Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-10-24PLANNT7G BOARD MEETING ' October 24, 1956 A special meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, on Wednesday.. October 244 1956 at 7:45 p.m. Chair- man Hathaway, Messrs. Adams, Grindle and Jaquith were present as was the planning Director, Mr. Snow, and the secretary, Mrs. Milliken. The following Form A anplication was taken under consideration for determination of Planning Board jurisdiction: #56-88, submitted on Oct. 22, 1956 by William B. Cowles; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", Scale: 1" = 40', dated Oct. 16, 1956s Minute -Man Engineering Co., Lexington, Mass. Tt was moved by Mr. Jaquith, seconded by Mr. Adams and unanimously VOTED: that the plan accompanying an -plication ' #56-88 be signed bearing the endorsement "Lex- ington Planning Board approval not required under subdivision control law." FORM A At 8:00 p.m. the Board held a nubile bearing on the application of Moore Realty Trust for HANCOCK approval of a definitive subdivision plan entitled HEIGHTS "Section #2 'Hancock Heights' Lexington, Mass.", SFC. 2 and dated Sept. 14, 1956. Nine persons attended the hearing due notice of which was sent to all MOORE abutting pro erty owners and which was nublished in REALTY TRUST the October 4, 1956 issue of the Lexington Minute- man. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the notice of the same as noted above, explained the procedure to be followed in conducting the hear- ing and called upon Mark Moore, Jr., trustee of Moore Realty Trust to discuss the subdivision plan. Mr. Moore said the plan consisted of an ex- tension of Linmoor Terrace for 137 feet, the exten- sion being in the form of a permanent turnaround, allowing him to build five more houses on the lots provided. Supplementing Mr. Moore's presentation ' the Chairman nointed out on a set of marked prints of said plan the extent of Section One of Hancock Heights development as it had been approved pre- viously by the Planning Board. ' Mr. William L. Nussbum of 36 Blake Road asked about existing and proposed grades at the turn- around. He said he was concerned about these because of the existence of ledge in this location and the lower elevation of his nroperty. The Chairman pointed out on the plan and profile sheet of Linmoor Terrace the location of the points of maximum cut and fill stating that there would be a great amount of fill necessary to construct the turnaround as proposed. Mr. Moore said there would be no surface runoff going down the street or across lots at the end of the turn- around because of the location of a catch basin and a curb. He pointed out that there would only be changes In existing conditions of the terrains within 20 feet of the side lines of the street right of way. Mr. Fred E. Hersom, Jr. of 30 Blake Road asked if there was not a maximum length of 500 feet for dead-end streets in the Board's subdivision regula- tions and was not the proposed street longer than 500 feet. In reply the Chairman read Sec. IV A.ta..a, of said regulations. Mr. Moore stated that the maximum length of Linmoor Terrace as proposed was 675 feet. Both Mr. Hersom and Mr. Nussbum complained ' about the shallow depth of lots E 3 and F and proposed house locations which they considered to be encroachments upon their properties. Mr. Hersom said the locating of houses on the lots would decrease the value of abutting properties. He then asked Mr. Moore what style and price -range of house he intended to construct. The chairman pointed out to Mr. Hersom that the lots com- plied with the minimum requirements set forth in the zoning by-law and that Mr. Moore would have to comply also with the minimum yard regulations also set forth in said by-law. The Chairman said that style and price range of houses were not relevant questions, that Mr. Moore would have to construct houses in accordance with the town's building by-law. The chairman also said that the only matters under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board were those of street location, de- sign, drains and so forth. He asked that those present confine their questions to these points. Mr. Hersom then said that the previous subdivi- sion plan (see minutes of Planning Board meeting of June 25, 1056) had shown a temporary turnaround where- as this one being discussed was permanent. He asked if the decision to have a permanent dead-end street was final or subject to change. The Chairman said the street would have a permanent turnaround as shown. Mr. l0 -?4-56 Jaquith said that the subdivision plan could be modified if Mr. maisey of Crawford Terrace sold his land to Mr. Moore so that he could extend Linmoor Terrace to