Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-03-09P'OBLIC HEARING March 9, 1961 The Lexington Planning Board held a public hear- ing on Thursday, March 91 1961 at 7:30 p.m. in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, to consider four pronosals to amend the Lexington Zoning By-law. Present were Vice - Chairman Grindle, Members Mabee, Meyer and Soule, Plan- ning Director Snow and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber. Mr. Soule presided, explaining first the procedure to be followed in conducting the hearing. He stated that the notice of the hearing as it had appeared in its en- tirety in the February 16 and 23, 1961 issues of the Lex- ington Minute -man had been sent to all owners of land deemed to be affected. Mr. Soule read separately each proposal as It had been printed in said notice. There were nine -persons present when he read the first nronosal: 1. To amend Section ltd, Board of Appeals, of the Zoning B7 -Law by striking out the word 'five" in the second BOARD sentence in the first naragraph and inserting in OF place thereof the word "six" so that said paragraph APPEALS ' will read as follows: The Selectmen shall also appoint six associate members of the Board of Appeals, and in the case of a vacancy, absence, inability to act or interest on the kart of a member of said Board, his place may be taken by an associate member designated as provided in General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 14, and any amendments thereto. Mr. Donald E. Nickerson, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, was called upon to explain the pronosal. He stated that the Board of Appeals originally consisted of five regular and three associate members but because of difficulty in obtaining enough members to meet during the summer months the Board requested in 1960 that its mem- bership be increased by adding another associate member. He reported that after the town meeting had voted to in- crease the associate members of the Board of Appeals to four in number, difficulty was still being experienced during the summer months in obtaining sufficient members to meet for hearings. Mr. Nickerson stated that author- ity was being sought to add a fifth associate member to the Board of Appeals, concluding with the remark that he hoped. this numher would prove adequate for the Board's needs. ' There being no further comments in regard to the proposal and no one registering an opinion either for or arrainst It, the b earing was declared closed at 7:35 n.m. 3-9-61 -2- Mr. Soule then read the second proposal: REZONING ' A 1 to 2. To amend the Zoning By -Law so as to change certain R 1 land from an A 1 = Garden apartment and hotel district to an R 1 - One family dwellingdistrict by adding at the end of paragraph numbered in Section 4 (g) A 1 - Garden apartment and hotel districts, the following: There is excepted from the foregoing, however, the land situated northerly of Worthen Road as shown on plan entitled "Vine Brook Meadows Section Two Lex- ington, Mass."s dated June 12, 1060, Albert A. Miller - Wilbur C. Nylander, Civil Fngineers and Surveyors. A copy of said plan is on file in the office of the Town Clerk and said plan will be recorded in Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds and filed in the Land Registration Office. There were fifteen persons present during the dis- cussion of this proposal. Mr. Soule displayed a plan of a portion of the Vine Brook Meadows Section 2 subdivision plan on which there was shown that portion of the present A 1 Garden Apartment and Hotel District located northerly of Worthen Road as shown on the plan. He explained that in the final location of Worthen Road there was left this small portion of an A 1 district which was not lotted for residential use. He pointed out that the proposed amend- ment would rezone that portion of the A 1 district sit- uated northerly of Worthen Road so that the road would serve as a boundary line between the single family resi- dences on the northerly side of the road in the proposed garden apartment buildings on the south side. Mr. Tropeano questioned whether or not the remaining portion of the A 1 district on the southerly side of the road would be classified as spot zoning. Mr. Soule stated that in his opinion there would be sufficient acreage zoned for garden apartment use so as not to be classi- fied as spot zoning. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposal and no one present registered an opinion either for or against the amendment as presented. Thereupon the hearing was declared closed at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Soule then read the third proposals REZONING 3. To amend the Zoning By -Law so as to change certain M 1 TO land from an M 1 - Light manufacturing district to ' C 3 a C 3- Special commercial district as follows: 1 3-9-61 1. By striking out paragraphs numbered 1 and 2 in Section 4 (f) M 1 - Light manufacturing districts; and 2. By adding in Section 4 (h) C 3 - Special commercial districts the following two para- graphs: -3- 1. A district 1,200 feet wide on the northeast- erly side of the railroad right of way extend - Ing from the northwesterly line of the Northern Circumferential Highway (Route 128) to the southeasterly line of Westview Street. 