Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-10-09PLANNTNG BOARD MFETTNG October 9, 1961 On Monday, October 9, 1961 at 7:45 p.m.s the Lexington Planning Board held a regular meeting in its office in the Town Office Building. Present were Chairman Soule, members Bryson and Mabee. The Board approved for payment a bill pre- sented by L. M. Foster, Inc. in the amount of ?3.82 for office supplies. Also approved for payment was a bill presented by Spaulding -Moss Co. in the amount of 6133.80 for a set of railroad curves, said bill to be raid for from the Board's 1960 Carry-over funds. Considered next were the following Form A applications for determination of Planning Board jurisdiction: a%1-54 (see minutes of October 21 1961 meet- ing.) x`61 -57s submitted October 3, 1961 for Hart- well -Lexington Trust by Russell M. Cox; flan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", Scale: 1 inch = )i0 feet, dated October 2, 1961. ?trilliam F. Quigley, land surveyor. }`61-58, srbmi.tted October 3, 1961 by R. L. Higgins; plan entitled "Plan of Lot A Robin- son Road Lexington, Mass.", Scale: 1" = 40+, dated October 2,1961, Robert L. Higgins, Reg. Land Surveyor. Eh1-59, submitted October 41 1961 by Kenneth N. Ernst; plan entitled "plan of Land in Lex - ins -ton, Mass.'', Scale: 1" = 401, dated Sept. 28, 1961, Miller R, Nylander,C.7".'s & Survey- ors. IT -con motion duly made and seconded.. It was unanimously VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board deter- mines that the clans accompanying Form A applications '161-5L.,t61-57, #61-�8 and #61- 59 do not require approval under the Subdivi- sion Control Law, and that said nlans be so ' endorsed. The attention of the Board was called to -,,Tr . Jaquith.'s letter of October 7 acknowledging receipt BILLS FORMS A 10-9-61 of the Planning Board's letter of October 2, 1961 HL'NNFSSy LVID pertaining to the terms of a nroposed option with FOR 7'rCR77ATION the Town for the acquisition of hart of the Hennessy P7PPOSES property. (See minutes of the Planning Board meet- ing of October 2, 1961.) At 8:00 p.m, the Board held a public hearing KINGSTON relative to the application of Kingston Homes, Inc. HOMFS, IrTC. for annroval of a subdivision of its property sit- uated northwesterly of Maple Street and nortreast- erly of the Boston F_- Maine Railroad right-of-way. Twenty-two persons attended the hearing including Mr. Emilio V. Spagnuola, treasurer of said corpora- tion, and "r. Donald N. Sleeper, Jr., attorney for the same. The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the notice of the same as It had been sent to all the nronerty owners deemed to be affected and as it had been published in the September 2-1, 1961 issue of the Lexington Minute -man. He then ex- plained the procedure in conducting the hearing and called upon Mr. Sleeper to present the defini- tive subdivision plan of the corporation. -2- Mr. Sleeper exhibited a print of a plan en- titled "Suggested Residential Subdivision of King- ston Homes, Inc. and Adjacent Lands," dated May 22, 1961, and prepared by Mr. Snow for the Planning Board. Mr. Sleeper stated that the definitive sub- division plan which had not been given a final title and which Kingston Homes was submitting for anproval, followed the Board's study plan insofar as the cor- noration's land was concerned. He pointed out the proposed exchange of land between the proprietors of the Lexington Yurseries and the Kingston Homes cor- poration in order to develop a subdivision plan to take advantage of exi.stin^; tonography and to con- form with the Boards plan. He noted also that the plan consisted of one major street and three dead- end streets on which forty-four lots would front. Mr. Sleeper likewise pointed out how it was intended at a later date to extend the major street in the subdivision onto the adjacent land of Simeone to connect with the -proposed location of Emerson Road between Maple and '.Tobizrn Streets. He concli,ded his presentation by stating that Kingston Homes planned to construct the major street first including water ripe, drains and sewer and then build the remaining streets and houses in groups as a second stage of development. ' 10 -G -C1 -3- i'r. Daniel J. Gow of 3 Ingleside Road and T'r. Edward R. `••talsh of 2P Maple Street asked about drainage of surface water onto their lots. Mr. Sleeper *pointed out on the plan the details of -ra0es and rronosed construction of roads whch .could eliminate any