HomeMy WebLinkAbout1959-09-08PLANNING BOARD MEETING
' September 8,91959
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning
Board was held in the office of the Boards Town
Office Building, on Tuesdays September 8s 1959 at
7:40 p.m. Present were Chairman Abbott,9 Members
Burnell, Grindles Mabee and Soule, and Planning
Director Snow. Town Counsel Stevens was also present
from 8:20 to 10:00 p,m,
The Board approved the following bills which
had been presented for payment: David R. Coo ers pro- BILLS
fessional servicess August 24 through Sept. &s 1959s
and car mileage --$204.10; Minute -man Publications,
Inc., advertising --$4.90; Bruce E. Howlett, profes-
sional sery"ices, Sept.'1s 1959-435.00; Ward's,
office supplies -=4.68; Wallace B. Mitchell Co.*
white prints -40.80; H.B.McArdles office supplies --
$11.00.
The Board then considered the following* Form
A applications for determinations of Planning Board FORMS A
jurisdiction:
'
#59-59s submitted on August 31s 1959 by
William H. Hamilton; plan entitled "A C om-
piled Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass."s
Scale: 1" = 201, dated Aug. 271 1959, Miller
& Nylanders C.E.'s & Surveyors,
#59-60s submitted on September 3s 1959 by
Harry M. Sullivan; plan entitled "Plan of
Land in Lexington, Massa% Scale: Z" = 301,9
dated'Aug. 181 1959, Miller & Nylanders C.E.'s
& Surveyors.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was
unanimously
VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines
that the plans accompanying Form A applications
#59-59 and #59-60 do not require approval under
the Subdivision Control Laws and that said
plans be so endorsed.
The Board endorsed the "Paint Rock" defini- "PAINT ROCK"
tive subdivision plan approved on August 10, 1959-
no appeal having been taken during the customary WAYMINT
'
21 -day appeal period. Mr. Snow was asked to give REALTY
said elan to the Town Counsel for recording after TRUST
the latter had obtained from the subdividers Waymint
9-8-59
Realty Trusts an executed instrument conveying to
the Town drain and water pipe easements in Grimes '
Road as shown on said plan.
BOARD OF Read to the Board and approved by the same was
APPEALS the draft of a letter to the Board of Appeals setting
forth the Planning Boards opposition to the granting
McCORMACK of the McCormack petition for the erection of a pro -
PETITION fessional office building'at 789 Ma7sachusetts Avenue.
(See addendum and Planning Board minutes of August 27,
1959).
Also read to the Board and approved by the same
MAPLE STREET was the draft of a letter to Attorney Edward T. Martin
GARDEN in answer to a request for the Board's informal opinion
APARTMENT of an alternate site plan for" the proposed Maple Street
DEVELOPMENT garden apartment development. (See Planning Board min-
utes of August 10, 1859.)
At 8:20 p.m. Mr.Stevens came to the meeting.
WILKINS LAND
He reported that in accordance with the request of the
FOR
Planning Board (see Planning Board minutes of June 221
RECRRATION
1959) he had prepared an option instrument and had re -
PURPOSES
ceived the same duly executed, said option being dated
-
September 2, 1959 and executed by Donald K. Irwin and
IRWIN
Mary F. Irwin, his wife, covering land on Grove Street
now owned by George J. and Sadie D. Wilkins and shown
on the plan attached to the option. Mr. Stevens gave
,
the original of said option to W. Snow requesting
that he give the same to the Town Clerk for safekeep-
ing. A conformed copy of said option was given to the
Board for its files.
At 8:30 p.m. Mr. Reenstierna, trustee of the
WALTHAM ST.
Vine Brook Realty Trust, came to the meeting to dis-
GARDEN
cuss with the Board its memorandum of August 5, 1959
APARTMENT
in regard to said trusts petition for a Board of
DEVELOPMENT
Appeals determination in regard to the Waltham Street
-
garden apartment development plans. The main points
VINE BROOK
considered were the relocation of Captain Parker Lane
REALTY
so that the northeasterly end of said lane would be
TRUST
opposite the proposed location of John Poulter Road in
the Vine Brook Meadows development, the redesign and
arrangement of parking areas in relation to the apart-
ment buildings, and the ways of obtaining spacious-
ness, a quality which the Planning Board believed was
lacking in the trusts previously submitted site plans.
In'order to obtain a site plan satisfactory to the Board,
Mr. Reenstierna stated that he was not adverse to hav-
ing`eight less apartment units than were shown on the
trust's last submitted plana It was decided that the
trust's architect, Mr. Manasalian would meet with Mr.