Crawford Terrace and Mr. Moore had not in the meantime built a house on Lot E 2 to prevent the extension of said Linmoor Terrace. Mrs. I9arren E. Nevitt of 9 Ballard Terrace commented that she thought the main interest of everyone was not to see the street go through. She said that many of those living on Ballard Terrace had moved there because it was a dead-end street. Numerous questions about details of the plan were asked and explained. At the conclusion of the questioning, the chairman asked for an expression of opinion in regard to the plan. Mr. Moore wished to be recorded as in favor of the plan's approval; eight persons wished to be recorded as opposing approval. The plan was then taken under advisement and the hearing declared closed at 8:40 p.m. Mr. DeVries stated that there was very little to discuss about the subdivision,that it consisted of eight lots on Whipple Road which was being extended about 625 feet to a permanent turnaround. He said that this was the last of the Sun Valley land to be developed, all the remaining land being unbuildable. He said he proposed to submit a conditional approval contract as a guarantee to complete the work called for on the plan but that the mown Couns,l had not completed the drafting of an instrument. There being no further matters to discuss, the hearing was declared closed at 9:00 p.m. and the plan taken under advisement. Mr. Jaquith presented for the Board's consider- ation a letter he had drafted to owners of real estate within the proposed historic districts concerning the Chapter 447, Acts of 1956 enacted at the last session -2- SUN VALLEY SEC. 15 DEVRIES CONSTRUCTION CO. At 8:50 n.Yn. the Board held a public hearing relative to the application for approval as a subdi- vision the property of DeVries Construction.Co.,Inc. to be known as "Section 15 of Sun Valley." Mr. and Mrs. George J. DeVries were the only persons who attended the hearing?. The Chairman opened the hear- ing by reading the notice of the same as it had been sent to all property owners deemed to be affected and as it had been advertised in the October 11, 1956 issue of the Lexington Minute -man. He then explained the procedure in conducting the hearing and called upon Mr.DeVr;es to present his subdivision plan. Mr. DeVries stated that there was very little to discuss about the subdivision,that it consisted of eight lots on Whipple Road which was being extended about 625 feet to a permanent turnaround. He said that this was the last of the Sun Valley land to be developed, all the remaining land being unbuildable. He said he proposed to submit a conditional approval contract as a guarantee to complete the work called for on the plan but that the mown Couns,l had not completed the drafting of an instrument. There being no further matters to discuss, the hearing was declared closed at 9:00 p.m. and the plan taken under advisement. Mr. Jaquith presented for the Board's consider- ation a letter he had drafted to owners of real estate within the proposed historic districts concerning the Chapter 447, Acts of 1956 enacted at the last session -2- SUN VALLEY SEC. 15 DEVRIES CONSTRUCTION CO. HISTORIC of the Legislature. The Board approved the draft, DTSTRICTS placed tentative date of November 5, 1956 on it and ' asked Mr. Snow to have the letter mimeographed and CHAP. 447 envelopes addressed for mailing on said date. (See 1956 ACTS addendum. See also minutes of planning Board meet- ing of September 10, 1956.) Mr. McConchie first indicated on the plan where sections one and two of the Robinson Hill de- velopment terminated. He then pointed out that the Section Three plan consisted of an extension of Childs Road easterly for about 420 feet and a new dead end street extending southeasterly from 'dNngate , Road for 355 feet more or less. Mr. McConchie noted that sewers and drains were to be installed, these connecting to those already existing in the other sections of the development. Mr. Burnham Kelly of Stratham Road asked Mr. McConchie to where it was proposed to extend Win- gate and Childs Roads. Mr. McConchie said that they would circle Robinson Hill and eventuall7T connect with each other. Mr. Kelly spoke at length in opposition to the approval of the plan with particular emphasis on the extension of Diana Lane and the elimination of a new section of Woodbury Road as shown on the plan. Set forth below is a set of notes he filed with the Board for inclusion in the minutes of the hearing. After Mr. Kelly's presentation the Chairman asked those who wished to do so to indicate whether or not they were in favor of the plan's approval. Mr. Leeland G. McConchie of 74 Hill Street and Mr. Myron H. Perrin, Jr. of 24 Hastings goad, both repre- senting the Leeland Construction Companv, wished to be recorded as in favor of the plan's approval. Mr. ' and Mrs. Francis J. Cooke, Mr. and Mrs. Burnham Kelly At 9:05 p.m. the Board held a public hearing relative to the application for approval as a sub - ROBINSON HILL division the property of Leeland Construction Co.,Ine. SEC. 3 to be known as Robinson Hill, Section Three. Fight persons attended the hearing Mich the Chairman LEFLA TID LEFLARUCTTON opened by reading notice of the same as it had been sent to all property owners deemed to be affected CO.,INC. and as it had been published in the ()ctober 11, 1956 issue of the Lexington Vinute-man. After ex- plaining; the procedure in conducting the hearing, the Chairman asked Mr. McConchie of the Leeland Construction Company to explain the subdivision plan. Mr. McConchie first indicated on the plan where sections one and two of the Robinson Hill de- velopment terminated. He then pointed out that the Section Three plan consisted of an extension of Childs Road easterly for about 420 feet and a new dead end street extending southeasterly from 'dNngate , Road for 355 feet more or less. Mr. McConchie noted that sewers and drains were to be installed, these connecting to those already existing in the other sections of the development. Mr. Burnham Kelly of Stratham Road asked Mr. McConchie to where it was proposed to extend Win- gate and Childs Roads. Mr. McConchie said that they would circle Robinson Hill and eventuall7T connect with each other. Mr. Kelly spoke at length in opposition to the approval of the plan with particular emphasis on the extension of Diana Lane and the elimination of a new section of Woodbury Road as shown on the plan. Set forth below is a set of notes he filed with the Board for inclusion in the minutes of the hearing. After Mr. Kelly's presentation the Chairman asked those who wished to do so to indicate whether or not they were in favor of the plan's approval. Mr. Leeland G. McConchie of 74 Hill Street and Mr. Myron H. Perrin, Jr. of 24 Hastings goad, both repre- senting the Leeland Construction Companv, wished to be recorded as in favor of the plan's approval. Mr. ' and Mrs. Francis J. Cooke, Mr. and Mrs. Burnham Kelly lo _-I: -56 and Mr. and Mrs. Daniel H. Gray of 2, 6 and 10, ' respectively., Stretham Load wished to be re- corded as opposed to the approval of the plan. The Chairman declared the hearing closed at 11:25 p.m. statins that the plan woule be taken under advisement. At the conclilsion of the hearing the Charman n.sked Mr. 7cConchie if anv person other than himself had rights in the parcel mcrked ",voodbury Road" In the plan. 'T.r. .,'cConchie said that the'Andersons, located in the rear of resi- dences 11 and 15 Childs Road, had rights over the parcel from Diana L^ne. Mr. Jaquith asked Mr. McConchie if there would be enougkh area in Lot K to meet the re- quirements of the zoning by-law without taking the parcel marked Woodbury Road in consideration. I�Ihen Mr. McConchie replied in the affirmative, Mr. Jaquith said that the Board did not want Wood- bury Road. Mr. McConchie said he owned it as a parcel extending all the way to Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Jaquith said it could be shown as a separate parcel. Mr. Snow suggested it be so marked with the owners name on it and the words "Woodbury goad" eliminated from the plan. Mr. McConchie said he did not see why this was neces- sar�- when the plan showed that Woodbury Road and the stub of Diana Lane were not connected. Mr. McConchie left the meeting. at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Kelly's notes regarding Robinson Hill Section Three definitive subdivision plan, dated August 17, 1956. Summary: Planning Board should require two im- portant changes in elan: (1) Effective termina- tion of Diana Lane at new cross street (Childs Road), (2) rejection of proposed new Woodbury Road. General Reasoning: (1) Long discussion of Robinson Hill development led to consistent rejection of a new lfoodbury Road as a major access for the follow- ing reason: (a) steep grade down hill, (b) sharp rise to Massachusetts Avenue, (c) danger inter- section at Massachusetts Avenue, and (d) general long-range desire to keep heavy traffic loads in major valley roads thereby avoiding necessity of . routing this traffic over hills in residential areas. (2) $imball property addition to land of Leeland ME Construction Company made po-sible new access and anproval of first two sections of this nrogressive de- ' velopment: (a) better access at Massachusetts Avenue, (b) right angle turns on hill to discourage through traffic. (3) Since approval of second section of development there are indications of failure of subdivider to accept town views: (a) change in previously annroved sewer easement, (b) pavement extension of Diana Lane over an easement to Andersons, (c) street light in- stallation along lower '.ioodbury Road, (d) indication now on subdivision plan of new Woodbury Road. (4) Result of subdivider's actions: (a) unwary drivers from Diana Lane try to go straight down the hill over the paved easement to Anderson's, (b) danger to them, to future heavy volume of traffic and town in general, (c) increased traffic below hill in driveways over which they have no rights of passage, (d) principally, accomplishing by indirection what town has specifically refused to approve - a straight through street with all dangers mentioned above. (5) Conclusion: this is the time to face the problem. Termination of Diana Lane reasoning: (1) stub end ' annroved in Section Two surely meant only as a turn- around, not as a reversal of policy regarding major streets; (2) with new road nronosed in Section Three, this stub not needed - it should be cut off; (3) how- ever, since navement is all there, situation will not be fixed by legal line changes - a real curb break should preferably be right at the new intersection - apnroval of Section Two does not alter ability of this new situation to require a change here as a condition of permitting new loads under Section Three; (5) in any case, a break can be required st the end of this stub, and so might as well be placed where needed; (6) Basic reason for subdivision power is to assure safe street patterns - town clearly can and should act now to avert danger here. Elimination of new Woodbury Road: (1) Power of Plan- ning Board to prevent duplication of street names; (2) the proposed street is not 'doodbury and the Board has definitely refused to have it here; (3) record of Board of Appeals granting of variance to Anderson will show there is no street here - none was created by that variance; (4) new street was not created by act of sub- divider in paving this extension - present plan shows dangers of failure to take action. (What if developer ' now paves all the way down to Massachusetts Avenue? Clearly he will have created the exact street that the 10-2h.-56 that the town has refused to approve.) (5) this is the time, and nerhars the last time, to clarify the road pattern on Robinson Hill - will there be a new short cut from Hill Street to Massachu- setts Avenue or will the safe streets called for by the Planning Board be obtained in fact? (6) If a man barred from access to a major town road should pave across his own property from his dead end to the road, the town would be quick to bar Public access along the new road so created. This is another case for action. After the hearing Mr. Adams discussed the nossibil3.ty of acquiring for nark land the KELLY LAND meadow between Stratham and Woodbury Roads and FOR PUBLIC Massachusetts Avenue. He said he tbouc-ht only RECREATION Messrs. Cooke, Kelly and Gray owned this. Mr. PURPOSES Adams stated that he spoke to Mr. Kelly about giving the meadow to the town for this rurpose and suggested that the planning Board discuss this matter further with Mr. Kelly. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a detailed discussion of zoning matters in preparation for the public hearing to be held on November 8 to consider the Board's proposals to amend the Zoning By-law. The Planning Board meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Donald D. Hathaway Chairman ADDEYDUM To Oim ers of Real Estate Uithin Pronosed Historic Districts The Planning Board has had placed in the Warrant for the Special Town sleeting to be held on November 19, 1956 an Article for acceptance by the Town of Chapter 4473 Acts of 1956, enacted by the State Legis- lature at the last session. Chapter 447 is the Lex- inc-ton Historic Districts Act passed by the legislature following submission of a bill by the Board of Selectmen as authorized. by vote at the March 1956 Annual Rown Meeting*. The Act as passed by the legislature is sub- ' stantially the same as the bill presented to and dis- cussed by the Town Tleetir�-. The legislature made no substantial changes in the -provisions of the bill as filed but it did make a few minor changes in phrase- ology and punctuation for purposes of clarity. There is enclosed for ,your information a copy of Chapter 447. The Board has not scheduled any special meetings to discuss the legislation before the Special Iown Meetin7. However, members of the Board will be available to explain the act at the usual -orecinct meetinms held before the Town Meeting should anjrbody desire farther information. LEXTNGTOAT. PI,AYlTT7G BOARD by Donald D. Hathawa�r, Chairman 1