HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-01-30 PLANNING BOARD HEARING
January 30, 1957
At 8:00 p.m. on January 30, 1957 the Planning Board held a public
hearing in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, on application of Asso-
ciates Realty Trust, 130 Newmarket Sq., Boston, for a determination by the
Board that buildings and uses as shown on the plans including the site
plans and building designs for a hotel to be located on land which is situ-
ated at the intersection of Marrett Road and State Route 128, said land
being in an A 1 district under the Lexington Zoning By law, constitute a
desirable development in and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Present were Chairman Hathaway, Members Abbott, Adams, Grindle, Burnell
and Jaquith; Mr. Snow and Mr. Howlett of the staff, and Mrs. Baker, secre-
tary. In addition 66 persons attended the hearing including those asso-
ciated with the Trust.
Chairman Hathaway opened the hearing by reading the hearing notice
which had been sent to all property owners deemed to be affected and which
had been published in the Lexington Minute- zan, on January 10,1957. He
also read Sec. 5 (g) of the Lexington Zoning Ay-law which describes per-
mitted uses in an A Z zone. Mr. Hathaway emphasized that the petition did
not involve any change in the by-law, stating that the question was not
whether or not apartments or a hotel would be permitted but whether or not
the plans as submitted by the petitioner would be beneficial and not
111 detrimental to the neighborhood. The Chairman asked the petitioner to pre-
sent the plans after which the Board and citizens might ask questions and
secure general information. He said that after the closing of the hearing,
the Planning Board would take the plans under advisement and after study
would notify the petitioner of its decision.
Mr. Gerald E. Bruen, 53 State Street, Boston, attorney for the
petitioner stated that the Associates Realty Trust was a Massachusetts
business trust under declaration of trust recorded in the State's Depart-
ment of Corporations. He said that the Trust is composed of nine Greater
Boston business and professional men and Mr. Seabury, son of the former
owner of the land which has been conveyed to said trust. He added that
the land includes all the area zoned as an A 1 district at the function of
Marrett road and Route 128. Mr. Bruen then pointed oat or displayed
material which the Board had requested in its January 22, 1957 letter to
the trust, said material consisting of building plans, site plan, sewer
plan, renewals of State Department of Public Works permits for a sewer under
Route 128 and a driveway entrance onto Route 2 A, and two perspectives of
the proposed hotel.
Mr. Bruen likewise noted that he bad a copy of Mr. Stevens' January
ii, 1957 letter to Mr. Groden, the Seabury's attorney, in which Mr. Stevens
acknowledged the receipt and recording of .a deed of land where the hotel is
proposed to be constructed by the Associates Realty Trust, all other deeds
of land, easements from Mrs. Seabury, the Town of Lexington and the
Methodist Church, and the receipt of an option covering Lot C that was
granted by the Seaburys to the Town of Lexington together with a separate
instrument setting forth the option purchase price.
In discussing the plans Mr. Bruen noted that a parking space was pro-
vided for 90 cars, that the hotel included 6i sleeping units, and that the
dining room would seat at one time 50 people for meals and 75 to 100 without
dining facilities. Mr. Bruen likewise noted that the Trust was not pre-
sumptuous in proposing a swimming pool on the site but recognized the fact
that this was what they expected to construct should the Board of Appeals
grant them permission to do so.
Mr. Stephen Hopkins, president of the Trust, discussed the site plan
pointing oat the entrance road, the parking area behind the hotel, the loca-
tion of the proposed hotel and its relation to existing pine woods, and a
20' x 40' swimming pool. He stated that in addition it was planned to
develop woodland paths, a picnic area, and to construct a play-yard for
children.
Mr, Carl S. Priestley, architect, 131 State St., Boston, then dis-
cussed the hotel plans stating that the building was to be two stories in
height, was to have concrete foundation, exterior walls of stuccoed con-
crete block, fire walls dividing the hotel into three units of less than
5,000 sq. ft. in area, wood framed floors, carpeted corridors and rooms ex-
cept in the alcoves off the living rooms, and tiled baths. He also stated
that the inside corridors running the length of the building would have three
entrances on the north side, and one to the west .to be used as an entrance
lobby. Be added that the restaurant on the east end of the hotel was to be
two stories in hei ht the dining room on the first floor being identical to
height,
the one on the second floor, both being 25' x 30' in area, and the kitchen
located on the north side of the wing with service to it from the end of the
parking area.
