Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-11-14PLANNING BOARD :HEARING November 14, 1963 The Lexington Planning Board held a Public Hearing on Proposals to Amend the Zoning By-law on Thursday, November 11, 1963 in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. Present were Chairman Mabee, Members Bryson, Campbell and Meyer, and approximately 65 persons. The hearing was called to order at 8:00 p.m. Since each per- son attending was presented with a printed copy of the proposals, the reading of the same was dispensed with. Taken up first were proposals No. 1 through No. 9, all having reference to A 1 Districts. Proposals 10 and 11 were then dis- cussed. These change the A 1 district where the Lexington Inn now is to a CH 1 district so the Inn will conform to the present by-law. Next considered were proposals No. 12 and 13; relative to road- side stands. Proposals 14 and 15 concerning C 4 districts, commer- cial and professional offices were discussed followed by Nos. 16, 17, and 18, also concerning C b districts. record. The hearing was declared closed at 10:05 p.m. A transcript of the hearing is hereby made a part of this J seph ampbell, Clerk Minutes of Public Hearing on Proposals to Amend Zoning By -Laws before Lexington Planning Board November 14, 1963 Mr. Irving H. Mabee, Vice Chairman of the Lexington Planning Board, read the Notice copies of which were available to all those attending the meeting. See Attachment #1 Mr. Mabee Advised that Articles 1 through 9 were inserted by the Planning Board for two basic reasons: 1. To change the present A-1 zone which permits both apartment dwellings and motels, to permit apartments only; motels will then be restricted to CH -1 zoned districts where they are now permitted under the present By -Law, and 2. To change the set backs on apartments from 30 to 40 feet. Mr. Mabee then asked for questions from the floor. Malcolm Gavin, 24 Normandy Road: What is to become of the Russell House? It will be non -conforming. Mr. Mabee: Yes, it will be non -conforming, but it has been since zoning laws were adopted and will continue to be so. This is a unique situation. It is in an A-1 zone and does not conform to A-1 zone structures. Mr. Gavin: Do they have to come to the Board of Appeals to remain there? Mr. Mabee: No. Does anyone wish to speak in favor? Anyone wish to oppose? There were no responses. Mr. Mabee: Advised that Articles 10 and 11 would remove the district in which the Lexington Inn is now located from our present A-1 to our present CH -1 district. CH -1 would not fit into the proposed A-1 district because it is not an apartment - it is a motel. There is a great deal of land across the street from the Inn already zoned for com- mercial use. Is anyone for or ggainst Articles 10 or 11? INo comments -2- Mr. 2- Mr. Mabee: Advised that Article 12 would legalize a situation which exists at the present time with our roadside stands in Lexington. It is pro- posed by the Planning Board at the request of the Board of Appeals. He advised that the Planning Board had discussed it at some length with the Board of Appeals on many occasions and the present proposal is what both agree is the best solution. Anyone in favor of this proposal? Thomas Napoli, 73 Middle Street, Lexington: I am in favor of it, not so much for a selfish reason, but because I think that roadside stands in Lexington are an asset to the town. We offer a unique service and we feel there are a lot of people who like to have them here. Also, if for some reason we were forced out of business, the land would then revert to any number of uses which probably would not be as beneficial to the town taxwise as at the present time for the simple reason that vacant land is not a burden to the town. I have here 200 signatures; I received no refusal from anyone who came into the store to sign the proposal as such. (?) Please define "under cover." Mr. Mabee: What we had in mind in this case is . . . quite often you will see piles of wood, fertilizer, etc, with no roof whatsoever. What we mean by "under cover" is within or under a cover. This is entirely subject to the approval of the Board of Appeals; they would have to make their own interpretation. (?) Is there a wall involved? Mr. Mabee:,, I do not think so. Mrs. Rolls (?): This is to legalize something already being done? I am interested to know what policing would be done in the future to make sure that this is being done? Mr. Mabee: This is for the Board of Appeals to work out. Mr. Napoli: I would like to give my version of the situation as to what the lady seems to feel might happen. It would be very foolish for roadside stand operators to revert to an entirely commercial venture for the simple reason that we would destroy the very reason people come to us. The moment we would revert to an