Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-02-28PLANNING BOARD MEETING February 28, 1966 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in its office, Town Office Building, on Monday, February 28, 1966. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Campbell at 7:30 p.m. with members Bryson, Greeley and Riffin, Planning Director Zaleski, and Town Engineer Carroll present. The question of street assessments on Middleby Rd. was discussed briefly, Mr. Carroll suggesting that any departure from the standard assessment policy would create a bad precedent. Mr. Carroll also pointed out that the extra construction on Middleby Rd. is not paid for by abuttors, since the town only assesses a net $10 per front foot regardless of the higher actual cost plus $1.00 per foot of sidewalk. The Board agreed to support the accept- ance of Middleby Rd. The preliminary subdivision plan of land owned by Green and White off Mason St. was reviewed by the Board and the Town Engineer. The Board and Mr. Carroll agreed to eliminate Emerson Rd. from the subdivision and from Wilson's Farm. The Board also agreed to request that 100 ft. wide strip adjacent to Cane and West land be reserved, ' 50 ft. for town -owned part and 50 ft. as conservation ease- ment. The town engineer and the planning director will study the alternatives for Emerson Rd. between Massachusetts Ave. and Rte. 2 and the Board will at a later date publish its stand and recommendation on this in the form of a policy statement. Plan with Form A was submitted by Mr. Harold C. Wilson as follows: #66-3, submitted February 28, 1966 by Harold C. Wilson; plan entitled "A Subdivision of Land Court Case No. 9475 Land in Lexington, Mass.", dated Feb. 28, 1966, Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors. The Board reviewed the plan and voted to endorse it as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, with a notation to the effect that the remaining land marked "Harold C. Wilson et ux" does not have street frontage re- quired by the Lexington Zoning By -Law. The Minutes of meetings of February 14 and 21,1966, were reviewed and approved. The following written communications were read and ' placed on file: Letter from Selectmen re: Middleby Rd. acceptance. Letter from State Dept. of Commerce re: Master Plan Contract. MIDDLEBY RD. ASSESSMENT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - MASON ST. GREEN & WHITE FORM A Wilson MINUTES COMMUNICATIONS 2-28-66 -2- Letter from Town Counsel re: extension of time on Marrettwood (Elena Rd.) subdivision. Notice from D.P.U. re: hearing on gas line location. Mr. Joyce of Honeywell Co. and Mr. John Crowley met HONEYWELL CO. with the Board to explain that Honeywell Co. is interested in the Lexington Investment Trust land but is not prepared to buy it or associate itself with the proposed rezoning at the moment. The meeting was temporarily adjourned at 8:25 p.m. HEARING to attend the public hearing in Estabrook Hall relative to Greene -Galla- the rezoning of Greene, Gallagher and Panjian land. gher-Panjian Resuming the meeting at 10:10 p.m. the Board pro - VOTES - TOWN ceeded to discussion of the Fuller Hill rezoning. Messrs. MEETING ARTS. Greeley, Bryson and Campbell voted in favor of the rezoning, Mrs. Riffin recording herself in opposition. The Board Auller Hill- agreed to attempt a single report expressing both the majority Roberts and the minority recommendations. Mrs. Riffin agreed to pre- pare a draft of the report. (See Addendum for Reports.) Next discussed were the proposals for rezoning to C 3 - Greene, C 3 of Greene, Gallagher and panjian land on Spring St. The Gallagher, Board was unanimously opposed to these proposals and voted Panjian to recommend that they be not adopted. Mr. Xaleski will pre- pare the draft of this report. , Proceeding to a discussion of the proposal to rezone C 1 - Williams back to C 1 the Williams land on Waltham St. at Waltham line, the Board voted unanimously to recommend that this rezoning be not adopted by the Town. Mr. Campbell will prepare a draft of the report on this article. On the proposal of Paino-LaCava Trust for the rezoning C 4 - Paino- to C 4 of their land at Waltham line along the westerly side LaCava of Waltham St., the Board voted to recommend that this pro- posal be not adopted at this time. The draft of the report on this item will be prepared by Mr. Zaleski. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 Natalie H. Riffin Clerk *************** ADDENDUM PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON ARTICLES 54 THROUGH 56 OF THE WARRANT FOR THE 1966 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING. On February 7, 1966 at 8:00 p.m. in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, the Lexington Planning Board held a duly advertised 2-28-66 public hearing on the proposal to amend subsection (e) of Section 8 of the Lexington Zoning By -Law, under the caption Area, frontage and yard ' regulations, CM 1 Districts, the proposed amendments being the sub- stance of Articles 54, 55 and 56 of the Warrant for the 1966 Annual Town Meeting. The proposed amendments have been initiated by the Planning Board as a result of a study of the area involved, consultation with potential developers and comparison with other municipalities. The basic issue involved here is relatively straightforward: does the Town wish to encourage prompt development of office, research, and light manufacturing uses in the Hartwell Ave. area, or will it be content to wait as much as a decade or two for this area to be put to a constructive use? When the area was zoned to CM 1, about six years ago, restric- tions were deliberately placed very high in order to encourage particularly low-density development of relatively large establishments. Two enter- prises came in fairly promptly, but complications of ownership patterns, the Edison easement, drainage, and availability of less -restricted land in neighboring towns have combined to inhibit much development. Add to this the decision of the Town to withdraw for the sanitary land -fill operation a readily accessible part of this area, and the result has been a stalemate which seems likely to persist for many years. The Planning Board has heard testimony from experts, including present owners of some parts of the area, that lot size, frontage and yard restrictions are so stringent as to discourage potential buyers; that properties in other