Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1958-04-28PLANNING BOARD MEETING April 28, 1958 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Office, Town Office Building, on Monday, April 28, 1958. at 7:1.4.0 p.m. Present were Chairman Grindley Members Abbott, Burnell, Jaquith, and Soule, and Planning Director Snow. Town Counsel Stevens was also present from 8:30 to 9:15 n.m. The Board approved the following bills which BILLS had been presented for payment: Ronald Press Co., book -46.16; Minute -man Publica- tions,Inc., advertising public hearings --$37.50; H.B. j°cArdle, steel storage cabinet and letter file -- $118.68; G. & S. Paper Co., roll kraft paper --$12.18. Taken under consideration were the following FORMS A Forms A for determination of Planning Board jurisdic- tion: ' #58-211, submitted on April 21, 10/58 by Paul A. and Rose Hoyte; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", Scale: 1" = 201, dated Feb. 21, 1958, Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s and Surveyors, Lexington, Mass. #58-251 submitted on April 25, 1957 by Andrew E. Millyan; plan same as that accompanying application #57-101. (See minutes of Decem- ber 9, 1Y57) . It was decided to defer a ction on the Millyan plan until it could be discussed in detail with the Town Counsel. Thereupon, after motion being made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plan accompanying Form A application #58-211 does not require approval and that said plan be signed bearing the endorsement " Lex- ington Planning Board approval under the Sub- division Control Law not required." Read to the Board was Mr. Norman T. May's MAY April 28, 1958 letter requesting the opportunity to REGIONAL ' examine some of the statistics which w ere gathered SHOPPING in the traffic survey made last year under the CENTER direction of the Planning Board, information being PROPOSAL sought in relation to the proposed change in the 4-28-58 —2— zoning by-law to permit a regional shopping center. The ' Board requested Mr. Snow to make this material available to Mr. May, arranging a convenient time for him to examine the data in the Planning Board office. BURNHAM At 8:00 p.m. Mr. Mark Moore, Jr. met with the Board FARMS to discuss definitive plans for Burnham Farms, Sec. 21 said SEC. 2 plans nearing completion for submission to the Board. He stated that he had obtained agreements to purchase land for the extension of said subdivision to Lowell Street. He pointed out that with the exception of Emerson Road there was 2100 feet of road to be constructed in Section Two and 1200 additional feet to Lowell Street. Mr. Moore asked if, in view of his being able to obtain a second means of access to Lowell St. the Board was still going to require him to construct Emerson Road to East Street. (See Minutes of February 17, 1958.) Mr. Moore was told that the Board would require him to construct said Therson Road from his land to East Street. It was pointed out that there might be unfor- seeable delays in the acquisition and subdivision of the land Mr. Moore proposed to purchase for access to Lowell St. It was suggested that Mr. Moore have a preliminary plan prepared showing how he proposed to subdivide the ' land between the Burnham Farms Section Two subdivision and Lowell Street. Other matters Mr. Moore discussed were those of obtaining some indication of when he would be able to develop Section Two of Burnham Farms, and of constructing the Vine Brook cro3sing. He asked if the Board planned to withhold approval of the Section Two plan until the Town obtained an option to acquire Kendrick land for street purposes or actually owned said land. He also asked if arrangements could be made wherein the Town shared some of the cost of constructing the 70 -foot wide box culvert across Vine Brook. Mr. Moore was told that as soon as the Board ob- tained a detailed plan of said land to be acquired, it was planned to discuss with Mr. Kendrick the obtaining of a street option. Mr. Moore was told also that other matters discussed would be taken under further considera- tion by the Board. At 8:30 p.m. Mr. Moore left and Town Counsel Stevens came to the meeting. MILLYAN Mr. Snow reported that Mr. Millyan, accompanied ' by his lawyer, Mr. Green, and Mr. Carrig, came to the office on April 251 1c158 and signed an application for a determination of Planning Board jurisdiction, the plan accompanying said application being the one described in the minutes of the Board's December 2 and December 9, 4-28-58 ' 1957 meetings. In regard to obtaining an option to purchase the Millyan property, Mr. Stevens reported that Mr. Reenstierna, engaged to appraise said property for the town, had set a value of $25,000 for the land and buildings. In view of this apprais- al, Mr. Stevens- ecommended that the Town obtain an option to purchase the property for $"28,900 rather than taking said property by eminent domain. He thought that in a court case tried before a jury there might be a possibility of an award and court costs amounting to $28,900 or more if the Town took said Millyan property. Mr. Stevens next discussed with the Board its action relating to the preliminary subdivision plan previously submitted by Paul J. McCormack and Albert C. Brun and Mr. McCormack's January 10, 1958 letter to the Selectmen in regard to said proposed subdivi- sion and related matters. Mr. Stevens asked the Board to consider further its suggestion that an area for recreation purposes be set aside adjacent to the Harrington School Grounds with the view of es- tablishing the exact boundaries the Board wishes to recommend be acquired. ' Mr. Stevens also discussed with the Board the grant of easement for public travel across Lot 5 owned by Mr. and Mrs. William B. Glass, said ease- ment extending from Flintlock Road to Kineen Park and shown on a definitive subdivision entitled, "Plan of Lots in Flintlock Ridge Section One", dated Feb. 13, 1953. M--. Stevens had obtained said punt in connec- tion with a petition of citizens to accept Flintlock Road as a town way. He renorted that in discussing the easement with Mr. Glass, the latter expressed a desire to have the easement located along the other side line of his property and to have the Town pro- tect said easement with a fence. The Board was asked to study tris matter further with a view of relocat- ing the easement or recommending its abandonment if it was not needed. Mr. Stevens left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The Board devoted the remainder of its meet- ing to making detailed arrangements for conducting the public hearing to be held on May 1, 1958 in re- gard to the proposal for re -zoning land for a regional shoppingc enter. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. X U hard H. Soule Clerk -3- McCORMACK AND BRUN LAND FOR RECREATION PURPOSES 10#V& y KINEEN PARK FOOTWAY EASEMENT i PLANVING BOA -D HEARING May 1, 1958 The Lexington Planning Board held a Public Hearing on May 1, 1958 at ?:50 p.m. in Cary Hall, Cary Memorial Building to consider proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning By-law so as to pro- vide for an additional type of zoning district to be designated C 4 - 'regional Shopping Center Districts in accordance with the notice of the hearing, copy of which is appended to the steno- graphic record of the hearing. Present were Chairman Grindle, Vice Chairman Jaquith, Members Abbott, Burnell, and Soule, and Planning Director Snow. At 9:00 p.m. Mr. Snow counted 422 persons attending the hearing. Chairman Grindle opened the hearing by reading the first paragraph of the notice of the hearing as it was published in the April 17, 1958 issue of the Lexington Minute -man and stating that the reading of the remainder of the notice would be omitted. Copies of said notice were dis- tributed at the hearing. A complete stenographic record of the hear- ing was taken and prepared for the Planning Board by Philip H. and Lawrence W. Burt, shorthand re- porters, 31 Milk Street, Boston 91 Mass. The 76 - page typewritten report prepared by said reporters and dated May 1, 1958 is incorporated in and made a Dart of the minutes of this meetinm and the nermanent records of the Planning Board. The public hearin7 was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. PROPOSED REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICTS J ar H. Soule Clerk �� i YE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD VOLUME PAGE1 - 75 PUBLIC HEARING OF IZXINGTON PLANNING BOARD ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW IaXingt.On, Mas4aohusetts May 1, 1958 PHILIP H. AND LAWRENCE W: SHORTHAND REPORTERS THIRTY ONE MILK STREET BOSTON 9, MASSACHUSETTS r 0 6 Zlanning Board ofington, Uxington,`Ma Amendments of Town By -Laws LEGAL NOTICES NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD BEARING ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Lexington Planning Board on Thursday, May 1, 1958, at 7:45 P.M. in Cary Memorial Hall, Cary Memorial Building, to con- sider the following proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law: A. To provide for an additional type of zoning district to be desig- nated C 4—Regional Shopping Center Districts. 1. By adding in Section 3 Districts Defined the following new para- graph: (f) C 4—Regional shopping cen- ter districts. 2. By striking out the word "or" between the words 'Al" and "C3" in paragraph (a) of Section 4 Geographical Descriptions of Districts and by substituting therefor a comma and by insert- ing between the words "C3" and "district" of said paragraph the "wards: — or C 4. 3. By changing certain land from an R 1. District to a C 4 District by adding in Section 4 Geographical Descriptions of Districts the fol- lowing new paragraphs: (3) C 4—Regional shopping cen- ter districts. 1. A district situated northeasterly of the Cambridge -Concord High- way (Route 2) and easterly of the Northern Circumferential High- way (Route 128) and bounded and by Spring Street, by the Cambridge- vay (Route 2) and -Route 128 Inter - Aeriy by the Northern Cir- aferential Highway (Route �therly by land now or former - of the Josiah Willard Hayden creation Centre, Inc., -theasterly by lots 232 to 251, h inclusive. on Land Court Plan 6962D, Northwesterly by lot 252 on said plan, and Northeasterly again by land now or formerly of Swenson by a line parallel with and distant 200 feet southwesterly from the south- westerly line of Shade Street. 4. By adding under Section 5 Per- mitted Buildings and Uses the fol- lowing new paragraph: (i) C 4 Districts. 1. A regional Shopping Center, as hereinafter defined, is permitted with the following buildings and uses: a. Retail stores. b. The following personal service facilities: barber or beauty shop, physical conditioning and reduc- ing salon, photographic studio, travel agency, shoe and hat re- pair shop, laundry and cleansing pick-up station, dressmaker, mill- iner or tailor shop, and household appliance or equipment repair or instruction shop. c. Restaurants and other places for serving food, with the exception of diners and lunch carts so-call- ed which are hereby expressly prohibited. d. Retail gasoline, oil and greasing stations and places of business for the sale and installation of tires and other automobile accessories, but excluding garages for storage or repair of motor vehicles, and salesrooms, showrooms or any areas or facilities for the sale of motor vehicles. e. Banks and postal substations. f. The following additional buildings and uses are permitted subject to permission from the Board of Appeals: (1) Theaters and other enclosed places of amusement. (2) Personal service facilities found by the Board to be similar to those set forth In subparagraph b. above. 