HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-06-11PLANNING BOARD MEETING
IJune lis 1956
A closed Meeting of the Lexington Planning Board
was held in the Town Engineer's Rooms Town Office
Buildings on Mondays June lls 1956 at 7:45 p•m•
Present were Chairman Hathaway, Members Abbotts Adams,
Burnell, Grindle and Jaquith; Planning Director Snows
and the secretary. Town Counsel Stevens was also
present from 8:45 to 9:55 p.m.
The Board took under consideration the John F.
MacNeil petition to be heard by the Board of Appeals
on June 12s 1956. In reviewing the plan accompanying
said petition, it was decided that the plan had been
changed very little from the one submitted with an
earlier petition heard on April 3s 1956. The Board
decided to go on record as being opposed to the grant-
ing of the new petition and drafted a letter to the
Board of Appeals settin forth reasons for such oppo-
sition. (See addendum.
Read to the Board was the notice of a public
hearing to be held in the Waltham City Hall on June
' 11, 1956 at 8:00 p.m. in regard to a petition for
re -zoning for limited commercial use of a parcel of
land bounded by the Lexington town line and Trapelo
Road, Smith Streets and Route 128. The Board decided
to take no action in regard to the proposal.
When Town Counsel Stevens came to the meeting
the Board discussed with him several matters which
were being considered at the time, among them being a
plan L.C. 947503 concerning which Mr. Norman T. May
requested an informal opinion. As shown on said plan
it was proposed to subdivide each lot, M, N, and O, so
as to create a total of six lots, all fronting on a
so-called paper street. The Board decided that the
division of the tracts of land constituted a subdivi-
sion.
MAC NEIL
PETITION
BOARD OF
APPEALS
WALTHAM
ZONING
HEARING
L.C.
#94750
It was called to the attention of the Board that ELDRED
the proposed lotting would block the proposed exten- STREET
sion of Eldred Street as recommended by Whitman & How- EXTENSION
and in road studies prepared for the Board in November
1952. Mr. Snow emphasi.ed the importance of obtaining
options for acquiring easements for said road espe-
cially in view of his recommendation that land on either
side of the old Pine Field Path, between Grove Street
and Robinson Road be acquired for an elementary school
site. He repeated that Mr. May had stated that the Town
could have an option over the Soule land, L.C.#94750,
for $1.00. Mr. Snow was asked to see if an option
could be obtained for an easement over Mr. Witherell's
property fronting on Grove Street, he being the only
other person having land over which an extension of
Eldred Street would have to.pass.
It was pointed out that road would give access
to the school for children in the Sunnyfield develop-
ment, and to Route 128 for people in the Grove Street
area, as well as providing quicker access to said
area for fire and police protection. It was also
noted that the Superintendent of Public Works had sug-
gested taking options over necessary lands to connect -
either Eldred or Bernard Streets with Grove Street.
Mr. Snow reported that after said options were obtained,
Mr. Gayer,would enter onto the lands, having "punchings"
made, and prepare cost estimates to determine the most
economical route for street construction.
SUBDIVISIONS When Mr. Stevens met with the Board, it discussed''
with him the matter of temporary turnarounds as set
TEMPORARY forth in Sec. V.B.3. of the subdivision regulations. It
TURNAROUND was pointed out that the Board wished to establish a
Board policy in regard to this detail. Mr. Stevens
agreed that the temporary turnaround should be beyond
the subdivision boundary, i.e., beyond the end of the
pavement. Mr. Snow recommended that said temporary ,
turnaround be 60 feet in diameter. He was asked to
confer with the Superintendent of Public Works and the
radius in which a snow plow or the largest apparatus
of the Fire Department could be turned around.
HANCOCK Taken under consideration was the Hancock Heights
HEIGHTS definitive subdivision plan. In view of the questions
raised by abutting property owners at the June 4P 1956
public hearing in regard to said plan, it was decided
the Board would approve the plan subject to the con
dition that Lots D and F be eliminated from said plan
and that Mr. Moore be notified of the Board's decision.
BUSA LAND The Board next discussed the possible acquisition
FOR for recreational purposes of the former Daley land now
RECREATION owned by Mr. Antonio Busa. (See minutes of June 4s
1956.) Mr. Snow reported that he had examined said
land with an appraiser and that the latter, on the
basis of Mr. Busa's proposal to lot the tract, had
appraised the lots as being worth between 0300 to $500
each. The apraiser had suggested offering $400 a lot,
stating that '$500 a lot would be most generous."
Based on the fact that the Board wished to acquire that
portion of the tract which would be the equivalent of 9 ,
lots, the total value would be $3600, $600 more than Mr.
Busa had paid for the entire tract of land. After due
consideration the Board decided to write a letter to
Mr. Busa offering to purchase a portion of the tract
set forth above. Detailed terms of said offer were
dictated to Mr. Snow for the purpose of drafting a
letter for the Board's consideration at its next meet-
ing.
In addition to obtaining an option from Mr. Busa,
RUSSO LAND
Mr. Snow recommended acquisition of the land owned by
FOR STREET
the Guiseppi Russo estate, said land to be added to
AND
the former Daley tract for recreational purposes and
RECREATION
for providing a road to connect the proposed Busa de-
velopment to Circle Road. He described the Russo land
as being lots 222 through 233, located on the easterly
side of Circle Road and stated that he understood
Albert A. Russo, administrator of the estate, wanted
$3000'for the land. Mr. Snow reported that Mr. Russo
did not wish to discuss the sale of the property until
his brother returned from Germany on June 30. It was
decided to write Mr. Russo a letter indicating the
Board's interest in purchasing the land, Mr. Snow to
draft a letter for the Board's consideration at its
next meeting.
