Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-10-03PLANNING BOAFDMEETING October 3, 1957 A special meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Rohm, Town Office Building, on Thursdav, October 3, 1957 at 8:00 p.m. Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Jaquith and Soule and Planning Director Snow. Messrs. Reenstierna and Tropeano met with the Board to discuss the preliminary plan, dated May 15, 1957, for the development of the Vine Valley Realty Trust land between Waltham Street and Vine Brook, said plan having been disapproved by the Board on June 24, 1957. Mr. Tropeano said that the Trust would like to proceed wits the development of its land and inquired if the Board had in mind a subdivision design which would be acceptable to said Board. Several possible solutions were discussed as well as such matters as property lines, easements and street arrangements, particularly with re- gard to Worthen Road, the high school entrance drive, and access onto Waltham Street. It was decided that at its next meeting the Board would select from Mr. Snow's studies the one from which the Board would recommend that definitive plans be prepared and that the selected study would be transmitted to Mr. Tropeano. Messrs. Reenstierna and Tropeano left the meet- ing at 8:30 p.m. at which time the Board approved the following bills which had been presented for payment: Samuel P. Snow, September car allowance, $20 00, reim- bursement for miscellaneous office expense, 42.25-- $22.25; L.E.Muran Co., files --$9.30; Graphic Reproduc- tions, Inc., White Prints --$2.60. The Board next discussed the September 24, 1957 letter from E.J.t-cCarthy, Chief Engineer of the State Department of Public Works, in reply to the Planning Board's August 22, 1957 letter to Commissioner Sheridan. (See addendum). No action was taken in regard to the MdCarthy letter other than to give a copy to the Select- men. At 9:00 p.m. I.essrs. McCormack and Brun met with the Board to discuss Mr. M cCormack's September 12, 1957 letter to the Board in regard to a preliminary subdivi- sion plan of land in the Miaple-Lowell-Woburn Streets area adjacent to the Harrington School grounds, said plan having been approved with modifications by the Board on May 28, 1957- LTIr. KcCormack presented to the Board a copy of the September 7, 1957 letter from Miller VINE VALLEY REALTY TRUST BILLS REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER HARRINGTON SCHOOL RECREATIOh AREA McCORMACK- and Nylander, engineers referred to in Mr. McCormack's BRUN letter. (See addendum for both letters.) Using the SUBDIVISION engineer's letter and their plan as a basis for discus - PLAN sion, the first matter considered was that of the size and location of the proposed recreation area. It was pointed out to Messrs. McCormack and Brun that the size of the area which was being recommended for acquisition for recreation purposes had riot been determined defi- nitely pending conferences with the Recreation Committee and the preparation of preliminary plans for developing said area. Mr. McCormack suggested that the town ac- quire one of two other sites which he and i -r. Brun owned, one being located at the northwesterly end of the pro- posed subdivision and the other being adjacent to the southwesterly boundary of the Harrington School grounds. It was pointed out that both of these sites were low and wet and not adapted to development for picnicking, play- ground or baseball purposes. In addition it was called to Mr. McCormack's attention that the northwesterly site not being continuous to the school grounds, was of little value. It was further noted that acquisition by the town of the southwesterly site would eliminate a second recog- nized means of access to the subdivision and so place the Planning Board in a position of having to disapprove, his proposed subdivision plan. The second matter considered was that of the general arrangement of the street system within the pro- posed subdivision itself. It was pointed out to Messrs. McCormack and Brun that the Board's recommendations in regard to rearranging some of their proposed streets were based on the Board's study plan for the entire neighborhood as it would relate to the town's proposed major street plan, Mr. TTcCormack stated that he did not believe the plan took into consideration the irregular property lines and so caused him and Mr. Brun to lose a number of potential house lots. He said also that he did not believe the Board's recommended street arrange- ment took into consideration the topography of the site. In reply to these statements it was pointed out that because of the irregularity of the property lines it was expected that there would have to be some adjust- ment of said lines between property owners in order to develop adjacent lands to the best advantage. It was likewise pointed out that some of the land had been excavated for gravel, that many of the contours shown on the plan were those drawn before such excavation took place, and that the irregularities of the terrain which appeared to be composed of gravel could be used to ad- vantage in the general development of the site and in the construction of the proposed roads. It was further noted that the recommended street arrangement had been designed so that the land could be drained to best ad- 1^-3-57 vantage, that using the recommended arrangement only one ' system of drains need to be constructed in the subdivision, and that these drains could be located within the street rights of way and be connected directly with the catch basins used to collect surface runoff from the streets. In addition to the above matters, a number of others were discussed. There appeared to be some differ- ence of opinion in regard to development costs. It was agreed that Mr. Snow would consult with the Recreation Com- mittee to determine just how large an area was to be recom- mended for acquisition for recreation purposes. It was agreed also that after this area was determined the Planning Board would consult with the Superintendent of Public Works obtaining from him construction requirements and cost esti- mates for developing the subdivision proposals and that after this information was obtained it might be necessary for the sup_ erintendent and the Board to discuss said inform- ation with Iiessrs. IicCormack and Brun and their engineers. In agreeing to do this, it was understood by the Board that its recommended general street arrangement was to be used in developing the subdivision whether or not the town ac- quired a recreation area as proposed. -aP�e Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman ADDENDUM September 7,1957 I�ir. Paul J. McCormack 1775 Nassachusetts Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts Dear I,ir. 