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