HomeMy WebLinkAbout1959-08-10 PLANNING BOARD MEETING
August 10, 1959
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning
Board was held in the Board's office, Town Office
Building, on Monday, August 10, 1959 at 7 :50 p.m.
Present were Chairman Abbott, Members Burnell and
Soule, and Planning Director Snow. Town Counsel
Stevens was also present from 9:45 p.m. to the end
of the meeting.
The Board approved the minutes of its July
13, 1959 meeting. MINUTES
Approved also by the Board were the follow-
ing bills which had been presented for payment : BILIS
Graphic Reproductions, Inc ., white prints--18.63;
David R. Cooper, professional services, July 27
through August 7, 1959 and allowance for car
mileage--B202.60; American Society of Planning
Officials, planning advisory service reports--
i5.00.
Taken under consideration noxt were the fol-
lowing Form A applications for determinations of FORMS A
Planning Board. jurisdiction:
#59-54, submitted August 3, 1959 by William
F. Caterino, Trustee, Oakmount Realty Trust ;
plan entitled "A Subdivision of Land Court
Case No. 26325 Lexington, Mass.", Scale : 1"
= 40 ' , dated July 29, 1959, Miller & Ny-
lander, C .F'. ' s F- Surveyors.
#59-55, submitted August 7, 1959 by Carl G.
Neilson; plan entitled 'Plan of Land in Lex-
ington, Mass. ", Scale . 1" = 30' , dated July
22, 1959, Miller 8- Nylander, C.E. ' s & Sur-
veyors.
#59-56, submitted August 10, 1959 by Edw. I.
Higgins, Agent, Anthony A. DeGuglielmo; plan
entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.",
dated August 6, 1959, Scale : 1" = 80 ' , Mac-
Carthy Engineering Service Inc . , Natick.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unani-
mously
VOTED: That the Lexinc'ton Planning Board determines
that the plans accompanying Form A applica-
8-10-59
tions #59-54 and 115°-55 do not require
approval under the Subdivision Control Law,
and that said plans be so endorsed.
VOTED: That the Board determines that the plan
accompanying Form A application #59-56 does
not require approval under the Subdivision
Control Law, and that said plan be so en-
dorsed with the added notation "but the par-
cel having 37.95 acres as shown does not
have the frontage required under the Lexing-
ton Zoning By-law and so-called Ingleside
Road is not recognized as a way try the Lex-
ington Planning Toard."
Considered also by the Board were the peti-
BOApD OF tions to be heard by the Boar of Appeals on August
APPEALS 11, 1959 . It was decided to take no action in re-
- gard to said petitions with the exception of that
VINE BROOK of the Vine Brook Realty Trust ,lith reference to
REALTY said petition, the Planning Board had held on August
TRUST 3, 1959 a conference with the Selectmen and Board
of Appeals for the purpose of informing them of the
WALTHAM current status and the Planning Board' s considera-
STREET tion of the plans which had been submitted with the
GARDEN Trust 's petition . Before and after said conference
APARTMPNT the Planning Board had met informally to discuss a
PLANS draft of its final report in regard to said petition.
(See Planning Board minutes of July 27, 1959. ) The
draft had afterward been sent to each Planning Board
member for further consideration and approved indi-
vidually by said ismbers. Reaffirming this deci-
sion, upon motion duly made and seconded, it was
unanimously
VOTED: to adont, as a formal and final report of the
Board, the August 5, 1059 letter to the Board
of Appeals with reference to the Vine Brook
Realty Trust petition for approval under Sec-
tion 5 (g) 1. of the Lexington Zoning By-law
for a determination that the plans and use
including* the site, plans, and building design
constitute a desirable development in and will
not be detrimental to the neighborhood. (See
addendum, )
At 8:40 p.m. Attorney Edward T. Martin,
MAPLE Architect Charles H. Cole, Realtor Harry G. Bergland,
STREET and Mr. Vincent Ipoolito, representing those inter-
' GARDEN ested in developing the Maple Street garden apart-
APARTMENT ment district, met with the Board to discuss what
PLANS progress had been made in assembling the various
parcels of land involved into one ownership, and in
preparing plans for the garden apartment development
Mr. Cole discussed with the Board a complete set of
plans, dated April 10, 1959, for a new addition to
8-10-59 -2-
Garden Crest, Inc . , said plans having been prepared for
presentation to the Federal Housing Agency as
mortgagee insurer. Mr. Cole used these plans to ex-
plain to the Board how he proposed to prepare similar
plans for presentation to the Planning Boyr d and the
Loard of Appeals for approval at a later date.