towns along Route 128 are much more attractive to purchasers and are bringing higher prices than are being asked for the land in this area, because they are less restricted; that reduction of the restrictions here would probably attract buyers, as the general location is good. In proposing these amendments we have not reduced the restric- tions so much as some owners advocate. The major changes would be: 1, to reduce a minimum lot size from 5 acres to 3; 2, to reduce minimum frontage from 300 ft. to 200; 3. to reduce minimum side and rear yards next to lots zoned commercially from 50 feet to 25; 4. and to reduce the minimum front yard, or yard adjoining a residence district, from 100 feet to 75 feet, or to 50 feet in the case of a one-story building. We be- lieve these restrictions will still safeguard the quality of the area, although they permit somewhat more intensive development than is per- mitted in the C 3 (Raythron-Kennecott-Burroughs) district. We also be- lieve that these changes will encourage more rapid development of the area into what is clearly the most appropriate type of use. These rpo- posed restrictions would, we are told, satisfy the demands of 45% of the firms which have recently located in industrial (arks along Rte. 128. Accordingly the Planning Board unanimously recommends passage of ' Article 54. Article 56 calls for elimination of provisions related to side yards which have been incorporated, in substance, in paragraphs b(1) and b.(2) above. -4 - Article 55 calls for a slight increase in the net building cover- age permitted, from 25% to 33.3%, which we believe to be a desirable change in harmony with the action taken in Article 54. We unanimously recommend favorable action on each of these two , articles. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Joseph A. Campbell /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Roland B. Greeley /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s/ Francis T. Worrell PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON ARTICLES 57 AND 58 OF THE WARRANT FOR THE ANNUAL TOWN MEETING These articles propose to amend the Zoning By -Law by establish- ing a new district, CS - Service and Trade district, and by transferring two C 1 districts into the new CS district. The Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing on this proposal as provided for by Sec. 19 of the Zoning By -Law. The hearing was held on Monday, March 7 in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. , For several years the Planning Board has been considering the creation of a "Tradesmen's Park," or more correctly, a "Service and Trade District." This district is designed to serve the needs of certain com- mercial activities that are a normal part of a community the size of Lexington but which are not at present adequately provided for by the Zoning By -Law. These fall into three general categories: contractors and similar service and maintenance businesses; custom or job -shop type of manufacture; and certain businesses, such as retail automobile agencies, lumber yards, and large contracting businesses which require large areas. As a typical example of the first category, the small contractor may need only an office and small workshop, and space for maybe two or three vehicles. Rentals in C 1 and C 2 districts are high and scarce, and there is often no space for vehicle storage. As a consequence, a large number of these businesses exist as non -conforming uses in residential districts. Businesses in the second category (custom shops) are in a similar situation. Land economics force businesses requiring large areas to compress as much as possible into the small space available, taking advantage of every zoning technicality, while hampering their operation, and often creating an unsightly conglomeration harmful to surrounding users. All of the uses permitted in the proposed CS districts are at present permitted in C 1 and C 2 districts, either as a matter of right ' or by permission of the Board of Appeals. These uses, therefore, must compete for space with the normal retailing activities for which C 1 and C 2 districts are primarily intended, and thus tend to displace the re- tailing use. The proposed CS district would permit the service and trades uses, but not normal retail activities of a downtown or local shopping 2-28-66 -5- area. The CS district would thus be a more restricted district than the present C 1 or C 2. ' In addition to being more restricted as to use, the proposed CS districts are more restricted as to frontage, lot size, front, side and rear yards, landscaped green strips and location of parking. A CS dis- trict is thus less detrimental to the neighborhing residential areas than a C 1 district. The areas proposed for inclusion in CS in Art. 58 are two that the Planning Board considers to be suitable for a more restricted classi- fication. The smaller area consists essentially of the present C 1 area on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Bedford St. with the Boston and Maine railroad, the only change being the addition of a 30 -ft strip along the railroad which is now R 1. Most of the uses at present in this area conform to the concept of a CS district, being such things as contractors' offices, dry-cleaning plants, etc. The size and layout of the area would be most suitable for further development of the same type of activities. The larger area proposed for CS is identical with the present C 1 district in the southeasterly corner of the same intersection. At present it contains the public works building, the Knights of Columbus lot, the Maney property, a part of Larchmont Engineering, and five houses along Bedford St. Rezoning will not change the use of the Town land, which is consistent with the CS concept unless the Town Barn should ever be moved elsewhere. The Knights of Columbus property is said to be under option to buy by Dunn Ford agency, which would create a use consistent with the proposed uses. Both areas proposed for rezoning from C 1 to CS are on Bedford St., which is a narrow street now carrying a great deal of through traffic in addition to the local traffic. Any further commercial devel- opment will aggravate the traffic situation. Most of the commercial activities which would be allowed in the proposed CS district are those which generate relatively little traffic compared with that generated by, say, a supermarket, which is