HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-02-25PLANNING BOARD MEETING
February 25, 1957
A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held
on Monday, February 25, 1957 at 7:35 p.m. in the Town
Engineer's Room, Town Office Building. Present were
Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Burnell, Grindle and Jaquith and
Planning Director Snow. Mr. Hathaway was present from
10:15 p.m. until the close of the meeting.
It was moved, seconded and unanimously voted that
Mr. Jaquith be chairman pro tempore.
From 7:45 to 8:25 p.me a group of members of the
League of Women Voters visited with the Board, observ-
ing its procedure in the routine matters which are dis-
cussed at Planning Board meetings.
The Board approved the following bills which had BILLS
been presented for payment: Louise M. Baker secretar-
ial services, period endinFeb. 22, 1957--620.00 and
home typing for February --W-04; Graphic Reproductions
Inc., white prints --$2.40; Bruce E. Howlett, profes-
sional services, period ending February 23, 1957--
$105.00.
Mr. Snow brought to the attention of the Board a SIGNS
photograph and item from the February 21, 1957 Lexing-
ton Minute -man in regard to new signs that were being
erected in v ari ous places in town within the rights of
way of the highways, said signs being erected by the
Rotary, Kiwanis and Lions Clubs and the Chamber of Com-
merce for the purpose of welcoming persons to Lexington.
It was noted that in the Lexington Zoning By-law there
is nothing stated as to whether or not such signs are
permitted or prohibited as accessory uses in an R 1 dis-
trict. Mr. Snow pointed out that the signs were larger
than those allowed under the Lexington Zoning By-law
and asked if the Chamber of Commerce could erect such
signs why other organizations or individuals might not
erect other signs in similar locations also. The Board
took no action on the matter presented.
The Planning Board accepted the application for OAK KNOLL
approval of the Oak Knoll Section II definitive plan SEC. 3
and set the date of the public hearing upon said appli-
cation for March 11, 1957 at 8:00 p.m.
' The Board accepted also a new application for the ROBINSON
Robinson Hill Section 3 definitive plan and set the HILL
date for the hearing on said application for March 11,
1957 at 8:30 p.m.
SUIS VALLEY Mr. Snow read to the Board a February 20, 1957
SECS. 1 and letter he had received from Mr.Stevens enclosing
2 copies of the granting of the necessary easements in
Sections l and 2 of the Sun Valley subdivision, stating
that these were recorded in the Middlesex South Dis-
trict Registry of Deeds and stating also that Mr.
Stevens saw no reason why the bonds on these two sec-
tions of the Sun Valley development could not be re-
leased by the Planning Board. All matters appearing to
be in order it was moved by Mr. Grindle, seconded by Mr.
Adams and unanimously
VOTED: To release the performance bond, dated
April 20, 1954s filed by DeVries Con-
struction Co., Inc. as Principal, and the
Maryland Casualty Co., as Surety, in the
sum of Thirty-nine thousand and 00/100
dollars--;($39,000.00)--to secure the per-
formance by the subdivider of the obliga-
tions as to the subdivision entitled,
"Section One Sun Valley Lexington, Mass.
Owned by DeVries Construction Co., Inc."
It was moved by Mr. Burnell, seconded by Mr.
Adams and unanimously
VOTED: To release the performance bond, dated
September 20, 1954, filed by DeVries Con-
struction Co., Inc., as Principal, and the
Maryland Casualty Co., as Surety, in the
sum of Fifty-nine thousand and 00/100
dollars--($59,000.00)--to secure the per-
formance by the subdivider of the obliga-
tions as to the subdivision entitled "Sec-
tion Two Sun Valley Lexington, Mass." Owned
by DeVries Construction Co.,Inc."
ASSOCIATES Representatives of the League of Women Voters
REALTY left the meeting at 8:25 p.m. at which time Messrs.
TRUST Stephen Hopkins, Carl S. Priestley, and A. Herbert
Huntoon met with the Board to discuss Deputy Chief
Belc4stro's January 28 and February 18, 1957 letters
to the Planning Board concerning the Fire Prevention
Bureau's recommendations regarding the Associates
Realty Trust's plans for the proposed hotel to be
erected at the intersection of Routes 2 A and 12$.
After discussing the recommendations in these
letters in detail the gentlemen named above left the
meeting at 9:00 p.m. to discuss further among themselves
said recommendations while the Planning Board met with
the School and School Sites Committees.
1
�I
1
Meeting with the Board were Mrs. Marek and
' Messrs. Chapman and Steele of the School Committee;
Mrs. Florey and Mr. Roland Greeley of the School Sites
Committee; Supt. of Schools Smith and his administra-
tive assistant, Mr. Spiris. For the conclusions
reached at this conference see the addendum.
1
1
The Committees and Mr. Jaquith left at 10:20 p.m.
at which time the representatives of the Associates
Realty Trust again met with the Board to continue its
discussion of the proposed hotel plans. In regard to
said hotel plans it was agreed that the Trust would
eliminate from said plans the dumb waiter, that there
would be no laundry chute, that the window openings
would be a minimum of 2'-4" wide and that there would
be a change in the window design of the restaurant.
The representatives left the meeting at 10:45 at which
time Mr. Hathaway came to the meeting.
The Planning Board then discussed the Board of
Appeals notices for hearings to be held on March 12,
1957. It was decided to take no action on the peti-
tions to be held except to go on record as being
opposed to those of the Auto Engineering Co., Inc. and
that of Daniel and Eleanor N. Curtin. After setting
forth in detail its opposition to the granting of said
petitions, Mr. Snow was asked to assemble additional
data needed and to prepare for final consideration
drafts of letters setting forth the Board's reasons for
such opposition.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Levi G. Burnell, Jr.
