HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-03-08PLANNING BOARD HEARING
March 8, 1962
The Lexington Planning Board held a public
hearing on Thursday, March 8, 1962 at 8:10 p.m. in
Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, to consider ZONING
certain proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning By- BY-LAW
law. Present were Vice Chairman Grindle, members AMENDMENT
Bryson, Campbell and Meyer; Planning Director Snow, PROPOSALS
and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber. Approximately
100 persons attended the hearing.
Vice Chairman Grindle opened the hearing by
reading the first paragraph of the notice as it had
been sent to all property owners deemed to be affect-
ed and as it had been published in the February 15
and 22, 1962 issues of the Lexington Minute -man. He
then explained the procedure to be followed in con-
ducting the hearing. Mr. Grindle stated that since
there had been distributed to every person present a
copy of the notice of said hearing, he would forego
the reading of the remainder of said notice unless
there were objections to the contrary. There were
' no objections.
In his introductory statement in presenting
the Planning Board's proposals Mr. Grindle said that
these had been developed and prepared over some
length of time. He said that the Planning Director
had been assisted by a very able and competent archi-
tect, Mr. Jack P. Gensemer of Cambridge; also by the
firm of Charles M. Evans & Associates who had made a
study of the potential cost and revenue that might
be expected to result from the full development of
the site plan Mr. Snow had prepared. Mr. Grindle
also said that the Board had been assisted by Mr.
Henry W. Hardy of Needham, an attorney, who helped
prepare the final draft of the proposals being con-
sidered that evening.
Mr. Grindle then introduced Mr.W. Seymour
Archibald of Concord, a member of the Charles M.
Evans & Associates firm and asked Mr. Archibald to
present a summary of said firm's findings in regard
to the Board's proposed development of the Hartwell
Avenue area.
Mr. Archibald stated that at the request of
' the Planning Board his firm had made a study of the
area shown on the plan on display by the Board in
order to determine what might be expected in the way
3-8-62 -2-
of potential cost and revenues for this area, first, if '
fully developed under present zoning, and second, if fully
developed under zoning regulations proposed by the Board.
He said that after study and analysis it was estimated that
under present zoning regulations approximately 246 acres
would be available for light industry, office buildings, or
research laboratories with some additional 90 acres to the
north and to the south available for new housing develop-
ments in areas currently zoned for residential use. Mr.
Archibald said that the proposed zoning regulations would
not only require larger lot size in the area presently,
zoned for industrial use but would also expand this area
to cover the two sections now zoned for,reaidential use.
He also said that it was estimated that in the proposed
expanded industrial park area there would be approximately
348 acres available for new plant developments.
Mr. Archibald stated that if the Hartwell Avenue
area were fully developed the cost -revenue study might be
summarized in the following way: Capital costs under the
present and the proposed zoning regulations would be
Identical except for the estimated difference of $350,000
needed for schools if the area were developed under pres-
ent zoning; operating or annual costs would amount to twice
as much under present zoning regulations as would be re-
quired under the proposed regulations; net tax returns
would be greater than annual costs under both present and
'
proposed zoning regulations; and higher net tax returns
could be expected under the proposed zoning regulations with
both capital and annual costs lower and annual revenues
greater than would be the case under present zoning regula-
tions.
Mr. Archibald concluded his presentation by stating
that the figures used in estimating both costs and reve-
nues were arrived at after consultation with various town
officials including the superintendent of public works, the
fire and police chiefs, the accountant, the treasurer and
school administrators. He stated also that in estimating
expected revenue the assessed value figures used were based
on present assessing practices of the town, the tax rate of
$73 and an estimated excise tax of 0,40 per automobile.
. Mr. Douglas T. Ross of 33 Dawes Road asked what the
increase in revenue would be if there were four -acre lots
in all the development instead of five -acre lots proposed
by the ?Manning Board. Mr. Archibald said he did not know
for the reason that the study his firm had made was based
on five -acre lots.
Mr. Ross also asked if anyone making the study had I
considered the effect on neighboring communities of the
3-8-62
-3-
' possible change in values of residences, changes in taxes
and similar matters. To this question, the answer was no.
In reply to an inquiry from the floor Mr. Snow
stated that the ratio of usability of lots in the Proposed
zoning regulations was not affected by the size of the lot.
Mr. Weiant Wathen-Dunn of 44 Maple Street stated
that he believed Town Meeting members would like to studs
Mr. Archibald's'report and asked if it wound be available
for their use before the Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Wathen-
Dunn was informed that the Board had not Planned to dupli-
cate and distribute the cost and revenue analysis of the
Evans & Associates firm but that the Board had available a
number of copies of the report which could be borrowed by
any persons who would like to examine the study in detail.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Snow to describe the
existing and Proposed districts set forth in the Planning
Board's proposals and to present the proposed over-all de-
velopment plan upon which the Evans & Associates economic
study was based. This Mr. Snow did pointing out on a map
he had prepared for the purpose existing conditions such as
roads, brooks, property lines, easements, boundaries and
town -owned land in the Hartwell Avenue area. He then de-
scribed on the over-all plan he had prepared how he be-
lieved these existing conditions might be best utilized in
the development of the area.
