Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1958-09-08PLANNING BOARD MEETING ISeptember 81 1958 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Planning Board office, Town Office Building on Monday, September 8, 1958 at 7:45 p.m. Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Abbott, Burnell and Jaquith, and Messrs. Boyle and Snow of the staff. Town Counsel Stevens was also present from 10:25 p.m. until the end of the meeting. The Board anproved the minutes of the public hearings held on September 4, 1958, said hearings MINUTES having to do with nroposed amendments to the Lexing- ton Zoning By-law. After a discussion of said hear- ings, the Board dictated notes from which it was re- quested Messrs. Jaquith and Snow prepare for the Board's consideration reports to be filed at the September 15, 1959 Special Town Meeting. Approved also by the Board were the follow- ing bills which had been presented for payment: BILLS Minute -man Publications, Inc., proofs and advertis- ing -431-84; Terrence J. Boyle, professional ser- vices., Sept. 12 through 16, 1958--,92.50; Louise M. Baker, extra secretarial services, Sept. 4, 10/58-- 65.00. Taken under consideration were the follow- ing Form A applications for determination of Plan- FORMS A ning Board jurisdiction: #58-58, submitted Au7ust 271 1958 by Carmine Massamilla; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", Scale 1 in. = 100 ft., dated July 21, 1958, Fred A. Joyce, Surveyor. #58-60, submitted September 8, 1958 by Harold E. Stevens for the Town of Lexington; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", scale: 1" = 80', dated Aug. 14, 1958, Miller 8 Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors. Application #58-59, filed on September 81 19582 was deemed not to have been submitted for the reason that the application was not complete and was not accompanied by the necessary evidence to show that the plan did not require approval. ' Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously I -R-58 NOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plans accompanying accplications #58-58 and #58-60 do not require approval under the Sub- division Control Law, and that said plans be so endorsed. The attention of the Board was called to the PHEASANT fact that there now had been received a grant of ease - GARDENS ments to the Town as shown on the "Pheasant Gardens Lex- ington, Mass." subdivision, the definitive plan of said subdivision being dated February 17, 1958 and approved by the Board on June 301 1958. All matters appearing to be in order the Board endorsed said definitive plan. Mr. Snow Has requested to give the plan to Mr. Stevens for recording. From 8:30 to 8:50 p.m. the Board met with the APPROPRIA- Appropriation Committee in the Town Accountant's office TION COM- to discuss the warrant for the September 15, 1958 MITTEF Special Town Meeting and requests for the appropriation of funds in connection with articles in which the Plan- ning Board was particularly interested. At 9:00 p.m. members of the Recreation Committee, REC?EATION Mrs. Wanless, Chairman, Messrs. Gardner Ferguson and COMMITTEE Colby Kelly, and Recreation Director Samborski, met with the Planning Board to discuss proposals being prepared by the Board's staff for the development of the o roposed Baskin Playground and the redevelopment of the Center Play ,round. Preliminary sketches for the Baskin Play- ground development were shown and discussed with particu- lar reference to orientation and the amount of area which should be set aside for different recreational activities. Of particular concern to the committee, however, was the proposal for the extension of Worthen Road from Lincoln to Waltham Street, and Mr. Snow's recommendation that ultimately all the Center Playground land bounded by said Lincoln and Waltham Streets and the extension of Worthen Road be transferred to the School Committee for educational use. (See the Planning Director's Annual Report for 1957.) Mr. Snow elaborated on this proposal by explaining further the Planning Board's memorandum of July 14, 1958 to the Selectmen and the detailed study for the extension of Worthen Road accompanying said memorandum. Mr. Snow also showed to the Board his scheme for a central school park including the High School property, Center Play- ground, Hayden Centre, town property now used for a dump, and the lands surrounding the old reservoir between Marrett and Middleby Roads. It was pointed out to the Committee that the Planning Board through the Selectmen , 9-8-58 -2- The Recreation Committee and Recreation Director left the meeting at 10:15 p.m. was requesting a $2000 appropriation under Article 13 of the warrant for the forthcoming Town Meeting, said appropriation to be for engineering services for the preparation of detailed plans for Worthen Road in the approximate location as shown on Mr. Snow's study plan. It was also pointed out that it was not the Board's intention to request that Worthen Road be constructed until such time as other recreational areas were acquired and developed to re- place the area which was recommended for transfer to the School Committee. Mrs. Wanless