Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-02-10PLANNING BOARD HEARINGS iFebruary 10, 1965 The Lexington Planning Board held public hearings on Wednes- day, February 10, 1965 in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, on certain proposals to amend the zoning by-law by changing cer- tain areas from C 1 to R 1 use. Present were Chairman Bryson, Members Campbell, Greeley, Meyer, and Riffin; Planning Director Zaleski; Secretary Macomber; and approximately 55 interested citizens. The hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. The following proposal was first taken up: To amend the zoning by-law by striking out Paragraph 22 of the sub -section (c) of Sec. 4 and inserting in its place the fol- lowing new paragraph: 1122. Districts at the junction of Woburn and Lowell St. upon the northeasterly, southeasterly and southwesterly corners there- of and extending for a distance of 200 feet along each street from the junction points of the sidelines of each street and thence back at right angles to each said street until the exterior lines intersect. " Chairman Bryson explained the usual procedure for a hearing, and also the fact that the Planning Board was there for the pur- pose of hearing an expression of opinions and not for the purpose of being questioned as to its views. After the hearing the Board will get together and discuss the matter, and then make its recom- mendations to the Town Meeting. The Board's reasons for consider- ing these changes are that two of the areas being considered are too large for neighborhood shopping areas - the uses allowed are not proper for neighborhood areas, both are located at intersec- tions where traffic situations have become bad, complaints have been received from neighbors in both these areas, particularly the one at Woburn and Lowell Sts. because of the location of Harrington School. A map of the three areas to be considered was shown on the screen, then a larger map showing the Laconia St. area now under discussion, in more detail. It was explained that Laconia St. is apparently a private way, originally laid out by County Commission- ers and later abandoned. Altho a letter has been written to Town Counsel as to the legal status of Laconia St. to date no reply has been received as to the legal rights of those involved. Mr. Dana Regillo of 16 Laconia St. stated that he was whole- heartedly in accord with the Planning Board, that the corner was over -saturated and any additional business would worsen the situa- tion. ' Frank Ward of 428 Lowell St. said he was in favor of keeping it in business - he had enjoyed Countryside and would enjoy more stores. 2-10-65 -2- Robert C. Gurley of 42 Laconia St. stated that he was the treasurer of the Laconia St. residents who have paved and main- tained the exit over the Kelly property since 1951. He was in favor of it going into business if a good exit and entrance were provided. Atty. Morris Kobrick, representing the owners of the property at that corner, then spoke at length from a legal and practical point of view of what it would mean to the landowners to have this rezoned to R 1. Lexland Construction Corp. purchased the land as a lot approximately of 33,000 sq. ft. in 1959 at an investment of $30,000. Were it rezoned to R 1 it seems quite obvious that no one would build a residence on such a busy intersection and the investment would be wiped out. It is doubtful if the town could go that far under the zoning authority. He said that history shows that when the law was adopted in 1924 these four corners were zoned for business, 200 ft. wide but only 100 ft. back from the street. In 1937 Mr. Currier, who.owned one of the corners, asked to have the areas enlarged and that was done uniformly as to all four corners, making the depth 200 ft. It has remained that way until today. If there is any change now it should apply equally to all corners. Investors should not be forced to build immediately after purchasing a piece of property but should be entitled to pro- tection by the zoning by-law. It has always been recommended that, if there is to be a change in zoning, the change should be made in the direction in which the development of the area is mov- ing. It is evident that the character of this neighborhood has been developing in the other direction. The Planning Board fears a heavy increase in traffic on that corner, but it would be but a drop in the bucket. The major traffic problem in this location is not from the operation of stores on three corners or four corners but due to the fact that both streets carry inter -town traffic and they carry substantially more traffic than they did a few years ago and will continue to. This is not even the beginning of a solution for the kind of traffic that exists here, and it would be discriminatory at the, expense of value to the landowner. The zoning authority says restrictions shall be "to conserve the value of land -and buildings." It seems very clear this will not conserve the value of our land but will destroy it. Not only the history but the geography of these four corners have been treated as substantially similar. Mr. John Harvey, 1 Constitution Rd., asked if it would be more acceptable to neighbors or owners if this area were rezoned to what would apply to offices or professional offices only. Mr. Meyer asked two questions - what is the assessed value of the land, and since the land has been idle for 4-5 years are there any plans now for development. Mr. Bryson gave the assessed value as $21,950. which is about 90%, or $24,400 market value. I To the second question, Mr. Kobrick stated that they are on],y 2-10-65 -3- responsible for the last few years and they have no immediate ' plans for development. Ephriam Weiss, 426 Lowell St., said he had been sufficiently interested to inquire about the legality of doing this and had been informed that it was legal. He was concerned, however, with stabilization and the response from many property owners in the area was that the best protection for property value of the homes would be to rezone in accordance with the