Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-11-26PLANNING BOARD MEETING November 26, 1956 A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office building on November 26, 1Q56 at 7:30 p.m. Present were Chairman Hathawav, Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Burnell, Grindle and Jaquith, the Planning Director Mr. Snow, and the secretary, Mrs. Milliken. Mr. Stevens, Town Counsel, was present from 7:30 to 0:00 n.m. The following Form A applications were taken under consideration for determination of Planning FORMS A Board jurisdiction: #56-97, submitted on November 152 1956 by Brown & Brown, attorneys for Peter M. & Martin Semonian; plan entitled "Sub -Division Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass. (being a sub -division of lot shown on Ld. Ct. Plan 344370A)", Scale: 1" = 60', dated Oct 17, 1956s Joseph W. Moore, Reg. Land Surveyor, Bedford, ' Mass. It was moved, seconded and unanimously VOTED: that the plan accompanying Form A applica- tion #56-97 requires approval under the Subdivision Control Law. #56-98, submitted on November 26, 1956 by Win S. Couette, agent for Roger B. Tyler, Albert B. Wolfe, trustees; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", Scale: 1" = 40', dated Oct. 19, 1956s Everett M. Brooks Co., C.E.,Newtonvi.11e, Mass. The above plan is the same as the one which accompanied Form A application 456-86 which was with- drawn. To the original plan was added a notation as suggested by Mr. Stevens in his letter of November 231 1956 to the Planning Board. It was moved, seconded and unanimously VOTED: that the plan accompanying Form A applica- tion 4,156-98 be signed with the endorsement ' "Lexington Planning Board approval under the subdivision control law not required as conveyance of lots 160 and 161 is restricted respectively to owners of lots 84 and 85 as ' set forth in agreement of Roger B. Tyler et al, trustees, with the Town of Lexington, dated November 16, 1956 to be duly regis- tered and noted on Certificate of Title No. 75103." The Board approved for payment the bill of BILL Mary G. Campbell for secretarial services for the period ending November 23, 1956. Likewise approved were the minutes of the MINUTES Planning Board meetings of October 15, 22, and 24, 1956. Considered next w^.s the application of Nathan LONGFELLOW Ribock for tentative approval of the Longfellow ESTATES Estates preliminary subdivision plan. After due con - PRELIMINARY sideration it was moved by Mr.Abbott, seconded by Mr. SUBDIVISION Adams and unanimously RIBOCK VOTED; that the preliminary subdivision plan entitled "Longfellow Estates in Lexington, Mass,"s dated Sept. 24.1 1956, submitted to the Board on October 291 1956s be and hereby is tentative- , ly approved subject to the following conditions: (a) that the revised lots at the intersection of Graham and Whittier Roads be included 'n the subdivision; (b) that there be provided, sub- stantially as indicated on the plan, a leveling area on Whittier Road at the Graham Road inter- section; and (c) that the water and drainage system as shown on said plan be approved by the Town Engineer; and (d) that Lot 19 be eliminated. Mr. Stevens left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. At 8:05 p.m. the Board held a public hearing ROBINSON HILL, relative to its proposal to modify its approval of SEC, 2 The Robinson Hill, Section two definitive subdivision MODIFICATION plan, dated March 2, 1955s by eliminating as ways portions of Childs Road and Diana Lane that are sit- LEELAND CON- uated southeasterly of an extension northeasterly STRUCTION across Diana Lane of the southeasterly sideline of CO., INC. Childs Road. Mr. Leeland G. McConchle of the Leeland Construction Co., Inc. was the only person attending the hearing. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the notice of the same ns it had been published in the ' November 8, 1956 issue of the Lexington Minute -man. He then exhibited a print of the obinson Hill,See- 11-26-56 ' tion Two subdivision plan on which was marked the portions of Childs Road. and Diana Lane it was pro- posed to eliminate, asking Mr. McConchie if he understood what the Planning Board was trying to correct and if he had any questions about the matter. Mr. McConchie said he believed he under- stood what the Board wished to do but asked that he be shown in detail what the Board would like to have him do. The Chairman stated that he could have Miller & N71ander, who prepared the original subdivision plan, draw a plan showing a modifica- tion of a portion of the Robinson Hill, Section Two plan. He said that the Board would have Mr. Snow confer with the Town Counsel and afterwards prepare a sketch