allowed in the present C 1 district. For these reasons, the Planning Board unanimously recommends the adoption of Articles 57 and 58, March 14, 1966 1 LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Joseph A. Campbell, Chairman /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Roland B. Greeley /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s( Francis T. Worrell 2-28-66 -0- LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON ARTICLES 57, 59 OF THE WARRANT FOR THE 1966 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Articles 57 and 59 define and create CN - Neighborhood business I districts. The Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing on this proposal March 7, 1966 at Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. Local shopping districts were created in order to serve the neigh- borhood and the general area in which they are located. Ideally these districts would provide convenience goods and personal services to nearby residents. They would be easily accessible, attractive to shoppers who walk; however, each area would have sufficient parking provided at no cost to the Town. Each district would be developed compactly in a small area. The districts would be planned, constructed and maintained as a unit. With this ideal concept in mind set us review the situation in the existing C 1 zones. An inventory of the actual uses of land in C 1 dis- tricts discloses a high percentage of uses which do not have a local character but are of town -wide or even regional significance. Manufac- turers agents, contractors' yards and farm equipment sales, are examples of non -local uses now permitted in C 1 districts. As the town grows, we will need more neighborhood shopping, but it may be difficult to satisfy this need since C 1 districts, under the present wording of the Zoning By -Law, may be occupied by an office building or lumber yard. The only way to solve this problem is through creation of true neighborhood shopping areas in which only stores and uses primarily serving the immediate area would be permitted. The present proposal relates only to existing C 1 areas which have developed or can still develop to serve neighborhood needs. C 1 zones which have developed in a manner largely inconsistent with the neighborhood concept would remain C 1 - Semi -central business districts. The Planning Board is proposing that the new regulations for CN be applied in nine of 23 existing C 1 districts: 1. Bedford St. at North Hancock St. 2. Bedford St. north of the railroad. 3. Bedford St. at Reed St. 4. Laconia St. at Woburn St. 5. Northeast corner of Marrett Rd. and Lincoln St. 6. North side of Marrett Rd. at Spring St. 7, 8, 9. Waltham St. at Concord Ave. (3 corners) The uses permitted in the proposed neighborhood shopping districts would include all uses permitted in residential areas plus specific re- tail sales of convenience goods and local services. Specifically pro- hibited would be liquor stores, stores requiring outdoor storage and dis- play of merchandise, offices of agents, salesmen and representatives of manufacturing, distributing wholesale, and insurance companies, and estab- lishment for treatment, boarding and care of animals. With the exception of liquor stores all of the prohibited uses are presently allowed in C 1 zones. The proposed land regulations for CN compare with the existing C 1 regulations as follows: 1 1 1 2-28-66 1. Minimum lot area 2. Minimum frontage 3. Minimum front yard 4. Minimum side yard 5. Minimum rear yard 6. Minimum distance between buildings 7. Maximum gross floor area of all buildings on one lot 8. Parking controls a. For ea.200 sq.ft. floor area b. Free access to street over unobstructed driveway c. Parking prohibited 9. Landscaping required Proposed CN 15,500 sq.ft. 125 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 3,000 sq.ft. 1 parking space No backing out Within 10 ft. of at. Within 20 ft. R1, R2, Al districts Within 10 ft. of st. Within 20 ft. of Rl, R2, Al districts -7- Existing C 1 No restriction No restriction 20 ft. 20 ft. if abuts R1, R2 boundary 20 ft. can be used for parking No restriction No restriction 2 spaces No restriction No restriction No provision The proposed CN regulations would improve or fill gaps in the restrictions which now apply to C 1 districts, in terms of area, frontage, yard, parking and landscaping requirements. Since the creation of CN - Neighborhood business districts specifies land restrictions and uses which are suitable for true neighbor- hood shopping areas and discourages the development of commercial areas which would compete with the central business district the Planning Board unanimously recommends the adoption of Articles 57 and 59. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Joseph A Camobell, Chairman /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Roland B. Greeley /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s/ Francis T. Worrell March 14, 1966 PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON ARTICLE 60 OF THE WARRANT FOR THE ANNUAL TOWN MEETING 1. Introduction. The amendment to the Zoning B y -Law contained in Art. 60 of the Warrant for the 1966 Annual Town Meeting has been initiated by the Planning Board after a thorough study. A duly advertised public hearing on this Article was held on February 7, 1966, in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. Article 60 proposed to amend Section 8 of the Lexington Zoning 2-28-66 -8- By-Law to permit developers, under certain circumstances, to build houses on lots smaller than normally required provided that they leave undeveloped a fraction of the land in the tract accessible to either residents of ' houses in the development or to residents of the Town. This type of de- velopment, known as "cluster" zoning, would permit subdivision planning to be done in a more flexible way to achieve an attractive layout of house lots and streets and at the same time to preserve open spaces for recrea- tion or conservation purposes. Cluster zoning will not permit the overall density of houses in the tract to be increased nor is it likely to affect significantly residential real property assessments. 2.0 Requirements. Table 1 gives a comparison of the requirements of the present inner and outer R 1 zones with those of the proposed Cluster zone. The requirements are discussed briefly below. 