Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-03-08't B ; ! ECAC t March 8, 1956 ' Alic meeting 3.ng was held in 13stabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Build- ing Qn March 8, 1956 at 7:55 p.m. for the owners of real estate within the historic districts being proposed for Lexington by the Planning Board. On March 1, 1956 the Board had sent to these owners a letter informing them of the meeting, enclosing a copy of the proposed legislation and ex- plaining some of the purposes and background of said proposal. • The Chairman opened the meeting by amplifying upon the Board's letter and discussing the procedure to be followed in conducting the meet- ing, Pointing to a map he then described the boundaries of the proposed districts and inquired if there were any guesti6m about the outline of the areas. He read a letter from Mr. Frank Tobin, 12 Bedford Styin Which Fkr. Tobin stated his opposition to the northerly boundary of the Battle Green District and expressed concern about business encroaching on property owners on Bedford Street. Dr. Howard W. coley of 5 Harrington Road sug- gested extending the boundary line to his back land. An unidentified person, Mr. Michael W. Morrison, and Miss Helen E. Ryan of 13 and 10 Bed- ford Streetirespectively, suggested extending the boundary line to the A & P store. Miss Ryan stated Vat what the property owners in the area wanted was a buffer disCrict. She asked if zoning in the area could be chaWd at a later date. Miss Ryan felt that if the business zone were ' extended along Bedford Street that the approach to the Battle Green would be` changed. Mr. Fred R. Van Norden, Jr. of 8 Bedford Street asked if the boundary of the district could not be extendedfarther along Massachusetts Avenue. He expressed the opinion that if the proposed historic districts were established that they would act as a deterrent to re -zoning for business. In commenting upon these suggestions, the Board felt that there was some question as to how far a boundary line can be extended outt"ide the mediate area which has historical significance. It was thought that if the lines were extended too far that the proposed act might not be con- stitutional as it applies to a particular case. For this reason the Board confined .the bounds of the districts to more or less historic areas. It was '.pointed out further that the proposed act did not constitute zon- ing and that any of the R 1 area could be re -zoned without referring the matter to the proposed historic districts commission. Mentioning the fact that the city of Salem did include historic districts legislation in its zoning ordinance, it was noted that most people find that this inclusion is just a temporary measure and not sufficient to deal with the problem. At the request of the Chairman, Mr. Jaquith then gave a brief analysis of the proposed bill stating that in general the proposal followed provisions taken from either the act creating the historic Beacon hill dis- trict or similar districts in Nantucket. Mr. Jaquith said that the Board's proposal was not designed to affect any particular person or area to his or its detriment. He asked that the Board be advised if the legislation created a particular problem fo: anyone so that something could be done about it before the Town Meeting. Mr. Rich wished to know the basic philosophy of the bill, was it to preserve the historic districts or also to improve other things the commission might find undesirable. Mr. Jaquith replied that it was the commission's function to maintain the good features the districts now have and not to damage these by changes which are not harmonious. Mr. Rich asked if this were not improvement rather than preservation. Mr. Jaquith stated that the Board was looking to the future and not the past. Pointing out that in contrast to Boston which wishes to retain and maintain its Beacon Hill buildings, Lexington has a somewhat different problem. One example of this is that in the business area of the Battle Green district there are several lots on which there are buildings which may change. It was thought that these changes may cony stitute problems in the development of an appropriate setting for the Battle Green and its surrounding buildings. Mr. Fred R. van Norden, Jr. was a provision in the bill to make maintain or improve their property, provision. of 8 Bedford Street asked if there people who do not wish to do so It was said that there was no such Dr. Foley asked if the commission had precedence over zoning by-laws and the Board of Appeals. Mr. Jaquith replied that the Board of Appeals responsibilities had only to do with zoning matters and -that the proposed historic districts act is only concerned with architectural features. As an example, he pointed out that the Board. of Appeals might grant a variance for a building permit within a district but that the petitioner would then have to obtain from the historic districts com- mission a certificate of appropriateness. Mr. Richard H. Soule of the Hancock Street wished to known if there were any connection between the proposed act and the 100 year agreement between many of the property owners abutting on the Battle Green. Chairman Adams said there was not and added that the 100 -year-old agreement had about 40 more years of duration. In regard to Section 4 of the 'proposed act, Mr. Roland M. Ward- robe of 1314 