HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-11-051
1
1
PLANNING BOARD ° MEEMG'
November 5, 1957
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board
was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office
Building,_ on Tuesday evening, November 6, 1957 at 7:35
p.m. Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Abbott,
Burnell, Jaquith and Soule, Planning Director Snow, and
the Secretarv.
Taken under consideration were the following Form
A applications for determination of Planning Board
jurisdiction:
#57-94 submitted October 292 1957 by Paul J.
McCormack for James M. Etter; plan entitled "A
Compiled Plan of Land in Lexington -Mass.", scale
1" =_40*, dated Oct. 21, 1957, Miller & Nylander,
C.E.'s and Surveyors.
#57-95, submitted October 29, 1957 by John F.
Cahill; -plan entitled, "Subdivision -Plan of..Land
Lexington Mass.; scale -40 feet to an inch, dated
October 2$,-1957, Joseph Selwyn -Civil Engineer,
Belmont, Mass.
#57-96, submitted October 292 1957 by John F.
Cahill; plan entitled "Plan of Land Lexington,
Mass.", scale, 40 feet to an inch, dated October
28, 1957, Joseph Selwyn -Civil Engineer, Belmont,
Mass.
#57-99, submitted November 5, 1957 by Bernard B.
Gould for E.J.Corrigan; plan entitled "Subdivision
of Land Court Case No. 27302 Loring Hill Estates -
Section One Lexington, Mass.", scale 1" a 401,
dated Oct. 7, 1957, Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s &
Surveyors -Lexington, Mass,
Mr. McCormack met with the Board to discuss appli-
cation #57-94 and submitted further information to assist
the Board in making its determination. After some dis-
cussion it was decided that Mr. Jaquith would take said
information, discuss it with the Town Counsel, and at the
next meeting of the Board make a recommendation for
Planning Board action. Thereupon, it was moved, seconded
and unanimously
VOTED: that the plans accompanying applications
#57-952 #57-96, and ##57-99 be signed bear-
ing the endorsement, "Lexington .Planning
FORMS A
McCORMACK
Board approval under Subdivision Control
'
Law not required."
MINUTES
Approved by the Board were the minutes of the
October 29, 1957 meeting.
BILLS
Also approved by the Board were the following
bills which had been presented for payment:
Samuel P. Snow, car allowance for October,
$25.00, mise: office ex eases, $3.6$--$2$.6$;
Graphic Reproductions
--12.2$.
REGIONAL
At the Planning"Boardts invitation Mr. Gummere,
SHOPPING
secretary of Filenets, met with the Board at 8:30 p.m.
CENTER
to discuss further the proposed regional shopping
PROPOSAL
center with special reference to finding a solution to
the traffic problem which would be created by the'
location of a center on`the`'Swenson property in the
northerly quadrant of the Spring Street -Route 2 inter-
section. SelectmenJames, `Maloney and Morey were also
present. Chairman"Grindle stated that the Selectmen
and the Planning Board proposed to meet jointly with
the Commissioner of the State Department of Public,.
Works in regard to several matters, one of which was
said Department's proposal for an"interse"ction at
'
Spring Street and Route 2. MrGrindle added that be-
fore this conference was held t had been decided to
i
discuss with Mr. Gummere the study the Board had made
of said intersection and to obtain his view in regard
to the matter.
The Board then presented a scheme utilizing the
ramps the State Department of Public Works proposed to
"construct at said interchange, the -Board's scheme con-
necting directly with the project site but not con-
necting with Spring Street. The suggested plan showed
access to and from the center under the proposed re-
location of Spring Street to the proposed west -bound lane
of re -located Route 2. The plan further showed access
to and from the center to the East -bound lane of re-
located Route 2, said access being over a separate
bridge westerly of and parallel to the proposed re-
location of Spring Street: In discussing the plan it
was pointed out that the construction of such an
access would in some cases be through steep terrain
and might involve cutting through rock. It was pointed
out also that there was no guarantee that the State
Department would approve this proposal, and that the
project might be too expensive for the State to under-
take.
Mr. Gummere-said he believed that approval would
depend largely upon whether the road was considered
pri Vate or town property, th at he understood the inter-
'
section was going to be constructed anyway and wondered
why the town did not ask the State to allocate funds
for such a purpose. When asked if he considered the
plan acceptable to his directors he replied that he
thought it would be. When asked also if Filene's had
an option for the purchase of the Pilkington land, Mr.
Gummere replied that it did, said land involving a
total area of approximately 14 acres. He further stated
that nothing would be in the way of any proposal the
town or state might make in developing an intersection.
Discussed next was the possible acquisition of the
Hayden property and a means of access to it from the
proposed shopping center. We Gummere stated that at his
last meeting with the Planning Board he understood the
Board would rather have the Hayden property controlled if
possible without having it zoned-for business at this time.
Mr. Gummere stated further that since his last meeting with
the Board a provisional agreement had been made with the
trustees of the Hayden estate to purchase said property, the
price for the"same being less if it were not zoned for busi-
ness purposes. He said that'Filene's would purchase the
Hayden property anyway, although the directors would prefer
to have it zoned for business.
'
Mr. Jaquith asked if the Board did not wish to
recommend the zoning"of the Hayden property for business
use would Filene's consider developing a means of access
from the Swenson property to Weston Street. He stated that
it might be difficult in the future to acquire a portion of
that land and that it seemed highly desirable to have a
second means of access available. Mr. Gummere replied that
Filene's would be Willing to acquire any land which would
be used for its protection if the Swenson, McMahon and
Hathaway properties were zoned to the satisfaction of
Filene's. He stated, however, that he believed the town
had a right to take the land by eminent domain for access
purposes. Mr. Jaquith said that it would be better for
Filene's to acquire the land. Mrs. Morey wished to know
how fire protection would be furnished if there was to be
no access from Spring Street. Mr. Jaquith replied that
this detail would have to be worked out later,
When asked if the site being discussed was still
Filene's first choice for a shopping center, Mr. Gummere
replied that it was still the preferred site gnd_that the
directors were still prepared to go ahead with their plans
to develop it although not inclined to push their proposal.
