Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-06-04 PLANNING BOARD MEETING June 4, 1956 A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office Building, on Monday, June 4, 1956 at 7:15 p.m. Present were Chairman Adams, Messrs. Abbott, Burnell, Grindle, Hathaway and Jaquith, the Planning Director and the secretary. Chairman Adams stated that nominations for a new chair- man were in order. Mr. Jaquith nominated Mr. Hathaway for NEW Chairman, Mr. Grindle seconding the nomination. It was moved, CHAIRMAN seconded and voted that the nominations be closed and the secretary cast one ballot for Mr. Hathaway. The following bills were presented for payment: Louise M. Baker, for secretarial services, $2.96; Adams BILLS Press, Inc., for advertising notices for public hearing, ¶7.50; Anne H. !4 tliken, for secretarial services, 013.12; Samuel P. Snow, car mileage for May and reimbursement for maps, 11.68; Bruce E. Howlett, for professional services through June 2, $75.00; American Society of Planning Offi- cials, for Planning Advisory Service Reports, $20.00. It was moved, seconded and voted that the bills be paid as pre- sented, Mr. Adams not voting. The following Form A Applications were taken under FORMS A consideration for determination of Planning Board jurisdic- tion: #56-43 submitted on June 4, 1956 by M. A. Seabury, Jr., agent for Frida S. Seabury; lan entitled "Plan Show- ing Sewer Easement L. C. No. 13357 Land in Lexington - Mass.", Scale: 1" = 401, dated May 14, 1956, Miller & Nylander, C. E. 's & Surveyors, Lexington, Mass. X56-44 submitted on June 4, 1956 by M. A. Seabury, Jr., agent for Frida S. Seabury; plan entitled, "Plan of Land in Lexington - Mass.", Scale: 1" • 40', dated June 2, 1956, Miller & Nylander, C. E. 's and Surveyors, Lexington, Mass. No action was taken on application ;56-44 pending submission of necessary evidence to show that the accompany- ing plan did not require approval. It was moved, seconded and unanimously VOT D: that the plan accompanying application #56-43 be signed bearing the endorsement "Lexington Planning Board approval not required under sutrt;vision control law." Mr. Abbott arrived at 7:30 p.m. The 9rd of Appeals notices for hearings to be held BOARD OF I on June 12 and 19, 1956 were read and discussed. It was APPEALS decided to take no action in regard to these petitions ex- NOTICES cept for MacNeil's which was held for further consideration. There was held at 8:10 p.m. a public hearing rela- tive to the application for approval as a subdivision PEACOCK property of Peacock Farms, Inc. and the W. Danforth Compton FARMS Estate known as "Peacock Farms, Section Four." Chairman SECTION Hathaway read the notice of the hearing as it was pub- FOUR lished in the Lexington Minute-man and sent to the abutting property owners. He then explained the procedure of a public hearing in that the proponent would first state his case and then the abutters would have a chance to ask questions and be registered in favor of or against the sub- division. Mr. White, representing Constructor's Properties, Inc., stated that the plan for which approval was being sought carried forward the Peacock Farms development originally undertaken by Compton and Pierce. He also said that his firm did not intend to leave Peacock Farm Road with a dead end but proposed to develop the remaining Peacock Farm lands by providing a through street and access to abutting property for a future subdivision. He added that a plan for the remaining lands would be submitted to the Board as soon as Engineer Ford completed surveys and studies. Mr. Brown of 17 Trotting Horse Drive asked if it was intended to extend said way as drawn on a 1951 plan. Mr. White replied that his firm did not intend to do so. The Chairman asked who wished to be recorded in favor of granting approval of the definitive plan. Mr. White said that he did. Mr. Daniel C. Carey, representative of the Massachu- setts Department of Public Works, said that the Department was opposed to granting approval of the subdivision plan be- cause adjacent to the land formerly owned by Ridge Construc- tion Co., Inc. the Department planned to take another parcel of land for a maintenance and building site. Mr. Carey stated that he did not know how soon the taking would be made but that the opposition to granting approval of the plan was being made until such time as the Department had completed its plans for a site building, had them approved by the Department's Chief En- gineer and recorded. The hearing was declared closed at 8:25. At 8:30 p.m. there was held a public hearing relative to the application for approval as a subdivision property of Ernest_ J. Corrigan known as "Hancock Heights". The Chairman HANCOCK read the notice of the hearing as it was published in the HEIGHTS III 4 Lexington Minuteman and sent to the property owners abut- ting the proposed subdivision. The procedure for conducting a public hearing was explained and the proponent asked to present