Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-10-17PLAT17TIPd13T BOARD MFETTNG October 17, 1960 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held on Mondav, October 17, 1960 at 7:30 n.m. in the Board's office, Town Office Building, Present were Chairman Burnell and members Grindle, Mabee and Meyer, and Planning Director Snow. The Board apnroved for payment the following bills which had been presented: Donald C. Richard- son, professional services Sent. 26 and 27, 1960- 211.50; Harry W. Porter Jr., professional services Sept. 26 and 27, 1960--$24.,50; Snaulding-Moss, drafting supplies -41.110. Considered next were the following Form A applications for determination of Planning Board jurisdiction: #,'60-76, submitted Oct. 11, 1960 by Eugene C. Roberts III; plan entitled "Plan of Re- vised Lot Land in Lexington. Mass.", Scale: ' 1" = 40', dated Aug. 30, 1960, Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s 8: Surveyors. 60-77, submitted October 17, 1960 by Harold E. Stevens for Town of Lexington; plan entitled "Plan Showing Sewer Easement Land in Lexington Mass.", Scale: 1" = 40'., dated July 28, 19601 Miller & Nylander, F. Is & Surveyors. #6o-78, svbmitted October 17, 1960 by Milton C. Wasby, Trustee, for WalTmi.nt Realty Trust; plan entitled "elan of Land in Lexington Bass. ", Scale: 1 in = 1;0 ft, dated Oct. 14, 1060, Everett M. Brooks Co., Civil Engineers Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plans accompanying Form A applica- tions #60-76, #60-77 and 460-78 do not re- quire approval under the Subdivision Control Law, and that said plans be so endorsed. Next taken under consideration was the anrpli- cation for annroval of the "Middle Ridge, Sec. 5' definitive elan which had been submitted by Eugene BILLS E OTAWKS ] 10-17-60 -2- MIDDLE RIDGE C. Roberts III for approval. It was decided SEC. 5 - to schedule a hearing on said application for Novem- ROBERTS ber 71 1960 at 8:00 n.m. Read to the Board was the Town Counsel's letter of October 131 1960 to the Planning Director OAK HILL with reference to the Oak Hill Estates Sec. 3 sub - ESTATES division. Mr. Snow exhibited the agreement exe- SEC. 3 cuted by ?,Tynwood Associates, Inc. wl-erein the cor- - notation agreed to complete the installation and con- WYNWOOD struction of all the ways and services in said sub- ASSOCTATES division in accordance with the rules and regula- tions of the Board by June 1, 10/61. He also exhib- ited two bank books showing; deposits in the sum of $16,000 and accompanied by executed withdrawal or- ders, said bank books being those referred to in the aforesaid agreement as security for the same. All matters appearing to be in order, upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: to accept the agreement executed by Wynwood Associates, Inc. on October 13, 1060 and the security for the performance of said agree- ment and to release all lots in the "Oak Hill Estates, Section Three Lexington, Mass." subdivision from the provisions of the cove- nant executed by llynwood Associates, Inc. dated June 27, 1960s and recorded in the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 9651, page 321. The Board then signed a pelease of Covenant instrument which had been prepared by the Town Counsel. Later during the meeting he completed the execution of said instrument which was given to Mr. Snow for mailing to Wvnwood Associates. Also read to the Board was a notice of a HISTORIC hearing to be held by the Historic Districts Com - DISTRICTS mission on October 19, 1960. It was decided to take COMMISSION no action in regard to the application to be con- sidered at said hearing. rom 8:20 to 8:50 p.m. Mr. James P. Cassim CASSIM of 342 Bedford Street met with the Board seeking its opinion as to the status of Brook Street and BROOK STREET whether or not the Board would apnrove of his proposal to move his house to the lower portion of his lot and claim said Brook Street as a frontage street. He said that with the land taking for the new Route 128 -Bedford Street he no longer had any frontage for his lot. He exhibited a sketch plan showing the taking line passing through his resi- [J 11 1 10-17-60 dente. He also exhibited prints of recorded plans of a portion of the Meagherville subdivision and the common boundary line between it and his property. Town Counsel Stevens came to the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and entered into the discussion of the matter. From conies of descriptions of the Cassim property which Mr. Cassim exhibited, it was Mr. Stevens' opinion that Mr. Cassini had no rights in Brook Street. Ne suggested that the Board make a study of the Brook Street area to determine (1) if it thought it should be used for further residential development and, if it did, to determine (2) how best to do so. Thereupon it was decided to examine the problem in more detail, Mr. Cassim leaving his plans with the Board for this