Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-11-21PLANNING BGARU HEARING November 21, 1963 The Lexington Planning Board held a Public Hearing on Proposals to Amend the Zoning By-law on Thursday, November 21, 1963 in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. Present were Chairman Mabee, Members Bryson, Campbell and Meyer, and approximately 60 persons. The hearing was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Since each per- son attending was presented with a printed copy of the proposals, the reading of same was dispensed with. Three proposals were considered: 1) Mr. and Mrs. Reuben Seth and Mr. and Mrs. James Maxner, represented by Charles H. Cole, archi- tect, to change from an R 1 zone to A 1 zone land on Worthen Road be- tween Massachusetts Avenue and Bedford Street; 2) Russell S. Davenport, represented by Norman Richards, atty., to change a CH 1 zone to A 1 zone of land on Bedford Street; 3) presented by Mrs. Alan Wade a change in the Zoning Enabling Act. record. 1 1 A transcript of the hearing is hereby made a part of this )sep ampbell Clerk Minutes of Hearing on Proposal to Amend Zoning By -Laws before Lexington Planning Board November 21, 1963 Mr. Irving H. Mabee, Chairman of the Lexington Planning Board, read the ARTICLE. He stated that this was an initiative petition and we would hear from the pro- ponents regarding this change which is proposed. After the proponents have given their views, the floor will be open to questions for information only and then will discuss the matter further, after which those in favor and those against may speak. ISee attachment #1 Charles H. Cole, Architect, 1775a Massachusetts Ave., Lexington, Mass. Mr. Cole posted a plan of the areas involved . He pointed out the areas involved on the Northwest side of Worthern Road, across from the four -acre piece rezoned last March. I represent the owners of the land and am the Architect for another project. I will be the architect for another project and will probably have a direct interest in it. The reason for this initiative petition - owners of the land and I went before the Planning Board with this plan or a similar plan and would like this area rezoned A-1. It is proposed that 7 acres of a back piece be given to the Town - sold for far less money than the 13 acreas in front - for Town playground. The Planning Board mentioned this might be a possible site for homes for the elderly. Owners would be willing to use it for that purpose at the same price. The State has seen it and they have not given official approval but it was said to be acceptable. 1 - 2 - Charles H. Cole (continued) This land originally was Harrington land. We feel that the land in back - rocky, steep and hilly with beautiful trees would like to preserve a 3z acre piece in memory of the Harringtons as a park. Houses for the elcbrly would be separate from the piece in front. We feel that the proper use of this land would be in A-1 zoning. There are 48 proposed units to bring them together. This back project will not be developed probably until 1966 - the little one is projected for 1964. Eight years ago, land was zoned A-1 on Worthern Road and Waltham Street - no houses built there yet. Another site on Maple Street was zoned six years ago - just being built on now. We are not going to throw all these houses or units on the market at the same time. Want to do it in steps. The people involved are all Lexington people except one. We are doing it for the good of the Town. As homes, the tax revenue would probably be about $4,800 - as a housing project, it would bring about $20,000. Not one more or less foot of land being built. As a subdivision of single homes, roads would have to be accepted. Private roads may stay private. I am trying to point out - I have had some experience in planning - that this is good use of this land. Beyond this piece there are no trees - peat to be removed would be costly. It woud never be developed into single homes. The back piece is higher and would not be as severe a handicap. One piece is heavily wooded with beautiful trees and with good design in multiple housing, this lot could be developed more beautifully than with single homes. Trees over 12" butt size in diameter will be saved. Some trees are 2-31 in diameter. With proper planning, it should be one of the most beautiful sites in New England. Type of houses will be semi -luxury type proposed by Nyler for Maple Street, about the same as built on Worthern Road and Waltham Street. Types of houses will look like typical housing -- semi -luxury, two bedroom, private bath, separate dining, kitchen and foyer. Not in low cost housing league. Questions? Mr. Mabee: We will change the format somewhat. Please ask questions for in- formation - will not now discuss favoring or disfavoring - this will be done later. Francis E. Burke, 88 Bedford Street, Lexington: Owner of property at that address - I received a notice of this meeting. I would like to ask some questions. Mr Cole, in analysis of income to the Town, you compared the difference between single houses and garden apartment types. How expensive do you figure - 3 - Mr. Burke: the single houses to be? $20,000 or $50,000? Mr. Cole: Probably $27,000 - $302000 -- $25,000 cheapest. Allowing $600 a year in taxes on house - or $800. This is based on old tax rate. Mr. Burke: What is proposed for means of getting to this property? Access from Hill ,Street? Mr. Cole: Nothing definite on this. If Housing for Elderly goes in here, it is up to the Housing Authority how to get in. Both Shirley and Tewksbury Streets might be considered. I am not saying what will go there. Mr. Burke: Is it under consideration to use Tewksbury? Mr. Cole: Yes. Mr. Meyer, Member of the Planning Board: (addressed to Mr. Cole): What is your relationship to the project? Mr. Cole: I am the Architect and a participant in the Trust. Mr. Meyer: How many units? Mr. Cole: 168 units. Mr. Meyer: Using the front part? Mr. Cole: Lot B. Cannot build all of them at once. Put up about 1/3 each year. Building will be done in groups. Mr. Meyer: Have you any experience in apartment house building? Mr. Cole: One member is a builder and one is an architect. Mr. Meyer: Do you planto have the buildings managed by someone with previous experience? Mr. Cole: Had/mRnd Mr. Niles, but they do not want to be associated at this time. Mr. Meyer: Where are the houses of the other two boundaries? Mr. Cole: There are none. If you walk along the stone wall, you see no houses in either direction. ? What does the grade line show? Mr. Cole: Very steep here. It is nice place for a tow or ski slope. Ephriam Weiss, 462 Lowell Street, Lexington: Are you suggesting that $7,000 houses be sold at $15,000? Mr. Cole: Figures are based on the old assessment. Mr. Fisher, Massachusetts Street, Lexington: - 4 - Mr. Fisher: Is rezoning of total propdrty contingent" on'availability of land for the Housing project? Mr. Cole: The Planning Board can answer re this matter of Housing for the Elderly. Probably the most beautiful site for it. Norman T. May, 285 Bedford Street, Lexington: How many acres in the proposed zoning area? Mr. Cole: 21. Mr. May: How many acres are to be sold for housing for aged? Mr. Cole. 7. Mr. May: Is there an agreement in existence? Mr. Cole: There is a signed letter to the Planning Board offering this land for a price for this use. Mr. May: Is there an agreement with a group for Housing for Aged? Mr. Cole: No. Mr. May: How precise is the agreement to give these acres to the Town for a park? Mr. Cole: It was proposed to me as representative of the owners of the land about three years ago. We gave a letter regarding price and town use. Mr. May: There is no agreement with the Town? Mr. Cole: No. Mr. May: How many apartment units are to be installed? Mr. Cole: 168. Mr, May: Over how many years? Mr. Cole. Two or three. Mr. May: Has there been a study of sewer, water, roadways in the area? Mr. Cole: No. This is only for a zoning land change and not a study of the road systems. Sewer has been seriously considered because of previous A-1 zoning. Niles Company offered to Town to build at their expense. Mr. May: Has the Planning Board required a site plan showing roadways, sewer and water? -5 - Mr. Mabee: No. Mr. Dunn, Maple,St., Lexington: I The boundaries as laid out include the entire plan? Mr. Cole: Right. Mr. Dunn: If this Article for Housing Authority - and if Housing Authority then wished to do something about the land in back, it would have to be zoned for that use from what it is now? If land in back should become available for Housing for Elderly, what zoning would have to be done? Mr. Mabee: A-1 - this change. Mr. Dunn: Is the pumping station proposed sufficient to handle the estimated capacity of this and future building along this road? Mr. Cole: It is sufficient for both sides of the road. It was said to me by Department of Public Works that over the last five or sic years, pumping station would have to be developed. If this land ever was developed, a pumping station would have to go in. Not just because of multiple housing. The first year's taxes on this project would pay for that. Joel Koffman (?) to Chairman of Planning Board: Are you in favor of this change from R-1 to A-1? Mr. Mabee: We have discussed this with the proponents. We did not discourage them from getting an initiative petition. But I do not intend to say whether we are in favor or not in favor until after the hearing. In long range planning, we have stated in summary reports