Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-11-25 PLANNING BOARD MEETING II November 25, 1957 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office Building, on Monday , November 25, 1957 at 7:30 p.m. Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Abbott, Burnell, Jaquith and Soule, and Planning Director Snow. Town Counsel Stevens was also present from 9:30 to 10:10 p.m. The meeting opened with a general discussion of the work of the Hospital Needs Study Committee of which Mr. Burnell is a member. A general discussion was also held about the informal petition presented to the Select- men by a group of citizens requesting that there be held a special town meeting for the purpose of voting on a proposal for a regional shopping center. At 8.00 p.m. Mr. Antonio Busa met with the Board GREEN to present another proposal for expanding his Green VALLEY Valley development by extending Lillian Road south- easterly toward Lowell Street for a sufficient length to serve 4 or 5 lots. A discussion was held similar to that of the previous meeting and the plans taken under advisement . Mr. Busa left the meeting at 8: 30 p.m. Mr. E.C.Barrett and his sister-in-law, Mrs. Mary BARRETT E. Kelley, attorney, met with the Board to discuss its PETITION November 12, 1957 letter to the Board of Appeals in regard to Mr. Barrett' s petition for a variance to BOARD OF operate a card shop, stationery store and printing APPEALS business at 35 Woburn Street, located in an area zoned as an A-1 district. Mr. Barrett stated that he hoped to change the Planning Board's attitude towards the variance he had requested and gave the Board the following information The building was constructed prior to 1775, moved from the southwesterly corner of the Winthrop Road- Massachusetts Avenue intersection to its present site during the latter half of the 19th century, part of the building was used as a store from 1905 to 1948 or 1949, last used as a cleaning establishment by William Bongiorno, building was for sale from 1949 until 1951, when the owner, Daniel J. O'Connell died, property was being handled as part of an estate, store used for storage purposes by Baker' s Dress Goods Shop from 1952 to 1956. It was explained to Mr. Barrett why the Planning Board believed the pre-existing non-conforming use had been abandoned and that the Board did not consider the problem in any personal way but that the problem was considered in its over-all town-wide aspect. It was suggested that Mr. Barrett communicate with the Planning Board if he found any tangible evidence to show that the non-conforming use of the store had been less than twenty-four consecutive months . Thereupon, Mrs. Kelley and Mr. Barrett left the meeting at 9:20 p.m. BILLS The Board approved the following bills presented for payment. Colonial Paper Co. , onionskinaper-- 12.60; Graphic Reproductions, Inc . , white prints--$5.10; Allen Stationery Co. , map file-41$5.00. STREET Mr. Snow informed the Board that except for street SIGNS sign standards the developers of the following sub- divisions had completed the required work to be done in said subdivisions and that instruments had been or were being prepared in which developers conveyed to the town the utilities in these developments- Oak Knoll Section One, Green Valley Section Two, Bettle View Park Section One , and L.C.Case #5982E. It was decided that before releasing the performance bonds for these subdivisions, that the Board would require the erection of sign standards. It was further decided to write to Mr. Gayer, Supt. of Public Works, asking him if said standards had been erected. FORM A Taken under consideration next was the following Form A application submitted for determination of Planning Board jurisdiction #57-100, submitted Nov. 25, 1957 by Associates Realty Trust, P.W.Weir, Pres. ; plan entitled "Plan Showing Temporary Sewer Easement from Mass. Ave. southeasterly along Route 12$ in Lexington , Mass."; scale 1" • 40' , dated Nov. , 1957 . It was moved, seconded and unanimously VOTED: that the plan accompanying Form A application #57-100 be signed bearing the endorsement "Lexington Planning Board approval under Sub- division Control Law not required. " BOARD OF Mr. Stevens came to the meeting at this time and APPEALS was given the plan for recording in the Registry of Deeds . He then discussed with the Board a number of 11matters currently being considered by said Board. After he left the meeting the Board reviewed drafts of letters to be sent to the Board of Appeals in regard to the Guarino, Paino-LaCava Trust and Short petitions to be heard by said board on November 26, 1957 . Particular attention was given to Mr. Roland B. Greeley's November 19, 1957 letter in regard to the Paino-LaCava Trust petition and suggestions for formulating a policy in regard to and preparing an amendment to Sec. 5(a)7.c. of the town' s zoning by-law (See Addendum) . The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. -*'e h. Levi G. Burnell, Jr. Clerk ADDENDUM November 19,1957 Lexington Planning Board Lexington, Mass . Gent leme n According to a political ad in the Minute-Man another situation is arising where the Board of Appeals is being asked for a special permit for erection of a major professional office building. If that Board inter- prets the Zoning By-Law as they have in the past, then they could presumably grant permission under Section 5(a)7. c. I agree that this Subsection can be interpreted to contemplate erection of large-scale professional office buildings. But I contend that such an interpretation is contrary both to good zoning and to the intent of the Town Meeting which enacted the By-Law in its present form. The special types of use contemplated under this Subsection 7.c. may, I suppose, be divided into three classes (1) the large, extensive uses of land, where the number of actual instances will be few, the locational re- quirements highly particularized, and the site entirely capable of establishing a character of its own: hospitals, sanitaria, golf clubs, cemeteries, etc. ; (2) the incidental uses, customarily accessory to residential uses, which may in fact be appropriately absorbed into residential sections those uses which