problems of this nature. Mr. James A. Kelly of 20 Manle Street in- quired about the share of lot 1 shown on tb e nlan and questioned its le'7ality. Tt was pointed out that the lot though of undesirable share conformed to the requirements of the zoning by-law. It was also rointed. out that there was actually seventy feet distance between his lot and that of TTr. and Mrs. Sword fronting on Maple Street and that the proposed street between the two lots was only fifty feet wide. Mr. Kell,, ind,.cated that the septic tank serving his home was located in the land be- tween his lot and Ingleside Road. Mr. Sleeper said that oerhans some arrangement could be worked out wherein the intervening strip between the north- easterly sideline of the Kelly lot and the nrorosed subdivision street could be conveyed to the Kellys if they granted to Kin�,ston Homes a stria at the easterly corner of his lot to provide a larger radius curve at the intersection of the subdivision street ' and Manle Street anCi rrovided at the same time the Board of "npeals granted a variance to reduce the frontage of lot 1 on said subdivision street to about 112 feet. Mr. TTeiant Wath en -Dunn of LO Maple Street asked what was going to hanpen to the existing topography In develonin? the Kingston Homes subdivision, Mr. Sleeper said thct the natural configuration of the land had been taken into account in the preparation of the plan pointing out topographical features on the Board's overall study plan of the area. Mr. Spagnuola said that the high point in the topog- raphy where the old underground reservoir was lo- cated would be leveled nroviding a second means of access to the subdivision. Mr. Sleeper stated that it was planned to rough out a temporary access to Maple Street through lots 20 and as shown on the pl^n until such time as a rermanent second means of access was develored through the Simeone land to the nrorosed location of T'merson Road. Mr. 'ovle stated that at the present time there was no projected date for the construction of r'merson Toad between Manle and `.doburn Streets. A number of questions were asked about the -3- 10 -?-6L -L- style and price range of houses to be constructed , by the corporators of Kingston Homes, and relative matters. 'Thile these questions were not pertinent to the subdivision plan, Mr. Sleeper and Mr. Spag- nuola gave such information as those present sought. Mrs. Sanborn C. Brown of 37 Manle 'Street asked whit was to be done with the small pond on lots 18, 19 and 43. She was informed that it was to be filled in. She then said that it had been used for a number of -years by the children in the neighborhood for ice skating and requested that the Planning Board look into the matter of nreservi.ng the pond for neighborhood use. Also discussed with Mr. Stevens were problems which the Board foresaw in connection with the re- zoning of the former Rinaldo land which Cabot, Cabot and Forbes owned at the southerly corner of State Routes 2A and 128. In connection with this discus- There being no further questions and comments the Chairman declared the hearing closed at 8:50 p.m. stating that the plan would be taken under advisement. Town Counsel Stevens then met with the Board ZONING BY-LAT,i to discuss the latest draft of an amendment to the AMFNTDMFhTT Lexinrpton Zoning; By-law to provide for the con- struction of underground fall -out or blast shelters FALL-OTTT within required areas by adding in Section 8, SHELTFRS ,yard Area, frontage and yard regulations (g) All dis- tricts, the following paragraph: 6. The construction of a fall -out or blast shelter of a design approved by the local director of Civil Defense or his repre- sentative shall not be deemed to be in violation of the yard regulations provided such shelter is completely below the finished grade of the adjoining land prior to and after such construction and is covered by earth to a depth of not less than two feet, except that an en- trance or exit way may be substantially flush with the ground and a ventilating pipe and cover may protrude above the ground if they are of no greater size and height than is reasonably required for the purpose. The Board aporoved said draft for insertion in the warrant for the special town meeting to be held on November 6, 1961. Also discussed with Mr. Stevens were problems which the Board foresaw in connection with the re- zoning of the former Rinaldo land which Cabot, Cabot and Forbes owned at the southerly corner of State Routes 2A and 128. In connection with this discus- ' sion there was read to the Board Mr. Daniel J. Wheeler's letter of October 6, 1961 to the Plan- ning Board requesting that it proceed in the pro- posed zoning and stating that C. C. &. F. under- stood the problem of trying to establish a second access to the nroperty (see addendum). Mr. Stevens reported that the description of the land owned by trustees of Lexington Offi-ce Center Trust, a subsi_diary of C.C.