2. For the purpose of this by-law a 'Regional Shopping Center' is defined to be a group of stores and buildings and a land area of not less than fifty (50) acres (1) planned to served a regional Population and not merelythe population of the Town ofLex- ington, (2) planned, designedand developed as a unit, in one or more stages, and (3) operated and managed, after construction, as a unit. 3. All merchandise and all sale and display facilities and activities shall be entirely within fully en- closed buildings, except the sale of gasoline and oil at stations per- mitted under subparagraph d, of paragraph 1. above, and except as shall be expressly permitted by the Board of Appeals. 5. By inserting after the word "C 3" in paragraph (b) of Section 7 Height Regulations the follow- ing.—, C 4 — so that saidpara- graph (b) will read as follows: (b) In C2. C 3, C 4 and 1 dis- tricts the maximum height of buildings shall be fifty-five feet. 6. By amending Section 8 as fol- lows: A. By striking out the title "Area, Frontage and Yard Regulations" and substituting in place there- of the title — Area, Frontage, Yard, Off -Street Parking and Site Plan Regulations. B. By adding the following new paragraph: (i) C 4 Regional Shopping Center Districts. 1. In C 4 districts the entire land within the district shall be deem- ed to be a single lot for all pur- poses under this by-law. 2. In C 4 districts there shall be pro- vided a. Open spaces on such lot of not less than 200 feet between each boundary line of such lot and the permitted buildings and struc- tures thereon. Where such lot bounds on a street, the exterior line of the street shall be deemed to be the boundary line for the purpose of this subparagraph. b. An open area on such lot, not occupied by any building, struc- ture, or open sales area, of not less than seventy-five (75) per centum of the area of such lot. c. Parking area (including access drives and aisles) on such lot for automobiles or other vehicles containing not less than three (3) square feet for each square foot of gross floor area of the build- ings and structures on such lot. The open spaces and area re- quired under subparagraphs a and b above may heused for parking area if otherwise lawful. d. Adequate space on or under the surface of such lot, adjacent to the buildings and structures to be served, for loading and un- loading purposes, including man- euvering space, for service vehi- cles. 3. In C 4 districts, all buildings shall be constructed, reconstructed, al- tered, enlarged or used and the premises shall be used for a per- mitted purpose only in conform- ity with a site plan for such lot, bearing an endorsement of approv- al by the Board of Appeals. a. The owner of the lot for which a site plan approval is desired shall submit such site plan to the Board of Appeals in accordance with procedure prescribed by the Board and no building permit shall be issued for any existing or proposed building or structure on such lot until a site plan showing such building or structure has been approved by the Board and then only if such building or structure conforms to such site plan as approved. b. The site plan shall present a unified and organized arrange- ment of buildings, structures and service facilities and shall show, among other features, the ground area and location of all existing and proposed buildings, struc- tures, parking areas, loading and unloading spaces, driveways, driveway openings and other uses; all facilities for water ser- vice, sewage, refuse and other waste disposal services, outdoor lighting, and water drainage; and all principal landscape features such as fences, walls, walks, and planting areas, including screen- ing of such lot, if reasonably necessary, from R 1 and R 2 districts on which such lot abuts. The site plan shall include sep- arate drawings showing a unified general exterior architectural design, for all proposed buildings and structures, the style and type of such design, however, shall. not be subject to approval by the Board of Appeals. in granting approval of a site plan the Board may determine the extent to which there shall be access to such lot from an abutting street. c. Before approving applications for site plan approval under this paragraph, the Board shall assure to a degree consistent with a reasonable use of such lot for the purpose permitted by the regula- tions of the districts; 1. Protection of other premises in the neighborhood against detri- mental or offensive uses on such lot. 2. Convenience and safety of vehi- cular and pedestrian movement on such lot and in relation to streets, ways and land in the neigborhood of such lot. 3. Adequacy of the facilities for sewage, refuse and other waste disposal and for water drainage. d. The site plan may be submitted to the Board of Appeals in stages or as a complete plan and, in either case, the Board in acting on a site plan may approve it in whole or in part. Whenever successive site plans are submit- ted, any feature approved by the Board on a prior site plan shall be deemed to be approved if shown materially unchanged on a subsequent site plan, unless the Board determines that new or changed features on the subse- quent site plan materially affect the feature that otherwise would be deemed to be approved. e. In approving a site plan, the Board shall have the power to authorize such deviation from the site plan as approved as the Board specifies in its approval en- dorsement. The Board shall have the power to modify or amend its approval of a site pian on application of anyone having a property interest in such lot, or upon its own motion if such power is reserved by the Board in its approval endorsement. All provisions applicable to an ap- proval of a site plan shall, where pertinent, be applicable to a modification or amendment of an approval. f. Upon receipt of a site plan or of an application for modification or amendment of its approval of a site plan or before modifying or amending its approval of a site plan on its own motion, the Board of Appeals shall transmit to the Planning Board the site plan and the application or proposal for modification or amendment of its approval of a site plan. The Planning Board shall consider the site plan and any application or proposal for modification or amendment of any approval of a site plan and shall submit a final report thereon with recommenda- tions to the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals shall not approve a site plan and shall not modify or amend its approval of a site plan until such final re- port of the Planning Board has been submitted to it or until thirty days have elapsed after the transmittal to the Planning Board of the site plan or applica- tion or proposal for modification or amendment of approval of a site plan, without such report being submitted. B. To amend Section 2 Definitions by adding the following two para- gmi raphs: (q) rC palni- " means Theword rTownu of Lexington. (r) pub hans tthhe Townof•Lexing- ton. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman -- 3 spokesman. of the group favoring the proposal to speak, This will be followed by an opportunity for the ''spokesman of the opposition to speak. After these groups have finished their discussion we shall try to ,divide the time ;equally between those in favor and those;opposed to the proposition. We are, asking the -speakers in addition to the spokesmen to limit their remarks, if possible, tofive minutes or less. A11 who steak are asked to give their names, addresses. Later in the evening an expression of opinion will be taken of those in favor and of those opposed tothe proposal.. Members of , the League of Women Voters ,have consented to assist in this' -counting. We would like to tame this expression of,'o.pinion not later than 10:00 p.m., and if there are further questions after this poll is taken the hearing will continue. The' Planning Board will not make a decision until after this hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to secure facts which will help it and the citizens to reach a decision. However, at or before_ the Town Meeting called on May 120 1958, the Planning Board will present their written report stating its recommendations,< II L I wish to read the following statement regarding the vote of the March, 1958, Town Meeting as it relates to 5'" described in the notice would be changed from an`R1 district to a C4 Regional Shopping Center'district by adding to Section 4 Geographical Descriptions, of Dip triQts;the new paragraph set forth in the. notice. The land area involved' in the proposed rezoning does not inc-lude,the' Haydein property. Item 4. This proposal: adds'a new paragraph to Section 5`Permitted Buildings and Uses. Subparagraph l specifies the permitted buildings" anduses in the proposed C4 districts. These can be divided into two categories. First., those specified under subparagraphs 'a to e inclusive would be permitted without :Board of Appeals approval.' Second, those specified under subparagraph f would require permission from the Board of Appeals. The permitted buildings and uses are the same as thosein the previous proposal except as follows: 1. Physicians, dentistys, and allied medical offices have been eliminated (these were part of subparagraph.e of the earlier proposal.) 2. Office buildings as a permitted use with permission of the Board of Appeals under subparagraph f have been eliminated. (These were part of subparagraph f of the earlier proposal.) Subparagraph 2 of Item 4 contains the 'definition of a regional shopping center. Two changes have been made 6` in this definition. First, a requirement of a minimum land" area of . fifty acres for a regional shopping center has been added. Second, the word "by the owner or owners thereof:' at the endof subparagraph 2 have been:del-eted. Subparagraph,3 of Item 4•provides that all sales and display facilities and activitiesshall" be entirely within fully enclosed :buildings with certain exceptions. The exceptions are those connected with the sale;of,gaso- line and oil at service stations and such other exceptions as may be expressly permitted by the 'Board 'of Appeals. Item 5. This proposal prescribes the same maximum height limitation of fifty-five feet for C4 districts as now exists for C2, C3 and Ml districts. Item 6. Paragraph A under this item is a technical amendment to the title of Section 8 dealing with regulations. Paragraph B of item 6 adds a new paragraph (I) to Section 8 prescribing the regulations for the C4 districts. Subparagraph 1 of B provides that the entire land within the C4 'district shall be deemed to be a single lot for all purposes under the zoning by-law. At the present time, "the land in the `proposedtract is owned by several parties and it is possible that there may be more than one, future owner of the land if the amendments are proposed 7 adopted. The purpose of this provision is to make it , possible to. treat all ;the land in the entire C4 district as one 'parcel so that, it will be developed and managed as a unit. Subparagraph 2 of B specifies certain minimum requirements for the development of the district. Subparagraph 3 of; B provides that' all construction of buildings and use thereof shall conform to a'site' plan which has been approved by the Board of Appeals. Under the prior proposal, the site plan approval was by the, Planning Board, A question has been raised as to whether under the State Zoning enabling ptatute. a Planning,.Board can be given the to approve site There power plans. appears to be general agreement tha:t •approval, of site plans` is a function which belongs in the Planning, Board. Rawever, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has'not ruled on this question, and in order to avoid the technical legal question, -the site plan approval power under the by-law as now proposed is placed ,in the Board of Appeals. The Board of Fppeals will, however., before