expressed the Committee's objec- tions to the extension of Worthen Road, stating that it would eliminate the girls' hockey field, prevent the widening and general reconstruction of the cinder track, and increase traffic through the playground. It was pointed out to the Committee that the proposed exchange of town land with that of the Hayden Centre would increase the area of the Center Playground that that in the Planning Board's opinion it would be wiser to relocate the track around the football field rather than reconstruct what appeared to be a poor track. It was also noted that in the Board's opinion Worthen Road would carry no more traffic than. Park Drive, would be a much safer location for a road than the present location of Park Drive passing through said playground, and would allow much better utilization of land and a better arrangement of playground facilities. The Recreation Committee and Recreation Director left the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Snow reported that Mrs. Barbara Anderson had visited the office to register a complaint in ANDERSON regard to the granite curb which had been installed on the southeasterly side of Childs Road opposite ROBINSON Diana Lane, to request the removal of the same and HILL the plowing of snow from the driveway of her house, SEC. 2 numbered 14 Woodberry Road. After a review of the Robinson Hill, Sec. 2 definitive subdivision plan, it was decided that Messrs. Grindle and Jaquith would view the conditions on the ground. It was also decided to invite Mrs. Anderson to discuss her complaint at a Planning Board meeting later in the month. Mr. Stevens came to the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to discuss with the Board current problems before it and articles on the warrant for the September 15, 1959 Special Town Meeting. The Planning Board meeting ad- journed at the conclusion of the discussion,the time being 11:00 p.m. Thomas S. Grindle, Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEETING AND HEARING iSeptember 11, 1958 A special meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Board's office, Town Office Building, on Thursday, September 11, 1958 at 7:30 p.m. Present were Chairman Grindle, Members Jaquith and Burnell, Planning Director Snow, and Mrs. Baker, secretary. The Board considered and approved drafts of reports on amendments to the Lexington Zoning By-law as proposed by Articles 6 and 7 on the warrant for the Sppt�mber 15, 1958 Special Town Meeting, said reports dated September 10 and 11, 1959 respectively. Mr. Snow and Mrs. Baker were asked to have said re- ports mimeographed and mailed to all Town Meeting Members. (See addendum.) The Board then adjourned its meeting to attend a hearing in Estabrook Hall as set forth below. At 7:55 p.m. the Board held a public hearing In Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, to con- sider three proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning ' By-law. The same Planning Board members and staff were present as noted above. Approximately 105 per- sons attended the hearing. Chairman Grindle explained the procedure to be followed in conducting the hearing. He then read the first proposal as set forth in the notice sent to all property owners deemed to be affected and as pub- lished in the August 28, 1958 issue of the Lexington Minute -man. Said proposal had been set forth in a petition addressed to the Planning and signed by Anthony R. Cataldo and over one hundred other Lexing- ton registered voters seeking to change from an R 1 One Family Dwelling District to a C 2 General Busi- ness District a small area of land on which was located the Lexington railroad depot and surrounding sidewalks as described in said notice. Mr. Paul Counihan of Concord, representing Mr. Anthony Cataldo, explained that the purpose of the rezoning proposal was to make available for bank use some of the railroad station property in Depot Square, said property being in an R 1 district. He said that State banking authorities would not approve a bank on ' this site until the property had been zoned for busi- ness use. He stated that he thought such a rezoning was logical pointing out that all other land on which buildings were located in Depot Square was zoned for R1toC2 REZONING PROPOSAL CATALDO 9-11-58 business and that portions of the railroad building it- self had been used for business purposes by permission from the Board of Appeals. Mr. Counihan likewise stated that there would have to be many changes made in the building to make it adaptable to business use. He said, however, that the appearance of the building as it now stood would not be substantially changed but what changes were made would have to be approved by the Historic Districts Com- mission. Mr. Jaquith asked if title to the property had passed from the Boston and Maine Railroad to Mr. Cataldo. Mr. Counihan replied that it had not, that it was under agreement to be purchased, that a deed was being pre pared, and that the passage of title did not depend on a change in zoning. Mr. John M. Fernberger of 50 Spring Street asked if there would be adequate parking facilities available and if there would