& F., as furn- ished to the Board on Sentember 221 1961 was wholly inadequate. He said that since that date he had been furnished a preliminary plan of this land as a resurvey of Land Court Case No. 15,874. Mr. Stevens then presented a description which he and Mr. snow had prepared the previous week. After a general discussion of other matters currently before the Board, Mr. Stevens left the meeting at 9:!,_5 p.m. Considered -next was a letter, dated October 63 1961, from the Board of Anneals to the Planning; Board transmitting a set of drawings for apartment -5- C 3 D?STRICT REZONING PROPOSAL LEXINGTON OFFICE TRUST 0 C. C. & F. EMERSON GARDEhTS GARDEN APARTMENT SITE & BUILDTrTG PLANS buildings to be constructed on Lot 17 of the Rnerson Gardens Section One subdivision, said Lot being an A 1 - Garden apartment district. Accom- panying the letter was a copy of an application, dated October 4, 1961 and addressed to the Board of Appeals, for a determination under Section 5 (g) of the Zoni_n By-law that the proposed garden apartment buildinms and use, including the site plan and building design, constitute a desirable development in and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Said anplication was signed by 'award T. Martin, as Trustee under an Agreement of Trust, dated October 7, 1959, recorded in the Middlesex South District i'eaistry of Deeds, Book 9475, pare 277. Mr. Snow stated that he believed the appli- cation had been filed prematurelzr and recommended that a report to this effect be sent to the Board of 4,nneals. He pointed out the Planning Board could not endorse the subdivision plans referred to above until at least October 23 at which t=me the neriod within which an appeal may be filed will have ex- pired. He pointed out also that the Board would not be in a nosition to endorse the subdivision plan or have it recorded in the Registry of Deeds until there ' is conveyed to the Town necessary easements for sewers, drains, water nines and appurtenances to -5- C 3 D?STRICT REZONING PROPOSAL LEXINGTON OFFICE TRUST 0 C. C. & F. EMERSON GARDEhTS GARDEN APARTMENT SITE & BUILDTrTG PLANS to -9-61 serve Lot 171 the A 1 district as shown on said sub- division plan. Mr. Snow said. it had been found in examining the plan in detail that an adequate de- scription of easements outside the ways shown on the plan could not be drawn by the Town Counsel and that additional di_mensionns would rave to be calcu- lated and placed upon the plan and other superfluous informa-l-,ion deleted by the engineer who had prepared the plan. Mr. Snow also said that he believed the Plan- ning Board should not act favorably upon the apartment building; plans until the Trust referred to in the application had acquired all the land on which the garden apartments were to be constructed. He stated that he had been informed the remainder of the Char- man land located within Lot 17 was not to be trans- ferred to said trust until at least October 26. He presented for the Planninc Board's consideration a draft of a letter addressed to the Board of Appeals setting; forth this information. The nlanning Board deferred action on the matter, The Board considered next the application of THE GROVE the Whiter and The Greener Trust for approval of SEC. 1 "The Grove Section Ones' definitive subdi-vision plan. - Mr. Snow reported thnt the plan, dated August 11, THE WTTFR 1961, had been revised on October 6. He exhibited ArTP THE a letter, dated October r, from John J. Carroll, GREENER Superintendent of Public 7°forks, advisin,7 the Plan - TRUSTS nin_r_* Board that the modifications and additions to the original plan which were outlined in his letter of September 21, 1961 to the Board had been com- rleted to his satisfaction. Mr. Snow also exhibited a covenant which the Town Counsel had prepared and which had been proner17 executed on October 9 by 'illiam ?', GlovM ns trustee of said trusts. Atten- tion was likewise called to a letter, dated October 9, from the Board of Health disapproving certain lots in the subdivision for building nurnoses. All matters annearing to be In order, it was moved., seconded, and unanimously VOTED: that the definitive subdivision plan entitled "The Grove, section One Lexington, Mass.", dated T,qa. 20, 1961, which was submitted to the Board by The Whiter and the Greener Trust, William v. Glovskv, Trustee, on August 11, 1961s be and hereby is arproved subject to the condition that no building or structure shall ' be built or placed upon lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 10-�-Cbl -7- 30, 31 and 37 without consent by the Lex- ington Board of Health. There was then ciscussed plans which had not been submitted to the 'Tanning Board. under the Sub- BOARD OF division Control Lata, these same plans being consid- APPEALS ered by the Planning Board to be subdivisions and - havinrr been submitted to the Board of Appeals with GALLO & petitions for variances. In this rer?ard Mx. Snow SANGER reported that he had discussed with Mr. Nickerson PFJIITI02dS the Gallo and Sanger petitions for subdivision var- iances on Deming Road and Patricia Terrace, respec- tively, neither of which had been laid out as pri- vate ways. Mr. Snow said that he had understood Mr. T.iclzerson believed a mistake had been made in adver- tising the hearings in regard to said netitions and they they* wol,ld_ not be acted upon. It was noted,how- ever, that the Gallo netition had been granted. On this basis the Board decided to take action on the Saner netition and to write a letter to the Board of Rpneals asking for a conference to set un some sort of procedure to eliminate in the future insofar as Possible what the Planning* Board considered to be mistakes such. as the one involvincr the Gallo neti- tion. (See addenda.) With the exception of the Sanger netition it was decided to take no action on the Petitions to be heard by the Board of Appeals on October 10, 1961. Exhibited to the Board was a site plan, dated October 1a, 1961 and an, accompanying set of building C. C. Ea F. Plans, dated October 15, JP? 1, and rrepared by Cabot, DRIV7WAY Cabot & 7orbes Associates, Inc., of an office build- PE?MIT ing and research laboratory* for the S7stem Develop- ment Cornoration to be located on Hartwell Avenue in M 1 DISTRICT the present M 1 district. Mr. Snow reported that at the suq:7estion of the Build.-n,,rr Inspector the set of SYST7Z4 DFVEL- nlans had been left at the Planning Board office by OP147,TT CORP, a representative of C. C. &c F. w,"tri the request that the Board approve the driveway entrances shown on the site plan under Section 8 (e) l.f. of the Lexington Zoni= By-law, Mr. Snow was asked to prepare a recom- mendation for consideration by the Plannin7 Board. The Board's attention was called to a letter, dated Sentember 2c�, 1961 and addressed to the Select- THIRD STREFT men, from the three residents of Third Street re- questing that the name of said street be changed to NAME CHANGE ' October Lane. The letter was referred to Mr. Snow PEQUEST for a recommendation. 10-9-61 The Board adjourned its meeting at 10:11_5 n.m. there being no further business to be transacted. Planning Board Town of T,exi_ngton Massachusetts Attn: Mr. Richard Dear Mr. Soule - Richard H. Soule Chairman ADDENDUM H. Soule, Chairman -n- October 6, 1961 In reply to your letter of October 3, I very earnestly re- quest your proceeding with the proposed rezoning of the Rinaldo pronerty on Marrett Road, Lexington, to C-3. 74e do understand the problem of trvi.nR to establish a see- ong access to the nronerty and hope that something can be worked out. We are willing to submit a plan imme- diately under the subdivision control law which will call for a 500 foot, one -access road. Ife cannot state with complete assurance that future demands on the property may not call for consideration of a variance on this present subdivision control ruling. Tt is my understanding that ,you will publish the nro- nosed rezoning this coming week and plan to have it acted upon at a Town Meeting on November 6. 