Consideration was given to the appointment of a
ADDITIONAL
member of the Planning Board to the Additional Fire
FIRE
'
Station Committee as authorized under Article 45 by
STATION
the Adjourned Town Meeting held on April 21 1956. It
COMMITTEE
was moved by Mr. Abbott, seconded by Mr. Burnell and
unanimously voted that Chairman Hathaway appoint a
member of the Planning Board to the Additional Fire
Station Committee. Thereupon, Mr. Hathaway appointed
Mr. Jaquith to serve on said committee.
Mr. Abbott then reported on the work of the
NEW JUNIOR
School Sites Committee, and what it proposed to do in
HIGH SCHOOL
regard to acquiring a junior high school site of
SITE
approximately 25 acres. (See minutes of June 4;1956.)
He stated that if the Planning Board thought more land
should be acquired for recreational facilities, the
committee would consider the matter further. Mr. Snow
recommended that additional land be acquired and re-
viewed his previous recommendations for the develop-
ment of the site. He stated that he believed the pro-
posed junior high school should face Coolidge Avenue,
the vehicular access to the school being from Diehl
and Brigham Roads, the latter to be extended through
to the development proposed by Esco Builders, Inc. He
pointed out that in this way all parking and services
facilities for the building could be located on the
easterly portion of the site, leaving the rear of the
school for the location of gymnasium facilities and
the lower land to the north for an athletic field and
recreational development. He suggested that the Plan- '
ning Board, if necessary, acquire the northerly portion
of the Pihl land so that the existing brook along the
Pihl-Esco Builders property line could be dammed to
provide for skating facilities.
There was held next a general discussion of
various other matters currently before the Board for
consideration. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00,p.m.
Levi G. Burnell,- Jr.
Clerk
ADDENDUM
June 121 1956
Board of Appeals
Town Office Building
Lexington 73, Massachusetts
Re: Petition of John F. MacNeil
Gentlemen:
The Planning Board at its meeting held on June lla 1956,
discussed the above petition and voted to oppose the
granting of the variances of the Zoning By-laws requested
in the petition and to submit to the Board of Appeals a
letter setting forth its reasons for such opposition.
The petition contemplates erection of a commercial build-
ing on a lot in a C 2 District, but the boundary lines
of the lot abut on two sides land in an R 1 District.
From the data available to the Planning Board at the time
of its meeting, it appears to the Board that, in order
for the petitioner to build the proposed building, he will
have to be granted the following variances of the Zoning
By-laws:
1. A variance of the provision of Section 5 (a)
dealing with permitted uses in an R 1 District.
2. A variance of the provision of Section ' (c) re-
quiring for each permitted principal commercial
building in a C 2 District side yards adjoining
the boundary lines abutting the R 1 District of
not less than 201.
6-11-56
' 3. A variance of the provision of Section 8(g) 5
providing that in any zoning district no part or projection
of a building shall be erected in or over the area.required
to be maintained as side yards.
4. A variance of the provision of Section 9(a) pro-
viding that no land shall be put to an use other than uses
enumerated in the Zoning By-laws and ides accessory thereto,
for the zoning district in which such land lies.
5. A variance of the provision of Section 9(d) pro-
viding that no land in an R 1 District shall be used for
any purpose not incidental to the provisory permitted use
of said land.
The Planning Board is opposed to varying the Zoning By-laws
to the extent necessary to permit construction of the pro-
posed building for the following reasons:
1. The plans for the proposed building indicate that
the major portion of the front wall of the building is to be
erected on the joint boundary line of the C 2 lot involved
and other land of the petitioner zoned as R 1 land. As pro-
posed, the building would completely eliminate the 201 side
yard required where C 2 land adjoins R 1 land. This 20'
side yard requirement was established to provide a buffer
zone to keep business buildings from encroaching too close
to an R 1 District boundary line. The Board feels that,
while this buffer tone requirement might be varied slightly
on the Depot Square side in the interest of orderly devel-
opment of the area involved, it should not be varied to the
extent requested. It should be noted that the front of the
building, as proposed, projects beyond the front wall of the
Chase building.
2. The plans for the proposed building show that the
northerly wall of the building is to be erected within 31 of
the joint boundary line of the C 2 lot involved and the 1 1
land of the railroad property. The Board feels that there
should be no variance of the 20' buffer zone requirement for
this side of the building. The buffer zone requirement as
to the lot involved was established for the benefit of the
adjoining R 1 land. The fact that this R 1 land is now
railroad property is immaterial since the R 1 land may re-
main zoned for residential purposes even if it should be dis-
posed of by the Railroad. In addition, granting of the
variance requested would add to the now dangerous condition
at the Meriam Street crossing and would leave inadequate
space for fire fighting purposes between the proposed build-
' ing and the drop-off to the railroad bed.
3. Erection of the front wall of the proposed building
on the boundary line of the C 2 lot and the adjoining R 1
3. Erection of the front wall of the proposed I building on the boundary line of the C 2 lot and the
adjoining R 1 land would necessitate use of the R l
land for access to the proposed building. 'While the
question of varying the Zoning By-laws to permituse
of the R 1 land in this instance for sidewalk aceess
to a commercial building is a relatively minor ones
the Board points out the issue since it emphasizes
one of the problems which arises from elimination of
the 20' buffer zone requirements. Although not pre-
sented in the petition involved, there may be other
matters presented in the future such as projection of
awnings and signs over the R 1 land or use of the R 1
land for private parking.
4. Under all the circumstances involved the
Board is of the opinion that the variances requested`
cannot be granted without derogation from the intent
and purposes of the Zoning By -Laws. There does not
appear to be such hardship in the petition involved
as would require varying the Zoning By-laws to the
extent in question.
Respectfully submitted;
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARDI
Donald D. Hathaway, Chairman
1