In discussing the house proposed for the resident manager, Mr. Priestly
stated it would be a one-story structure with a pitched roof measuring 32' x
b8', of wood construction, would have no basement but would contain a living
room, dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms and a bath, the house being
oriented so that the living room overlooked the woods and faced toward the
south.
Mr. Hathaway stated that the principal difference between the plans
submitted prior to the date set for the public hearing and the plans sub-
mitted that afternoon was that the latter plans included a restaurant
study facility and a swimming pool. He added that in connection withits of
the plans the Board consulted with other town agencies and officials in re-
gard to said plans and that the building inspector did not have an oppor-
tunity to more than casually glance at the plans submitted that afternoon,
that the Board planned to consult with the inspector after he had an oppor-
tunity to study the plans more fully. Mr. Hathaway stated that the Board
had discussed the former set of plans with the fire prevention bureau and
read into the record a letter dated January- 28, 1957 from Dep. Chief
Belcastro,in which he stated that be had examined the hotel plans and found
that from a public safety standpoint they were inadequate and not in detail
and that for these reasons the fire prevention bureau could not approve said
plans in their present form.
The Chairman then asked those present if they had any questions in
regard to the plans as submitted.
Mr. Robert C. Johnson of 60 Wood Street, spoke as president of a
neighborhood association in that area stating that oneo
gr up petitioned
for rezoning on the land in question and that another group with a change
of plans was petitioning for approval of a different set of plans than
had been originally submitted to the Board, and asked if the town meeting
would approve these plans as submitted, rezoning said land in question
from R 1 to A 1_use.
Mr. Hathaway stated that earlier he had tried to point out that the
zoning law as such was not directly involved in the petition being con-
sidered at the hearing and that the Board recognized at the time the zon-
ing by-law was changed by the town that the Board would not necessarily
have any control over the transfer of property to other owners, and that
the town meeting voted only to change the use of the land from a single
family residence district to a garden apartment and hotel district.
Mr. Harry C. Gatos of 11 Patterson Road asked what the architect
was trying to express, something of a contemporary or historical nature,
in the design of the building. The architect replied that he did not
wish to design a building in any particular style.
Mrs. Arthur F. Hinds, 2938 Massachusetts Ave. expressed concern re-
garding the location of the entrance road to the hotel property from
Route 2 A pointing out the large amount of traffic on this road, particu-
larly during certain periods of the day, and stating that adding more
traffic to the highway would make bad conditions worse. Chairman Hathaway
stated that this was one of the matters the Planning Board had to consider
in its determination that the project would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Kenneth R. Covey of 17 Patterson Road inquired if, as the plans
now were drawn, the Trust had access to Massachusetts Avenue. It was
stated that no access was shown to Massachusetts Ave. on the plan sub-
mitted to the Board for consideration.
Maurice F. Shaughnessy, 19 Wheeler Road, spoke in favor of the pro-
ject stating that a facility of this nature was needed in Iexington, both
from a standpoint of a place where people could obtain accommodations for
the night but also as a place in which meetings, such as those of the Sun
Valley Association, could be held.
Messrs. Frank G. Licciardi, 26 School St., and David L. Perice, 41
Locust Ave., directors of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that they were in
favor of a project of this nature in Lexington.
Mr. Lawrence Casey, 2663 Mass. Ave. wished to be recorded as being in
opposition to the project.
Alex M. Hammer, Jr., 69 Hancock St., stated that he thought it would
take a great many acres of homes to produce an income which would be de-
rived from taxes through the assessment of this hotel when completed and
that the town did need the income. Mr. Gatos stated that he felt a building
of this type would depreciate the value of the neighborhood to the extent
that the houses would have to be re-assessed, the result being there would
be a deficiency in income rather than a credit.
Chairman Hathaway stated that among other matters the Board had to
consider in connection with the petition was whether or not a project of
this kind was going to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood.
One lady questioned whether the Trust had only a food license for
their dining room to which Mr. Hathaway replied that the zoning by-laws of
the town did not permit anything other than food licenses.
There being no further questions or discussions the Chairman asked
for an indication of those present who were in favor of the plans as sub-
mitted that evening. Seventeen wished to be recorded as being in favor
of the plans, and nine opposed, these figures including persons who had
previously spoken at the hearing.
The Chairman adjourned the hearing at 10:15 stating that the
Board would take the comments and statements made under consideration be-
fore making its determination.
X_ P-2), A
Levi G. Burnell, Jr.
Clerk