Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-07-09PLANNING BOARD MEETING Julv 9, 1956 A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office Build- ing, on Monday, July* 9, 1956 at 7:20 p.m. Chairman Hathaway, Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Burnell, Grindle and Jaquith were present. Mr. Snow, Planning Direc- tor, and the secretary, Mrs. Milliken, were present also. Mr. Stevens, Town Counsel, was present from 10:10 to 10:45 p.m. The first matter considered by the Board was a letter, dated June 22, 19562 from the Selectmen re- questing that the Planning Board arrange to have a member present later in the evening at the Selectmen's meeting to discuss the Recreation Committee's pro- posal that under the Town General By-laws a permanent recreation committee be established. It was decided that Mr. Grindle would represent the Board at said meeting and present the Planning Board's opinion in regard to the Committee's proposal as set forth in a draft accompanying said letter, the draft being en- titled "Draft for Purpose of Discussion of Article for Warrant to Add By-law to Govern Playground and Recreation Centers." It was the opinion of the Planning Board that acquisition of lands for recreation purposes as set forth under Article 28 of the 1956 Annual Town Meet- ing was definitely the function of the planning Board and that the acquisition of said lands should be re- lated to all other plans for the Town which the Board was preparing as part of a long-range comprehensive plan for Lexington. It was the concensus also that .the Recreation Committee already had a full time job and should be limited to the preparation of a recrea- tional program and recommendations for facilities and improvements to carry out such a program. The Board decided, therefore, that Section 5. of the draft re- ferred to above should be modified by striking out the words "acquisition" in the first sentence and by striking out also the second sentence of the said sec- tion so that the amended section would read: "The Recreation Committee shall carry on continuous study and planning in reference to the development, improvement, maintenance, and equipment of playgrounds and recreation centers in the Town and shall make recommenda- tions thereon from time to time to the Board of Selectmen." RECREATION COMMITTEE At 8:00 p.m. a public hearing was held rela- L.C.5982 tine to the application for approval as a subdivision property of William F.Fitzgerald known as "Subdivi- FITZGERALD sion of Land Court Case No. 5982 4_n Lexington -Mass." Four persons attended the hearing. HFA R ING The Chairman read the notice of the hearing as it had been sent to all owners of property abutting the proposed subdivision and all other property owners deemed to be affected, and as the notice had been published in the June 28, 1956 issue of the Lexington Minute -man. After explaining the procedure to be fol- lowed in conducting the hearing, he called upon the subdivider to present his plan. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out that his plan con- sisted of an extension of Dewey Road in a southwester- lv direction for a distance of about 330 feet and that there were four lots fronting on this road. He noted that drains from the road would flow onto adjacent land owned by Techbuilt, Inc. to a natural water course. Mr. Fitzgerald said he had a letter from Techbuilt granting him a drain easement. Mr. Jaquith asked about the status of Dewey Road An Mr.Watson's subdivision previously approved by the Board. Mr. Ivar D. Carlson of 175 Grove Street attending the hearing asked about the road, pointing out that it was not in existence. Mr. Watson likewise attending the hearing stated that he expected very soon to have a contractor continue the work which had begun in the subdivision. Mr. Fitzgerald said he would need written permission from Mr. Watson to allow passage to and from his subdivision over Dewey and Gould Roads. He asked the Planning Board what sort of instruments he needed for drain and public travel purposes. He was asked to consult with the Town Counsel in regard to this matter. �t the conclusion of the hearing all four per- sons attending the hearing indicated they were in favor of the subdivision plan being approved. The hearing was declared closed at 8:25 p.m. Approved by the Board were the following bills BILLS which had been presented for payment: Minute -man Pub- licati.onsT advertising -43.67; Snaulding-Moss, draft - Ing supplies -45.80; .Anne H. Milliken, secretarial services -46.25; Samuel P. Snow, reimbursement for postage and supplies --913.65; Bruce E. Howlett, pro- fessional services --$195.00. MINUTES The Board approved the minutes of its June 28 and July 21 1956 Planning Board meetings. At 8:30 n.m. Mr. Grindle left the meeting to 1 1 1 7-9-56 -2- attend the Board of Selectmen's meeting to discuss the proposal for a Recreation Committee to be estab- lished under the Town's General By-laws. Taken under consideration next were the notices