2.1. Minimum Tract Size. In order to exercise the cluster zoning option, a developer must have a tract of at least 10 acres. While the actual number is somewhat arbitrary, it is clear that it is necessary to place some sort of minimum requirement on tract acreage. Ten acres is equiva- lent to a development of about 12 houses and possibly a quarter mile of street. Such a neighborhood is large enough to have an identity of its own and seems reasonably adequate as a minimum. 2.2 Maximum Number of Lots. The maximum number of lots permitted in a tract is the same as would be permitted in the outer R 1 zone. There the minimum lot area is 30,000 sq.ft. In the cluster case the tract acreage is first reduced by 15% to allow for streets, etc. The number of lots allowable is then given by the remaining area in square feet divided by 30,000. 2.3 Minimum Lot Area and Dimensions. It was the opinion of Planning Board members that the lot frontage should be 120 feet to allow adequate dimension for a house, a two -car garage, and reasonable side yards. ,A similar process can lead to a figure for lot depth of 170 feet. The minimum lot area was taken as the product or 20,000 sq.ft. These numbers are similar to but differ somewhat from the requirements of the inner R 1 zone. 2.4 Front, Side, and Rear Yard Requirements. The front, side, and rear yard requirements are the same as those in both inner and outer R 1 zones, 2.5 Open Space. The proposed cluster zoning amendment requires that 25% of the tract be left as open space in a single parcel. With Board of Appeals approval division of the open land into more than one parcel would be permitted. The reason for requirements here is to prevent a developer from committing to "open space" bits and pieces of land throughout the tract that are unsuitable for development. Because in certain circum- stances splitting of the open area into more than one parcel might make a more attractive development, recourse to the Board of Appeals is pro- vided. In regard to the matter of ownership of the open area in a cluster development, the proposed amendment provides several alternatives. Owner- ship can vest with the town, jointly with owners of houses within the cluster development, in a Homes' Association, or with a trust or corpora- 2-28-66 1 Tab le 1 COMPARISON OF SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS A. Minimum area to be subdivided B. Minimum lot size (square feet) C. Minimum street frontage per lot D. Minimum front yard (feet) E. Minimum side, rear yard (feet) -9- 30,000 sq.ft. 15,500 sq.ft. Cluster - 10 acres 30,000 15,500 20,000 150 ft. 125 ft. 120 ft. 30 15 F. Maximum number of lots in 10 acres 12-13 G. Minimum reserved open space 30 30 15 15 23-2k 12 25% of total Number of lots in conventional subdivisions and open space in "cluster" subdivisions depend on the shape of the tract of a given area and on the area of land required for streets. LJ Table 2 SUMMARY OF CLUSTER ZONING PROVISIONS i 0 i Town Min. Max. Lot area Frontage Disposal Remarks Site number reduction reduced of open Area of lots from -to from -to land Lexington 10 A. 85% of 30,000-20,000 150'-120' 1. Town ownership 25% open space proposed area t 2. Owners jointly subject to a by 30,000 3. Homes Assn. town easement 4. Trust or Corp. Andover 10 A. To 2/3 of area To min. Setback lines adopted otherwise 100'/lot shown on plans. required 1/2 total Approved plans part of zoning Bedford 30 A. 90% of area 60,000-30,000 200'-100' 1 Deed to cons.com.Town water and proposed t std.lot 40,000-20,000 150'-100' 2. Homes Assn., sewer required or usable 30,000-15,000 125'-100' trust or corp. 15,000-10,000 100'-100' Concord 90% of area 80,000-30,000 80'-50' 1. Deed to town 10% min.open adopted std.lot or 40,000-20,000 width at 2. Owners jointly space. Open land usable lots 20,000-10,000 bldg.100' 3. Homes assn. uses include 10,000- 7,500 or 80' 4. Determination agriculture and yd.40'-30' by B/A incid. uses Dover 10 A. No. of usable 2 acres -1 A. 200'-150' 1. Deed to town 20% min.open apace, proposed lots set by Front Yd.60'- and/or owners uses perm.in cops. Planning Bd. 40'.Side,rear jointly. district includ.race yd.40'-30' 2. Homes assn. track and agricul- 3. Conserv.Tr ture. 4. Determ.B/A i 00 N Sharon 50 A Not more 100,000-20,000 200'-100' Town accepts for No bldg.permit un- adopted than with 40,000-20,000 150'-100' park & recreation til town votes to conv.zoning 20,000-20 000 100'-100' accept land 1. Special permit by Bd. of Appeals, except Andover, Vhere planning Board approved. 2. Planning Board recommends to Bd. of Appeals and approves subdivision. 2-28-66 -11- tion. The important end to be achieved, in the opinion of the Planning Board, is the perpetual maintenance of the open area in an undeveloped or un -built -on state. Therefore, if ownership does not vest with the town, the town must be given an easement sufficient, in the opinion of town counsel, to assure that the parcel will never be developed. 3.0 Possible Impact of Cluster Zoning. The Land Use Committee of the League of Women Voters made a study for the Planning Board of areas where cluster zoning might be employed. Based upon their study there appear to be about 42 parcels of land which could be developed under the proposed cluster zoning amendment. These 42 parcels comprise a total area of 1,086 acres. The smallest parcel is 10 acres, the largest 95. Of the 42 parcels the median area is 19 acres. If two-thirds of the 1,o86 acres were developed under cluster zoning, about 825-850 houses could be built. Previous studies have indicated that there are a total of about 4,000 home building sites available in Lexing- ton. Of the total unbuilt sites, then, about 20% could be developed under cluster zoning. 4.0 Comparison With Other Towns. Other Massachusetts towns have either enacted or discussed cluster zoning. Table 2 shows a comparison of the cluster zoning amendment proposed for Lexington with the amendments enacted or proposed in other towns. The table is self-explanatory. Notice, how- ever, that the requirements proposed for cluster zoning in Lexington are relatively conservative. ' 5.0 Recommendation. The Planning Board is unanimous in recommending that Town Meeting take favorable action on Article 60. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Joseph A. Campbell, Chairman /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Roland B. Greeley /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s/ Francis T. Worrell March 14, 1966 PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON ARTICLE 61 OF THE WARRANT OF THE ANNUAL TOWN MEETING This article proposes to amend Section 14 (Board of Appeals) of the Zoning By -Law by spelling out in detail conditions and safeguards to be specifically considered by the Board of Appeals when evaluating petitions for special permits. The Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing on this pro- posal as provided for by Sec. 19 of the Zoning By -Law. The hearing was held on February 7, 1966 in the Science Lecture Hall, Lexington High School By authority of the General Laws, Chapter 40-a, Sec. 4, the Board 2-28-66 -12- of Appeals may "in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate condi- tions and safeguards" grant to an applicant a special permit for a use permitted by the Zoning By -Law, but only if the location and conditions of such proposed uses are not detrimental to the neighborhood or the town. The Board of Appeals generally receives more than 100 petitions per year; approximately two-thirds of the petitions request special permits, the re- maining one-third being requests for variances and appeals of decisions of municipal officers. The zoning by-law invests considerable power (which has a cumulative effect on the town) in the Board of Appeals through the Board's right to grant permission for a large variety of land uses, particularly in R 1, R 2 and C 1 and C 2 zones. Permits granted by the Board of Appeals must be in harmony with the general purpose of the Zoning By -Law, that of promoting the health, safety, welfare, convenience, etc. of the inhabitants; in addition these permits may be subject to general or specific rules. The Board of Appeals has generally followed the prac- tice of considering the items listed in the current proposal; however, the Planning Board feels that codification and formal definition of these conditions will be advantageous to the general public. For the purpose of spelling out the conditions and safeguards, this proposal sets forth criteria by which the Board of Appeals can consistently measure and judge future petitions for special permits. In this way the petitioner and the public will be aware of the specific standards by which each re- quest would be evaluated and conditions which may be imposed. The Planning Board is unanimous in its recommendation that Article 61 be adopted. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Joseph A. Campbell, Chairman /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Roland B. Greeley /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s/ Francis T. Worrell March 14, 1966 PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING BY-LAW PROPOSED BY ART. 62 OF THE WARRANT FOR 1966 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING On February 21, 1966 at 8:00 p.m. in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, the Lexington Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing on a proposal to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law set forth in Art. 62 of the warrant of the Annual Town Meeting. A petition requesting the Selectmen to insert said article was certified as having adequate signatures as well as a petition requesting the Planning Board to hold subject hearing. The proposed amendment would rezone from C 4 - Office Park to C I - Local business district, a parcel of land approximately 30,000 sq.ft. fronting 140 ft. on the easterly side of Waltham St. at the Waltham - Lexington town line. The subject land was in C 1 until the Special Town Meeting of November 25, 1963, when this parcel and the abutting 4.3 acres were placed into the C 4 district. Previous to this town meeting, the 1 �J 2-28-66 -13- the Planning Board notified the owner of record of the then proposed change. The Planning Board majority opposes this article for the follow- ing reasons: 1. The C 1 zone can best be described as a "catch-all zone." In articles elsewhere in the warrant for the annual town meeting, the Planning Board has taken the initiative to remove from C 1 and upgrade to CN as many parcels as possible without undue restrictions on their use by the owners. The Board is most reluctant at this.time to recom- mend any additional C 1 districts. 2. The Board believes that C 4 use (office building) is the best use for this land, but recognizes that lot area, frontage and yard re- quirements must be relaxed if this lot is to be used for office build- ings permitted in C 4 district. The best way to accomplish this is by petitioning the Board of Appeals for variance rather than through rezoning. The minority feel that under the present zoning, the owner has no reasonable use as a matter of right, since in 1963 the Board stated that this land was relatively unattractive for residential use. The minority therefore recommends that this article be passed in order that this owner may have a reasonable use consistent with the general principles of zoning. Minority Report /s/ Joseph A. Campbell /s/ Roland B. Greeley March 14, 1966 LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Majority Report /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s/ Arthur E. Bryson, Jr. PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SECTION 4(h) - C 3 SPECIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS OF THE ZONING BY-LAW OF THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON - ARTICLES 63 AND 64 Inserted at the request of 10 or more registered voters, Articles 63 and 64 of the Warrant for the 1966 Annual Town Meeting propose a rezoning of adjoining parcels of land south of Rte. 2 and west of Spring St. from R 1 - One family dwelling district to C 3 - Special commercial district. While different votes are possible on the two Articles, the Planning Board believes that the same considerations apply to both and discusses them together in this report. Upon the petition of 100 or more registered voters, the Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing on these proposals on February 28, 1966 at 8:30 p.m. in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, Lexington. The hearing was attended by approximately 100 persons. The proposal is to rezone two parcels of land, one containing about eight acres, located immediately to the southeast of Rte. 2 and owned by 2-28-66 -14- Benjamin and Ann Greene, and the other containing slightly over 6 acres to the southeast of the Greene land and owned in part by