Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1953-11-16PLANNING BOARD MEETING Monday, November 16, 1953 Present: Adams, Grindle, Hathaway, Irwin, Potter, Ripley PUBLIC HEARING' Public hearing held at 8:00 o'clock in Cary Hall on proposed amendment to Lexington Zoning By-law whereby certain areas would be changed to require 150' frontage, 40,000 sq. ft. area, as per attached description. This was proposed by a majority of the Board, Mr.'Potter not being wholly in accord. Hearin; was opened by Mr. Adams, Chairman.. reading the notice as it appeared in the Lexington Minute -man with the exception of the long description of affected area which was omitted by approval of those present. Mr. Adams explained that this proposal was submitted on the basis of trying to retain some of the openness of the town and to try to alleviate some of the pressure caused by the recent rapid growth. The Board hopes to present to the annual town meeting a request for a sum of money for help in the way of a professional planner. For advanced planning it is essential to know what the future town population will be. Mr. Caouette questioned as to how the Board was divided on the question, and Mr. Potter identified himself as the minority. William C. Madden, 955 Mass. Ave. I would like to know the reason for the Planning Board's selection of 40,000 sq. ft. A. Looked at many towns of a similar nature where it seemed to work and it seemed to be a figure which would help keep the open- ness of the town. Mr. McLaughlin, Oak St. What would be the approximate cost of 40,000 feet? A. (Potter) Would depend on area - on areas where new zoning is proposed, probably in the vicinity of $1000 an acre. McCormack - (Had wrong understanding of area. Mr. Adams ex- plained again where the area was.) Caouette. Why did the Board pick this particular area and to what length did the Planning Board study it. Understand it was done in a hurry. It precludes further growth on Follen Hill. Also mentioned Marrett Road, other side of 128, and Bartlett avenue. Mr. Adams stated could not go into detailed discussion on each specific ownership, but considerable thought had been given to final boundary. r M 1 Mrs. Fletcher, Moon Hill. How much population could be taken care of in inner zone? ' A. At the moment we do not know. Estimate under present zoning 97711 additional houses; under proposed zoning, number of houses in 15,500 - 2196; outside under change, 3410 - total 5600. Does not in- clude vacant lots, swamp, etc. Rocque, Grant St. Based law on study of other towns - would like to know what towns you think analogous. A. (Gave figures on Needham, Reading, Concord, Lincoln, Milton, Hingham.) Larger lots have been considered for a long time. Mr. Madden. Who 44,000? A. It seemed to answer the need and we found that other towns have used it. We came to the conclusion that it would be wise to have a larger circle around the town based on general theory as soon as possible to retain the open area for which people came to Lexington. Tropear_o. Now many other towns have the same stringent better- ment requirements? A. Don't have those figures at present. Tarbox. Most people don't live on 40,000 ft. lot. Are the ' actual reasons dollars and cents - why change to 110,000? Lay the cards on the table, let's have the Planning Board tell us why it is necessary. A. First place, the basic principle is not to have the town grow to 55,000 population which is strictly metropolitan. 11000 less houses could maintain 35-110,000. Obher factors will result with smaller population, such as school sites for 55,000 as against 35,000, extension of sewers, etc. which run into considerable additional ex- pense. Income from new houses does not make up the difference. Potter (To stop growth - told original idea of buying up land.') Gail Smith. What do we expect to do with our increasing High School population when they expect to get out and start a home of their own. Cost would be prohibitive. A. Still 2100 possible house lots in smaller zone. Also many small lots left in new zone under previous zoning. Sherman. I strictly think it is wrong to set yourselves up as God to set up 110,000 feet as a lot. Think it is altogether wrong. A. The Planning Board is presenting its opinion - we cannot thrust it upon you. It is up to the town meeting members. We are pre- I senting this as a suggestion. I William Burnham. What will the tax rate be? A. Certainly will not have as rapid a development of the interior and you are not going to have the pressure for extension of sewer mains nor as many schools. Sullivan, Woburn st. What percent of taxes is for schools? A. 30-35%. Hall. Do you mean that there are 2100 lots