2. A district 2,400 feet wide on the southwesterly side of the railroad right of way extending from the northwesterly line of the Northern Circum- ferential Highway (Route 128) to the southerly line of Westview Street and the Lexington -Bed- ford town line. Mr. Soule said that the Planning Board was making its proposal for the purpose of upgrading the ' enti.re M 1 district area. He stated that the Board believed that a district restricted to an office and laboratory use was generally more valuable and would bring in more tax revenue to Lexington than one de- voted to light manufacturing use. He also stated that the Planning Board was of the opinion that the M 1 district should be changed to a C 3 district because population studies indicated that Lexington had no labor force to work in a manufacturing establishment. There was then read a letter, dated March 9a 19611 from Col. Grover C. Willcox, Jr., Commander of the 3245th Air Base Wing, Hanscom Field, Bedford, Mass. advising the Planning Board that the Air Force.inter- posed no objection to the By -Law amendment to rezone the existing M 1 district provided no action taken results in any interference with the avigation ease- ments held by the Government over certain of the area under consideration. Mr. Robert H. Kingston of 4 Field Road asked if Lexington were apt to become involved in litigation if arrangements had already been made to build a manu- facturing establishment in the district. Mr. Soule saidthat an existing use could continue and a build- ' ing for which a permit had been issued built. In reply to the question, how much other land 3-9-h1 In Lexington was zoned for M 1 use, Mr. Soule said I no other. Mr. John T. Blackwell of 7 Bennington Road, asked what the effect would be of the proposed amendment on -yard size, percentage of open lands parking, etc. Mr. Soule replied that the Planning Board believed that a C 3 district would be more restrictive than one devoted to light manufacturing use and would be more in keeping with Lexingtonts appearance and residential character. He pointed out that C 3 regulations would increase the -present setback requirement from 50 to 100 feet and would increase the minimum lot size from 4 to 5 acres. He noted that the main difference in the proposed amend- ment would be that of use, a C 3 district being limited to offices for administrative, executive, and similar purposes and laboratories for research, experimental and similar types of activities. Mr. Blackwell inquired also if Itek, within the area under discussion, would undertake anything but research activities with offices for the same. Mr. C. T. Morris of Itek replied that Itekts facil- ities in the M 1 district were at present used solely for research. He said that in the future it might be necessary to undertake some single manufacture of design models or to undertake some assembly work in order to manufacture a single unit for test purposes. Mr. Soule stated that Itek would be allowed to con- tinue such activity in a C 3 district. Mr. Leonard M. Foster of 7 Woodland Road stated that he represented the Industrial Committee of the Lexington Chamber of Commerce. He stated that the committee did not work with the town In any special capacity but was rather a group of business- men who had been interested in trying to provide from a laymants point of view a larger assessment valua- tion to the Town of Lexi.nrrton. He said that two years ago when the committee was organized it was decided that the M 1 area offered the greatest poten- tiality for increased assessment valuation. He said also that in studying the area it became apparent to the committee that it was almost impossible for indi- viduals to develop the land because of the numerous land ownerships, irregular property lines and existing easements. Mr. Foster further stated that the com- mittee felt that it should secure the assistance of a professional land developers such as Cabot, Cabot & ' Forbes, because that firm could go about assembling and developing land in such a way that the properties 3-Q-61 ' would be of a type that would have an increased assessed valuation and that there would be erected thereon the type of buildings Lexington was inter- ested in. Mr. Foster continued by stating that.from the knowledge it had at the rresent'-time, the com- mittee felt that the proposed amendment was a stop- gap type of arrangement concerning which the com- mittee wished to register opposition. He said that more time should be given to all parties to review and study the proposal and to form a program which would take into consideration topography and owner- ship in the Hartwell Avenue area. He stated that in the relationships which the committee had had. with Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, it was his opinion that the firm would sign an interim agreement which would not allow it to do anything other than what it was doing at the present time. Mr. Blackwell said he would join in this position because he spoke as representative of owners of land within the district currently zoned for M 1 use, said land being about 30 acres in area and located at the corner of Route 128 and Bedford ' Street. He said that with the land taking for the Foute 128 widening only one half of hiss clients' land remained, it being reduced to the point mere It would not satisfy the minimum lot size require- ments.of either the existing M 1 or C 3 districts. Mr. Blackwell stated further that his clients were not so concerned about the changes in the uses pro- posed but concerned pri.mari.ly with adjustments in lot size as now provided in the M 1 district. Mr. Blackwell also made an observation about the state- ment that the labor market in Lexington could not offer any supply of -people for manufacturing. He said that the development of land is not dependent on the labor supply in Lexington but that the sup- ply would come from many other locations. Mr. Daniel G. Wheeler of Dover, Vice Presi- dent of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, said that his firm had an invitation in December 1959 from Mr. Foster to study the feasibility of developing the M 1 area consistent with the use that was going to be made of the land of Itek and at the same time of p roduc- ing a maximum tax benefit to the town. Mr. Wheeler said that his firm after ten months of negotiations with various landowners completed purchases and options necessary to assemble various properties into an overall elan. He stated that on December 27, 1960 his firm took title to the Reiss property 3-9-61 .6. enabling the firm to own sufficient land to be able to ' discuss plans for the over-all area. This, Mr. Wheeler said, was done on January 16, 1961 when he and Mr. Shepherd of his firm made a preliminary presenta- tion to the Planning Board seeking its views in regard to C. C. & F. proposals. Mr. Wheeler stated that it was his firm's hope to have a proposal wherein greater restrictions were added to the C 3 regulations now in effect while at the same time incorporating existing set -back regula- tions in M 1 districts. He said he presented some of these changes to the Planning Board which indicated that there was not sufficient time to consider an over-all proposal before the 1961 annual town meeting. He said that his firm planned to wait until after April to discuss the matter further. He also stated that at the January 16 meeting of the Planning Board it was mentioned that the Board was considering a change in the zoning of the M 1 district but that no mention was made of this proposal being presented in the form of an article at the annual town meeting. Mr. Wheeler asked that action on the article be postponed until all con- cerned had a chance to develop a proposal to present to the Town. He stated that in the meantime his firm would enter into a restrictive agreement with the Town ' limiting the firm to locating in the M 1 district only those concerns whose use was consistent with the C 3 district and placing restrictions on the firm as to the type of building construction, landscaring, and park- ing control which were not now Incorporated in the M 1 district regulations. Mr. Soule rointed out that the Board's notice of the rubli.c hearing should not have come as a sur- mise to C. C. & F. because there was nothing new to the .proposal, it having been considered for a period of time prior to January 16 and mentioned to him and Mr. Shepherd at their meeting with the Board. He asked it C. C. & F. would agree to have the restric- tions which Mr. Wheeler mentioned written into a new zoning proposal. Mr. Wheeler indicated that his firm definitely would, Mr. Charles H. Cole of 4 Franklin Road stated that some of the restrictions now set forth in the C 3 district should be restudied because they seem to be written,for special clients. He stated that he felt a broader approach to the problem was needed, that the entire matter should be coordinated through a central manager and that the article should be post- ' coned for the purpose of giving it further study. 3-9-61 ' Mr. Richard I. Miller of 30 Patterson Road stated that he spoke as one of the three town meet- ing members from that residential area. He stated that they would like to see use consistent with the C 3 district developed in the area. He said, how- ever, that the over-all proposal needed further study, particularly the proposed setback require- ments which in his opinion made many of the smaller parcels of land unusable because of existing ease- ments. . Mr. Meyer stated that the Planning Board's proposal was not a stop -gap measure but was one in which it was intended to eliminate the M 1 uses for the reason that the Board believed that C 3 uses were best for the town in the over-all development of the area under discussion. He further stated that it was the Planning Board's intention to con- sider further the limitations set forth under the C 3 district regulations to see if they were too restrictive. He stated that he would be in favor of accepting C. C. & F.'s proposal if said pro- posal were entered into by all the owners of land in the present M 1 district. -7- Mr. Soule stated that this proposal would be taken under consideration. He then asked for an in- dication of those who were in favor of the Planning Board proposal. No one indicated favoring said pro- posal; fourteen Indicated that they were in opposi- tion to it. Thereupon the hearing was declared closed at 8:k0 p.m. The fourth pronosal was then read by Mr. Soule: ' 4. To amend the Zoning By -Law so as to increase the minimum parking requirements in C 1 -Local busi- PARKING ness districts by striking out subparagraph b Mr. Morris of Itek Corporation stated that hi.s concern would be willing to join a group to study the preservation of the character of the area and to review any specific proposals for restric- tions which would be embodied in a revised zoning by-law. He added that he believed any landowner had the right to present a definite clan for the use of his property. He suggested, however, that rather than assemble a number of people to undertake such a study that an advisory committee be organized in- cluding all the owners of land in the area as well as representatives of the Board of Selectmen and Plan- ning Board. Mr. Soule stated that this proposal would be taken under consideration. He then asked for an in- dication of those who were in favor of the Planning Board proposal. No one indicated favoring said pro- posal; fourteen Indicated that they were in opposi- tion to it. Thereupon the hearing was declared closed at 8:k0 p.m. The fourth pronosal was then read by Mr. Soule: ' 4. To amend the Zoning By -Law so as to increase the minimum parking requirements in C 1 -Local busi- PARKING ness districts by striking out subparagraph b 3-9-61 -8- in Section 8 (b) C 1 districts, and inserting in place thereof the following: ' b. For each permitted principal and accessory building, other than principal buildings per- mitted in an R 1 or R 2 district, a parking area on the lot containing not less than one parking space, as hereinafter defined, for each 100 square feet or fraction thereof of floor area in said buildings. As used herein the term "parking space" shall mean an area available for parking one motor vehicle and having a width of not less than 10 feet and an area of not less than 200 square feet, ex- clusive of nassageways and driveways appur- tenant thereto, and with free and unimpeded access to a street over unobstructed passage- ways or driveways. Loading areas shall not be considered to be part of the parking area. The term "floor area," as used herein, shall mean the aggregate horizontal area in square feet of floors within the walls enclosing the building, exclusive of cellar or basement areas used only for storage or services inci- dental to the operation or maintenance of the building. ' Eighteen persons were present for a dis- cussion of this proposal. In discussing the proposal, Mr. Soule stated that it is the opinion of the Board that the present automobile parking standards in C 1 districts are entirely inadequate for present day needs and for this reason the Board is recommending that the stand- ards be improved to minimize traffic hazards and to provide for the conduct of business in local districts in a more orderly fashion. He pointed out that at present any part of a lot, including that part which wasn't usable for parking, is included in determining the 2 to 1 ratio between the area of a lot and the space a building occupies on a lot. Mr. Alfred P. Tropeano of 25 Vine Brook Road said that he was very much in favor of defining the parking regulations. He noted that it would probably be necessary to take parking space already in use to locate driveways In and out of areas. He then said he thought some consideration should be given to the type of building constructed in a C 1 area, an office building needing less space than a super market. He ' stated that he believed the proposal needed further study in order to solve the parking problem without making the requirements too rigid. 3-9-61 -9- Mr. H. Bigelow Moore of 50 Hancock Street asked if the proposal required more parking space on a lot for a building than was presently required unser the zoning by-law. Mr. Soule said that it would need additional parking spaces than required under the present regulations for buildings or more than one story. He also pointed out that the width of Darking spaces which had not previously been set forth had now been defined in the proposal to take care of the extra width of cars. Mr. Herbert W. Eisenberg of 470 Concord Avenue stated that he was in favor of defining the requirements for C l districts but that he thought the proposed requirements were excessive. He said that he believed the pronosal should be written in such a way that -parking spaces could be within reasonable distances from the lot in the C l district. He pointed out that there might be land across the street which would be available for narking automo- biles using facilities in a C 1 district. Mr. Christopher Cammaratta of 106 Spring Street, Arlington said that he had land in a C 3 district located at Woburn and Lowell Streets, that he did not have much area for parking and that he did not think it would be fair to require that most of the land he owned be used for this purpose. There being no further discussion of the proposal Mr. Soule asked for an expression of o -pinion in regard to it. Three persons indicated that they were in favor of the proposal, six that they were not. Thereupon Chairman Soule declared the hearing closed, the time being 8:55 -p.m. Robert E. Mever Clerk 1 PLANS?ING BOARD MEETING March 9, 1961 At 9:Li0 p.m., after rublic hearings in Esta - brook Hall, the Lexington Planning Board held a special meeting in its office, Town Office Building. Present were Messrs. Bryson, Grindle, Mabee, Meyer and Soule of the Board and Mr. Snow, Planning Direc- tor. irec- tor. With Vice Chairman Grindle presiding, upon motion duly made and seconded, Mr. Soule was unani- mously elected Chairman. Mr. Soule then presided for the remainder of the meeting. Upon motions duly made and seconded, Mr. Grindle was unanimously elected Vice Chairman and Mr. Meyer, Clerk. Distributed to the Board were copies of a letter, dated March 6, 1961 from Mr. Small, Acting Project Manager, Minute Man National Historic Park, ' to Mrs. Morey, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen with reference to the pronosed relocation of the Massachusetts Avenue bridge over Route 128. As the first order of business, it was de- cided to request a meeting with the Selectmen on March 13 to discuss (1) the nronosed relocation of Massachusetts Avenue bridge over 128 and the re- location of said way and Wood Street, (2) the "In- terim Report Lexington, Massachusetts Refuse Col- lection and DIsp osal Study.." dated February 1961 and prepared by Fav, Spo-Pford €c Thorndike, Inc., Engineers, Boston, Mass., (3) the C 3 rezoning pro- posal and (4) miscellaneous matters. Considered next and approved by the Planning Board was the draft of a letter dated. March 9, 1961 to the Board of Selectmen setting forth the Planning Board's views in regard to the Selectmen's letter concerning the formation of a committee to hear re- zoning proposals. (See addendum; see also minutes of February 13, 1961 planning Board meeting.) Also taken under consideration was the fol- lowing Form A application for determination of Planning Board jurisdiction: #61-9, submitted on March 8, 1961 by Robert ELECTION OF OFFICERS MINUTE MAN NAT T ONA L HISTORIC PARK REZONING PROPOSALS COMMITTEE -2- L. Higgins for the Town of Lexington; plan entitled "A Subdivision of Land Court Case No. 9469 Land in Lexington, Mass.", dated Nov. 15, 1960, Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors, Lexington, Mass. It was decided to take no action on said application pending, discussion with the Town Counsel of the plan accompanying the application. Mr. snow reported his recent conversation 1961 with. the Town Counsel with reference to Article 40 BUDGET on the warrant for the Annual Town Meeting and the latter'squestioning the Planning Board's request OPTIONS for only X2500 for options in view of the Board's obligating X1500 for easements for future location of Emerson Road from Mr. Soule. After discussion of the matter it was decided to amend the Board's previous recommendation and request the Appropriation Committee and the Selectmen to approve for 1961 an appropriation of $3000 for options under said article. The Board adjourned i.ts meeting at 10:15 p.m. Robert E. Me. er Clerk ADDENDUM March 9, 1961 Mrs. George P. Morey., Chairman Board of Selectmen Town Office Building Lexington 73, Massachusetts Pear Mrs. Morey: At its meeting on March 6 the planning Board discussed again your letter of February 10. It Is the understanding of the Planning Board members that the purpose of the Committee was not to encourage or discourage new business enterprises for Lexington. The Board does not believe such a committee should be one of a screening nature exercising judgment and making decisions. It is the Planning Board's opinion that the pur- pose of the committee should be ora of reception, listening to proposals advanced by various individuals and passing on to the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board a digest of information in order that the Boards might make decisions on whether or not to pursue further the matters which had been 3-9-61 Sincerely ,yours, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Isl Thomas S. Grin dle Vice Chairman 1 1 -3- presented. If looked upon and utilized from this point of view the committee could nerhaps then serve its -orincirle function, that of taking from both boards the burden of time consumed in listening to lengthy rezoning proposals. Sincerely ,yours, LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Isl Thomas S. Grin dle Vice Chairman 1 1 -3-