taking action on the plan, have to submit the plan to the Planning Board for its written recommendation. Under subparagraph a, no building' permit shall be issued for or building or structure an existing proposed i 8 until a site plan therefor has been approved by the Board of Appeals. Subparagraph.b prescribes what shall be shown on the site plan. It is the intent that under paragraph 3 the B,,ard of Appeals shall have the right to approve or disapprove all features of the site plan, except the style and type of design of the buildings and structures . It should be noted that under subparagraph :b, the site plan shall include separate drawings showing a unified general exterior architectural design -for the pr©poaed buildings and structures, but it is .specified that the _ style and type of design shall not be subject to 'Board approval. Also under subparagraph b, the Board of Appeals in granting approval of a site plan, has the power to: deter- mine the extent to which there shall be access to the lot from an abutting street. This provision is designed for the protection of the Town. It gives the Board the power to approve or disapprove the extent to which the shopping center shall have access fromanabutting street. As the proposed C4 district is laid out, this provision would apply only to Spring Street. The proposedi d4 district does not abut any other Town street. Rl land cannot be used for driveway a to the shopping center since it would 9 be using Rl land for a bus ines s" purpose.,, which is not permitted . Subparagraph c.prescribes certain things which the Board of Appeals is required to" do for the protection of the Town and. the neighborhood before approving -a' site plan application. Subparagraph d contains procedural provisions dealtig with submission and '`approval of site plans. Subparagraph e contains procedural provisions dealing with approval - of a site plan and the modification or amendment thereof. Subparagraph f is the new provision Covering submission by the Board of Appeals of the site plan to the Planning Board for its recommendations. Now$ there are two parts to this hearing tonight. One deals with the regional shopping center and the other -deals with two minoranendments to the definition`sect-ion of the by-law. - I would like at this time"to read the"opening part of the second matter for the hearing tonight. That is -at the end of column three of the printed by-laws which we passed out. To amend Section 2 Definitions by adding the following two paragraphs." I will omit` the reading of those two paragraphs. Now the explanation of those. This adds proposal . 1Q to the definition section of thezoning bylaw clarifying ;definitions for the two words set forth therein which now appear in the zoning by-laws. The proposal is not intended to change the meaning of these words as they now appear in the by-law. Now., in order that we may. finish with Part B of the proposed amendments and then go on to the larger Riatter to be discussed tonight, I would• like at this time to 'ask whether anybody has any, questions or wishes to .make any comments in regard to Part B 4dealing with 'the definition amendment? If not, then we will go on with Part A. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE. Mr. ,Abbott. Yx. ABBOTT: This is a slide of the Hayden -Swensen area ;showing the location of the proposed shopping center at the intersection of Route 2 and 12$ and Spring Street. Next slide, please. In presenting this matter to the ,Town it is important -that the Planning Board study traffic and its effect on Lexington streets. Particularly the Planning Boardwas interested in minimizing increases in traffic on Spring Street, ;Shade Street and Concord Avenue, and encouraging the , use of Route 2. This . slide: is made from.a 4 plan of Wilbur Smith and Associates, traffic engineers for 1.1 Filene +s . The Planning Board studied the traffic. situation, compared their figures with the Wilbur Smith figures., and consulted with engineers to Massachusetts Department of Public Works and have found these estimates shown on the slides and 'presented by Wilbur Smith Associates to be "realistic. - The figures shown on that 'slide represent trips in an average day to the, shopping center. This was anearly slide and shows traffic on Marrett Road to the intersection of Spring Street and traffic down Spring Street. This was what the Planning Board' wished to eliminate, traffic in,this section on Spring Street. Next slide, please. In our studies we have designed an access to the shopping .center which` will .encourage the use of Route 2. Them the previous estimates on Spring Street are reevaluated and the traffic as shown on Waltham Street and on Route 128. Under this plan of traffic most of the traffic is on Route 2. about fifty-three per cent of it coming from 128 westward on Route 2. and forty-one per cent coming from the east. Traffic shown on Waltham"Street and on Marrett Road is small compared with the traffic which that road will 'carry. If this traffic` plan is followed there will be no serious 15 Mr A 0 As you an see Sri Street -- I . BB TT: y c Spring t didnit bring this out or point it out. In this design there are curbs which prevent any traffic from coming out of the traffic and turning,left. It will be impossible for them to do.that, to turn left. Now, turning right into the center ih inhibited by a straight through arrow in the traffic light here, here and here. That would be a straight up arrow that indicates only straight: ahead, and no right turn signs at these locations. Now, to answer Mrs. Brownis question, the cars moving along Spring Street would proceed here with traffic lights. When she got the Light they would go ahead through these lights and on across wherever they are going. Now, to go into the shopping center from Spring Street one would have to come down here and' -around the-cloverl,eaf.and around this cloverleaf and back again. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE: I think we will let the ques- tions go until a little later 'on. It ,;3s my; error. Twill now ask Mr. Gummere to briefly state, the proposal. Mr. GUMMERE: As has been brought out by your Planning Board there has been very little change_ in the zoning by-law. There were after your 'last Planning Board hearing, I believe, three principal objections at least in ILthe communication we received, and the communica ion we so 16 published.so stated., 'Those three as we see them have been eliminated, and those three as we find it do not make ;it impossible for us to operate a shopping center. Your Planning Board and interested citizens after the last hearing contacted us on two things, asked if our options permitted further consideration or,whether they would run out immediately after the meeting, and then asked if the original zoning proposal 'might be revised, and.those three problems which I will briefly review we think were satisfactorily resolved by the zoning by-law before you. In effect, if you will pardon me for briefing them, they are that the potential size of the center has been reduced, that the kinds of uses permitted were reduced as described a minute ago, and that your Planning Board has developed a plan for handling traffic which you have just seen here. Frankly, it has, s o much capacity - beyond , the - anticipated traffic volume that our engineers tell us that it is beyond what is economically nedded, but it is perfectly feasible and would be satisfactory to us. In all other 'respects our proposals, our intentions are basically the same as those we submitted to you last June. I-hesitate to go into them at all, and I am going to limit myself to three minutes which is pretty, brief, but �' Mr. Holmes who is back at the machine going to snap on ,is 17 I three slides just briefly to refresh your memory, so.we arenst in a position of not having discussed them at all. The first ane, if we may, is an aerial photo- graph of the site. I don i t think it shows the de tail clearly enough here. I'am not going•to bother turning out lights. - You are all very" familiar with it. You know it ' is heavily wooded, you know its eharac`teristics. Lents pass, on to the next one, what you may; not ,remember quite as,well,l;,What . are the plans and operation of the center and how under this revised zoning by-law will it operate.,As I stated earlier it is unchanged in its initial and its ultimate - potential by this,though the ultimate potential would have been greater had the other property been included, the Hayden property. Filene is preliminary plans based on economic studies.contemplate in the initial state of 550,000 square feet made up of stores and services as permitted under zoning by-law which we won't go into now of up to, and it is impossible to predict it now, but 'up to fifty stores. For -a rough comparison this is about twice the size of. Chestnut Hill. It is about the size of Shoppers, World, and, it is half the size of the Peabody' or North Shore Shopping Center which is now nearing completion.' Until actual leases are signed it is impossible to 18 name firms, the exact -size, the number or the kind of store's, but the general prescription is that they must be within the prescribed zoning by-laws. All of Filene-is neighbors at Chestnut Hill with whom this site has been discussed are interested. Its major competitor in Peabody has'a standing invitation to join, and other firms of local and out of state are interested. Store open hours would follow those , of competitive centers like Chestnut Hill, Shopperst World.' They are roughly Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday daytime only, and ,Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday �n addition to daytime hours the evening hours. The time of the planning and the opening, of -a center of this kind takes roughly five It. is now years. one year later than it was 'a year ago when we talked to you, about this. This might be cut down in the five ;years, but under no. conditions would we be 'ready before 1962. Our present intention is to aim at that as a completion date if you see fit to zonethis property. The architectis rendering of the .center, As you may remember it was a preliminary plan. It was developed as we showed you earlier by the _Raymond Loewy Associates. There is no change in that. It is not necessary to change it. 4 We can keep the same high ratioljof parking to store space. and the existing as under the zoning property proposed 19 by-law. Letts go to: the next slide which is a landscaping slide, which is prepared, .preliminary landscapes -,by Mr. Shurcliff of the firm bearing his name and 'a neighbor of yours here who is eminently familiar with' this :terrain. There are detailed renderings outside and I won t t, d iscuss them here except to tell you we believe a very satisfactory job can be done In preserving trees within the center, except at the very center of it and .that.ia very competent job of screening can be done. Let me remind you that Route 2 is going to be widened and the trees along that side Will be taken anyway.; Plans 'here contemplate high trees on that side which could take 'care of that. Now, finally I ,just want to say in clos ing I said ,three minutes, I may be a quarter `of, a. minute one,,, way, or the other - we are interested, want no allusions about our ,position on this We have spent considerable' amount,, of time. We didnit startin it because we didnit believe in it. We continue to believe as we have in the past, that the northwest sector of the Metropolitan area on this are of 128 is ;growing at a rate, has been growing at a rate and is continuing to grow at a rate which needs services. They are going to be supplied somewhere. We would like to supply 20 them and we prefer to'supply them at the corner of 128 if you permit us. This proposition has pros and cons. We believe the cons have been minimized and we want to stop this presentation, permit you the full time to do the debate you should and doubtless want .to go home. Mr. JA(0ITH: The Planning Board has received some recent information regarding Filene+s alternative site which the Board feels it should bring to your attention tonight.' On Monday of this week- William Filene ;s and 'Sons notified the Planning Board that they had completed arrange- ments for an alternative shopping center site of over one hundred acres of land in a nearby community. This site 'is located the of the Middlesex Turnpike, what we at junction know as Lowell Street, and Route' 128. < Filenels,'`it is our understanding, will develop this: -sty this' a3ternative site if the proposed rezoning for shopping center in Lexington is not enacted. It is my understanding that that s'ite'. is r the Acme Sand and Gravel pit. Is that so?