nurrose. Discussed next with Mr. Stevens was the grant- -3- BOARD OF APPFALS ing of the Ehlers petition by the Board of Appeals, the variance granted being in the opinion of the planning Board a subdivision as set forth in the Sub- division Control Law. In view of the facts that the planning Board had neither been represented at the Board of Appeals hearing nor had sent a letter to said board_ relative to the Ehlers petition, it was 1 decided to take no action in regard to the Board of Appeals decision. In addition it was noted that earlier in the day iqr. Burnell and Mr. Snow had re- viewed subdivision problems of this nature with Mr. Nickerson, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, and had called to his attention the Planning Board's letter of March 2, 1959 (see minutes of February 25, 1959 planning Board meeting) in regard to the same property involved in the Ehlers petition and also Mr. Stevens' September C;, 1957 letter to Mr. Nickerson in regard to the application of the Subdivision Con- trol Law (see addendum), After a discussion of other matters before the Board, Mr. Stevens left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Considered next were petitions to be heard by the Board of Anpeals on November 1, 1960. Tt was de- cided to take no action in regard to the petitions to be heard on said date with the exception of the one of John Fradette. Mr. Burnell was asked to discuss this n etition with the Chairman of the Board of Appeals to ask if, without undue hardship, the pro - nosed dwelling could be placed on the lot numbered 2 Circle Road so it would not be necessarc to vary ' the tiard requirements of the ?oning B ---law. Mr. Snow read to the Board his letter of -3- BOARD OF APPFALS 10-17-60 October 17 to the Board of Selectmen relative to M 1 DISTRICT the proposed elimination of the track bridge over - Pine Street in the Town's M 1 district and his PINE ST. suggested reply to the inquiry from Chief Engineer TRACK BRIDGE of the State Department of Public Works. (See addenda and minutes of September 191 1960 Planning Board Meeting.) The attention of the Board was called to a WORTHEN ROAD letter, dated October 17, 1960, from the Board of Selectmen to the Planning Board, said letter hav- SPFCIAL T07,4N Ing been delivered to the Board at its meeting. MrFTING (See addendum.) It was decided to consider the matters referred to in said letter at the Board's next meeting, these being the laying out of Worthen Road and the obtaining of an option for the Hagerty property. The Board adjourned its meeting at 10:30 p.m. Irving H. Mabee, Clerk 0@601r1W September L,., 1957 Tonald E. Nickerson, Chairman Board of appeals Town Office Building Lexington 73, Massachusetts Dear Don: This is in answer to your letter of August 301 1957 In reference to a recent petition of Thomas C. Deveau heard by the Board of Appeals. As your board does not pass upon petitions to divide the land into separate lots, except as such may be in- volved in an application for a hermit to erect a build- ing on a lot that does not comply with the zoning; by- law, I assume that the matter to which you refer was of the latter type. Prior to its amendment in 1956, the subdivision control law defined the word "subdivision" so that it applied to dividing a tract of land into two or more lots only if it were done in such a manner as to re- quire provision for one or more new ways not in exist - 1 1 1 .0-17-6o -5- ' ence and sought to divide the land into separate lots. However, in 1956 the law was amended in such a way that the subdivision control law does apply even though the land sought to be divided is on an existent unaccented street unless such street is shown on a plan already approved under the subdivision control law or the street was in existence when the subdivision control law became effective in the town and is, in the opinion of the plan- ning board, of sufficient width and suitable grade and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicu- lar traffic in relation to the proposed use of the land. This makes it necessary to involve the planning board in every case where a -person is dividing land on an unaccept- ed street unless it is shown that the street was on a -plan theretofore approved in accordance with the subdivi- sion control law. Although the precise point has not been raised, I assume that this includes'a plan approved by the board of survey as well as a -olan approved by the planning board. You will recall that the function of ap-proving streets was vested in the board of selectmen acting as a board of survey before this was transferred to the planning board. In order that you may have the complete wording of the -present definition of the word "subdivision` in the subdivision control law, I am setting it forth in full as inserted by Chapter 282 of the Acts of 1956: "'Subdivision' shall mean the division of a tract of land