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