Clerk
ADDENDUM
February 26, 1957
Mrs. Mildred Marek, Chairman
Lexington School Committee
Junior High School
Lexington, Massachusetts
Dear Mildred:
SCHOOL AND
SCHOOL SITES
COMMITTEES
ASSOCIATES
REALTY
TRUST
BOARD OF
APPEALS
1359 Massachusetts Ave.
Lexington, Mass.
As a result of last evening's meeting it seems agreed that
the School Sites Committee should proceed on the basis of the
following assumptions: ,
1) That at least two additional large sites are needed (in
addition to the Adams - Hancock St. Site): one for a third
Junior High School and one for an additional High Vocational,
or Junior College site. We did not discuss criteria for
this latter site. I would welcome comments from you and Jack
Smith as to such criteria. As I visualize it the criteria
would vary greatly depending upon its potential use:
a) If it is to be used as a replacement for the exist-
ing Junior High School, then it should serve a part
of Town not served by the next two Junior Highs to
be built;
b) If it is to be a second High School its location
should complement that of the existing High School;
c) If it is to be a vocational school or Junior College
it should be central to the whole Town - but what
are the advantages or disadvantages to its being
near, or even adjacent to, the present High School?
Theoretically we could find a site which satisfied criteria
under a, b, and c - but it won't be easy.
2) Elementary School Sites should be selected so as to be '
central to sections of Town which function somewhat as "units";
possibly the single most important criterion here would be to
locate the sites to serve sections which are bounded by, but
not bi-sected by, main highways.
3) It will be desirable to have each school serve from 200 to
a maximum of 500 children, in grades 1-6. Optimum size would
be 12-14 rooms, but size could go up to 20 or down to 8 rooms,
including Kindergartens.
4) Sites should be acquired immediately to accommodate what
may be considered the "ultimate" population of the Town per-
missible under present Zoning restrictions. This will probably
mean a population of 50-55,000, an elementary school enrolment
in Grades 1-6 of about 5000 to 6000, and therefore a gross of
at least 200 rooms, exclusive of Kindergarten rooms.
In this connection, I shall try to work out with Sam Snow and
the Planning Board a reasonable estimate of future population
distribution, and hence of school facilities demand. For this
purpose it would be helpful if' you or Mr. Smith or Mr. Steele
could supply us with the following data for each of the ele-
mentary schools.
a) 1956-57 enrolment (any convenient date) '
b) Number of class -rooms actually in use
1
1
J
c) "Optimum" number of class -rooms which should be
available for use by Grades 1-6;
d) "Maximum" number of class -rooms for Grades 1-6
which the School Committee would consider desir-
able on this site in the long run, assuming
reasonable renovation or additions.
Just to illustrate what I think I am looking for under c)
and d), I would expect that for the Hancock School the
number in c) might be less than are now in use on two
accounts - subtraction to accommodate Kindergarten, and,
possibly, withdrawal of 1 or more rooms too small or too
undesirable to continue in use. And under d), the Hancock
School might be shown either as zero, or as the number of
rooms, exclusive of Kindergartens, you would expect to have
available ii you convinced the Town that the building should
be thoroughly renovated. Possibly this last question should
be referred to Bob Hunter's Committee; if so, do I go
directly to him, or are you the appropriate referral channel?
5) It is understood that Elementary School sites should em-
brace about 10 or 12 acres of land; that the "large" sites
should run to 25 or 30 acres; that "walking distance" shall
continue to mean a distance of not more than 1 mile along a
public way (for elementary schools).
6) Nothing was said last night about Parochial Schools. Is
there reason to assume that there will be more than about
150 elementary school children in such schools in Lexington
during the fore -seeable future? I realize there can be no
definitive answer to this, but would prefer to proceed on
what now seems to be the most reasonable assumption.
Sincerely,
/s/ Roland B. Greeley
February 26, 1957
Mr. Samuel Snow
Planning Director
Town Office Building
Lexington, Massachusetts
Dear Sam:
1359 Massachusetts Avenue
Lexington, Massachusetts
As I understood the consensus last night it included the fol-
lowing points:
1) The Planning Board hopes to have the preliminary outlines
of a general plan for the Town by next Fall. However, it is
accepted that the School Sites Committee will have to
select sites and negotiate options before that time.
Hence any tentative suggestions which the Planning Board
wishes to make may well be relayed to the Sites Committee
in the immediate future. If there are some sections of the
Town where the Planning Board considers it desirable to
"hold up" on site selection, we would be glad to be so ad-
vised.
2) In general the Planning Board would like to see new sites
selected at locations which are central to "neighborhood" areas,
with school district boundaries conforming to "natural"
boundaries and major highways.
3) The selection of sites should reflect the "ultimate" popu-
lation of the Town, based on present zoning. Matters of
timing of school construction can be considered later. The
Planning Board expressed an interest in assisting the Sites
Committee in determining what this ultimate pattern would be.
(Incidentally, do you really feel that the old long-range
"plan", based on Steiner's work, can be used effectively? It
was my impression that you recognized its irrelevance, due to
zoning changes, etc. My feeling would be that a map showing
existing buildings and platted areas - which we have discussed -
would be the best starting point. Ii' you will get me a copy
of that map, either a year or two old or up-to-date, I will.
try to carry on from there. Unless you have some constructive
alternative suggestion I would urge that a copy of such map be
made available at the earliest possible date. If' this means
that Engineering Department staff time must be allocated to
the job, please let me know and I will try to expedite it
"through channels".)
Sincerely,
/s/ Roland B. Greeley
1