Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-05-28PLA? 7TN"- BOARD ^MEETING May 28, 1962 A regular meeting of the Lexin7ton Planning Board was held on Monep-r, May 281 1962 at 7:40 -0-m- in the Plannin7 Boards office, Town Office ?3uild- ing, present were Chairman Grindle, members Br -7, -son, Camnbe'l, Mabee and Mever, and "Mr. Snow, planning Di rector . The 13oard arproved for nayment the following bills which had been presented: Samuel P. Snow, car allowance for May, 1962--x'20.00; H. B. McArdle, Office sunnlies-43.70. The followi-n .M Form A applications for deter- mination of Planning Board jurisdiction were taken under consideration: 1,162-28, submitted May 28, 1962 by Harold E. Stevens, Town Counsel, for Town of Lexing- ton; plan entitled "Plan of Drain Easement in Lots 3 and 4 Grant Street Lexington, ' Mass.", dated April 27, 1962, John J. Carroll, Town Engineer. #62-29, submitted May 2K, 1962 by Michael G. Damone for LexinTton Office Center Trust; plan entitled "Land Court Case No. 15784, Subdivi- sion of Lot h Land in Lexington, Mass.'", Scale: 1" = �i0t, dated Ma -T 23, 1962, Miller & 7.71rnder. C.7. i s Pc STyrve7,*ors . 162-30, submitted Mav 28, 1962 by Atrens Realty* Tri7st: plan entitled "Plan o" Land in Lexlneton Mass.", Scale: 1" =301, dated May 1L., 1Q62, Schofield Brnthers, Pegistered Land Surveyors. -#62-31, submitted May 2 9, 1962 by Norman C. May for Isabel, Catherine and James Graham; -olan entitled "Land Court Plan of Land in Burling- ton, Mass. and Lexington, Plass.", Owned by James raham, Scale: 1" = Ltol, dated April 16, 19620 Joseph W. Mnore, Inc. Reg. Land Surveyor. Upon motions duly made and seconded, it was unanimously VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plans accomnanvin,r Form A applica- tions #62-26, 162-30 and #62-31 do not require BILLS FORMS A K -2P'-(,2 -2- The Board reviewed the notices of hearings to BOARD OF be held by the Board of Appeals on June 12 and 19. It AppriLS was decided to take no action on the reti_tions to be heard on June 19 wit' the possible exception of the Black and Crane petitions. Mr. Snow was asked to obtain additional information in regard to said two neti tions for the Manning Bon rd to consider at its I next meeting. annroval unser the Subdivisinn Control Law, and that said n fans be so endorsed. ' VOTED: that the Le.xinr-ton Planning Board determines that the elan accompan,rinR Form A annlication =62-29 does require annroval under the Subdi- vision Control Law. HISTORIC Considered also were notices of hearings to be DTSTRIC".'S held on Hay 29 by the Lexiniton Historic Districts COMMISSION Commission on applications for certificates of aopro- oriateness. It was decided to take no action on said applications. Mr. Mabee was absent from the Planning Board MINUTE MAN meeting briefly to attend the Board of Selectmen's HIGH -LANDS meeting at the same time that Messrs. James A. Carrig SEC. 4 and Robert if. Carrig met with the Selectmen i.n regard - to the proposed location of Worthen Road through the CARRIG Minute Man High -Lands Section b subdivision. (See _ minutes of planning Poa.-d meetin? of May 16, 1062). WORTF77 ROAD Mr. Mabee later reported that the Messrs. Carrig re- quested teat the section of 'Jorthen Road in said sub- division be laid out and constructed by the town and assessing a pronortionate share of the cost, that is, for a 70 -foot road against the individual lots in the subdivision fronting on said Worthen Road. Mr. Mabee , said teat tp,e Carrig request was taken under advise- ment. (For a detailed account of tb.is matter see tre minutes of t'e Board of Selectmen meeting of May 2 8, 1062.) Town Counsel Stevens met with the Board from SUBDIVISION 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. to discuss various problems cur - REGULATIONS rently before it. While meeting with the Board r e called its attention to his letter of Play 24 to the Planning Director in regard to the decision the Massa- chusetts Supreme Judicial Court rendered on May 91 1962, in the case of Castle Tstates, Inc. v. Park and Planning Board of Medfield. Conies of Vr. Stevens' letter and of the advance sheets setting forth. the Court's orinion were Aistributed`to each member of the Board. (See addendum.) The Board reviewed the notices of hearings to BOARD OF be held by the Board of Appeals on June 12 and 19. It AppriLS was decided to take no action on the reti_tions to be heard on June 19 wit' the possible exception of the Black and Crane petitions. Mr. Snow was asked to obtain additional information in regard to said two neti tions for the Manning Bon rd to consider at its I next meeting. 5-2R-63 ' Consideration was also given to the petition dated May ll, 1921 which Mr, and Mrs. '.'alterS. 