` Mr. GUMMERE : Yes, CHAIRMAN GRINDLE I will give the spokesman for the proponents an opportunity to speak. I think Mr. Sheldon represents those groups, Mr. SHELDON Do you want me up front or down here? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE: Doesn+t make any difference. 21 Mr. SHELDON: I donrt think I need One. There has been two major developments since :the last vote. on this subject, one of which has been :already mentioned;.and that is the alternate site which we expected was in existence anyway and which now has been definitely, announced. The second thing which was s-omewhkttindefinite• at the time the Town voted on this matter was.the question` of how big an. increase we were going to have in the tax rate. It 'still hasn+t been announced but I think we can all count .on at least ten doT rs. We have heard figures of eleven and twelve.The best information we can get is that we can count on at least ten, I"think that is, important because there has been a good deal of conversation all along the line about the fact that Lexington could exist without raising its tax, rate by the new valuation which would develop year by. year from residential property. It is ;now evident that that .isn►t the ease, :,and it canit<be done.V and unless we are going to face similar increases in the future some other form of desirable revenue must be found. That has been brought home very definitely by the increase 'which we will all be paying sometime later this year. Now, of there are alternatives as to what course, 22 might be done with the Swensen propetty. Obviously I suppose there are three. Some people have said, 11 Well, wouldn►t it be _nice if we could have a certain type of factory devel- opment there." Any factorythat we know anything about would require a great deal of land around it. Factories aren't usually designed Without plenty of acreage. Whether'` they need it or not they like to "buy it. It is inconceivable, therefore, that you could get any type of 'factory development there that would .cost anything like ten million dollars which this center is supposed to cost or would contribute an assessment anything like five million which again is what this is supposed to be assessed for. Your second,alternative, of: course, would be to have 'houses there, and I suppose if you had enough houses there you would probably then produce another elementary school or contribute to it, and you would be facing another -million and a quarter for it. The third alternative would be to do nothing, but of course we dont have that choice. Thatis up to the owner of the property. There has also been during this discussion a good deal of hoose conversation about the fact that, "Oh. well., we are sure that there will be expenses." Sure, you are 23 , going to have five million dollars. It is 'going, to be . assessed and certainly you are going to have five dollars approximately on the tax rate, but there must be expenses. Now, we have never been advised as to what 'those expenses were., but it is 'an indefinite thing. It is:: a bogey man. We have discussed this thing at -some length and I am going to pass over it. If anybody on the opposition" wants to debate that particular subject I will be very happy to go " into it in greater length; All Lean say is that we have been through this thing from top,to bottom. We fait to find any substantial expenses.. I do want to point out one thing to you, however; And that is this: That if this shopping center is located in Burlington you will have no income. You will then be having people to come through Lexington to get to Burlington and you can't stop that. And you will have to widen streets to provide for a shopping center in another community. Now, thatis your ,alternative. The Town has already, voted for this thing at large by better than two,to one. We feel that's a fair expression of the Town.: We think that frankly that this is a' question "of the welfare of the many.- versus the welfare of the few. We think that this is a democracy, and that the welfare of the many should prevail` and at the moment that is all I have to say;, but if there are, 24 any things ;that come up later that I disagree with you will hear from me later. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE; We will now give the opposition an opportunity to be heard through their spokesman, Mr. May, Mr. MAY: Mr. Chairman, and-ladies and gentlemen., going to the subject of traffic this evening I doubt very much if thatis what the people voted for a few weeks ago. They were interested primarily in taxes. The increase stated by Mr. Sheldon is quite accurate. It will be at least ten dollars per thousand, and so you have to evaluate this evening not only traffic but a rational approach to a tax solution if rinebe needed. I would like to show some slides without you dimming the lights _taken - and I will take more than three - minutes if the Chairman will give it to me.;' And, may I have slide number one. For many of you who I feel are not familiar with the site,, this is the , Swensen land, I . know' there are people who are not familiar with it, and if you go along Spring Street in the direction of Route 2. on your right hand side you will come to approximately one hundred acres which` roll down to 128 and Route 2. It is ,not a. level site. It is rather picturesqueandrolling hills. May I have the next slide, please. 25 This is the original site that was proposed last year. The wide road ,going In this direction is Route 128. The road in this direction is Route 2 and the black line that you see coming from top to 'bottom ,is the very famous Spring Street.. On your right is Wood Haven and at the lower right hand corner is field. There are approximately four hundred homes in this area within a half"mile radius of the proposed shopping center. Where Route 2 ,intersects with Spring Street is the cloverleaf on which the traffic solution, is dependent. May I have the next one. This is the proposed cloverleaf. On the lower right hand 'side see Concord Avenue you relocated , going in to an overpass over Route 2. On the upper left hand cornier is the shopping center buildings withthe three° -entrances `.which` will have three red lights, three no right hand turns. Stop for a moment, please, -and understand what the traffic pattern means. Today you may proceed 'down,Spting Street in the direction of Route 2 without' interruption. When the shopping center is built, if it goes there,, the 'existing Spring Street traffic' will necessarily run through a barrage of three red lights intersecting with 'traffic from the shopping center which must come by those ramps and, which will be fourteen thousand cars per day, 26- Now, a.year ;ago in a meeting- such as this or shortly thereafter your Planning Board decided that it was not fasible to recommend the shopping center because the traff c problem was at least unwielding. What has happened since then to solve the traffic problem? This is a plan which any reasonably competent traffic engineer c>ould ' propose. It only means one thing. If you are going to the shopping center from Lexington by Spring Street you canit'go into it when you reach there.. You go along about one hundred yards, go two loops and a -cloverleaf and'come _back. Your alternative is to push you out -on to Route > 2 and an additional one, mile of travel, no less. How many will travel that from Waltham Street`to people, extra mile Route 2 merely to avoid two loops andthiscloverleaf. I do not say it will not work. of course it will work. How quickly or how effectively it will work is the problem.. And the Planning ,Board has been honest in their last report to you which was published before the last election. They clearly intimated that a second access mightb-necessary in the future. Now,, contrast that with the statements that the load which this plan can :,carry is far and away greater than any safety factor needed. Balance it against your Planning Boardys.report that a second access may be needed. Your guess is as good as mine as to where 27 it will be,, May I have the next slide, please. This is Route. 128 as it goes through Lexington. The shaded area or marked with horizonta1,11-nes is our Ml - zone, which borders 128 and Bedford Street with a buffer strip :in between. This, has been- zonedfor business use for many years but was inaccessible because of the absence of a road from Bedford Street to Wood Street. Now, ;I mention this slide particularly because the bogey man has always been around us until this evening, If you donfttake the shopping, center at 128 and 2 you will get it in a neigh- boring town and you wont have .the tax benefit, but, oh, my; will have the traffic. Where could that location be? you No one really knew, and so this plan was prepared to show you that there were only two alternate poslibilities Trapelo Roadcland' the Middlesex Turnpike. Now, the Middlesex Turnpike is at the right :hand side of this plain where there is one-half of'a cloverleaf on the far side. The only possible site `for a shopp_ir g center is in the upper right hand corner and it is.a soe,�xie. familiar to all of you, the gravel pit, the sand pit in Burlington. Many sincere people and many skilled and Intelligent people in this Town have,held the view that if it was in this location we might have; the detriments and 28. not the .benefits. Perhaps the most realistic answer to the:'. problem is one supplied by., a traffic engineer. We all know- that Route 3 is going to be extended. Where - through Winchester, Arlington - we donit know; but it must be extended directly opposite its. double cloverleafjust west of the Middlesex Turnpike. That is the limited access highway, but access is easy frorp,128. When that Route 3 is extended which it will be in- the next few years no one in his right _mind will ever` try to fight his way through Lexington when he can ride down through Arlington, Winchester and Woburn at sixty miles an hour on a limited access , highway. The next slides are views of.the ,site,' the alternate site as proposed. This is the Acme Sand and Gravel pit.