be any traffic problems resulting from the proposed change of zoning. In answer Mr. Jaquith stated that it was the general opinion that there was sufficient private land around the building to provide parking in connection with business to be located therein. He said, however, that traffic coming from the municipal parking area and Edison Way was continuous and that re- ' zoning the depot land to business use probably would not change the situation much.. Mr. Allan Green of 161 Blossom Street asked if a recommendation of the Planning Board for a change in zon- ing might not.be taken by the banking commission on an approval of the proposal. He stated that he thought the commission should know what the wishes of the Town were before granting permission for a bank to be located in the railroad station. Mr. Grindle stated that if the railroad property were zoned for business use, it could be used for some other business purpose than a bank if the owner desired to do so. Mr. Jaquith added that as far as the Planning Board could determine the depot and adjacent railroad property on the southwesterly side of the railroad right- of-way had been in a residential district since 1929. He said the th;_nking of the Planning Board was not based on whether or not a. bank was going to be located in the depot but whether or not the.use of the station has changed so much from residential to commercial use that the land on which the depot stood should not be rezoned to eliminate the problems the Board of Appeals has had in the form of petitions to use the station. In reply to another question, it was stated that , the land on the northeasterly side of the railroad station was zoned as a single family residential district. !!F*Z In answer to still another question, it was stated that the railroad would maintain a waiting room in the building. There being no further questions or discussion, the Chairman asked for an expression of opinion of those persons in favor of and those opposed to the pro- posal. Sixty-nine indicated they were in favor of re- zoning the land described; no one indicated opposition to the proposal. Mr. Jaquith acted as chairman for the second part of the hearing which began at 8:12 p.m. He read the PROPOSED second proposal set forth in the notice previously re- BOARD OF ferred to and published in the August 28, 1958 issue of APPEALS the Lexington Minute -man. He then explained that in APPROVAL preparing the proposed regional shopping center amend- OF A 1 ment to the Town's zoning by-law, a question was DISTRICT raised as to how far the Planning Board could go in PLANS approving plans for a center. He said that after this matter was studied further by the counsel for Filene's and the Lexington Town Counsel approval of plans was changed from the Planning Board to Board of Appeals jurisdiction. Mr. Jaquith added that in the case of garden apartment and hotel districts the Planning Board thought it desirable to change approval authority to ' the Board of Appeals, the Planning Board still having the power to make recommendations. Mr. 3tenhen T. Russian of 10 Marlboro Road asked if anyone had found it necessary to make a change such as was being proposed. Mr. Jaquith said no. Mr. William Roger Greeley of 1948 Massachusetts Avenue asked how the court decision in regard to the North Andover zoning by-law applied in the proposal to amend Lexington's by-law. Mr. Jaquith replied that the North Andover case involved the power to approve a motel 3.n any area after holding a public hearing on such a proposal whereas Lexington's by-law called for approval of plans for a motel to be located in a specif- ically described garden apartment and hotel district. He explained that the amendment proposed by the Planning Board provided that garden apartments and hotels could not be built without approval of plans, that such plans had to be submitted with an application of approval to the Board of Appeals, that said plans and application had to be referred to the Planning Board for a report thereon, and that they then had to be acted upon by the Board of Appeals after the holding of a public hearing. ' There being no further questions or discussion, Mr. Jaquith asked those present to indicate by a show 9-11-58 Mr. Tropeano further stated that when once zoned as an A l district either garden apartments or a hotel could be located within the district. He said, however.. that the Vine Brook Realty Trust was only interested in constructing apartment buildings. He then described the displayed site plan for the development stating that the plan was only a suggestion or preliminary sketch and not the final plan which would have to be approved by either the Planning Board or the Board of Appeals. Mr. Tropeano also described the displayed sketch of a proposed ten unit apartment building. He said the entire development would cost between 01,250,000 and $1,500,000, the assessed value being between $k,9000 and $5,000 per apartment.' In the question and answer period which followed Mr. Tropeano's presentation the following points were made in regard to the plans: Site -plan - All apartment buildings would face a private road; all driveways would be located off said private road;• access to the private road would be from Worthen Road; the Trust would deed to the Town a 70 -foot right -of- way for Worthen Road or would build an access road to of hands who were in favor of or opposed to the proposed amendment to Section 5 (g) of the Zoning By-law. Thirty- four persons indicated they were in favor of said pro- posal, two opposed. At 8:22 p.m. Mr. Jaquith read the third proposal R 1 to A 1 to amend the Lexington Zoning By-law as said proposal REZONING was set forth in the notice of the Planning Board hearing PROPOSAL published in the August 28, 1958 issue of the Lexington - Minute -man. Mr. Jaquith then called upon Mr. Alfred P. VINE Tropeano, attorney for the Vine Brook Realty Trust, to BROOK present said Trust's proposal for a garden apartment and REALTY hotel district to be located on Waltham Street. TRUST Mr. Tropeano gave a brief histary of apartment building zoning in Lexington stating in particular that on February 28, 1955 there had been held a public hear- ing on the Lexi.ngton Estates Trust proposal to rezone some of its land for a garden apartment and hotel dis- trict, said proposed district including some of the area described in the present notice. He said that the earlier proposal included land on both sides of the pro - nosed location of Worthen Road and contemplated also the erection of a hotel. He pointed out, however, that the proposal was withdrawn because it was found that there was a defect in the title to the Lexington Estates Trust land. He noted also that banks did not believe the site was a good location for a hotel and would not loan the money for its construction. Mr. Tropeano further stated that when once zoned as an A l district either garden apartments or a hotel could be located within the district. He said, however.. that the Vine Brook Realty Trust was only interested in constructing apartment buildings. He then described the displayed site plan for the development stating that the plan was only a suggestion or preliminary sketch and not the final plan which would have to be approved by either the Planning Board or the Board of Appeals. Mr. Tropeano also described the displayed sketch of a proposed ten unit apartment building. He said the entire development would cost between 01,250,000 and $1,500,000, the assessed value being between $k,9000 and $5,000 per apartment.' In the question and answer period which followed Mr. Tropeano's presentation the following points were made in regard to the plans: Site -plan - All apartment buildings would face a private road; all driveways would be located off said private road;• access to the private road would be from Worthen Road; the Trust would deed to the Town a 70 -foot right -of- way for Worthen Road or would build an access road to 9-11-58 -3- serve the district if the Town did not; no garages would be built; automobile space for 12 cars per apartment unit would be provided; although not shown because the matter needed further study, recreation areas for out- door ut-door cooking, picnic tables, etc. would be provided for each apartment building; back land would have landscape planting. Apartment buildings - Architecture would be Colonial; buildings would have four, eight, or ten units; develop- ment would contain 100 units, ten percent being three - bedrooms sixty percent being two-bedroom, and thirty per- cent being one -bedroom apartments; expected rents would. be $1751 $135 and $120, respectively; each unit would have kitchen with disposall, living room, bedroom, and bath as minimum elements and arranged as flats except in the three-bedroom units; each apartment building would be equipped with a clothes washer -drier; and there would be no outside clotheslines. Mr. Harry L. Garrett of 29 North Hancock Street asked how many children it was expected would live in the development. Mr. Tropeano replied that based on the num- ber of children living in apartment houses in Concord and Arlington there would be very few. Mr. William Roger Greeley of 1498 Massachusetts Avenue commented that in other towns it has been found that there are something like 1.0 school children per individual house and only 0.1 to 0.2 children per apartments. Mr. Garrett also commented on the amount of traffic he thought would use Worthen Road if it were extended around the Center playground area and the additional amount of traffic which would be generated by the apart- ment house development. Mr. Tropeano commented that the traffic situation resulting from said development would be better than that created by eight to ten driveways from residences fronting on Worthen Road. Mr. Jaquith said that traffic lights would be installed to regulate and slow traffic at the Waltham Street -Worthen Road intersec- tion. Mr. Robert M. Coquillette of 235 Waltham Street and Mr. Weiant Wathen-Dunn of 44 Maple street asked if in the area which was being considered for rezoning there was not land which had a restrictive covenant attached thereto. Mr. Tropeano replied that there were restrictive covenants on two parcels of land 3.n area, that these pertained to buildings which could not be