7arrin7ton filed with the Board of Appeals and con- cerning which said Board wished the Planning Board's opinion nrlor to rlacin:M in the local newspaper a notice in regard to a hearing on said petition. It was decided that the nronosed subdivision of existing lots li_ and 5 fronting on T41nter Street in the Park Heights Section One development was in fact a subdi- vision and required anproval by the Board for the reason that the street was a private way which in the opinion of the Pla nni nr Board was not constructed and did not have therein municipal services to serve said lots adequately. Mr. Snow was asked to write a letter to the Board of Anpeals informing^ it of the Planning Board's opinion and also of the situation in regard to pro - nosed location of Coach Road in the Carriage Grove estates subdivision, the rronosed location of said road beinrt in part over said lot 4, (See addendum,) Mr. Snow reported that Mr. 7. H. Fitzgerald, Jr., engineer and surveyor, of Billerica had filed for Gertrude H. Murnhy of T^Tinchester a rrelimi.nary subdivision plan concerning which an informal opinion ' was desired. 'Mr. Snow said he asked John Carroll's opinion of the elan, dated finril 18, 1Qh2, He then called attention to Mr. C^rroll's letter of May 22 and a letter, dated May 25, 1()h2, from T_ -Toward F. Ambrose, engineer for the Winchester Planning Board, both let- ters being addressed to the Lexin-ton Planning Board with reference to said Preliminary plan. It was noted that the plan was a revision of one nreviouslzr acted unon. (See minutes of Planning Board meeting* of Feb. ff., lQ62.) The nronosed .road locations and lavout of lots anpeared acceptable to the Board. Questions were raised, however, about the nronosed relocation of the Lexin ^ton-Winch.este.r line as shown on the plan dated April 18, The procedure to be followed in relocating the town line was dis- cussed with the Town Counsel who said he would obtain further information on procedure as letely revised by statute. Trereunon ?,?r. Snow was asked to write a letter to the subdivider expressing the Board's views In regard to the revised subdivision plan, (See adden- dum.) -3- HARRINGTON MURPHY PRFLTrIINARY SUBDIVISION Por. Snow exhibited a print of a survey made by Josenh U. Moore of Bedford of lots 7, 8, and 9 in WINTER STRE'E'T the Park �1ei7hts Section One development, On said OPTION print Mr.. Snow had drafted an easement across two 5-2,9_62 of said lots for a nronosed turnarorne should it ' be desired to lad,* out ' Inter Street westerly of Rangeway as a permanent dead-end street. The Board discussed with the Town Counsel the procedure which might be followed in determining who owned the right of way between lots 7 and 8 as shown on said print and in closing said right of Way. Mr. Snow re- norted on conferences he had held with the owners of lots 7, 8, and 9 stating that said owners found the location of the n ronosed easement acceptable and that those involved would grant to Lexin^ton easements for public travel across said lots. Thereupon, Mr. Snow was asked to have arrangements made for the -preparation of a definitive elan for an easement for said turnaround and the granting of ease -gents for public travel therein. Mr. Snow also reported on two other confer - EVANGELICAL -ences he had held durinr the orevi.ous week, these COV7NANT being in regard to plans ti eine; nrenared for a trunk CHURCH line sewer from pleasant Street to the Wocdhaven resi.denti.al development and the need of coordinat- WORTFEIT ROAD ink; the location of said sewer with the proposed location of Worthen Road. Mr. Snow said that in the first conference Mr. Carroll, Superintendent of Public Works, had , informed him that from preliminary surveys and plans it was now known that said sewer could be located anvwhere across the tower portion of the Fvangelical Covenant Church property fronting on Allen Street. Mr. Snow also stated that on the basis of tris information Mr. Carroll 1 -ad _ requested a specif- is location for '•,'ortren Road across said -property so that the sewer could be located within the r,ght of way of the proposed .road and thereby minimize the nossi_ble land damages for easements for said sewer and road. In reporting on the second conference, Mr. Snow said that he had reviewed the situation in regard to the location of the sewer and Tdorthen Road with representatives of said church, had vis -ted the church nronerttr with them and been given a set of pre- liminary -plans of the nronosed chrrch edifice and its site. Fe exhibited these -olans. Mr. Snow said he had been informed by the representatives of the church that they would accept any recommendation he made for the -proposed location of Worthen noad. At t? c conclu- sion of the report M- pro? was authorized to proceed wit with the preparation of study -dans sufficient to meet the needs of Mr. Carroll's request for a specific loca- tion of Worthen Road across the property of said church. ff-2�`3-62 ' The Board viewed a set of nrints of the Green Vall.e7r.9 Section 8 preliminary