Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1958-09-04' PLANNING BOARD HTAHINGS September 4, 1958 The Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, on Thursday, September 41 1958 at 8:',O p.m. to consider the following proposal to amend Section 5, Permitted Buildings and Uses, of the Lexin-ton Zon- ing By-law by striking out in sub -paragraph c of paragraph 7 the words 'physicians, dentists' and other professional rf fices," and by adding in said paragraph 7 the following sub -paragraph: g. Use of a portion of a dwelling as an office of a phtrsician, dentist or other nrofessinnal person residing in the dwelling and as incidental to such residence. Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Abbott and Jaquith, and the secretary. One hundred thirty-eight persons attended the hearinm. _Mr. Abbott presided. He opened the hearing by reading the notice of said hearing as it had been published in the August 21, 1P58 issue of the Lexinr*ton MIn ute-man. He then ex- plained the procedure in conducting the Y earing and gave a c;eneral explanation of the proposed amendment. Mr. Abbott stated that it was now possible under the Zoning By-law to change by Board of Appeals action an entire piece of property in a residential zone from a residential to a commercial use. He pointed out that in essence this was re -zoning. He said it was the Planning.Board's opinion that when a proposal such as this was to be considered, it should be acted upon by a town meeting rather than by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Abbott stated that in order to preserve the character and property values of residen- tial districts the Planning Board's proposed amendment would limit the situations where a special permit for professional o°fices might be granted by the Board of Appeals to those in which the office is incidental to a residential use of the property, said permit being granted only to a person occupying the premises as a residence. After the introductory statement the following Lexington citizens entered into the discussion or I asked questions regarding the proposed amendment. Dr. Martin J. Beilinger, Messrs. Norman T. May and Paul J. TTcCormack, Dr. anc Mrs. Charles T. Mooney, and Messrs. PHYSICIANS OFFIC ES Donald E. Nickerson, William G. Potter, Stephen T. Russian ' and Alfred P. Tro.oeano. Mr. Wilbur M. Jaquith of the Plan- ning Board commented on the remarks or answered the ques- tions. Mr.1,1ay asked if Lexington physicians.who had offices in their present homes were compelled to con- tinue to live in their homes in order to keep their permits for professional offices. He pointed out that perhaps a physician had resided in a house which is now too small for his present needs and wishes to move to another area but does not wish to move his office. He asked if there were a time limit on the permits. Mr. Jaquith replied that if a doctor had a permit for an office in his residence for ten,years and changed his residence to another location, he would have to ob- tain a permit to continue to use a portion of his former residence as an office. Mr. Jaquith commented that a doctor should be willing to reside in the house where his office is incidental to residence and not establish an office in a residence just for business. Mr. Tropeano asked if when a doctor wished to locate an office in a residence, whether or not it would make any difference if it were his family or some other I which lived in the residence. Mr. Jaquith said it would make a difference, the professional person having to reside In the dwelling as stated in the Planning Board proposal. He stated that it was the custom in olden days to have an office in the home, that the Board wanted to permit professional per- sonnel to continue that custom in the future, but wanted to discontinue - and, if possible, eliminate - in resi- dential districts the conversion into office use houses which are not being used for residences. Dr. Mooney inquired as to the meaning of the use of a dwelling as an office of a professional person and as incidental to such residence. Mr. Jaquith stated that incidental meant a minor part of a residence, not, for example, eight rooms for office purposes and only one or two for residence. Dr. Mooney commented that space for equipment, examining and waiting rooms, extra bathroom, etc. could not be incidental to residential use. To which Mr. Jaquith replied that if all this space were utilized in the average residence, the building would have become commercialized. Commenting on Dr. Mooneyts further statement that ' a doctor is not a businessman, Mr. Jaquith stated as far a -4-5g -2- as the Planning Board was concerned if a doctor had an office in his home, then had moved elsewhere but had continued to have an office in his former residence, the building had become commercialized. The place was part of his business. He used it to make his income. There was no difference in a situation as far as commercialized aspects