entirely commercial operation they would not find what they came for - a farmstand with a country setting is unique. I have operated a stand for thirty odd years. When we submit something to buy that is not in keeping with things in general, we immediately get sales resistence. So, from your point of view, why would you want to come to our stands if you can't get what you want; I think the thing will police itself. Mr. Mabee: Anyone in favor? (?) In regard to the policing, do the people who have the responsibility for this approve of this proporal? -3 - Mr. Nickerson (?): There are two ways that it can be policed: 1. The roadside stand operator will have to come to the Board of Appeals for a renewal of their permit. The permit can be re- newed or not at the discretion of the Board of Appeals. If complaints reach the Board of Appeals about a particular stand the chances of having their permit renewed are diminished. 2. I imagine the Building Inspector might be sent to investigate complaints sent to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Lincoln Cole: If complaints are received, this would come under the re- sponsibility of the Building Inspector to enforce. Mr. Mabee: Anyone still in favor? Mr. Chesley Dunlap, 225 Waltham Street: There is a letter in the Minute Man that raised the question of the assessment for the area used by the stands themselves. Can you provide us with information about this? See Attachment #2 Letter to the Editor of Minute Man from Lewis J. Rose, 25 Fairlawn Lane Mr. Mabee: No, I am sorry I cannot. Anyone else in favor? Mr. Richard Michelson, 51 Asbury Street: Is there anyone here who can give us an answer on this assessment? Mr. Mabee: Maybe Mr. Napoli can tell us. Mr. Napoli: I have no particular figures as to the stand itself. I can tell you that my entire farm is assessed as house lots which I would say is more than the rent I would have to pay for a good sized store in Lexington for the little business that I do, comparatively speaking. Mr. Richard Eaton, 40 Percy Road: Is there at present a requirement for "off street" parking? I know of one particular location that does not have such and it creates a traffic problem. Mr. Mabee: No. Again, the Board of Appeals only has the power to grant per- mits. They spell out specific items that must be adhered to and if they are not done, then their permit can be rejected when it comes up for renewal. 0.� Mr.ggersdorf (?): Why are licenses for two years rather than one or some other period of time? -4- Mr. Magee: The Board of Appeals feels that once every two years is sufficient. If only the applicant is present, and there are no objections at the time of renewal, they see no reason for the license being less than two years. Mr. Michaleson: How will the Sunday laws affect this new rule? Will they be closed on Sunday? Mr. Mabee: I do not have the answer to that. Mr. Wathen-Dunn, 44 Maple Street: If I have an up-to-date copy of the zoning By -Laws, Section 14 (f) is a very simple situation, and what we are proposing here is a very extensive revision of this. Therefore, this off-street parking is a specific provision which is being added. I think it is a good idea. The question is to what extent this should be spelled out because it may seriously affect the existence or non-existence of at least one stand that I know of. You said this was at the discretion of the Board of Appeals, but there is no specific provision as to how you determine whether or not the park Ing is adequate. Is this just up to the Board of Appeals? Mr. Nickerson: I can answer that question. The Board of Appeals will take the cases one by one as they are presented to us and we will examine the situation regarding parking and specify that there shall be sufficient space to take care of the stand's needs. This paragraph of the proposed new section was gone over by our counsel and they have advised us that this wording is sufficient to allow the Board of Appeals to insist upon adequate off-street parking. The one case referred to apparently is a stand that was started before the zoning By -Laws. There is no parking there and there is no room for it, but it kas there before 1924, and it is the only such one as far as I know. Question (?): Is there some reason why the word "adequate" is not used before "off-street parking?" Mr. Nickerson: Yes, a definite reason. Counsel did not wish to include that word. If you say "adequate" you have to explain what is adequate; if you say "off-street" it is at the discretion of the Board of Appeals to determine what is adequate. Question: Will this permit the establishment of new farm stores in residen- tial areas which do not adjoin farms? Mr. Nickerson: I would hope 'no.' I do not believe there is going to be any rush of applicants to establish farm stands. I believe, and