HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-03-04C
PLANNING BOARD HEARING
March 4, 1965
The Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing on
Thursday, March 4, 1965 in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Build-
ing on the proposal to see if the town will vote to amend the
zoning by-law by adding a new subparagraph c. in paragraph 3. of
subsection (d) of Section 5 thereof as follows:
"c. In the C 2 districts described in paragraphs 2, 3, 4,
and 7 of subsection (d) of Section 4 of the Zoning By -Law,
apartments each having independent cooking facilities and
not more than 500 square feet of floor area, on either
the second or third floors, or both, of buildings of first
class construction designed and used for stores, offices,
and other permitted commercial uses on the first floor. At
least one readily accessible offstreet parking space not
less than 200 square feet in area and not less than 10 ft.
in width for each two apartments shall be provided on the
same lot with the apartments.
Present were Chairman Bryson, Members Campbell, Fowle,
Greeley, and Riffin; Secretary Macomber; also approximately 100
interested citizens.
Chairman Bryson opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. and ex-
'
plained the usual procedure, stating that the meeting was for the
purpose of obtaining information and not for debate. He explained
that this article was put in by the Planning Board at the request
of the Selectmen, that it is connected with Articles 65-69 on the
warrant which are in reference to the widening of Mass. Ave. Art.
17 is put in by the Planning Board asking for an appropriation to
make a study of the Central Business District. If the widening of
Mass. Ave. does go through this study should be done at once be-
fore new facilities go in as a result of the widening.
Read was a part of the report of Mr. Kolovson, chairman of
the committee to consider the revitalization of Lexington Center.
The use of apartments would not be in compliance with present
policy which is to exclude residences from the center.
Lincoln Cole: As I stated last night the Board is primarily con-
cerned with the widening of Mass. Ave. and doing it as reasonably
as possible. We can keep within our original estimate of $250,000
if the article is passed. If the article is not passed we are
talking in the neighborhood of $40,000 more to widen. I think
basically this states our position. If the Town wishes to do this
and pay the extra money this is fine. I would recommend the zoning
passing and getting it for the better figure. This is the Board of
Selectmen's feeling.
Ernest Giroux, Trustee of the Minute Man Park Realty Trust: After
last night's meeting at the High School there are a few things we
3-4-65 -2-
would like to clarify and can to some extent by reading copies
of letters we have written to the Planning Board in February and '
to the Selectmen in March. (Read letters. See addenda.) We
planned to buy this property in 1962 when we were informed it
would be sold. We were interested in it for numerous reasons
and started talking about what we would do with it -- we didn't
do it casually. There are certain things you can do with any
property in a commercial area. You can have stores and offices
and you can have offices on 2nd and 3rd floors. The market for
office space in a town like this is very good. Most of the
better commercial business is in the center. This may change
over the years as we cannot predict. Depends somewhat on the
future of the electronics business. It was not a good invest-
ment to build a building in 1962 or 1963 with two or three
floors of office space. We thought of other things such as a
motel havine in mind the opening of the park in about 10 years.
This property is going to be worth money some day. We decided
that there was a need for these efficiency apartments, there is
nothing like this in Lexington. We still think there is a need
for it. The location is different than other property in the
Center. We have Depot Square on one side and the Battle Green
area and Buckman Tavern on the other. It would be a good loca-
tion for this - central location and three or four blocks from
the Center. We are talking in terms of a building demolished.
Obviously anything we put on this land is goi rg to have to bring
some return. Three stories is going to be very close. We could
not build with two stories and do anything with it. This is an
economic fact.
Cole: If I had read that. letter I certainly would not have with-
held it. I have not read it.
Giroux: I am sorry. Keep in mind that we are in no warp involved
with the Hunt block. Last night several references were made to
this and the Hunt block. Our situation has nothing to do with
this. We made an agreement with the Town last fall in regard to
the widening of Mass. Ave. which we think is a very fair one for
the Town. We cannot compete with the Niles Co. on Worthen Rd. We
felt there was a need for small type apartments. They would be
13 ft. wide x 27 ft. deep. They have them in Cambridge and Greater
Boston.
Bryson: At the time you were considering these properties in 162
or 163 I believe it was quite clear three stories were not covered
in the zoning by-law. The by-law is very clear that apartments
would not be allowed after demolishing the building there now.