were concerned wherein people came to such an office or one located in a down -town business district. Mr. Jaquith concluded by stating that it was the Planning Board's purpose to prevent such commercialized use from becoming town -ride in residential districts. Mrs. Mooney asked if such a purpose would not en- danger the future of other doctors who would like to locate offices in residences in Lexington. Mr. Jaquith stated that it was the intent of the Board to prevent pro- fessional persons from commercializing residential property because they wol.,.ld to enjoined with legal technicalities. Messrs. McCormack and Tropeano and Drs. Mooney and Bellinger discussed the problems of locating a _professional office building; in Lexington, or re -zoning land for such use, and related problems. Mr. McCormack asked if the long-range result of the Planning Board's amendment would not be the filing of oet1tions seeking re -zoning of land ' for general business. Mr. Jaquith pointed out that there were two fine professional office buildings, both well -located in resi- dential areas in town. He said that the matter in regard to the future location of similar buildings was of deep concern to the Planning Board. He stated that the Board believed the location of professional buildings should be referred to a town meeting by means of a zoning amendment rather than be decided by a five -member Board of Appeals. Mr. Russian asked if there had been any unfortunate instances of the Board of Appeals granting permission for office buildings under the existing by-law. Mr. Jaquith said that he did not know of an -r. Mr. Nickerson stated that the Board of Appeals had been criticized in two in- stances where whole buildinms had become devoted to doc- tors' offices, etc. under permissive use. He said it was the full intent of said board to specif'T what rooms may be used for office use . T_t was also the Boar(' Is intent to prevent professional offices being located where traffic would 'c e a ms jor consideration. Mr. Potter inquired if the re -zoning of a lot in a residential district for a professional office building ' was considered to be spot zonin(-. Mr. Jaquith replied that he believed It would be so considered. 9-4-58 At -the conclusion of the discussion Mr. Abbott ' asked for an expression of opinion in regard to the proposed amendment. Twelve persons indicated that they were in favor of the proposal,* fifty-five persons that they were opposed. Thereupon the hearing was de- clared closed at 8:50 p.m. At 8:55 p.m. the Planning Board held another JOHNSON public hearing, the second being relative to the peti- tion of Frederic K. Johnson and others to amend the Lexington Zoning By-law so as to change certain land from an R 1 District to a C 2 District by adding at the end of paragraph 6 in Section 4 (d) C2 - General business districts, the following: - Said district shall also include adjoining land bounded as follows: southwesterly by Bedford Street 82.50 feet; north- westerly by the land described in the preceding sen- tence about 2 44 feet; easterly by the westerly side of the railroad right of way about 91 feet; and southeast- erly by the southeasterly boundary of the premises now numbered 25 Bedford Street about 211 feet. Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Abbott and Jaquith, and the secretary. About 150 persons attended the hearing. Mr. Jaquith presided. He read the notice of the hearing as it had been sent to all persons deemed to be affected and as it had been pub- lished in the August 21, 1958 issue of the Lexington Minute -man, He then called on Mr. Johnson, the prin- cipal petitioner, to explain his proposal. Mr. Johnson explained that the proposed rezoning of the lot described in the petition would enable The Great A & P Tea Co. to add to its existing lot and thereby provide room for the expansion of the A & P store, automobile parking facilities, and the improve- ment of the lotts entrance and exit. He exhibited a preliminary plan, prepared by the New England Division Headquarters of said company, the plan being dated July 18, 1958 and showing a 45 -foot wide addition on the northeasterly side of the existing building and 26 additional automobile parking spaces. Mr. Johnson was asked how he obtained the signa- tures on the petition seeking a rezoning change. He replied that for one and one-half days he had left the petition in the A & P store where customers signed said petition. Mr. Johnson was also asked what he intended to , do with the existing house at 25 Bedford Street. He answered that no definite plans had been made in regard to the house. With its removal he said that there would 9-4-58 -�- Mr. Wathen-Dunn of Maple Street stated that he thought the present zoning was devised in part for the protection of the Battle Green. He asked how the Bed- ford Street Reneral business district was chosen in the first place and if the Planning Board had a policy In regard to the same. Mr. Jaquith said that business