Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-04-23PLANNING BOARD MEETING ' April 23,1956 A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office Building, on Monday, April 23, 1956 at 7:30 p.m. Present were Chair- man Adams, Members Abbott, Burnell, Grindle, and Hath- away; Mr. Snow, Planning Director, and the secretary. Mr. Abbott was present from 7:45 p.m.and Mr. Jaquith from 8:45 p.m. until the end of the meeting. Approved were the following bills presented for payment: Massachusetts Federation of Planning Boards, dues --$20.00; Anne H. Milliken, secretarial services -- $6.25 - Approved also were the minutes of the January 3 and March 20, 1956 meetings. Mr. Snow suggested that the Board have a closed meeting every other week for the purpose of discussing and formulating policy on various planning matters and ' that a notice be put in the paper mentioning that pub- lic attendance at Planning Board meetings would be scheduled only for every other week. The following Form A application was taken under consideration for determination of Planning Board juris- diction: #56-27, submitted on April 17, 1956 by A. Raymond and Vera M. Carchia; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lex- ington Mass.," Scale 1" = 401, dated April 6, 1956, A. R. Carchia. It was moved, seconded and unanimously VOTED: that the plan accompanying Application #56-27 be signed bearing the endorsement "Lexington Planning Board approval not re- quired under subdivision control law." Chairman Adams brought to the attention of the Board the fact that Mr. Richard Soule had occupied the former Unitarian parsonage on Hancock Street and had erected a pi gn of large proportions advertising his business. These appeared to be a deliberate violation ' of the zoning by-law. It was asked if in an attempt to enforce the law, the Board should register in writing its disapproval of the business being conducted as well as the erection of the sign advertising the same in an BILLS MINUTES CLOSED MEETINGS FORM A ZONING VIOLATION R-1 district. It was decided to take no action at this time in regard to the matter. ' MACNEIL Mr. Abbott arrived at 7:45 p.m. at which time PETITION the Board discussed its April 3, 1956 letter to the Board of Appeals in regard to John E. MacNeil's peti- tion which the latter Board had denied at its April 3, 1956 meeting. Also discussed was Mr. MacNeil's April 11, 1956 letter to the Planning Board which had sent him a copy of its April 3 letter to the Board of Appeals. The following points were brought out in the discussion: the building had a good appearance; the construction of the building would create the need for an additional parking space in Depot Square; the location and construction of the building as planned would necessitate the granting of variances all around the building; allowing both Mr. MacNeil and Mr. Black to build to rear property lines on their respective lots would eliminate access to the rear of buildings for service and fire protection; and no facts in re- gard to Mr. MacNeil's case have changed since the hearing. At $:05 p.m. Mr. MacNeil and his architect, Mr. ' Morehouse, met v.rith the Board in regard to the above- mentioned petition. When asked if he had received a copy of the Planning Board's April 3 letter pointing out the problems involved, Mr. MacNeil replied that he had. The Chairman then explained that the Board's objections to the petition were not on his particular case, ,,s such, but on the principles involved, the precedent and pattern which could be created with the granting of variances in similar situations, and the way the Board felt such variances affected the general public interest. At the Board's request Mr. Morehouse showed a plot plan and gave an explanation of the MacNeil pro- posal stating that it was planned to keep the 15' wide plot of land open between the proposed building and the railroad station, that Mr. MacNeil had bought this land for use as a buffer area and that it was proposed to use this land only for a sidewalk and grass plot. Mr. Morehouse also stated that if Mr. MacNeil were not granted a variance that this would constitute a hard- ship as it would not be possible to construct three stores as planned unless the building was to be two stories in height. Mr. MacNeil said that if the pro- posed Canopy posed such a problem as the Board indi- cated, he would be willing not to have it although without the canopy the architectural expression of the building would be entirely different. In reply to Mr. MacNeil's comment that he felt it was in error that the railroad was included in a residential zone, Chairman Adams stated that the town had purposely left the railroad in residential zone as a non -conforming use. Mr. MacNeil was asked if he had given any consideration to requesting the town to re -zone his land for general business use. He replied that he wanted his tract of land between business dis- trict and the railroad station for a grass plot and frontage and not for business. It was pointed out that a re -zoning would affect the set -back requirements of the tract between the two different zones and might remove the necessity of petitioning for a variance. With reference to other problems, Mr. MacNeil said that he thought a three-foot sideyard along the railroad right-of-way was a good idea. He was asked why the plot of land did not extend all the way to the railroad. Mr. MacNeil reported that the railroad wished to keep a strip of land for an extension of the station sidewalk. Upon being questioned as to the location of en - to the proposed building, Mr. MacNeil said that there would be no entrances onto the right-of-way be- tween the building and the Barrett Press and that three entrances to stores would be from the sidewalk with the exception of a service entrance off said right-of-way. Messrs. MacNeil and Morehouse left the meeting at 8:25 p.m. At 8:45 p.m. Mr.Jaquith came to the meeting at which time the Board met with Messrs. McConchie and Nylander who brought to the meeting a preliminary plan for the Robinson Hill, Sec. 3 subdivision accompanied by an application for tentative approval of said plan. After a brief discussion of the plans, the Board took said plans under advisement at the same time asking for a complete plan and profile of the proposed road con- necting with Wingate Road as had been approved. Messrs. McConchie and Nylander left the meeting at 9:10 p.m. The Board next took under consideration four schemes Mr. Silva had presented to the Board at its April 9, 1956 meeting for the development of his land at the end of Snnny Knoll Terrace. It was noted that this dead-end street was somewhat longer than the maximum allowed under the subdivision rules and regu- lations for streets of this type, that an extension to Garfield Street would be approximately 475 feet in length, and that the terrace had no permanent or tem- porary turnaround making it very difficult to plow and ROBINSON HILL SEC. 3 SUNNY KNOLL TERRACE back equipment out. It was likewise noted that the drain through the land was not covered at any point. ' It was decided that in the approval of any subdivision of the land under discussion the Board would require Mr. Silva to cover the ditch and extend Sunny Knoll Terrace all the way to Garfield Street. Mr. Silva came to the meeting at 9:30 p.m. at which time the Chairman explained to him the decision of the Board, suggested that he make some arrangement with Mr. Watson in regard to the cost of the road adjoining the latterts property and that he have his engineer work out a solution for the location and covering of the drain. Mr. Silva stated that he had already con- structed 305 feet of road for other people, did not wish to construct any more for the benefit of others, did not believe he could make any satisfactory arrange- ment with Mr. Watson, had dug the ditch in question himself and could fill it up again. He also objected to constructing Sunny Knoll Terrace through to Gar- field Street. It was suggested to Mr.Silva that he might ex- tend the terrace a very little way, construct a per- manent turn -around, and in so doing create only three ' lots instead of four, combining the fourth proposed lot into the other three. When Mr. Silva said he did not wish to do this, he was informed that the choice of the two solutions the Board would approve was up to him. SELECTMEN Mr. Silva left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. at which time the Board met with the Selectmen to discuss the following subjects: the proposed layout of Allen Street, policy in regard to requiring sidewalks, House Bill 836 - proposed regional planning legislation, and drainage problems in Red Coat Lane. For details of this joint meeting, see the Selectmen's minutes of said meeting. The Board left the meeting at 10:30 p.m. at which time it adjourned its own meeting. Levi G. Burnell Jr. Clerk