subdivision nlan cahich ;Ir, Antonio Busa had left for consideration. Mr. Snow said. he ha6 not accepter the application for approval accomnan=ri.n- the set of mans as deemed to have been surmitted for the reason that all the nri_nts needed for consideration had not been submit- ted. The Board requested Mr. Snow to ask M.r. Busa for clans showinf7 the relationship of the nroposed subdivision to adjacent nronerties and how he nro- nosed to develop those he owned. The last item of business the 'bard discussed at its meeti.np, was that of establishinc- a schedule which would eliminate the daily demands on Mr. Snow's time at the office and enable him to comnlete his re- nort on a long-range development plan for Lexinvton. Mr. Snow said that havi.n7, comnleted the back lop; of nlanninp board acministrative work he relieved he could take care of current admini_strati.ve work in two d^.ys each week. In order to provide for the on- nortuni.ty for three days of continuous work each week on said report it was decided t? -at Mr. Snow would work outside the office for this time and schedule office tours only on Mondays and Fridays. It was fl eci.ded to nut this schedule into effect beginning; the week of June L and to issue a bulletin to town officials noti- fying; them of the schedule and statin:* that Mr. Snow was on special assignment. The meeting adjolrned at 10:20 n.m. s. 4rthur F. Bryson, Jr. Clerk ADDENDUM Samuel P. Snow, Planning Director Planning Board 'Down Office Building Lexington ?3, Massachusetts Dear Sam: GREMT VALLEY SEC. 8 BUSA MASTER PLAN OFFICE SCHEDZTLF May 244 1962 ' Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morn- ing I enclose an advanced sheet eopv of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rendered on May 5-2a-62 -6- 9s 1962 in the case of Castle Estates, Inc. v. Park ' and Planning Board of Medfield. The Planning Board had approved a subdivision plan subject to certain conditions that are set forth in the opinion and the Supreme Court held that the two conditions contested by the subdivider could not validly be imposed because they were not covered by the rules and regulations that the Planning Board had adopted. This decision points out clearly the necessity of the Planning Board carefully reviewing its rules and regulations and bringing them up to date and making them more effective in the light of the various amend- ments to the law that have been adopted and the deci- sions of the court that have been rendered since those Tulse and regulations were adopted. I understand that you will have a copy of the de- cision made for your records and will return the en- closure to me. Sincerely yours, /s/ Harold E. Stevens HES:epk Enc. -- --- --- -- ' June 4: 1962 Board of Appeals Town Office Building Lexington 73, Mass. Re: Petition of Walter S. and Dorothy M. Harrington Gentlemen: Reference is made to the petition, dated May 11, 1962 which Mr. and Mrs. Harrington filed with the Board of Appeals and which was referred to the Planning Board prior to placing in the local newspaper a notice in re- gard to a hearing on said petition. At its meeting on May 28 the Planning Board discussed the petition based on the material which had been assembled in regard to the case. At the request of the Board I am setting forth for your information what is understood to be the facts And the problems involved. The proposed lots for which the variance is being sought fronts on that portion of Winter Street which is a pri- vate way and which in the opinion of the planning Board ' does not at present have all the municipal services in- stalled and is not adequately constructed to serve said 5-2a-62 -7- ' lots. For this reason it is the Planning Board's opinion that if the proposed relotting plan were drawn on tracing cloth and submitted formally to the Planning Board with an application for a determination of its jurisdiction, said Board would no doubt determine that the plan.required approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Approval in this case would mean that each lot would have to have the required frontage as s -t forth under the town's zoning by- law and also that Winter Street in front of said lots would have to be constructed and municipal services installed in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land in Lexington. In regard to a frontage, this requirement would seem un- reasonable because the existing lots 4 and 5 do not have the combined frontage necessary to provide for two lots each having 150 foot frontage in Winter Street for the reason that the subdivision known as Park Heights Section 1, of which said lots 4 and 5 are a part, was recorded prior to the passage of Lexington's zoning by-law. There would be undue hardship involved in requiring the Harringtons to construct Winter Street in front of lots 4 and 5 at their own expense when the owner of lot 10, in particular, and all