HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-03-15PLANNING BOARD MEETING
'
March 15, 1956
A public meeting was held in Cary Hall, Cary Memorial
Building on. March 15, 1956 at 8:00 p.m. for Town Meeting Members HrSTORIC
and other interested persons to discuss the article the Planning DISTRICTS
Board had placed in the Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting to MEETING
authorize the town to petition the State legislature for an enabling
act to permit the establishment of historic districts in Lexington
and the creation of an historic districts commission to administer
the act. In addition to the article in the March 15 issue of the
Lexington Minute -man the Board on March 8, 1956 had sent to all
own Meeting Members a letter informing them of the meeting, enclos-
ing a copy of the proposed legislation and explaining some of the
purposes and background of said proposal.
The Chairman opened the meeting by amplifying upon the Board's
letter and discussing the method of conducting the meeting. Pointing
to a map outlining the proposed historic districts, he described
these in more detail and asked if there were any questions about the
districts as proposed.
Rev. Harold T. Handley, 1888 Massachusetts Avenue wished to
know if the boundaries were arbitrary lines and why, in the Battle
Green district, the Hancock School and the Raymond house on Clarke
Street were not included and the houses on the corner of Meriam and
Oakland streets. Mrs. Helen E. Ryan of 13 Bedford street wanted the
northerly boundary of the district extended to the A & P store. One
individual wanted to know why the southeasterly boundary Was located
through the general business district. Another individual mentioned
there was a plaque in front of the Boston Edison Company's sub-
station commemorating the first house in Lexington.
Both Chairman Adams and Mr. Jaquith discussed the import.
ante of having approach areas to the Green but of not extending
these approaches in this and other districts to include too many
buildings of no historic significance in themselves. It was also
pointed out that the proposed act might not be constitutional as it
applies to a particular case if the district boundaries were not
within reasonable limits of the actual historic buildings or sites.
Rev. Handley read part of a 1917 agreement which he felt pro-
tected the area around the Green. Mr. Jaquith said that he had read
a copy of the agreement and that it pertains primarily to land use and
that it was a private agreement between certain of the owners facing
the Green. He said that there is nothing in the agreement that states
a person could not change his dwelling as long as he doesn't change its
use and nothing which endeavors to preserve the property for the pub-
lic. Mr. Jaquith also stated that behind the agreement is a desire of
' persons entering into it to retain the area around the Green substan-
tially as it is but that the agreement will terminate in time. He
pointed out that it was the feeling of the Board that the agreement did
not accomplish what the Board thought the Town ought to have in way of
protecting, as it is now, the area around the Green.
Rev. Handley said that the Church of Our Redeemer proposed '
to erect a new edifice and asked if this could be obstructed in any
legal way. Mr. Jaquith replied that nothing in the proposed act
would prevent the construction of a building where a permit had
been obtained or was in the process of being obtained. If the
church changed its plans after construction began, Mr. Jaquith
thought the church probably would come under the provisions of the
act.
Mr. Robert Kent of 84 Middle street wanted to know if there
were any particular immediate or adverse conditions which the
Planning Board had in mind that caused it to propose at this time
the proposed legislation. Chairman Adams replied that there were no
such conditions but that the Board had seen the Town change so
rapidly in the last few years that it seemed wise now to establish
historic districts and create a commission to administer the act.
Mrs -Sanborn C. Brown of 37 Maple street felt that in deter-
mining the future of Lexington historic sites the Town is in the
process of creating a.situation which has not existed until this
time. She did not think the Green had ever looked the way people
wanted it to look. She felt that the act should not be too re-
strictive and said she was not completely aware of why a commission
was necessary. She asked what was the matter with the residences
around the Hancock -Clarke house. In reply Mr. Jaquith said that if
a person looked on the situation as it now exists as being basically '
good, it would be the endeavor to keep it this way.
Mr. Norman Fletcher of 36 Moon Hill Road said that in
speaking from an architect's point of view he felt new buildings
which are to be constructed in Lexington are those which will take
the greatest creative effort. He did not think that this could be
done by negative or restrictive goverment legislation and what was
proposed might prevent great buildings from being built. Chairman
Adams commented that legislation such as proposed had to be written
in a negative way, telling people what they could not do, not what
they could do.
Mr. Vincent A. McCrossen, 627 Massachusetts avenue, thought
that cultural and economic history should be considered as being
more important:.than military in setting aside historic districts.
Chairman Adams pointed out that the first normal school in America
was located within the Battle Green district. Rev. Handley suggested
that the Follen Church be included in an East Lexington district.
