HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-01-27PLANNING BOARD MEETING
January 27, 1964
A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was
held on Monday, January 27, 1961, in its office, Town Office
Building, Lexington, at 7:45 p.m.. Present were Chairman Meyer,
members Campbell and Greeley, and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber.
The Board approved the minutes of its meeting of Janu- MINUTES
ary 14, 1961.
.Also approved were the following bills which had been
presented: Louise M. Macomber, secretarial service Jan. 20,, BALS
1964-49:00; Colonial Supply Co., office supplies --$16.00.
The Pinewood Section One subdivision plan was endorsed, PINEWOOD -
there having been no appeal received during the 20 -day period SHIRLEY
after notice had been sent to the Town Clerk.
The Board executed a partial release from the pro- VINE BROOK
visions of a covenant on Lot #16 as shown on subdivision plan MEADOWS,
entitled 1�Vine Brook Meadows Section Two Lexington, Mass.?, SEC. 2
and dated June 12, 1960.
' Requests for hearings relative to rezoning proposals -
having been received with the required number of signatures REZONING PROPOSALS
attested by Town Clerk Carroll, the following were scheduled
for Thursday, February 20, 1961, in Estabrook Hall: Rayco DATES FOR HEARINGS
Realty `frust - 7:45 p.m.; I. W. Douglas - 8:00 p.m.; Russell
Davenport - 8:15 p.m.; Planning Board proposals - 8:30 p.m.
Mrs. Rawls, representing a committee who is surveying
the general business district in the Center for the League of L. W. V.
Women Voters, met with the Board for a brief discussion in re-
gard to a questionnaire which is being prepared. She said she
wanted the Planning Board to be informed as to what they were
undertaking. They are also consulting with the Chamber of
Commerce. Mrs. Rawls left at 8:30 p.m.
At this time Mr. William R.-Whalon, representing Paino
and LaCava, met to inform the board that their petition for REZONING
rezoning for an A 1 district on Waltham Street had been with- PROPOSAL
drawn; first because of a dispute about the Lexington -Waltham -
line which affects them; and secondly, after research the PAINO-LACAVA
area does not seem to them to be desirable for apartments.
Referring to hearings to be held by the Board of Appeals
on January 28th it was decided to oppose the petitions of Pine- BOARD OF
crest Realty Trust for a nursing home, and Frank Walker for a PPEALS
permit to build on Bacon Street, an unaccepted street. It was
agreed to write to the Board of Appeals calling attention to the
inadequacy of data, and especially of engineering information,
1-27-64 -2-
on the proposed nursing home above Watertown and Mason Streets.
(See addendum.) Also to write that the same comments that had '
been made on two previous occasions apply to the petition to
allow a new residence on unaccepted Bacon Street. (See minutes
of April 1, 1963 and June 24, 1963.)
EXECUTIVE The Board then went into executive session from 9:00 to
SESSION 9:30 to discuss staff problems
Members of the newly -formed Conservation Commission con -
CONSERVATION ferred at some length on the question of whether either the
COMMISSION Commission or the Board should take some specific form of action
to protect the hill above Watertown and Mason streets, or some
part of it, prior to Board of Appeals action on the pending re-
quest for permit. Slides depicting the area were shown by Mr.
Hazel. Several neighbors were present. No formal action was
taken.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
U6r+,Il e -
Roland B. Greeley,
Clerk
---------------
A1.J1JEN1uA
January 28, 1961
Board of Appeals
Town Office Building
Lexington, Mass.
Gentlemen:
In regard to proposed nursing home above Mason and Watertown
streets, the Planning Board comments as follows:
1. The tract of 8 acres appears to us to be one lot. If this be
the case, then cutting off the 3 -acre tract would constitute a
subdivision, since the back 5 acres would not have legal frontage
on any street. The Planning Board knows of no proposal for a sub-
division of this property. ,It believes that a development such as
the one proposed should be allowed only on a single legal lot.
2. The access, as indicated, would be up a very steep hill from
near a blind curve on Watertown Street. It seems questionable that
a safe driveway can be constructed here. Certainly the engineering
details should be carefully explored before any permit is granted.
3. The sketch shown to the Planning Board was by no means an ade-
quate plan of proposed site development. We believe that not of y
1-27-6h
-3-
' access, but also utilities, grading, parking, and fire protection
facilities should be clearly shown for any development which may
be permitted.
4. 'The standards for a development such as this to be occupied by
a large number of elderly people should be at least as rigorous in
the above respects as those for a legal subdivision.
Respectfully,
LE)a-NGTON PLANNING BOARu
/s/ Robert E. Meyer, Chairman
1
I