Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-11-08PLAWTNG BOARD HEARTNG November 8, 1956 The Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing at 8-15 p.m. on Thursdays November 8, 19561 in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, to con- sider proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning By. law. Present were Chairman Hathaway, members Adams, Burnell, Grindle and Jaquiths Planning Director Snow and the secretary, pars. Milliken. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the entire notice of the same as it had been published in the October 25, 1961 issue of the Lexington Minute - Man. He said all property owners in or abutting the properties affected had been sent notices of the hear- ing as it had been published. He then explained the procedure to be followed in conducting the hearing. Tn regard to the first proposal set forth in the notice, Mr. Hathaway pointed out that it was the same as that in Article 23 of the warrant for the special town meeting to be held on November 19, 1956. On a plan which was exhibited Mr. Hathaway pothted out the location of the parcel of land which it was nronosed to rezone and which adjoined Depot Square and the railroad station. He noted that the parcel would add 1438 square feet to the General Business District located in the general area. There being no questions or discussion in regard to the proposals the Chairman asked for an indication of those in favor of and opposed to the proposal. Of the six persons attending the hearing at the times three Indicated that they were in favor of the proposal. No one indicated opposition to it. Considered next was the second rezoning proposal set forth in the notice. The Chairman stated that this second proposal was the same as that set forth under Article 24 of said warrant. Mr. Alfred P. Tropeano of 25 Vine Brook Road asked why, under Section C.2, of said second proposal, offices having facilities for employing a minimum of 100 individuals was the standard to determine a build- ing size. He said he had not heard of any zoning regu- lation which sought to limit the size of a building by ' the number of individuals employed therein. He also said that often small concerns would employ only sev- eral individuals who occupy a large amount of space. Mr. Tropeano asked why the word occupy could not be used instead of employ. ' Mr. Jaquith stated that an employee does not always occupy a building. He said it was the Board's intent to have in an industrial- or laboratory -type of district buildings of sufficient size for 100 people to work there- In. here-in. Mr. Don S. Greer, representing Westlex Corporations said that a great many small businesses only have 30 or 40 employees. He said that it was his opinion that in- stead of t rying to exclude small businesses, the Planning Board should try to encourage thems that they attracted a more desirable type of employee and created less traffic. Mr. Hathaway said that several small firms could occupy one building. He also said that it was the Plan- ning Board's opinion that from an aesthetic viewpoint it was desirable to have larger buildings and fewer of them In the type of district being discussed. Mr. Adams com- mented that'in the Board's study it had been noted that nowhere along Route 128 was there a district with a multi- plicit7 of small buildings. There being no further comments on the second pro- posals the Chairman asked that the third one be discussed. ' He noted, as he had before, that this proposal correo- ponded to Article 25 of the warrant previously referred to. He said that the proposal merely added the require- ment that each building must connect with a sanitary sewer. Chairman Hathaway pointed out that the Board con- sidered this an important point in an area which had difficult drainage problems. There was no discussion about proposal 3. There was then considered the fourth proposal set forth in the notices said proposal corresponding to Article 26 in the warrant for the November 19 Special Town Meeting. Mr. Hathaway commented that the present limitation of 55 feet as the maximum height of build- ings in .0 2 and M 1 districts was only being extended further to C 3 districts. Mr. Tro eano pointed out that this would hermit the erection of �- or 5 -story office buildings. Mr. Hathaway replied that this was a matter of design and that only a few days ago he had visited a research type of building with a 24 -foot ceiling height. Mr. Howard H. Dawes of 10 Bernard Street asked what happened in a situation where a building is to be built on a slope. Mr. Jaquith referred him to Section 7 (d) of the Zoning By-law. This paragraph being read for the benefit of those present at the hearing. 11-8-56 ' In regard to the fifth proposal set forth in the notice and corresponding to Article 27 on said warrant, Mr. Lawes first asked how loading berths were to be located along the railroad track to Hanscom Field. Mr. Hathaway said this particular spur track was controlled by the Air Force which allowed no access to said track. Mr. Tropeano asked why the Planning Board wished to require that there be no parking area within 10 feet of any boundary line of a lot. He said that for all practical purposes this would create a buffer strip 20 feet wide between two adjoining parcels and that there would be a fence along the common boundary lines of these parcels making two 10 -foot wide strips of land for the growing of weeds. He said he could not see the logic of such a proposal and thought it would be better to have all the area paved and used for parking space. Mr. Hathaway said that the Board desired to have as firms to construct buildings in the district. He stated that he was against the adoption of the proposed amend- ments. He then asked if the amendments were adopted whether or not his firm could go to the Board of Appeals -2- many amenities as nosstble in industrial and special commercial districts and that for this reason buffer strips were