54e will look for- ward to working with you in preparing for the hearing. I appreciate very much vour willingness to take action on this pronerty despite the necessary delay in the overall zoning plan. Yours very truly, CABOT, CABOT & FORBES CO. /s/ Daniel q. IIheeler Vice President DGW:sc 1 i 1 10-0-';l October 10, 1061 Board of Anneals Town Offi_ce' Bui.ldincr Lexi_m-ton 7�, Mass. Gentlemen: The Dlanning Boa^d would like to discuss with you at ,your earliest convenience a possible setting up of some form of procedure similar to that suggested by the Town Counsel in his letter of September 4$ 100 to Mr. Nickerson. The T'lanninn Board's immediate concern in this matter Is represented by two current cases: the Gallo neti_tion for a subdivision of a parcel at 2 Deminm Road, and the Sanger petition to subdivide Lot B, Patricia Terrace. In each of these cases there are two matters involved: first, a variance of the Zoning^ B,r-law in regard to area and frontage regulations; and second, a variance from Section fll K of the Subdivision Control Law as set forth under the definition of the word "subdivision." In both the Gallo and the Sanger cases the so-called streets are unaccented, in fact, have never been laid out as nriva.te ways. In the nreoccunation with zoning matters, the Board did not formally consider the Gallo petition and send you a letter setting forth the facts in the case, that the Sub- ci_vision Control Law did annly and that a variance should not be granted. it is understood that this has been done and the decision of the Board of Anneals filed with the Town Clerk. Apparently nothing much can be done now in reward to this matter. The Planning Board does hone, how- ever, that some sort of an arrangement can be worked out so that these mistakes can be avoided. In a sena.rate letter the Planning Board is writing to you in regard to the Saner netiti.on. May the Boards hold an informal meeting as soon as conven- ient? Perhans it can be arranged to have oar. Stevens present to M ve us all counsel in reward to subdivision matters �,7here both boards are involved. Because of heavy agendas of both boards, some other time other than Mondav and Tuesday evenings world_ probably be the most convenient. `Tour sug- gestions are sought. Since-elTr yours, LT'XINGTON PLAr?TTTYG BOARD /s/ Richard H. Soule, Chairman 10 -n -r-1 -10- October 10, 1961 Board of Appeals Town Office Building Lexington 733 Mass, Re: Petition of I-Tenry M. and Barbara C. Sanger Gentlemen: The planning Board discussed the petition of Henry M. and Barbara C. Sanger to be heard by the Board of Anpeals on October 10, 1961 and, after due consideration, decided to onnose the granting of said petition and to send to the Board of Appeals the following statement. It is the Planning Boardts opinion that there are two basic problems involved in this case; namely, a variation from the frontage regulations set forth under Section 8 of of the Lexington Zoning By-law and a variance from the State Subdivision Control Law as set forth under the defi- nition of the word "subdivision" in Section 81 K. Chanter 41 of the General Laws. In either instance, it does not appear necessary or desirable to grant a variance when there is such a comparatively easv solution to the sub- division problem presented. It should be pointed out first that a 10.53 -foot wide opening is hardly enough frontage to service adequately a house lot even if it were on a way. It is understood, how- , ever, that so-called Patricia Terrace has not been laid out as a private way. It is in fact known as lot F in Land. Court Case Yn. 1766 to which a certificate of title has been issued. Both of these conditions can be corrected under the Subdivision Control Law as shown on the attached print. A permanent turnaround can be constructed by the person proposing to erect a house on lot B1, the turnaround nro- vid_ing the necessary frontage and leaving enough area for each of the two lots being created out of lot B to meet the Zoning Bt7-law requirements. The turnaround would assist in nroviding munielpal services including installa- tion of large enough water nine to provide adequate water pressure and fire protection, room for snow plowing, and the like. At a later date the rest of the terrace could be laid out as a way somewhat as marked on the attached print. It is recommended, therefore, th^t the netition be de- nied and that the construction of a permanent turnaround be considered by the netitioner. (The enclosed sketch is an anrroximate representation of what could be done in the way of a subdivision and the 1 1 to -9-1.1 lavinf� out of a wa r. The director would be pleased and other residents on the liminar7; subdivision plan nlannin€* Board and its in assistinm the petitioner terrace in oreparinl, nre- and a layout for a war.) Sincerely, L7XIP?GTO7 PLAMITTIMT BOARD F'i_chard g. joule, 'nc. Cha-rman -11-