Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1958-04-28 PLANNING 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 7:1.40 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 p.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. LcArdle, steel storage cabinet and letter file-- $118. 68; G. & S. Paper Co. , roll kraft paper-412.18 Taken under consideration were the following FORMS A Forms A for determination of Planning Board jurisdic- tion #58-211, submitted on April 21, 1958 by Paul A. and Rose Hoyte, plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass. ", Scale: 1" = 20 ' , dated Feb. 21, 1958, Miller & Nylander, C .E. ' s and Surveyors, Lexington, Mass. #58-25, submitted on April 25, 1957 by Andrew E. Millyan; plan same as that accompanying application ¢f57-101. (See minutes of Decem- ber 9, 1<57) . 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 VOTFT : 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 1i-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 . 2, 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 Emerson 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 crossing. 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 th .t 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 25, 1055 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 Boardts December 2 and December 9, 4-28-58 -3- 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 McCORMACK action relating to the preliminary subdivision plan AND BRUN previously submitted by Paul J. McCormack and Albert C . Brun and Mr. McCormack ' s January 10, 1958 letter LAND FOR to the Selectmen in regard to said proposed subdivi- RECREATION sion and related matters. Mr. Stevens asked the PURPOSES 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 GLASS grant of easement for public travel across Lot 5 owned by Mr. and Mrs. William B. Glass, said ease- KINEEN PARK ment extending from Flintlock Road to Kineen Park and FOOTWAY shown on a definitive subdivision entitled, "Plan of EASEMENT Lots in Flintlock Ridge Section One", dated Feb. 13, 1953. M-. Stevens had obtained said grant 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. 1 hard H. Soule Clerk PLAT?:TIP;G BOA:D HEAPING May 1, 1958 The Lexington Planning Board held a Public PROPOSED Hearing on May 1, 1958 at 7:50 p.m. in Cary Hall, REGIONAL Cary Memorial Building to consider proposals to SHOPPING amend the Lexington Zoning 'y-law so as to pro- CENTER vide for an additional type of zoning district DISTRICTS 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 9, Mass The 76- page typewritten report prepared by said reporters and dated May 1, 198 is incorporated in and made a part of the minutes of this meetin7 and the permanent records of the Planning Board. The nubile hearing was adjourned at 10 :15 p.m. ar. H. Soule Clerk rj, VOLUME STENOGRAPHIC RECORD PAGES 1 - 75 IIIEXMIEIT9 1 PUBLIC HEARING OF LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW I Lexington, Mas aohuaette May 1, 1958 111 PHILIP H AND LAWRENCE W SHORTHAND REPORTERS THIRTY ONE MILK STREET BOSTON 9 MASSACHUSETTS 'tanning Board of ington, Lexington, M Amendments of Town By-Laws planned to served a regional log of such lot, if reasonably LEGAL NOTICES populationpof the Town not merely Lex- districts necessary, whichRsuch lot abuts. NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD ington, (2) planned, designed and The site plan shall Include sep- HEARING ON PROPOSALS TO developed as a unit, in one or arate drawings showing a unified I 11111 AMEND ZONING BY-LAW more stages, and (3) operated and general exterior architectural Notice is hereby given that a public managed, after construction, as design, for an proposed buildings hearing will be held by the Lexington a unit. and structures, the style and type Planning Board on Thursday, May 1. 3. All merchandise and all sale and of such design, however, shall 1958, at 7:45 P.M. in Cary Memorial display facilities and activities not be subject to approval by Hall, Cary Memorial Building, to con- shall be entirely within fully en- the Board of Appeals. In granting Sider the following proposals to amend closed buildings, except the sale approval of a site plan the Board the Lexington Zoning By-Iaw• of gasoline and oil at stations per- may determine the extent to A. To provide for an additional type mitted under subparagraph d. of which there shall be access to of zoning district to be desig. paragraph I. above, and except such lot from an abutting street. nated C 4—Regional Shopping as shall be expressly permitted c. Before approving applications for Center Districts. by the Board of Appeals. site plan approval under this 1. By adding in Section 3 Districts 5. By inserting after the word 'C 3' paragraph, the Board shell assure Defined the following new para- in paragraph (b) of Section 7 to a degree consistent with a graph Height Regulations the follow- reasonable we of such lot for the (i) C 4- Regional shopping cen- Ing'— C 4 — so that said para- purpose permitted by the regula- ter districts. graph (b) will read as follows: tions of the districts` 2. By striking out the word 'or (b) In C 2. C 3, C 4 and M 1 dis- 1. Protection of other premises in between the words 'Al" and tricts the maximum height of the neighborhood against delri- "Ca" in paragraph (a) of Section buildings shall be fifty-five feet. mental or offensive uses on such 4 Geographical Descriptions of 6. By amending Section 8 as fol- lot. Districts and by substituting lows: 2. Convenience and safety of vehl- therefor a comma and by insert- A. By striking out the title Area, cuter and pedestrian movement ing between the words 'C3" and Frontage and Yard Regulations' on such lot and in relation to "district' of said paragraph the and substituting in place there- streets, ways and land in the 'words — or C 4. of the title — Area, Frontage, neighorhood of such lot. 3. By changing certain land from an Yard, Off-Street Parking and Site 3. Adequacy of the facilities for R 1 District to a C 4 District by Plan Regulations. sewage, refuse and other waste adding in Section 4 Geographical B. By adding the following new disposal and for water drainage. Descriptions of Districts the fol- paragraph. d. The site plan may be submitted lowing new paragraphs (i) C 4 Regional Shopping Center to the Board of Appeals in stages (-i) C 4—Regional shopping cen- Districts. or as a complete plan and, in ter districts. 1. In C 4 districts the entire land either case, the Board in acting 1. A district situated northeasterly within the district shall be deem- on a site plan may approve it in of the Cambridge-Concord High- ed to be a single lot for all pur- whole or in part, Whenever way (Route 2) and easterly of the poses under this by-law. successive site plans are submit- Northern Circumferential high- 2, in C 4 districts there shall be pro- ted, any feature approved by the way (Route 128) and bounded and vided Board on a prior site plan shall described as follows a. Open spaces on such lot of not be deemed to be approved if Southeasterly by Spring Street, less than 200 feet between each shown materially unchanged on Southwesterly b) the Cambridge- boundary line of such lot and the a subsequent site plan, unless Concord Highway (Route 2) and permitted buildings and strut- the Board determines that new the Route 2-Route 128 Inter- tures thereon. Where such lot or changed features on the subse- change, so-caned, bounds on a street, the exterior quent site plan materially affect Westerly by the Northern Cir- line of the street shall be deemed the feature that otherwise would cuunferential Highway (Route to be the boundary line for the be deemed to be approved, IIP 128), purpose of this subparagraph. e. In approving a site plan, the Northerly by land now or former b, An open area on such lot, not Board shall have the power to ly of the Josiah Willard Hayden occupied by any building, struc- ture, or open sales area, of not site plan as approved as the Northeasterly by lots 232 to 251, less than seventy-five (75) per Board specifies in its approval en- both inclusive, on Land Court centum of the arca of such lot. dorsemcnt. The Board shall have Plan 6962D, C. Parking area (including access the power to modify or amend Northwesterly by lot 252 on said drives and aisles) on such lot for its approval of a site plan on plan, and automobiles or other vehicles application of anyone having a Northeasterly again by land now containing not less than three (3) property Interest in such lot, or or formerly of Swenson by a line square feet for each square foot upon its own motion if such parallel with and distant 200 feet of gross floor area of the build- power is reserved by the Board In southwesterly from the south- Ings and structures on such lot. its approval endorsement. All westerly line of Shade Street. The open spaces and area re- provisions applicable to an ap- 4. fly adding under Section 5 Per- quired under subparagraphs a proval of a site plan shall, where milted Buildings and Uses the fol- and b above may be used for pertinent, be applicable to a lowing new paragraph. parking area if otherwise lawful. modification or amendment of an (i) C 4 Districts. d. Adequate space on or under the approval. 