Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-12-05PLANNING BOARD MEETING December 52 1960 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in the Planning Board office, Town Office Building, on Monday, December 51 1960 at 7:30 p.m. Present were Chairman Burnell, Members Mabee, Meyer and Soule, and Planning Director Snow. The Board approved the minutes of its Nov- MINUTES ember 14, 1960 meeting. The Board confirmed the action of the Plan- ning Director in approving for payment the follow- BILLS ing bills: Samuel P. Snow, November car allowance -- $20.00, and reimbursement for lamp repair --$2.40; Minute -man Publications, Inc., advertising -45.51; Spaulding -Moss Co., drafting supplies --$5.92; H.B. McArdle, office supplies -47.20; The Haynes Founda- tion, Population Projections --$2.09. Approved for payment also were the follow- ing bills which had been presented: Wallace B. Mitchell Co., drafting supplies --$13.09; Harry e Porter, Jr., reimbursement for printing --$8.80; Fred Stone, Inc., white prints --$2.64. Considered next by the Board was the fol- lowing Form A applicationsfor determination of FORM A Planning Board jurisdiction: #60-88, submitted November 29, 1960 by Daniel J. Lynch, Atty. for Fred Viano; plan entitled 'Plan of Land in Lexington - Mass.".. Scale: 1" = 40', dated Nov. 81, 1954, Miller ec Nylander, C.E.'s & 'Surveyors. #60-89, submitted December 5, 1960 by Harold E. Stevens for Town of Lexington; plan entitled "Land in Lexington, Mass. Boston and Maine Rai lroa d to the Town of Lexington,t' J.F.Kerwin, Asst. Chief Engi- neer, Scale: 1" = 40's dated July, 1960. Unon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: that the Board determines that the plans accompanying Form A applications #60-88 and ' #,f60-89 do not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law, and that said plans be so endorsed. 12-5-6o -2- Read to the Board was the notice of the hear - HISTORIC Ing to be held on December 7, 1960 by the Historic DISTRICT Districts Commission. It was decided to take no COMMISSION action on the application to be considered at said hearing. The Board then considered the proposal of BOARD OF Mrs. Louise Finney, 52 Fottler Avenue, to resub- APPEALS divide her property at the corner of said way and Hillcrest Avenue as shown on a print left with the FINNEY Planning Board, said print being entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass., dated Nov. 1960. It was decided that the members would view the situation on the ground before making a decision in regard to the proposal. Mr. Snow read to the Board his letter of Nov. LEXINGTON 25 to Mr. Nickerson setting forth in reply to the INN latter's letter of November 15, 1960 the procedure the Planning Board follows in regard to acting upon notices of petitions to be heard by the Board of Appeals (see minutes of November 5 Planning Board Meeting), with specific reference to the Lexington Inn petition mentioned in Mr. Snow's letter. Mr. Burnell said that after obtaining additional in- formation in regard to the case he had discussed the petition with Mr. Snow and then 1m d informed Mr. Ripley, acting chairman of the Board of Appeals on November 29, of the Planning Board's opposition to the granting of said petition. At 8:00 p.m. a public hearing was held on the VINE BROOK ' application of Vine Brook RealtT Trust for approval REALTY TRUST of a subdivision plan entitled 'Vine Brook Meadows, _ Section Two Lexington, Mass." Three citizens attended VINE BROOK the hearing, Mr. Michael Lovezzola, Mr. Robert M. MEADOWS Coquillette and Mr. Donald P. Noyes of 235, 242 and SEC. 2 261 Waltham Street, respectively. The chairman read the notice of the hearing as it had been sent to all property owners deemed to be affected and as it had appeared in the November 17, 1960 issue of the Lex- ington Minute -man. There being no representative of Vine Brook Realty Trust, the subdivider, present, the Chairman presented the plan and asked if there were any questions in regard to it. Mr. Coquillette asked if all lots were of legal size and was informed that they were. He also asked if John Poulter Road was to be continued through to Winthrop Road and was informed that it was. There being no further questions, those present expressed themselves as being in favor of the plan. Thereupon, the hearing was declared closed at 8:15 p.m. and the plan taken under advisement. Read to the Board was the notice of the hear - HISTORIC Ing to be held on December 7, 1960 by the Historic DISTRICT Districts Commission. It was decided to take no COMMISSION action on the application to be considered at said hearing. The Board then considered the proposal of BOARD OF Mrs. Louise Finney, 52 Fottler Avenue, to