` You are familiar with it on 128. This is another view of it. lAnd I believe we have a third. bo` not be put off with the bogey man ', that' a shopping c6nter will cause you harm because of traffic on a few limited streets. You remember When people go .to -the lexington shopping center they always travel on Route 2 and 128. But my goodness when they go to the Burlington shopping center they always go over.our picturesque little streets. It is amazing how it changes.when you get on the other side of i 31 that. Granted.. But the point is that far from completion the other ,access is nedded. The next one is Shopperst World, and in itself it isn i t wrongbut Shoppers i World is the size' of a proposed center in Lexington, but Shopperst World is assessed two million five hundred thousand dollars and not five million. Maybe it had an economic history which altered its status. The point is without theorizing it is 'a fact that it is assessed for two million three hundred thousand. Suitable? It doesntt hurt Framingham. It is miles from everywhere. It has no less than four major roads surrounding it. I donit know how many exits or accesses it has, but it is not a problem getting in and out. But even with that, know you the condition of Route 9 opposite the Shopperst World where` as recently as last year the road was widened when Shoppers, World has access to four major roads. May I have the last slide, please. This is the last view of Shoppers, World: I wonder if this is what you want in this Town. Now,. , It am taking more than three minutes and I shall be .very brief, At your last capital expenditures committee.meeting it. was stated that in 1962 or 3 or 4 the valuation of th'is' Town would be eighty million dollars . I am going 'to accept the figures that theproponents give us that a ten million 32 dollar installation will be made. Ido not: believe that , all of that will be assessed, but not for along time.,_ Assume the standard fifty per cent valuation discount by and large and you will have a taxable base of five million dollars. Now, five m ill ion` dollars against ins t eighty million °. I think the proportion is something like a sixteenth or, .six per cent. Your capital expenditures committee also - stated that in 1-963 we are likely to have a I tax ' ra te, of close to seventy dollars per thousand. Now, six per, cent of seven(ty dollars is $4,20 and that is the maximum, maximum tax relief you will receive from the shopping: center. Now now, not next:year,',at the ie at The neighbors: in that area, the four hundred people within that area of the shopping center by and large' I represent them. They dontt want the shopping center. They know that two-thirds of the Town Meeting members may insist that they accept the shopping center. They would rather have it residential land. I donit want to belabor any point in a zoning contract, 'but there are houses there built by people who expected zoning to be constant, not a flexible, capricious thing; but 'if you-,mustvisit some:thing,.`` on them, if they must accept an alternative, need it be something with twenty-eight thousand 'cars per day? It is often said in Lexington you can't get any r 33 zoning change because the local people will.come out and oppose it; and of course they will, why shouldn't they-? How many offers have we had. A plastic factory and a shopping center. Now, someone said earlier this evening that the Swensen land coul,dn+t be used for anything else.`' I knew that, and I doubt if the Planning Board members who are quite sincere in this would deny it that as recently as the last six months the Dow Chemical Company was here, and what. did they want? Twenty acres approximately. ror'what9 A research laboratory, Cost,one and-afhalf.million. Number of employees,`number of employees, fifty. Would you "put -five such in rthe; Swensen land 9' ,l think sos places When? Next year if you insist. The .neighbors don1t want it, but if 'you must give them something, why a shopping center? This'isnit for Lexington►s benefit. We don't need seventy stores. If you need shopping,and-there are those.who believe we.need a better shopping area, not a regional shopping center, something which serves our -needs. You can through your Town ,Meeting members force these people to tape what you dictate. Better you give them :the least hurt for the same revenue because you will get no revenue from the center at least,1963. proposed shopping until 35 trouble and effort to bring a traffic engineer -here. - The basis for his opinions are Planning Board figures and proponents figures. His opinion until twenty, minutes ago I didn't know .what it was Z have asked .the ..Chairman of this Board, Mr. Grindle, to recognize, the gentleman. His name is Mr. Malcolm Austdn He is the chief traffic and planning engineer for the Clarkson Engineering Company of -Boston and Albany and Washington..- He is a registered professional engineer, ,he is a member of the Irttti_tute of Traffic Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and he has been asked to give his evaluation of the proposed traffic plan which your Planning Board puts forward ' as being feasible. Thank very much. you Mr. AUSTIN: I have been asked to review and appraise the traffic, < problems arising, from a shopping center i.n this _location. And I was provided with the figures jointly released by the 'Planning Board and the proposers of the site. I am not going to stand here and say.that the plan is completely unworkable. I donrt think' any traffic engineerwould.- But I would like to give you a comparison; and that comparison. is the Sumner Mrinel,. Mow, nobody can say the Sumner Tunnel is unwork- able . It works. The whole, -ease is that there, -is too 'much traffic focused at one The fact that it works doesnrt point. 36. mean that they donit need another tunnel. fey do. 'For.the same reason it is my opinion that a shopping center in this location needs another access. There is just too much traffic focused at one point. Another thing I would like to point out is that the traffic originating in, Lexington and some of -Woburn is acknowledge will come down'through Lexington through the corner of Marrett Road. At that point I think it will still go down Spring Street. It is a mile shorter. Why wouldntt- they? I think that sums up the major points of traffic. The big thing is it needs another access: It is not unworkable but it is not very realistic. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE: I believe we are ready now to 'accept questions. Is there anybody wishes to say anything? We have a traveling speakerhere_ which we will pass around , if ;anybody cares for it. I think we shut off a .few people before. Mr. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, CHAIRMAN GRINDLE:, Give us your name. Mr. SULLIVAN: Mr'. Sullivan;. I just like • to, ask the last speaker, what is the traffic load through the. Sumner Tunnel? Mr. AUSTIN: Pardon me-? SULLIVAN: load through the Mr. The traffic ;Sumner l 39 I which was made in August of 156, I think the first plan. It has not been revised. Mr. GILMAN: O course, if it is a single floor area and the buildings are up to the maximum area this means that the total remaining area would have to be parking under the by-law. That►s the full point. In other words, you are allowed only twenty-five per cent of the land for buildings, for gross floor area. Therefore, if it is. a one floor building this would mean the entire remaining or seventy- five per cent would have to be parking. Mr. GUMMERE`: I am not sure of the exact arth- metic, but roughly that seems right. Mr. GILMAN: The other question I had - two other questions One was regarding the cost of all this traffic change on Spring; Street, whatever youwant to call this. Would this be borne by the Town? I assume the cloverleaf at Route 2 would be State expense, CHAIRMAN GRINDLE: That is right. Mr. GILMAN: This would be borne, by the Town? CHAIRMAN GR INDLE : No. ' As I understand, the cloverleafs: and the entire road of Spring Street is to be paid by the State. Is that right, Mr. Abbott., Mr. GILMAN:: I had two other questions which touch on items which havens been mentioned tonight but 40 which were mentioned earlier. One was the ,question of police and the other was the question of fire protection. I believe it has been stated that these were items naturally, normally Town expenses which would be borne, by the shopping center. Presumably they might have some of their own police- men or fire department. But am I correct in assuming that there is nothing-in the zoning which coversthis? In other'. words., the Town would still have the responsibility of providing those services, is that not correct?, CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : I understand that is correct outside of the shopping center, yes, Mr. GILMAN Would not the Town have the respon- sibility of providing police and fire protection for the shopping center? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE The two shopping centers here in Town now are patrolled by policemen but they are paid by the companies, Mr. GILMAN: But this is not an-obligation that they have to assume, is that not correct? In other words, they do this only, out of the goodness of their heart. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE: I don't 'know about that, Mr. GIL14AN: ' Well, the ;point I was making, it seems to me that we have to .at least consider 'the:- fact` that such things as burglaries that might occur in there together t 41' with a,ny traffic. problems are fundamentally, the responsibility' of the Town. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE; The Planning Board in the report several times have implied that there were apt to be expenses which nobody could forecast at .the present time. I think thatis one of them. Mr. Jaquith will answer your question on'the size if you wish it. Mr. JAQUITH: With regard to the question as to the acreage of the 'proposed shopping center, the area, now proposed for < rezoning consists of about sixty acres of land, it is expected the :State when they widen Routes2 will take aboutthirteen to fourteen acres off of, that land. A up the top . portion at right as we showed those slides abutting Spring Street and Shade Street, two hundred foot depth will,remain residential. So it is expected that the shopping center area which can be used for a shopping center will end up with about sixty acres of the land ,covered by the proposed area under the present zoning law. Now, if this is rezoned then it is expected that there will be a subsequent rezoning proposal presented to take care of the land between what is now Spring Street and the new Spring Street when, the State gets to the "point of deciding just exactly; where it is going to be. It is contemplated that there is aboutseventeenacres, in that P _ 42 area between Spring Street now and what we expect will be the new Spring Street of which about eleven,aeres will be takenby, the State for their relocation of Route 2 leaving six to seven acres that can be used,for the shopping center. This does not include any of the Hayden property=which as previously announced by us Filene►s group -proposed to buy if the land is rezoned for the shopping center. I think perhaps I can clear up a little bit on this 'police and fire question. There is no question but what the Town would' have to provide fire protection for the shopping center. It might be that they will have their own watchman and they may. have interior fire extinguishers and interior hose lines and interior hydrants, but the main " cost of the fire protection for the shopping center will be borne by the Town.` As to police protection as Mr. Grindle pointed out the A and P and First National now have traffic 'policemen down there on Saturday afternoons and evenings.°.;Those are paid by the First National and the A and R. That arrange- ment has been made through the policedepartment that patrolmen off duty if they want to,work extra time can do so at those places. The Town is not now providing police protection, traffic protection at those locations as far as know. There 'is no intent to change that The we policy. 43 protection, the traffic work which the pibl ee would provide at the center under that arrangement, assuming it is the same, would be only at thecenteritself along Spring 'Street where .the access roads are. If ,it is necessary to have a traffic cop down at Marrett Roadand Spring, Street to try and shoot people down Marrett Road to Waltham Street rather than up so they could make the circles, the Town probably' would have to provide the cost of that policeman. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE Mr. Sheldon was standing :a minute ago. Mr. SHELDON: Mr. Grindle, 'the question has already been answered. I would just like to mention'that as a member of the Board of Fire. Commissioners, the building of this center will not change our long-range ,plans. Whether' you want to ask if the fire department would go ,in and put out a fire if there is a shopping center, the .answer is yes, and therefore in that case you can say therefore it is cost- ing the Town some money. You can also say equally as well if there were houses there and there wasa fire we would have to put that, out too. The point is that we would not have to buy another piece' of equipment if .the ;shopping center goes in. NIr. GALLAGHER; With regard to Mr". Sheldon's remarks that the valuation of this property would be about 44 ten million dollars and it -would mean about a five million dollar assessment. Now, according to tonightls talk they have dropped the Hayden portion of this deal, and I think - is that correct now in saying there is s t ill going to be a ten million dollar proposition; or is that going to cut it?' We certainly are ' not going to get a five million dollar `assessed valuation if they, are going to cut fifty acres off. And is there anybody able to answer that ;question? Mr., GJRINDLE; The figures given us, as I under- stand., if the shopping center is fully developed the land, the entire proposition would probably, be around ten million dollars. Mr. GALLAGHER: Wasntt that with the Hgyden. Foundation counted in with buildings being built on it all? The talks we had with Filen is last year they did blow it up to about a ten million dollarproposition which included the Hayden, place. Now, can Mr. Gummere or somebody answer whether it is still going to be ten million dollars worth of valuation on the Swensen property? Mr. GUMMERE: I will try to blow it up again. if I may, in the same set of ari.thmetiC 'we used last year. Five hundred and fifty thousand was the figure, you will recall a minute ago, we talked on the initial plan. For ILrough purposes of computation I used five hu- dre,d' thousand. 45 If you will multiply ,that by fifteen dollars per; square foot you will come out seven million and a half. If, you will add in five hundred thousand dollars for land cost you will come to eight million, and if you will allow two million dollars for site development cost, which is approximately the figure given to us by a firm: of engineers who did preliminary surveys on this you,will be at ten million dollars for the five hundred thousand feet contemplated in this area right here. That I think whs whatwerepresented last June and that I think is what we have 'presented in previous ones and at no time did we represent any figure to anyone in the Town that figure,.beyond; that above state. Mr. FERNBERGER: I have three very quick questions. The first is, I have seen this chart in the Minute Man and in various places and, it is never clear to me °whether -. how many lanes there are in Spring Street from this chart north to Marrett Road. Is it two or is it four, or donst you know? According to this chart I may be :reading incorrectly. It looks like four, four full lanes from this chart which you see here off the paper and all the Way up to Marrett Road,. It kind of looks like two here, but it is actually four. The second question is, has the Planning Board 46 ever 'actively tr.ed'to get laboratories or light industry in this particular piece of property? C'HA IRYIAN GR INDLE : They have not, Mr. FERNBERGER : My third question - every one, well, many people seem to be very confused about - evidently the State, it is going to be just marvelous`, The State is going to pay for all ,this pavement out here. My question is how does the 'State raise money? Mr. KLEBINOF: My name is Klebinof from Marlboro Road. I have two questions. One stems from my relative unfamiliarity with working with a dozen shopping' centers. However noble the original intentT0.na ,. of the community and however sincere they may be, how,many, shopping centers in this country have kept from growing - drive-in, pizza joints, gas stations and every other "form of commercial thing that latches on"around. the ;desirable, focus ' of a ' shopping center? And the second question is: What happens to the automobile and 'Other insurance rates:';with.all this traffic, and how._ does that match our tax benefits 'that, we may deriue: from this center? C;HA IRMAN GR INDLE: I am sorry, 1 -have no answers to those questions. Mr. LAMPE: I live on Shade Street., In view of the possibility that there may be a second access to this 47: site, the Planning Board has mentioned it in their report as a definite possibility, should the area expand, I would _ like to know if any plans and thought further than that has been given by the Planning Board to where the access may be and what roads it might lead to? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE The Planning, Board"has given this a -great deal of thought. Ac's we see it there are two different possibilities. You can go from Weston Street up to Lincoln Street out to Marrett.Road which we think is unwise, or you can start from Weston Street and =build a new road entirely. along 128 to'Marrett Road which is an expen- sive proposition. We have discussed informally at least of taking some land there but havenit very gone far with it; Mr. LAMPE. Is there any estimate of cost o- that new road? CHF IRYAN GR IND.LF We ;have never gone as far as that. Nr. TOOMEY: Toomey, Spencer Street. I think although the vote was two to one in favor of the, shopping center I believe a lot of the people were confused feeling that they were going to get immediate t4x relief if the shopping world or shopping center went through. 'O course., we have heard here tonight that this is not true and perhaps will not come true for or I think - six seven years. what 48 we do needis some immediate relief and perhaps some Industry that:can set up within a year or two years time to heilp us with our tax situation is what is needed. Thank"you. Mr. HAMER: I was wondering Ifthe gentleman. from Filene rs would answer -a question, and that Is, if the 'Town should decide to assess the; property proposed at the full value, say, ten million dollars, `would `Filene is 8.ti11 be interested in proceeding on that basis? In other words, one hundred' per cent. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE: T donit care'to interrupt, but; I think your assessments, the amount of the assessments is determined. by your Board of Assessors of .the Town. Mr. HALER: Should the assessment practice of the Board of Assessors be that 'industry such as that be assessed at one hundred per centwouldthey still be interes- ted in proceeding? CHATRTVAAN GRINDLE>: I donit_think he wants to answer. Mr. HA �T:R: ` May I ask -another question. This is just information. I have no other reason to ask. What does Fileneis expect that on regular practices can this -land and building construction will cast ;them in terns 'of assessment, What are they prepared at this moment to go ahead on that will be assessed, and be a benefit in 'tax dollars ,to the 50 so stated to representatives of the Selectmen and the Planning Board', in the absence ''of any others we thought that was as good a figure to take as any, that fifty per cent should be the figure we should compute in preparing our plans. I don i t want to evade the first part of your quer- tion, but I hope that answers it, but 'I think any assessment above what the general practice .is would leave the possib- ility of applying for abatements and the usual procedures which many of your people here in the 'real estate business would be better qualified to comment on than I would. Rr. HAIRIER: I had a purpose for asking that knowing what was going on in Boston. But to carry this a little further. The of the Town might be to assess the policies physical property or the building on the land at least say fiftypercent and the land itself at roughly leets say two thousand dollars an acre or twenty-five hundred dollars an acre or some figure. To you, to all of us, -what does that mean? Do you Figure .that the assessed valuation of that property will be five million dollars? In making your cost it may be ten million dollars, but what do you believe will be the assessed valuation of it? Is it five million we discussed here this evening? D1r. GUI MERE : I would expect from the ' conversations we have had so far that as in every other municipality that 5l I know of with of course differences in the..'way it is interpreted that there are conversations that proceed between enterprisesdesiring , to do business and the assessors of the Town and under an equitable arrangement would be reached along these general lines, but beyond that I am not prepared to say anything and I `would doubt that your assessors ;'would` be without conducting an actual valuation and probably an appraisal of the property. I would guess an apr�raisal would be made, but,I think that I am not qualified to speak on that. You ought'' to ask the officialsof the Town. I am just stating what our approach to it was and what we assume would be the case. Mr. HA ER : In y our preliminary figures for purposes of establishing the prospects of the area and the ` cost, of entering into this, did you estimate a five million dollar assessment at the going tax rate? `1R. GUMMEkE I tried .to convey that impression. We did. Mr. HAMER : Thank you. Mr. GUMMERE And that is based on the sales potential in the year that we can first be there, Mr. JAQUITH. With regard to this question` of assessments I would like to point out for the benefit of the Townspeople that the assessors have made it clear'to us 5? 7 7- I when we asked them regarding assessments a year ago, they made it clear to us that they did not want to make any commitment at this time, and that they felt as -,a matter of Town policy they should not go on the line now,with any definite statement regarding assessment on this property, Mr. BRYANT: Mr. Chairman. C HA IRPIAN GR INDLE : Mr. Bryant. Mr. BRYANT: When it comes to assessing property the assessors assess it on the value, the basis of the value of the land and the buildings. Now, Mr. Gummere has just indicated 'that there are two million dollars of site costs involved here and those intangible costs. They won't necessarily show up in the land and the building value.. I would Tike to know what he considers is the amount of intangible costs in this type of a project. Mr. GUMMERE : I am afraid, 'sir, that I can't answer that,. I can only say to you that we figured in line with the previous gentleman that, the previous question the gentleman asked about, that the 'tangible costs for purposes of our economic figure would be ten million dollars., Mr. BRYANT: That is what you propose. Mr. GUMMERE : That is what we will have spent, whether they are tangible_ or intangible. Mr . BRYA NT: They won r t s how up in the land and 53 buildings - necessarily Mr. GUMMERE: I gave you a figure of seven million and a -half for buildings and f ive hundred thousand . f.or land based on the then estimates which will, of 'course, vary from it and roughly two million dollars of land development costs. Now, of;course, those are rough estimates. They were for purposes of making.a rough computation.` Mr. BRYANT; Well, there might be as much as, eight million dollars basis for assessment. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE These are some of the matters = I donit want to continue this too long - but these. are some of the things that the assessors told us last spring would be considered in making their assessments. It be the would cost of construction, the gross income minus expenses as shown by operation budget, the selling price to investment company - a great deal depends upon the success of the project. FROM THE FLOOR: Some yearsago I moved into the Town of Lexington on Spring Street as, my .choice of 'luting in a suburban Town such as Lexington was. I donit knots whether .it is going to still be, but it was then. I always feel that my next door neighbor has rights. Any other encroach-' ments on my neighbor I would oppose as its neighbor. .' I like to feel that all 'eo le in Lexington wherever their homes ' p p 54 are., wherever they live they appreciate where they live. I would like to feel that we are all neighbors together in this Town. When we come up to vote we vote for some things that we wouldnit want to push on-to our neighbors without considering what the results might be.; There is about four hundred homes in what we call' the Wood. Haven Section, If Marrett Road was a railroad I guess we would say we were on the wrong side of the track with Spring-Street as .the main street_. but we havenit got tracks there. Letts consider we are all neighbors. Letts consider we have an obligation to all those children that are growing, up in the neighborhood. To. have our children come on to Spring Street and have that traffic going down to a large shopping center is nota good thing.' I dont think for a_few dollars decrease in our tax rate is going to be felt. In five years from now at the rate we are going, ten dollars this year, one dollar last year, ten dollars this year, we are not going to,feel :any revenue in five years time from a shopping center. If there is an alternative as. has been pointed out, Tet us choose an alternative where we wonit involve our neighbor. We can get the money. We will all be glad. Ii' there is anyone that is for the shopping center having kids... or children to be subjected to traffic down Spring Street or, any of t4!o 55 adjoining streets you ;have only to drive up to the ,junction' of Marrett Road and Spring Street and try to get across there at this day and ;age, today. There is traffic coming along "that Marrett Road that is really something to get., across there. Letts consider what our obligations are to the people that are living there in Wood Haven. 'Not because I live' there . It I lived in some other part of Lexington I think it would be detrimental to those four hundred families in that Wood Haven area. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : We have tried,- as I stated at ` the beginning, to give an opportunity_for'both sides to be heard. I think it perhaps is rather an arbitrary statement; but I think if here that to speak there is anybody wishes in favor of this we should give the next opportunity.. REVEREND HANDLEY: I speak primarily to clarify, one simple thing. It has been mentioned that the former property of the late Joshia Willard Hayden -is out of the picture. It is not out of the picture. As a member of the, Joshia Willard Hayden Recreation Center, Ines I would like to have you think with us of the problem that arose upon the death of Mr. and Mrs. Hayden. It was a hope of Mr. Hayden that Journey rs End might be used fora boys school., This I think you will agree as we agree that it was impracticable. In the first place, the need is very question- 56 able. The experience of the Wing Farm area in Lexington and the Farrington Memorial has made it seem that this would not be advisable nor wouldit meet an apparent need; The Trustees, therefore, of this Fund which ;has as you know Just completed` the Joshia Willard Hayden x Recreation Center were then forced to think of alternatives because the property Journeyls End is very -much a factor in their economic picture. _ At the moment, of course, the property has been costing a good ''deal ,of money to maintain' both from caretaker point of view' and also I am -embarrassed tosay because of vandalism. It has had to be boarded and, vandalism insurance has been taken. What are we then to do with this this property, house, this land? We naturally, are open to all sorts of suggestions, but frankly very few offers. There were no offers from anyone who wished to take'` it as a private' - residence with any amount of money involved. There were no offers from anyone who wished to develop it for real estate. There were no offers from anyone who wished to gamble upon it as an industrial site, granted that,changes -could be made. What, -then, was the alternative? ' The alternative was an offer which was accepted of 'an'optio.n by' Fittene is . ` This we have accepted and the money is to be in a placed . 57 scholarship fund in memory of the father and mother of " Charles and Joshia Willard Hayden which will be available for Lexington residents. i This will, if it is possible, then release .funds that are held in the capital - and I think I should at this time point out that our estimates for the running of the center and those of you who are financier's much beyond; any thought that I hope to be a financier, that even monies in the millions do not give income per year in.the millions, that the center will cost in the neighborhood of one hundred and ,twenty-five thousand dollars per year to operate. Mis may be,changed after the experience obviously of a year. Some of that money at the moment, of has to course, carry the "property and has to be kept for scholarships. It" is our hope that with the sale of Journey ss End - and I may say this, that of course it is at the moment held by the center which is a charitable trust and is therefore out of your tax picture completely - that just as soon as it is taken over by any commercial or other private enterprise it goes back into the "tax picture, it is our hope that from this money, monies may be freed for capital and we may even` be able to progress to what has been the hope of the members and board of directors of the center and move toward the construction an ice the of skating setup near center which 59 see no way of preventing 'a very sizeable flow of traffic > going down Spring Street to that center--no matter how many discouraging signs one puts there. Well., let me ask the Planning Board whether the, following thought has been considered ,of planning an access,, road not an alternative access road, not on the opposite side of the shopping center but on the Spring Street side to take the traffic that would otherwise flow from the intersection of Marrett Road and Waltham Street and guide it directly to the intersection of present Spring Street and Route 2? Now, at the same time having no access whatsoever to Spring Street to the shopping, center and perhaps even if necessary dead-ending Spring Street at the corner of Shade. Now., it seems to me that there might be an advan- tage to the considerable expense, in spite of the considerable expense involved here of opening up additional land which I have heard people say is being Considered anyhow for future` industrial development, land right in .the, vicinity o-f:`Route 2. I`think that has been bought up by a firm, Cabot, ;Forbes is interested in site development. Are there any thoughts devoted to this kind of an alternative access? C HA IRMAN .GR INDLE : The Planning Board have cons id- ered different locations for streets of that nature, but 61 does the Planning Board intend this to mean a complete:, enclosed structure? Mr. Mr. JAQUITH That is correct. Mr. HAMER : If so, would the Planning Board be willing to change this proposed provision again to read completely enclosed structure because in following articles it specifically mentions completely enclosed structures? Mr. JA C,�U ITH :. Now, this is f(l)? Mr. HAMER:_ Thatis right. Mr. JAQUITH- If I understand you correctly, you are asking the question as to whether the Planning Board would consider changing f(l) so that it will provide for enclosed of amusement. Now, that is the Planning places Board+s understanding of what it`has here now is that any "theater and any, other place of amusement mustl$ 'enclosed, not open., Mr. HAMER: Yes. But do you wish to say completely enclosed because enclosure may mean a fence. Mr. JA'QUITH: This is intended to mean completely enclosed, Mr. HAMER: Well, would the Planning Board change it? In other words, when we go to vote on this at the Town Meeting we would like to know what we are going to vote for. 62 Mr. JA UTTH We will take that under advisement. Mr. HAMER: Thank you, CHAIRMAN GRIADLE : Are you reedy for the question? Mr. HOLT: Mr. Chairman, as :I understand it.,; your, Board has under consideration the question whether or not it shall recommend to the Town Meeting this change in the .zoning by-law which is set out in the icall .for the Town Meeting., I assume that this draft has been drawn under your, direction., but still your final decision is whether you will recommend to the Town that it adopt this change in the zoning by-law'. Perhaps what;I have to say should be addressed to the Town Meeting rather than to the Board, but it seems to -me that the Board ought not to recommend the adoption of this change to the Town. I would like to say very briefly why. The zoning by-law was.adopted, I think, something like twenty years ago and lthe Town was divided up into various areas, some of which were zoned for private residences.And this "whole: area was zoned .for private residences. Since that time people have bought land, built their houses in this area and in other areas that are',zoned for ;private residence. If people can't rely upon the zoning by-law and the integrity '- of the Town to maintain zoning by-laws for their protection' 63 then the reputation of the Town and the integrity -of the Town I think is.serinusly impa&ted. The reason 'I believe that induced so many people to vote at the last election as an expression of their opinion in favor of this change was the hope that if this area was put into a commercial area it would result in larger value for the collection of taxes and lower .expense to the Town that would be.involved if the area were developed for residences. Now, that comes down primarily to this proposition, that we are willing to injure the property of people who have built their homes in this general vicinity If it",will save the rest of us some dollars in taxes. Well, Ati will save dollars in taxes. I am not going to argue;, but 1 donft think it is fair or just or equitable to do injury to other people simply because we think it may save each of us some dollars in taxes. I donrt think the question should be decided on that basis and I donit believe that many people who voted for it gave .that pointof. view much attention. Now, there is one other reason why I.think you should not recommend it. I doubt verymuch whether such a change would' be lawful. Sq far, ws I oan see thi re is='no change in the character of this area from what it has been since the zoning by-law was adopted. There is no encroachment 64 or approaching encorachment of any eommer6ia.l or business area. The whole % area is entirely residential. I ,doubt very mucP whether the Town really has ';the,power-to carve out of an area which has already been established a new area and create in it a commercial section right in the middle of an established residential area. Also, I doubt very much that there are .any facts' which warrant the change under the law. This zoning law and by-law is part of what is technically called the police power. It is the power of, the State or the Town where it is delegated to the Town .to control peoples property insofar, as doing so would protect the public health, the public safety, or the public welfare. Ihavenit been here at the whole of this hearing. ; I was at the other one. But so far as I know there appears to be no fact by which the public safety, the public health or the public welfare requires this change. Certainly saving a few dollars or the hope of saving of a few dollars- to the individual taxpayers is not the public welfare demands its change. Thank you. Mr. GREELEY: I do want to take exception to a couple of observations made by my good friend Mr. Holt and one by my ,good friend, Mr. May. First, from Mr.