into
the present sewer system.
Mr. Black stated that the land drains into Vine Brook. He
then asked why most of his land so near the center is put into
the large lots like the outlying areas.
I'dr. Greeley replied that the Board tried to make the division
so as to include in one the land that was more or less in the settled
area and in line for immediate development in connection with the
main residential areas of the Town, and•in the other group, land
which is not in immediate line of development and which is not
subject to drainage into our sewer system. II
' Iiir. Kimball stated that the land included in the 12,500 foot
area is higher land and under normal conditions is self -draining.
Pr':r. Black stated that the 'sewerage system did not bother him
as there were other ways of handling sewerage besides pumping
it. He bought some very expensive land and could have got'rid
of it 10 years ago if he wanted to build small, cheap houses.
He said it cost hiffi a lot of money to lay it out. He felt that
at the present time, no one wants a lot larger than what he, Mr.
Black, now has.. He also stated that he did not think the Planning
Board Should go into the building code to regulate the 15 foot
side yard. He felt that with a 100 foot lot and 15 foot side
yard, a man has either got to hitch his garage on to his house
or else build his house close to the street, but thinks it would
be better if a house could be built nearer the back line. He
said he would like to see a 35 foot setback instead of 20 feet.
Mr. Greeley replied that with the 100 foot frontage which
is proposed there is 70 feet left with the 30 feet taken off for
side yards. '
Mr. Black stated that he could not see any sense in keeping
15 feet from the service side of the house as a builder always
tries to keep the most of the land on the living room side of
the house.
Mr. Greeley stated that in regard to the 15 foot side line;
a garage can be built right up to the line if it has a masonry '
wall.
Mr. T. A. Custance stated that he thought the Planning '
Board should be complimented in bringing this matter before the
Town and felt that it is a real problem which has been in the
minds of the Town's people for many years. He did not agree
with a'lot,of things proposed by the Planning Board and feels
that 10,000 minimum lot would be satisfactory. He stated that
he was very much interested in this problem and would like to
see the entire Town laid off -in tentative lots. He thinks the
different sections of the Town should be studied and worked out
so if -a person wanted to build there would be something definite
to go on. He thinks each section should be studied separately
so there would be a key plan for each section and so there would
not be one lot of 25,000 feet and a lot of 40,000 just opposite.
lie stated that he thought the matter should be studied more
thoroughly and does not think it should be passed on at the
coming flown Meeting unless it is just for the 10,000 foot area.
He also stated that the Town is blessed by having the Cambridge -
Concord Highway and the fairly immediate prospect of an improved
Lowell Turnpike and Route 128, giving the Town a network of trunk
highways from which there is an opportunity to develop major
highways of the Town and thinks this matter should be studied as
a Town, not as small areas.
Yr. Robert L. Ryder stated that he would like to know the
reason for the enlargement of the minimum size of lots, that if
drainage and sewerage were the reasons, the sewerage part of it '
did not impress him as sufficient for a change of this kind. He
said that of the few sales they had made in the last two years,
3 of them wanted smaller lots. He would like to see his land
in Lexington in smaller units rather than larger ones as he
thinks it will encourage developw nt. He agrees with 11r.
CustAnce that a minimum of 10000 feet should be laid out. He
' stated that they have laid out lots of 12,500 and some of the
lots on Frinthrop Road are 15,000 and 18,000 and said that their
experience calls for smaller lots and is just the opposite of
what the Planning Board. is advocating.
bir. Greeley stated that people who can afford to have a.
small house are designing them so they can add to them later on
so they want large lots. The government is encouraging small
houses but is not encouraging small lots.
Bir. Neil 1clntosh stated that in 1910 and 1911 the size of
lots was generally 40 feet although in Dorchester, Jamaica Plain
and some other cities the lot size was as low as 25 feet. He started
developing in 1910 and his first layout had 45 foot lots, and
since that time he has gradually increased, laying out Sunnyfield
with lots of 60 and 75 feet. In laying out Fair Oaks, he had
75 foot lots but as there was no sale for them, he had to cut
them down to 50 feet. Eighty percent of the people have a yearly
income of w2000.00 and the larger you make the lots, the more
you reduce the size of the house since he is limited in the amount
he can spend. The man who has two lots side by side is penalized
under the proposed amendment. If a man has a 60 foot lot and an
adjoining lot of 60 feet,,he has got to use the two lots or go
before the Board of Appeals. Iie felt that the suggestion that
the Town should be laid out in some way so a developer can study
' the situation before he starts to develop is a very good one.
