Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-10-24 PLANNI^TG BOARD MEETING October 2U, 1956 A special meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Selectmen 's Room, Town Office Building, on Wednesday, October 24, 1956 at 7:45 n.m. Chair- man Hathaway, Messrs . Adams, Grindle and Jaquith were present as was the Planning Director, Mr. Snow, and the secretary, Yrs. Milliken. The following Form A application was taken under consideration for determination of Planning FORM A Board jurisdiction: #56-88, submitted on Oct. 22, 1956 by William B. Cowles ; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass. ", Scale: 1" = 401 , dated Oct. 16, 1956, Minute-Man Engineering Co., Lexington, Mass . Tt was moved by Mr . Jaquith, seconded by Mr. Adams and unanimously VOTED: that the plan accompanying application #56-88 be signed bearing the endorsement "Lex- ington Planning Board eoproval not required under subdivision control law. " At 8 :00 p.m. the Board held a public hearing on the application of Moore Realty Trust for HANCnCK approval of a definitive subdivision plan entitled HEIGHTS "Section #2 'Hancock Heights' Lexington, Mass.", SFC . 2 and dated Sent. 14, 1956. Nine persons attended the hearing due notice of which was sent to all MOORE abutting propperty owners and which was published in REALTY TRUST the October h, 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 pointed out on a set of marked prints of said plan the extent of Section One of Hancock Heights d evelopment 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 property 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 fi .li..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. 10-24-56 -2- q Ja uith said that the subdivision plan could be modified if Mr maisey of r'rawford 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. 'Marren 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. At 8:50 n.m. the Board held a 'ublic hearing relative to the application for approval as a subdi- SUN VALLEY vision the property of DeVries Construction Co. ,Inc . SEC. 15 to be known as "Section 15 of Sun Valley." Mr. and Mrs. George J. DeVries were the only persons who DEVRIES attended the hearing. The Chairman opened the hear- CONSTRUCTION ing by reading the notice of the same as it had been CO. sent to all property owners deemed to be affected and as it had been advertised in the October 11, 1°56 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 Whinole 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 pronosed to submit a conditional approval contract as a guarantee to complete the work called for on the plan but that the mown Counsl 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 HISTORIC of the Legislature. The Board approved the draft, LTSTRICTS 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. ) At 9 05 p.m. the Board held a public hearing ROBINSON HILL relative to the application for approval as a sub- division the property of Leeland Construction Co. ,Inc . SEC , 3 to be known as Robinson Hill, Section Three. Fight UPLAND opened attended the hearing Mich the Chairman COr?STRUCTT1T opened by reading notice of the same as it had been CO. ,INC sent to all property owners deemed to be affected and as it had been published in the nctober 11, 1956 issue of the Lexinmton minute-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 Wingate 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 eventuallY 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 Road, both reere- senting the Leeland Construction Company, wished to be recorded as in favor of the plan ' s approval. Mr. and Mrs. Francis J. Cooke, Mr . and Mrs. Burnham Kelly -3- and Mr. and Mrs . Daniel H. Gray of 2, 6 and 10, ' respectively, Stretham Road wished to be re- corded as onposed to the annroval of the plan. The Charman declared the hearing closed at 25 n .m. stating that the plan would be taken under advisement. 4t the conclusion of the hearing the Chairman asked Mr. icConchie if any nerson other than himself had ri?hts in the narcel marked "Woodbury Road" in the nlan . 'Tr. cConchie said that the Andersons, located in the rear of resi- dences 11 end 15 Childs Road, had rights over the parcel from Liana Lane. Mr. Jaquith asked Mr. McConchie if there would be enough area in Lot 5 to meet the re- quirements of the zoning by-law without taking the parcel marked 'Toodbury Poad in consideration. When 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 narcel. Mr. Snow suggested it be so marked with the ownerls name on it and the words "Woodbury Poad" eliminated from the plan . Mr. McConchie said he did not see why this was neces- sar- when the elan 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, 1056. Summary Planning Board should require two im- portant changes in nlan (1) Effective termina- tion of Diana Lane at new cross street (Childs Road) ; (2) neiection of proposed new Woodbury Road . General Reasoning• (1) Long discussion of Robinson Hill development led to consistent rejection of a new Woodbury 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 Construction Company made po'sible new access and approval of first two sections of this progressive 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 approved sewer easement, (b) pavement extension of Diana Lane over an easement to Andersons, (c ) street light in- stallation along lower Woodbury 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 approved in Section Two surely meant only as a turn- around, not as a reversal of policy regarding major streets; (2) with new road nr000sed in Section Three, this stub not needed - it should be cut off; (3) how- ever, since pavement 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 at 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. ( that if developer now naves all the way down to Massachusetts Avenue? Clearly he will have created the exact street that the lo-2h-56 -4- that -4- that the town has refused to approve. ) (K) this is the time, and perhans 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 possibility of acquiring for nark land the KELLY LAND meadow between Stretham and Woodbury Roads and FOR PUBLIC Massachusetts Avenue. He said he thought only RECREATION Messrs. Cooke, Kelly and Gray owned this. Mr PURPOSES Adams stated that he snoke to Mr. Kelly about giving the meadow to the town for this purpose 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 ADDENDUM To Owners of Real Estate Within Proposed Historic Districts The Planning Board has had placed in the Warrant for the Snecial Town Meeting to be held on November 19, 1956 an Article for acceptance by the Town of Chapter 1017, Acts of 1956, enacted by the State Legis- lature at the last session . Chapter 117 is the Lex- ington 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 Meeting. The legislature made no substantial changes in the nrovisions of the bill as filed but it did make a few minor changes in phrase- ology and nunctuation for purposes of clarity There is enclosed for your information a copy of Chapter W17 . The Board has not scheduled any special meetings to discuss the legislation before the Special Town Meeting. However, members of the Board will be available to explain the act at the usual precinct meetings held before the Town Meeting should anj*body desire further information. LEXIDTGTOPT PLP.PTT?T^T!". BOARD by Donald D. Hathaway, Chairman I