we hope, that they are numerically on the wane. If a petition was made to the Board of Appeals to operate a stand that was not con- tiguous to the property of the petitioner, I seriously doubt if it would be granted. I cannot be 100% definite about it, but it would seem a 'long shot' that we would grant such a thing. As far as I know, all existing stands are on the property of the farm owner - on the edges of streets and highways. Mr. Mabee: Anyone wish to speak in favor? -5 - Question: At a meeting of the Board of Appeals two years ago at a hearing for a petition for a stand, an attorney made the remark that it was not necessary to obtain a permit to sell produce gorwn on the farm. Is that correct? Mr. Nickerson: No, it states that it is necessary. The present Section 14 (f) is extremely brief. It says, "Permits for yearly term a roadside stand for the sale only of produce of the land of the owner of the stand that is within the town." This is the present wording. This new proposal has, however, that same statement: " . . . . . . . ." Statement: No one has challenged that statement which has confused the town - "grown on the premises." It was agreed you had a right to do other- wise. Mr. Donald Wilson, 32 Fern Road: We have operated our farm for 75 to 80 years. We do bring things down from Litchfield, N. H. It is a question of necessity for the following reasons: 1. At one time we had a lot of pigs in East Lexington, which we no longer have. We do have a broiler farm in Nashua, N.H. We feel it is in the best interests of the town of Lexington to have them grown there and brought down all dressed. 2. We were advised to discontinue growing spinach here due to the leaf spot caused by the fumes from the traffic. We tried it, and have grown spinach in New Hampshire very successfully. We have replaced that vegetable with others - beans can be grown here okay. We now grow about 50% of our vegetables in New Hamp- shire which is a necessity due to the traffic and its affect on produce. As to taxes - I do not have complete records, but about six months ago I was looking through the ledger. In 1907 we paid $27 and sold $31 worth of produce that day (?). Our taxes now are $5,000 and we sold $1,000 that day (?). Pressures have made it necessary to grow our produce outside of Lexington. Mr. Joseph Volante, 85 Lowell Street: (To Mr. Nickerson) There has been a great deal of difficulty with the supervision of the zoning By -Law as far as enforcement by the town of Lexington is concerned and, as you know, I have worked with you on this problem for about four years. At many of the hearings I have attended you stated that it was practically impossible for the Building Inspector to supervise all the roadside stands. If this present proposal is passed have you made provision for the superivision of this zoning ByLaw? Who is going to be responsible for enforcing this provision? Mr. Nickerson: A number of years ago the Board of Appeals got rather tired of granting permissions according to Section 14(f). It went to the Board of Selectmen'. and asked for a joint hearing for the purpose of solving this situation. It was discussed at some length at that N time and consideration was given to employing additional help which, of course, would have to be employed by the Selectmen and included in our annual appropriations. All that was done at that time was "thinking." It was said that one method of solving the difficulty would be to employ one part-time person to handle just this type of work. As time went along, and no later than three or four months ago, we got more tired of granting these permissions knowing that it would not be possible to enforce the By -Law, so we had another meeting. Gentlemen, we had to do one of two things: Insist that the By -Laws be enforced or broaden the By -Law to permit the stand to sell produce not grown on the premises and in the town itself. The Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board agreed that the effort should be made to broaden the terms of Section 14(f). We are endeavor- ing to make this section broad enough so that a roadside stand can operate - it can sell what we think to be the needs of the community - not only beans, spinach, carrots, etc. but lemons, plus, etc. This article is intended to achieve just that. Mr. Lewis J. Rose, 25 Fairlawn Lane: I think we have a disgraceful situation when Mr. Wilson feels quite free to admit that he has openly violated the law. This leads us to wonder whether the law could be enforced at all. He sells bird houses, etc. which is in violation of the law. I would like to know how this new law, which sets the 50% cirteria, is going to be enforced when our Board of Rppeals and the Building Inspector are incompetent or unwilling to bnforce the present law. How can we expect them to enforce the new law? Mr. Mabee: Are you against this proposal? Mr. Rose: Yes, I am against this proposal on both counts. Mr. William Hoyt, 89 Hamilburg Street: I have seen quite a bit of increase in the activity of these roadside stands. There is one in my community very tastefully arranged inside and out which is doing a considerable busi- ness. I think their parking lots accommodate 60 cars. I do not be- lieve that this is the purpose of a residential zone. I would like tc suggest that these stands move into areas zoned for the produce they want to sell. I am against. Ntss Alice Monahan, 51 Lowell Street: It is hard for me to talk against the Wilsons because we have always been good friends. However, across the street from our property is a new stand which started business only a few years ago. There are several violations there. Others in the town are trying to keep their property neat, but this stand has about 75 feet of debris . . . . I am a real estate broker. In this same neighborhood is a new house which, had it been in some other area, would have been sold, but be- cause it is in the path of this blight it is still for sale. It cannot be shown without going past this blight with all the litter. -7 - We have just paid a fabulous price, through the courts, for our property in order to keep it in the family. We have five acres of land and an investment of $40,000 at stake, but we will not be able to sell our property with this blight and the general neigh- borhood. Mr. Volante: I wish to speak in opposition. I have attended a number of hearings before the Board of Appeals and would like to state publicly that in this town we are concerned about the civil rights of the colored people - but also about the selfish right of the white people. At these various hearings objectors were treated with discourtesy and in a rather inhuman way in objecting to these farm stands. I am a CPA but my family are farm people and are entitled to make a living. But there is no reason to adopt this proposal allowing 50% of their products to be imported, because under the present arrangement it has been impossible for taxpayers of this town to be protected against violations of this zoning By -Law. I do not see that this new proposal will be enforced. How is the town going to be assured that our state- ments are true? I have a registered letter which I sent to the Board of Appeals as a result of which they had to recind decisions because they did not act within the laws of this community. If this is adopted the people of Lexington will not get protection against violations. However, Mr. Nickerson,nor any other member of the Board of Appeals, cannot assure us that we will not have retail establishments running in our residential locales. Violators should be treated accordingly. As a citizen of this community I think it is a very, very serious matter if the people of our community do not understand what the By -Law is - there has not been eough publicity to get your support. Why should we allow the community to get into further difficulty with this new proposal when the present section has not been enforced? In spite of objections, hearings were held and licences granted. Can anyone show us how the town is going to be protected from further violations? In addition, there are a number of taxpayers paying only $800 - $900 on homes; one piece of property valued at $150,000 is paying only $2,000. Farm stands are assessed for $25,000 - store property in the business areas are assessed at $250,000: If this zoning By -Law is going through there should be an amendment that farmstands be taxed at rates comparable to super -markets and that there be a provision in the law that they will not exceed the particular limit (?); and further that necessary policemen be hired to see that the law is adhered to. We do not want to be treated with discourtesy at these hearings. I am opposed to the By -Law in its present phraseology. There are too many questions. I request that you give this your consideration. Mr. Joseph Busa, 140 Grant Street: I would like you to know that we have operated our stand in Lexington - on Grant Street - for fourteen years. Originally we were wholesale farmers. Lexington farmers used to run M this town. Practically everyone was a farmer. We are now diversified. During the past years the competition has gotten so great and taxes have risen so high that we had to change our way of farming. We are now retail and wholesale farmers. We wholesale numerous flowers into the Boston market and roadside stands in Lexington, as well as at our own stand. We have had to go into fresh vegetables and fruits. There have been comments as to why our taxes should not be increased because we sell produce we do not produce. This meeting has come at a very bad time of the year. There are not