erected on said parcels, and ' that these covenants expired in 1960 and 1967. In regard to this matter, Mr. Mansfield B. Patterson of 128 Kendall Road asked if the title to the land involved had been 9-11-58 cleared in the Land Court. Mr. Tropeano replied that a clear title had been obtained. Mr. William Hammer of 15 Fiske Road inquired if there were any protective measures the Planning Board could include in its approval of site plans if garden apartments were constructed at a later date or individual units were sold to either a group or an individual. Mr. Jaquith stated that under Sec. 5 (g) if Lexington's exist- ing zoning by-law the Planning Board or the Planning Board in approving plans could impose such conditions as were thought to be in the best interests of the town. Mr. Snow was asked, as Planning Director, uat his opinion was of garden apartments. He said that he thought the general area on Waltham Street was ideally suited for the location of garden apartments and that in order to pro- vide adequately for all types of dwellings in Lexington there ought to be an apartment district in every section of town. He added that by not taking this into considera- tion Lexington was not answering all of its dwelling needs, forcing some teachers and older people, for example, to live in other towns. Mr. William Roger Greeley commented that a residential area is not complete if it does not provide various types of dwellings for changes in family size, for young as well as old people. He said that the idea that an apartment building is not good-looking is a generalization and does not apply to all such buildings. He said also that they could be more interesting than a repetition of single houses and that he thought it was a mistake not to consider them an addition to the town. Mrs.4ilbur E.Cheever of 268 Bedford Street stated that it was her opinion that Lexington had incredible dwelling conditions for teachers. She said that Lexington citizens should decide on zoning matters such as proposed for the betterment of the town as a whole and not think of their own little interests. Mrs. Lawrence C.E.Hallin of 246 Lowell Street said she was one of Lexingtonts older citizens who had lived to town quite a while and would like to continue to live here. She stated, however, that she did not know how much longer she would be able to maintain her present home before havin7 to move to an apartment. Mrs. Hallin said that she thought apartments would be of benefit to citizens of her type in Lexington but if there were no apartments in town to which she could move then she would have to move to Arl- ington, Cambridge, etc. where she did not wish to go. Mr. Coquillette stated that he did not have much more , to say than he did three years ago. He said that while he 9-11-58 knew young people have a dwelling problem as far as Lexington was concerned, he said plans for the pro- posed apartment district were very nebulous.. He stated that he felt the rezoning was being proposed for the benefit of good business men rather than for the good of the town. Mr. Coquillette concluded by saying that he would prefer that the proposal was being made by someone not quite so sure of his legal rights. There being no further questions or comments, the Chairman asked those present to indicate whether or not they were in favor of the third rezoning pro- posal just discussed. Sixty persons indicated that they were in favor of the proposal, fifteen opposed. The Chairman then declared the hearing closed at 9:17 p.m. Thomas S. Grindle Chairman Report of the Planning Board on the Amendment to the Zoning By-law Proposed by Article 6. On September 4, 1958 at 8:55 p.m.the Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposal to amend the Lexington Zoning By-law set forth in Article 6 of the Tarrant for the Special Town Meeting on September 151 1958. The hearing was held upon request by a petition signed by not less than 100 registered voters of the town. About 150 persons attended the hearing due notice of which was given according to law. At the close of the hearing an expression of opinion by those present showed 9 persons in favor and 44 opposed to the pro- posal as presented. The amendment nronosed would add to the southeasterly end of the present C � district on the easterly side of Bed- ford Street a parcel of R 1 district land having a frontage on Bedford Street of 82.51 and extending from Bedford Street northeasterly to the railroad right of way. There is now a dwelling on this parcel which is used for residential pur- poses. The adjacent C 2 property on the northwesterly side of the parcel proposed to be rezoned is presently occupied by the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. retail store. This store building now extends almost to the boundary line be- tween the C 2 and R 1 districts as they now exist. If the a -?1-58 proposed amendment is adopted,the store building will be enlarged through an addition erected principally on the re- zoned land. It is proposed to use the remaining rezoned land for additional parking space and a driveway to the rear of the building and the present parking space abutting the railroad