within the area outlines? Yes, within the green line. Rocque. If pressure for extension of sewer is less, is it the theory that a septic tank will work better on larger lot? A. We have had a great number of subdivisions before us. One of the most bothersome has been inadequate sewage disposal. It would be desirable in many cases to have more land. We have no feeling that this larger lot would absolutely mitigate, but 110,000 would give better disposal than 15,500. Burnham. What betterments do other towns require? ' A. We do not have adequate figures here. Half of our work is approval of subdivisions,with land not on frontage streets where layout of roads has to be approved. When approved, the necessary Board of Health tests passed, the developer has to pay for the street, for the water, for the drainage, and for the sewer connections with trunk mains available. Some towns have even more stringent rules. We expect to have figures for town meeting. McCormack. Are you aware that any large developer or group of developers have secured land in this area? A. Yes, a number of developments have started. Is it the purpose of the Planning Board to prevent it? A. Not in essence. This is positively the last change to pre- vent it. At the time we changed to larger lots in 1950 several people said, If you do this I will never build another house in this town, and you have seen what happened. Don't you think that the danger in requiring 110,000 feet might be with the value and therefore if devaluated the owner might turn around and sell to some developer who will in 2-3 years put pressure on the town to make smaller lots? ' No action is going to hold forever. Think it is a rather long shot danger. Better to be a little more reasonable in lot sizes and go along with some of the developments now taking place than to put it in the hands of men who will hold on for future development. ' A. We have no right to consider any specific developer or landowner. We thought 40,000 ft. reasonable but this could be amended down. Mrs. Swenson. Does the Planning Board have over-all plan for development of Lexington? A. No. We plan at coming town meeting to ask for a fairly good-sized sum of money to have with us a planning consultant for use on part-time basis. We have talked with several, but we have to have policy set on what is going to be the maximum population before we can do anything. Would it not be more reasonable to get the help of such an expert to get an overall plan first? A. First have to know who is going to use this. From there on you can go into advanced planning. We have used as much expert advice in this matter as possible. Sullivan. Any ruling of Federal Government whereby they could come in and build as they want to? A. Under the present set-up that private contractor has to ' follow rules and regulations of towns, but if government buys the land they can build whatever they want to on it. Grosser. Is there on the books of the laws of Lexington an iron -clad rule whereby the builder must put in all utilities? A. That is in the subdivision code. When you do require utilities, do you require a bond? A. Yes. Require a bond of completion. Under the new State Code the builder now has the option of putting up a contract bond or restriction from selling any of the land until he has completed the work as to his agreement with the town. Subdivision rules and regu- lations have to be registered at East Cambridge court. The Board has an arbitrary power to make the requirements even stiffer, such as re- quiring underground wires, curb -stones, etc. which would make the cost prohibitive to build. What regress would a property owner have to be exempt from these regulations? A. By applying to the Board of Appeals or further going to Superior Court. ' Gilman. If the town wanted to it could of course erase the 110,000 feet and put it back. Have any of the towns who had 110,000 ft, gone back? 1 A. I don't know off -hand, but will find out. Page. If 10,000 ft. required to build, might we not miss more developments like Follen Hill? A. We have felt that the growth would slow down but it hasn't. Lexington still has the most undeveloped land around Boston. Moakley. I own about 3 acres and have a house in the middle. If.I wanted to put in another home would be unable to. A. The Board of Appeals is set up to take care of geographical injustices. Swenson. If all the building is stopped or slowed down what would be the effect on the tax rate? A. I don't think I can give an answer. Would have to figure expenditures. Many feel that if the growth were not so extensive with things piling up it would probably be eased. Sullivan. How many landowners would be