that we thought an appropriate number for the town would be 500. At that time, we did not have any - now we are getting several. Jim Pesky (?) You indicate that of the 21 -acre tract to be rezoned, you anticipate 7 to Housing and 3 to Park? Mr. Cole: The three is in the seven. Mr. PeskY: If the Housing Authority does not choose this site, then this acreage would be open to build additional garden apartments. Mr. Cole: The offer stands to the Town. Mr. Greeley, Member of Planning Board: The Planning Board believes that the proponents would offer this land. If the Town did not choose to take the property or if the owners change their mind, this would be available for garden apart- ment developments under the zoning. ? You stated there would be 48 apartments in one section and 168 units in the northern section. Mr. Cole: One and two bedroom apartments. ° Rental amount? Mr. Cole: I am not allowed to say. ? Have you done any preliminary study regarding the number of children? Mr. Cole: We figure approximately 3/4 of a child per family. Not planning to have families with two or three children. We would rent to people without children first. Would not allow more than one child. This is for elderly. ? It could be as many as 216 but it may be 175. This is an estimate of course. Have you made any estimate of cars? Mr. Cole. We figure one car for every family. We are figuring 1 and 1/3 cars per family for space. ? The area is already congested. Mr. Cole: We have considered parking. In my opinion, the traffic problem is not the thing to worry about but changing the appearance. There will be houses where there is now nothing. I do not think the traffic will be a serious problem. If it were commercial property, that wouklbe different. We will have parking space for everyone and some extra. ? Has any action be taken to construct the shopping plaza? Here it was indicated on the plan where the shopping plaza would be located. Mr. Cole: One of the main reasons I am interested in A-1 is to stop com- mercial zoning in that direction. Mr. Mabee called for those to speak up who are in favor of the amendment: John McNeill, 102 North Hancock, Lexington: I am in favor of this amendment - it appears to be excellent useage of the land and a better potentiwl for income for the Town and I am definitely in favor. L"awreince: Stonq Sheridan Street, Lexington: There are not normally two groups of apartments together --one modest scale for senior living quarters and the other luxury type. These are both serving the same kind of central need. They both - in their neighborness - do not serve or damage each other. - 7 - Raymond ? , 209 Linden St., Lexington: I am in favor of this amendment. It would improve the looks of the property, it would enhance the value of the property around it as well as being good for the Town. Richard Perrington (?), 106 No. Hancock St, Lexington: I, myself, would like to utilize something like this in a few years hence. There is nothing exactly like it now in Lexington and in my retirement years I would hate to leave Lexington be- cause of non-availability. The Town needs it, it would improve appearance of the Town. R. L. Seth introduced himself, his wife and sister - owners of this property. The Harringtons owned this property in 1723. I think we improved the property by putting in the First National Store. I think the architect did a very nice job on the plans. Mr. Burke: I am not sure this is the proper meeting to raise this question re- garding access to this property. Serious consideration should be given if they are considering using Bedford Street as an access to this property. Bedford Street is already a speedway. One man was killed on Shirley Street and other man was crowded off the street and struck a telephone pole. I would like to go on record to say it would be very disastrous to have any entrance from Bedford St. Mr. Mabee: It would be under control to be sure there was suitable access. Mr. Burke: I realize that the &ixthorities consider Bedford Street a risk at the present time. The people in our neighborhood feel they should know how we feel. This property should be given no access from Bedford Street. Robert B. Kent, 15 Patriots Drive, Lexington: I would like to make an observation and request of the Planning Board. I am aware that a zoning change relating to use of the land and subdivision control are separate and distinct. However, it is rather difficult to fully evaluate this zoning change without definite information regarding the subject of roads and access. I have had some calls from the people in the Tewksbury Stree abea. Tewksbury and Shirley streets are small streets. If it is in the picture as a result of this change that Tewksbury and Shirley Street will be access streets