Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-09-231 PLANNING BOARD MEETING September 23, 1963 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in its office, Town Office Building, on Monday, September 235 1963 at 7:45 p.m. Present were Chairman Mabee, members Bryson, Campbell, Greeley, and Meyer, and Mr. Snow, planning consultant. Considered first and approved by the Board were the minutes of its meetings of July 29, August 12 and 26, and September 9, 1963 MINUTES The Board then approved for payment a bill submitted by Samuel P. Snow in the sum of $280.00 for professional ser- BILL vices to the Board for the period September 9 through Septem- ber 20, 1963. Considered also were the notices of petitions to be heard by the Board of Appeals on October 1, 1963. It was decided to take no action on these petitions except that one of E. C. Barrett. It was further decided to inform the Board of Appeals of the Planning Board's opposition to Mr. Barrett's petition and the reasons therefor when the Boards met in joint session later on during the Planning Board meeting. From 8:00 to 8:50 p.m. Mr. William Roger Greeley met with the Board i. inform it )f the work of the informal com- mittee appointed by the Board of Selectmen on November 12, 1962 to study Lexington conditions in regard to housing for the elderly and to report to the Selectmen the results of this study making such recommendations as the Committee deemed advisable as a result of said study. Mr. Greeley said that the Committee's study revealed a definite need for low- cost housing for those residents of Lexington who have passed 65 and are retired and can no longer afford the upkeep of their homes. He also said that upon the Committee's filing a report with the Selectmen, they voted unanimously on June 24 to insert an article in the warrant for the next town meet- ing "To see if the town will vote under Massachusetts General Laws (Ter. Ed.), Chapter 121, Section 26k, as amended, to establish a Lexington Housing Authority and in that connection to make any and all determinations and declarations deemed necessary or desirable, and take any action in relation thereto." Mr. Greeley stated that the proposal is to erect -- with state assistance and at absolutely no cost to Lexington -- attractive, self-sustaining apartment units to rent for HOUSING FOR ELDERLY STUDY COMMITTEE 9-23-63 -2- approximately $55 a month, including heat, to those meeting ' eligibility requirements. Reading from a report he had pre- pared, Mr. Greeley said these requirements, as established by law and explained by the State Housing Board, are as fol- lows: 1. A person must be 65 years of age or over (single persons living alone or couples are eligible). 2. A person must be a citizen of the United States (except an alien who has served in the Armed Forces and who has been honorably discharged and provided application has been made for citizenship; also aliens eligible to receive Old Age Assistance). 3. A person must be of low income. In general, the annual income of a single person must not exceed $2,500 and that of a couple $3,000. 4. A person must be in need of good housing. Reading further from the report, Mr. Greeley said, "If the Town Meeting votes to establish a Lexington Housing Authority, the Selectmen will appoint four unpaid members of its Board, for terms of one, two, four and five years. The State Housing Board will appoint the fifth member, who must also be a Lexington resident and meet the approval of the Selectmen. As the terms expire, one each year, the positions will be filled by public election. "The Authority will select a site, keeping in mind the special needs of the elderly. It must be convenient to stores and public transportation. It must also meet standards estab- lished by the state. "Its next step will be to issue bonds or notes, guaranteed by the state. These have always been gilt -edge investments and have sold quickly. "The project itself must meet all local zoning, building, and other requirements, plus those established by the state as neces- sary for the well-being of the occupants. These include grab bars in the tiled bathrooms and emergency bells in the bathroom and be- side the bed to unlock the door and summon aid in case of sudden illness. The buildings may not be more than two stories high, and all that have been built in the state so far have been models of attractiveness and have contributed to their neighborhoods. "The projects --and there are now 'several throughout the state --are self-sustaining, with the aid of a moderate subsidy paid by the state to assist in amortizing the cost of the struc- tures. 