Gallagher and in part by Panjian. C 3 zoning permits business offices, research facilities and supporting uses on lots of at least 5 acres with a street frontage of at least 300 feet and subject to other zoning restrictions, including a requirement for a review by the Board of Appeals of any proposed devel- opment or major change. In presenting the rezoning proposal, Mr. Donald Moore, speaking on behalf of the petitioners, stated that there are no firm plans as to the buildings to be erected or their occupants. Municipal water is available, but no sanitary sewer, although the sewer is expected to be provided within the next few years as a step in the existing expan- sion program. The area which is the subject of Articles 63 and 64 was included in rezoning proposals presented to the Town Meeting in 1961, 1963 and 196e, which did not receive the necessary 2/3 majority. While adjacent to and certainly affected by the use of the land proposed for rezoning under Art,. 65 of the Warrant for the 1966 Annual Town Meeting, this proposal is in no way connected with the rezoning sought under Art. 65. It is estimated that the revenue from this area, if fully developed, would be at least four times as high for C 3 uses as it would be for a subdivision into 17 minimum size residential lots. No exact figures are available on the comparative cost of town services, such as fire, police, library, schools, speed-up in the widening of Spring St. north of Rte. 2, etc., but it appears likely that the C 3 zoning would be more advantageous to the Town from the viewpoint of revenue versus cost of services required. ' It is impossible to predict the number of additional automobile trips which would be generated by the rezoning, but the order of magnitude of 100-400 employees appears reasonable. The proponents state that on the basis of comparison with other similar devel6pments along Rte. 128, only 10 to 20% of the employees would use Lexington streets, the remainder commut- ing via Rte. 2, Rte. 128 and Spring St. south into Waltham (Spring St. from Rte. 2 south will be improved and widened as a part of the State improve- ment of Rte. 2). There are now in the Town of Lexington almost 300 acres of vacant land zoned for uses permitted in C 3 districts. While some of this land may be not as desirable because of soil conditions, lack of sewer, high tension wires or no exposure to highways, other areas are at least as suitable for research and office uses as the Spring St. land. Thus, the rezoning of the Rte. 2 -Spring St. parcels described in Articles 63 and 64 will but reduce the likelihood of the land already zoned in other locations being developed. It may be assumed that any additional revenue from the Spring St. area is only what the Town would get from other C 3, CH 1, or CM 1 dis- tricts if they were to be developed instead of the land proposed in Articles 63 and 64. There is no denying that the requested zoning change, if adopted, would have a significant effect on the neighborhood. There is no logical visual or physical dividing line or buffer between these properties and the residential land to the south and east, such as the crest of Fuller's Hill ' constitutes for the land described in Article 65. If this process of property -by -property piecemeal rezoning is accepted by the Town Meeting, 2-28-66 -15- it may well continue spreading in years to come without regard to the en- croachment on residential districts, or provisions for natural separation or buffer, such as a park, reservation or town land. IN SUMMARY, THE PROPosed rezoning is not a part of an overall land use plan for this area, the land to be rezoned is not different or separated from adjacent residential properties, there is no need for this type of zoning which cannot be met by the land already zoned and vacant, the addi- tional revenue may be realized from development of the land already zoned, the impact on the neighborhood would be detrimental to residential amen- ities in the area and there exists a clear danger of the rezoning spread- ing on a piecemeal basis. For these reasons the Planning Board by a unanimous vote recommends that Articles 63 and 64 be defeated. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Joseph A. Campbell, Chairman /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Roland B. Greeley /s/ Natalie:H. Riffin /s/ Francis T. Worrell March 14, 1966 JOINT REPORT OF THE LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD ON ARTICLE 65 OF THE WARRANT FOR THE 1966 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING 1.0 Introduction On February 21, 1666: the Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, on the peti- tion of 100 registered voters to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law as described in Article 65 of the Warrant for the 1966 Annual Town Meeting. Article 65 proposes to rezone 33 acres of land on the westerly side of Fuller's Hill, south of Rte. 2, east of Rte. 128 and west of Spring St. from E 1 - Single family residential district to C 3 - Special commercial district. While on the north side of Rte. 2, in the area east of Rte. 128, there is a 129 -acre C 3 zone, the area south of Rte. 2 and west of Waltham St. is at present wholly residential. Some historic background may be relevant. 2.0 Existing C 3 and CM 1 Zones 2.1 'C 3 Zones In 1958 Town Meeting created the C 3 - Special commercial dis- trict and changed from R l to C 3, 146 acres of land on the north side of Rte. 2 east of Rte.128. In 1960, seven acres on Wood St. were added to the C 3 category to permit expansion of Lincoln Laboratory. Then in 1961 a 41 -acre tract west of Rte. 128 and south of Rte. 2A was rezoned ' from R 1 to C 3. In the meantime seventeen acres of the original 146 were taken by the State for the Rte. 2 widening. Thus at the present time 177 acres of land are zoned C 3. Of these, 46 acres have been developed by Raytheon, Burroughs, and Kennecott north of Rte. 2 and seven acres by Lincoln Laboratory. The remainder, 124 acres, is undeveloped. Additional development, however, is in the active planning stage or actually under way. Kennecott has begun expansion of their facilities on Spring St. 2-28-66 -16- north of Rte. 2, and Raytheon is planning a subdivision of eight or nine five -acre parcels west of their existing buildings. There is also evidence that development may get under way in the Rte. 2A parcel. While there is a fair amount of activity in the C 3 zone, it is important to note that full development of the existing area north of Rte. 2 at Spring St. will triple the present density of buildings, parking areas, and number of vehicles. 