plan which Miller &. Nylander could have redrawn in final form for approval and rewording. -2- The Chairman also pointed out that Lot 17 on the Section Two plan was not a legal lot, it hav- ing only 120.75 feet of frontage on Childs Road. Mr. Jaquith suggested that after the Planning Board modified the Section Two plan Mr. McConchie have a ' plan prepared which would change Lot 17 by adding a triangular parcel to the northeasterly side of the existing lot in such a manner that the newly created lot had the required frontage of 125 feet on Childs Road. Mr. Jaquith said that the new lot plan would not require planning board approval and so could be endorsed by the Board after a Form A application had been submitted. He also said that the northeasterly line of the neirly created lot could then be one of the boundaries of a revised Robinson Hill Section Three subdivision. The Chairman asked Mr. McConchie if he wished to be recorded in favor of the Planning Board's nroposal. He said he did whereupon the Chairman declared the hearing closed at 8:15 P.M. The Board then conferred with Mr. McConchie in regard to his Robinson Hill Section Three de- finitive subdivision plan which the Board had dis- approved at its November 13 meeting. The Chairman said that in addition to showing the sideline for a corrected Lot 171 it would be necessary to show the existing sewer and driveway easement over Lot 5. Mr. Jaquith said that the Planning Board did not recognize the parcel of land marked "Woodbury ROBINSON HILL SEC. 3 11-26-56 -3- Road" as a way. Mr. McConchie said he would have ' the name erased and the Leeland Construction Co. name substituted since his company owned the land involved. The Chairman then informed Mr. McConchie that if he had the changes suggested made and the names of all abuttors added to the plan, the Board would be in a position of rescinding its vote of disapproval after the revised plan was submitted to the Board. Mr. McConchie left the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Notices of petitions to be heard by the Board BOARD OF of Appeals on December 11 were read by Mr. Hathaway APPEALS and discussed at great length. However, it was decided to take no action in regard to said peti- tions. Mr. Snow also reported that the men had no definite plans for their proposal and spoke in terms of rezoning for a project which they were contem- plating constructing some time during the period 1961- 1966. He said he informed the men of ways of petition- ' ing for a public hearing and the need of having some- thing definite to present at such a hearing. Mr. Snow also said he suggested to the men that they wait until At 9:15 n.m. Chairman Hathaway left the meet- ing for the reason that he had a personal interest in the next item which the Planning Director was to pre- sent to the Board for discussion. Mr. Snow reported that on June 51 1956 Mr. John REGIONAL L. Donovan, Manager of the Aetna Realty Company of SHOPPING Somerville, and Mr. Francis B. Gummere, Secretary of CENTER William Filene's Sons Company of Boston, came to the REZONING Planning Board office to inquire about the possibility PROPOSAL of and the procedure to be followed in rezoning land between State Routes 2 and 128, Snring and Shade Streets for a regional shopping center. Mr. Snow said that at that time Mr. Donovan had obtained some op- tions to several tracts of land for this pur- purchase pose, the largest tract involved being that owned by Mrs. Ingeborg N. Swenson on Spring Street and one of the smaller tracts being the rear land of Mr. Hathaway who resided on Shade Street. Mr. Snow said that he had been approached by Mr. Donovan and Mr. Gummere be- cause Mr. Hathaway had informed them that he was a member of the Planning Board and could not discuss their proposal with them except as an individual who had granted them an option to purchase several acres of his land. Mr. Snow also reported that the men had no definite plans for their proposal and spoke in terms of rezoning for a project which they were contem- plating constructing some time during the period 1961- 1966. He said he informed the men of ways of petition- ' ing for a public hearing and the need of having some- thing definite to present at such a hearing. Mr. Snow also said he suggested to the men that they wait until 11-26-56 -3- they had a concrete nrorosal in mind before meeting with and discussing the matter with the Planning Board. Continuing his report Mr. Snow stated that on October 19a 1956 the same two gentlemen met with him again to show him preliminary plans which they had had prepared for a regional shopping center and to suggest that they were now ready to discuss with the