article. Another store would mean further risk to the pedestrian. He thought it would be well to take some of the corner and make a wider street. - One person said he thought the residents of the area have a much greater investment than the $309000. The owners of this property consider it only as an investment - there has been no activity except for an overgrowth of plants and weeds invading the sidewalk which the town has had to cut. There is poison ivy there where the kids go through. The owners show no inclination to do anything because they are not interested in that property except as a speculation. Mr. Eaton said he was trying to keep an open mind and thought that from what had been said the property owner had a very real case of confiscation. He wondered if the Planning Board had any idea of what the property could be used for. Obviously it would not be good for a house. ' Nancy Hudson, 58 Laconia St., commented that C 1 is "neigh- borhood business" and that all kinds of stores have been and are there, and listed a number. She said one could even send their child to the corner to buy an oriental rug if they so desired. She didn't think any more stores were needed - they would only add to the confusion. Homer Hagedorn, 17 Fiske Rd., stated he was going to support the article because he was convinced by a statement in the Summary Report that neighborhood shopping districts required different treatment. He hoped the Planning Board would establish a policy which has not really been tested and for which this seems to be an example. Mr. Cunningham, owner of one of the stores, stated he was definitely in -favor of leaving the land as it is. He didn't see who would want to build a house there. Charles Young of 24 Young St. wished to be recorded as in favor of leaving the land as is. The hearing was declared closed at 8:50 P.M. 1 2-10-65 Taken up next was the second proposal as follows: "Proposal to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law of theTown , of Lexington by deleting paragraph 12 of sub -section (c) of Sec- tion 4 thereof." A map was shown on the screen depicting this area known as "Five Forks." Chairman Bryson explained that in the Planning Board's thinking there is already considerable business and also a considerable amount of traffic. He explained that the Fudge Funeral Home already there would not be forced to move and could enlarge by permission of the Board of Appeals, as is the case now. Mr. Hill, Lincoln St., stated he bought his home 10 years ago because it was residential area. He has two youngsters who_ have to cross the intersection and he is very much in favor of making it a residential district because there is a very grave traffic hazard involved which should not be made worse. Dean Curtin of Marrett Rd. asked if the town had taken into consideration the fact that most of the traffic in that area,. was not caused by the stores but by the Air Force base and MIT. Mr. Meyer stated that there are two kinds of traffic which have bery little relationship - one is a steady flow of traffic and one is a car getting in and out onto a busy street thereby causing congestion. One or two cars cause more interference with the orderly flow of traffic by breaking into a stream of vehicles than a much greater number proceeding in one direction. Mr. Curtin asked if they are now conforming to 2-1 parking. Mr. Meyer replied that this was hypothetical- they more than conform. In fact the first piece of property is 100% parking since there`is no building there. Mr. Bryson said that one of the considerations is what might go in there under the present rules. There might be a lot of traffic not now there. Mr. Kneeland, attorney for Mrs. Guarino, owner of the "Carriage House" property, stated he represented the Newton Co- operative Bank which holds a mortgage of $24,000 on the land. He stated Mrs. Guarino had paid $24,500 for the land with an ice- cream stand on it, had had it filled, put in sewerage and drain, hot topped, and built an excellent restaurant which did a.fine business until the building was wiped out by fire three years ago. If this land were sold for a residence the most that could be ex- pected would be $8,000. It would make it pretty hard to pay the bills if the town meeting approved the proposed change. He said he did not know how serious the traffic problem was when the rest- aurant was in operation, biit a restaurant is not now being con- templated. Twat actually is planned is a medical or office build- ing. He said they were faced with trying to inform the Planning 2_10-65 -5- Board as to whether or not they should recommend this change. There is speculation as to what will actually go in at this time, but the town will have ample opportunity and ample protection when plans are submitted. If the town keeps removing from the tax rolls highly valuable pieces of real estate nobody is going to be able to afford to live here. Mrs. Guarino paid $21,200 in taxes in 8 years as opposed to the $4,500 which would have been received if zoned residential. He said he had tried to convey that there is a hardship involved -Mrs. Guarino can only sell for $7,000 and she owes the bank $25,000. Nobody wants to be put in that position. We have to have commercial property in every town and if everything is driven to the center it will soon be on the Green. Mr. Parks asked if it might be possible that the Fudge Funeral Home might need an addition and thereby use the piece of land, which adjoins the Home. Mr. Bryson said it had been men- tioned that they were considering some addition. Mr. Howard Ela of the Fudge Home said they were not con- templating an addition but were thinking of a slight extension but the change would involve very little land. The change of zoning actually would not affect them but he wished to goon record as being opposed to the change because of unfairness to the property owners. If they did not have their building they would be in the same position as Mrs. Guarino. ' Mr. Curtin spoke again in opposition. ? School St., said he didn't think it was reasonable to have one small piece of