Snow and through a series of conferences, as would be
'
done in connection with F.H.A. requirements, attempt to
develop one step at a time site and building plans
which the Planning Board believed it could recommend
that the Board of Appeals approve. Thereupon, Mr.
9-8-59 -2_
' Reenstierna left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Young appeared before the Board
to inquire about plans for a proposed recreation
area to be located in part on former Techbuilt land
proposed for purchase from the present owners, Way-
mini'Realty Trust. He said that he had shown Mr.
Snow during the past week a sketch of a lot he was
considering purchasing from said trusts the lot and
the one adjacent to it being an extension of Lots
6A and 7A on a plan endorsed by the Board on May lls
1959. Mr. Young stated that he was not interested
in purchasing said proposed lot if existing hemlock
trees were not included in the extension of said lots
or if the town proposed to construct play areas in
the vicinity. Mr. Young was told that to its knowl-
edge said trees were within the area the Board was
recommending the Town acquire. He was also informed
that no definite plans for the proposed recreation
area had been made and that the development of such
areas was controlled by the Selectmen.
After Mr. Young had left the meetings the
Board discussed the matter of land acquisition. Mr.
Snow pointed out that in his opinion the extension
' of Lots 6A and 7A would partially destroy the so-
called Paint Mane area and would take some of the
remainder of the old hemlock grove it would be so
Important to save. It was decided to take steps
immediately to negotiate with some authorized repre-
sentative of said trust for acquisition of Wavmint
land for public recreation purposes. Mr. Stevens
was asked to arrange for such negotiation with the
law firm representing said trust.
Mr. Snow called the Board's attention to a
print entitled "Revised Plan of Part of Section 4
Winchester Estates Winchesters Mass." owned and
developed by Winchester Development Corp.", said
print being undated and prepared by Fred A. Joyce*
Surveyor. He reported that a representative of
the Winchester Planning Board had left the print
and accompanying material for consideration by the
Lexington Board in that the proposed lotting and
road plan as shown on said print Included land in
Lexington as well as Winchester. It was decided
that before the Board could consider the plans Mr.
DeVries of said corporation would be requested to
submit a preliminary plan to the Lexington Plan-
ning Board. Thereupons the Chairman telephoned
the Winchester Boards meeting at the same times to
notify it of the Lexington Board's request.
FORMER
TECHBUILT
LAND FOR
RECREATION
PURPOSES
WINCHESTER
ESTATES
WINCHESTER
DEVELOPMENT
CORP.
9-8-59
V
VOTED: That the preliminary subdivision plan entitled
"Preliminary Plan of Lots in Minute Man High -
Lands Section Four Lexington - Mass.}', dated
July 9s 1959., which was submitted to the Board
on July 13, 19596 be and hereby is disapproved
for the reason that the State Department of
Public Works has granted no entrance permit to
extend "A" Street across state highway land to
Pleasant Street.
Mr. Stevens left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. after
discussing with the Board matters currently before it.
Mr. Snow then discussed with the Board further
AVADANIAN studies he had made -and a conference he had held with
Mr. Carrolls Supt, of Public Works, with reference to
PRELIMINARY the preliminary subdivision plan submitted by.Mr.
SUBDIVISION George Avadanian (See Planning Board minutes of August
PLAN 27s 1959).After consideration of these studiess upon
motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
VOTED: that the preliminary subdivision plan entitled
"Proposed Subdivision of Land 'in Lexington, Mass.",
dated July 3s 19591 which was submitted to the
Board on July 136 1959s be and hereby is
disapproved for the following reasons (1) the
road profiles as shown do not take into consid-
eration the existing topography, would necessi-
tate in most cases excessive cutting of the
lands and would not lend_ themselves to the
proper development of the area; (2) the brook
shown on the plan is not to be relocated along
the property line but kept in its approximate
existing location and enclosed in drain pipe
specified by the Town Engineer.
With reference t othe odd -shaped lots which had
been and were being created along Turning Mill Road
and other locations in towns Mr. Snow stated that in
1
1
Considered next by the Board was Mr. Carrig's
MINUTE MAN
'
application for approval of the Minute Man Highlands,
HIGHLANDS
Sec. 4 preliminary subdivision plan. Mr. Snow re -
SEC 4
ported that representatives of the State Department of
-
Public Works had informed him that the State had not
CARRIG
acted on Mr. Carrig's application for an entrance
.permit across State highway land to Pleasant Street
and that said Department planned to make an additional
taking of Carrig land for state highway purposes. Mr.
