Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-09-17PLANNING BOARD MEETING ' September 17, 1956 A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office Building, on Monday, September 17s 1956 at 8:00 p.m. Present were Chairman IHathaway, Members Adams, Burnell and Jaquith, and Messrs. Howlett and Snow of the staff. Town Counsel Stevens was present from 10:10 to 10:115 p.m. The following bills presented for payment were approved Bruce E. Howlett, professional ser- vices for week ending September 14, 1956 and reim- bursement for car mileage and office supplies- - $117.60: Mara G. Campbell, secretarial services for week ending September 14, 1956--$25.00; Anne H. Milliken, secretarial services for September 12 meeting--95.00;-Urban Land Institute, Technical Bulletin 29--$2.50. The Board next took under consideration Tech- built's subdivision plan for Middle Ridge, Section Two. order, The plan and the posting of the bond being in it was moved by Mr. Adams, seconded by Mr. ' Burnell and unanimously VOTED: that the definitive subdivision plan en- titled "Plan of Lots in Middle Ridge Sec- tion Two, Lexington, Mass."s dated June 14, 1956s which was submitted to the Board by Techbuilt, Inc: on August 61 1956s accom- panied by an application for approval of definitive plans Fbrm C, dated July 30, 19561 be and hereby is approved subject to the conditions that all changes necessary to effect adequate road clearance of power lines across Turning Mill Road shall be approved In advance by the Lexington Plan- ning Board and that Lots 6, 71 8P 9, 10, 191 20 and 36 shall not be built upon without prior consent of the Lexington Board of Health. VOTED: that the plan entitled "Revised Profile of Dewey Road in Lexingtons Mass.'s, dated Aug. 69 1956, modifying the previously approved profile of Dewey Road as Shown on the "Sub- division Plan of Land Court Case No. 5982E", ' be and hereby is approved. BILLS MIDDLE RIDGE S FL . 2 TECHBUILT, INC. Prior to an appointment with Mr. Spagnuola the Board reviewed its August 10, 1956 letter In ' regard to the proposed Hawthorne Acres subdivision of Esco Builders, Inc. At 8:20 Mr.Spagnuola and his attorney, Mr. Troneano, met with the Board to discuss said letter. Mr. Tropeano first pointed out what he con- sidered to be such a late date the difficulty �of revising the Hawthorne Acres definitive plan by widening the street from 40 to 50 feet, by acquir- Ing corners of the Batson and Venedam lots on Adams Street and by fulfilling other requirements set forth in the Board's letter. He said that if the definitive plan were not unproved, his client might have to abandon the project. Mr. Hathaway stated the Boards requirements were thought to be in the best interests of the Town over a period of ,years. He emphasized that in the Boards approval of September 5, 1955 of the prelimi- nary plan for the development of the former Lidberg proDertyp it was stated that extensive changes would be necessary in street, d rainage and sewerage design and layout for acceptance by the Town Engineer. Mr. Hathaway also noted that the Board's letter of August 10 referred only to the first section of the Haw- , thorne Acres development. He said the Board had not seen an overall plan of the pronosed development since the approval -of the preliminary plan and would like -to see how Mr. Spagnuola now proposes to de- velop the former Lidberg property. The Board agreed to give the subdivision plan further study and inform both Mr. Spagnuola. and'Mr. Tropeano'of the Boardts view regarding the plan. Thereupon-, the'gentlemen left the meeting, the time being 8:S5 p.m. The Chairman read the notices'of hearings to BOARD OF be held by the Board of Appeals on October 2, 1956. APPEALS It was decided totake no action in regard to the petitions to be heard. Considered next were the following Form A FORMS A applications which had been submitted for determina- tions of Planning Board jurisdiction: #56-67, submitted on September 17, 1956 by Harold Conant- plan entitled "Plan of Lex- ington, Mass.'; Scale: "1" = 401, dated Sept. 10, 1956, Joseph W. Moore, Reg. Land Surveyor,, ' Bedford, Mass. #56-68, submitted on September 17, 1956 by Francis Keefe, attorney, for Louis and Rose 9-17-56 Rosendorn; plan entitled "Plan of Land In Lexington -Mass.", Scale: 1" = 101, dated Aug. 27, 1956s Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors, Lexington, Mass. #56-69, submitted on September 17s 1956 by Reuben L. & Mildred B. Seth; plan en- titled "Plan of Land in Lexington -Mass.," Scale: 1" = 40', dated Aug.27, 19569 Miller & Nylander, C.F. 's & Surveyors, Lexington, Mass. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously VOTED: that the plans accompanying Form A appli- cations #56-67, #56-68 and #56-69 be signed bearing the endorsement "Lexington Planning Board approval not required under Subdivision Control Law.' .2. Mr. Snow reported that there had been submitted by Kenneth F. Blodgett and Ernest E. Outhet of Outlet Realtv Trust an application for approval of the Oak Knoll, Section One definitive subdivision plan. "It was decided to schedule a hearing on said application for October 8, 1956 at 8:00 p.m. The Bo.nrd also considered the application for approval o' the Middle Ridge Section Two definitive subdivision plana Mr. Snow exhibited a bond in favor of the Town of Lexington and in behalf of Techbuilt, Inc, in the amount of $87,000. Mr. Stevens who had come to the meeting earlier examined the bond and found it -to be in order. All ot^er matters appearing to be in order, it was moved, seconded and unanimously OAK KNOLL SEC. 1 OUTHET REALTY TRUST MIDDLE RIDGE SEC. 2 TECHBUILT,Ine. VOTED: that the definitive subdivision plan entitled 'Plan of Lots in Middle Ridge Section Two, Lexington, Mass.' dated June l4, 1956, which was submitted to the Board by Tecrbuilt, Inc. on August 6, 1956s accompanied by an application for approval of definitive n lan, Form C, dated July 30, 1956s be and ' ereby is approved subject to the conditions that all changes necessary to effect adequate road clearance of power lines across Turning Mill Road shall be approved in advance by the Lexington Plan- nIng Board and that Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 100 199 20 and 36 shall not be built upon with- out prior'consent of the Lexington Board of Health. OAK KNOLL SEC. 1 OUTHET REALTY TRUST MIDDLE RIDGE SEC. 2 TECHBUILT,Ine. At 10:00 p.m. Mr. Antonio Buss, and his attorney, Mr. Alfred P. Tropeano, met with the Board as did Mr. Joseph W. Moore, Surveyor, in regard to the Board's letter of September 12 to Mr. Busa with reference to his Green Valley, Section One definitive subdivision plan. Following 3:s a transcription from the tape re- cording of the meeting: TROPEANO: The question raised in your letter has to do with the building and zoning by-laws whereby the facing of a house has a bearing. The house has legal lot size. The house in no way affects the three lots shown on the approved subdivision plan. If there is a vio- lation of the zoning by-law, it is for some- one else to enforce --not the Planning Board. HATHAWAY: I would like to call on Mr. Stevens to ex- plain the legal angles of the situation. STEVENS: Under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations the Board requires that all lots shown on a subdivision plan comply with the Zoning By- law. The Planning Board does not approve lots but approves the streets. The Board , will not approve the streets unless the lots as shown on the subdivision plan comoly. Here we have a plan which shows a triangular piece of land that is labeled as a parcel. You have had exhibited to you another plan (which is filed with the Building Department) apparently which shows this triangular parcel as part of the parcel on which this house is situated. Tf it is a part of that parcel as that plan indicates then you have a parcel of land fronting or abutting on two streets. Un- der those circumstances the test in determin- ing whether or not the lot has the required frontage for a particular building Is the architecture of the house in determining the street which is the frontage street. As I understand its ti -e Planning Board has stated this house architecturally fronts on this proposed new street. If that is so, then the lot doesn't have the frontage that is re- quired by the zoni.nr7 by-law., TROPEANO: There is no triangular lot shown on the sub- division plan. There are three lots shown which the Board approved. Mr. Busa only pe- titioned for approval of the three lots shown on the proposed street. The house is not sit- uated on any of the three lots involved. Q-17-56 -3- STEVENS : Then --you have a parcel of land of a tri- ' angular nature that is just there as a lot. TROPEANO: It isn't there as a lot. STEVENS: Do you think that the term "parcel" changed it from a lot into something else? TROPEANO: No, because It is not a lot under the defi- nition of a lot under the town building code. If it was$ there would be four lots applicable in this case. STFVFNS: If that is so, then it is a question with the members of the Planning Board whether they want to approve a plan that leaves a piece of -land like that in the middle of the lots. TROPE4NO: Thev already have approved the plan as I understand. They want to revoke the approval after the streets and utilities have gone in? Am I correct in