residential property sandwiched in between business property. It is not a piece of property which would be desirable for a home. Mr. Culler of 209 Lincoln St. wished to go on record as opposing the change - thinks a building similar to the Miller Building would enhance the corner considerably. The hearing was declared closed at 9:20. A letter was re- ceived and placed on file from the Newton Cooperative Bank contain- ing financial information. The third proposal was then taken up, which is as follows: "Proposal to amend the Zoning W -Law of the Town of Lexing- ton by striking out,the entire paragraph 16 of the sub -section (c) of Section 4 thereof." A map was also shown of this property., Mr. Bryson stated that because of the Status widening of Rte. 2, takings had been made of 41,000 sq.ft. leaving approximately 2.1 acres in the owner- ship. The property was zoned C 1 in 1935 over the opposition of U 2 -lo -65 M Board. As far as is now known Pleasant St. will go underneath Rte. 2 and there will be no direct access from Rte. 2. This makes the property less accessible. However, if the town does vote to change the district the business could still continue to operate, but the present use could not be replaced by stores or office buildings. Attorney Mulhern, representing the 1775 House, said that the only thing that could be added to what had already been said regarding the other rezonings was that the property -is not now operating as a restaurant because of changes made by the State. The reason it is not being used for a legal business use is that the proposed relocation of the roads and layout of the new roads have not been constructed and the owners do not know what the layout is going to be. The owner has been operating the business since 1952 when he bought it from Seiler, who had operated it since the middle 30's. The rezoning would deprice the owner of the value of his property. The area has been taken by the State so there is no access for private property. In other words altho this property along Rte. 2 might have been desirable prior to the taking the possibility is now gone. There is going to be a partial: cloverleaf with traffic going only in one direction. There is an entrance to the 1775 House left north of the off -ramp from Rte. 2 (eastbound) but it is away from the ramp so it would not disturb the traffic flow on Pleasant St. The property is not going to be used any longer as a restaurant because most of the parking spaces have been taken by the State. It has been contemplated for use as ' a school for youngsters. Basically the rezoning would be an economic blow to the owners. If this could be justified by bene- fit to the Town, it could be understood, but it is failed to see how the Town can benefit. Julian Soshnick, 4 Douglas Rd., said he was presently handling the file on the 1775 House in the District Attorney's office. There has been some concern voiced by members of the Town as to being sued for damages as a result of the rezoning and if the town could be liable as a result. VV brother says this would amount to a taking. I assure the Planning Board and members of the Town Meeting that this would not constitute a taking and there is no possibility of suit for damages. As to the taking itself, the State has injured these people by taking a chunk of land and elimi- nating access. We will pay and we want to pay. As a result of the reduction of access and the taking of the parking space we have effectually destroyed the suitability of this site for neighbor- hood business. They will show the value, and we will pay. There is no financial hardship in the rezoning. The real hardship has been caused by the State. Frederic Heinrich, 136 Pleasant St., said he knew Mr. Roth and his business had been run in a very satisfactory manner, but a great deal of land has been taken and he thinks anything which would cause further congestion on Pleasant St. would be very bad. Mr. Mulhern said he disagreed that there is going to be adequate compensation through the Attorney Generals office. He 2-10-65 -7- said there are two things that have been done - one is the taking itself for which the property owners will be compensated. This leaves the value of the property remaining. The value of being zoned as a legal C 1 district remains in that part of the prop- erty. This will not be compensated for by the Attorney General's office. It is not part of the damages of the original taking. Mrs. Hagedorn asked if the parking had been in R 1 district. It was brought out that the parking had been in R 1. Mrs. Hagedorn stated that most of the 2.1 acres left must have been zoned as it presently is - R 1. The change in zone would affect only the portion that is included in the taking. How valuable is this piece of property considering the parking requirements for Cl and the fact that it is across Rte. 2. Atty. Mulhern answered there would be access to the remain- ing acreage at the back of the property provided by a driveway. The building is completely within the business district. There would be more parking needed for a restaurant than would be re- quired for a school, for which there would be adequate parking. Mr. Wade of Concord Ave. asked Mr. Malhern if they were t thinking of going to the town to ask for rezoning of the remainder of the 2.1 acres, to which Mr. Mulhern replied that as far as he knew there was no intention of doing this. ' Mr. Wade asked if there were any plans for using the 2.1 acres and Mr. Mulhern replied no - the rest was zoned for single residences. Because of the taking of access along Rte. 2 there would not be much value for residences unless access could be through other roads from Pleasant St. which would require permission from the Planning Board and the Town. There were no plans now. Mr. Weiss asked if, then, that particular parking lot has been used illegally all these years, and Mr. Bryson replied that it would be looked into. The hearing was closed at 9:15 p.m. A letter was received from John C. Roth, treasurer and manager of 1775 House, Inc., regis- tering opposition to the proposed change. Secretary 1