As requested by the Chairman, Mr. Jaquith gave a brief
analysis of the bill commenting upon and answering questions in re-
gard to each section. In discussing the purpose of the bill, he
said the use of the word maintenance does not mean the Town is going
to undertake the cost of all repairs. He pointed out also -that for
purposes of brevity the word erect as used in the bill had all the '
meanings as set forth in the sec on on definitions.
Many questions were asked about the creation and organiza-
tion of the commission. In replying to these Mr. Jaquith pointed
'
out that the commission was a commission in itself, did not report
to any body such as the Selectmen, and made its own decisions like
the Board of Appeals; that most of the nominations for the commission
are placed in the hands of groups which are more closely concerned
with problems of the commission than are other town boards; and that
there is no other Lexington board which is appointed in exactly the
same way to obtain a commission that is non-political and will have
on it persons who would have a basic knowledge and type of experieuce
needed. He noted that nominations for membership on the commission
are not necessarily to be taken from those on the governing boards
of the nominating organizations and that the purpose of having a
fifth member at large is for giving the Selectmen an opportunity of
obtaining a balanced commission. Mr. Jaquith also said that if a
nominating organization did not remain.in existence or any other cir-
cumstance arose which would require an amendment of the act, Lexing-
ton could always petition the legislature to amend the act..
Mr. and Mrs. Roland M. Wardrobe of 1314 Massachusetts avenue
and two other individuals said they felt that residents of each dis-
trict should have some representation on the commission. Two other
individuals thought architects should be represented and Mr. Richard
S. Morehouse of 37 Moon Hill Road, the Planning Board. Mr. Richard
H. Soule of 16 Hancock street suggested the commission be composed
of 7 members: people living in the district being represented by 2
members, real estate people by 1, architects 1, builders 1, and the
Lexington Historical Society 2.
Summarizing the thinking of the Board in regard to such
representation, Mr. Adams and Mr. Jaquith said that it was felt that
a representative from a distriBt would be biased in acting upon an
application from said district and that it was thought desirable to
have the good judgment of five non-professional people on a commis-
sion even though an organization could nominate a representative from
any professional group.
In answer to questions regarding signs, Mr. Jaquith read to
the assembly changes in the wording of Sections 5 and 6 of the act,
these changes being recommended after the previous meeting with
the owners of real estate in the proposed districts. These changes
involved adding real estate signs to those excluded from the pro-
visions of section 5 and in said section replacing 6 months with 5
years for the period in which a certificate of appropriateness is
required.
When asked by Rev. Handley about the matter of jurisdiction
on the issuance of sign permits, Chairman Adams replied that the
commission was primarily interested in design and appearance of
signs. Mr. Robert C. Merriam ingvdred as1to the classification of
the directory on the Arcade Building wad was told that it might be
called a billboard. Mr. Barrett wondered if he had to take down the
3' x 91 sign on his printing shop in Depot Square at the and of the
5 -year -period. Mr. Jaquith commented that the Board thought that
possibly the existing signs would have outworn their usefulness by
that period and that then he would have to apply to the commission
for a certificate of appropriateness. ,
In regard to Secticn 8, Mrs. Wardrobe asked if a provision
would not be written into the act in case the commission failed to
act. She was told that the Board was working on this matter and
something would be done about it.
Mr. Sanborn C. Brown said he found no mention that the com-
mission would pay advertising charges. Chairman Adams informed him
that there would be no fees charged by the commission and that the
two places where costs were mentioned in the bill referred to court
costs.
In commenting on actions taken by the commission under Sec-
tion 9, Mr. William H. Lyon of 24 Oakland street inquired if the
commission was protected from law suits if some business had to
take down a large existing sign or the commission would not
approve a duplicate of an old building which burned down. He was
informed that it was felt the first case would be no'different
than if it were considered under the building code or that in the
second case the same problem would arise with the destruction of a
non -conforming use.
In concluding the meeting Chairman Adams asked how maty
would like to see the northerly boundary line of the Battle Green
district extended to the end of the residential district. 11 voted ,
in favor, 1 against the proposal. He then asked how many would like
to see the selection of the commission directly in the hands of the
Board of Selectmen. 8 people voted in favor of this proposal, 24
against. Mr. Adams also asked how maty would like to see some
means of representation of those living in the districts. 16 voted
for the proposal and 16 against. (7 of those voting for the pro--:;,
posalwere property owners. 4 owners voted against the proposal.)
In regard to the concurring vote of the commission being necessary
to make a determination in favor of an applicant, the Chairman asked
how many of the assembly would prefer a majority to a 4 to 1 vote.
23 people voted in favor of a majority vote, 8 opposed the same.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Alan G. Adams,
Chairman
[I