HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-10-17 pLAYNTNG BOARD MFETTNG
October 17, 1960
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning
Board was held on Monday, October 17, 1960 at 7 30
n.m in the Board' s office, Town Office Building,
'resent were Chairman Burnell and members Grindle,
Mabee and Meyer, and Planning Director Snow.
The Board annroved for payment the following
bills which had been presented Donald C. Richard- BILLS
son, professional services Sept . 26 and 27, 1960--
'24.50 , HarrT* T^7. Porter Jr , professional services
Sept. 26 and 27, 1060-424 .50, Spaulding-Moss,
drafting supplies--1'1 40
Considered next were the following Form A
applications for determination of Planning Board FORMS A
jurisdiction :
#F60-76, 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. 3r, 1060, Miller &
Nylander, C . ' s R Surveyors.
ri160-77, submitted October 17, 1060 by
Harold E. Stevens for Town of Lexington,
plan entitled "Plan Showing Sewer Easement
Land in Lexington Mass ", Scale . 1" = 40 ' ,
dated July 28, 1060, Miller F- Nylander,
C P 's F- Surveyors .
#60-78, s, bmitted October 17, 1060 by Milton
C . 1Tasby, Trustee, for Waymint Realty Trust ,
plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington
Mass ", Scale 1 in = 40 ft, dated Oct. 14,
1060, Everett M. Brooks Co. , Civil Engineers
'Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was
unanimously
'TOTED that the Lexington Planning Board determines
that the plans accompanying Form A applica-
tions #60-76, #60-77 and 060-78 do not re-
quire approval under the Subdivision Control
Law, and that said plans be so endorsed
Next taken under consideration was the appli-
cation for annroval of the "Micdle Ridge, Sec. 5 '
definitive nlan which had been submitted by Eugene
10-17-60 -2-
MIDELE RIDGE C. Roberts III for approval It was decided
SEC . 5 - to schedule a hearing on said application for Novem-
ROBERTS ber 7, 1960 at 8 00 n .m.
Read to the Board was the Town Counsel's
letter of October 13, 1060 to the Planning rirector
OAK HILL with reference to the Oak Hill Estates Sec . 3 sub-
ESTATES division. Mr. Snow exhibited the agreement exe-
SEC . 3 cuted by 14ynwood Associates, Inc , wherein the cor-
- noration agreed to complete the installation and con-
WYNWOOD struction of all the ways and services in said sub-
ASSOCIATES division in accordance with the rules and regula-
tions of the Board by June 1, 1961 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 1Tynwood associates, Inc .
dated June 27, 1060, and recorded in the
Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds in
Book 9651, page 321.
The Board then sjgned a Release 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 Wynwood 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, 1060 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 n.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 approve 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-
1,,-17-60 -3
-
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 n .m. and entered into the discussion of the
matter . From conies of descriptions of the Cassim
nroperty which Mr. Cassini exhibited, it was Mr .
Stevens ' opinion that Mr. Cassim had no rights in
Brook Street He 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
nroblem in more detail, Mr. Cassim leaving his plans
with the Board for this nurpose.
Discussed next with Mr. Stevens was the grant-
ing of the Ehlers petition by the Board of Appeals, BOARD OF
the variance granted being in the opinion of the APPEALS
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
decided to take no action in regard to the Board of
Appeals decision. In addition it was noted that
earlier in the day qr 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,
195q planning Board meeting) in regard to the same
pronerty involved in the Ehlers petition and also Mr
Stevens ' September C; , 1057 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 n.m.
Considered next were petitions to be heard by
the Board of !anneals on November 1, l0(-0 . 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 petition 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 necessar- to vary
the tiard requirements of the Zoning B---law
Mr. Snow read to the Board his letter of
10-17-6C -Li-
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 19, 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-
SPECIAL TOWN ing been delivered to the Board at its meeting.
MrETING (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
ADDENDUM
September Lt., 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 30, 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 permit 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-
1J-17-60 -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 pronosed 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
elan 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 plan approved by the
planning board you will recall that the function of
apnrovi.ng 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 rresent 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:
rstSubdivision' shall mean the division of a tract of
land into two or more lots and shall include resub-
division, and, when appropriate to the context, shall
relate to the process of subdivision or the land or
territory 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 pin theretofore approved in accordance with the
subdivision control law, or (c ) a way in existence when
the subdivision control law became effective in the
city or town in which the land lies, having, in 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
111such 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
i0-17-4)0 -6-
twenty feet Conveyances or o her rst ument adding
o, taking Away from, or hanging tie size ansa shape
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 sena.rate 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 anpeals might well require 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
apnroval under the subdivision control law is not required
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Harold F. Stevens
HA.fc
17 October 1960
Board of Selectmen
Tnwn 04"fice Building
Lexington 73, Mass .
Dear Madam and Tentlemen
With reference to Miss Murray' s September 15 letter to me
relative to the proposed 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 nroposed contents as recommended by me
were discussed with and approved by the Board.
Sincerely yours,
/s / Samuel P. Snow
Enc. 2 Planning Director
SUGq.PSIED DRAFT
Mr. E.J.McCarthy, Chief Engineer
State Department of Public Works
100 Nashua St. , Boston, Mass .
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
10-17-60 -7-
Reference is made to your letter of August 30, 1960 rela-
tive to the proposal to eliminate the track bridge over
Fine Street and to close said street at this location.
Enclosed herewith for lrour information is a copy of a
zoning map of the town of Lexington. You will note on said
map 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-
1 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
track bridge and the closing of Pine Street
Very truly yours,
BOD
OF SELECTMEN
ENC
October 17, 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, upon 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 '.Tarrant to estab-
lish Worthen Road as a Town way and have the layout accented
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
"'"1/1 m Chairman