are referred to the Board of Appeals by Section 6.b. and c. , because they involve new buildings, but with the obvious intent that the new building be "accessory" in character , and (3) semi-ccxnmercial uses such as professional office buildings, fraternal club head- quarters, union halls and like enterprises which have most of the characteristics found in business areas except for retail t rade and the need for "clustering". I strongly sympathize with the treatment accorded the first two categories by our Zoning By-Law. On the other hand I question whether the Town Meeting intended to group category (3) in with the first two; and if it did I would nevertheless question the wisdom of doing so . Of course the Board of Appeals can be very strict in deciding where type (3) uses may be permitted; it could even adopt an informal polio on the matter. But I would much prefer to see the Planning Board and the Town, through zoning, define the possible locations fairly narrowly rather than leave the de- cision to random selection, or to the amount of excitement generated at a Board of Appeals Hearing. Let me cite just one example of what may happen under present conditions . If the office building permit to be heard of November 26 is granted, this will be a very potent wedge in the direction of extending the business dis- trict now confined to Lexington Street, Waltham, well into the area of Lexington. Whether this extension is desirable or undesirable is a problem for the Town to decide through Zoning amendment - not something to be decided as a practical matter by the Board of Appeals and then later submitted to the Town as an accomplished fact. If the Board of Appeals grants this permit I believe that continuous business zoning from Concord Avenue to Trapelo Road will become inevitable. I don't like the Town's zoning amendments to be slipped over on us in this manner. I urge that the Planning Board take one or both of the following steps: (1) Present a formal declaration of policy to the Board of Appeals to the effect that the type (3) uses (defined much more carefully than I have endeavored to define them) he confined to business zones plus, perhaps, areas immediately contiguous to such zones. (2) Prepare an amendment to the Zoning By-Law which signifi- cantly restricts the amount of what I would call business zoning assigned to the Board of Appeals under Section 5(a)7.c. Sincerely, /s/ Roland B. Greeley i IIBoard of Appeals November 25, 1957 Town Office Building Re: Paino-Cava Trust petition Lexington 73 , Mass. to erect office building for physicians and dentists Gentlemen The Planning Board's attention has been called to your notice of a hearing to be held on the petition referred to above. At its meeting of Nov. 1$, 1957 the Board discussed this petition and decided to call to the attention of the Board of Appeals several matters brought out in said discussion. The Board noted that no plans for the proposed building had been filed with the petition. As a conse- quence the Board was not able to determine the number of people who would be occupying and using said building. The Planning Board did, however, view the plot plans for lots 7 and 8 and noted the irregular shape of said lots. The question arose as to whether there would be sufficient room on said lots for automobile parking for patients and also for those working in the building. It was the opinion of the Board that an office building for the purpose set forth above would certainly need connection with a public sanitary sewer. It was noted that none is available in the area. On this basis the question was raised as to whether or not a septic tank and disposal field could be built on the lots involved to sewer adequately the facilities of said building. Yours very truly, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Signed Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman November 25 , 1957 Board of Appeals, Town OfAce Building Re: Mary D. Guarino Petition Lexington 73 , Mass. to erect free-standing sign Gentlemen. At its meeting on Monday, November 1$, 1957, the Planning Board discussed the petition of Mary D. Guarino for permission to erect a free-standing sign at 271 Lincoln St. , and referred to the plans submitted with said petition. 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 Board's opposition. While the notice referred to a sign of an approxi- mate size of 29 sq. ft. , it was noted that the proposed over-all dimensions of said sign, including the standards, were to be 13 feet wide and 1Ji.-1/2 feet high. The Board believes that a large sign of such a nature as the peti- tioner proposes is entirely out of keeping with any use in Lexington and wit any standards this town has always tried to maintain. It is the opinion of the Board that such a sign does not "conserve the value of land and buildings" and/or "preserves the increases amenities" of the town, two very important purposes of the zoning regulations set forth in Section 3 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws. Yours very truly, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman November 26, 1957 11 Board of Appeals Town Office Building Re: Leonard B. Short petition Lexington 73, Mass. to maintain separate building, from main structure, as a dwelling Gentlemen: Reference is made to the petition set forth above. At a regular meeting of the Planning Board held on November 1$, 1957 , it was decided to go on record as being opposed to the granting of said petition and to write to the Board of Appeals setting forth the reasons for said opposition. As a matter of policy the Planning Board is opposed to more than one building on a lot being used for residen- tial purposes. It is the understanding of the Board, in this case, that on December 5, 1956 the Building Inspector issued a building permit to Dr. Short "to convert a 3-car garage into a laboratory for accessory use to practice" and that during the past few months said laboratory has been used for residential purposes. The Planning Board sees no reason, therefore, why a denial of the petition would in- volve substantial hardship to the appellant . Yours very truly, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman