Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-11-12PLANNING BQARD HEARING ' November 12, 196h Art. 21 - Nursing Homes The Lexington Planning Board held a hearing in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, Lexington, on November 12, 1964, on the proposal to amend the Lexington Zoning By-law by striking out in Sec. 5 (a) 7 (c) and substituting the following: Ile. Hospitals, sanitaria, nursing, con- valescent and rest homes, homes for the aged, charitable institutions, private schools, non-commercial non-profit clubs, places and buildings for public assembly, and cemeteries." and by adding a new paragraph to Sec. 8 (a) to be numbered 5,, as follows: 5.•Uses listed in sub -paragraphs c., d., e., f., or g. of paragraph 7 in subsection (a) of Section 5 shall meet such requirements as to building area, yards, parking, screening, population density and the like as may be imposed by the Board of Appeals to make the proposed use compatible with the general character of the district. In R 1 and R 2 districts these requirements shall include but shall not be necessarily limited to, the following: a. No more than 15, of the area of a lot shall be built upon. ' b. Between the buildings and each street on which a lot abuts there shall be a front yard of at least 30 feet for lots having an area of less than one acre, a front yard of at least !10 feet for lots having an area of at lease one acre, but less than five acres, and a front yard of at least 50 feet for lots having an area of five acres or more. C. There shall be side and rear yards of at least 20 feet, which minimum is to be increased 1 foot for every 1/2 acre or major fraction thereof over 1/2 acre. d. Suitable plantings, fences, hedges or screens shall be required by the Board of Appeals within side and rear yards to screen parking and loading areas from abutting residences. e. The number of off-street automobile parking spaces shall be adequate for the design capacity or intended use of buildings and land. Each park- ing space shall be at least 10 feet wide and 200 square feet in area, and free and unimpeded access shall be provided to each parking space. The number of driveway openings onto streets shall be kept to a minimum. There shall be no parking within the required minimum front, side or rear yards. Present were Chairman Meyer, members Bryson, Greeley and Riffin, ' Planning Director Zaleski, and Secretary Macomber; also approximately 75 interested citizens. Chairman Meyer called the hearing to order at 8:05 p.m. and ex- 11-12-6h -2- plained that the first paragraph was mostly for the purpose of clari- fying the intent of the present by-law, particularly the word "sani- taria" which did not seem to properly cover the uses the Town wished to include in its permits. The second paragraph is a new section relative in general to rear, frontage and side yard regulations for the above uses. An amendment has been presented at the June town meeting and at that time it was re- ferred back to the planning board for further study, with various sug- gestions. Thinking about this through the summer we decided the treat - est problem of the institutional type of use was putting a large build- ing too close to a residence, but instead of setting up a special zone we decided to solve the problem by setting up area requirements - that is, having more front, rear and side yards in proportion to the size of the building. The uses are so varied it would be difficult to set up a special zone for, say, radio tower, nursery school for 7 children, or a nursing home. We have tried to set up standards which the Board of Appeals might use as a guide. We have checked some of the more recent institutional types of buildings and we find all of these comply with the regulations set forth in this by-law. Mr. Stevenhagen: Have you considered making a provision for these uses in A 1 district rather than R 1? A Meyer: We did, and consider most of these uses preferable in R dis- tricts. We did not feel it necessary to set up a special zone for in- stitutional uses. Stevenhagen: Do you differentiate between profit or non-profit? Meyer: No. We have no limitation as to the use of charitable insti- tutions,, private schools, hospitals, etc. Stevenhagen: Do you consider the profit-making ones would be preferred? Meyer: Some are run to be profitable, some are not. In nursing homes we didn't think it made any difference. Mrs. Marek: Do I understand the regulations listed here are the same as the rules the Board of Appeals are now following in considering these uses? Meyer: Put it the other way - if you build a real big 80 -bed nursing home we want to be sure you don't put it on too small a lot. This also covers Mrs. Smith who has seven children in for a day nursery. We have tried to set up reasonable standards - a big lot for a big building. We checked the number of recent apartments granted by the Board of Appeals for this type of use and find the new construction had complied with these regulations. Mrs. Marek: These are suggestions - nothing legal?, , Meyer: These will become the zoning by-law, therefore legal. 11-12;-6! -3- Weiss: Under part 2, Sec. d., suitable plantings, fences, etc., shall be required by the Board of Appeals. Who determines what is suitable? ' Am wondering if the Board of Appeals should decide not to require plantings or fences, what is to prevent a party from black -topping their entire area with the Board of Appeals permitting it. Meyer: We are not going to put in stipulations such as a 519" cedar fence to be erected - or that he should be required to plant geraniums in his front yard. We have to give a certain amount of discretion and latitude to the Board of Appeals. We consider the Board of Appeals to be composed of solid, reasonable, well-intentioned and well-educated citizens who certainly should be given reasonable latitude to grant variations under a certain set of conditions. Greeley: The intention is to include any fence as suitable if the Board of Appeals feels that way. Meyer: R 1 uses are permitted in other zones also so if you want to put a club in a commercial zone the requirements for plantings, fences, etc. should be different than if put on a residential street. There must be some latitude otherwise we would have a 45 -page amendment which nobody would be able to understand and we would be worse off. Marjorie Pierce: Speaking for the Arts & Crafts - we have some parking land along the easement of Vine Brook. We can't build there but can park there. If this is passed, does it mean we will be illegally parking and ' have to conform to the setback? Meyer You are already in existence. These are conditions for future permits granted by the Board of Appeals. Pierce: If we extend our parking strip on the same easement would we then have to set back 15 ft. from the line? Meyer: Go to the Board of Appeals - they have the power to grant variances. Whalom: This article I assume is to be presented to the Town Meeting upon recommendation of the Planning Board at its own initiative. Meyer: Yes. Whalom: At the last town meeting l think there was considerably body of opposition to the matter then under consideration, particularly pertaining to a pending nursing home situation which is now in litigation - on the in- terpretation of the word "sanitaria." The substance of their complaint was that they believed there was a difference between a charitable institution as against a profit-making institution. Can the Planning Board satisfy the objectors as to whether there is in fact any vital distinction between a nursing home operating for charity - why you might justify one and not the other in a residential zone? Meyer: We tried through the summer and we felt the only real difference is that the non -charitable charges a higher rate. Maybe there are more dif- ferences. 11-12-64 -4- Greeley: We don't see the difference. Operating under the same require- mentsI the profit-making one might have more money to do with. If some- body could point out the real difference we would appreciate it. Weiss: If you take a drive around Brookline you will see many private residences run for profit as nursing homes - many people sink money into it - the returns are high. Meyer: You cannot now convert existing houses into nursing homes. There is nothing to prevent a man from putting up a nursing home on his lot but the conversion of existing homes is no longer permitted. Those in existence before this law may continue. ? There is no point at which you can say there are enough nursing homes? There is no basis on which you can deny it? Meyer: Yes. It is discretionary by the Board of Appeals. Anne Smith: Is there any difference in the taxes - would that make a difference? Meyer: As far as I know the charitable is tax exempt - the profit-making pay taxes. Beaver: I am wondering why is the Board so eager to push this through. There are other areas in which nursing homes could be built. Why move in on residential areas? There is a block of individuals who are interested in Blossom St. and who are backing it and there seems to be a little coertion group within the Board. Meyer: Permits have been granted for years. This is the zoning by-law. We are agreed to try to institute standards when we consider such uses in residential areas. Beaver: Why don't they do this for nursing homes in business areas? Meyer: I can't think of a less appropriate use of a business zone than for nursing homes. A well-run nursing home is an asset and necessity. York: Will the interpretation of this change with reference to the build- ing we have been working so hard for - the Buckman Tavern property - a public facilities building which people will be in and out ofl Meyer: I understand the building is a town building and that is under permitted uses. Paragraph 1 includes public and municipal buildings. Wessler: On the litigation of the nursing home, if this is resolved against the nursing home who is presently trying to defend their position, will this by-law go around that ruling? Meyer: I don't know what the litigation is so I cannot answer. The grant- ingI of the permit has been appealed by some of the residents. 