enough voters available to sway this. When we started we sold just what we raised. On Sundays, weekends, customers - voters of Lexington - would ask why we don't have fruit. We would like to have you carry sweet potatoes, turnips etc, to go along with our meals. Now, all these commodities cannot be raised in this area. These products are brought in at the request of Lexington residents. I believe all stands try to hold their own products in the same respect. People have asked for fertilizer. The requests of the people have de- manded these additional products. We do not make much on the products brought in - as a chain store does. They sell quantity - we do not. They get a certain amount of trade in the center. But if you go to the farmer for a pound of spinach and he is taxed $50 for selling spinach . . . . the weather spoils produce over which we have no.con- trol - it is the man upstaris that gives that gives him good and bad luck. We try to keep our stands clean for the same reason our taxes are high. We like to have clean living conditions and respect others around us. Hardly any stands in Lexington are messy and dirty. I think they are well maintained. I would like to submit names from customers - and if this was done in the middle of the summer I am sure you would find pages of people In favor of selling 50% of things not raised by the farmstand owners. They are all for it. It is for their accommodation. See Attachment #3 Mr. Nickerson: As Chairman of the Board of Appeals I pride myself that our hear- ings are conducted with reasonable dignity, but when people become unduly repetitive they are asked to confine their remarks to a certain time. I call to the attention of this gathering that this suggested re- phrasing of section 14(f) is unanimously backed by the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals. We sincerely believe this is a reasonable solution to the situation wherein the Board of Appeals can issue permits for two years for the sale of products demanded by our residents. It must have some merit if backed by these three boards. Statement (?): I must say that I find it very hard to believe that it would be easier for the Board of Selectmen or the Building Inspector to enforce any law that says"50% of the non -home grown produce"as against zero percent. If you see fertilizer you know it is not grown there. How can the Building Inspector say more than 50% of our of town produce is being sold? This would require an accounting procedure. Corn is all right at Wilson's, but I do not believe you should buy fertilizer there. This is a hardware product. It would be very difficult to police this 50%. I know of one particular stand that was approved after being turned down two or three times. I believe the final permit said that only farm products could be sold, and if you go into that new building it looks like Jordan Marsh. If they wish to conduct a large business on their land then the building should be assessed as a large business to compete with other businesses in the town. Louis Rose: Having been at a number of hearings I can say that Mr. Nickerson has indulged in excess sarcasm, etc. I would like to read into the records a letter which appeared in this week's Minute -Man: (See attachment #2) The Busa stand was way in violation of the law and as a result of a hearing they were not granted a permit. However, they were not shut down and I think a decision has been handed down today . . . . . With respect to assessments, Mr. Wilson informs me that some of the data I have is inaccurate. Mr. Wilson's building cannot be assessed at anything more than about $6,500; whereas the First National Stores is assessed for $284,000. This leads us to wonder whether the First National Stores did something like 40 times the business volume. I do not believe this is so. I would like to have this question answered: How do they expect to see the new law enforced when they cannot enforce the present law and do not intend to? Miss Monahan: I have more money tied up in connection with this situation than anyone in this room. Poultry, eggs, etc. Where do they store them? They are products that come off the farm . . . If tuna fish can be contaminated, what protection does the public have against home made jellies? About litter - Mr. Busa states the stands in this town are very well conducted. He put an addition on his stand without permission and the next thing he did was to put in some hot -top. Why doesn't he have to go through the Building Inspector? He has just finished a new greenhouse without the wilding Inspector seeing it. They had a large canvas across from our property all summer. twat does the Inspector wish to do about this? -10 - Mr. Mazanelli (?) applied for a permit to sell nursery products. He planned to have his stand 50 feet back with evergreens and hot topping. It was tarred and landscaped and he was going to bring in produce he was going to raise. He was denied for five reasons: 1. Judgment of the Board was that the location was not suitable for X this type of operation. 