Board the possibilities of rezoning the parcels of land on which they h eld options. Mr. Snow said he suggested that beforA they ask for an appointment with the Board they wait until it had presented to the November special town meeting its rezoning pro- nosals. He said that he informed them that after the Town had acted upon these -proposals he thought the Board would have more time to give their pro- posals consideration. Mr. Snow further stated that the following day after said special town meeting Mr. Donovan had telephoned him stating that both he and Mr. Gummere had attended said town meeting and asking that their request for a meeting be formally presented to the planning Board. Mr. Snow concluded his report by stating that he presumed the Board would request a recommendation from the staff in regard to the rezoning proposal. He said that with this thought in mind he and Mr. Howlett had prepared a preliminary outline of the Information which they believed they needed to make an adequate analysis of said proposal. Mr. Snow then presented said outline for the Board's information. (See addendum.) After discussing the proposal in detail it was decided that the Board would hold a closed meeting on December 10 at which Mr. Hathaway would not be -res- ent, that part of said meeting would be placed at the disnosal of Mr. Ponovan and Mr. Gummere in order that they might discuss their rezoning proposal, that Mr. Snow should write a letter to Messrs. Donovan and Gummere giving them this information and asking them to assist the Planning Board in analvzing their pro- nosal by furnishing such information as they had as indicated on the outline prepared Messrs. Howlett and Snow. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ' a Levi G. Burnell, Jr J Clerk Jr ADDENDUM OUTLINE FOR A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED RE- I GIONAL SHOPPTNG CENTER A. Information to be Obtained About the Shopping Center 1. Total gross shopping center area 2. Total gross shop floor area 3. Total num'ler of shops h. Gross floor area for each shon 5. Gross parking area f,, Total number of narking spaces 7. Total landscaped area R. Ratio of park;ng to shop area 9. Fxnected total volume of automobiles by day of week 10. Exnnected volumes of entering and leaving automobile by hour of dav and day of week 11. Estimated number of employees in center and number employees expected to arrive by automobiles 12. Expected truck volumes of truck type needed to ser- vice the shopping center and to care for house de- liveries 13. Total expected sales 14..Total volume of sales expected from each town or city 15. Expected number of customers from each town or city 16. Expected number of automobiles from each town or city 17. Estimated water requirements and how they are proposed ' to be met 18. Estimated volumes of sanitary sewage and storm drain- age run-offs and how they are proposed to be cared for 19. Estimated power requirements and how they are proposed to be met 20. Estimated heating requirements and how they are oro - posed to be met B. Data to be Estimated by the Town of Lexington on the Basis of the Information Supplied Above 1. Costs of property acquisition for road widening pur- poses 2. Costs of preparing and constructing adequate roads 3. Costs of necessary traffic control devices 4. Costs of annual increased road maintenance 5. Costs of annual increased policing provisions necessary to maintain order at the center and to care for increased traffic volumes and accidents 6. Costs of increased fire protection 7. Costs of extending adequate sanitary and storm sewerage systems 8. Costs of extending adequate water lines 9. Expected loss of tax revenue from town shops due to altered shopping habits ' 11-2h_56 -4- 10. Expected changes in property values on lands adjacent to shopping center and consequent change In tax revenue 11. Expected amount of taxes to be obtained from shopping center C. Other Items Certain other costs and benefits accruing to the Town are not felt to be either sufficiently relevant and/or easily susceptible to analysis, and have therefore been excluded. Some of these items would be; 1. Changes in travel patterns by townspeople who are not immediately adjacent to the center, resulting In changed road use and policing requirements. 2. Changes in taxes resulting from persons working at the center moving into Lexington to live. 3. Increases in other town services not specifically enumerated. 4. Changes In auto and other insurance rates, etc. ' D. Benefits 1. Provision of greater shopping area and shop diversity for the townspeople. 2. Lack of necessity for providing more parking and other services for downtown shops. L