'McCormack: In regard to the land in the rear of the Harrington School which you proposed to subdivide, we have -tudied the scheme submitted to ' you by the Lexington Planning Board and , in reference thereto, have the following comments to.:make. The plan received was drawn to the scale of 200 feet to an inch. This was enlarged to the scale of 100 feet to an inch so that the Messrs. IicCormack and Brun left the meeting at ' 10:00 p..m. at which time the meeting was adjourned. -aP�e Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman ADDENDUM September 7,1957 I�ir. Paul J. McCormack 1775 Nassachusetts Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts Dear I,ir. 'McCormack: In regard to the land in the rear of the Harrington School which you proposed to subdivide, we have -tudied the scheme submitted to ' you by the Lexington Planning Board and , in reference thereto, have the following comments to.:make. The plan received was drawn to the scale of 200 feet to an inch. This was enlarged to the scale of 100 feet to an inch so that the outline of your property and the lines of certain important ' topographic features could be more easily superimposed upon it. We are submitting herewith two copies of this plan. The area adjacent to the Harrington School site, indicated on the study received as being desired by the Town for recreational purposes, consists of about 7.5 acres and includes some of the highest and most desirable land in the whole tract. In some areas the streets have been laid out without regard Lor topographical features, which will result in costly street and utility construction. By not conforming to the boundary lines of the land you now own, approximately twenty-two part lots or splinters have been created which will take an inestimable amount of time to assemble with adjoining land, and in addition, will involve substantial legal and surveying costs, if of course, the adjoining owners are willing to negotiate. These areas have been shaded in red. However, the red -shaded area which has been crosshatched in green is not suitable for building purposes. The lots numbered from one through thirty-three are whole lots which will meet the frontage and area requirements of the zoning law. The six lots shaded in green, which are included in the count of thirty-three lots meeting the requirements of the zoning ' law, are not suitable for building. Four of these lots are in an area avoided in our study dated January 15, 1957, because the land was not considered suitable for building, except at a prohibitive cost for foundations and filling. Also, two other lots, numbered twenty-four and twenty-five, are located so that a valley, which is a major natural drainage route, passes through there, making them also unsuitable. Lots numbered twenty-two and twenty-three have also been -.included in the count of thirty-three whole and usable lots, but they should not be included, for financial considerations, as approximately. 800 feet of street and utilities would have to be constructed to make them available, at an approximate cost of $2$,000. Our study dated January 15, 1957, contains a total of forty-six lots. After the eight unusable lots are deducted, the Planning Board proposal contains twenty-five usable lots, a loss of twenty-one lots. We estimate the cost of road and utilities construction to amount to $5,740 per lot for the Planning Board proposal, and $4,110 per lot for our study, an increase of $40,750 for the twenty-five lots. Very truly yours, /sl Wilbur C. hylander ' 1 I� Lexington Town Hall Lexington, Gentlemen: Planning Board Massachusetts September 12, 1957 Over six months ago, we submitted for your consideration, a subdivision plan of land in the Maple, Lowell and Woburn Streets area adjoining the Harrington School parcel. There have been numerous conferences between us and Mr. Snow, your technical adviser, and also between the undersigned and our engineers re- garding suggested alterations of the original plan. Mr. Snow finally advised us that the town wanted to acquire a parcel of our land approximately eight acres in area and adjoin- ing the Harrington School parcel. Members of your Board have at various times, inquired of us as to the price we would ask for said parcel. In order to be able to answer these inquiries, it was necessary to refer the matter to our engineers and have them make an entirely new plan without the parcel desired by the town. A plan of the remaining land, eliminating the proposed recreation area reveals that there would be a loss of approximately twenty- one lots out of forty-six usable lots as shown on our original plan, and that the cost of developing the remaining twenty-five lots would be 40,750 greater plus a loss of twenty-one lots. From the foregoing, it is clear that any price we might ask for the area now desired by the town would be almost prohibitive. We wish to advise you that we do have another parcel in the large tract of land involved, containing approximately eight acres, which we intentionally reserved for some such emergency. We also have four to five acres on the Maple Street side adjoin- ing the west end or the present Harrington School tract which we would be glad to discuss with you. In any event, we wish that some definite.arrangements could be made with the town immediately, as this matter if costing us in- ordinate sums of money and great delay. We would appreciate very much an appointment to discuss the factors involved in order to make a final and prompt disposition of this matter, if possible. Very truly yours, Isl Paul J. McCormack /s/ Albert C. Brun September 24,1957 ' Mr.Thomas L. Grindle, Chairman Planning Board Town of Lexington, Plass. Dear Mr. Grindle: Your letter of August 22nd, addressed to Commissioner Sheridan, ' has been referred to me for reply. It is my understanding that Mr. Snow of your Planning Board has recently been in this.office talking with our Design Engineer, Mr. Hue and our Location Engineer, MrO. Whitcomb regarding several points of interest to the people of Lexington relative to the re- design of Route 2. Part of this discussion resolved around the treatment of Spring Street. Mr. Snow was told that the primary purpose for an inter- change at Spring Street would be for the benefit of Lexington traffic, and if in the opinion of the elected officials of Lex- ington ramps were not warranted at this point, certainly serious consideration would be given to omitting these ramps. The plan used at the recent hearing showed two ramps, one in the northeast quadrant and one in the southwest. However, the fact that these ramps were shown at this time does not necessarily in- dicate that this is a final decision as far as this Department is concerned. I feel that a letter stating the opinion of the Planning Board the Board of Selectmen, and signed by the members of the Board of Selectmen stating their preference as to the treatment at Spring Street would be sufficient. However, if it is felt that a confer- , ence is necessary, I would be happy to arrange one at a later date. Very truly yours, /s/ E.J.McCarthy Chief Engineer 1