2. It would impair the neighborhood. 3. Would not be in harmony with the Lexington zoning laws. 4. Would not involve a hardship 5. Mr. Busa applied for it in his name. The property belonged to his father. We questioned Mr. Nickerson and asked if we would be notified Instead of someone dead for five years. The remarks passed from Mr. Nickerson were not pleasant. We asked him to speak to the town Counsel before they passed this (but we knew that Mr. Busa owned the property from the town line to his house). Before they left that night they accepted Mr. Busa. Xe.gbtsa lawyer and they had to recind for technical reasons. Mr. Busa was operating illegally from July 17 to 31, 1963 without a permit. Mr. Nickerson stated that the hearing was for a "renewal;" my lawyer said "no" it was for a new permit. Miss Monahan read an Affidavit, dated July 30, 1963, to be included in the minutes. Attachment Louis Rose: It is unfortunate that a private citizen of this community is forced to go out and hire a private lawyer. We do not get any legal advice from our taxes. Mr. Kent (?): I have been under the impression that all the stands have been of long standing. How many have been put into existence within the last 10 to 15 years? Mr. Nickerson: The one on Lowell Street has been added within the last 10 years. I believe this is the only one. The well kept and operated stands have been in operation for a long time. These are the ones that we want to continue. Question (?): What happens now? I -11 - Mr. Magee: After this meeting the Board will take the matter under advisement and present it to the Town Meeting for action. Statement (?): It is a good idea to have someting more specific and this opens up more questions that should be studied further before being adopted. Mr. Volante: I would like to read two paragraphs of a letter sent to the Board of Appeals, dated March 6, 1962 and which was sent registered mail: Today we examined the public record at your office and wish to advise that we are very disturbed by the material ommissions of facts, information and data presented by the objectors to the board at the public hearing. Your secretary advised us that she was extremely tired toward the end of the hearing and that she would rewrite the minutes and include the vital data omitted by her. Your records state that the building inspector had approved the plans relative to this petition. Today we questioned the buicld- ing inspector and he stated that he had not approved directly or indirectly any such plans so you are requested to correct the legal minutes of the public hearing. Attachment #5 This points out the problem of enforcement and the rights of tax- payers to be heard, and their rights should certainly be respected. Mr. Mabee: I declare this hearing closed. The committee will take this under advisement and make their recommendations. Articles 14 and 15 will now be discussed. They are to establish a new commercial district called C-4, a so-called small office building district - commercial and professional. They are not to exceed 2 stories in height and a minimum of 60,000 sq.ft. of land required, with 175 foot frontage on all streets it abuts, and a 50 foot set back on each street and highway. The building shall not occupy more than 25% of the area. C-4 districts will require site control which is the same procedure we now have for C-3 and A-1 districts. You may remember at the last annual Town Meeting there was a proposal for a building on Waltham Street, adjacent to the Waltham line. The Board basically was in favor of this office building in principle, but did not like it in a C-1 zone as this would also permit commercial types of stores. This particular proposal satisfies the Board that we can have an office building area with sufficient controls to be used as a transi- tional type of zoning. -12 - Mr. Stephen Russian, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue: This is the land that was included in the warrant last year and withdrawn at the request of the Planning Board in order to change the C-1 zone to provide a new zone restricted to office building use. This land is on the Waltham/Lexington town line with 70,000 sq.ft. in a C-1 zona. The proponent that I represent owns some 30,000 sq.ft. The additional 40,000 belongs to someone else. However, it will all be put into the C-4 use so that it will put an end to other uses of the property. The building as presented last March was three stories - technically 2 1/2. That design is no longer going to be the design of this build- ing. The Planning Board has