He -said the Simonds property is a wonderful piece of property
that is outside of the 12,500 foot district and that it could not
be opened with any profit on a 251000 foot basis. He also stated
that this plan will divide his property on Shade Street by divid-
ing the lots on the two sides of the street. He said that not
2% of the lots in Fair Oaks are less than 7500 feet and some of
them are 13000 feet. He did not see how drainage could be con-
sidered. He said that if a man had a,large lot, it would mean
a lot of lawn to care for and which would not be kept up. He
was afraid it would hurt the Town to see a lot of weeds and
rubbish and would rather see a smaller lot that a man could take
care of. he stated that he did not like paragraph (e) relating
to the Board of Appeals. He understood that their decision had
to be unanimous. He also $aid that if (f) went through, the Town
would have law suits. He felt that it is impossible to lay out
all lots the same size.
Bir. Greeley stated that it must be remembered that there are
lots for sale at 25 foot frontage and the number does not decrease.
the Board is not putting through something that will bring about
a situation where all lots in Lexington will be as large as 12,500
foet or 25,000 feet for years and years. He felt that this ghould
be a benefit to those who own land in Lexington in stabilizing
the market. If a person has competition on the basis of 40 foot
' lots, he must sell 40 foot lots. If the lots around a mans
property are,larger in size, his market is changed by this fact.
There are going to be small lots left in Lexington and the market
is going to be helped and stabilized by restrictions which are
placed on all the land in the Town.
Pdr. McIntosh said that this amendment would be decided by
the members of a Limited Town Meeting and he felt they were not '
sufficientl-.r informed as to the desires of the citizens and
thought this problem should be -put on a ballot before the people.
Dor. Greeley replied that the Planning Board had made every
effort to obtain the opinion of the citizens and even put an
article in the weekly paper asking people to.write in on it.
That the Board had endeavored to protect the owners of small
lots and had provided an elastic treatment. If the matter was
to be put on a ballot, that should come from the citizens and not
the Planning Board.
Mr. McIntosh stated that you cannot build under the Zoning
Law with 25 foot lots. You must go before the Board of Appeals.
He said that back in 1923 when zoning first came up, he was one
of the people who satin with the Planning Board and the word
"elasticity" came up at every meeting which meant that it would
be stretched and it is not being stretched but is being contracted.
Mr. Greeley replied that the Planning Board is using the most
elastic by-law they could think of by providing for direct appeal
to a board made up of citizens of the Town..
Mr. McIntosh asked how the Building Inspector is going to
determine whether a lot is in the 12,500 or 25,000 foot area,when '
the boundary was a straight line and not a street, without survey-
ing it on the land.
Mr. Greeley replied that he would have to study the plan and
locate it on the Town plans.
Mr. A ll,�in Adams felt that this plan would force construction
into already developed streets.
Mr. George Morey stated that the requirements of Irvington
Park were 75 foot lot frontage and 7500 foot lots, and as the law
is now the neighborhood up there has no protection. He felt.that
the builders and developers of this town should commend the
Planning Board on what it is recommending. It \has been suggested
that we restrict the Town to more desirable typ s of residences
by forcing a larger area on them and there has been discussions
from the floor of previous Town liieetings. He felt that the
builders who have land to develop would make it easier for the
Planning B oard and make the Town a better Town if they supported
the moderate plan as suggested by the Planning Board.
X.r. Greeley stated that -the Planning Board wants to help any
citizen of the Town who has land for sale if that be possible and
at the same time safeguard the interests of the Town as a:whole.
He said that whatever system can be devised to safeguard the
citizens as a whole is what the Planning Board is of r.
Mr. Frank Ready asked what effect this would have on his
layout on mass. Avenue.
Nor. Greeley replied that to get a building permit, the per-
son who bought a lot would have to go before the Board of appeals.
Bair. Black stated that I,;r. Greeley had answered a question
' he had in mind by the statement "that there would be 25 foot lots
for years to come", and asked if 25 foot lots are available and
cannot be built upon, what good they would be. He also stated
that as he understood it, there is no cost to the Town for streets
and facilities, that the property owners pay for them. He said
that in his experience, the greatest demand is for an acre of
land with a 4 -room house and a place to keep chickens. lie felt
that the proposition was not fair as people own land and have .to
pay taxes but they can't go on forever paying taxes and will not
be able to sell in such large lots as recommended. He thought
that the demand now is for, one-half acre lots and under the present
law there is nothing to prevent it. He stated that he was in
favor of 100 foot lots but was not in favor of it being retroactive.