Stevens advised the Board to act independently on Mr.
Carrig's application for approval of said plan and to
so advise the Department. Thereupons upon motion duly
made and seconded, it was unanimously
VOTED: That the preliminary subdivision plan entitled
"Preliminary Plan of Lots in Minute Man High -
Lands Section Four Lexington - Mass.}', dated
July 9s 1959., which was submitted to the Board
on July 13, 19596 be and hereby is disapproved
for the reason that the State Department of
Public Works has granted no entrance permit to
extend "A" Street across state highway land to
Pleasant Street.
Mr. Stevens left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. after
discussing with the Board matters currently before it.
Mr. Snow then discussed with the Board further
AVADANIAN studies he had made -and a conference he had held with
Mr. Carrolls Supt, of Public Works, with reference to
PRELIMINARY the preliminary subdivision plan submitted by.Mr.
SUBDIVISION George Avadanian (See Planning Board minutes of August
PLAN 27s 1959).After consideration of these studiess upon
motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
VOTED: that the preliminary subdivision plan entitled
"Proposed Subdivision of Land 'in Lexington, Mass.",
dated July 3s 19591 which was submitted to the
Board on July 136 1959s be and hereby is
disapproved for the following reasons (1) the
road profiles as shown do not take into consid-
eration the existing topography, would necessi-
tate in most cases excessive cutting of the
lands and would not lend_ themselves to the
proper development of the area; (2) the brook
shown on the plan is not to be relocated along
the property line but kept in its approximate
existing location and enclosed in drain pipe
specified by the Town Engineer.
With reference t othe odd -shaped lots which had
been and were being created along Turning Mill Road
and other locations in towns Mr. Snow stated that in
1
1
9-8-59 .3 -
Reference is made to the petition of G.Ruth and Paul J.
McCormack to vary Section 5 (b) of Lexington's Zoning By-law
in order to erect a one-story building with basement for pro-
fessional offices at 789 Massachusetts Avenue. The Planning
Board wishes to be recorded as being opposed to the granting
of said petition and sets forth its reasons for such opposi-
tion.
In connection with its consideration of the McCormack petition..
the Planning Board sought the counsel of Mr. Stevens. He ad-
vised the Planning Board that among the reasons which could be
set forth in opposition to the granting of the petition were
the following: (1) A variance for professional office building
use in a two-family district is beyond the legal jurisdiction
of the Board of Appeals; (2) A variance for such 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
his opinion these were being created at an in-
creasingly rapid rate. He recommended that the
LOT STUDY
Board renew immediately its earlier lot study (see
-
Planning Board minutes of March 21 1959) with the
PROPOSED
Idea of preparing a zoning by-law amendment to pre-
ZONING
vent further continuance of lotting in violation
BY-LAW
of the intent of said law. He said that he would
AMENDMENT
not be able to complete such a study himself be-
fore a fall town meeting because of an unusual
amount of administrative work in addition to the
preparation of the Board's report on the long
range plan. Mr. Snow asked for professional
assistance In this study, suggesting Mr. Perry
Norton as a possible consultant. Mr. Snow was
authorized to discuss the matter with Mr. Norton
reporting the result of his conference at the
Boardts next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
and H. oule
Clerk
ADDENDUM
September
91 1959
Board of Appeals
Town Office Building Re: Petition -of G.Ruth and Paul J.
Lexington 731 Mass, McCormack for a Professional
office building.
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to the petition of G.Ruth and Paul J.
McCormack to vary Section 5 (b) of Lexington's Zoning By-law
in order to erect a one-story building with basement for pro-
fessional offices at 789 Massachusetts Avenue. The Planning
Board wishes to be recorded as being opposed to the granting
of said petition and sets forth its reasons for such opposi-
tion.
In connection with its consideration of the McCormack petition..
the Planning Board sought the counsel of Mr. Stevens. He ad-
vised the Planning Board that among the reasons which could be
set forth in opposition to the granting of the petition were
the following: (1) A variance for professional office building
use in a two-family district is beyond the legal jurisdiction
of the Board of Appeals; (2) A variance for such 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 ,
being discussed. It is for these reasons, therefore,
and the following point of view that the Planning Board
does not believe the petition should be granted.