restricted this land to two stories - so that our plan is not longer usable. The proponents are still anxious to proceed with the utilization of this land for this purpose because it has no residential value. Mr. Mabee: Does anyone else wish to speak in favor? Mr. Rose: Is No. 13 not going to be presented to the meeting? Mr. Mabee: Both 12 and 13 are part of an article in the warrant already. They are separate articles. Mr. Rose: We did not get to first base with 13; we went on to 14. Mr. Mabee: Does anyone agree we should go back to 13? There was a unanimuous N0. Mr. Mabee: Anyone wish to speak in favor of articles 14 and 159 Mrs. Alan Wade, 534 Concord Avenue: I am not sure of the exact area included in this proposal. Does it include the white house? Mr. Mabee: Yes. Mr. Russian: Dr. Short has kept out a 150 foot strip to act as a buffer. Mr. John Harvey, 1 Constitution Road (?): What are the facilities for water and sewage and what will be required by the town? Mr. Russian: We have a letter from the superintendent of the Public Works in Waltham expressing a willingness to allow the proponents of this particular property to tie into the Waltham sewage system until such time as Lexington provides sewage for this area. Percolation tests were performed by the engineer which proved to be extremely good on the back side of the property. . . . 400 sq. ft. of leach- ing is all that is required. In one way or another this property will be controlled. The Board of Appeals will have to be satisfied before we can get a building permit. -13 - Question (?): Is Lexington going to widen that street? Mr. Russian: There was talk last year about widening Waltham Street and the possibility of law suits for land damages? In investigating the suituation we are talking about only a 10 foot widening, and my proponent has no desire to sue for damages for 10 feet. Mr. Otis Brown, 49 Waltham Street: It is our understanding that the St4te intends to widen the street from the new cloverleaf to the Waltham line. Mrs. Wade: I believe the building as presented last year involved 49,000 sq.ft. Do they want the same size building in another form? Mr. Russian: It is probable that there will be a newly designed building and it may not be confined to a single structure. It may be two or three buildings joined with walks. The size of the building initially would not be 48,000 sq.ft. but might reach that with demand for expansion. It is anticipated that there will be two buildings, two stories high - one for professional use and the other for office use. It is hoped that the building could be started in the spring. Mr. Mabee: Anyone opposed? Mrs. Wade: I am opposed. As I understand it there does have to be a 50 foot side and 50 foot back yard but those yards can be paved even though they may not be used as parking. Answer (?): 25 feet has to be green grass. Mrs. Wade: If it is to be paved it would be unsightly and would cause people in the R-1 zone in the side and rear to have their land rezoned also. Mr. Griffiths (?): This is called a small office district and I am wondering what is written into it to keep it a small office district? Does it fit into the master plan? You have to be realistic about what will come next to it in the future. If it is called a small office dis- trict there should be some way of limiting the size. It says two stories but it does not indicate the maximum hiehgt. Is there any- thing that says that the area has to be totally asphalt? Or 50% parking space and 50% green? You can say it is not paring and still have`it asphalted. Some such buildings now existing are quite unat- tractive. Mrs. Wade: There should be room for 350 cars with that size land and building which is about the size of the Star Market parking area. Mr. Mabee: We control the size each time we approve a new type district and site control gives a lot of flexibility in determining what is a good layout and what is not. There must be site approval before building construction can begin. Mr. Rocco, Waltham Street: I am in favor. I live across the street. It is a mess now and nothing could make it any worse. -14 - Mrs. Wade: I agree it looks horrible but nature did not make it that way. The owners dumped whatever is there and made it unattractive. Some of the land across the street and next door is unattractive. Also there are two businesses down the street one of which is absolutely out of con- trol; the other one may be legal but it is disorderly looking. People might be influenced to say that this might be something for the better. Question (?): At the beginning of the proposal it says, "All buildings and uses that are permitted in R 1 districts . . . . " Does the law control signs on this property? Mr. Mabee: Yes, this would apply to C-4 - all commercial districts. Statement (?): I believe it would