2,2 The CM 1 Zone The CM 1 - Light manufacturing zone in Hartwell Avenue west of Rte. 128 contains 322 acres of land including 93 of town -owned property. There are also 58 acres zoned CH 1 in which C 3 uses are permitted. Of this, 23 acres have been developed by Systems Development Corporation and by Itek. At the present time Itek has begun a large expansion of its facilities. Because some of the Hartwell Ave. area is at present visually unattractive many people have concluded that it is unattractive for CM 1 type purposes, This leads to the conjecture that more "high grade" land is needed for commercial development. Developers, however, have assured the Planning Board that the Hartwell Ave, land is indeed attractive for CM 1 type purposes, There is good access to Rte. 128, a railroad con- nection, and adequate electric power; and, the area is close to the Air Force operation at Hanscom Field which procures millions of dollars worth of equipment and services each year. Development of the area, the devel- opers say, has lagged because of a mild depression in the research and development industry during the last few years, and because the CM 1 zoning by-law was too restrictive. The Planning Board proposals in Articles 54 to 56 of this warrant relax the CM 1 requirements to speed the development , of this area and add to our tax base. 2.3 Previous Proposals to Rezone this Area This general area has been subject to several years of zoning controversy. After much study, the Planning Board presented to the Town Meeting two years ago a three-part program which involved: 1. Acceptable design of the new Spring St. interchange with Rte. 2; 2. acquisition by the Town of a buffer strip along Juniper 'Hill, halfway between Spring St. and Five Fields; and 3. rezoning of the entire Fuller's Hill -Spring St. area, extending east beyond Spring St. The Town Meeting saw fit to reject parts two and three of this proposal. We believe this decision was a considered policy decision, based on full discussion. 3.0 Likely Impact of Proposed Rezoning If the area is ,rezoned, the effects will be on income and expense to the Town, on traffic on streets in adjacent areas, and'on the direction that future development in the area may take.' 3.1 Impact on Income and Expenses It is, or course, impossible to predict how a tract will be de- veloped after rezoning takes place, and it is, therefore, impossible to ' say exactly what assessment will result. We estimate that the gross in- vestment would'be on the order of two or three million dollars, although the zoning restrictions would permit an intensity of development which 2-28-66 -17- could amount to a total assessed valuation of five or six million dollars. Topography, among other factors, is likely to inhibit development to ' maximum theoretical intensity. Accordingly, all our figures presented below assume only 50% of the theoretical maximum; to reflect maximum development multiply money and traffic figures by two. A total investment of $3,000,000 could bring nearly $150,000 per year in gross tax revenue. As a consequence of the development the Town would incur certain capital costs and operating expenditures which woiuld materially reduce the net income, perhaps to $100,000 per year. From a direct financial standpoint, then, the net effect of the rezon- ing would be to reduce the tax rate by about fifty cents. 3.2 Impact on Traffic Based upon the size of the area proposed for rezoning and on the requirements of the Lexington Zoning By -Law, one can estimate that about 600-700 people would be employed in the area. These people could be ex- pected to drive about 500 cars to and from the area each day. It is difficult to estimate how this traffic would approach and leave, but it is our estimate that,the traffic flow at peak hours on Spring St: south of Rte. 2 would be about half again the present volume. The increased volume on Spring St. in the Woodhaven area should be about 10% of the total - maybe 50 additional autos each morning and afternoon. 3.3 Impact on Future Development ' The proposed rezoning would affect a tract of land which faces Rte. 128 and non-residential or 'undeveloped land across that expressway. The developed portions would not be visible to any residences in Lexington except possibly to a few houses on Shade St. beyond the Raytheon office. An easement being offered by the owners guarantees that the natural barrier afforded by the ridge -line of Fuller's Hill will be maintained by land- scaping and trees, and by special limitations on the height of buildings so that they could not be seen from the east. This seems to constitute a strong visual barrier. On the other hand, if the west side of Fuller's Hill is rezoned, the residents along the west side of Spring St. are almost certain to ask, that their property be rezoned, as indeed some already have. Since Spring St. itself would make a poor zone boundary, there would be pressure to rezone land east of Spring St. The rezoning of the west side of Fuller's Hill appears logically to imply further requests for future re- zoning, unless and until the Planning Board and the Town Meeting succeed in establishing the policy that the Fuller's Hill ridge top is to remain the dividing line. One further point may be mentioned here: the probability that the west side of Fuller's Hill - the area in question - will be developed for single-family residence is exceedingly remote. ' 4.0 There seems to be two basic issues on which the Town Meeting decision must rest: 4.1 First is the issue as to whether it is desirable for the Town to 2-28-66 -18- allow this area to go into non-residential development. This proposal would make such development possible, with the best provision for access that is available, with effective controls over use and density, and with , strong provisions for protection of nearby residential areas against visual intrusion. 4.2 Second is the question of the buffer strip, and its adequacy to pro- tect against what has been labeled as the "domino effect." The Planning Board members agree that if it is possible to draw a line between resi- dence and non -residence in any part of this area south of Rte. 2, then Fuller's Hill is the place for that line. The coincidence of zone boundary, easement, planting, and topography probably make an effective visual boundary. It may be questioned whether they constitute an effective barrier psychologically, and whether they afford an adequately strong line of defense against requests for future changes. 