Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-06-24PLANNING BOARD MEETING June 24, 1957 A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office Building, on Monday June 24, 1957 at 7:45 p.m. Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Abbott, Burnell, Jaquith, and Soule, and Planning Director Snow. Mr. Stevens, Town Counsel, was present from 9:10 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. Approved were the Minutes of June 7, 10 and 17, MINUTES 1957. Approved also were the following bills presented BILLS for payment: Bruce Howlett, professional services for period ending June 21, 1957=4100.00, mileage --$6.35; Graphic Reproductions, Inc., white prints -41.$6. At 7:55 p•m• Mr. E. N. Funkhouser, Jr., vice CRYOVAC president of the Cryovac Co., located in Cambridge, COMPANY Mass., and Selectmen Ralph H. Tucker met with the Board to discuss the possibilities of locating a com- LIGHT pany plant in Lexington somewhere along Route 128. Mr. MANUFACTUR- Funkhouser presented the following information to the ING PLANT Board: The company wished to build a three -unit devel- PROPOSAL ' opment to be comprised of a building for administrative and office personnel and having a floor area of about 15,000 sq. ft., a research laboratory for experimental equipment and research development activities with a floor area of about 30,000 sq. ft.; a light machinery assembly and stores building having a floor area of approximately 20,000 sq. ft., and a 90,000 sq. ft. parking area. Plans as outlined would be adequate for five years and after this period it was intended that the company would expand its facilities to take care of needs for an additional ten years. In operating a plant of this nature there would be no special problems, no noisy equipment and only a small amount of odors in the immediate vicinity of the plant itself. There would be a small amount of machine assembling and testing but the manufacturing of mater- ials used would take place in another location. Approx- imately 140 persons would be employed including 60-70 skilled clerical workers, a small group of laboratory technicians, and about 15 warehousemen. It was desired to locate in Lexington or vicinity so that in moving the present plant from Cambridge there would be a mini- mum loss of company personnel. For an operation of this nature a minimum size of 6 acres was required, 10 acres preferred. The com- pany would be willing to purchase a site of 20-30 acres for adequate protection of the proposed development. The most desirable site from the company's standpoint was the triangular tract of land bounded by Massachu- setts Avenue, Marrett Road and Route 128. The Board suggested that Mr. Funkhouser might wish to look at other sites in Lexington, particularly the area now zoned for light manufacturing use and also the land southwest- erly of Marrett Road. FORMS_A Messrs. Funkhouser and Tucker left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. at which time the Board took under considera- tion the following Form A applications for Planning Board jurisdiction: #57-59, submitted on June 19, 1957 by Jean E. DeValpine, attorney for William D. and Lucia H. Kingery; plan entitled "Driveway Right and Easement," drawn by W. D. Kingery, June 7, 1957. #57-60, submitted on June 21, 1957 by William H. Hamilton; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexing- ton -Mass.", scale: l" = 30', dated June 18, 1957, Miller and Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors. #57-61, submitted on June 24, 1957 by James L. Douglass, by Alfred P. Tropeano, Atty., plan en- titled "Plan of Land in Lexington -Mass.", scale 111 %i 40t, dated May 10, 1957, Miller and Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors. #57-62, submitted on June 24, 1957 by Leeland Construction Co., Inc., Myron A. Ferrin, Treas- urer, plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington - Mass.", scale 1" = 30', dated May 28, 1957, Miller and Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors. VOTED: that the plans accompanying applications #57-59, #57-60, #57-61 and #57-62 be signed bearing the endorsement "Approval under the subdivision control law not required." BOARD OF The Planning Board next took under considera APPEALS tion the notices of petitions to be held on June 25, 1957 by the Board of Appeals. It was decided to take no action on the petitions to be heard with the ex- ception of the Dunn Ford Sales Agency for permission to erect a tree standing sign. It was thought that this proposed sign was exces- sively large and would not contribute to the amenities of the commercial district. Members of the Board pointed out that there was no need for the erection of 1 1 1 1 a large free-standing sign when signs conforming to the Lexington Zoning By-law could be designed and erected, where they could be readily seen, attached to and parallel with the face of the existing build- ings of the agency. It was decided that Chairman Grindle would notify the Chairman of the Board of Appeals of the Planning Board's opposition to the granting of said petition. Read to the Board was a copy of a June 21,1957 MAHONEY letter to the Chairman of the Board of Appeals from BROTHERS Mr. George R. Healy of 935 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington in regard to the construction of a garage on the Mahoney property at 927 Massachusetts Avenue. (See addendum.) The Planning Board accepted an application for PEACOCK FARMS approval of a definitive subdivision plan entitled SEC. 5 "Peacock Farms Section Five Lexington, Mass.", dated June 11, 1957 and decided to hold a public hearing on said application on July 15, 1957 at 8:00 p.m. At 9:10 p.m. Town Counsel Stevens came to the Planning Board meeting as did also Mr. Frank M. Hodgdon, the latter wishing to discuss the Planning Board's decision that the plan accompanying his application #57-49 for determination of Planning Board jurisdiction does require approval under the subdivision control law. After explaining to him in detail ub y the Board determined that said plan did require approval, Mr. Stevens examined Mr. Hodgdon's deed and noted that his property was bounded on the southwest by a driveway Mr. Hodgdon claims is a right-of-way and that, according to the deed, Mr. Hodgdon had no rights in said driveway. Based on Mr. Hodgdon's statement that he did not use the driveway himself for vehicular travel, Mr. Stevens pointed out that Mr. Hodgdon had no adverse rights in the driveway and suggested to Mr. Hodgdon that he have his attorney, Mr. Higgins, call Mr. Stevens should he wish to have