Giroux: We didn't know this was so. We were going to . . .
Greeley: You said that the efficiency apartments were 365 sq.ft.
Do you give a figure for the 1 -bedroom apartments you had planned?
Giroux: Yes. They would range not more than 600 sq.ft. as we have '
discussed it. The reason I mentioned the 730 sq.ft. (mentioned in
3-4-65
-3-
the letter previous read) is that if we wished to combine two
' efficiency units into one larger apartment it would have double
the efficiency unit area or 730 sq.ft. and in comparison to the
Battle Green 1 -bedroom apartments.
? How many apartments in the present building?
Giroux: 48 rooms, broken down into 9-10 apartments.
? Have you any idea what that would be if converted into 50 apart-
ments?
Giroux: They would be very small, even less than 365 sq.ft.
G. Baker: Does this mean apartments in this C 2 district or in
all C 2 districts?
Bryson: The article mentioned by the Board is in the Center only.
Marjorie Battin: I believe this is a serious legal question as to
whether you can allow apartments in some C 2 districts and not in
other C 2 districts. An exception must apply to all districts of
a particular class. There is a question if the Attorney General
would approve.
Bryson: We talked with Town Counsel and he said he would not have
' put it in the warrant if he thought it would not be passed by the
Atty. General.
? Has Mrs. Battin just cut this out of whole cloth?
M. Battin: No. I talked with legal counsel. Four have been con-
sulted. All feel this is a very serious legal point. It would
have to be applicable to all districts and this is an exception.
E. Weiss: We have been hearing for a long time people who come in
for change of use from residential to commercial.. Here we are hav-
ing a request to permit residential use in a business district. It
seems very strange. There is not enough business area in the town
and tremendous pressure on residential areas. It seems unwise to
pick space suitable for business and permit other than business use
in it. I think it is an unwise article. How about conflict of in-
terest?
Martin Small: I did have a question but now I am in opposition. It
seems inconceivable that the agreement made last fall to swap land
at the Central Block was made without knowledge of this condition.
Otis Brown: On behalf of the Trustees, we did know there was some
question about apartments. However we were willing to go ahead and
clear the property with the hope that in time we would be able to
' put in apartments on the second.and third floors. We said we hoped
to remove this building and replace it. The previous owner wanted
to be paid. We said we would be happy to make the exchange. We
3-4-65
-4-
still feel this is a good thing for the town and we knew this
when we bought it. We wrote Town Counsel asking him to whom we
should speak to see how we should go about getting a variance.
This was never answered.
Mrs. Bayle: This was intended to be a fairly rapid study so it
would be of help.
Jack Mitchell: I am in opposition. 1. It does not seem
logical to make residential use of land in commercial district.
2. 500 sq.ft. as a maximum is too small. 3. Restriction that
only demands one parking space for every two apartments means
that the Town will have to build parking space for half the
apartments. This town requires parking spaces for every apart-
ment.
Eaton: Mr. Giroux mentioned studio efficiency type apartments.
We have a problem of housing teachers. I talked with Dr. Fobert
about this and he tells me only 25% of the teachers and school'
administrators live in Lexington at the present time. He says
they are not living here in the first place because they cannot
find what they want, and they cannot afford to pay for it if they
do. This location might be ideal. Want to ask if they have any
idea as to the cost of rentals of such units if permitted.
Whalon: Then you would not be able to go through demolition un-
til January 1, 1966. I talked with Mr. Stevens concerning the
status of this property and also the status of the other property
Mr. Brown is interested in. This block presents a similar prob-
lem. Both of these buildings will be in some manner or other
demolished, rebuilt, or moved back and reconstructed so as to
provide modern appearing structures. I was concerned over the
necessity of there being an article to rezone this property in
view of the fact that the zoning law does contain provisions in
Sec. 10 for the expansion of existing non -conforming uses. I am
not certain of the history but my understanding is that these
buildings were at one time used consistently with the then zoning
ordinance which permits apartments on top of stores and that some-
ti-ne in the past the zoning ordinance was changed to remove from
this district the right to have apartments over stores with the
result that the apartments now there are non -conforming and may
be permitted to continue as long as the building stands. What
happens if you demolish it? Has any legal information been sought?
Bryson: If 75% of the building is destroyed then it is considered
a new building. In both cases this would be 100% demolition.