9-23-63 IM ,,The only potential cost to any community is the loss, of tax revenue on the land itself. Even in this case, however, some local authorities have arranged to pay the community an amount in lieu of tax, based on the value of the land three years before acquisition. "On the other hand, other communities have been sodesirous of providing adequate low-cost housing for their elderly that they have given the land outright to their housing authorities." In discussing with Mr. Greeley possible sites for the low cost housing units, he said the committee would appreciate receiving any suggestions the Board might wish to offer in regard to this matter. He said that under the auspices of the State Housing Board projects of this nature rarely exceeded fifty units and for this reason a site of only about 4-1/2 acres was needed at a reasonable cost. He noted that some consideration might be also given to sites of larger acreage with the view of possibly extending in later years the number of units of a project. The Board told Mr. Greeley of the proposal for garden apart- ments Mr. Charles H. Cole II had presented to the Board at its meeting on September 9. It was suggested that the northeast corner of the Maxner and Seth land in the vicinity of Sargent, Shirley and Tewksbury Streets might make a good site for a Lexington Housing Authority to consider. Mr. Greeley was asked if he could obtain from the State Housing Board an informal opinion in regard to this site. Mr. Greeley agreed to obtain one and to make arrangements with Mr. Cole to view the site. Mr. Greeley emphasized, however, that while some of the members of the present study committee might be appointed to the Lexington Housing Authority, an informal opinion of the committee would not be binding on the authority. Mr. James E. Farmer of Billerica and his attorney, Mr. Jack J. Moss, met with the Board from 8:50 to 9:20 p.m. in regard to LONGFELLOW the Longfellow Estates, Sec. 2 subdivision. (See minutes of Plan- ESTATES ning Board meeting of August 26, 1963,3 Town Counsel Legro met SEC. 2 with the Board at the same time. - FARMER Mr. Moss spoke of the burdensome expense Mr. Farmer would have to incur in constructing Longfellow Road in, this subdivision, stating that Mr. Farmer was seeking some means of relief from this expense. Mr. Moss pointed out that this relief could be in the form of three lots, each having areas of 20,000 square feet, created out of Lots 17 and 18 fronting on Longfellow Road. He asked if this could not be done by the Planning Board under Sec- tion 81-0 of Chapter 41 of the General Laws where it reads that the number, shape and size of lots shown on an approved plan may, from time to time, be changed without action by the board, pro- vided every lot so changed still has frontage on a way shown on a plan approved in accordance with the subdivision control law of at least such distance as is required by the town's by-law for the erection of a building on such a lot. Mr. Moss pointed out 9-23-63 that the 469 feet of frontage on the southeasterly side of Long- fellowI Road was more than enough for three lots each having 150 feet of frontage. It was pointed out that the Board was not in a position to endorse any plan showing three lots having areas less than 30,000 squarejfeet even though the lots had 150 feet of frontage for the reason that said lots would not conform to the Lexington Zoning By-law' It was also pointed out again, as had been done at Mr. Farmerls previous meeting with the Planning Board, that this was a matter which came under jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals. It was further noted that in order to bring the matter properly before the Board of Appeals, it was necessary to record first the definitive subdivision plan of Longfellow Estates, Sec- tion Two. Again it was pointed out that this had not been done because the Planning Board had not received from Mr. Farmer a grant of easements within said subdivision. Mr. Moss said that Mr. Farmer was willing to grant ease- ments to the town in the parcel marked "James E. Farmer" situated between Hawthorne Road and the land marked "Universal Builders, Inc." but was seeking something in return for the grant. Members of the Board pointed out that the town could not require Mr. Farmer to grant easements in said parcel but could require him to lay out and construct Hawthorne Road to the boundary of the sub- division. It was also pointed out to Mr. Moss that the Board by ' not requiring the subdivider to lay out and construct Hawthorne Road as noted had in effect land -locked the parcel marked "Uni- versal Builders, Inc." and that the Board should now reconsider its position, perhaps holding a public hearing on its own motion under Sec. 81-W of the Subdivision Control Law, to modify its approval of said subdivision so as to 'require the layout of Haw- thorne Road to the boundary of the subdivision. It was further pointed out that if Mr. Farmer did not wish the board to con- sider such action, he could produce the executed grant of ease- ments whereupon the executed covenant in this case could also be produced and the approved subdivision plan, originally endorsed Feb .12, 1962, could be re -endorsed. Mr. Moss was informed that if the original instrument prepared by former Town Counsel Stevens and sent to Mr. Farmer could not be found for execution, another instrument could be prepared for this purpose should Mr. Farmer so wish. From 9:20 to 10:30 p.m. the following representatives of ROADSIDE the Board of