the plan and the application dis- cussed further. Mr. Hodgdon left the meeting at 9:35 p.m. The Board next discussed with Mr. Stevens a pro- posed revision of the Subdivision Rules and Regula- tions, particularly in regard to Section II. B., "Plan believed not to require approval." It was decided that Messrs. Stevens, Jaquith and Snow would draft a specific proposal and present it to the Board at an early date. Mr. Stevens left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. at which time Mr. Mark Moore, Jr. met with the Board HODGDON SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS REVISION HANCOCK to discuss his application for tentative approval of ' HEIGHTS the preliminary subdivision plan entitled "Hancock SEC. 2 Heights Section 2 Lexington, Mass.", dated June 20, 1957. After discussing various details in regard to a road location and profile and the acquisition of a portion of the Hofheimer lot to facilitate develop- ment of the subdivision under consideration, the Board took the plans under consideration. BATTLE VIEW Messrs. Moore and Burnell lett the meeting at PARK 10:15 p.m. at which time the Board took under con - SEC. 2 sideration approval of the definitive plan entitled "Battle View Park Section Two Lexington -Mass.". It was decided to write a letter to the applicant stating that the Board would consider final approval of the plan subject to the acquisition of a triangular parcel on the southwesterly corner of the Purduyn lot, and the filing with the Board a bond in satisfactory form to the Board and in the amount of $152000. VINE BROOK Taken under consideration also was the applica- REALTY tion for tentative approval of the preliminary plan TRUST entitled "Plan of Proposed Lotting Land in Lexing- ton -Mass.", scale 1" = 1001, dated May 15, 1957. It was moved, seconded and unanimously VOTED: that the preliminary subdivision plan ' entitled "Plan of Proposed Lotting Land in Lexington -Mass.", dated May 15, 1957, submitted to the Board on May 28, 1957, accompanied by an application for tentative approval, Form B, dated May 2$2 1957, be and hereby is disapproved for the reasons that the plan does not indicate locations of (a) all existing property lines of the applicant, (b) Vine Brook sewer and drain easements, and (c) adjacent proposed and existing roads. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Levi G. Burnell, Jr. Clerk 1 ADDENDUM ' 938 Massachusetts Ave. Lexington, Mass. 21 June 1957 Mr. Donald E. Dickerson Chairman, Board of Appeals Town Office Building Lexington, 73, Mass. Dear Mr. Nickerson: At the present time, there is under construction at 927 Massachusetts Avenue a cement block garage of enormous size and, incidentally, of surpassing ugliness. I am sure that you are aware of this, but I would like nonetheless to em- phasize the implications of this building, as they appear to me, and to register a strong protest against what has long been, is, and unless something is done immediately, will con- tinue to be a flagrant violation of the zoning by-laws of the Town of Lexington. On 9 April 1957 a meeting of the ,Board of Appeals consid- ered and, I understand, rejected a petition of George Mahoney ' to allow his sons to run a trucking business from 927 Massa- chusetts Avenue. If my hearsay information is correct, the Mahoneys were at that time given six months to move the truck- ing business or to cease operations. There now remain tb them about three months of this grace period, and if they intended to comply with the decision of the Board of Appeals, one might reasonably expect that they would be doing what they could to transfer their activities to an appropriately zoned district. Instead, they are hastily constructing a garage obviously de- signed to house two or more trucks. It may be, and I suspect it is perfectly within the Mahoneys' rights as property owners to construct any kind of building they like, provided it conforms with the building regulations. I understand they have received a building per- mit for a three car garage, and the fact that the doors of this "car" garage have a clearance of roughly twelve feet is, I suppose, irrelevant to the office of the Building Inspector. I am not, therefore, protesting this construction --though parenthetically I consider it unfortunate that such an archi- tectural -affront to a residential neighborhood can be made within the provisions of the building code. However, while the building as such may be within the limits of the law, its clearly intended use is not. I realize ' that your office is unable to do anything about "clearly in- tended use". Yet I do hope and expect that the decisions of the Board of Appeals are susceptible of enforcement, and that when the grace period on the present trucking business is up, it will stop as per your order. ' Personally, I suppose I should be willing to ignore the entire affair. I am not a propertv owner in Lexington, and will be moving out of the state soon. Yet I do believe I have not only a right, but an obligation to protest the Mahoneys' actions. In the first place, I have developed in my five years of residence in Lexington a deep concern for the town, and par- ticularly for this immediate area in East Lexington. This section of Massachusetts Avenue could be, and in some ways is one of the most attractive places in a very attractive town. It also could be, and in some ways is becoming a fringe area degenerating rapidly into suburban slum conditions. To this latter and lamentable direction of movement the Mahoneys' assorted businesses have long contributed, and as it is clear that they intend not only to continue, but to expand their business, I fear that the consequences will be felt in the entire neigh bothood, and soon, unless something effective is done to stop them. My protest is primarily based, however, on a feeling for the law. For years the Mahoneys operated their business il- legally, and in their present building they are conspicuously and intentionally showing the degree of respect they hold for the laws of Lexington generally, and for the decisions of the Board of Appeals in particular. They openly boast in conver- sation that their trucking business will remain and expand re- gardless of the town's decrees. I, for one, would like to think that law is something of dignity and force. I offer to you their violations past, perhaps present, and certainly future as a local, but not unimportant test of the dignity and force of that law. Yours sincerely, /s/ George R. Healy cc Raymond W. James Donald K. Irwin Thomas S. Grindle Harold E. Stevens John W. Rycroft G'