other owners of real estate in the sub- division in general, would benefit by such construction. On the other hand if this portion of Winter Street were laid out as a town way, as it is understood the majority of residents in the subdivision would like to have done, it is believed that no undue financial hardship would be involved on any particular lot owner. In addition the layout by the town would not involve the subdivision control law. Because the proposed resubdivision of the Harrington lots would be on a public wav the Planning Board would not need to be in- volved in a petition for a variance. One other matter to which your attention is called is the still unresolved definitive subdivision �lan entitled "Carriage Grove Estates Lexington, Mass. , dated April 15, 1961s revised October 16, 1961. (The lot layout plan con- sisting of sheets 1 and 2 of said definitive plan is loaned to you to indicate the relationship between the Carriage Grove Estates plan and the plan accompanying the Harrington petition.) The original plan of April 15, 1961 was revised after many conferences with Mr. Harrington who objected to said plan and on the basis of what was understood to be a verbal agreement made by him. The Planning Board recognizes, of course, that Mr. Harrington is under no obligation to participate in any arrangement which would involve his lots. Should he be willing to enter into an arrangement with the ' subdivider, however, the Planning Board is prepared to approve the revised Carriage Grove Estates plan. 5-28-62 -8- The Board believes that any shifting to the east of the exist- , ing common boundary line between lots 4 and 5, Winter Street, as proposed in the petition would eliminate the possibility of there being carried out a very desirable solution to the exist- ing situation. The inclusion of Parcel A in Coach Road as shown on the attached print entitled "Plan of Land in Lexing- ton, Mass.", dated October 9, 1961 and prepared by Joseph W. Moore, Inc. would be the first stage of this solution. The second stage would be a resubdivision of lots 4 and 5, Winter Street, and lot 12 on the Carriage Grove Estates plan as in- dicated on the attached overlay drawn on tracing paper. Such a solution would be of benefit to all concerned, Including this towns and greatly improve existing conditions in the locus of this case. To indicate how t?le Harringtons would benefit by such a solu- tion, there would be no betterments assessed against lots fronting on Coach Road for the reason that the subdivider would have laid it out and constructed it under the Subdivi- sion Control Law. In addition it is understood that when 'Ji.nter Street is laid out as a town way there would be no street betterments assessed against the newly created lot at the corner of Coach Road and Winter Street for the reason that the greater of the two frontages for said lot would be on Coach Road. , Sincerely, /s/ Samuel P. Snow Planning Director 4 enc. cc: Mr. and Mrs. Harrington June 4, 1962 Gertrude H. Murphy 3A Winchester Terrace Winchester, Mass. Dear Madam: Reference is made to the preliminary subdivision plan en- titled "Preliminary Plan of Subdivision.," dated April 18, 1962 and prepared by N. H. Fitzgerald, Jr., engineer and surveyor. It is understood that through Mr. Fitzgerald you requested the Lexington Planni-ng Board's informal opinion in regard to said plan. The plan was referred to Mr. John J. Carroll, Jr., WorksLexing- ton'sI Superintendent of Public Works and Town Engineer. It is his opinion that the utilities and road location on 5-28-62 -9- said plan appear to be acceptable. The road location is acceptable to the Lexington Planning Board also, provided as indicated in the case of another preliminary subdivi- sion plan of ,yours submitted to this planning board and dated January 11, 1962# you construct Thornberry Road from the Lexington -Winchester town line to the common property line between vour land and that of the Winchester Develob- ment Corn. The opinions expressed do not constitute approvals. Action in regard to these matters will be taken when an application for approval of an accomnanying plan is submitted. There is, of course, also the matter of relocating the pres- ent Lexington -Winchester town line passing through this subdivision in order to eliminate the many problems which would arise with the development of the proposed subdivision. It Is the opinion of those Lexington officials who have viewed the preliminary plan, dated April 18, 1962, that all of the lots in the new subdivision be located within Winchester. This is a matter uhich the Lexington Planning Board will be pleased to discuss with the Winchester Planning Board in order to arrive at a satisfactory relocation of said town line. Sincerely -yours, /s/ Samuel P. Snow Planning Director cc: Winchester Planning Bd. Mr. N. H. Fitzgerald, Jr. Lexington Supt. of Public Works 1