There was also presented to the Board a plan
entitled "Land Use Study" and dated November L{ , 1958
as an alternate scheme for the development of the
Maple Street garden apartment district . It was
pointed out that said scheme was not presented at the
public hearing on the proposal to rezone the area of
land on Maple Street from R 1 to A 1 use. Mr. Martin
contended, however, that while the plan itself was
not presented at the hearing he mentioned that the
group he represented did not have an ontion on the
Chapman land, that there was a possibility it might
nrt be involved in the group's proposals, and that Mr.
Cole had described briefly and in a general way of
what an overall development plan would consist if the
Chapman land were not included in the group 's final
proposal. (See Planning Board's minutes of February
25, 1959. )
Mr. Martin said that in case the corporation
being formed did not rurchase the Chapman land that
said corporation was proposing to present for consid-
eration to the boards concerned said alternate land
use study plan . He asked that the Board consider
said alternate plan and render an informal opinion
in regard to the same, stating that the corporation
wished to know if there was anything about said study
plan which was obviouslz- unsuitable to the Planning
Board Mr. Cole stated that if the Chapman land were
not purchased at this time, the alternate plan as
shown could not be expanded because of the difference
in topography between the lower land parallel to the
proposed location of Fmerson Road and the higher land
on which the Chapman residence was located. Mr. Cole
stated that if all the properties in the apartment
district were developed at the same time, the higher
Chapman land could be graded and used for fill. He
noted, however, that without utilizing the Chapman
nroperty a high retaining wall would have to be con-
structed along the southwesterly side of the service
road shown on the alternate plan. In regard to said
plan the Board questioned such details as the distance
between certain buildings and the location of the ser-
vice road. Mr. Cole was requested to furnish a print
on the land use study plan for the Planning Board's
use . The Chairman stated that the Board would con-
sider said plan and inform the corporation through Mr.
8-10-59
of the Board's opinion in regard to the proposal.
Thereupon the representatives of said corporation
left the meeting, the time being 9:40 p.m.
Mr. Stevens then came to the meeting. He
HAWTHORNE discussed first of all the situation in regard to
ACRES the Hawthorne Acres, Sec. 1 subdivision developed
SEC. 1 by the Esco Builders Corporation . There was first
presented to the Board a letter dated Aug. 6, 1959
ESC() from the Supt. of Public Works describing the
BUILDERS rather unusual situation which had developed at the
end of Hathaway Road as completed by the subdivider
There was also read to the Board a letter, dated August
10, 1959, from said Supt . of Public Works stating
that all work in the subdivision had been completed
to his satisfaction with the exception of Hathaway
Road between Stations AI + 75 and 25 a- 29.86.
With reference to the Superintendent ' s recom-
mendation in his August 6, 1959 letter that said
corporation enter into an agreement with the Town
to repair the end of Hathaway Road, which agreement
would be secured by a deposit of 01000 covering a
period of two years, Mr. Stevens presented such an
agreement which he had prepared and which had been
duly executed by said corporation on August 5, 1959.
Thereupon, in reliance upon said a greement, and
aFter a motion had been duly made and seconded, it
was unanimously
VOTED: to release the performance bond, dated July 29,
1957, filed by Esco Builders Corporation, as
Principal, and Massachusetts Bonding and In-
surance Company as Surety, in the penal sum
of $96,000.00 to secure the performance by the
Principal of the obligations of the subdivider
as set forth in the application for approval
of a definitive subdivision plan, Form C,
dated June 6, 1957, to complete the work to be
performed as shown on the subdivision plan
entitled "Hawthorne Acres Section One Lexing-
ton, Mass.", dated May 20, 1957 .
Considered next was the request of Wynwood
OAK HILL Associates, Inc. to be released from the covenant
ESTATES said corporation had entered into with the Town of
SEC . 2 Lexington and to substitute therefor an agreement
secured by a deposit Presented to the Board was
WYNWOOD a letter, dated July 29, 1059, from the Supt. of
ASSOCIATES Public Works with reference to said Oak Hill Estates
INC. subdivision, stating that the required work to be
performed was approximately 60 percent complete. Mr.
Stevens presented also an agreement executed by
Wynwood Associates, Inc . and dated August 10, 1959
wherein said subdivider agreed to complete all the
work in the subdivision by September 1, 1960 and
deposited as security for the same a sum of
$15,261.90 as represented by savings accounts in
the Lexington Federal Savings & Loan Assn. and in
the Watertown Federal Savings & Loan Assn. , all as
set forth in the agreement. It was noted that the
Supt . of 'public Works ' estimate of the cost of all
the work to be done by the subdivider was ' 37,000,
and that the deposit of 1115,000 is slightly in excess
of 40 percent of such estimated cost . Upon consid-
eration thereof, and upon motion duly made and
seconded, it was unanimously
VOTED : to accept the agreement executed by Wynwood
Associates, Inc. on August 10, 1050 and the
securitY for the performance of said agree-
ment, and to release all lots in the "Oak
Hill Estates, Section Two Lexington, Mass."
subdivision from the provisions of the coven-
ant executed by 'Iynwood Associates, Inc. ,
dated April 4, 1050, and recorded in the
Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds
in Book 9404, page 146.
