Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1959-10-05PLANNING BOARD MEETING ' October 5, 1959 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the office of the Board, Town Office Buildings on Monday, October 5, 1959 at 7:40 p.m. Present were Vice Chairman Grindle, Members Burnell, Mabee and Soule, and Planning Director Snow. Town Counsel Stevens was present also from 8:45 to 10:05 p.m. The Board approved the minutes of its Septem- ber 14 and 21, 1959 meetings. MINUTES Approved also by the Board were the follow- ing bills which had been presented for payment: BILLS Andrew T. Johnson, white prints-- 1.25; Louise M. Baker, extra secretarial service -45.00. Considered next by the Board was the follow- ing Form A application for determination of Plan- ning Board jurisdiction: ' #59-64, submitted October 5, 1959 by Catherine G. Hinchey; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexinp-ton, Mass. Owned by Catherine Hinchey," Scale: 1" = 40', dated Aug. 19, 1959, Joseph W. Moore, Inc., Reg. Land Surveyor. 'Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously ;DOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plan accompanying Form A applica- tion #59-64 does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law, and that said plan be so endorsed. The Board decided to hold its next regular meeting on Tuesday, October 13, 1959 at 7:30 p.m., MEETING October 12 being a local holiday. Read to the Board and considered by it was a notice of a hearing to be held by the Lexington HISTORIC Historic Districts Commission on October 6, 1959 DISTRICTS in regard to an application for a certificate of COMMISSION appropriateness. It was decided to take no action. ' in regard to said application. The Board considered next the notices of 10-5-59 -2- At -8:40 p,.m. Mr. Roland B. Greeley of 1359 BOARD OF Massachusetts Avenue came to the meeting to request APPEALS that the Planning Board appeal the Board of Appeals decision granting the McCormack petition to erect a McCORMACK professional office building at 789 Massachusetts PROFES- Avenue. (See September 28, 1959 Planning Board SIONAL minutes.) Read was the Board of Appeals decision as BUILDING filed with the Town Clerk on September 28, 1959. ' Mr. Stevens came to the meeting at 8:45 p.m. After reviewing for Mr. Stevens his. request of the Planning Board, Mr. Greeley stated that among his reasons for making said request were that the Board of Appeals had in effect amended the Zoning By- law by changing certain land to business use instead of keeping it in residential use, that in his opinion such action was in direct violation of the intent of said by-law, and in addition arrogated the powers of the Town Meeting. He emphasized that in the written permit issued by the Board of Appeals there were set forth no facts which would show that it would be a hardship to Mr. McCormack if his petition were not granted whereas the Board of Appeals in substance had made this one of its findings. Mr. Greeley left the meeting at 9;05 p.m. after which the Board continued to discuss the McCor- mack case. Mr. Stevens was asked to outline the procedure under which the Planning Board could appeal the de- cision of the Board of Appeals. He stated that the ' Planning Board would have to vote formally to take an appeal, and that, as in all such votes, a majority would have to be in favor of an appeal. He said the Planning Board would then have to ask the Selectmen to appoint counsel for the Planning Board, said counsel petitions to:be heard by the Board of Appeals on BOARD OF ' October 13, 1959. It was decided to take no action APPEALS in regard to said petitions with the exception of - that of Rose Massucco Netzer to"vary the Lexington NETZER Building By-law . . . in order to put a trailer on Lots -#29 and 30 Valley Road, to be used as a dwelling." There was dictated to Mr. Snow notes from which he was requested to draft for the Board's final con- sideration at its next meeting a letter to the Board of Appeals setting forth the Planning Board opposi- tion to the granting of the Neter petition. A general discussion was held and final plans T.M.M.A. made for the Planning Board's presentation of .HEFTING material on "Planning for Recreation" at the Town Meeting Members Association informational meeting to beheld the following evening. At -8:40 p,.m. Mr. Roland B. Greeley of 1359 BOARD OF Massachusetts Avenue came to the meeting to request APPEALS that the Planning Board appeal the Board of Appeals decision granting the McCormack petition to erect a McCORMACK professional office building at 789 Massachusetts PROFES- Avenue. (See September 28, 1959 Planning Board SIONAL minutes.) Read was the Board of Appeals decision as BUILDING filed with the Town Clerk on September 28, 1959. ' Mr. Stevens came to the meeting at 8:45 p.m. After reviewing for Mr. Stevens his. request of the Planning Board, Mr. Greeley stated that among his reasons for making said request were that the Board of Appeals had in effect amended the Zoning By- law by changing certain land to business use instead of keeping it in residential use, that in his opinion such action was in direct violation of the intent of said by-law, and in addition arrogated the powers of the Town Meeting. He emphasized that in the written permit issued by the Board of Appeals there were set forth no facts which would show that it would be a hardship to Mr. McCormack if his petition were not granted whereas the Board of Appeals in substance had made this one of its findings. Mr. Greeley left the meeting at 9;05 p.m. after which the Board continued to discuss the McCor- mack case. Mr. Stevens was asked to outline the procedure under which the Planning Board could appeal the de- cision of the Board of Appeals. He stated that the ' Planning Board would have to vote formally to take an appeal, and that, as in all such votes, a majority would have to be in favor of an appeal. He said the Planning Board would then have to ask the Selectmen to appoint counsel for the Planning Board, said counsel 10-5-59 beim; either the Town or some other counsel. Mr. ' Stevens commented that after the appeal was filed in the Superior Court, Mr. McCormack could ask the Court leave to intervene so that he might be a party to the suit brought against the Board of Appeals. 1 Mr. Mabee suggested that the Board of Appeals be informed that the Planning Board contemplated appealing; the Board of Appeals decision, that the Board of Appeals be asked to reconsider its action, and that if the Board of Appeals did not wish to do so within the time necessary for an appeal to be taken, the Planning Board then consider appealing said Board of Appeals action. The attention of the Board was next called to a revised print of a plan filed with the Board by Mr. WINCHESTER George S. DeVries, said print being entitled "Re- ESTATES vised Plan of Part of Section 4 Winchester Estates Winchester# Mass.' and dated Aug. 18, 1959. (See WINCHESTER September 8, 1959 Planning Board minutes.) Mr. Snow DEVELOP - pointed out that the print accompanied a Form A MENT CORP. apnlication, dated Oct. 5, 19591 and signed by Mr. DeVries for the Winchester Development Corp. Mr. Snow stated, however, that he had not signed the application as having been submitted for the reason that the original plan had not accompanied said appli- cation. Mr. Stevens was asked for an informal ruling in regard to said print. He stated that as far as Winchester was concerned the plan did not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law but that in the case of Lexington the plan did require approval. In view of the fact that the plan as drawn was a subdivision, he suggested that the Plan- ning Board request that an application for approval of a definitive plan be filed and a hearing held on said application. Mr. Snow was requested to so notify Mr. DeVries. Mr. Stevens left the meeting at 10:05 P.M. After a general discussion of current problems before the Board, it adjourned its meeting at 10:30 p.m. r ichard H. Soule Clerk