Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-01-30January 30, 1957 At 8:00 p.m. on January 30s 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 -man on January 100 1957. He also read See. 5 (g) of the Lexington on ng Zw which describes per- mitted uses in an A 1 zone. Mr. Hathaway emphasized that the petition did not involve any change in the by -lax, 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 ' 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 junction of Marrett road and Route 128, Mr. Bruen then pointed out 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, surer 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. t� Mr. Bruen likewise noted that he had a copy of Mr. Stevens' January 4, 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 Torn 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 64 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 out 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 201 x 401 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 52000 sqa 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 rwvdng the length of the building would have three entrances on the north side, and one to the meet to be used as an entrance lobby. He added that the restaurant on the east end of the hotel was to be two stories in height, the dining room on the first floor being identical to the one on the second floor, both being 251 x 301 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 321 x 1181, 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 snoods and faced toward the south. Mr. Hathaway stated that•tho 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 facility and a swimming pool. He added that in connection with its study of the plans the Board consulted with other town agencies and officials in re- gard to said plans and that the building inspector did n©t have an oppor- tunity to more than casually glance at the plans submitted that afternoon, that the B3ard planned to consult with the inspector after be 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 fund 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 gt 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 Lexington, 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 waking its determination. Levi G. Burnell, Jr. Clerk D 1