of petitions to be heard by the Board of BOARD OF Appeals on July 10 and 24, 1956. It was decided to APPEALS take no action on the petitions to be heard with the - exception of those of MacNeil and Hodgdon. It was MacNLIL - called to the Board's attention that after the with- HODGDON drawal of the previous MacNeil petition to be heard on July 10 there was prepared. and advertised a revised petition in regard to the same case. After discussion of said petition the Board drafted a letter to be sent to the Board of Appeals with reference to the petition. (See addendum.) With reference to the petition of Frank M. Hodgdon the Board decided to go on record as being opposed to the same and to write the Board of Appeals that according to block plan 35 in the Town Engineer's office there is approximately 142 feet of frontage be- tween the northeasterly boundary of the Hodgdon lot and the Hodgdon house. With a 15 -foot side yard this would enable Mr. Hodgdon to create a lot with 125 foot frontage without having to seek a variance. The following Form A applications were taken under consideration of Manning Board jurisdiction: FORMS A #56-495 submitted on July 9,1956 by Harold A. Conant; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lex- ington, Mass. owned by Conant," Scale: 1" 401, dated June 27, 1956, plan by Joseph W. Moore Registered Land Surveyor. #56-50, submitted on July 91 1956 by Paul Bowser; plan entitled "Plan of Vine Brook Estates in Lexington, Mass.", Scale: 1" = 401, dated June 14, 1952, M'ller and Nylander,C.E.'s & Surveyors. #56-51, submitted on July 9, 1956 by Joseph E. Chisholm Treasurer for Custom Colonials, Inc.; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington - Mass." Scale: 1" = 401,dated July 92 1956, Miller and Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors, Lexington, Mass. It was moved,seconded and unanimously VOTED: that the plans accompanying applications #56-h9, A56-50 and , #56-51 be signed bearing the endorse- ment "Lexington Planning Board approval not re- quired under the Subdivision Control Law." Taken under consideration next was the application of GREEN VALLEY Mr. Antonio Busa for approval of Green Valleys Section , SEC. 1 1 definitive subdivision Alan. Inasmuch as the 45 -day - period within which the Board was supposed to act on BUSA said application had expired as of this date, it was moved, seconded and unanimously VOTED: that the definitive subdivision plan entitled "Green Vallev Sub -Division Section #1," dated Aril 23, 1956, submitted to the Board on May 2 1956, accompanied by an application for ap roval of definitive plan, Form C, dated May 11,` 1956, be disapproved for the reason that the applicant has not submitted a bond in accordance with the Lexington subdivision rules and regulations. The Board then considered Mrs. Seaburvls appli- SEABURy c®tion for a determination that the proposed hotel and _ uses shown on plans submitted constitute a desirable A l DISTRICT development and will not be detrimental to the neigh - PLANS borhood. After examining the evidence submitted, the Board thought it should have the following additional information before taking any action on said applica- tion: 1. A complete plot plan showing the entrance road, building, parking areas, utilities, property lines and contours at 5 -foot intervals as they all re- late to each other. 2. A copy of an agreement in which the State Depart- ment of Public Works grants to Mrs. Seabury a driveway entrance on Route 2 (Marrett Road) to- gether with a plan showing the location of said entrance. 3. A copy of an agreement in which the State Depart- ment of Public Works grants to Mrs. Seabury an easement and right to install a sanitary sewer under Route 128, said grant being accompanied by a plan showing the location of these. 4. A copy of similar agreements in which the School Committee and Town grant to Mrs. Seabury an ease- ment across the Maria Hastings School nronerty and Crosby Road, together with a plan showing the loca- tion of said easement. 5. A copy of an agreement in which the Methodist Church grants to Mrs. Seabury an easement across its land from Crosby Road to School Street. The Planning ' Board has in its files a copy of a plan showing this proposed easement. 7-9-56 -3- ' Mr. Snow was asked to draft for the chairman's signature a letter to Mr. John F. Groden, attorney for Mrs. Seabury, incorporating the additional information which the Board required. The secretary was excused from further attend- ance at the meeting at 10:05 p.m. at which time Mr. Stevens met with the Board. There was then held a detailed discussion of the proposed by-law to set up a permanent recreation com- mittee. Town Counsel Stevens stated that he would pre- pare another draft for consideration of all the Boards involved incornorating as near as possible the various views expressed at the Selectmen's meeting in regard to the details of the nrevious draft of the proposed article to be considered at the next town meeting. Mr. Stevens called