only to the small plot - houses for elderly - that is one thing. If, however, Tewksbury and Shirley Street, or one of them, is to be tied into Bedford Street with its large units - that is something else again. If would be very helpful if at Town meeting time, if we could have some indication of the thinking as to ingress and egress to both of these areas. Mr. Mabee: Keep in mind that this proposal is basically a proposal to rezone from R-1 to A-1. Should distinguish between specific proposal we have here tonight and the fact that it is a proposal to rezone. I do not wish bad luck to any of these people, but if all of them should die after Town meeting, we would not know who the owners would be then and what kind of plan would come up - what type of streets. I think that regardless of whether it is for aged or young people or middle-aged, I think the complexity of the develop- ment would be such that we would use Tewksbury and Shirty Streets and two on Worthern Road. ? For the entire tract? Mr. Mabee: Yes. Do not know specific proposals. Mr. , one of the abuttors: I have four children and they play at the foot of Tewksbury Street. I am wondEring if the Planning Board or the proponents have made a complete study as to the total benefit of this proposal to the Town - not only in taxes but also in outgo - police protection, schools, etc. Will the schools be able to handle additional dhildren? This has come up quick. I do not know if anything definite has been stated but I do think zoning of this scope should be delayed until positive and definite statements can be made. Evert N. Fowle, 12 Winthrop Road, Lexington: I am against this proposal for a number of reasons. This is quite an important article and is being proposed in such a way that there is not enough time for the Town's people to collect their thoughts about it. It was announced last week and is to be voted on this coming Monday. This is inadequate amount of time on so important an article. I am opposed to this change. Secondly, the residents of the Town live in separated houses which are most attractive - low density population per acre. In this particular tract, there will be 168 units on 14 acres or 12 families per acre. This is kind of congested. This is not the kind of planning which suits the Town. There are going to be in these units about 120 children. Cost per child is in excess of $400 per year - This is nearly $50,000 for school expenses - probably the amount of tax revenue. The Town is not going to make any money on this project. It will probably, in fact, end up paying money out of pocket to have this apartment unit in Town. This complex is going to increase traffic congestion. It will not be a thing of beauty and the sort of thing we came to this Town for. We should go to expense and bother if we get something which fulfills a real need. I would be willing to support a proposal which would provide housing for school teachers, even at some expense to the Town, and even some other Town employees. To provide luxury apartments seems to be nothing in this for the Town except expense, bother and congestion. -9 - Mr. Fowle: I haveanother objection to this. I hate to see the question of housing for the elderly tied to a private promotion like this. I am in favor of housing for the elderly. Sorry that people have allowed themselves to be used by people to promote this tract to A-1. The Housing Authority has not been set up by Town meeting. Selection of site seems to be a concern for the Housing Authority when it is constituted. The Housing Authority should not get land rezoned and then consider purchasing it after. They should find land, get State Housing Authority to okay it, then get an option on the land, a price, then see to rezoning of the land after it is firmly constituted authority and might secure some agreement with the owners of the land. All aspects displease me. Mr. , 24 Shirley Street, Lexington: I am not against the project but we are strictly in the dark re- garding access to this property. I would like to know more about it before I would be for it. I am not against housing for the old. The information we have does not seem to be sufficient for us to make up our minds. is oldest resident and she has seen many changes. At this time, we would like to reserve the right to question how this thing will be handled. Robert H. Dunbar, 98 Bedford Street, Lexington: There will be four acres for housing of the aged - 50 units accord- ing to the Lexington paper. This is half of what we need. Is there enough property there for more or will the Authority have to go out and get another piece of property to build more? I do not see this situation until the Authority gets constituted and then have a hearing after information is