that? HATHAWAY: This is essentially correct. It was brought to our attention only very recently and after our vote of approval. TROPEANO: After the Building Inspector has issued a per- mit, after the Building and Wire Inspector had made an inspection? ST7VFNS: All these questions are immaterial. The Build- ing Inspector enforces the building and zoning by-laws. He is shown a plan which does not in- dicate -in any manner that it fronts on another street. Upon that basis he issues a building permit. While that house Is tieing erected the owner comes in and asks the Planning Board to approve a subdivision plan not indicating in any way he has a house in progress. In other - words, he relays one set of information to the Building: Inspector and a different set of in- formation to the Planning Board. It is only within the last week that the Planning Board, as I understand it$ found that there was a house on the triangular lot. TROPEANO: I think you will find that if you talk to the Building Inspector, -he was asked as to the facing of the house. The Busas were told that It didn't make any difference in what direction the house faced. There are several houses in Lexington constructed in a similar manner or where the sides of the houses face the street. STEVENS: That is perfectly all right. If the lot abutts only one street, there cannot be any question arise as to which is the frontage street. The question only arises when the lot abutts on more than one street. TROPEANO: I would like to see some authority on that. STEVENS: That has been the ruling consistently made here. TROPEANO: Since when? STEVENS- Ever since I have had anything to do with the zoning. TROPEANO: I still don't see where the Board has approved the road at one how they have any right on any of these parcels here if there has been any vio-, lation to act. STEVENS: If there has been any violation of the Board's rules and regulations? The question before the Board is whether or not they exercise that power. TROPEANO: According to that theory, at any time they have a right to revoke their approval of approved and recorded plans? STEVENS: The statute so provides. TROPEANO: Of the violation? STEVENS: No, regardless of the violation. TROPEANO: That the Board has the right to revoke after it's made a final approval? STEVENS: That is correct. TROPEANO: I'd like to see it. STEVENS- I'd be glad to show it to ,you. MOORE: Does the State Law give Planning Boards the authority over the size and shape of lots? STEVENS: They do to the extent that"they conform to the zoning by-law. I don't know what difference there is in straightening out the lot. Maybe there is some. Maybe this can't be adjusted. 9-17-56 -4- ' TROPEANO: The difficulty about the situation is that these people could have put three, four or five small houses on these small lots (on Rawson Avenue). Instead they went ahead and combined them. Thev filed their plan. If you will study that, you will see where the fireplace is. It definitely indicates that it was facing on this other street. STEVENS: The plot plan doesn't indicate any street other than the street on which you have your number. HATHAWAY: That is the amended plana The other plan is the one which was filed when the permit was granted. STEVENS: I don't think there is any question but that the Building Inspector knew that the house was going to front in the direction in which it is fronting. But he didn't know there was going to be a street on that side of the lot also. Is this house go- ing to have access on the new road? TROPEANO: It doesn't have to. STEVENS: How is it planned, is the intention to have access onto the road? TROPEANO: You can have access on two roads. STEVENS: What you are doing is that you are getting in a position where you are nutting in a new road and creating on it, for all practical purposes, a lot with seventy feet of frontage with a house on it whereas your zoning -requires 125 feet of frontage. There is no requirement, you know, that the Board apnrove a road in that particular loca- tion. If you'have a lot -on one street with enough frontage to satisfy the requirements'of the law, you can face the house in any direction. If, however, you have a lot that faces, fronts or abuts on two or more streets, then in determining whether or not you have adequate -frontage on the frontage streets you have to look at the architecture of the house. TROPEANO: I disagree with ,you. STEVENS: That is the way it is ruled. TROPEANO: Where is the rule? STEVENS: I have ruled that way. One purpose of zoning is ' to provide light and air". You would not be pro- viding that light and air if you had 150 feet frontage 450 feet back of the house but