11-12-64 -5- ? Should this amendment go through then, it would be a simple matter for ' the people to come in and ask for a new permit and it would be granted. Meyer: If it is the only grounds for the challenging of granting the pe- tition. This was put in at the advice of the Town Counsel. He will be at the town meeting so we can ask him. Homes operating with previous permits that have been granted for nursing homes would certainly continue to operate. �ghitman: I believe this ended up as my motion to permit a study as a result of the town meeting. I think that is exactly what you have done. It is not your initiative - town meeting requested you to do so. Goldstein: What is the objection in Art. 1 to putting in non-commercial non-profit nursing homes and exclude them in R 1 and R 2? Meyer: Any change in the advertised proposed zoning amendment must be re- ferred to Town Counsel. Goldstein: Why not exclude R 1 and R 2 and have them in other districts? Meyer: The whole paragraph is under R 1 districts so if we moved it out it would knock out the whole thing. Marjorie Battin: Is there any way of spelling how many nursing homes we can have? ' Meyer: I don't know. Greeley: I don't know of any. Meyer: The Board of Appeals can grant in R 1. The Board of Appeals are citizens of long standing and responsibility - I would as soon leave it to them. They don't have to grant if they don't want to. If they see we have enough they will not grant another. Whalom: If Mr. Zaleski would tell us once again exactly what a home for the aged is as distinct from a public home for the poor or on the other hand housing for the elderly which is something else again. Zaleski: On the homes for the aged it would include boarding care and nursing care. Some would not provide nursing care but board. Housing for the elderly have single sets of apartments with kitchens instead of family 'o of each in the tonin by-law. type units. Ude do not have a definition g Y Carol Stevenhagen: I think there is a point - over the period of one year the Board of Appeals was asked to grant permits for three nursing homes and three were granted. This seems rather a large proportion over the period of one year since there were two existing already. Williams: The primary objection seems to be profit-making nursing homes. Why not consider this primary paragraph in terms of non-profit. Did you ' consider this? 11-12-64 -6- Meyer: Yes. We considered this and we cannot from any objective standard , find any difference between profit and non-profit nursing homes. Charles Cole: I am boiling mad, Since when is it a disgrace to make a profit? I have had the problem of nursing homes on my mind for some time. My mother would not be able to be in one right now if they were all non- profit. ? It would seem to me that if we make it non-profit it is going to solve a lot of problems. Meyer: I believe there is a need. As long as there is a need it is worth while - as soon as there is no need they will be stopped one way or another. I£ there were too many there would be no profit so not worth while. A nursing home should be in a quiet restful neighborhood. It is not good to put the elderly or sick in a busy commercial neighborhood. ? Would it be possible to locate in A 1? Meyer: Anything is possible. We consider R 1 as the best one. ? We are putting a great deal of responsibility on the Board of Appeals. Meyer: We are in effect making this amendment to take some of the load off the Board of Appeals. For the first time we are imposing restric- tions. They could grant without any. a. thru e. are not discretionary. ' This imposes sufficient parking to take care of people, no parking on street, sufficient front, rear, and side yards, etc. They would have to do these five things and could add anything else they want to and can in- crease if they want to. Stavenhagen: Under the new State law to be economical they have to be large buildings because first class construction is required. They would not be under 40 rooms. They are large buildings. Meyer: That is the reason we are pushing for the second section - so you have to have a large lot. Now they can be put on a small lot. Sussman: It is not so much a question as to whether it is desirable to have this amount of nursing homes in town but rather under what conditions we would like to have them - setback, side yards, etc. Carol Stavenhagen: What happens if a neighbor puts up a nursing home and Mr. A says "He is making a lot of money and I would like to manufacture nuts and bolts." You would have a lot of profit-making in an R section. Meyer: Nursing homes are permitted - manufacturing is not. Greeley: The answer is this amendment says there are only specific things which the Board of Appeals might permit in R districts. These are the things in paragraph 1 and these are the conditions they must stipulate in , paragraph 2. There is nothing involving nuts and bolts, or gasoline, or such. 1 LI 11-12-64 -7- Stavenhagen: You have already granted a profit-making - why not grant another? Greeley: We have done that always - this is no change. We are decreas- ing it. Dickie: I have had the problem of getting my mother into a rest home and now I don't wonder why it is so hard to get anyone in. We are being pretty picayune in some of these things. The Board has an entirely rea- sonable approach and I think we owe it to them to go along with it. There being no further questions the Chairman declared the hearing closed at 9:10 p.m. PLANNING BOARD HEARING ' November 12, 1961 Art. 20 - Warehousing The Lexington Planning Board held a hearing in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, Lexington, on November 12,1964, on the proposal to amend the Lexington Zoning Bylaw by adding at the end of paragraph 2, subsection (f) of Section 5 the following new item c. "c. Storage and distribution of packaged articles owned by occupant. All storage to be inside the walls of buildings of first or second class construction. The following are expressly prohibited: (1) Activities the conduct of which may be disturbing or detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons working or living in the neigh- borhood by reason of special danger of fire or explosion, pollution of waterways, corrosive, toxic or noisome fumes, gas, smoke, soot,"obnox- ious dust, disagreeable odors, offensive noise or vibration; (2) Retail uses, except such uses as are permitted under paragraph c. of this subsection and the incidental saleatretail of parts or components necessary for the maintenance or operation of articles stored and dis tributed ' (3) Outdoor storage; and (G) Outdoor overnight parking of freight carrying or material handling vehicles and equipment, except in areas specifically designated therefor in the'Finding and Determination by the Board of Appeals. Present were Chairman Meyer, members Bryson, Greeley and Riffin, planning director Zaleski, and secretary Macomber; also approximately 60 interested citizens. The chairman called the meeting to order at '9:15 p.m. stating that since the proposal was printed he would abstain from reading it. Chairman Meyer stated that at the time of the changes in CM 1 and CH 1 districts the Planning Board sat down with every property owner in the area to try to.c,ome out with an acceptable zoning by law. We also undertook to review the restrictions imposed at that time and found many of these requirements proved to be too rigorous. This change originated as a specific project and we still contemplate it, but since the proposed change applies to the whole area of CM 1 district uniformly we are not talking in terms of 'a specific project. This would prohibit the use of general warehousing but limits to the wholesale distributor of articles either owned by the manufactureror wholesaler. ' E. Weiss:' Does this mean if this person warehouses engines he may or may not sell carburetors to go on them? Meyer: Yes. Incidentally. 11-12-64 Weiss: Can he sell gasoline? Meyer: Not unless he sells automobiles in packages. ' ? What streets does this apply to? (Mr. Meyer referred to the area on the map.) ? I would like to know just what type of buildings are going to be out there., Meyer: At the time of the amendments the only restriction in the area was light manufacturing and some three years ago we put in site control and placement of buildings could be controlled by the.Board of Appeals and some slight control on architecture. Now in this change we require that the building be first or second class construction. We do extend the use but we are closing in on the type of building that can be built. ,In the old M 1 w had light manufacturing. ? Will outdoor storage be prohibited? Meyer: This type of operation could have been done under light manufac turing merely by taking the top off the crate, putting on a decal,and putting the cover back•on. Although we,are permitting a storage warehouse we would 'increase the restrictions which have previously existed in this same area restrictions on lot size site control by the Board of Appeals. We don't think you are going to get an ugly warehouse under ' these restrictions. Thomas: Would like to know if this area includes Bedford St. to Hartwell Ave. Meyer No. The area is in the CH 1 zone. We keep the same old M 1 down Bedford St. There ,is no restriction on light manufacturing this is only in regard to warehousing and is .limited to packaged articles. Our main concern is to get tax revenue as soon as possible. What type of storage are you contemplating? May get things on consign ment owned by manufacturer. Maybe it will be restricting someone. Meyer: We may unduly restricting.This change is proposed in response to a specific request. It ,covers it quite well and other uses also., The petitioner has other, uses for this area which would appear to be good but we are not loosening this at any one step. Bernier: You have annually lowered your standards.You come up every year with anew,zoning fot,the area until itis deplorable. Meyer: The only thing we have done ,over the years is to restrict the area. Bernier: That area which was once swamp is now really something that is not of the character of Lexington. People cometoyou to ask for this area ' and who is this customer? What are we doing? Can't you leave it as it is for awhile? 