his case. Mr. Mark Moore, Jr., representing the petitioner stated that he, Mr. Moore, now awned the land it was proposed to subdivide and that said subdivision of 8 lots conformed to all the regulations of the Town. Two owners of abutting property expressed concern about the cutting of trees and clearing of land for the sub- division and the effect of such work upon the value of their property. Mr. Moore stated that he intended to be careful and save all the trees he possibly could. Mrs. Morey of 90 North Hancock Street suggested that the rest of the land which is not being developed because of the problems in regard to the length of the road and the drainage should be sold to the neighbors for a neighborhood playground. It was asked if the basements for the proposed houses would be above or below ground and, if below ground, would it be necessary to excavate for them by blasting. Mr. Moore was doubtful as to what was to be done. Mrs. Morey asked if the subdivision boundary line fronting on North Hancock Street was the same as that estab- lished in the 1923 taking of said way. She felt that when the street was widened to this line that the houses on lots A and J would give the appearance of being only 25 feet from the edge of the right of way. Mr. Moore said that the 1923 taking line and the southerly line of his property coincided and that this line was located inside the existing stone wall paralleling North Hancock Street. He also stated that the houses on Lots A and J would be located thirty to forty feet from this street. Several property owners inquired about the depth of lots, front, rear and side yard requirements and restrictions placed upon building houses in relation to temporary turnarounds. It was explained that the Planning Board had no jurisdiction over such matters other than that all lots shown on the plan had to comply with the area, frontage and other requirements of Lexington's Zoning By-Law. The comment was made that the subdivision plan did not indicate a connection with Ballard Terrace. Mr. Moore stated that it was his wish to make such a connection but that the I Ill people on Ballard Terrace did not want this done. Mrs. More asked if the PlanningBoard had decided when Y it was going to require the construction of sidewalks. She said that one was needed here. A number of citizens suggested extending the road and locating the temporary turnaround farther to the north. It was pointed out that such an extension would exceed the maximum length of 500 feet for dead end streets as set forth in the Board's Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Alien Chairman Hathaway asked who was in favor of approving the definitive plan, Mr. Moore said he was. Mr. Morey stated that the turnaround looked bad to him because Lots D and F were poor lots. Be asked Mr. Moore to develop them as well as he could. Of those indicating opposition to the approval of the plan, Mr. Alan Wagner of 24 Blake Road said that he was not in favor of the plan as presented as long as there was no requirement to restrict the developer from building a house as close as 20 feet from the rear property line. An- other gentleman was opposed to the arrangement wherein the temporary turnaround cut into Lots D and F. Mr. Iydiard of 7 Ballard Terrace and Mr. Hersom of 30 Blake Road wished to be recorded as opposed to approv- ing the plan. Mr. Lydiard said he would like the road to extend in a similar manner to Ballard Terrace. Another citizen asked what could be done to extend the road aver the hill and provide a turnaround at the end of the property. Mr. Taisey of 4 Crawford Road suggested Mr. Moore withdraw his plan and present his original preliminary pro- posal for discussion. It was explained that the Board had to approve, disapprove or approve with modifications the definitive plan then before it and for which approval had been requested. Noting that those in opposition to approval of the plan were mostly concerned with the location of the tem- porary turnaround, it was asked how many would be in-favor of approving the plan if the street were extended and the turnaround located at the end of the lot. Sixteen citizens wished to be recorded as being in favor of such an arrange- ment. The original preliminary plan of Dec. 12, 1955 was shown to those present and reasons for disapproving the plan explained, the principal ones being the length of the dead end street extended over a hill and the grades of the road itself. The Chairman stated that the Board had to be fair to the developer, the owners of abutting property and to the entire town in acting upon the application for ap- proval of the plan. He suggested that the Board might approve the first six lots off the proposed road and request the developer not to build immediately on the two lots abutting the turnaround. Be concluded that the Board would take the plan and opinions under advisement and declared the hearing closed at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Alfred