right of way. The proposed amendment was thoroughly discussed at the hearing. The possible advantages if adopted, particularly in helping to solve the existing parking problem were presented by the proponent. The disadvantages, particularly the effect of its adoption on possible further encroachments of business toward the Battle Green, were presented by persons now resid- ing in the area and elsewhere. The Planning Board unanimously recommends that the Zoning By-law not be amended as proposed under Article 6 for the following reasons: 1. The Board believes that the town as a matter of general planning policy should not allow further encroach- ments of business toward the Battle Green in any direction. The only exception thich might be made to this policy would be to correct a serious town problem involving an existing situation which otherwise could not be solved. No exception to the policy which would allow the expansion of business toward the Battle Green should be allowed. 2. The present C 2 district which the proposed amend- ment would enlarge already extends further toward the Battle Green than the C 2 district on the opposite side of Bedford Street. The adoption of the proposed amendment undoubtedly would result in further requests to extend the C 2 district on the other side of Bedford Street toward the Battle Green. 3. The Board is not convinced by the information re- sented at the hearing that the proposed rezoning would materially affect the present traffic problems on Bedford Street or the parking problems of the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. Lexington Planning Board Charles T.Abbott Levi G.Burnell,J.r. Thomas S.Grindle, Chairman Wilbur M.Jaquith September 10,1958 Richard H.Soule Report of the Planning Board on the Amendment to the Zoning By-law Proposed by Article 7 ' On September 4, 1958 at 8:00 p.m., the Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposal to amend the Lexington 9-11-58 -5- Zoning By-law set forth in Article 7 of the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting on Sentember 151 1958. About 150 per- sons attended the hearing due notice of which was given according to law. At the close of the hearing an expression of opinion by those present showed 12 persons in favor and 55 persons opposed to amendment as presented. The proposal involves the amendment of the provisions pertaining to special permits which may be granted for uses in R 1 districts by the Board of Appeals under paragraph (a) 7 of Section 5, Permitted Buildings and Uses. The amendment would delete from subparagraph C of paragraph 7 the words "physicians', dentists', and other professional offices" and add the following new subparagraph: g. Use of a portion of a dwelling as an office of a physician, dentist or other professional person re- siding 3_n the dwelling and as incidental to such residence. The present by-law gives the Board of Appeals discre- tionary authority to grant special permits for the use.of property in R 1, single family residence districts, for physi- cians, dentists and other professional offices. The by-law itself imposes no limitations to serve as a guide to the Board of Appeals in the exercise of this authority. Under the present wording of the by-law, a permit may be granted to use the whole or any part of an existing,dwelling for one or more of these purposes, or a permit may be granted to erect an en- tirely new building to be used solely for these purposes. Thus, by Board of Appeals action, it possible to change an entire niece of property in a residential zone from a residen- tial use to a commercial use. The Board of Appeals fortu- nately has been careful in the exercise of this authority in the cases which have come before it to date. The Planning Board believes that the present by-law goes too far in that it allows property zoned for residential purposes to be used solely or predominantly for professional office purposes through Board of Appeals action. This in effect results in a change in land use from residential to commercial purposes without the land involved coming before a Town Meeting for re -zoning. The proposed amendment to Section 5 will limit the situations where a special permit may be granted by the Board of Appeals for professional offices to those in which the office is incidental to a residential use of the property. Also under the amendment, tie permit may be granted only to a person occupying the premises as a residence. This will allow a physician, dentist, or other professional ' person who desires to use a portion of his residence for an office to request a special permit from the Board of Appeals as under the present by-law. The person who desires to maintain an 9-11-n-8 office not in his own residence and in a place for which there ' is no valid permit outstanding at the time of adoption of the amendment would have to locate his office in a C 1, C 2, or C 3 district. The Planning Board unanimously recommends the adoption of the amendment proposed under Article 7. Lexington Planning Board Charles T. Abbott Levi G.Burnell,Jr. Thomas S.Grindle, Chairman Wilbur M.Jaquith Richard H.Soule September 11, 1958 1 1