His lots are 90 feet. He asked why a man should be penalized
because someone else has cut up land into smaller lots. He felt
that if this proposition went through, there would be no chance
for development because.the lots would be so high priced that no
developer could make both ends meet.
L
Yr. Hyder stated that the lots will be so expensive that a
man will have to build a small house and the Town will thus have
an undesirable development. He did not agree with Mr. Black
that there is great demand for the large lots but thinks it is
going to come. A man is going to cut his land up and sell it
for what he can get.
Bir. Robert Eldridge, who came in late, asked just what areas
were to be included in the 12,500 and 25,000 foot lots and Mr.
Greeley handed him a small reap showing the areas included.
P,r. PuClntosh stated that a man would have to get $45.00 a
week to maintain a 25,000 foot lot.
Bir. Greeley stated that if the market contains buyers who
have $40.00 a week and others who have $45.00 a week and the Town
stabilizes different size lots; it would be able to meet the needs
of the different classes of buyers. There are plenty of the small
lots left to take care of that part of the market. ,
Bir. IAclntosh said he had his land already laid out and if.
this goes through will have to use different lots in order to
make lots of the size required, and will have to go to the pur-
chasers and have them go to the Board of Appeals. He felt that
it would be hard unless he had something definite to say to the
purchaser. He stated that lie has brought 500 families into
Lexington and has always taken pains to select the right class
of people. He feels that the Town would be the loser.
Mr. Greeley asked ir. McIntosh if he would suggest taking
out Section (e) and have 100000 foot lots with 100 foot frontage
but do not make it retroactive.
Mir. Black stated that would not help him any and asked how
many lots there were in the areas as laid out that came up to'
the requirements.
VIr. Greeley replied that he did not know. '
T41r. Robert Merriam.felt that this is quite a serious matter
if made retroactive. In various developments there has been
money spent which would be jeopardized this way. The former
changes in the zoning law have not been retroactive.
Mr. Greeley stated that it is very difficult to amend what
has once been placed in a warrant, but if it seems wise to cut
out Section (e), he felt certain that -is within the power of the
citizens voting at this meeting to so amend.
Tdir. Kimball stated that after a notice had been published
and a hearing held on an amendment, only minor changes could be
safely made on the 'Town Meeting floor and if the suggested amend-
ment of this article went through it would be considered a major
change and might not pass the Attorney General.
Mr. Ryder thought it would be passed by the Attorney General
because it is cutting down, not adding.
Mr. McIntosh felt that something definite should be worked
out.
Yr. Greeley stated that he would be very disappointed if '
the matter was indefinitely postponed at the coming Town I:Ieeting
and did not at least go to a counted vote so that the Board
could get the pulse.
Tdr. C ustance stated that everyone agrees that this is
important to -the Town and thought there should be a modification
of the by-law. He said he was not in favor of the amendment but
realized that something along that line should be worked out.
Thr. Greeley stated that the Board is trying to propose some-
thing simpler than other towns and wants to find out in the Town
Meeting how the people feel about it, if it is 5- - 50 or what
it is.
Mr. Ryder stated that he had not heard of the change until
he saw it in the Town Warrant and asked if the Board thought
the Town heeting Lembers would be ready to vote intelligently
on this matter.
IVir. Greeley replied that the matter has been presented to
the Board of Trade, Viest Lexington Improvement Association,
Hancock hen's Club and other organizations that the Minuteman
had carried several articles, and the Board had never tried
harder to get the reaction of the people than in this case.
Mr. Ryder stated that he is not ready to approve it as he '
thought it a matter not to be acted upon hastily.
' Ta=r. Greeley asked for other speakers.
V -1r. Ernest Nichols stated that he had no real estate to buy
or sell but would like to see the country parts of the Town remain
country pasts. He thought this proposition was intended to keep
the part of Lexington not now developed more open, more country,
and give adequate attention to'the developed areas.
:Lr. Ryder asked who is going to pay the taxes on the country
land.
As there were no others who wished to speak either in favor
or against the proposition, Tss. Greeley declared the hearing
closed at 10:30 P. ti.
Respectfully submitted,
ti�-S a%)-4
Clerk
1
H