11-12.64 Meyer: This is quite immaterial to the proposal. ? Is there some reason why hourly restrictions could not be put on the area to prevent hauling at night? Meyer: There are specific conditions which are considered to; be nuisances. Greeley: The Board of Appeals could issue a permit subject to the condi- tions that the operation not drive trucks over Wood St. It might not be enforceable. Meyer: The use of the street for over a certain weight limit can be pro- hibited. The effect of this zoning change should have very little effect on Wood St. Whitman: Any information regarding the possible access from Hartwell Ave. to Wood St.? ' Meyer: The last we heard it was sent back in a report to the Bureau of Roads in Washington and buried. With the development of the Historical Park there will be two main entrances'to the airport, one from Rte. 2 in Meyer: When I came to the Planning Board five years ago the only restric- tion was the light manufacturing use 5 acre lot size'. Since we have in- creased the lot size, increased the front setback, side yards, site con - trol. Bernier: We have to have a dump - a dump is enough. It is an intolerable situation. Be fair. You are not even fair. What about the trucks that are going to go in? ? In five or six years there has been a tremendous change. Hartwell Ave. and then a dump - MIT putting over a building - we feel as if we have to sell our houses and get out. Meyer: The thing that bothers me is there is no major change involved. There is nothing in the zoning change which will increase the volume of traffic over what it is presently zoned for. ? The people are concerned that you would have a truck terminal with a large number of vehicles. Meyer: A manufacturer can truck his goods now. This opens up a new use for people who are in manufacturing. It is not a terminal for trucks but a use for trucks. ? Can you shut off Wood St.? `• ' Meyer: We cannot. The Board of Selectmen do that. ? We don't like it. Trucks coming in from the north would use Wood St. as.a way to get in. Trailer trucks use it now ,for MIT.. Drury: Is there any 'reason why we can't be told the ownerof the business? Meyer: This is quite immaterial to the proposal. ? Is there some reason why hourly restrictions could not be put on the area to prevent hauling at night? Meyer: There are specific conditions which are considered to; be nuisances. Greeley: The Board of Appeals could issue a permit subject to the condi- tions that the operation not drive trucks over Wood St. It might not be enforceable. Meyer: The use of the street for over a certain weight limit can be pro- hibited. The effect of this zoning change should have very little effect on Wood St. Whitman: Any information regarding the possible access from Hartwell Ave. to Wood St.? ' Meyer: The last we heard it was sent back in a report to the Bureau of Roads in Washington and buried. With the development of the Historical Park there will be two main entrances'to the airport, one from Rte. 2 in 11.12-64 the area of Virginia Rd. in Lincoln and the other direct access from the Wood St. gate to 128. We know it was referred to Washington for further study and that is the last we heard of it. We hope there will be direct access between 128 and the Wood St. gate to take traffic off Wood St. and Bedford St. ? Do they realize what we are being confronted with? We have a town meeting coming up in which we have to vote for two new schools. How are we going to pay for.these - more taxes on the real estate? If not, we have to face the issue and encourage business in some areas and no matter what area we are putting this in we meet the same objections. This seems of all the areas in towns to be the most reasonable. How would you sug- gest we increase the income? Bernier: The way is usually through taxing the property. I -suggest you raise the taxes. ? This is a very desirable area - close to 128 access and main highways. Land is getting scarce. Why not try and see if we can attract a better type of industrial outfit? Meyer: Again this assumes that the new activities which are opened up by this proposed amendment are less desirable than the ones which are already permitted under light manufacturing. There is nothing here that would lower the standard. It may well increase the standard in that area. ? I challenge that - the movement of material from the light manufactur- ing operation compared with the material that might be moved out of a storage operation - it doesn't seem reasonable that.what would be coming out of the old manufacturing would be greater than would be coming out of warehousing. Don't think it would pay for itself unless it moved much more. Greeley: Think there would be more trucks but fewer automobiles. Meyer: Since you have more finished goods