available. Alan B. Wade, 524 Concord Avenue, Lexington: I do not think enough study has been put into this proposal or into many of the proposals we have had and are having. We should have studies - Town -wide - and also on the traffic. I have been in this Town 12 years and Town meeting members have always been asked to look at a problem in isolation of everything else. Some- how, it all does work together. Francis , Cedar Street, Lexington: It seems to me that the greatest weakness is that we are asked to rezone two lots in one article. Here we have to reject all or accept all. It would be more desirable if we had two Articles. Should Lot A be rezoned? Should Lot B be rezoned? These are two different considerations and they should be considered separately. - 10 - ? I am in opposition to this Article. The inherent character of the area there - nature of that land is residents and because of that we are considering basic change from residents to garden apartment type. If this change does take place, it would be more valuable as A-1. I object to the fact that on seven acres it is proposed by developers to incorporate low income houses - low cost housing - the very nature of this neighborhood is high valuation neighborhood. I do not think that the northern eight acres would be the most desirable place in Town. On the basis of the character of the neighborhood, I am in opposition. Daniel Coughlin, 11 Wingate Road, Lexington: These people said this was good use of this land. Is this the wisest and best use of this land? What background have these people for saying this? Some mention made regarding comparative purposes. Have you compared Mr. Ruge's house to $20,000 - $302000 house? This will create a condition of economic depreciation. I am a Real Estate Appraiser for the VA. Dr. Joe , 100 Bedford Street, Lexington: It is generally assumed that statistically there will be less children per family. It seems to me that statistically there will be more children in the total development than if developed as it is now zoned. Last night it was stated that the development of low cost housing unit would cost the city nothing. I presume this included the cost of the land. I heard that apartment housing is a good thing in that it improves the appearance of the land. It shouldbe noted that apartment development is not the only way of changing the appearance of the land - recreational facilities would also change the appearance. Ed Bennett, 52 Grove St., Lexington: I am familiar with housing for the elderly. It appears that access to housing for the elderly would be by way of Shirlq Street and not Tewksbury. There is a question also regarding the price of the land. The Housing Authority would pay for the land by sale of bonds guaranteed by the State. Tax revenue would be loss to Town unless agreement made by Housing Authority with Town. Mr. Cole: There is no question of connection between this zoning proposal and housing for the elderly. This has come about second hand. It was originally intended that this land would be for a park. We are here for rezoning of 21 acres. Against. I am in favor of housing for elderly but this other thing is mixed into this article. One of the things we have not spoken about is the population density. Just about everyone favors limit- ing the size of the families and isn't it about time to consider the size of the family in the Town of Lexington? If we have this Authority, would the Authority have freedome regarding the density of apartments? Is there some unwritten law that says we have to developy every lot to the maximum possible? Can't we leave some space open? I can understand the feelings of the owners, but Lexington does not guarantee that owners can redouble the cost of their land. I have just been informed that it costs about $173 per child to educate children in our schools. Comparing that with the income and outgo for about 170 units proposed; figure 1/2 a child per unit - about 65 children; that is close to $39,000 and will go up in future years. I agree with everything said against this Article and want to add what I have just said. Mr. Prell (?), Precinct I: I want to speak against the Article. We have had voiced a protest of or dislike of having more children in the community. If zoning of part of land is to be based solely on the number of students Lex ington must undertake to educate, then we should perhaps go to other means of reducing the number of children, like raising the speed laws, etc. The number of children is beside the point. Minutes of Hearing On Proposal to Amend Zoning By -Laws before Lexington Planning Board November 21, 1963 Mr. Irving H. Mabee, Chairman of the Lexington Planning Board, read the ARTICLE. See attachment #1 Mr. Mabee stated that this