to the Board's attention his letter of June 273 1956 to the 'Planning Director in which there was enclosed a snecial Statement of Condi- tions to be filed in the Land Registry Office in con- nection with the annroval by the planning Board with the Sun Valley, Section 13 definitive subdivision plan. All matters appearing to be in order, the Board en- dorsed said definitive subdivision plan with the nota- tion "Approved June 18, 1956 subject to the conditions set forth as an agreement in a Conditional Approval Contract executed by DeVries Construction Co., Inc., dated June 15, 1956, and to be recorded and registered herewith. The Board then signed the original of the Statement of Conditions of Planning Board Approval and delivered the same to M-. Stevens together with the endorsed plan and the executed conditional approval contract. The matter of increase in the rate of pav for after -hour work to be done by Mrs. Milliken was taken under consideration next. It was moved, seconded and unanimously VOTED: that the rate of pay of extra work to be done by the Secretary be and hereby is increased to $1.50 per hour. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Levi G. Burnell, Jr. ' Clerk RECRFAT ION COMMITTEE SUN VALLEY SEC. 13 DeVRIES ADDFNDLIM July 10, 1956 Board of Anpeals Town Office Building , Lexington 731 Mass. Re: Petition of John F. MacNeil to be Gentlemen: heard on Tuesday, July 101 1956 The Planning Board at its meeting held on July 9, 19561 dis- cussed the above-mentioned petition and found at the time of its meeting that no plans had been filed with said petition. However, based on plans accompanying previous petitions sub- mitted by the petitioners 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 Zon- ing 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 8 (c) requiring 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. 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 vards. ' 4. A variance of the provision of Section 9 (a) providing that no land shall be put to any use other than uses enumerated in the Zoning By -Laws and uses accessory there- to, for the zoning district in which suer land lies. 5. A variance of the provision of Section 9 (d) providing that no land in an R 1 District shall be used for any purpose not incidental to the rrovisory -permi.tted 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. It is assumed that the plans for the proposed building would indicate that the major portion of the front Wall of the building would be erected on the joint boundary line of the C 2 lot involved and other land of the peti- tioner zoned as R 1 land. If this assumption is cor- rect, the building would completely eliminate the 20' side ,yard required where C 2 land adjoins R 1 land. This This 201 side yard requirement was established to provide a buffer zone to keep business buildings from encroach- ing too close to an R 1 District boundary line. The ' Board feels that, while this buffer zone requirement might be varied slightly on the Depot Square side in the 7-9-56 -11- interest of orderly development of the area in volved, It should not be varied greatly. It should also be noted that if the proposed building is erected on the joint boundary line as stated above, the front of the building would project beyond the front wall of the Chase Building. 2. It is likewise assumed that the plans for the proposed building would indicate that the northerly wall of the building Is to be erected within a short distance of the joint boundary line of the C 2 lot involved and the R 1 land of the railroad nroperty. The Board feels that there should be no variance of the 20' buffer zone re- quirement for this side of the building. The buffer zone requirement as 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 remain zoned for residential pur- poses even if it should be disposed of by the Railroad. In addition, granting of a variance of the buffer zone requirement would add to the now dangerous condition at the Meriam Street crossing and would leave inadequate space for fire fighting purposes between the proposed building and the drop-off to the railroad bed. 3. Frection of a front wall of a proposed building on the ' boundary line of the C 2 lot and the adjoining R 1 land would necessitate use of the R 1 land for access to the proposed building. While the question of varying the Zoning By -Laws to permit use of the R 1 land in this in- stance for sidewalk access to a commercial building is a relatively minor one, 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 specifically requested in the petition$ 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 variance requested cannot be granted without derogation from the intent and purposes of the Zoning By -Laws. There does not appear to be such hard- ship in the petition involved as would require varying the Zoning By -Laws to the extent in question. Respectfully submitted, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Isl Donald D. Hathaway, Chairman DDH/am 1