Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-02-21PLANNING BOARD MEETING ' February 21, 1966 A brief meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held prior to a public hearing on Monday, February 21, 1966, in its office, Town Office Building. Chairman Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with members Bryson, Fowle and Riffin, and Planning Director Zaleski present. Release of lots in Minute Man Highlands, Section IV MINUTE MAN subdivision was voted, as requested by the developer in HIGHLANDS - November 1965 and release instruments signed. SEC. IV Time for Planning Board action on Marrettwood sub- MARRETTWOOD division (Elena Rd.) was extended to and including March (Elena Rd.) 28, 1966, as requested by the owners. Notice of meeting with Mr. Horgan, State D.P.W. Chief Engineer, on February 28, 1966 at 9:00 a.m. was D.P.W. MEETING read and noted. Chairman Campbell and Mrs. Riffin wish to attend. Notices of public hearing on February 24, 1966 of a legislative proposal relative to billboards was read. Letter from Selectmen notifying the Board of an amendment of the 1966 budget as follows: From Expenses BUDGET of $7,000 to Expenses $6,800 and Out of State Travel $200. Letter from the Selectmen asking for Planning Bd. support on Middleby Rd. acceptance needed as access to MIDDLEBY RD. school was read and noted. Question of assessed better- ments to be clarified. Minutes of Selectmen's meeting of January 31, 1966 were noted and placed on file. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Natalie H. Riffin Clerk 1 LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD HEARINGS February 21, 1966 Williams - LaCava - Lex.Investment The Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing on Monday, February 21, 1966 in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, on three proposals to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law. Present were Chairman Campbell, members•Bryson, Fowls, Greeley and Riffin, Plan- ning Director Zaleski, and the secretary Mrs. Macomber; also approxi- mately 120 interested citizens. Chairman Campbell called the'meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. on the first proposal to change certain land on Waltham St. from a C 4 small office district, to a C 1 Local business district, by reading the notice as it had appeared in the Lexington Minute -man and explain- ing the procedure. He then introduced Harold E. Stevens, Attorney for the Williams Realty Trust. WILLIAMS PROPOSAL C4toCI WALTHAM ST. Mr. Stevens showed a slide of the area comprising 28,200 sq. It was believed that this lot abutted the Waltham -Lexington line and had a frontage of 200 ft. on Waltham St. but it was subsequently shown that the line was 61 ft. nearer Lexington than had been believed, so instead of having 200 ft, frontage there was now only 140 ft. In 1955 the property was owned by Mrs. Edith Short. The town changed this from an R 1 zone to C l business zone, not only ' this lot but a strip of land having a frontage on Waltham St. of 350 ft. The following year Mrs. Short subdivided that land and sold a piece to Mr. Williams which they thought abutted the Waltham line. In 1963 following his mother's death, Dr. Short asked to have the rest of his land rezoned C 1. It appeared on the warrant but was withdrawn for further study by the Planning Board. The Planning' Board then came up with the C'4 plan in which the only use was an office building and in which the "minimum area was 60,000 sq.f t. This appeared on the warrant for the fall town meeting and was voted. However, Dr. Short had asked for his land only to"be`re- zoned but the Planning Board included the Williams land. Since the Williams land has only 40,000 sq.ft. and 60,000 is necessary for the new district, it is obvious that the Williams land cannot be used for an office building, the only use permitted on this land except residences; and this is not suitable for residences Also because of a deed restriction from Mrs. Short he cannot use it for residential. This proposal is to put the land back where it was. Mr. Williams plans to lease to a restaurant - a steak house. Mr. Stevens showed a picture of the proposed building - English colonial, brick. Mr. Resnick, Barberry Rd., asked if Mr. Williams had been at the hearing when the land was rezoned to which Mr. Stevens replied that he believed that Mr. Williams was at the hearing but did not speak as he didn't understand what was being done. Someone asked if Mr. Williams could get a liquor license and Mr. Stevens replied that he thought it was impossible to run a rest- aurant in Waltham and Lexington at the same time and that it would be impossible to operate under a liquor license. WILLIAMS PROPOSAL C4toCI WALTHAM ST. Hearings 2-21-66 Someone asked if all the land was C 4 and Mr. Stevens said the lot has 140 