on 'a street where the house is fronting you had 50 feet. With no street there you don't care what the situation is for you have light and air there. But if you have a house facing on a street with less than the frontage required by the zoning by-law, you are certainly not in compliance. TROPEANO: If you had one street, this house would be per- fectly all right. STEVENS: That seems to be the question. Is the parcel part of the lot on which the house is situated or not? On oneblan it says it is, on another it says it is not. HATHAWAY: On the second plan the house has been moved so that it does not have the required side yard. STEVENS- One of the requirements of the Subdivision Con- trol Law or the Subdivision Rules and Regula- tions Is that the lots comply with zon,ng. Now you have a house on there that doesn't com- ply"excent on the basis that this lot fronts on one street. TROPEANO: Not building on any lot within the subdivision. STEVENS: What you are saying is that this parcel C isn't in the lot. Then we look at the other plan which says it is in. I think the subdivider should decide whether it is in or it -isn't. I don -'t think the Planning Board is required to approve"a plan that shows loose bits of land on lotting. In view -of the'fact that there is a house there you have to move the street there or the Board will not approve the plan. TROPEANO: The parcel is not as a building lot treated as such. the house has no street. a building lot, can't be sold and is not intended to be The line can be moved over so frontage at all on the new STEVENS: Then after this is done, you put a deed on record conveying Parcel C to the owner of the house. Then ,you are accomplishing a purpose for which you faced the house on the new street. TROPEANO: This wasn't the motive of these people. STEVENS- I don't know what the motive was but I do find it 1 J 9-17-56 -5- difficult to understand why information given the Building Inspector and Planning Board is not complete. TROPEANO: You dontt have to tell the Planning Board that a house is going up on a lot upon vhich they do not have to act upon. STEVENS: Which is going to front on the street which they are asked'to approve. I refer you to Section 8(a) 4. of the Zoning By -law --"An enlarged lot shall not be subject to greater requirements as to area, frontages front or rear yards by reason of such enlargement, but the side yards required by Section 8(a)3. shall be based on the total frontage of the enlarged lot." What's the frontage of the en- larged lot? HATHAWAY: One hundred and thirty feet. MOORE: Not necessarily. You don't have to use all these lots on Rawson Avenue the house is sitting on. HATHAWAY: But you amended the application and indicated It was. Let me ask one question. Why not move this lot line down and make the lot have legal frontage (on the new street)? Isn't this one way of solving the situation? JAQUITH: Supposing you are going; to face a house on this new street, what is needed for frontage? I don't think we would have ever approved a 70 -foot frontage on the new street. TROPEANO: Assume the house faced the other way on Raw- son Avenue with entrance to garage on new street. Something would be accomplished, still have only one house on that particular parcel of land, same amount of light and air. JAQUITH: Still faced with a house that for all practi- cal`purposes is going to be considered as fronting on the new street. People will say "How come?" TROPEANO: Building Inspector said the house could be ' faced in any direction. STEVENS: When he said that he did not know there was going to be a new street put in. TROPEANO: What do ,you suggest on it, Harold? STEVENS- I think you should.look at the problem from all practical angles. What can be done? Is there any way of meeting it from what the Planning Board feels is undesirable in the interests of the Town to have this situation. If ,you say there is nothing we can do, it's got to be left this way. Then the members will take that un- der consideration. If they ask me what powers they have, I'll so advise them. HATHAWAY: Looks to me as if we reached a statement on the discussion for the moment. The Board will take the matter under advisement and further consult faith Town Counsel and will decide what further action to take. We have heard your situation and will consider that along with the interests of the Town. Messrs. Stevens, Busa, Moore and Tropeano left the meeting at 10:40 p.m. The Planning Board then met with the Selectmen from 10:50 until 11:20 p.m. after wi�ich the Planning Board meeting was adjourned. (See minutes of the Selectmen's meeting for a record of the joint meeting.) 'Levi G. Burnell, Jr Clerk 1 1 u