Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-10-30PLA17TTNG BOARD MFT7, TFG October 30, 1961 On Mondavi, October 30, 1961 at 7:30 n.m. the Lexington. Planning 3oard held a .regular meeting in its office in the Town Office Building_. Present were Chairman Soule, "'Iembe-s "ri_nd_le, Rr•,rson, Mabee, and never, and nla.nni ng Director Snow. The Board annroved the minutes of its October 2, 1961 Planning- Board meeting. Apnroved for nayment were the following bills which had been -presented: Samuel P. Snow, car allow- ance for month of Cctober, 1961--X20.00! I'-'?inute-man Publications, advertising* --628.18. The Board also confirmed the action of the Planning Director in apnroving durinrr, the previous week a voucher fer y,7.50 made out to The Free Press for a boo's, "Urban „overnment. MINUTES BILLS Considered next were the followl.ng Form A a-nnlications for determination of Planning Board FORTIS A jurisciction: 4161-62 (see minutes of meeting; of October 23, -1%61-63, submitted October 301 1961 by Boston and. Tiai_ne Railroad, James E. Tiilano, Atty.; elan entitled "Land in Lexington, Vass.'`, Boston F- Yaiee railroad to uarry J. and Eva T. Falladino," dated Tiarch, 1961. J. F. Tierwin, ^est, Grief Eng-ineer. 11,61-612, submitted October 30, 1961 by John H. Millican; plan entitled "A Compiled Plan of Land Lexi niton-n,Tass.", Scale: 1" = 1001, dated Oct. 27, 1961, Miller 8 Nyland.er, C.T,. Ts 8- fiurveyors. Uron motions duly made and seconded, it was unan i -nous lv VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plans accompanying Form A applica- tions 'F61-62 and ;761-63 do require approval under the Subdivision Control Law. ' VOTED: that the Lexington Planning hoard determines that the plan accompanying Form A arT)lication -�- .'61-64 does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law, and that said plan be so endorsed. The Board next discussed the plan of the Goodrich Dronerty, said plan accompanying Form A application 461-4L. It was decided that Mr. Soule and Yr. Mabee would visit Mr. E. Lester Goodrich at his residence on Summer Street and inform him of the reasons the Dlanning Board had determined that said plan was a subdivision and show ways in which. Lot K could he added to Lot 2 as shown on said nlan so teat it would. not constitute a subdi- vision under the Subdi_vi.sion Control Law. It was the opinion of the Board that proposed LAND FOR Lot 6 shown on said plan should be added to and b e- RECRTATTONAL come part of the former DeVries nroperty which sur- PT7RPOSFS rounds Lot 6 and which was now a principal parcel - of land comprising the so-called '?hipple Hill Recrea- GOODRICH tional Area. Mr. Mabee and Mr. Soule af^reed to dis- cuss the matter with Mr. Goodrich and to see if he would be interested in selling said Lot 6 to the Town ^s �n addition to the recreational area. The Board endorsed The Grove, Section One TFE GROVE definitive subdivision plan which had been approved SEC. 1 by the Board on October 9, 1961. Mr. .Snow stated that he would have the Town Clerk endorse the plan TTTE W7TER,&, the following; day with the certification that no TTTr GREETTER notice of appeal was received d uri nm the twenty days TTiTTSTS next after receipt and recordinry of notice from the Dlanninc Board of the apnroval of this plan. Mr. Snow also said that he would deliver the plans to the Town Counsel so that they might beheld for recording i.n the Registry of Deeds until such time as there was obtained for the Town a pronerly executed grant of easements within the subdivision. 1 Considered next were the Frierson Gardens EMERSON building; and site plans. Mr. Snow gave a report of GARDEDTS progress which, he and the Town Counsel had made in SEC. 1 regard to having the easements shown on the Emerson - Gardens Section One definitive subdivision plan so F FRSON REALTv that they might be described properly in an instru- TRTTST ment which the Town Counsel was to prepare. Mr. Snow also reported on his examination of the garden apartment buildings and site plan. He said he found the apartment building nlans to be in order and recommended that they* be approved as presented. He stated, however, that he had found errors in the plot plan, it not coinciding with the definitive 1 10-30-61 ' subdivision plan. He stated also that the grading clan lacked contours and that the utility elan had been referred to the "ii-oerinten('ent of Public ',Torus for review. After receiving this report the Board asked Mr. Snow to confer with Mr. Edward T. T"_artin who filed the anplication for a determination with refer- ence to the garden apartment site and building plans and to sur -r --est to him that the application be