Buse came to the meeting wishing to know the BJSA LAND Board's position in regard to his father's land which the FOR Board had recommended acquiring for a Town recreation area. RECREATION He stated that the Buses wished to subdivide the land if the Town did not wish to purchase it. It was stated that the Board had reached no conclusion after discussing the matter previously with them. It was also stated that if the Board definitely decided to recommend that the Town acquire the property in question, the Board would have to place an article in the warrant for the next town meet- ing to see if the Town would vote funds to acquire the land. It was pointed out, however, that the $10,000 Mr. Buss was ask- ing for the land was a stumbling block, that the Board did not want to make a recommendation that the Town purchase the land at this price, that the Board could take an option for a $10,000 purchase but that it was doubted if the Town would agree to any such price. In reply Mr. Buss said he felt that the installation of utilities in the proposed subdivision would make the land worth $10,000, that his father could realize more than this amount if the land was subdivided and that utilities would be available for the playground. The Board pointed out that a playground would enhahce the value of Mr. Buss's property but he thought not enough to make up the difference it would cost him to put in utilities. The Board then noted that whether or not a play- ground is located in a rear portion of his land utilities have to be installed in the proposed streets in the subdivision. It was noted further that a playground would be located at least a lot's depth away from any utilities. The Board stated that it would consider the whole matter further and inform Mr. Buss of its decision within a few weeks. Mr. Busa left the meeting at 9:45. Mr. Snow was then asked to have an appraiser give a rough value of the land which Mr. Busa owned and the Board wished to recommend that the Town ac- quire it for recreation purposes. The Board then took under consideration Frida Semler SEAMY Seabury's request, in accordance with Sec. 5 (g) of the Lex- MOTEL ington Zoning By-law, for a determination that the buildings HEARING and use shown on the submitted plans for a motel including the site, plans and building design constitute a desirable development and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Board read Mr. M. A. Seabury, Jr. 's June 2, 1956 letter accompanying detailed plans which the Board had requested. Finding that the plans were in order, it was decided to hold the required public hearing in regard to the application on June 28 at 8:00 p.m. in Estabrook Hall. It was further decided to charge $100 for the application fee because there were a large number of people to notify about the hearing and the Board would need technical advice in evaluating certain aspects of the plans. GREEN VALLEY On May 25, 1956 Mr. Antonio Busa submitted an application SEC. 1 for approval of a definitive subdivision plan entitled "Green Valley Sub-division, Sec. #1". It was decided to hold a public hearing relative to the application on June 18, 1956. OUTIiET REALTY Outhet Realty Trust submitted an application for tentative TRUST a proval of a preliminary subdivision plan entitled "Tentative Plan of Lots in Lexington, Mass. owned by Outhet Realty Trust," and dated May 9, 1956. The Board examined the plan and decided to request the Superintendent of Public Works for recommenda- tions he might wish to make in regard to said plan. Applications for approval of definitive plans entitled Son li,I1r1 "Section Fourteen of Sun Valley Lexington, Mass. owned by De- Sec Vries Construction Co., Inc." and "Modification of a Portion of Section Three, Sun Valle Lexi ton Mass. owned byDeVries y, Lexington, Construction Co.,Inc." were submitted to the Board on June L, 1956. The Board set the dates for public hearings relative to these applications on June 18, 1956 and decided to notify the subdivider that it would not approve the plans until it receives an overall plan of the entire Sun Valley subdivision and any further proposals for its development. ROBINSON HILL Application for tentative approval of preliminary sub- SEC. 3 division plan entitled "Robinson Hill Section Three" was sub- mitted by Leeland Construction Co. Inc. After examining the plan, it was decided to request the Superintendent of Public Works for recommendations he might wish to make in regard to said plan. JUNIOR HIGH As requested at the previous meeting, Mr. Snow made three SCHOOL SITE study plans showing possible boundaries and means of access to a site which he bad recommended for a Junior High School. The plan which the Board decided Mr. Snow should show to the School Sites Committee involved lands of Bull, Chiesa, O'Connell, Spagnuola and Millican and showed the main access to the site from Coolidge Avenue. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Levi G. Burnell, Jr. Clerk I