intended for planting with trees and shrubs. He also said that it was hoped the Town would attract companies to these districts who would not want to pave ' the buffer strips or let them go to weeds. Mr. Greer gave a lengthy in an effort, presentation he said, to acquaint the Planning Board with some of the problems with which his firm, the Westlex Corpora- tion, would be faced in trying to develop its 43 -acre tract under the proposed zoning amendment. On a map which he exhibited of the corporation's land in the M 1 district he pointed out how said land was cut up by the location of brooks, the railroad spur to the air base, the Boston Edison, gas transmission line and avigation easements and the approximate location of an Air Force road from Bedford to 'Rood Streets. He then displayed squares representing one, three and five acre lots which he superimposed on his map pointing out how, in his opinion, it would be difficult to develop the corpora- tion's land into 5 -acre lots and comparatively easy to use it for one- and three -acre lots. Mr. Greer said the proposed zoning changes might be desirable for a large type of plant and a large clear area along Route 128 but were not desirable for small businesses which might like to locate In Lexln!^ton. He pointed out the lack of sewers in the area and the building coverage restric- tions, stating that the cost of complying with the pro- posed zoning amendments made it nrohibitive for small firms to construct buildings in the district. He stated that he was against the adoption of the proposed amend- ments. He then asked if the amendments were adopted whether or not his firm could go to the Board of Appeals -2- and have the amendments altered if a buyer was found for ' any of the land. Mr. Hathaway said he thought he could for not many sites like the Westlex Corporation land would have the conditions described. Mr. Tropeano commented that the amendments should specifically give permission to go to the Boesd of Appeals for variances. Mr. Hathaway then read from section 14 of the Zoning B4 -law setting forth the rowers of the Board of Appeals. Mr.. John P. Meehan of 24 Peachtree Road asked what type of building could be constructed in the district since he noted there were no architectural restrictions In the nronosed amendments. Mr. Meehan was informed that the type of construction of buildings was only set forth under the Town's Building By-law. Mr. Tropeano asked how the problem of non -conform - Ing lots could be solved under the proposed amendments. mhe Chairman said it was not uncommon to have firms assemble several small parcels of lnnd to obtain sufficient area for their use. Mr. Lincoln P. Cole, Jr. of 16 Hill Street inquired why the Planning Board thought it was preferable to have , larger buildings in a district than smaller ones. The Chairman replied that the Board was of the opinion that it was desirable to obtain larger buildings and fewer of them in order to give more continuity and attractiveness to the district as well as to provide a broader tax base. He said smaller lots and the corresponding increase in driveways would bring about more traffic and a more con- fusing traffic pattern than would be the case with larger lots and buildings. Mr. Frederic K. Johnson of 3 Franklin Road stated that annearance would not be a very important factor in this location. He said that he had inquiries from sev- eral neonle who were interested in lots of one or two acres, some of these people being townsmen who would like to obtain better facilities than they now have. He also said he could see the need for some [-acre lots but that In his opinion there was more need and demand at the present for smaller lots. Mr. Hathaway said the Planning Board would keep this idea in mind but at the same time said he did not see why several small business and re- search firms could not occupy one building on a larger lot. Mr. Tropeano asked why the Planning Board had ex- cluded restaurants from permitted uses in an M 1 district. ' The Chairman replied that usually each firm located along Route 128 had some arrangement for eating facilities. He 11-8-56 -3- I said the Board did not believe that it was necessary at this time to nrovide for a restaurant in the dis- trict. Mr. Meehan asked if, in the Board's opinion, it was a good idea to exclude a shopping center in the district. Chairman Hathaway said the Board did not believe that a shopping center within the district was compatible with light manufacturing and laboratory uses. Mr. Meehan also asked if anyone had made a study of how profitable light manufacturing was to towns where zoning for such use had taken place. The Chair- man said that in the case of Needham he understood that the town received about X250,000 of taxable in- come for each $75,000 of capital outlay the town had made. Mr. Grindle commented that this estimate did not take into consideration the number of children that come into a town when families seek employment in manufacturing firms. The Chairman said that any development of an M 1 district would not reduce the tax rate but would keep it from rising at as rapid rate as when there was no light manufacturing Bevel- ' onment to tax. The Chairman asked for an expression of opinion in regard to Article 27 concerning which most of the discussion had taken glace. No one wished to be re- corded as in favor of the proposed amendments as set forth in said article; five persons indicated that they were opposed to these amendments. Mr. Troneano asked for a show of hands indiaat- ing how many persons were opposed to a minimum lot size of five acres. Seven persons indicated that they were opposed to the 5 -acre lot size. Mr. Troneano then asked how many persons were in favor of a 2 -acre lot size with a frontage of 200 feet. Nine persons Indicated they were. Upon determining that there were no more questions anyone wished to ask, Chairman Hathaway adjourned the hearing, the time being 10:20 p.m. Levi G. Burnell, Jr. d Clerk