Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-02-07PLANNING BOARD HEARING February 7, 1966 Cluster - CM 1 - Board of Appeals A public hearing was held in Science Lecture Hall, High School Building, on February 7, 1966, in re: three proposed zoning amendments: "Cluster" zoning, relaxation of area and yard requirements in CM 1 zones, and the setting forth of conditions to be imposed by the Board of Appeals as a guide. Present were Chairman Campbell, members Bryson, Fowle, Greeley and Riffin; Planning Director Zaleski, and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber. Approximately 75 persons were also present. Chairman Campbell opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. by ex- plaining the procedure to be followed and introduced Mr. Fowle. who presented the proposal for cluster zoning. In the question period which followed Mr. Kula asked where this land would be and also stated he believed the open land could be built upon at some time. Mr. Campbell replied that if the town owned or had an ease- ment in the property, it could not be built upon, either the town or the Conservation Commission would control it. Conrad Levy said if the town owned it, it would probably be turned into a park so there would be no tax income and it would have to be maintained. Mr. Fowle explained that cluster zoning is an alternative for the developer which permits him to build houses on lots which CLUSTER are smaller than those normally required, in feturn for which he ZONING leaves a certain fraction of the land for permanent recreation or conservation use in the area. It is proposed to have 20,000 sq.ft. lots instead of 30,000 which are now permitted, with a frontage of 120 ft. instead of 150 ft. and depth of 160 ft. Use of a chart com- pared the development of an area by the present and proposed methods. A 10 -acre tract is also proposed as a minimum amount of t space for cluster zoning. The number of lots allowed would be cal- culated as follows: total area reduced by 15% for streets and then divided by 30,000 sq. ft. which gives the normal number of lots per- mitted. This would be the same number of lots allowed thereby not increasing the density. However, by putting a house on a smaller lot, the developer saves by having smaller lengths of street, water mains, etc. which should make it more attractive. In a 10 -acre cluster there would be 2-1/2 acres open space reserved. Also com- pared by chart was what other towns have as compared to that pro- posed by Lexington. Mr. Fawle also stated that some people seemed to fear that at some time or other this open land would be devel- oped, but the town was determined that this would not happen. The town would either own or have an easement in this open land. It was also explained that this land would be accessible for the common use of the neighborhood. In the question period which followed Mr. Kula asked where this land would be and also stated he believed the open land could be built upon at some time. Mr. Campbell replied that if the town owned or had an ease- ment in the property, it could not be built upon, either the town or the Conservation Commission would control it. Conrad Levy said if the town owned it, it would probably be turned into a park so there would be no tax income and it would have to be maintained. Hearing 2-21-66 -2- Mr. Campbell replied that he thought Mr. Zaleski had in- formation on these subjects which was available. He pointed out that there are other towns which have adopted cluster zoning and he pointed out on a chart the comparison between a 10 -acre plot developed in accordance with existing and proposed zoning showing that the same size plot would have the same number of houses but by their being placed on smaller lots the streets and utilities would not be so extensive, thereby saving cost to the developer and at the same time leaving the area left over as open land which could never be built upon. Mr. Kingston asked if there would be restrictions - on the land in the Five Fields area, playgrounds, swimming pools, etc. can be built: Mr. Campbell replied that this would hold true here also - they just didn't want large structures or buildings to be erected on this vacant land. A question was asked as to how much land there is in l0 or more acre tracts to which Mr. Campbell replied there were about 2,800 acres of open land. Mrs. Morey stated that cluster zoning was not put intothe picture just for the benefit of developers. In dividing a subdivi sion into exactly 30,000 sq. ft. lots, which many developers did, the result is often some very peculiar -shaped lots and the smaller ' lots would probably result in a better looking over-all picture. However, she said she would like to see a developer spend as much money as he can. Mr. Fowle replied that this, was so, but hypothetically you cannot ask a developer to spend money if you want him to leave open space. Mr. Levy wished to be recorded as approving in general but he does not think this article sets forth the purpose clearly. Also he said, it does not mean much to the developer because any initial cost is included in the sale price and passed on to the buyer.. Bigelow Moore said that a property owner is supposed to take care of his own property, but who would be responsible for this? Mr. Campbell replied that they would be expected to police it unless the town owned it and then it would be its responsbility. Mr. 0uthet asked if this could ever be used by the town for a school or recreation purpose, and was told it could not be used for a school but could be for recreation. Mr. McLaughlin said he thought that after a period of time, say 20 years, the taxes would not be paid and the land would revert I to the town. Mr. Campbell replied that he didn't think so, there has been 1 1 1 Hearing 2 7-66 -3- property in Five Fields for 15 years and as far as he knew there were no"delinquent taxes, but even if it did revert that wouldn't necessarily be bad. Mr. Harry Myers wished to go on record as being opposed. He thought it would result in an increase in profit to the devel- oper. Also common ownership is difficult to control and the town will end up with no control. Mr. Levy was opposed to this article but approved the cluster zoning in general. He thought this would end up with ball parks, etc. where they weren't wanted; also that the Board of Appeals was being by-lawed out of business. Mr. Les York asked if the Planning Board had contacted other towns to learn of their mistakes and profit by them. Mrs. Riffin stated that she had talked with people from Sharon, Andover and Concord and had gone with a group to Concord and Andover and the people there seem to think it is entirely successful. There are sometimes green strips as well as one solid piece, and these were very attractive. She said that the "feeling" of the open land could be found in some areas in town where there is common land and houses built on lots smaller than 30,000 but larger than the 15,500 allowed