Mr. Howard H. Dawes of 10 Bernard Street asked if
Tophet Swamp located in the existing M 1 and proposed CM 1
districts was desirable for use for building purposes. Mr.
Snow said he believed that the swamp could be made into
good sites.
A Mr. Bennett then asked if citizens had to wait for
a period of twenty years for all the town -owned land to be
filled before it was available for use. Mr.Snow then out-
lined in a general manner the procedure to be followed in
utilizing said land for sanitary fill Purposes including the
lowering of the existing water table and the relocation and
channeling of existing water courses in order to make the
areas along the proposed roads available first for building
sites.
Someone asked if any borings had been taken of exist-
ing soil conditions in the area. Mr. .Snow replied that in
connection with the location and construction of Hartwell
Avenue and the trunk sewer from said avenue to Route 128
borings had been taken. He said that these indicated a
var-iety of conditions from peat pockets thirty feet deep to
solid gravel overlain with about two feet of silt.
3-8-62
Mr. William P. Harris of 12 Bates Road described '
existing conditions on Wood Street resulting from traffic
generated by Hanscom Field. Mr. Harris expressed the
opinion that the development proposed by the Board would
increase the traffic on Wood Street. He asked what was
going to be done to provide for the traffic when the Hart-
well Avenue area was fully developed.
Mr. Snow stated that he understood that the U.S.
Air Force and the Massachusetts Department of Public
Works were studying a proposal where there would be direct
access to Route 128 as shown on the development plan he
was exhibiting, said access to be a substitute for the
present access to Hanscom Field from Marr•ett Road.
Someone asked if Bedford Street would have to be
widened -to take care of the volume of traffic from.Hart-
well Avenue to Route 128. In reply to this question Mr.
Snow said that he did not know if it would. He pointed
out that if it had to be done it would be done under
State Department of Public Works jurisdiction for the rea-
son that this section of Bedford Street was a State high-
way.
Mr. Paul F. Hannah of the Raytheon Company asked if I regulations concerning C 3 districts were going to be dis-
cussed.
Mr. Meyer said that Mr. Hannah was interested in
those proposals which affected the Raytheon property. Mr.
Meyer said these proposals would also affect the C 3 dis-
tricts on the easterly side of Spring Street and on Mar-
mett Road westerly of Route 128. He then reviewed all the
Board's proposals which would affect C 3'districts.
Mr. Hannah stated that he only learned of the Plan-
ning Board's proposals to amend the zoninv, by-law a few
days ago and that he had little time to consider all of
the effects upon said Raytheon property. He said, for n -
stance, that under the Board's second proposal as set
forth in its notice it would appear that the paragraph
numbered 3, Finding and Determination by the Board of
Appeals, constituted an extensive restriction on present
C 3 uses which were set forth in the paragraph numbered 2.
He asked what was meant by the term "desirable development,"
and what aspects - aesthetic, economic, social, etc. - of a
development could be considered undesirable.
Mr. Meyer said that the wording referred to was taken
from the zoning by-law where site control is provided in '
garden apartment and hotel districts. He said that under
this particular section of said bn-law it was his interpreta-
1
1
-d-62
tion that the Board of
evidence submitted that
suitable development of
patible with a certain
Appeals could determine from the
the proposed development was a
the type intended and not incom-
n eighborhood.
-5-
Mr. Wilbur M. Jaquith of 42 Somerset Road stated
that he recalled that a number of years ago in order to
give the Board of Appeals some standard for making a find-
ing and determination the words "constitute a desirable
development in and will not be detrimental to the neigh-
borhood" had been incorporated In the language set forth
under A 1 districts.
Mr. Robert H. Kingston of 4 Field Road commented
that it seemed clear from the wording of the Board's pro-
posal that all that was being asked to be submitted was a
site plan in sufficient detail "to determine the adequacy
of provisions contained therein . . ." He said that what
concerns people is that they may not like the architec-
ture of the building, some control of which is not pro-
vided for in the Board's proposals.
Someone asked what happened when the Board of
Appeals made an unfavorable finding as to suitability,
that.the proposal of the applicant was detrimental. To
this question Mr. Meyer called attention to the fourth
paragraph of the Planning Board's fifth proposal which
stated that if an application is denied the Board of
Appeals must set forth reasons for the denial and re-
spects in which the applicant's proposal should be changed
so as to eliminate objectional features.
Mr. Hannah commented that such action might result
in excessive cost. He asked what provision was made by the
Planning Board`to take care of situations of this nature.
When Mr. Meyer said that there were provisions under Sec-
tion 21 of Chapter 40 A of the General Laws for the appli-
cant to appeal to the Superior'Court if it was so desired,
Mr. Hannah said it was not the function of the Court to
make findings on the question of detriment.
Mr. Roland B. Greeley of 1350 Massachusetts Avenue
expressed the opinion that he thought it an unwise approach
to set forth a use and to indicate that this kind of use
was desirable. He said, however, that he thought it was
proper to allow the Board of Appeals to review submitted
plans and from what they showed determine whether or not
the proposal was detrimental or not. Hg suggested strik-
ing out the words "to the neighborhood.
Mr. John T. Blackwell of 17 Bennington Road sug-
gested that under (h) C 3 districts in the Boardts second
proposal that there be stricken the first three sentences
M
3-8-62
of Paragraph 2 and all of Paragraph 3. '
Mr. Paul P. Shepherd of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Asso-
ciates, Inc. commented that he and others of said firm had
worked with the Board somewhat on the zoning proposals being
discussed and that C.C.& F. were not opposed to the prin-
ciple of site control. He said, however, that the firm was
still very much concerned with the time involved in obtain
Ing approval of plans, what should be included in plans to
be submitted, whether or not a second hearing was necessary
after plans which had at first lacked sufficient informa-
tion had been resubmitted, the problem of strict conformity
after approval of plans when it was found that borings in-
dicated a building location needed to be moved, the defini-
tion of a neighborhood, the setback requirements on the
southerly side of Hartwell Avenue, and in general the word-
ing of certain sections of the Boards nroposals.
Mr. Grindle said the Board had discussed these pro-
posals in detail with representatives of Cabot, Cabot &
Forbes and had understood that to a large degree the pro-
posals met with their approval. He said the wording of the
proposals had not changed since the last time Mr. Shepherd
saw them.
Mr. Hannah stated that he had other points which he '
would like to discuss about the proposed amendments to the
zoning by-law. He asked what was meant by strict conform-
ity and what the difference was between conformity and
strict conformity. He also asked what action the town
would take if someone did not conform to the plans which
had been approved. He said there should be some provisions
In the proposals for some town authority with intelligence
and judgment who could look at plans and tell whether or not
they conform at the time building permits were issued and
construction was taking place.
Mr. Hannah pointed out that he could not find any
place in the proposals the basis upon which the Board of
Appeals could determine whether or not a manufacturing
plant or a hotel was desirable. He said that this seemed
to be involving a question of whether or not the operation
in conjunction with the manufacture or hotel immediately
within a commercial or light manufacturing district was
detrimental to the neighborhood. He noted that there was
no statement as to what was meant by adequacy. Mr. Hannah
asked, "Was it meant that adequacy to determine whether or
not parking lots would accommodate all the automobiles em-
ployees would use in transportation to and from a plant?"
He asked if adequacy would involve operations and from
what point of view. He stated that he would like to point
out that what would be detrimental or undesirable in a
3-8-62
-7-
residential neighborhood would not affect the situation in
terms of a neighborhood which was going to be developed
for office buildings. Mr. Hannah suggested that if it
were desirable to include in the Board's proposals any-
thing about detriment to a neighborhood the standard of
desirability be for a neighborhood within the district and
not, for example, for a neighborhood in which there was a
mixture of C 3 and residential use.
Mr. Hannah also stated that the Raytheon Company
had constructed on its land at Route 2 and Spring Street
an executive office building at one end of which a cafe-
teria was later located. He stated that the reason for
this arrangement was the intent of said company to con-
struct a matching building on the other side of the cafe-
teria. He said that the company would not be able to do
this because under one of the zoning proposals buildings
would have to be thirty feet apart. He asked if it were
intended that the company be stopped immediately in its
development and that it could only proceed by obtaining a
variance.
Mr. Hannah made a number of other points and then
in summation stated that if it were desired to apply the
proposed restrictions to C 3 districts that they be
applied only to the areas to be added to said districts
and not to those areas being developed or having build-
ings on them. He suggested, if the Planning Board did
not think this pronositi.on was possible because of the
interrelationship of C 3 regulations to those proposed
for other districts, that the Boardts pronosals be writ-
ten in greater conformity to the rower of the Board of
Appeals set forth under the statute.
Mr. Grindle said that the Board had given its pro-
posals much thought and in so doing had tried to be im-
partial to all concerned. He also said that the Board
was trying to carry out what its Planner and the consult-
ants it had employed thought was the proper way to de-
velop the town to protect its interests and those of
property owners. Mr. Grindle likewise stated that he
thought everyone would find that the Planning Board and
Board of Appeals would find that the Planning Board and
Board of Appeals would not make any unreasonable require-
ments under the proposals discussed. He then concluded
the hearing by stating that the opinions expressed by
those present would betaken under consideration.
The hearing was adjourned at 10:05 pT.S
m i��r
Samuel nPlanningector