proposal was the result of an initiative petition and we would hear from the proponents regarding this change which is proposed. After the proponents have given their views, the floor will be open to questions for information only and then will discuss the matter further, after which those in favor and those against may speak. Mr. Norman Richards, Proponent: Mr. Richards distributed a smaller plan in order that the participants could orient themselves to this particular parcel of land. This parcel is a parcel of property currently owned by Mr. Davenport, located on the southerly side of Bedford Street, and consists of 7.3 acres of land. The land itself is greatly unused farm land and has been used in the past for growing of flowers by Mr. Davenport. Hinchey Road is a private way. Hartwell Avenue is zoned CH -1 which permits all of R-1 uses and also provides for motels, hotels, and use in light manu- facturing area. It was zoned in 1962 for the purpose of providing an area for construction of motel and hotels. Most of you are probably aware now of a proposal for a motel or hotel at Rte 128 and Bedford Street. r I►.M Mr. Richards: This land is presently occupied by Mr. Davenport. There are houses - 4 residences - on Hartwell Road. One residence belongs to Dr. Smith, which is the small parcel cut out of the diagram. The proponents plan to use this land for garden apartments, which under the current zoning law can be done only under A-1 zoning. Land on Hinchey Road is high land and runs down to 128 to lower part of the land. Ease- ments restrict building on the land, but can be used for parking area. Hinchey Road has water; Bedford Street has water and sewer. There is no structure within 200 ft. of Bedford Street. I have another plan which shows trees of any consequence, but does not show structures currently on this property. It is difficult to tell at the moment how many apartment units could be put in; about 100 - $1,250,000 development, if current estimates are correct. Mr. Meyer, Member of Planning Board: Is access to this land from Hinchey Road or Hartwell? Mr. Richards: Unlimited. Mr. Meyer: What are you going to do with the 300 feet in front? Mr. Richards: We anticipate it will be an extension of Hartwell Avenue at some future time and increase the size of the intersection at that point. Mr. Meyer: How much higher is Hinchey Road than remainder of the land? Mr. Richards: I do not believe it is any higher. Here (pointing to plan) it is about 126 ft; on Hinchey Road, 130 feet. Mr. Meyer: Behind the green houses, how high? In middle of property? Mr. Richards: 112 - 114 ft. Land starts at top of Hinchey and runs down. Anticipate that arrangements would be made to lower Hinchey Road. Mr. Campbell: This would leave 100 ft of CH -1 on north side. Mr. Richards: Wuuld take title to all of the property. Mr. Campbell: How many square feet in CH -1 zone? Mr. Richards: 100 x 400 - 4,000 sq. ft., roughly. Mr. Meyer: I would like to point out this is not light manufacturing zone - but office and laboratory. Mr. Mabee: Any other questions? - 3 - Mr. Weiss (?): What type of soil in that area - will it require extensive work? Mr. Richards: It is a sandy type of soil. Suitable for building. There are currently houses along there. Norman T. May, 285 Bedford Stret, Lexington: Any provision being made for sewer and water? Mr. Richards: Yes. Mr. May: Gravity flow? Mr. Richards: Yes. Mr. May: What is the opinion of the abuttors? Are they here tonight? Mr. Richards: There are reisident abuttors and owners. Mr. May: I understood most of it belong4toMr. Davenport. Mr. Richards: No. ? How close is it to the town dump? Mr. Richards: I do not know. It is on the other side of the railroad tracks. The Town made a waiver of land with immediately across the B&M tracks on the east side so that they could gain access over land to the area. ? What about capacity of sewer system? Mr. Richards: Seems to be adequate for Lexington and Bedford shopping center. Relief sewer in that area for town of Bedford and airport. Mr. York: From the map it would appear that some houses on Hartwell Road are included. Are you purchasing some property on Hartwell Road? Mr. Richards: No. Russell S. Davenport, 482 Bedford Street, Lexington: There are two houses on Hinchey Road/woich uld be included in the purchase. Four private owners. Mr. Meyer: We have taken property in Hartwell area on both sides of the railroad tracks which town has acquired by eminent domain. Area presently proposed for town dump on Maquire Road. How close is this property? Who is back abuttor? t 1 Mr. Richards: Mr. Davenport: Mr. Richards: Mr. May: - 4 - Mr. DeFlice. The abuttors are , DeFlice, Brookey, and Colotta. The Town has made several so could not tell you. Are the four