` Holt I think that if Mr. Holtts observations in regard to the 65 integrity of the zoning ordinance, the zonii,ng by-law .are to be accepted by us as warnings either in regard to our integrity or in regard to the legality of such amendments then we must be very consistent and apply this, across the board. We must not change any of these areas or any other areas in the Town into industrial zones, into other business zones. If our integrity is at stake by making a : change in zoning despite the fact that the statute makes it clearly possible to do.. if our integrity is at stake by taking some, neighborhood and, changing the use permitted under the zoning in that neighborhood then.I think we better go down the line with this and stick to it when other proposals come to us if the areas that Mr. May out are pointed available as he indicated for industrial -zones our integrity is ,just as much at stake if we change` those areas as it is if we; change the area in this proposal. I am very firmly :in favor of stability under the zoning law. I also think that we must recognize and certainly the Legislature has recongized that there are many occasions where amendments are necessary. The fact that Route 128 has gone through this property, the fact that Route 2 has gone through this property as two major expressways and since it was zoned for residence, I think are s ignif icant facts that change the status of the property. 66! Now as for Mr. May 1s observations that if there isnot .going, to be any traffic on Spring Street then we dont needto worry about any traffic up to the alternate Location at the intersection of Lowell Street and 128 Skillful as he was in turning that, I think we better -look at that on -a fair point of; view also. Much argument has been presented here to the effect that whatever we do to design the `entrances to Spring Street,;. the engineers think., we can design them so that almost no traffic will go on Spring Street because it wont be able to turn in, but the arguments have been submitted we will still have:terrific traffic on ;Spring Street then we.' better recognize that the , same' traffic, Lexington traffic, traffic generated going from the center of Lexington to ;the shopping center will be;; going up Hancock and Adams Street to patronize this alternative location. We will have no control as to the way it gets in to the shopping center so that we ;won i t' have this device at our disposal to divert the traffic. We have more miles of street lined with residences to be affected by this increase in traffic if it goes out Hancock and Adam Street.. = Wehavestreets much'less`susceptible to widening. I think that whatever arguments are used to say that Spring Street would be very adversely by the affected 67 proposed location at Route 2 and 128 are fully as effective when it comes to the 'effect of traffic on the routes out, to, the Route 3 and 128 location. Mr. KINGSTON: Mr. Kingston on Field Road . am- . not a'lawyer. I' would liketo answer' two points. First of all, the largest area presented by Mr. May ,for industrial development is zoned light industrial, has been for many years. I have ' no idea how long :it has been, This is certainly not a -change in zoning. Aiir. GREELEY Few, years; not many. Mr. KINGSTON: It has been zoned. The 'second question I would really like to ask is how many Lexington homes are within one-half a mile of the Burlington site? Thank you CHAIRMAN GR INDLE :_ . Mr. Sullivan., Yx . SULLIVAN: Every place.has a zoning law, ,and I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Holt. 'Anyone that has bought land in this Town has bought it with the moral. understanding that it is not legal, that it would remain that way. I don i t care where you go,� We have a` problem down on Massachusetts'Avenue°at""the corner, of,- le Street. There is a gas station down there with a non conforming use. For about ten years I and several of the abutters down there have had to fight this thing all the way, and we have been 68 successful up to this point. It went so far one time to put up six lights. We had to hire a counsel to get in there and they still said, "Well, canot we remove four?" And I said as far as I am concerned with the meeting of the abutters we want them all removed; They put them, up illegally. I they get two they will, inch along. Pretty soon it will be business if everybody ,just 'ignores what we have is a zoning law. And not only that but they ,want to put up anew gas station and they were going to put up a fifteen thousand dollar gas station right at the corner of Marrett Road'and Tower;Road where there has been five or eight dwellings put up that cost thirty or thirty-five dollars. .thousand And they mention the taxes on a piece of commercial property being of more value to the Town than this residential property. And to answer the people that are saying we are going ; to bring in more children - I can name about five of those houses where there are no children going.to the school so it wonit cost the taxpayers .a cent. They are worrying needlessly and I agree further that this Fileneis thing will not help this Town and it won i t 'save a dollar on the tax rate . CHAIRMAN GRINDLE; Mrs. Brown. Mrs. BROWN: Mrs., Brown of Maple. Street,.. I am a 69 Town Meeting Member and I have not yet decided how L .am going to vote. I have a few things which seem',tome bear out the argument which has not been pointed up as they might be pointed. up. Bob Kingston asks how many :homes'there,are within a half a mile of the Burlington site. When I first heard about the Burlington Street site tonight I started to think about the streets which would be affected actively; in the streets in this site. The traffic problem would not affect Burlington. It would certainly affect us. Belmont and Arlington traffic would come along LowellStreet directly from Arlington or along.Massachusetts Avenue along this difficult corner you have just referred to, Maple Street and Lowell or it will; through>Ma.ssachusetts Avenue through go the center up Hancock and Eastern Avenue to Lowell. There are thosethree routes for the intown traffic coming out. 1 can+t see that Winchester would' have any ;effect. Waltham - some of Waltham would follow Route 128 and some would follow Waltham Street and travel through the centr and come out to Lowell again. All of this emits this factor of Route 3 which we have been hearing about so long that I donit know if we can count on Route 3 or not. The other thing Is I don T t know if we know where the Lexington accesses to Route 3 are because some people in Lexington will be able to get on Route 3 to to this site, get 77 7,1 A and that that traffic to that Route '3 Oughtto be "Con-'' s idered . I have not decided how I am going to vote, mind you. Now, on this business of the integrity of the Town; I have been spoiling for ten years to make a slight speech on that, and with your permission I will hake it'short. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE:` Five minutes. Mrs. BROWN: We have lived here ten. years, We moved into an older home . We have watched the neighborhood grow. It seems to me that ,people coming to Town go through i a transition. If they move' into`a new home' in.a new develop- ment the first thing that chokes them whether it is a''zoning by-law or a tax increase or a failure in the collec- garbage tion or something is this is not a city. They knew it was a semi -rural town when they; came to it, but suddenly there is something that makes them feel that they have.'left`the city behind and canit we have a piece of it out here. They can and it costs money to .do it, ,and we are busy spending that money, but I think they should recognize that It', is their arrival that has done this. The arrival of each new home has affected this tax rate. Alter such ,people have been here,.about three years they feel they,recognze that perhaps it"is unfair to wish' the Town had stopped growing when they moved in. This shopping center?" Those .in favor, will they please `atand. All those opposed, please stand. Thank you,very much. A gentleman`°down here I would like to recognize. Mr. MANN: People come with ,an opinion, and express it. And you would expect people who"were opposed to be more numerous than are in favor. The.only`important point I can make is this: A good many people who have been in opposition to this rezoning very vigorously,,and have asked questions,' and I think volunteered effort to induce into Lexington manufacturing and research development of a very desirable sort. I think that kind of manufaetur r?'� and research development activity is sought by practic4lly` all the people in Lexington in the appropriate places. I 'hope some of the enthusiasm and vigor which has been demon- strated by the people whoareopposing this zoning change can be channeled into a constructive effort.to channel into the. Town this kind of. activity. -Mr. DeNuneio: I don►t want shopping centers or light industry or any industry. A -rural Town is what we want. Mr. WILLIAMS: One more question. We do have a in We, to be a Planning Board Town. are privileged given 73 heaving by this Planning Board. We do have a Town plan. I` " have not seen a report in the Town ori what would seem to be, the best for the Town. What kind of use iig best for certain parts ;of our Town? I don i t think I have seen this "informa- " tion yet. CHAIRMAN GRINALE: Is there a question? Mr. BLACKWELL: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I rise to ask questions, to speak as nearly down the middle as I can, neither for nor against. As a matter of Town planning policy, has the Planning Board considered whether there are other locations[ ' that the shopping center could go in Lexington? We have heard mention of Burlington, have heard of a we previous hearing. If it couldnit be in Lexington it could be in some other Town,; and mention was made of that Town. Has there been consideration of any other'possible location in Lexington? CHAIRMAN GR TOLE In reply. to that I wouldsay that we have already a zoning hearing ,coming up here the same night of this, a'public hearing a week from tonight on rezoning, land for new road from Wood Street to Bedford Street. In the past your Planning Board has brought in two or three different proposals to the Town for rezoning for Ml land and they have been defeated each time. t r r 3 Mr. BLACKWELL: I was,asking about alternate locations in Lexington for the lzhopping,Ce;�ter� C HA IRMA N GR INDLE No, we have none Mr. BLACKWELL: Then I ask'a question 'on the point of land use. From a Town planning point of view, what does it do to the center of Lexington, village to ,put in a shopping center down on Route 2. --and 128 over the long term? We have invested some Town assets, we have developed some traffic ways to it, wehave put in 'smme utilities. We have some businessmen in the Town engaged there. What does it do to our Town center to put in a regional"shopping center at Route 2 and 128? Has'the Planning Board a report to make to the Town Meeting on that Then I ask two more point? questions.< FROM THE P'LOOR: Can I hear the answer to the last question? Mr. ,BLACKWELL: The Chairman thanked me for the question and stated the Planning Board would take it up. Then - I ask further as a matter of land use policy for. the Town, If not regional shopping center at the location, what other land use as a matter of Town plan would the Planning Board recommend? Turning from land use ;to zoning - and they' are i separate,- I have to agree with Mr. Greeley that the fact