ft. frontage and 28,200 sq.ft. in Lexington, the rest being in. Waltham. Mrs. Alan Wade stated that the vote to allow liquor has been getting closer each year and in considering a restaurant here it must also be considered that liquor might be permitted within a few years. Mr. Resnick asked the status of the adjoining land in Waltham and was told it was just a private road to the parking in back of the stores. When a question as to assessment was brought up Mr. Stevens replied that the assessors just assess the land in Lexington - Waltham assesses the rest. A question was asked as to how such land could be built upon and Mr. Campbell replied that the ratio was 2-1-- to 100 sq.ft. building you have to have 200 sq.ft. of parking. Mrs. Wade asked if the new C 1 divisions being proposed by the Planning Board would not affect this, to which Mr. Campbell replied that not all of the.0 1 zones would be changed, nine would be put into C 1, two into C S and the other thirteen would remain as is, and, this is, one of the areas not being affected. Mr. could said he didn't think there were enough good restau- rants to serve this area - he thought another could be used. Mr. Mollo-Christensen asked if Mr. Williams had recourse to the Board of.Appeals and Mr. Stevens explained the technicalities of re- quirements of Board of Appeals one of which was that it would_ have to be proven that, it would be permissible to use it for another use than for what it was intended, and this would be hard to do. It seemed the best way to -take it back to the town and correct the error. This hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. The second portion of the hearing is a proposal to change certain land at the northwesterly side of Waltham St. near the Lexing- PAINO-LA CAVA ton -Waltham line, owned by Paino and LaCava Realty Trust, from an R 1 PROPOSAL residential district to a C 4 small business office district. - Mr. Campbell introduced Mr. John McCarthy who represented the R 1 to C 4 Paino-LaCava Realty Trust. He explained that the Trust proposed to WALTHAM ST. erect a medical type small office building and presented plans which were passed around. He said that the Trust had done a lot of con- struction in the area, including the Holiday Inn and the Wingate pro- ject, in Waltham. He felt that this type of use would be a buffer be- tween the shopping center and houses further on. Charles Cole asked if the Planning Board had any plans.for this area and Mr. Campbell replied there were none at this time. 1 1 Hearing 2-,21-66 .:3 - Sanborn Brown asked if this building could be for anything other than a medical building and Mr. McCarthy said, it could be, but most of their inquiries had been for medical and dental offices although they.had had other types mentioned and they would.not be limited. Mr. Flynn asked about the use of the second building shown on the plan and was tole the same use was contemplated for both. Mr. McLaughlin asked about the land -in back, and Mr. McCarthy said it.did not belong to Paino-LaCava and there were no plans exist- ing or in the works to acquire or use that land. A question was asked as to whether the subject land could .be divided into more than two lots and was told it would be no more than two. Dorothy Williams said that the Planning Board had mentioned that they would not wait two years fora long range plan in order to consider zoning changes, and Mr. Campbell said he didn't think the Board could turn down a proposal of a citizen just because they didn!t have the results of an anticipated program - they do not want to go on record as not sponsoring any zoning changes for the next two years. This hearing closed at 9:00 p.m. The third proposal is to change certain other land on Spring St. owned by Lexington Investment Trust (Roberts & Roberts) from an R 1 residential to C 3 commercial district. Mr. Norman Richards, representing the petitioners, showed a slide of the property and stated that this was a steep slope, heavily wooded, with gravelly soil and boulders. It is presently zoned as residential. The taxes in 1965 amounted to $2,860.- if zoned as C 3 the same land would bring roughly ten times that amount. The area in his opinion is not suitable for residential use since access is a problem and across the street there is Raytheon, Kennecott and Burroughs. He said they would provide a buffer strip of sufficient width to prevent -anyone living in the area to look across and see any commercial structure. He explained that the other two articles on the warrant involving land -in the area had no connection with this. He also stated that water was available -and sewer expected in the near future. Someone mentioned that there were other C 1, C 2 and C 3 zoned areas why weren't these being used, and Mr. Richards re- plied that this particular area is one of the finest locations