abuttors in business or in residence? Mr. Richards: I believe they are currently in light manufacturing zone. The line runs very closely. It is very difficult to trace because right of way of B&M used. A parallel line was run - 12 ft, away. All of this is CH -1. Mr. Mabee called for those in favor to speak: Mr. Davenport: I bought this land January 1, 1945, for greenhouses to grow carnations and out flowers. Our greenhouses have turned out to be a liability and we are in the process of taking them down. This property was zoned in July 1962 for CH -1 and there has not been any particular interest demonstrated in the property since that time. We have talked with a number of people in our end of town and Mr. DeFlice lives right at the end of the land - and they are all agreed they would rather have garden apartments than an office building or motel. There is not much question that a pretty set of buildings would be an asset to the land and should be an asset to Lexington in the tax picture. Mr. Daniel ? I would verify Mr. Davenport's request. With the cemetery near by, it is an appropriate place for garden apartments rather than an office building or laboratory. He has tried to develop it. There is one motel going up down the street - there is not room for two. Garden apartments would be an asset to the other property which could be used for office building. It is not much use for anything else. Whatever revenue it brings in would be more than it is now. And any relief we can get in that line - I am not going to bring up the question of people. This is the birthplace of Liberty - and everything I have heard tonight seems to be against birth. I have been here 20 years and developed a little hnd. This seems to be the best location if we are going to have one. The location is far enough away from others and it would be an added value to the Town. Mr. Sam Pardee, Pinehill Road: I live half a mile beyond this area. I have lived here for 40 years. I believe it would be a good thing. Many people are approaching 60 and would want an apartment here. They have lived here and believe there should be apartments in this town. I would not have brought up children in an apartment and I believe that most people now do not want to bring up children in apartments. -5 - Mr. Mabee: Anyone opposed? Evert N. Fowle, 12 Winthrop Road, Lexington: I am opposed for many of the same reasons given in the previous hearing. Mr. Sussman (?): I am opposed to this Article for most of the reasons mentioned before. In addition, this parcel was zoned CH -1 for some good reason in the distant past which the Town Meeting felt was proper. It's right up against an extension of land for Cabob, Cabot and Forbes. If NASA comes to Woburn, it's possible we could get tenants in their - Lockheed, etc. There are millions of Americans moving to this area from �partments and they have no desire to buy houses. Mr. Weiss: I am opposed for the same reasons previously stated. Anthony J. Carota, 66 Hinchey Road, Lexington: How low do you plan to put Hinchey Road? Mr. Richards: Owned by Davenport and Cabot, Cabot and Forbes - would be made in coordination with Town Engineer. Road would not be made in any way that would be detrimental. Mr. Richards pointed out on the map the houses in the area and to whom they belonged. I would like to answer one question regarding the land just adjacent to this. It cannot be built on under the present zon- ing requirements - only about a two -acre parcel. Regarding turn -around on Hinchey Road. At the time, acquired a parcel for people to use to turn around. There is an access to Hinchey Road off Hartwell Road. Then, they built a little turn around here. It is an unimproved private way. Mrs. Riffin: How much commercial land in entire CH -19. Mr. Richards: I could not tell you. There is Dr. Smith's property. How much of this with more than one ownership, I could not say. Minutes of Hearing On Proposal to Amend Zoning By -Laws before Lexington Planning Board November 21, 1963 Mr. Irving H. Mabee, Chairman of the Lexington Planning Board, read the ARTICLE. See attachment #1 Mr. Mabee: This proposal is the result of an initiative petition, also. Mrs. Wade presented the arguments for this proposal in the absence of her husband. This is part of the Zoning Enabling Act of the General Laws of Massachusetts. It is one of the laws which we may choose to accept. The idea behind it is this - for years, Town Meeting members have been asked to make changes on a year to year basis - some times concerning the same land for the same uses. I wonder why we should take up Town Meeting time and money each year and we feel this is a way to provide a way out for the people who live in the area. This may even be a help to people who feel they