you would have more trucking. ? I am not sure what light manufacturing is:. How light is light?. Is an automobile assembly plant a light manufacturing operation? Meyer Systems. Development building is .an example- very little trucking going in and out of there. Itek and are there now. Those uses are still permitted. ? That is the type that should be there and not the type you are present ing. What type of trucking is being contemplated? Meyer: Not any. ? What type has been requested specifically? washing machines - tele- phones - furnaces - does the present request incorporate these? ' Meyer: Yes 11-12- 64 ' ? Who enforces the law? Meyer: The building inspector. ? Where do you go for the building inspector? Meyer: The Board of Selectmen. ? If you are not then satisfied where do you then go? Meyer: To court. It is the duty of the building inspector to enforce the zoning law. Best to go to the Board of Selectmen because heworks under them. ? You' said this proposal had been brought up by a specific request.. Who is it? Meyer: I cannot identify them because they do not want to imply they are interested. We put in the restriction on the whole area. If the setback, side yards, etc. are satisfactory anyone could come to the Planning Board and present a reasonable request and we would give them a sympathetic ear. This is the first group that has come back with a request. To permit this type of zone we decided this was a good use of the property and we are presenting it to the Town Meeting. It is to be considered on the proposed use and not on the basis of a proposed tenant because the tenant ' is not ready. This is for the whole area. We hope it will be considered strictly as a use and not because of a -representative. Bernier: The fact that you are keeping the name secret scares.us. Do you intend to name the customer? Meyer: No, I don't. You are talking about 5 acres- we are talking about 265 acres. ? Apparently this is going to prepare the way for someone - we could look for something more suitable. Meyer: Am quite sure it could not be more suitable. The use we are talking about is for 265 acres- this particular person has 5 acres. The point is you have to consider on the 52 persons you never heard of. To try to sell this whole rezoning on the representation of a single person would be a disfavor. Bernier: Think it is unfair to say it is a better type. Think it is for the people to decide. Greeley: Why do you think it is unfair? We are elected to do the best we can in recommending to you and to the Town Meeting what we think is in our best judgment the thing to do. ? Recently when the dump ias opened on Sunday on a petition of the people, by the dump by who go to the dump. If the it was signed people at people same person had gone outside and tried to use our names he would not have 11-12-64 done so well. I think it was a very bad thing for Lexington. It was an injustice. It was done on the basis of this petition. That area is a big problem. It is not a good area to live in any more. Now you want to make it worse. First it was Hartwell Ave. and now it is the dump on Sunday which is bad. I mistrust the Board. ? You implied this article is a better article than previously. Why do you think it is better than the one that, exists now?' Meyer; I would point out that over the years the things we have done are to tighten up restrictions. What is better zoning is a matter of opinion. ? Better is what sense? What is the intended use of the land? How does the proposed zoning change fit into this use? Does it lower restrictions? People can disagree. The thing it doesn't do is to lower building requirements because this does have a building requirement and the original did not so it is tighter in that respect. It is a matter of opinion whether it is better or not. Cataldo: One problem is that you didn't come in and tell the Board of Selectmen how you felt. You called other boards but nobody came into pre- sent your picture. ?- i talked with one baby sitter. I talked with Mrs. Cole at length. I tried to reach others but it was campaigning time and everybody was busy. Cataldo: Some people in your '-area wanted the dump open. ? I asked about the possibility of the trucks being prohibited on Wood St. The answer was yes, but I felt your answer was my problem to figure out how to enforce it. I am trying to understand how the town runs.I would like to know why we are not getting the answers here. Meyer: This is a hearing of the Planning Board to see how the town feels about the zoning change. This has gone quite far afield from the matter at hand. Where we wish to pet people's opinion in relation to this pro- posed zoning. We have to make a recommendation to the Town Meeting to be held on November 23. It may or may not accept the recommendation of the Planning Board. A two-thirds vote is required to pass. We seem to have discussed this matter, thoroughly and we will close the hearing. If you want to -stay we can go into a discussion, of how the town operates. The hearing was closed at 10:20 p.m. 1