The Board then executed said release which was ac-
knowledged by Mr. Stevens .
Considered next was the annlication of the
Waymint Realty Trust for anproval of the "Paint "PAINT
Rock" definitive subdivision nlan . Mr Stevens ROCK"
presented in duplicate performance bonds which had
been duly executed by said Trust . All matters WAYMINT
appearing to be in order, unon motion duly made REALTY
and seconded, it was unanimously TRUST
VOTED. that the definitive subdivision plan en-
titled " 'Paint Rock ' Lexington, Mass .",
dated May 19, 1050, which was submitted to
the Board by Waymint Realty Trust on June
22, 1059, accompanied by an application
for approval of definitive plan, Form C,
dated June 12, 1050, be and hereby is
approved .
The Board' s attention was called to Mr. Paul
J. McCormack ' s August 10, 1959 letter to the Plan- McCORMACK
ning Board with reference to a petition he had PROPOSED
filed with the Board of Appeals seeking a variance REZONING
to construct a professional office building at the VARIANCE
pronerty numbered 789 Massachusetts Avenue. (See
Planning Board minutes of June 1, 1959 ) The Plan-
R-10-59 -4-
ning Board sought Mr. Stevens ' counsel in regard to
reasons to set forth in opposing the granting of such
a variance. He stated that among reasons which could
be given were (1) a variance for such use in a two-
family district was beyond the legal jurisdiction of
the Board of Appeals ; (2) a variance for said use
would be a change in zoning without a change in the
zoning by-law; and (3) there would be no basis for
granting a variance on account of hardship because
other use can be made of the property.
Mr. Stevens reviewed with the Board his con-
COLONIAL ference with Mr. Snow and later with Mr . Anderson,
ACRES SEC . 3 Chief Engineer, Land Court, relative to the differ-
ence between the Colonial Acres, Sec. 3 Vine Brook
VINE BROOK Meadows, Sec . 1 definitive subdivision plans. Mr.
MEADOWS Stevens presented for the Board's information a copy
SEC 1 of Mr. Anderson ' s August 5, 1059 letter to Mac-
rarthy Engineering Service relative to said differ-
ences. (See addendum. )
Discussed next with Mr. Stevens was the situ-
MORELAND AVE. ation in regard to obtaining an option to purchase
land for the extension of Buckman Drive within the
BUCKMAN DRIVE water easement the Town had in parts of lots 11 and
12, Moreland Avenue (See minutes of June 29, 1959
STREET OPTION Planning Board meeting. ) Mr. Snow gave a renort of
attempts to interest Mr. Luongo, owner of lots 10, 11
LUONGO and 12, and Mr. Collins, owner of lot 13, all on
Moreland Avenue, in selling these lots to reliable
builders in such a manner that lot 10 and part of lot
11 outside of said easement could be assembled as one
larger house lot and lot 13 aid part of lot 12 outside
the easement assembled into a second larger lot In
view of the desirability of fronting houses on the
larger lots on Buckman Drive, Mr. Snow also reported
on estimated betterments which he obtained from the
Town Engineer It was decided to ask Mr. Luongo for
what price he would sell his land within the water
easement as compared to a price for lots 11 and 12.
Mr. Snow was asked to discuss the matter with him.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
'Richard H. Soule
Clerk '
8-10-59 -4-
ADDENDUM
August 5, 1959
Board of Appeals
Town Office Building
Lexington 73, Mass. Re: Vine Brook Realty Trust
'ialtham Street garden
apartment development
Gentlemen
Reference is made to your July 13, 1959 letter and
its accompanying set of plans . The Planning Board herewith
submits its final report thereon with recommendations to
the Board of peals in reply to said letter and in accord-
ance with Sec . 5 ( g) 5. of the Zoning B---law.
The Planning Beard has examined the plans with the
view that zoning regulations and restrictions were designed
among other purposes to conserve the value of land and
tuildings , to encourage the most appropriate use of land
throughout the town, and to preserve and increase its
amenities. The Board has examined the plans also with the
view that the Taltham Street apartment district is surrounded
by a single family residential district in which all lots
being laid out now or in the future must have a minimum front-
, age of 125 feet and an area of at least 15,500 square feet,
pith these points in minu the following matters are set forth
for consideration.