The Board has given considerable attention to the pro-
posed use of land in immediate vicinity of the property
on which the petitioners seek to erect a professional
office building. Itis the opinion of the Board that
the district now zoned for two-family residential use
should continue to retain its residential status in
order to conserve the value of land and buildings, to
encourage what the Planning Board considers to be the
most appropriate use of land, and to preserve and in-
crease its amenities in the vicinity of Follen and
Sacred Heart churches and the Fast Lexington Branch
Library. For these reasons the Board has incorporated
In its long range comprehensive plan for Lexington no
changes in the present zoning of land in the neighbor-
hood involved. For these reasons also the Planning
Board would oppose any attempt to rezone land in the
vicinity of said buildings from two-family residential
to commercial use.
Sincerely yours,
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD ,
ISI Charles T. Abbott, Chairman
September 9s 1959
Mr. Edward T. Martin
31 State Street
Boston 9, Mass. Re: Maple Street garden apartment
development
Dear Mr. Martin:
the
Reference Is made to the conference you and/group ,you
represent had with the Planning Board on August T0, 1959
And your request for the 'Board's informal opinion in re-
gard to an alternate site plan for the proposed Maple
Street garden apartment development. Mr. Cole kindly
supplied the Board with a print of said plan, dated
November 4o 1958, and entitled "Land Use Study". To
bbtain further understanding of the problems involved
the Board requested its staff to superimpose on said
print five-foot contours from Lexington's topographical
data and the boundaries of the Chapman land understood
not to be under option. The site plan was then given
careful consideration by the Board.
It is the opinion of the Planning Board, as set forth
below, that it would not recommend approval of the alter-
9-8-59 -4-
nate site plan to the Board of Appeals. The north-
easterly boundary of the property the Chapman's wish
to retain would extend at one point a distance of
approximately 28 feet into the proposed apartment
site. This would necessitate moving the proposed ser-
vice road to the northeastward limiting the apartment
site to a width of 110 feet. The Board is of the
opinion that the service road entering onto Maple St.
is too close to the intersection of the proposed loca-
tion of Emerson Road as shown on the plan. Moving
said service road northeasterly 28 feet would make
conditions worse.
In addition it is believed that in order to carry out
the proposed alternate scheme it would be necessary to
construct along the northeasterly boundary of the
Chapman land a retaining wall approximately 350 feet
in length and averaging seven feet in height. The fact
that such a wall would have to be constructed indicates
that at a later date it would not be possible to de-
velop the Chapman land not under option into an Inte-
grated and well -related garden apartment development.
In regard to the service road itselfs it is the opinion
Another point should be noted. The Board does not be-
lieve it can recommend approval of the proposed site
plan because the Chapman property proposed for elimina-
tion from the apartment site has only 63 feet of front-
age. Under Sec. 8 (f) l.b. of said by-law it is neces-
sary that any single family residence in an A 1 district
have 150 feet of frontage. Until this frontage is ob-
tained, the Board would not be in a position to recommend
approval of the alternate site plans or a similar one,
being discussed.
As to the buildings themselves, it is the opinion of the
Board that in a number of instances they are too close
together. This is particularly true where the distance
between buildings is only 15 and 20 feet. 'While the
Board has set no specific distance as a minimum between
of the Board that it would only approve such a road
located adjacent
A 1"district or,
to the southwesterly boundary of the
on an alternate scheme, a road located
'
In such a manner
that a section of it turned to enter
Rnerson Road at
right angles. In connection with said
service road, it
is pointed out that parking spaces for
only 46 automobiles
are shown on the plan whereas there
are 92 apartment
units proposed. Use of the service
road itself for
automobile parkings rather than parking
spaces shown on
the plans Is not considered to be with-
in the intent of
the conditions set forth in the zoning
by-law.
Another point should be noted. The Board does not be-
lieve it can recommend approval of the proposed site
plan because the Chapman property proposed for elimina-
tion from the apartment site has only 63 feet of front-
age. Under Sec. 8 (f) l.b. of said by-law it is neces-
sary that any single family residence in an A 1 district
have 150 feet of frontage. Until this frontage is ob-
tained, the Board would not be in a position to recommend
approval of the alternate site plans or a similar one,
being discussed.
As to the buildings themselves, it is the opinion of the
Board that in a number of instances they are too close
together. This is particularly true where the distance
between buildings is only 15 and 20 feet. 'While the
Board has set no specific distance as a minimum between
9-8-59
buildingas. it is believed that these distances should
be as generous as possible.
It is hoped that the above explanation answers your
request in every way. If, however, you or any of your
group have any questions in regard to the matters dis-
cussed, do not hesitate to communicate with the Board
or the Planning Director. With a little advance notice,
we are available at most any time to discuss the garden
apartment development plans further.
Sincerely yours,
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
/S/ Charles T. Abbott, Chairman
i]
1