be wise to put Lexington signs on the other side of Route 2 to include it as part of Lexington. Question (?): Does Lexington have control over exterior lighting on business property? Mr. Maybe: Yes. The Board of Appeals has to approve lighting. Question (?): Has there been any more study of the traffic problem and how much it will be aggravated by this new building? Mr. Russian said that 400 cars were mentioned last year. Mr. Russian: I just used the standard code - one car to every 400 sq. ft. of general office space. On the basis of a 48,000 sq, ft, building it would mean approximately 400 cars. A smaller structure at the present time would bring that figure down. In terms of general use I would expect that the ratio would be higher - but doctors, who use two rooms, sometimes bring down the number of cars per square foot. Mrs. Wade: A building of 48,000 square feet, less 10 - 15% for halls and utility rooms, divided by 100 sq. ft. equals 408 to 432 cars. That seems like a lot mto me, so I looked around and picked out one of the biggest parking lots in Lexington - the First Nktional Stores — where I counted 182 parking spaces; there are 339 parking spaces at the Star Market. This would be even more!! Mr. Mabee: Is anyone in favor of articles 14 and 15? Mr. Lester York,, 594 Marrett Road: I would like to clear up a point here. Under this new C-4 I wish you would get the 48,000 sq. ft. out of your thinking and off the record. It is just impossible to build a building of this size as previously proposed under this present deal. It can only go two stories and land usage does not allow that much. The basic thing here is that with two buildings - one for medical use and one an office type building — each with 15,000 sq. ft. equals 30,000 sq, ft. Only 78% of office a1msx building space is usable. Mrs. Ruth Morey, 90 N. Hancock Street (?): Does "not over two stories in It height" omit pitched roofs. Two stories are not as attractive as three stories with a pitched roof. -15 - Mr. Mabee: Presented articles 16, 17 and 18. Question (?): Is this piece of land referred to in several lots now or all one lot? Mr. Russian: One lot of 200 X 200 is owned by a Mr. Williams; the balance id one lot. Question: Can this be combined into one lot? Question: When they widen Waltham Street will that make this property non -conforming? Mr. Mabee: No. 60,000 feet are required and this would be allotted before widen- ing Waltham Street. Mr..Russian: The 4z acres plus the 40,000 sq. ft. equals a total of 52 acres. Mrs. Wade: This is the outer zone which is 30,000 sq. ft. This infers that it is a residential zone mostly. It infers that the house is surrounded mostly by greenery. Mr. Mabee: The idea of the new C-4 area is as implied - a small office district. In C-3 you have to have 5 acres to start with which would allow a larger building. C-4 designates small office district. We realize that these offices will be close to residential homes and want the scale of these build- ings to be in keeping with the scale of the homes, and that is why it is limited in size. With site control we think we can do a lot to make these offices blend into these areas. Statement: The large office building on Marrett Road at Five Forks does not blend in with the homes in the area. Mr. Mabee: That is why we put site control on this area. Mrs. Wade: There are approximately 51 parking spaces at the Five Forks building. Mr. Whalen (?) If the other lot owned by Mr. Williams has 40,000 sq. ft. then it must follow that you are starting off this new zone giving Mr. Williams permission to put up a building on 40,000 sq. ft. Mr. Mabee: That may or may not be true, but it is a possibility. Mr. Whalen: (?) That means that if you could not get permission to put an office building on that area you could put a residence? Mr. Mabee: The best solution would be for them to combine the land. Question (?): Please explain site control. Is it the responsibility of the IPlanning Board or the Board of Appeals. Who makes the decisions? N -15 - Mr. Mabee: Site control is a very lengthy thing and I would be very glad to loan you my copy. An applicant comes into the Board of Appeals and submits plans. The Board of Appeals sends it to the Planning Board and we have 30 days to look it over. We have been criticized for looking it over too critically. We can make specific suggestions as to the exterior. I think the Maple Street apartments went through the first time; the apartments on Worthen Road #ook much longer. Mrs. Wade: Asked for an answer to her question about the space on the rear and side yards. Mr. Mabee: There is no real concern between the buildings - we are concerned with sides, front and highways. Closed the meeting saying that they would make a report and the Tut&iMeeting on Monday night would vote on the issues. End