Massachusetts Avenue expressed the opinion that a taxpayer 'from each district should be represented on the commission. Mr. Jaquith said that while this stipulation could be included in the act, the Board felt that such a provision might prove embarassing to some members of the commission if they had to consider a case in which they had a per- sonal interest. He added that as a group the churches would have the tV opportunity to express an opinion in cases before the commission in that ministers of the churches were library trustees. Mr. Soule suggested having represented on the Commission an architect nominated from a group of architects and a builder from a group of builders. Dr. R. Willard Hunt of 34 Hancock Street asked if, under Section 5 (d) of the act, anyone who has such a Isign must apply to the com d$- sion for a certificate of appropriateness. Mr. Jaquith answered yes, adding that there were now in the Battle -Green district two billboards 1 1 1 .2 - which the Planning Board does not think should be there and which it hopes the commission would not approve. Dr. Foley said tha!,one square foot sign for stores needed fur.._ ther clarification. He noted that a store within an historic district would be limited to a sign this size whereas a store next door outside the district could have a large sign. Dr. Hunt stated that if he understood Section 5 (d) correctly a "For Sale" sign could not be displayed without first obtaining a oertifi- este of appropriateness and that there was a possibility it might take 60 days to obtain such a certificate. The comment was made that the Section 9 hardship clauses would take care of such a situation. Mr. Jaquith said that there were problems in trying to provide controls for such matters and that it was a question as to whether these matters should be taken care of by means of legislation or left to a commission to handle. He asked who was in favor of a special provision in which it would not be required to obtain a certificate of approval for a real estate sign displayed in residential areas. Sixteen persons voted in favor of such a provision, five against. He then asked how marry persons would favor a special provision permitting, without obtaining a certificate from the commission, the ' temporary installation of one real estate sign per residence, the sign to be limited as to size, for a period of not more than 60 days. The assembly did not feel like voting on this proposal, it believing that the first vote was sufficient to indicate its attitude toward real estate signs. In regard to Section 7 of the proposed act, Mr. Jaquith said that the Planning Board had discussed whether or not there should be a fee ccanected with the filing of applications in view of the fact that a%public hearing is required. He stated that the Board felt that since the act was a matter which was in the public interest of the Town as a whole, the per- son applying for a certificate should not have to pay a fee. With reference to Section Q (b), Miss Ryan asked what was meant by the statement "application is da med approved through failure to make a determination within the time specified". It was explained that if the commission did not act upon an application; i.e., make a decision, 60 days after receiving the application, the commission must issue a certificate of approval. Several people thought this provision left a means of escape for the commission if, in some instances, it did not wish to make a decision. Mr. Van Norden asked if a notice of the commission's failure to make a decision were only filed with the Town Clerk how the public would know about it and therefore have an appottunity of recourse to the courts. ' Mr. Jaquith said that concerning each application there would be a public hearing,notice of which would be sent to all property owners in the district and published in the local newspaper. He added that after a de- cision is filed a person has only 15 days in which to make an appeal. Mr. and Mrs. Morrison asked if it were possible or reasonable to ' require that the commission make a,decision or that the rmmi.ssion make a report explaining why no decision was made. Mr. Jaquith said a decision was mandatory but that through oversight a commission might not make one. Mr. Alden F. Stucks of 31 Hancock Street thought that if a repre- sentative from each district were a member of the commission that deci- sions would be reached. He asked if it would be possible to include a provision in the act requiring that all applications as well as decisions be reported. Chairman Adams asked for a vote indicating who in general were in favor of this type of legislation being proposed by the Board. Twetty ex- pressed themselves as favoring the act, three were opposed. The Chairman then asked who in general were in favor of extending the northerly line of the Battle Omen district to the business district. Eleven voted for this proposal, one against. He also asked how manly would like to have representation of the property owners on the commission. Five voted in favor of representation, five against. The Chairman thanked the group for attending the meeting and caul tributing ideas to the proposed act. He stated that on March 15 there would be another meeting; this especially for Town Meeting Members and ' other interested persons. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Alan G. Adams Chairman n 1