resub- APPEALS divide her property at the corner of said way and Hillcrest Avenue as shown on a print left with the FINNEY Planning Board, said print being entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass., dated Nov. 1960. It was decided that the members would view the situation on the ground before making a decision in regard to the proposal. Mr. Snow read to the Board his letter of Nov. LEXINGTON 25 to Mr. Nickerson setting forth in reply to the INN latter's letter of November 15, 1960 the procedure the Planning Board follows in regard to acting upon notices of petitions to be heard by the Board of Appeals (see minutes of November 5 Planning Board Meeting), with specific reference to the Lexington Inn petition mentioned in Mr. Snow's letter. Mr. Burnell said that after obtaining additional in- formation in regard to the case he had discussed the petition with Mr. Snow and then 1m d informed Mr. Ripley, acting chairman of the Board of Appeals on November 29, of the Planning Board's opposition to the granting of said petition. 1 12-5-60 Considered next were the notices of petitions to be heard by the Board of Appeals on December 201 1960. It was decided to take no action on the peti- tions to be heard with the exception of those of Bacigalupo and McArdle & Mottla. In regard to these two petitions Mr. Snow was asked to obtain further information about them and if he thought necessary draft letters in regard to these petitions for the Planning Board to consider at its next meeting. -3- The Board held a discussion of the business district situation in Lexington and various proposals BUSINESS for expanding local business districts. In connec- DISTRICTS tion with this discussion there was considered and POLICY adonted the following general policy statement: 1. That the Board will not recommend any additional zoning of land to encourage any project which in its opinion does not fulfill the intent and pur- poses of the Zoning By-law. 2. That in the Board's opinion the purpose of a local or neighborhood business district is to provide goods and services with emphasis on daily necessities for the convenience of the surround- ing residential area. 3. That the Board will not recommend any further re- zoning for general or local business use until such time as the vacant land and partially vacant build- ings and buildings used for non -business purposes within existing business districts are utilized for business purposes. 4. That the Board will not recommend the expansion or creation of any business district located at street intersections. 5. That the Board will not recommend the expansion or creation of local or general business districts until there are incorporated in the zoning by-law adequate controls. The Board also considered and approved letters to the Seths and Maxners, Mr. Mark Moore, Jr. and Mr. SETH & MAXNER Charles H. Miller in regard to their rezoning pro- MOORE AND posals. (See addenda and also minutes of May 31, May MILLER 23 and February 15, 1960 Planning Board meetings.) REZONING Mr. Snow was asked to prepare for the Board's con- PROPOSALS sideration at its next meeting a draft of a -letter addressed to the Board of Appeals informing it of the Planning Board's adoption of the above policy 12-�)-6" and transmitting for the Board of Appeals' information copies of the letters to the Seths and Maxners, Messrs. Moore and Miller. From 9:30 to 10:00 p.m. Town Counsel Stevens M.I.T. came to the meeting to discuss with the Board problems REZONING currently before it particularly in regard to arrange - PROPOSAL ments for the public hearing to be held by the Plan- ning Board on December 8 and the Special Town Meeting scheduled for December 12, 1960 with reference to M.I.T.'s rezoning proposal. -4- From 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. Messrs. Donald B. Lindsay of 47 Wood Street, Richard I. Miller of 30 Patterson Road, both Town Meeting Members, and Frank E. Ferguson of 8 Holton Road, President of the Patriots Forest Association, met with the Board to discuss said .rezoning proposal. They expressed con- cern about the constantly increasing automobile traffic on Wood Street and what they believed was a tendency to surround the residential land along that street and in the Patriots Forest and Bates Road sub- divisions with Federally -owned or -controlled land. They suggested that in the case of the land being proposed for rezoning the access to Wood Street be controlled and a buffer strip along said street be , established. It was pointed out that under the con- ditions set forth in the zoning by-law under a.0 3 district that driveway entrance locations could not be controlled by the Planning Board. It was also pointed out that special