Mr. Battin: If all the articles 64-69 should pass with the excep-
tion of the zoning considered tonight we would then proceed to
demolish the Hunt Block but apparently not remove the bottle -neck
because the Central Block would continue to be a bottle -neck.
Cole: It is Pty understanding there would still be the possibility
of a land switch.
1
1
u
3-4-65 -5-
? If there were a land switch then the town would be able to
' take their portion of the land and it would mean destroying that
building. What would be your plans to rebuild? What would
happen then?
Giroux: If we are not permitted to have apartments we would not
take down the building next year. We would renovate it. Most of
the income would come from the first floor and the r enovated
apartments would not be desirable units. We would prefer not to
do it. If we had to we would. Our rental schedule would carry
the building only. We can improve the side which comes under the
H.D.C. We would rather build a new building but if we can't we
will raise our rents and give five-year leases, then it would be
up to the town if they wish to proceed with the widening. At
that point they would have to make some arrangement with the 1775
Trust.
? Under Art. 69 does this authority expire within one year or
continue indefinitely?
Cole: If we made a taking on this we would have to make a taking
within 30 days after being authorized and make a settlement within
60 days.
Mrs. Touart: What do you intend to do about the Baker property?
Cole: All these properties
are
still in
negotiation.
Woodman: Has there been a
swap
of land
as authorized a year ago?
Cole: No.
? Is it binding to make this swap in accordance with the article
as approved by the Town Meeting?
Giroux: Keep in mind the article suggests that the building be
removed. We are not forced to move the building. We have no in-
tention of renovating it except to meet our investment.
? Nevertheless you mentioned what you would do if this article
were not approved. You would renovate the building and mean to
renovate it at its existing front.
Giroux: Yes.
Weiss: I was under the impression that the town had an agreement
with this Minute Man Realty Trust for the land swap and that the
purpose of the article was to enable the Selectmen to carry, out
this agreement.
Giroux: Keep in mind that we can do nothing with this property if
' we do not know what land we will have to build on. We would like to
make it on an even swap basis if it were done.
3-4-65
I Me
Weiss: I am talking about an agreement already in existence
that we would be asked to approve the money for. '
Cole: There is no money involved. This will take effect upon
tearing down the building. If the building is not torn down it
will not take effect.
? How can the apartments compete with apartments in the other
areas?
Mrs. Hagedorn: I thought this was for the Central Block. I had
a feeling this was mixed up with the Mass. Ave. widening.
Fred. Conroy: Representing the trustees of 1775 Realty Trust -
in answer to questions, they have no intention to have apartments.
They have the right to have apartments and if the present building
is taken down they should have this right in the new building also.
They have no plans for apartments in the new building.
Greeley: Do I understand the 1775 Realty Trust has no intention
of building apartments but are asking $38,000 for the privilege
to do what they don't intend to do? You told the Selectmen either
you had the right or else you had to be paid $38,000.
Conroy: The negotiations are still in progress. No agreements
have been reached.
? Does the 1775 Trust have the right to demolish and rebuild with
apartments over stores?
Bryson: They do not.
Mrs. Hagedorn: Did we ask for a legal opinion on this point? I
think this Town Meeting should have a legal decision. May we have
that opinion by Town Meeting?
Bryson: We will try.
? I would like to suggest that on this particular set of issues the
town meeting membgrs are confronted with more legal questions than
we are as to what should be done for the Town. I hope we can get
a summary of the legal part before the debate starts during the Town
Meeting.
Martin Gilman: Are there any other apartments non -conforming in
C 2?
Bryson: There are a few.
M. Battin: There are 39 in downtown business, 16 in the buildings
we are talking about - 39 in all. '
Whitman: Are there any non -conforming apartments in other C 2 dis-
tricts?
1
1
1
3-4-65 -7-
Weiss: We have some in C 1.
Small: Is the figure $250,000 for the Hunt Block?
Cole: No, this is the entire project exclusive of the apartments.
Baker: How much for the road building?
Cole: I believe we had $10,000 to $20,000.for actual widening.