on the inside of town, such as Five Fields, Sun Valley and Turning Mill - she suggested that those interested take time to visit some of these properties. Among those speaking on this subject were Eric Kula, Conrad Levy, Robert Kingston, Ruth Morey, Bigelow Moore, Ernest Outhet, Mr. McLaughlin, Harry Myers and Lester York. There being no further discussion, this portion of the hearing was declared closed. The next portion of the hearing was then presented by Roland Greeley, which related to proposed changes in CM 1 zoning. Mr. Greeley explained that in the present CM 1 zone two or three new office buildings are in use, but for several years there has been a great deal of talk that the development of this land has not progressed fast enough, only 40 acres out of the total 320 having been utilized. It is believed that one reason is that the CM 1 re- quirements are too stringent, we should have some more nearly com- parable to other towns. After studying the situation the Planning Board decided to relax the conditions by reducing the minimum size lot from 5 acres to 3, the 300 ft. frontage to 200 ft., coverage from 25Z to 33-1/3X, and minimum front yard from 150 to 75 ft. in the case of 2 -story and 50 ft. in the case of 1 -story buildings. He said that part of the land presented somewhat of a problem because of a power line easement and the land fill area. Mr. Outhet said he thought it was a good idea; Mr. Levy said CM 1 ZONE Hearing 2-7-66 -4- was in favor but he wondered why the whole paragraph "A" was being changed - why not just say 5 acres to 3, and the frontage. Mr. ' Campbell replied that the Board felt it was clearer this way. Mr. Ephraim Weiss said he was opposed he thought the lack of development was due to lack of speculation only - that by allowing construction on a larger part of the lot and at the same time reducing frontage which resulted in smaller side yards and setbacks, nothing resulted but more profit to the developer. If the developer wished he could black -top the entire area and there would be no green areas. A question was asked as to how long the area had been CM 1 and how long under present ownership,a nd was told it had been CM 1 since 1461 and as far as the Board knew had always been in the same ownership. Mrs. Morey said she thought we should stick to the 75 ft. front yard and not allow the 50 ft. Otis Brown asked it the people at Itek and MDC had been con- sulted and was told they had been and they were in favor. Weiant Wathen-Dunn asked if these changes really met the needs of landowners and developers. Be said he thought that the City of Waltham had some flexibility in their restrictions to meet the individual needs of a'particular.developer. Mr. Campbell re- ' plied that the Board had studied the suggestions of owners but did not accept all of them. They felt that this relaxation would in- terest more potential developers, and Mr. Greeley said that -he be- lieved the rules.in Waltham were not more flexible but had more variety so there was more choice in choosing a particular location. Mr. Lester York said that he thought a number of the com- panies who went to Westwood might have come here if the proposed amendments had been in effect. Mr. Weiss said he thought if the zone were changed it would increase the cost of the land so it would be prohibitive, was this so? Mr. Campbell replied be thought it might increase slightly, but that was the job of the assessors to determine. Mr. York said he thought it unreasonable for Town Meeting members to vote against an article because someone might make some money - if a developer didn't make money he wouldn't be in business. Mr. Kingston said he was in favor of the article. He said there was considerable concern over the low assessment of such land - that some residential property was assessed more per acre than Hartwell Ave, and he thought the assessing practices should be looked into. Hearing 2--7-66 -5- Among those speaking on this article were Robert Kingston, ' Franklyn Crosby, John Gavin, Ephraim Weiss, Ruth Morey, Conrad Levy, Eric Kula, Ernest Outhet, Francis Worrell, Sidney Williams, Weiant Wathen-Dunn, Otis Brown and Mr. Leland(?) The next portion of the hearing was presented by Mrs. Natalie Riffin, who explained that the Board of Appeals had three 'major BOARD OF functions - to hear grievances, t6 permit variances, and to grant APPEALS special permits. Approximately 2/3 of the petitions of 1964 were for special permits, so the Board of Appeals has a great deal of power over the use of the land. She read the special permits as listed in the By -Lau as an example of what is permitted. The Board felt that some statement should be in the By -Law as to proper safe- guards and as to specific ways in which the petition can be judged. This could be used as a guide for new members of the Appeals Board as well as a means of information to a petitioner. Harry Myers opposed this article. He said it struck at the heart of the homeowner - that it lowered the standards of the pres- ent By -Law and affords the homeowner less protection. He asked that the Board not recommend the article. .A question was asked as to what the standards are and Mr. Campbell replied that he thought the restrictions were spelled out for the permit as issued: He was sure the Board of Appeals was ' spelling it out now but thought it would be better to have it written in the By -Law. Mr. Myers said he didn't see what this did to our present By -Law, the Board of Appeals always imposed restrictions in neces- sary cases. Mr. Levy said he believed this was by-lawing the Board of Appeals out of business. The present law protects the town and gives the Board a certain amount of leeway. In this way you would be tell- ing them what they could and could not do, which he thought was im- proper. William Whalen asked if there was any authority for confer- ring upon the Board of Appeals the right to obtain security. Mr. Zaleski replied that he didn't know where provisions were in the law specifically but he did know other towns did so - e.g., if gravel is to be removed a bond is required to insure that no more gravel is removed than permitted. Leon Burke referred back to cluster zoning and asked if in com- parison the smaller lots would produce less taxes because there would be more land available for recreation. ' Mr. Campbell replied that residential land is not the greatest source of tax revenue and Mr. Greeley said that there would be less units for taxes but also less expense and the value of the land would be enhanced. Hearing 2-7-66 -6- Mr. Burke said he knew of six instances in the last three years where transfers had been requested because of our high taxes I and he thought everything should be given consideration that could help taxwise. Those speaking on the above subject were Harry Myers, Ernest Outhet, Convad Levy, William Wahlon and Leon Burke. There being no further discussion the hearing was declared closed at 10:10 p.m. Louise M. Macomber, Secretary 1