have no zoning problems at the present time. The City has a lot of open land which may be open for discussion later. There is a town north of Bedford which turned down a proposal for an unwanted motel and that proposal cannot come up before next year's Town Meeting and the town can go on with constructive business. This is changing town policy.Even if this ARTICLE is adopted, it is possible to bring it up against for discussion, but this ARTICLE would establish a policy against it. If this happened in an area near you, you m;ght find that it was turned down one year but would you want tl�through that again? Mr. Mabee: Any questions? Mr. Meyer of the Planning Board: This only applies when you have the same zoning article. If you have a different parcel and different use, it does not apply. It does not affect initiative petitions or Planning Board wanting a hearing. If a petition is presented, it must go on the Warrant and and must hold a hearing. ? If the Planning Board report is not favorable, can the Town Meeting vote on it? IMr. Meyer: It gives the Planning Board a pocket veto. 1 r = 2 - Mr. Ben White, (?): This ARTICLE precedes several key zoning laws on this Warrant. Would it effect subsequent ones which were defeated? ? If passed, it would have to be approved by the Attorney General's office and it would take effect on that date. Mr. Walker (?): There was some discussion in the general meeting regarding laws being available to Town Meeting members, but in this ARTICLE, the part in quotes, I would assume it is exact and complete as quoted. I gathered from Mr. Meyer's statement there is some relief to this, in particular if identical article had been considered. Mr. Meyer: Very frequently hearings are held very close to Town Meeting time. Certain subjects come up for amendments. Certain things would make the article not the same article under certain circumstances. Mr. Walker: Reference to Section 6, previous section of Chapter 48. Is this the report which the Planning Board presents? Mr. Meyer: The Planning Board is regtired to have a Public Hearing and make a report to the Town Meeting. All of these tonight are hearings under Section 6. ? I do not understand what this is accomplishing. We will still have to hold a hearing; have to have a warrant. There is some- what of a saving in voting on Town Meeting floor if the Planning Board gives a negative report. This was suggested as being desirable to save town money and time. I do not understand. Mrs. Wade: I have talked to people on Planning Boards from other towns and there is a feeling that the town respects the spirit of the law and they do not attempt to get around it with little legalities. ? Such an article will not provide much of a legal machinery for avoiding getting articles on the warrant. But it would give the Planning Board moral backing when they would like more time for Planning and it would support them in the work they are doing. They can put in an adverse report and insure that they will get a little more time to work in such proposals for general planning of the town and they can take more of a part in town planning. ? Have any of the proposals brought over the last few years for key pieces of land been sufficiently similar that anyone would want to change - would this give the Planning Board any more discretion? 10 -3- Mr. Mabee: We get a great many proposals. I would guess we turn down 9 out of every 10 - we suggest if the proponents are interested enought to get an initiative petition. ? I think we should say we "discourage them" not "turn them down." Mr. Mabee: I think this point is important. There are technicalities in this kind of thing which are easy to get around and a person with a good lawyer can get around them. Mrs. Wades point of view is that if the Town is willing to adopt this change, maybe the Town Meeting will be governed by fair play. By and large, if the Planning Board is against it, does it appear on the warrant? Mr. Mabee; Yes. There was a recent request for rezoning for apartments. The Board was not in favor. Presented again as a Nursing Home. We would like time to consider these things more seriously. Mrs. Wades point is that it is a problem for the people in the area involved and they want assurance that it wont come up again. Mr. Meyer: Did not want to bring in I'm afraid this will give a false sense of security. Mrs. Wade: We have lived through experiences and I think that unless one is actually in the situation they do not have an idea of what it is like. I feel this change might not help us, but it may help in other areas in the town. ? I agree wholeheartedly with Mrs. Wade. I would strongly urge upon the Planning Board that an ambiguous law of any sort is no solution to this type of problem. 1