Mrs. Morey: It seems as tho Mr. Giroux said if they don't have
this apartment house permissionthey will perpetuate that abomina-
tion in the Central Block. I don't have the building laws here
and I don't know to what extent this can go ahead and to what ex-
tent the building code would allow them to continue without an
expenditure that would be prohibitive. I think the cost of put-
ting that building into condition to allow apartments on the third
floor would be rather high:
Giroux: We don't wish to indicate there is any threat involved,
we are just being realistic. We have one lease that expires this
year . Regardless of the condition of the property it is an excel-
lent location. If we can give leases then they will be able to
spend money themselves. I would like to renovate my office myself.
We could give leases and survive until 1975 if we had to.
Nickerson: About 15 years ago we had a fixe in that block. I think
we all prayed it would burn down. It didn't. Specifically the
owner was forced to make some repairs to his building. He was
forced to do some electrical work. It was Mr experience at that
time that these people can go ahead and do about whatever they want
to with that building. You can't force them to take it down. It
is lacking in all conveniences above the first floor.
There being no further discussion the hearing closed at
9:25 p.m.
si aw
Planning Board
Town of Lexington
Massachusetts
Gentlemen:
Secretary
February 23,1965
Relative to Article 64 in the current Town Warrant, I note that
reference is made to a limitation of 500 square feet of space per
3-4-65 -B-
apartment unit. This specified space is small for a one bedroom '
apartment, as the enclosed sketch of the Battle Green Apartments
on Worthen Road will indicate. Their one bedroom apartment appears
to comprise in excess of 700 square feet, not including storage or
outside hallway areas.
It is the hope of the Minute Man Park Realty Trust, of which I am
a trustee, to erect a three floor building on the so-called Central
Block site in Lexington Center with stores and offices on the first
floor and apartments on the second and third. Projected plans call
for fifty "efficiency" units of about 365 square feet each and six-
teen one bedroom units. The apartments would be served by two ele-
vators and parking would be in the basement. We can comply with the
parking requirement of 200 square feet for each two apartments. It
is our expectation that some of our apartment tenants will be
attracted to our new building primarily because of the central loca-
tion and will not have cars at all. It is unlikely that our units
will be of interest to families with children.
It is, of course, difficult to predict interest in efficiency units
as opposed to the one bedroom apartment and it is possible that we
may wish to increase the number of one bedroom units by combining
the space now planned for two efficiencies, for a total area of
approximately 730 square feet. This would definitely be the largest
unit contemplated and it would contain no more than one bedroom.
We shall be happy to discuss this matter with your Board at your '
convenience, should there by any questions regarding our plans
which may be of interest to and in the best interest of the Town.
Very truly yours,
/s/Ernest A. Giroux, Trustee
Minute Man Park Realty Trust
March 1, 1965
Honorable Board of Selectmen
Lexington, Massachusetts .
Gentlemen;
With certain articles relative to Lexington Center appearing in
the current Town Warrant, present plans for the "Central Block"
site may interest the Board at this time.
This property was purchased in 196x3 by the Minute Man Park Realty
Trust subject to one lease which expires this year. The lease has
prevented the owners from proceeding with a new building as yet,
but it is our hope that in 1966, after demolition of the oresent '
buildings and settlement of the land exchange to widen Massachusetts
Avenue, we will be able to erect a three floor structure of Colonial
3-4-65
50
' architecture with stores and offices on the first floor and small
apartment units on the second and third. Parking for apartment
tenants would be provided in the basement.
It is expected that the majority of the apartments would be "studio"
units, primarily of interest to teachers now living outside of Lex-
ington and to single people or families with no children who wish to
live in a central location within walking distance of all conven-
iences. Some larger units would also be included, but in no instance
with more than one bedroom.
The cost of this project should be at least $750,000.00 and tax
revenue to the Town should be four to five times that now derived.
Improvement in appearance of the Center is obvious and, in this
regard, we have met informally with the Historic District Commission
on several occasions relative to exterior views of the new building.
The Minute Man Park Realty Trust, which comprises six long -tune Lex-
i.ngtom residents, has for over two years considered the best possible
use of the Central Block site commensurate with a reasonable return
on the investment involved. If, for any reason we are unable to
proceed with our plans as outlined, we shall, before the end of this
year, renovate the forty-eight apartment rooms in the main building
and the ten stores and offices on Massachusetts Avenue and Depot
Square and give long-term leases to first floor tenants. We trust,
of course, that this will not be necessary.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Ernest A. Giroux, Trustee
Minute Man Park Realty Trust
1