Appeals met with the Planning Board to discuss the STANDS former's draft of an amendment to paragraph (f) on;.page 52 under - Section 14 of the Zoning By-law: Chairman Nickerson, members BOARD OF Abbott, Ripley, Hoyt and associate members Dawes, Farwell and APPEALS Ricker. Town Counsel Legro was also present. At the conclusion of the conference the following draft ' was generally agreed upon as the one the Board of Appeals con- 9-23-63 sidered woild conform to existing practice. Mr. Legro was re- quested to re -draft it in language most suitable as an amendment to the zoning by-law. He was also requested to draft another amendment to be allowed under Paragraph (g) providing for the seasonal sale of Christmas trees and wreaths. "To permit the owner of a farm to maintain on that farm for terms of two years a stand for the sale primarily of farm products grown within the town on land of the owner of the stand. There may be permitted for sale plants, flowers, firewood, poultry, eggs, vegetables, fruits, berries, preserves and other edible products of a similar nature produced outside of Lexington providing these do not constitute a major percentage by dollar volume of annual sales. The sale of all other products is expressly prohibited. Off-street parking must be provided and material kept under cover except that plants, flowers and firewood may be offered for sale outdoors." Considered next were the following Form A applications for determination of Planning Board jurisdiction: #63-60, submitted Sept. 16, 1963 by George W. Forten; ' plan entitled "A Compiled Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", dated Aug. 1913, Scale: 1" = 601, Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s and Surveyors. #63-61, submitted Sept. 12, 1963 by Murray G. Dearborn; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington -Mass.".. Scale: 30 feet to an inch, May 14, 1963, C. J. Kitson Corp., Lowell. Upon motions duly made and seconded it was unanimously VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plan accompanying Form A application #63-60 does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law, and that said plan be so endorsed. VOTED: that the Lexington Planning Board determines that the plan accompanying Form A application #63-61 does re- quire approval under the Subdivision Control Law. The Board''s attention was called to a letter, dated September 16, 1963, from the Woburn Planning Board extending an invitation to attend a dinner meeting on October 9, 1963 for the purpose of exchanging information on a regional scale with ' the Planning Boards of towns surrounding Woburn as to what can best be done in the area. Messrs. Bryson and Mabee agreed to represent Lexington at this meeting. -5- WOBURN REGIONAL MEETING 9-23-63 -6-' Attention was also called to a letter, dated September ' SPECIAL TOWN 17, from the Lexington Board of Selectmen advising that a MEETING special town meeting had been scheduled for November 25, 1963. Mr. Mabee announced that arrangements had been made through the Town Counsel to obtain the services of Henry W. Hardy, ZONING Esquire, of Needham to assist the Planning Board in drafting AMENDMENTS amendments to the Zoning By-law to be inserted in the warrant for said town meeting. Mr. Mabee said that Mr. Hardy had agreed to meet with the Board for such a purpose at its next meeting to be held on October 7. It was reported that on September 16, 1963 the Board of LEXINGTON Selectmen had voted to establish an industrial committee to be EXECUTIVE known as the Lexington Executive Park Development Committee PARK to consist of three business men, a member of the Board of DEVELOPMENT Selectmen, a member of the Planning Board, and the executive COMMITTEE assistant of the Board of Selectmen as an ex -officio member. (For the purposes of the committee see minutes of the Board of Selectmen's meeting of September 16, 1963). Mr. Mabee appointed Mr. Campbell as the Planning Board's representative on said committee. The Board gave consideration to the inquiry Mr. Stephen STEPHEN RUSSIAN T. Russian had made at the Board's meeting on August 12, 1963, namely, whether or not the Board would be inclined to support ' a variance to use the property numbered 24-26 Muzzey Street for business purposes. (See minutes of Planning Board meeting of said date.) The Board asked Mr. Mabee to inform Mr. Russian that it would neither support nor oppose a petition for such a variance. Mr. Mabee reported that he had previously inquired in- formally of Mr. Russian the latter's possible interest in arranging with property owners for the acquisition of land needed for a larger municipal parking area between Waltham and Muzzey Streets prior to any possible expansion of the central business district as recommended by the Planning Board. Mr. Mabee said Mr. Russian was not interested in making any such arrangements. There being no further business to come before the Board,- the next meeting of the Board was scheduled for October 7. Thereupon, the Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Joseph A. Campbell Clerk 1