tempo- rarily withdrawn without prejudice to enable the Board to remove the technical difficulties which anpeared to be in the wav of approval of site and garden anartment plans. T_t was decided that if the applicant did not wish to withdraw the anplicatlon temporarily until such time as technicalities could be removed that the Board would 'ave to act on the application on November 2 and for this reason scheduled a special Planning Board meetin7to be held on said date after the nublic hear- ing on 11 zoning matters nreviously scheduled for that ni7,ht. From 9:00 until 9:x!5 p.m. the Board held a con- ference with Yr. Daniel J. Wheeler, Mr. Paul P. Shepard and ^ir. Michael G. Damone of Cabot, Cabot and ' Forbes Co. with reference to the scheduled hearing to be held on 77ovember 2 for the purpose of considering an amendment to the zoning by-law wherein the former Pinaldo land owned by the Lexington Office Center Trust, a subsidiary of C. C. & F., be rezoned as a C 3 Snecial commercial district. At 9:30 p.m. Town Coun- sel Stevens came to the meeting at which time there was a discussion of a statement which Mr. John W. Blackwell had. prepared suggesting a change in the de- scrintion in the boundaries of the land which It was pronosed. to discuss at said public hearing_. Tt was decided that the descrintion as presented by Mr. Blackwell did not present anv advantage over the d-e- scrintion which the Town Counsel had already prepared for Article 11 in the 'Tarrant for the special town meetin7 to be held on November 6, 1961. After the representatives of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes left the meeting the Board discussed with the Town Counsel his letter of October 2L_ to Mr. Nicker- son, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, and Mr. ,Tickerson's letter of October 25 to the Planning Board with reference to the Sanger petition. (See addenda). Arrangements were made for a joint meeting of the Planning Board, Board of Anneals, and Town Counsel to be held at 7:00 n.m. on November 1LL in the Planning Board office to discuss the Sanger petition and re- lated matters. -3- C 3 SPEC IAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT C. C. & F. LEXINGTON OFFICE CENTT R TRUST MEETING OF BOARD OF APPEALS- PI,ANNIITG BD.- T014N COUNSEL -2T _ T1r. Stevens presented to the 'hoard a bill made ' BILL out to him from Mr. T. H. Reenstierna, said bill being dated August 22, in the sum of x`125.00 for the RE_7NSTI7RNA appraisal of Lots 11 and 12 on T,Ioreland Avenue where the Planning Board had recommended that Buckman Drive be extended. The Board was exhibited a copy of Mr. Reensti.ernats letter to the Plannin7.; Director setting forth his opinion of the fair market value of these lots. It was the opinion of the Board that the bill for ''_'125.00 was in excess of that which should have been charged for the amount of work which Nr. ?Reen- stierna had done. Mr. Stevens stated that if the Board believed this was so that it should discuss the matter with TIr. Peenstierna. This the Board asked Mr. Soule to do. There being no further business to transact, the Board adjourned its meetinT at 10:00 n.m. obertE. Meger, C Jerk - - - --ADDT'T?DUTR - - - - - 1 October 2:,1961 Donald E. Nickerson, Chairman Board of Anneals Town Office Building Lexington 731 Tiassachusetts Dear Don: Your letter of October 11, 1061 in reference to the petition of 'Ir. and. Mrs. Saner was dull received and I am sorry not to have replied sooner. The Planning ryoard also brought the matter to m7 attention and it seems evident that there has been undesirable confu- sion between the two boards. T wonTt at this time attempt to answer 7rour letter and the questions that arise in my mind after reading; it be- cause I understood that the Planning Board was to arrange a joint conference on the problem and we can discuss everything at that time. Si_rc erely lour s, I /s/ Harold E. Stevens 10-30-61 6i" October 25,1961 ' planninr, Board Town Office Building Lexincton, ^,Iassachusetts L 1 Gentlemen: Several weeks ago we discussed the nossibility of a Joint meeting with both boards for the nurpose of discussing the Sanger case in particular and other matters in meneral. '•!e suggested that you meet with us last night before our hearings, but evi_dentl�r this did not fit into ,your plans because we haventt tierd from you. As we said before it is rather difficult to assemble our members on any particular night except the Tuesday nights of our hearings, but if it isn't possible for us to meet jointl-.r on a Tuesday night we will try to conform. Our next series of hearings is Tuesday, rTovember 11L. Sincerely 'rollrs., /s/ Donald r. Nickerson (B) DFTT : 7 CB A