was located in the area prior to any zoning in Lexington and that.the Board had no policy in regard to the existing district. Mr. Johnson reported that prior to 1950 the line between C 2 and R 1 districts passed through the middle of the present A & P lot but that in 1950 the town voted to re- zone all the lot adding about thirty to forty feet to ' the northeasterly side of the business district. Mr. Wathen-Dunn then addressed his remarks to Mr. be more land to regulate better the traffic in and out of the A &. P parkin; facilities. He pointed out that when the present A & P store was built it was located three feet from the north44asterly side line of the store lot in order to provide as much parkin; as possible. He noted that in so locating the building, it was not possible to locate a drive around the northeasterly side of said building. Mr. Johnson said that with the proposed rezoning pro- posal there would be enourt land for automobile cir- culation around_ the building. Mr. Walter McGonigle, real estate represent- ative of The Great A & P Tea Co., was introduced. He explained further the com pang's proposals for add- ing to the present store and parking facilities and assisted Mr. Johnson in answering questions. Many comments were made and questions asked, some pertinent to the rezoning proposal and some not. Among questions and co -meats relative to the proposal were the following: Mr. Jaquith asked if the proposed addition to the A & P store would come within the Battle Green ' Historic District. Mr. Johnson said it would not. A Mr. Williams inquired if there was any reason why the A & P company could not build in Fast Lexington. In reply, Mr. McGonigle stated that the company had looked all over town trying to find a location which would serve as many people as the existing A & P did. He said, however, that the company had not been able to find an area where in the opinion of the company, enough land could be developed for a store. Mr. Wathen-Dunn of Maple Street stated that he thought the present zoning was devised in part for the protection of the Battle Green. He asked how the Bed- ford Street Reneral business district was chosen in the first place and if the Planning Board had a policy In regard to the same. Mr. Jaquith said that business was located in the area prior to any zoning in Lexington and that.the Board had no policy in regard to the existing district. Mr. Johnson reported that prior to 1950 the line between C 2 and R 1 districts passed through the middle of the present A & P lot but that in 1950 the town voted to re- zone all the lot adding about thirty to forty feet to ' the northeasterly side of the business district. Mr. Wathen-Dunn then addressed his remarks to Mr. -4-58 McGonigle stating that six years ago the A & P company located in a building which had proven to be inade- quate. He asked if the lot numbered 25 Bedford Street were rezoned for A & P use, how long the area would be adequate. Mr. McGonigle replied that he did not know, pointing out that five years ago the company believed it had sufficient building and lot for a long time. Mr.Corbett of 26 Bedford Street said that if the town rezoned the property numbered 25 Bedford Street to general business use, he would request in writing that his property be rezoned for said use also. Mr. Van Norden of 8 Bedford Street pointed out that in 1953 the Planning Board voted not to recommend the proposal of Lester Andrews to rezone the property numbered 30 Bedford Street from residential to local business use. Mr. Tropeano asked if the Planning Board had any solution to the traffic problem which now existed at the A & P store. Mr.. Jaquith said that the Board had not, that it had taken the information presented with the proposal, had decided it was riot sufficient for the Board's needs, and that the Board planned to I obtain additional.information before giving the problem further study. Someone inquired if with one-third increase in the proposed A & P lot size, the town could reasonably expect one-third more increase intax revenue from the A & P store. Mr. McGonigle stated that he thought there would be said amount of increase in tax revenue. Miss Helen E. Ryan of 10 Bedford Street pre- sented a petition signed by forty-two residents, said petition setting forth opposition to the rezoning; pro- posal. Miss Ryan asked Mr. Grindle to read the peti- tion to those attending the hearing, and to include said petition in the official records of the hearing. Some of those signing the petition as well as a number of others commented further on said petition and gave reasons for opposing the rezoning proposal. Mr.Jaquith concluded the hearing by asking all those present who wished to do so for an expression of opinion in regard to the rezoning proposal. By a show of hands, nine persons wished to be recorded as being in favor of said proposal, forty-four opposed.' Thereupon the hearing was declared closed at 9:55 p.m. e Thomas S. Grindle Chairman