The Planning Board recommends that the building loca-
tions shown on the site plan be given further study. It is
believed that the buildings should be farther apart and
arranged in such a manner as to present a general feeling of
more spaciousness, especially in this particular neighborhood
where the residences are a single story in height and sixty
feet apart on the average The Board suggests that this may
be accomplished by locating Capt . Parker Lane outside the
building restriction line, by eliminating one building from
the development plan, and, because of the land area involved,
by assembling some apartments in such a manner as to obtain
under the zoning bey-law the maximum number of units in one
building Greater space between buildings would allow room
for the location of outdoor sitting areas, for the location
of numerous walks not now shown on the plan, and for the
planting of a number of larger trees to provide shade, variety,
and amenities to what the Board considers to b e rather uniform
design and arrangement of buildings,
'^Tith reference to the suggested relocation of Capt .
Parker Lane, it is recommended that the present layout be
given additional studrr, particularly with reference to the
location of the proposed subdivision street on the opposite
side of /orthen Road. The location of the lane outside the
e-10-59
building restriction line would allow more space for
buildings and grounds, would allow a parking area to
be located beyond the lane and other parking areas
to be redesigned inside the restriction line . Further-
more, the lane located outside said line and opposite
the proposed subdivision street between 'orthen and
Winthrop Roads would eliminate any possible conflict
between the location of said ways . Final plans should
include the profile as well as grades and proposed
drains on Capt. Parker Lane.
In addition to the above, the Planning Board
recommends the parking area design and location be
given considerable stud-*. ^Jhi.le it appears that the
total space for parking is sufficient , it is the
opinion of the Board that the usable space in the
parking areas themselves is much less than indicated
on the site plan . It is recommended that the areas
be redesigned so that automobiles can be maneuvered
into position in all stalls, and that the latter be
ten feet wide. In some instances the parking areas
shown on the plan are too close to buildings, in other
instances inconveniently located or located in such a
position as to impair views from living rooms, entries
and front yards In the opinion of the Planning Board
better location of parking areas would be more com-
patible
with residential design and would allow ample
space for tree and shrub plantings.
i!ith reference to the buildings themselves, the
Planning Board is primarily interested in exterior
appearances . It should be noted, however, that the
plans for the buildings as now presented are of third
class construction whereas second class construction
is required under the town ' s building by-law. Changes
in the plans to meet this requirement need not affect
the exterior design of the buildings whereas some
other required changes of major importance might. Pro-
vision for ventilating crawl spaces and attics, for
direct outside access to boiler rooms, and such other
details as the location of chimneys in relationship to
boiler rooms and incinerators probably would affect the
exterior appearance of buildings and necessitate some
minor changes in site planning. In addition, window
shutters, louvres, and other external features shown
on the architect 's sketch published before the public
hearing on September 11, 1955, have been omitted from
the building plans
The Planning Board believes that changes and
developments can be made i.n the submitted plans to make
them acceptable. It is hoped that the developer will
cooperate with the Planning Board in making detailed
and final plans which the Board can recommend.
The Planning Board recommends that the plans in
8-10-59 -5-
their present form be disapproved.
Sincerely yours,
cc • Town Counsel LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
Be. of Selectmen
/s/ Charles T. Abbott, Chairman
August 5, 1959
MacCarthy -nri neerin g Service cc Parks & Stevens , Esgs.
200 West Central Street 30 State St .
Natick, Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts
Re: Land in Lexington
Dear Sirs :
Your plan of the Colonial Levelopment Corporation
subdivision dated March 20, 1°59 was filed with us on July
2R, 1^50 . Lots 57, 61, 62, 63, etc. bound by the East bank
of Vine Brook. Recently, the developer on the other side
of Vine Brook, filed with the Lexington Town Counsel a plan
by Miller and Nylander which shows one lot reaching to the
Fast bank of said brook.
Comparing the two plans, we find that there is an
overlap of 15' or 40 ' . The Town Counsel has had the Town
Engineer or Lexinrton check with Miller and Nylander on
their location of the Easterly bank of the brook and seems
to feel that the tiller and Nvlan(er plan is correct.
Looking at your plan, I note that you do not show any
survey lines which reach close to the brook and that you do
not show any location of the sewer manhole which is at the
bend in the 65% sewer easement which lies somewhat North-
easterly of the brook. If we extend the line of the sewer,
which you do show upon your plan, in a Northerly direction,
the 1.04.119' which is shown on the decree plan as being the
distance between the two sewer manholes, wF arrive at a
point which is not within the extension Southwesterly of the
65' sewer easement from Winthrop Road as you have marked that
portion of the easement upon your plan . It therefore can be
said that your elan does not seem to be consistent with the
decree plan. Can You explain the reason for this? If your
plan is in error with respect to the easement, it may also
be in error with respect to the location of the East bank of
V ne Brook. !ould you please 7erifv the line of the brook
also.
II II Under these circumstances, we will not be able to
R-10-59
stamp any instruments for Lots 57, 61, 62 and 63.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Charles H. Anderson
Chief Engineer, Land Court