into two or more lots and shall include resub- divi_sion, and, when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the -process of subdivision or the land or territort_T subdivided; provided, however, that the division of a tract of land into two or more lots shall not be deemed to constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the subdivision control law if, at the time when it is made, every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on (a) a public way, or (b) a way shown on a pl^n theretofore approved in accordance with the subdivision control law, or (c) a way in existence when the subdivision control law became effective in the cit7T or town in which the land lies, having, i.n the opinion of the planning board, sufficient width, suit- able grades and adequate construction to -provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the -pro- -posed use of the land abutting thereon or served there- by, and for the installation of municipal services to serve such land and the buildings erected or to be erected thereon. Such frontage shall be of at least such distance as is then required by zoning or other ' ordinance or by-law, if any, of said city or town for erection of a building; on such lot, and if no distance is so required, such frontage shall be of at least i0 -17-6O -6- wenffeet Co vevances, triumenta a9ding ' o, tWnc; Away Promor c�ianging tY e s ze an s ape of, lots in such a manner as not to leave any lot so affected without the frontage above set forth, or the division of a tract of land on which two or more build- ings were standing when the subdivision control law went into effect in the city or town`in which the land lies into separate lots on each of which one of such buildings remains standing, shall not constitute a sub- division." In view of the foregoing definition, it seems to me that the board of appeals might well re uire that in all cases involving new lots on an unaccepted street, the appellant must exhibit to the board a determination by the planning board that the subdivision control law does not apply. This could be done by filing with you a copy of—a plan endorsed by the planning board to the effect that approval under the subdivision control law is not required. . Sincerely ,yours, Isl Harold F. Stevens HAI: fc 17 October 1960 , Board of Selectmen Town O 'fice Building Lexinfzton 73, Mass. Dear Madam and CTentlemen: With reference to Miss Murray's September 15 letter to me relative to the nr000sed elimination of the track bridge over Pine Street, I have drafted for your consideration a reply to the Chief Engineer of the State Department of Pub- lic Works. While the actual draft has not been seen by the Planning Board, its proposed contents as recommended by me were discussed with and approved by the Board. Sincerely yours, /s/ Samuel P. Snow Enc. 2 Plannin€p Director SUGGT'STED DRAFT Mr. E.J.McCarthy, Ghief Engineer , State Department of Public Works 100 Nashua St., Boston, Mass. Dear Mr. McCarthy: 10-17-60 -7- '?eference is made to your letter of August 301 1960 rela- tive to the nronosal to eliminate the track bridge over Fine Street and to close said street at this location. Enclosed herewith for 1rour information is a copy of a zoning map of the town of Lexington. You will note on said man that the Boston and Maine railroad tracks divide the town's M 1, light manufacturing, district. For the most part the tracks constitute a barrier to circulation between the two sections of the district. It is the opinion of the town boards and officials who have studied the problem that it would be possible to develop and expand the present M 1 district to much better advantage, and thereby bring increased revenue to the Town as well as to the Commonwealth, if the two sections of the district were connected with an adequate underpass. The present Pine St. underpass is not large enough to serve this need. If, how- ever, a new pass were constructed under the tracks for a two- way street located about 800 feet northwesterly of Route 128, there would be no objection to the elimination of the present tract, bridge and the closing of Pine Street. Very truly yours, - - - - --BO$T'D-OF SEL'CTMFN MiC. October 171, 1960 Mr. Levi G. Burnell, Chairman Lexington Planning Board Town Office Building Lexington 73, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Burnell: If a Special Town Meeting is called, unon request of the School Committee, for authorization to obtain architectural services and prepare -preliminary plans and specifications for an additional High School, the Selectmen believe that an article should be included in the same Narrant to estab- lish Worthen Road as a Town way and have the layout accepted. In connection with this, it would be desirable for the Plan- ning Board to obtain an option for the acquisition of the Hagerty property. Very truly yours, /s/ Ruth Morey ?M:m Chairman