affected? A. That I cannot give you but will try to have by town meeting. Packard. An acre of land worth $1.000, if a house built on this acre costs $15,000, ratio is 1-15. A. (Potter). Why worry. If a house costs $15,000 it is relatively unimportant whether on a large or small lot. Land is a small fraction of the cost. McKechnie. Large lots usually have high value - taxes and assessments are also high. I think the town wants larger lots rather than lower value and lower assessment. If you don't want the high, move to Cambridge. We are not trying to keep people out but are trying to give them a good place to live. Rocque. It seems the Planning Board is not prepared. I tried to get figures and get some kind of reason for same. Lots of questions unanswered. A. We are going to find out. We are not trying to do it in a scientific way, we are dealing with a question of policy which does not come from a slide rule. That is the reason for this meeting. We may lack information and we are looking for reasons and that is the reason we are holding a hearing, to give everybody a chance to give evidence either for or against. It would be possible for somebody to come up with an idea that might throw the whole thing out. We want to see whether the people want to do this. We present this as our best guess. We don't have many figures, we don't know how many lots left in center of town, but we will find out. This is our best opinion at this time. We will have the figures for town meeting. Greeley. The purpose of the hearing is for the people to help the Planning Board in getting their opinion. Can change minds ' any time. Buckley. Thinks the board came in poorly prepared. This is nothing new. Kelley. I wonder how many of the objectors came in with nega- tive views already in mind without getting data. (Preamble to State Zoning Laws read.) Kelley. (Here presented amendment which in essence would allow in the proposed new area an averaging of lots in a development over 10 acres which he stated would alleviate some hardship on large land- owners.) Proponents. Harvey. Think you came up tonight with the right answer, but afraid it is too late. 100% with it. Grosser. As an individual resident an in favor. I am required to speak as President of Town Affairs Group that we will support this proposal practically without qualification. Believe the Planning Board has done a very commendable job. Think it should have been done sooner. Have even heard the word "retroactive" mentioned. At least believe. , this is a stop -gap measure and is something we should do. Also call to your attention that the very first resolution acted upon by this group in the interest of town affairs of Lexington was opposition to piece -meal rezoning. Now think the Board should request a sum of money to secure a professional for the study of planning for Lexington. Elmer Frey. This year agrees. Thinks one of the`,things the town needs is more space. Greeley. No control of building that goes on 40,000 fto lot but cannot conceive of small building on large lot. Planning Board may recommend a minimum size lot but size of buildings cannot be de- termined by the zoning by-law. If we can get an assessed value of $6-7000 on a building, the town maintains sewerage, utilities, you can see that it will be an improvement in tax rate. Barnes. Opposed. Going a long ways away when going to Hing- ham. Why not look at towns nearby like Waltham. Packard. Record as in favor of openness, but does not think this might be the best way. Mr. Coquilette. In favor. Mr. Chesley Dunlap: In favor. ' Madden. I own a piece of property. I think it is evident that 1 1 my misgivings are based on the size of the lots to the area of the town affected by the proposed change. The original by-law provided for 5,000 sq. ft. Amended in 1929• Amended in 1938 to 12,500, and amended in 1950 to 15,500. The largest of these changes was 5000 sq. ft. and the smallest 2500 sq. ft. The proposed change is 24,500. I understand it applies to over 4000 of a total of 10,000 acres in town. 2500 provided for harmonious growth of the town. One of the nicest things is spirit of equality and neighborliness. This proposal would do violence to that in the sense that you have on one side of the street 5000 and on the other 40,000. Tends to segregation. This is to be considered above tax rate. There is no question but that having 40,000 we are going to keep out young people with children. Record as in opposition. Anker. Opposed as too drastic an increase. Hargrove. Too much change. Rocque. Against. Show of hands - In favor, 65; Opposed, 62. Approximately 300 in attendance. lmb Hearing adjourned at 10:30 o'clock. Thomas S. Grindle, Clerk