restrictions in addition to those set forth in said by-law could not be imposed upon M.I.T. in rezoning the particular land involved. They were told that members of the Board would keep the suggestions in mind at the hearing in regard to the proposal and afterwards when the proposal was con- sidered further. The Board's attention was called to the fact CEDAR GLEN that there had been received from Dianne Estates, Inc. a grant of utilities in the Cedar Glen subdivision. DIANNE All matters appearing to be in order, upon motion ESTATES duly made and seconded it was unanimously VOTED: to release the performance bond, dated Feh- ruary 17, 1960, filed by Gerard P. Friel, President of Dianne Estates, Inc. as Prin- cipal, and George W. McCarthy, Attorney -in - Fact for Continental Casualty Co., as Surety, in the sum of eight thousand and 0 0100 -- 08,000.00) --dollars to secure the perform- ance by the subdivider of his agreement in the form of an application for approval of a 12-5-60 definitive plans Form C, dated December 22, 1959, to complete the work to be performed by the subdivider as shown on the subdivision plan entitled "Cedar Glen Lexington, Mass.", and dated Dec. 17s 1959. Mr. Snow gave a report of his conference of November 30 with Messrs. Frank Johnson and James P. Cassim of 336 and 342 Bedford Street, respectively, with reference to the possible development of the re- mainder of their land which the State Department of Public Works had not taken in connection with the widening of Route 128. (See minutes of October 171 1960 Planning Board meeting.) Mr. Snow exhibited sketches which he had prepared showing possible ways of developing their remaining land in conjunction with the possible redevelopment of the portion of the Meagherville subdivision at the end of Valley Road. He reported that because Mr. Johnson was given a driveway access to his land subdivision was not a matter of urgency with him. Mr. Snow pointed out, however, that Mr. Cassim was anxious toprovide some means of access to his land so he could relocate his residence on it. The Board decided that it would like to make it possible for Mr. Cassim to have access to his property if this could be done without too much cost to the Town. Mr. Snow was asked to prepare a pre- liminary development plan for the area involved and from this have Mr. Carroll, Superintendent of Public Works, prepare an estimate of mat it would cost to provide said access. At the request of the Board Mr. Snow gave a report of his recommendations in regard to the acqui- sition of the Herzog property it was desired to acquire for recreational purposes. (See minutes of November 7, 1960 "lanning Board meeting.) It was decided that the Chairman and Mr. Mabee would arrange to discuss the matter further with Dr. Merzog. Mr. Snow said that before they met with Dr. Herzog he would prepare a written report of his recommenda- tions. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Irving H. Mabee, Clerk -5- CASSIM AND JOHNSON WHIPPLE HILL HERZOG ADDENDUM 5 December 1960 , Mr. and Mrs. Reuben R. Seth Mr. and Mrs. James 0. Maxner 16 Audubon Road Lexington 73, Mass. Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is made to your letter of April 14 to the Planning Board and its reply of May 312 1960. After making a study of Lexington's business districts the Planning Board has adopted the general policy of not recommending any further rezoning for general or local business use until such time as the vacant land and partially vacant buildings within existing business districts are utilized for business purposes. The Board has also adopted the policy of not expanding local business districts until there are incorporated In the zoning by-law adequate controls to safeguard residential property values and to limit said districts to providing goods and services which only serve principally surrounding residential neighborhoods. In regard to the possibility of rezoning some of your ' land for A 1 - Garden apartment and hotel district - use, the Planning Board believes that until the A 1 districts already available in Lexington are developed satisfactorily there is no need of creating any new districts for said purpose. Sincerely, LEXI``GTON PLANN?NG BOARD (in duplicate) /sl Levi G. Burnell, Chairman December 6, 1960 Mr. Charles H. Miller Boxboro, Mass. Dear Mr. Miller: The Lexington Planning Board has given consideration to your request for its informal opinion as to whether or not the Board would be in favor of revising to conform to the boundaries of Lot 5 A the local business district as described under subparagraph 21 of Section 4.(c) of the Zoning By-law. The Board is not in fabor of such a proposal. 1%'-�_So -7- In the first place, the Board does not wish through addi- tional zoning of land to encourage any project which in its opinion does not fulfill the intent of the by-law. As the Board understands it, the purpose of a local or neighborhood business district is to provide goods and services with emphasis on daily necessities for the convenience of the surrounding residential area. Such a district is intended primarily for pedestrian shoppers. While Lexington's zoning by-law does not specifically prohibit an office building such as you propose, it is the Board's opinion that it does not fulfill the above purpose and is out -of -keeping with the intent of a local business district. Secondly, it is the feeling of the Board that whereas your proposed building meets the minimum conditions of the zoning gy-law with respect to ,yard regulations, it is also the feeling of the Board that the building is too large for the lot. It is the Board's opinion that it is a person's own responsibility to provide adequate parking for a proposed building and that unless there are very unusual circumstances or extreme hardship involved the Town should not be asked to rezone additional land for parking purposes. In your particu- lar case the Board believes that if ,you desired to construct a building to provide goods and services for a neighborhood you could have constructed on hot 5 A under present zoning ' conditions a smaller building which could have had adequate parking facilities to service it and which could have pro- tected adjacent residential property values. This statement is made so that should you find, as the Board believes you will, that you have inadequate space for parking to serve the building under construction you will know why the Board does not propose to recommend rezoning additional land. Thirdly, after making a study of Lexington's business dis- tricts, the Planning Board has adopted the general policy of not recommending any further rezoning for general or local business use until such time as the vacant land and par- tially vacant buildings within existing business districts are utilized for business purposes. It has also adopted the basic policy of not expanding local business districts lo- cated at intersections because in doing so additional traffic would be generated at already dangerous points. Further, the Board has also adopted the policy of not expanding local business districts until there are incorporated in the zoning by-law adequate controls to safeguard residential property values and to limit said districts to providing goods and services which only serve principally surrounding residential neighborhoods. Sine erely, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD s/s Levi G. Burnell, Chairman 12-5-60 Mr. Mark Moore, Jr. 3 Diehl Road Lexington 73, Mass. Dear Mark: 5 December 1960 -8- The Lexington Planning Board has given consideration to your request for its informal opinion as to whether or not the Board would be In favor of amending the Zoning By-law so as to rezone your lot, numbered 1, at the corner of Larchmont Lane and Bedford Street as an addition to the Town's local business district. The Board is not in favor of such a proposal. In the first place, the Board does not wish through addi- tional Zoning of land to encourage any project which in its opinion does not fulfill the intent of the by-law. As the Board understands it, the purpose of a local or neigh- borhood business district is to provide goods and services with emphasis on daily necessities for the convenience of the surrounding residential area. Such a district is in- tended primarily for pedestrian shoppers. While Lexing- ton's Zoning B7,, -law does not specifically prohibit an office building such as ,you propose, it is the Board's opinion that it does not fulfill the above purpose and is out of keening with the intent of a local business dis- trict. Secondly, after making a study of Lexington's business districts, the Plsinning Board has adopted the general Policy of not recommending any further rezoning for general or local business use until such time as the vacant land and partially vacant buildings within existing business dis- tricts are utilized for business purposes. The Board has also adopted the basic policy of not expanding or creating any local business districts located at intersections. Fur- ther, the Board has also adopted the policy of not expanding local business districts until there are incorporated in the Zoning By-law adequate controls to safeguard residential property values and to limit said districts to providing goods and services which only serve principally surrounding residential neighborhoods, Sincerely, LEXINGTON PLANNTNG BOARD Is/ Levi G. Burnell, Chairman i 1 1