1. A regional Shopping Center, as surface of such Int, adjacent to f. Upon receipt of a site plan or of hereinafter defined, is permitted the buildings and structures to an application for modification or with the following buildings and be served, for loading and un- amendment of its approval of a uses: loading purposes, including man- site plan or before modifying or a. Retail stores. euvering space, for service vehi- amending its approval of a site b. The following personal service cies. plan on its own motion, the Board facilities: barber or beauty shop, 3. In C 4 districts, all buildings shall of Appeals shall transmit to the physical conditioning and reduc- be constructed, reconstructed, al- Planning Board the site plan and Ing salon, photographic studio, tered. enlarged or used and the the application or proposal for travel agency, shoe and hat re- premises shall be used for a per- modification or amendment of pair shop, laundry and cleansing mitted purpose only in conform- its approval of a site plan. The pick-up station, dressmaker, mill- ity with a site plan for such lot, Planning Board shall consider finer or tailor shop, and household bearing an endorsement of approv- the site plan and any application appliance or equipment repair or al by the Board of Appeals. or proposal for modification or instruction shop. a. The owner of the lot for which amendment of any approval of a c. Restaurants and other places for a site plan approval is desired site plan and shall submit a final serving food, with the exception shall submit such site plan to the report thereon with recommends- of diners and lunch carts so-call- Board of Appeals in accordance time to the Board of Appeals. cd which are hereby expressly with procedure prescribed by the The Board of Appeals shall not prohibited. Board and no building permit approve a site plan and shall not d. Retail gasoline, oil and greasing shall be issued for any eels-ting modify or amend its approval of stations and places of business for or proposed building or structure a site plan until such final re- the sale and installation of tires on such lot until a site plan port of the Planning Board has and other automobile accessories, showing such building or structure been submitted to It or until but excluding garages for storage has been approved by the Board thirty days have elapsed of ler or repair of motor vehicles, and and then only if such building the transmittal to the Planning salesrooms, showrooms or anyor structure conforms to such Board of the site plan or applica- areas or facilities for the sale f site plan as approved. tion or proposal for modification motor vehicles. b. The site plan shall present a or amendment of approval of a e. Banks and postal substations. unified and organized arrange- site plan, without such report 1. The following additional buildings merit of buildings, structures and being submitted. and uses are permitted subject to service facilities and shall show, B. To amend Section 2 Definitions 1 all permission from the Board of among other features, the ground by adding the following two para. Appeals: area and location of all existing graphs (1) Theaters and other enclosed and proposed buildings, strut- (q) Municipal: The word 'munt- places of amusement. tures, parking areas, loading and cipal" means the Town of (2) Personal service facilities unloading spaces, driveways, Lexington. found by the Board to be driveway openings and other (r) Public. The word "public' similar to those set forth in uses: all facilities for water ser- means the Town of Lexing- subparagraph b. above. vice. sewage, refuse and other ton. 2. For the purpose of this by-law a waste disposal services, outdoor LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD "Regional Shopping Center" is lighting. and water drainage; and Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman defined to be a group of stores all principal landscape features 4/17 and buildings and a land area of such as fences, walls, walks, and not less than fifty (50) acres (1) planting areas, including screen- 2 PROCEEDINGS May 1, 1958 7:50 p.m. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : I will read the notice of the legal calling of this meeting. "Notice of Planning Board Hearing 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 consider the following proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning By-Law: "A. To provide for an additional type of zoning district to be designated C 4-Regional Shopping Center Districts . " Since copies of these proposed amendments are available we will omit the reading of them. Mr. J4Quith will explain the proposed amendment and state where they differ from the previous proposals . Mr. Abbott will show a few slides and discuss the traffic plan for Spring Street and access to proposed shopping center. Mr. Francis Gummere will briefly present Filene 's proposals . I wish to discuss the procedure governing the conduct of this meeting. After the speakers mentioned have Ilkfinished their remarks there will be an opportunity for the 3 spokesmanof 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 . All who speak 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 to the proposal. Members of the League of Women Voters have consented to assist in this counting. We would like to take this expression of opinion 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 12, 1958, the Planning Board will present their written report stating its recommendations . I wish to read the following statement regarding IIthe vote of the March, 1958, Town Meeting as it relates to 4 It these amendments . "The proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law for the Regional Shopping Center are being presented pursuant to the vote of a majority of those voting on the rezoning question at the March, 1958, Town election. " The effect of that vote insofar as the Planning Board is concerned is that amendments to the Zoning By-laws to permit a regional shopping center in the area involved must be prepared and presented to the Town for adoption in accord- ance with the law. In order to amend the Zoning By-law the law requires a proposed amendments to be presented at a public hearing and that the amendments be adopted at a subsequent Town Meeting via a two-thirds vote . 111 I will now ask Mr. Jaquith to discuss the proposed zoning by-law. Mr. JAQUITH My explanation will be by item numbers as set forth in the hearing notice . Firstasto Part A which deals with the Regional Shopping Center. Item 1. This proposal adds to the list of zoning districts under Section 3 a new district designated C4 Regional Shopping Center District. Item 2. This proposal is a technical amendment to the geographical descr tion of R1 districts under Section 4 . Item 3 . Under this proposal, the land area 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 Districts the new paragraph set forth in the notice . The land area involved in the proposed rezoning does not include the Hayden property. Item 4 . This proposal adds a new paragraph to Section 5 Permitted Buildings and Uses . Subparagraph 1 specifies the permitted buildings and uses 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 those in the previous proposal except as follows : 1. Physicians, dentist , 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 deleted . Subparagraph 3 of Item 4 provides that all sales and display facilities and activities shall 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 02, 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 proposediract is owned by several parties and it is possible that there may be more than one future owner of the land if the proposed amendments are 7 adopted . The purpose of this provision is to make it lit 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 statute a Planning Board can be given the power to approve site plans . There appears to be general agreement that approval of site plans is a function which belongs in the Planning Board. However, 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 an existing or proposed building or structure 8 110 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 Bard 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©posed 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 from an abutting street. As the proposed C4 district is laid out, this provision would apply only to Spring Street. The proposed C4 district does not abut any other Town street. Rl land cannot be used for a driveway to the shopping center since it would 9 be using R1 land for a business 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 dealing 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 m inor amendments to the definition section 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 proposal adds 10 to the definition section of the zoning by-law 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 matter 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 dealing with the definition amendment? If not, then we will go on with Part A. CHAIRMAN GRINDTR' : Mr. Abbott. Mr. 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 128 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 Board was 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 plan of Wilbur Smith and Associates, traffic engineers for 4 11 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 an early 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. Then 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 111, small compared with the traffic which that road will carry . If this traffic plan is followed there will be no serious 12 overload on those roads . Next slide, p lease . This is the whole section showing the clovex`leafs on 128 and the proposed new cloverleaf at Spring Street and Route 2. The shopping center site is this area, and as the shopping center showing it leading out to Spring Street with the cloverleaf on this intersection to handle all traffic coming from this way into the shopping center or from Route 2 east into the shopping center and has direct access out on to Route 2 west and out and across and east. We have also planned at this point a curve at the junction of Concord Avenue and Spring Street which would prevent a left tarn into Spring Street- from the shopping center and encourage use of Concord Turnpike to the east. Can we have the lights, please . Can you see that with the lights on? This is the access plan On Spring Street which the Planning Board worked out. It gives exit free flow out to Route 2 west, and across, an exit out and east over the cloverleaf . It has a free flow inlets from 128 to the west, and in through storage lanes and traffic lights into the center. The capacities of this access are as follows : The three-lane exit at this point has a capacity of 2,280 13 cars, an estimated load of 850 at theP eak entering hour of thirty-eight per cent. At this point we have two lanes out and three lanes in. The capacity of the two lanes out 1,680 cars, with a laod of four hundred cars or twenty-four per cent. The three lanes in have a capacity of 1,710 cars with a load of one thousand cars or fifty-nine per cent. At point three the e3tit again has a capacity of 1,680 cars, a load of two hundred cars or twelve per cent loaded. To the entrance at this point the capacity of 2,185 cars, a load of one thousand cars or forty-six per cent loaded . This is an entrance point of three lanes and has a capacity of 2,185 cars, a load of eight hundred cars, or a thirty-seven per cent load. At this point another traffic light stops traffic for traffic that wants to go through this light and toward Waltham on Spring Street. At that point we have a capacity of 3,480 cars, a load of 1,650 cars or forty-eight per cent load . In each storage lane there is a capacity for thirty to thirty-five cars in each storage lane, and at moving 2800 cars an hour which is the maximum peak hour through these 11/ one thousand cars here and here and eight hundred cars here, if theymoved at a uniform rate of speed we would onlyneed. p 14 storage lanes for about twelve cars. The capacity is at least thirty cars in each location, CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : Is there any question you would like to ask Mr. Abbott? Mr. HARVEY : When you speak of load, are you referring to the average daily load, to the Christmas peak load, and in projecting your loads how far into the future have they beenprojected, on the completion of the project? I should like to have that sort of information developed. Mr. ABBOTT: The load is the maximum entering hour which would occur at any time during the. year. The maximum hours, what those loads were computed on. And the load is when the projected shopping center is fully completed. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE Mrs . Brown. Mrs, BROWN: Could we have the last slide again? I would like to ask a question about it. Perhaps I could ask a question without it. As I studied this in the Minute Man and as I look at this, it is perhaps my lack of acquaintanceship with such diagrams, but I would like to know how traffic does go along Spring Street if it is not going into the shopping center? And, secondly, how the few cars that go along Spring Street and are aiming for the shopping center will get there? There is surely a way, not 1110 that we want to make it easy. 15 iltMr.ABBOTT: As you can see Sri Street -- I Spring didn ' t 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 #b 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 . Brown's 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 cloverleaf and around this cloverleaf and back again. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : I think we will let the ques- tions go until a little later on. It is my error. I will 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 110 the communication we received, and the communication we so 16 Ilt 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 considerationor 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, 1111 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 so much capacity beyond the anticipated traffic volume that our engineers tell us that it is beyond what is economically needed, 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 1110 Mr. Holmes who is back at the machine is going to snap on w. 17lit three slides just briefly to refresh your memory, so we aren 't in a position of not having discussed them at all. The first one, if we may, is an aerial photo- graph of the site . I don't think it shows the detail 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 characteristics . Let's pass on to the next one, what you may not remember quite as well/ 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 's 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 stores, but the general prescription is that they must be within the prescribed zoning by-laws . All of Fileneis neighbors at Chestnut Hill with whom this site hasbeen 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, Shoppers ' World. They are roughly Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday daytime only, and Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday in addition to daytime hours the evening hours . The time of the planning and the opening of a center of this kind takes roughly five years . It is now 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 zone this property . The architect 's 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. We can keep the same high ratio,;of parking to store space and the existing property as proposed under the zoning 19 by-law. Let's 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 discuss 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 la 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 closing - 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 didn 't start in it because we didn 't believe in it. We continue to believe as we have in the past, that the northwest sector of the Metropolitan area on this arc 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. JAQUITH: 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 at the junction of the Middlesex Turnpike, what we know as Lowell Street, and Route 128. Filene's, it is our understanding, will develop this site, this alternative site if the proposed rezoning for shopping center in Lexington is not enacted . It is my understanding that that site is 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 . 1 21 Mr. SHELDON: I don't think I need one. There has been two major developments since the last vote on this subject, one of which has been already s 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 somewhattindefinite• 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 dollars . we have heard figures of eleven and twelve . The best information we can get is IPthat we can count on at least ten. I think that 's 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 case, and it can't be done, 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 course, there are alternatives as to what 22 might be done with the Swensen propefsty. Obviously I suppose there are three . Some peopr have said, "Well, wouldn 't it be nice if we could have a certain type of factory devel- opment there . " Any factory that we know anything about would require a great deal of land around it. Factories aren't usually designed alttthout 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 don't have that choice . That 's up to the owner of the property. There has also been during this discussion a good deal of loose 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 I can say is that we have been through this thing from top to bottom. We fail 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, that 's your alternative . The Town has already voted for this thingby at large 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 's all I have to say; but if there ares 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 that 's 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 trafficbut a rational approach to a tax solution if rine be needed . I would like to show you some slides without 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 picturesque and rolling hills . ',lay 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 1/1 right hand side you see relocated Concord Avenue going in to an overpass over Route 2. On the upper left hand corner is the shopping center buildings with the 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 Spring 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 11111 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 feasible to recommend the shopping center because the traffic 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 could propose . It only means one thing. If you are going to the shopping center from Lexington by Spring Street you can't 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 people will travel that extra mile from Waltham Street to Route 2 merely to avoid two loops and this cloverleaf. 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 might be 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 11/ it against your Planning Board 's 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 horizontal lines is our M1 zone, which borders 128 and Bedford Street with a buffer strip in between. This has been zoned for 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 don't take the shopping center at 128 and 2 you will get it in a neigh- boring town and you won't have the tax benefit, but, oh, my 111 you will have the traffic . Where could that location be? No one really knew, and so this plan was prepared to show you that there were only two alternate possibilities Trapelo Roadr'and the Middlesex Turnpike . Now, the Middlesex Turnpike is at the right hand side of this plan where there is one-half of a cloverleaf on the far side . The only possible site for a shopping center is in the upper right hand corner and it is a scene familiar to all of you, the gravel pit, the sand pit in Burlington. Many sincere people and many skilled and 110 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 don' t know; but it must be extended directly opposite its double cloverleaf just west of the Middlesex Turnpike . That is the limited access highway, but access is easy frog .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. And I believe we have a third. Do not be put off with the bogey man that a shopping cOnter 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 29 the fence . Now, there are traffic engineers in this room and there are clity planners in this room who are skilled and intelligent professionals, and I would be delighted to hear their opinion on whether one will fight his way through Lexington, thirty per cent of the Burlington- traffic, or whether most of them will go home by an extended Route 3 . May I have the next one, sir. This is our airmants zone in Lexington, west of Bedford Street, north of 128. The dotted line is our best estimate of where the new State or Federal road is going to be constructed this summer. That it is to, be eons true ted we know. The Planning Board or rather the Warrant which is coming forth next Town Meeting mentions it. This road not limited access opposite a site which if I recall is close to two hundred acres . Zoning changes are to be made in that at the next Town Meeting so the Town will have control over it. We expect that it will be used for the type of light manufacturing or research laboratories which seem to spread out on 128 and which are revenue producing; and this is this year, not five years from now. May I have the next slide . Here is our motel zone . You know it off Marrett Road touching Route 128 . On that area accessible from 30 Lincoln Street, accessible from Marrett Road many hundreds of yards distant from any homes other than a half dozen. There are acres and acres of land which you may zone for industrial use or research laboratory use, not easily, not quickly, but much sooner than five years . Now, I would like to show you one other if you please . This is Needham, the industrial park. On the far corner is the Charles River and between Charles River and the white band which represents Route 128 there is in an area of 140 acres an industrial park that you have seen many times It is completely isolated from the Town. It in no way involves any homes . There weren't houses there, nobody was hurt when it was put in. That one hundred and forty acres produces one and .a half times the proposed shopping center revenue We have such a site, all along 128 and two hundred acres in North Lexington which lie as swamp at the moment. I would like to show you four other slides quickly merely for their perhaps historical value . May I have them . This you recognize as the Peabody Shopping Center. I am not being sarcastic, but I see no trees, no wooded knolls, no buffer strips, and I know a second access is being built. There are those who say the Town was told. 31 that. Granted . But the point is that far from completion the other access is needed . The next one is Shoppers ' World, and in itself it isn 't wrong but Shoppers ' World is the size of a proposed center in Lexington, but Shoppers ' 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 doesn 't hurt Framingham. It is miles from everywhere . It has no less than four major roads surrounding it. I don 't know how many exits or accesses it has, but it is not a problem getting in and out. But even with that, you know the condition of Route 9 opposite the Shoppers ' 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, I 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 this Town would be eighty million dollars . I am going to accept the figures that the proponents give us that a ten million 32 dollar installation will be made . I do not believe that all of that will be assessed, but not for a long 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 million dollars against eighty million, I think the proportion issomething like a sixteenth or six per cent. Your capital expenditures committee also stated that in 1963 we are likely to have a tax rate of close to seventy dollars per thousand . Now, six per cent of seventy dollars is $4.20, and that is the maximum, maximum tax relief you will receive from the shopping center . Now now, not next year, at the earliest 1963. The neighbor in that area, the four hundred people within that area of the shopping center by and large I represent them. They don't want the shopping center. They know that two-thirds of the Town Meeting members may insist that they accept the shopping center. They would rather have it residential land . I don't want to belabor any point in a zoning contract, but there are houses there built by people who expected zoning to be constant, not a flexible, capricious thing; but if you must visit something on them, if they must accept an alternative, need it be something with twenty-eight thousand cars per day? 110 It is often said in Lexington you can't get any 33 zoningchange because the local people will come out and. p p oppose it; and of course they will, why shouldn't they? How many offers have we had . A plastic factory and a shopping center. Now, someone said earlier this evening that the Swensen land couldn't be used for anything else . I know that, and I doubt if the Planning Board members who are quite sincere in this would deny it that as recently as the last six months the Dow Chemical Company was here, and what. did they want? Twenty acres a.pproxiMately. ror what? A research laboratory. Cost, one and a{halr million. Number of employees, number of employees, fifty. Would you put five such places in the Swensen land? X think. so. When? Next year if you insist. The neighbor$ don't want it, but if you must give them something, why a shopping center? This isn 't 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 take what you dictate . Better you give them the least hurt for the same revenue because you will get no revenue 110 from the proposed shopping center until at least 1963 . 3k Now, why? Well, first we zone this area next week. But that isn't the end of it. The Planning Board, or the Board of Appeals must approve site plans, and it is tacit, I am sure, that they will not approve site plans until the cloverleaf is installed. Now, when will that be? Well, 128 must first be widened . That 's next year. With new bridges and a tremendous overpass and cloverleafs . Then after that Route 2 has to be widened and that 's a year or two after that. And maybe the Department of Public Works then and maybe the Governor and the Legislature and maybe our Town officials can arrange for a cloverleaf and then again maybe they won't. But after the cloverleaf is built Spring Street will have to be relocated. That 's admitted; and then the proponents must come back in a few more years and ask that the area between the present Spring Street and the new Spring Street be rezoned, Arid when all that is completed and all the cloverleafs are built and many years have passed you will get your tax relief . Rather we should ask our Planning Board to find an alternative method, and if he must put it in an area where neighbors are going to be affected, and it could be in many places in the Town, at least let us be gentle . I haven't said much about traffic because I don't know anything about traffic . We have gone to a lot of 35 1r 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 . I have asked the Chairman of this Board, Mr. Grindle, to recognize the gentleman. Nis 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 Institute 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 you very much, Mr. AUSTIN: I have been asked to review and appraise the traffic problems arising from a shopping center in 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 don't think any traffic engineer would . But I would like to give you a comparison; and that comparison. is the Sumner T'dnnel . Now, nobody can say the Sumner Tunnel is unwork- able . It works . The whole ease is that there is too much traffic focused at one point. The fact that it works doesn't 36 mean that they don 't need another tunnel. They 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 speaker here 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 r the last speaker, what is the traffic load through the Sumner Tunnel? Mr. AUSTIN: Pardon me? Mr. SULLIVAN: The traffic load through the Sumner 37 Tunnel. Mr. AUSTIN: I think the last count was around forty-five thousand a day. Mr. SULLIVAN Thank you. CHAIRMAN GR INDLE : Give us your name . Mr. GILMAN Martin Gilman, Bloomfield Street. Several short questions which perhaps you can answer. One is, it hasn't been definitely stated, the total area of this site I think tonight. Is that about one hundred acres, is that correct, the present site? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE: We have that in one ,of our sheets . I will get it in just a minute . Mr. GILMAN: The other question was in calculating the gross areaunder the proposed changes this wotlzl presumably include basements as well, as the ground floor, is that correct? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : I don't quite get your question. Mr. GILMAN: The point is, mention is made in the zoning of gross area -- CHAIRMAN -CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : Floor area. Mr. GILMAN: -- gross floor area. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : That's what I understand, one floor area. 11/ Mr . GILMAN: There would be no basements, is that 38 correct? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : Just thinking now for compari- son for parking and things of that nature? Mr. GILMAN: My point is that naturally if there is a basement under a building and that floor area is included in the gross this affects the factor by two to one . I was just wondering if that 's the way it is calculated or not. CHAIRMAN GR IDLE : I understand not. I may be wrong. Do you want to correct that, Mr. Gummere? Mr. GUMMERE : We had understood that any area whether basement, first or second floor would be included within that ratio that is prescribed in the zoning by-law. Mr. GILMAN: A building covering one acre having a basement would be eighty thousand gross feet, is that correct? Mr. GUMMERE : That That 's correct. Mr. GILMAN: And would none of these buildings have basements or would they in general have basements? Mr. GUMMERE : Well, the spec if is proposal on the initial preliminary plan varied by each of the buildings . I would want to look that up and see, but the gross area including basements, including all floors was five hundred and fifty thousand feet on that first preliminary pass 39 which was made in August of '56, I think the first. plan. It has not been revised . Mr. GILMAN: 0 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 eventy-five per cent would have to be parking. Mr. GUMMERE : I am not sure of the exact arith- 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 's right. Mr. GILMAN: This would be borne by the Town? CHAIRMAN GR INDLE : No. As I understand, the cloverleafa 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 111 touch on items which haven't been mentioned tonight but 11'0 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 covers this? In other words, the Town would still have the responsibility of providing those services, is that not correct? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE I understand that 's 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. GILMAN 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 .d i` •F. - Y -w 3 41 with any 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 that 's one of them. Mr. Jaquith will answer your question on the size if you wish it. Mr. JAcUITH: 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 Route 2, will take about thirteen to fourteen acres off of that land. A portion up at the top 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 about seventeen acres in that 1}2 1111 area between Spring Street now and what we expect will be: the new Spring Street of which about eleven acres willbe taken by 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 P. That arrange- ment has been made through the police department 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 110 we know. There is no intent to change that policy, The 43 protection, the traffic work which the pIlice would provide at the center under that arrangement, assuming it is the same, would be only at the center itself along Spring Street where the access roads are . If it is necessary to have a traffic cop down at Marrett Road and 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. Grindley 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 shoppingcenter, 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 was a 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. Mr. GALLAGHER: With regard to Mr. Sheldon's remarks that the valuation of this property would be about 44 lit ten million dollars and it would mean about a five million dollar assessment. Now, according to tonight's talk they have dropped the Hayden portion of this deal, and I think - is that correct now in saying there is still 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. GR INDTF : 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: Wasn 't that with the Hyden. Foundation counted in with buildings being built on it all? The talks we had with Filene 's last year they did blow it up to about a ten million dollar proposition 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 arithmetic 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 rough purposes of computation I used five hundred 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 was What we represented 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 above that figure beyond: that state . Mr. FERNBERGER : I have three very quick questions . The Iirst is, I have seen this chart in the Minute Man and it various places and it is never clear to me whether-- how hether- -how many lanes there are in Spring Street from this chart north to Marrett Road. Is it two or is it four, or don't 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 tried to get laboratories or light industry in this particular piece of property? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : They have not. Mr. FERNBFRGER : My third question - everyone, 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? Dr. KLEBINOF: Pyr name is Klebinof from Marlboro Road . I have two questions . One stems from my relative unfamiliarity with working with a dozen shopping centers . 1111 However noble the original intenttdni 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 howdoes that match our tax benefits that we may derive from this center? CHAIRMAN GRINDTF I am sorry, I 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 I- 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 . AS 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 haventt gone very far with it. Mr LAMPE : Is there any estimate of cost o} that new road? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE We have never gone as far as that. Mr. T00MEY: 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 tax relief if the shopping world or shopping center went through. O1 course, we have heard here tonight that this is not true and perhaps will not come true for six or seven years . I think what ? 8 111 we do need is some immediate relief and perhaps some industry that can set up within a year or two years time to htiilp us with our tax situation is what is needed.. Thank you. Mr. HAMER I was wondering if the gentleman from Filene 's 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 's still be interested in proceeding on that basis? In other words, one hundred per cent. CHAIRMAN GRINDLF : I don't care to interrupt, but I think your assessments, the amount of the assessments is determined by your Board of Assessors of .the Town. Mr. HATER Should the assessment practice of the Board of Assessors be that industry such as that be assessed at one hundred per cent would they still be interes- ted in proceeding? CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : I don't think he wants to answer . Mr. HAT :R : May I ask another question. This is just information. I have no other reason to ask. What does Filene 's expect that on regular practices can this land and building construction will cost them in teras of assessment. 110 What are they prepared at this moment to go ahead on that will be assessed, and be a benefit in tax dollars to the 49 I lit Town? Mr. GUMMERE I am glad the question was rephrased because I am afraid that by the time I fenced myself in enough to cover the answer to it that you would be losing a good many of the and ience . I would like to go back and quote as nearly as I can from the notes I have here what we said last June when we were discussing this subject . Roughly it was - I will trust my memory at least til I get to it it was to this effect : We had talked to either the Chairman or the chief of your assessors and I hope they will excuse me, I don at remember his exact title in these eleven months, in trying to arrive at what we should figure for prudent business judgment on whether we were prepared to proceed as far as we did. We consulted the tax equalization survey which had been authorized by the Legislature to determine what the practice was in your Town. And we assumed that assessors living up to their paths of office and their sense of fair play would treat us as they had other people in the Town. We found that in the equalization survey that you were assessing your property on an average over the Town as a whole roughly at fifty per cent or below. And, therefore, we assumed in the absence of any other information, and we 50 IIso 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't want to evade the first part of your ques- 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 . Mr . HAVER: I had a purpose for asking that knowing what was going on in Boston. But to carry this a little 111 further. The policies of the Town might be to assess the physical property or the building on the land at least say fifty per cent and the land itself at roughly let is 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? iir. GUI+IMERE I would expect from the conversations we have had so far that as in every other municipality that 51 I know of with of course differences in the way it is interpreted that there are conversations that proceed between enterprises desiring 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 appraisal would be made, but I think that I am not qualified to speak on that. You ought to ask the officials of the Town. I am just stating what our approach to it was and what we assume would be the case. Mr. HAMER: In your 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? MR. GUMMERE : 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? 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. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : 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 like 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 's what you propose . Mr. GUMMERE : That 's what we will have spent, whether they are tangible or intangible. 1 110 Mr. BRYANT: Theyup won't show in the land and 53 buildings necessarily. Mr. GUMMERE : I gave you a figure of seven million and a half for buildings and five hundred thousand for 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 don' t want to continue this too long - but these are some 111 of the things that the assessors told us last spring would be considered in making their assessments . It would be the 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 years ago I moved into the Town of Lexington on Spring Street as my choice of 1itting in a suburban Town such as Lexington was . I don't know 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 111 like to feel that alleo 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 wouldn' t 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 haven't got tracks there Let 's consider we are all neighbors . Let 's consider we have an obligation to all those children that are growing up in the neighborhood. Tohave our 111 children tome on to Spring Street and have that traffic going down to a large shopping center is not a 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, let us choose an. alternative where we won't involve our neighbor. We can get the money . We will all be glad . Ii there is anyone that is for the shopping center having kidsor children to be subjected to traffic down Spring Street or any of the 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 . Let 's consider what our obligations are to the people that are living there in Wood Haven. Not because I live there . Ii 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 there is anybody here that wishes to speak in favor of this we should give the next opportunity . REVEREND HANDLER 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, Inc ., 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 's End might be used for a 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 would it meet an apparent need. The Trustees, therefore, of this Fund which has as you know just completed the Joshia Willard Hayden Recreation Center were then forced to think of alternatives because the property Journey 's 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 property, this 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 option by Filene 's . 110 This we have accepted and the money is to be placed in a . 57 scholarship fund in memory of the father and mother of Charles and Joshia Willard Hayden which will be available for Lexington residents . 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 financiers 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. This may be changed after the experience obviously of a year. Some of that money at the moment, of course, has to carry the property and has to be kept for scholarships . It is our hope that with the sale of Journey 's 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 of an ice skating setup near the center which L 58 Ilt will be available throughout the year. This, of course, is not possible under the present setup but with some disposal of the Hayden property, that is the house this will be possible. We would naturally hope since there seems to be no other alternative . And our experience in that neighborhood is not unusual . Many people know that the property owned by Doctor Richards was on the market and was not immediately taken up by anyone who was interested in buying residences either as individual or as a development. For several years to my knowledge, and was finally sold to a firm which probably has not in mind the development of individual residences . These factors I give to you with the thought of our thinking and with the hope that you will consider this too among the many other things that are being presented to you this evening . Thank you. MR. ZUKER: My name is Francis Zuker. Let us assume that the event comes to pass which would be so sad to the people living near the Swensen farm and so desirable for some other citizens of Lexington and that the shopping center is approved. It seems to me that one thing is clear from all we have heard this evening, and that is that the consequences for the Spring Street area inhabitants would indeed be disastrous from a traffic point of view. I can 59 see no way of preventing a very sizeable flow of traffic going down Spring Street to that center no matter how many discouraging sighs one puts there . Well, let me ask the Planning Board whether the following thought has been considered of planning an aocess. 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 bean 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 of 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? CHAIRMAN GR INDLE : The Planning Board have consid- ered onsid-ered different locations for streets of that nature, but 60 nothing very definite has ever been considered. We did have one proposition to go up to Waltham Street parallel to Route 2 and come into the shopping center. All right. Mr. HAMER: I asked a question during the last hearing regardinL one of the sections in here, and you said the Planning Board will take it under advisement. I don't see it being changed here . It is subsection f under 1 which says "The following additional buildings and uses are permitted subject to permission from the Board of Appeals.: ( 1) Theaters and other enclosed places of amusement. " Now, at the last Planning Board I asked if the Planning Board had considered the thought that an open air movie or some such similar outdoor entertainment facility might be constructed because I note in the following paragraphs it says completely enclosed and this does not say enclosed. Has the Planning Board discussed this, and what is their thought on that? Mr. JA ,UITH: If I understand the question correctly it is whether the Planning Board gave any consid- eration to permit outdoor places of amusement in this area or as a part of the regional shopping center. Is that correct? Mr. HAMER : yes . And also the question is asked, 61 does the Planning Board intend this to mean a complete. enclosed structure? 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. JAQUITH: Now, this is f(1)? Mr. HAMER That 's right. Mr. JAQUITH If I understand you correctly, you are asking the question as to whether the Planning Board would consider changing f(1) so that it will provide for enclosed places of amusement. Now, that is the Planning Board 's understanding of what it has here now is that any theater and any other place of amusement mustle enclosed, not open. Mr. HAMER: Yes . But do you wish to say completely enclosed because enclosure may mean a fence . Mr. JAQUITH: 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. idi` 62 Mr. JAWITH: We will take that under advisement. Mr . HAMER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GR INDLE : Are you ready 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 call 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 seriously impaxtsed. 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 111 save the rest of us some dollars in taxes . Well, it. will save dollars in taxes . I am not going to argue; but I don't 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 don't think the question should be decided on that basis and I don't believe that many people who voted for it gave that paint of view much attention. Now, there is one other reason why I think you should not recommend it. I doubt very much whether such a change would be lawful . So far as I can see there is no change in the character of this area from what it has been Isince the zoning by-law was adopted. There is no encroachment 64 or approaching encorachment of any commercial or business area . The whole area is entirely residential. I doubt very muc a 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 . Ihaven't 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. GREET.FY : 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. Holtfs observations in regard to the 65 integrity of the zoning ordinance, the zoning 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 pointed out are 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 111 are significant facts that change the status of the property . 66 Now as for Mr. May 's observations that if there isn 't .going to be any traffic on Spring Street then we don't need to 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 won't 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 generated traffic, traffic 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'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. We have streets much less susceptible to widening. I think that whatever arguments are used to say 1111 that Spring Street would be very adversely affected by the 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. ..qr . KINGSTON: Mr. Kingston on Field Road.. I am- not a lawyer. I' would like to 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. rLr. 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 INDT.R : Mr . Sullivan. Mr. 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 't care where you go; We have a problem down on Massachusetts Avenue at the corner of Maple 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 II have had to fight this thing all the way, and we have been 68 I lit 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, can' t 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 a new 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 thousand dollars . 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 won't cost the taxpayers a cent. They are worrying needlessly and I agree further that this Filene 's thing will not help this Town and it won ' t save a dollar on the tax rate . CHAIRMAN GRIND,LE Mrs . Brown. 11, Mrs . BROWN: Mrs . Brown of Maple Street.. I am a 69 Town Meeting Member and I have not yet decided how I am litgoing to vote . I have a few thingswhich seemto me bear g g 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 Lowell Street directly from Arlington or along Massachusetts Avenue along this difficult corner you have just referred to, Maple Street and Lowell or it will go through Massachusetts Avenue through the center up Hancock and Eastern Avenue to Lowell . There are those three routes for the intown traffic coming out . I 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 cenbr and come out to Lowell again. All of this ,omits this factor of Route 3 which we have been hearing about so long that I don't know if we can count on Route 3 or not. The other thing is I don't know if we know where the Lexington accesses to Route 3 are because some people in 111 Lexington will be able to get on Route 3 to get to this site, 70 and that that traffic to that Route 3 ought to 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 make 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 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 garbage collec- t 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 can't 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 . After such people have been here about three years it they feel they recognize that perhaps it is unfair to wish the Town had stopped growing when they moved in. This 71 really has been their subconscious attitude until they have been here for three, to five years . From three to five years they begin to look around and that it is a growing town, that growth must be guarded and it cannot be stopped, and now and then zoning proposals must be con- sidered in the light of this fact not to pay taxes but in terms of the whole planning orientation and the evolution of neighborhoods . Then when they have been in Town about seven years they discover somewhat to their surprise that some of the older residents of the Town whom they had thought were the people who were stuck in the mud and would never allow any change were actually the most flexible of all. They are the people who grew up in in this Town and that watched it change from a very small Town. They are accustomed to change. And when you get to ten years where I now am, then you really have an objective point of view and you dontt know how you are going to vote . CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : We would like at this time to take an expression of opinion on one question. After we do that if anybody wishes to ask questions we 'will take them up at that time . This is the question we are going to ask: RAre you in favor of the proposed rezoning for a 72 111 shopping center?" Those in favor, will they please stand. 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 manufacturing and research development activity is sought by practically 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 who are opposing this zoning change can be channeled into a constructive effort to channel into the Town this kind of activity . Mr. DeNuncio: 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 Planning Board in Town. We are privileged to be given a 73 hearing by this Planning Board . We do have a Town plan. I have not seen a report in the Town on what would seem to be the best for the Town. What kind of use in best for certain parts of our Town? I don't think I have seen this informa- tion yet. CHAIRMAN GRINDLE : 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 111 that the shopping center could go in Lexington? We have heard mention of Burlington, we have heard of a previous hearing. If it couldn't 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 GRINDLE : In reply to that I would say 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 110Ml land and they have been defeated each time . litMr. BLACKWELL: I was asking about alternate locations in Lexington for the shopping .eepter► CHAIRMAN 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, we have put in same 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 point? Then I ask two more questions . FROM THE FLOOR: 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 ' 110 separate - I have to agree with Mr. Greeley that the fact 4 75 of the two highways coming through the area makes a difference ir to the area notwithstanding it is still mainly undeveloped character and the residential development surrounding it. But I raise a question of zoning, whether the question has been canvassed by the Planning Board and is being considered by citizens and by Town Meeting Members, that to zone for other than residence the signing of a petition is not also very nearly to commit ourselves to the future zoning extension of the Hayden land under option? I can't help remembering that the Minute Man just prior to the March Town Meeting and the referendum vote, the Minute Man article published, I inferred that the Planning Board stated that the land was held under option and if the shopping center were zoned then the option holders would seek to take up their option and I infer extend the business development, perhaps not of a retail store nature, but perhaps of a business and professional building nature . Is it being considered by the Planning Board and by the citizens and Town Meeting Members that perhaps to vote the zoning for the shopping center is very nearly to commit ourselves to a further extension of the zone. The acres under petition are not all the acresto consider. CHA LHMAN GRINDLE : These are the results of the question we asked : Those in favor were sixty-five. Those 76 opposed two hundred and thirty-five . If there are no other questions we will call the meeting adjourned . (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 10.15 p.m. ) I