still left in the commercial alley along Rte. 128 - far better than Hartwell Ave. or other C 3 areas. Sanborn Brown said that this area had been involved several times before and it had always come out that there was no sewer available and no plans for one, and Mr. Richards said that this LEX.INVESTMENT TR. PROPOSAL R1toC3 SPRING ST. - RTE. 2 Hearing -2-21-66 -4- had been discussed with the Town Engineers who had made a survey, and that a sewer would be installed there probably within a short time whether this rezoning went through or not in order that it could be incorporated into the 'widening of Rte: 2 and thus save digging it up later. Mr. Bayliss said he was interested from the point of view of additional traffic on Spring St. Mr. Richards replied that there should be a substantial decrease in Spring St. because the inter- change would provide access to an 8 -lane highway and in addition there is Hayden Ave. which will provide a way to -Waltham St. If so many cars are divided up by additional roads there is bound to be a reduction of traffic density. Mr. Kula said he didn't think that was so - one would not be able to get off at Waltham St. but would have to get off at Spring St. Mr. Gallagher asked how many buildings would go in, and Mr. Richards said he didn't know but five acres per building were required which gave a potential of six buildings.' Someone asked if grouping this with the other two articles on Rte. 2 made the packet to cane up at town meeting. Mr. Campbell re- plied that they were not related - they were all on citizens' petitions. When the necessary number of signatures are presented to the Planning ' Board by a citizen, the Planning Board must hold a hearing and include the article on the warrant. William Cowles, formerly of Lexington and now of New Hampshire, owner of considerable land in this area, stated that here was an isolated section of town and if residences were,built there would have to be a school bus, a fire house, and numerous other expenses to the town. He and his neighbors had banded together many times and tried to have the land rezoned but were unsuccessful. He feels the entire section some day will be commercial and it is time to get some tax returns on this property. Mr. Kula said he was against rezoning in this area - there is still land left in the Raytheon and Kennecott properties and other C 3 land which he thinks would be suitable. Someone else said this land has been coming up for four or five years and it is no more right to rezone it now than it ever was. The visibility is poor; the traffic,is bad and will be worse when Raytheon and Kennecott are fully developed; the State has planned Rte. 2 as a residential highway; there are also conservation plans for the Hobbs Brook area; and in addition it would make it easier for abutting neighbors to come in for additional rezoning. Mr. Resnick read a resolution which members of Five Fields had voted unanimously to support whereby they would oppose rezoning of residential land until a long range comprehensive plan is achieved. Hearing 2-21-66 -5- Mrs. Davison wished to be recorded in opposition. Mr. Mollo-Christensen asked if the Planning Board had made a statement for further commercial development on Rte. 2, or if they had any guide line, upon which Mr. Bryson read from the Summary Report, Phase I of 1963 as follows: ". . . Sufficient land has already been zoned for industrial use that, even if no further land is zoned for such use, substantially more than 20% of the total valuation of the town, when the town is fully developed, will be from commercial and industrial sources. This compares very favorably with the cities and towns shown on Table IX. "The Board has considered all of the areas in town that could be zoned industrially and concludes that there is no available land in that section north of Route 2 and east of Route 128 that could be so devel- oped without substantial detriment to existing residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the Board does not recommend any further industrial rezoning in this area." Among those taking part in the above hearings were Joel Resnick, 1 Barberry Rd.; George Porten, 388 Concord Ave.; Helen Wade, 524 Con- cord Ave.; Leon Burke, 5 Frances Rd.; Milton L. Gould, 36 Webster Rd.; Charles Cole, 4 Franklin Rd.; Erik Mollo-Christensen, 10 Barberry Rd.; Sanborn and Lois Brown, 37 Maple St.; ElizabethjFlynn, 310 Concord Ave.; Mr. McLaughlin; Rocco Frasca, 983 Waltham St.; Dorothy Williams, 196 Pollen Rd.; R. E. Bayliss, Adams St.p Eric Kula, 66 Spring St.; Mr. ' Gallagher, Spring St.; Stanton Hamlet, 27 Woodcliff Rd.; William Cowles, Greenfield, N.H.; Charles Hutchinson, 164 Spring St.; Dominick Morley, 165 Spring St.; Richard Coleman; Jacqueline Davison, 86 Spring St. The hearing closed at 10:15 p.m. Louise M. Macomber, Secretary 1