'
He added, however, that after the public hearing on said
proposal the directors had felt it necessary to look around
for alternate sites.
Mrs. Morey asked if, in view of the land -taking '
for the re -design of Route 2, it would be necessary
to strip more of the land for the site in order to
develop the project. Mr. Gummere replied that he did
not think so, that some of the trees would have to be
.taken but most of them would be left. Mrs. Morev and
Messrs. Gummere, James and Maloney left the meeting at
9:30 p.m.
BATTLE GREEN The Board then took under consideration the
VILLAGE definitive plans for the Battle Green Village,, Section
SECTION 2 2 subdivision. The Board endorsed said plans, the
appeal period after date of approval of the plans hav-
ing expired and all other matters appearing,to be in
order.
CONSERVATION Considered next was the October 29, 1957 letter
COMMISSION from the Selectmenin regard to Chap. 223 of the Acts
of 1957, said enabling legislation providing.for-the
establishment ofconservationcommittees by the, various
cities and towns in'Massachusetts. In reply to the
Selectmen's request for comments -on the legislation it
was decided to reply to the Selectmen that it was the
opinion of the Board that said Act was not particularly
applicable to Lexington, that the development of the
natural resources of this town have been given consider- '
able study by the Planning Board in the preparation of
recommendations for the development of these resources
have already been made, and that others will be in-
cluded in the near future.
BOARD OF
APPEALS Considered next by the Board were the notices
of petitions to'be heard by the Board of Appeals on
November 12, 1957 • It was -decided to take action on
the Barrett, Boutwell,'Mahoney and DeFelice petitions.
Letters were drafted to the Board of Appeals setting
forth the Planning Board's opposition to granting of
the first three petitions named above. (See addendum).
In regard to the DeFelice petition, it was thought the
proposal constituted a subdivision. Mr. Grindle was
asked to convey the Board's view to the Chairman of
the Board of Appeals.
After a general discussion of current problems
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10.:45
P•m• -
L i G ev Burnell Jr. ,
Clerk
G
1
0
ADDENDUM
November 12, 1957
Board of Appeals,
Town Office Building Re: E�C.BBarrett. Petition
Lexington 73, Mass.aV riance to operate shop in
an A l district.
Gentlemen:
At its meeting on November 5, 1957 the Planning
Board discussed the petition referred to above, decided
to go on record as opposing the granting of said petition
and to write a letter to the Board of Appeals setting
forth the reasons for its opposition.
The Board is opposed to granting; any variance to
use properly; zoned for dwelling use, in this case an A 1
district, for commercial purposes. In the opinion of the
Board the granting -of said variance would defeat two pur-
poses of the -zoning -enabling legislation, namely, to en-
courage the most appropriate use of land throughout the
town, and to preserve and increase its amenities. The
Board would like to point out further that it is its under-
standing that a,portion-of the residence at 35 Woburn Street
has not been used as a store for a period of twenty-four
consecutive months. Therefore, under Sec. 10 (e) of the
Lexington Zoning By-law the pre-existing non -conforming use
has been abandoned and should not be resumed.`
Sincerely yours,
Board of Appeals,
Town Office Building
Lexington 73, Mass.
Gentlemen:
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman
November 12, 1957
Re: George. A. Mahaney DgjiU.on.
to operate_pruckingj. usiness
Your notice of the hearing on the petition referred
to above has been discussed by the Planning Board at its
November 5, 1957 meeting. The Board decided to go on record
as being opposed to the granting of said petition and to
write to the Board of Appeals setting forth its reasons for
the Planning Boardts opposition.
The Board wishes to call your attention to the
attached letter, dated April $, 1957, in regard to a similar
petition of Mr. Mahoney. The Board also wishes to emphasize
the reasons set forth in said letter and to further state '
that in the opinion of the Board the granting of said peti-
tion would not be in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the Lexington Zoning By-law.
Sincerely yours,
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman
(See Minutes of April8, 1957)
November 12, 1957
Board of Appeals
Town Office Building Re: Roswell.M. Boutwell 3rd .petition
Lexington 73, Mass. to erect flashing sign.
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to Mr. Boutwell's petition to
erect a flashing, double-faced sign at 55 Massachusetts Ave.
At its meeting on. November 5, 1957 the Planning Board con- ,
sidered this petition, decided to go on record as being
opposed to the granting of the . same , and to write a letter to
the Board of Appeals setting forth its reasons for such oppo-
sition.
In the first place the Board would like to point out
that while the proposed sign is to be located in a general
business district, itis not one of the usual size, being only
175 feet wide where the sign is to be located and 190 feet at
its greatest width. On the northerly side the general busi-
ness district is bounded by a residential district and on the
southerly side by a local business district only 100 feet deep.
In addition the residential district on the southerly side is
largely situated -on higher land overlooking said general dis-
trict. It is the opinion of the Board that in order to "con-
serve the value of land an d_buildings" and "to preserve and
increase (the land's) amenities" as set forth in Section 2 of
Chapter 40A of the General Laws, no signof such large size
should be allowed in this particular district., The Planning
Board would also like to point out that no free standing sign
and no sign of such large dimensions is allowed under the
Lexington Zoning By-law. The Board believes that an adver-
tising sign of such size as the petitioner proposes to erect
is entirely out of keeping with any use in Lexington and with
any standards this town has always tried to maintain. '
Sincerely yours,
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman