The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1958-05-08' PLANNING BOARD MEETING May 8, 1958 The Lexington Planning Board held a special meeting in its office in the Barnes Building on Thursday, May 8, 1958 at 4-:30 p.m. Present were Vice Chairman Jaquith, Members Abbott, Burnell, and Soule, and Planning Director Snow. Taken under consideration was the following Form A application for determination of Planning Board jurisdiction: #58-25, submitted on April 25, 1958 by Andrew E. Millyan. (See minutes of April 28, 1958). Upon motion being duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: that the Lexinmton Planning Board determines that the plan accompanying Form A application #58-25 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 requi-red." The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m., whereupon the board_ members present prepared in further detail their major,_ty report on the proposal to amend the zoning; by-law by establishing a regional shopping center district. ic rd H. Soule Clerk 1 FORM A PLANNING BOARD HEARING May 8s 1958 ATDMENT TO ZONING BY-LAW M 1 DISTRICT The Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing in Estabrook Halls Cary Memorial Building, on Thursday, May 8, 1958 at 8:10 p.m. to consider a proposal to amend the Lexington Zoning By-law. Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Abbott, Burnell, Jaquiths and Soule, and Planning Director Snow. In additions 124 other people attended the hearing. Copies of the notice of the public hear- ing were distributed to all those presents the same notice having been sent to all property owners with- in the M 1 district and having been published in the April 24, 1958 issue of the Lexington Minute -man. The Chairman opened the meeting by calling attention to the fact that each one present had a copy of the notice setting forth the proposal to be considered, and by stating that unless there were objections he would omit the reading of said pro- posal. (See addendum.) 'There was no objection. The Chairman then explained the procedure in con- ducting the hearing and the reasons for the pro- posed amendment. The statement was made that early in 1957 the Planning Board had received a letter from the State Department of Public Works setting forth the fact that the proposed road from Wood to Bedford Street was to be a controlled access roads and that on the basis of this information the Planning Board had decided to wait until it had received detailed plans of said road before studying the lands adja- cent to the road and preparing plans for the area's development. It was pointed outs however, that dur- ing the week of April 141 1958 the Town had received a letter from the State Department of Public Works reversing its previous positions that the proposed road was to have controlled access status only while under State control, and that as soon as the road was completed it was to be turned over to the Town. It was likewise pointed out that upon receipt of this information the Planning Board immediately prepared the proposed amendment in order to give the Town some protection in the development of the area for M 1 use since under the State law a town cannot lay out a non -access road. ' Chairman Grindle stated that the Board recog- nized that the State's layout of the road might be ATDMENT TO ZONING BY-LAW M 1 DISTRICT 5-8-58 such that parcels would be created which did not meet the minimum requirements of the proposed amendment. He called particular attention to subparagraph c. which the Board believed would eliminate what might be the principal objection to said amendment. Said paragraph provided that the Board of Appeals might permit the erection of buildings on lots which did not meet pro- posed minimum requirements of frontage and area. In answer to various questions from those present at the hearing members of the Board pointed out that existing restrictions for Lexin tones M 1 district have no area requirements and only 150 feet of frontage for lots$ that Waltham and Andover have a minimum of five acre lots for areas Lexington wishes to develop in a similar manners that the Planning Board has made a study of the holdings in the present M l districts and that after the State Department of Public Works lays out the proposed roads through said M 1 district and adjacent lands the Planning Board will make a detailed study of the area and its possible development. Messrs. Eimerys Steele# Stewart, and Williams spoke in favor of the proposed amendment; Messrs. Greer$ Grush, Hincheys Linehan$ Russell (attorney for Mr. Linehan), and Tropeano spoke in opposition to it. At ' the close of the hearings the Chairman asked those pre- sent for an expression of opinion in regard to the pro- posal. Including those named above, 49 persons were in favor of the amendments 26 opposed. The hearing was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. chard H. Soule Clerk Addendum Notice of Planning Board Hearing on Proposal to Amend Zoning By-law. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Lexington Planning Board on Thursdays May 8s 1958 at 8:00 p.m. in Estabrook Halls Cary Memorial Buildings to consider the following proposal to amend the Lexington Zoning By-law: I 5-8-56 -2- ' To amend Section 8, Area, Frontage and Yard Regu- lationss by striking out all of paragraph (e) M1 Dis- tricts and substituting in place thereof the following: (e) Ml Districts 1. In Ml districts there shall be provided: a. For each permitted principal building, other than those permitted in Rl or R2 districts, a lot containing an area of not less than four acres and a frontage of not less than 300 feet upon the frontage street. b. For each such building and accessory building: (1) A front yard of not less than 50 feet in depth on each street upon which the lot abuts. (2) A side yard on each side of not less than 40 feet in width. (3) A rear yard of not less than 50 feet in depth. Provided however, that if a boundary of the lot abuts on land in a district other than an Ml districts the side or rear yard requirement, for the yard having as its exterior line the boundary of the lot which abuts the land in the other dis- tricts shall be not less than 60 feet in width or depth as the case may be. c. In particular instances, the Board of Appeals may permit such principal building to be erected on a lot containing an area or frontages or both, of less than the minimum area or frontage require- ments specified in subparagraph a. above, if at the time of the adoption of said minimum require- ments such lot was lawfully laid out and recorded by plan or deed and did not adjoin other land of the same owner available for use in connection with such lot, provided that the Board determines that such permission can be granted without sub- stantial derogation from the intent and purpose of this By -Law. A lot resulting from a taking by eminent domain after the adoption of said minimum requirements shall be deemed for the purposes of this subparagraph to have been lawfully laid out and recorded by plan or deed at the time of such adoptions if the larger lot of which it was a part before such taking was so laid out and re- corded. In granting such permissions the Board may permit front, side or rear yards of less than the minimum yard requirements specified in 5-3-58 subparagraph b. abovs. I d. For each such principal building, an open area on the lot, not occupied by any building, of not less than 75 per centum of the area of the lot, which may be used for parking area if otherwise lawful. e. No parking or loading area on the lot shall be located within 10 feet of the exterior line of any street on which the lot abuts and, if a boundary line of the lot abuts on land inaa district other than an M1 district, no such parking or loading area shall be located within 10 feet of such boundary line. f. Park -Ing and loading areas on the lot shall be provided with adequate driveways* not more than 25 feet in width, providing access to a street. The entrance of all driveways to a street shall be subject to approval in writing by the Planning Board. g. For each principal building permitted in Rl or R2 dis- tricts, the same lot area and frontage, and for each such building and accessory building the same front, side and rear yards, as would be required if the lot were situated in an Rl or R2 district. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman 1