5.0 In resolving these two issues the Planning Board is divided, and there- fore submits majority and minority reports. 5.1 The Majority Report The majority recommends passage of Article 65 for the follow- ing reasons: a. Uses permitted in the C 3 zone are the most appropriate uses for this parcel of land, and they can be developed without serious detriment to the adjacent neighborhood, except for some increase of.traffic on an ' already heavily -burdened inter -town street. b. The development proposed should have financial benefit to the town far in excess of anticipated costs. We are confident that the town -wide financial study currently in process will demonstrate this to be the case. c. The buffer -zone boundary line along the crest of Fuller's Hill is adequate to protect the neighborhood from creeping expansion. The situa- tion on the west side of the hill is clearly different from that on the east side. The tope of a ridge is likely to be as good a zone boundary as can be found. 5.2 The Minority Report The minority recommends against passage of Article 65 for the following reasons: a. Rezoning of the west side of Fuller's Hill will impair the residential character of the nearby area, almost certainly lead to pressure for re- zoning of adjacent land, and make such additional rezoning more probable. This is the principal argument against Article 65: a. That passage would probably initiate such a "domino" effect. b. Area south of Rte. 2 is under pressure now because of existing commer- cial development. When the existing C 3 area north of Rte. 2 is fully 2-28-66 -19- LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Minority Report Majority Report /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Arthur E. Bryson, Jr. /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s/ Roland B. Greeley /s/ Joseph A. Campbell March 14, 1966 1 - - - - - - - - - PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW OF THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON AS PROPOSED BY ARTICLE 66 OF THE WARRANT FOR THE 1966 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Article 66 of the Warrant for the 1966 An nual Town Meeting, inserted at the request of 10 or more registered voters, is a proposal to amend Section 4(j) of the Lexington Zoning By -Law by adding a new C 4 - Small office district along the westerly side of Waltham St. from Waltham city line to approximately half -way to Concord Ave. The Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing on this proposal on a petition signed by more than 100 registered voters, as pro- vided for in Sec. 19 of the Zoning By -Law. The hearing was held on February 21, 1966 at 8:30 p.m. in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, Lexington, and was attended by approximately 110 persons. The proposal is to rezone from R 1 - Single residence district, a strip of land extending for over 1,000 ft. along Waltham St. with a depth varying from about 235 to about 120 feet, containing about 3.6 acres of land and owned by Paino-LaCava Trust. The land across. Waltham St. is zoned C 4; there is no sewer in the street, but municipal water is avail- able. The Paino-LaCava Trust stated at the hearing that, if the land is rezoned, they would immediately proceed with the construction of a multiple - occupancy "medical -type" building, not waiting to line up tenants, and that developed, the present density of buildings, cars, etc. will be triple the present density. Thus it seems unwise to rezone additional land until the ' present C 3 land is developed and the impact on the area made clear. c. There is a substantial amount of undeveloped land in C 3, CM 1 and CH 1 zones. All of this land may be put to C 3 uses. According to the Lex- ington Planning Board's Phase I Summary Report - "substantially more than 20% of the total valuation of the town, when the town is fully developed, will be from commercial and industrial sources." The Long Range Financial Study, Phase .II of the Planning Board's comprehensive plan, will be completed in about two years. If we deduce from the study that there is a need for additional commercial zones, the Planning Board can then initiate proposals which will insure safeguards which private petitioners are unlikely to pro- vide: consideration of the impact of a zoning change on an entire area, inclusion of appropriate buffers, a policy decision defining the limita- tions beyond which the Board would consider additional commercial rezoning more detrimental than advantageous. Rezoning action now would preempt the study. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Minority Report Majority Report /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Arthur E. Bryson, Jr. /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s/ Roland B. Greeley /s/ Joseph A. Campbell March 14, 1966 1 - - - - - - - - - PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW OF THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON AS PROPOSED BY ARTICLE 66 OF THE WARRANT FOR THE 1966 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Article 66 of the Warrant for the 1966 An nual Town Meeting, inserted at the request of 10 or more registered voters, is a proposal to amend Section 4(j) of the Lexington Zoning By -Law by adding a new C 4 - Small office district along the westerly side of Waltham St. from Waltham city line to approximately half -way to Concord Ave. The Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing on this proposal on a petition signed by more than 100 registered voters, as pro- vided for in Sec. 19 of the Zoning By -Law. The hearing was held on February 21, 1966 at 8:30 p.m. in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, Lexington, and was attended by approximately 110 persons. The proposal is to rezone from R 1 - Single residence district, a strip of land extending for over 1,000 ft. along Waltham St. with a depth varying from about 235 to about 120 feet, containing about 3.6 acres of land and owned by Paino-LaCava Trust. The land across. Waltham St. is zoned C 4; there is no sewer in the street, but municipal water is avail- able. The Paino-LaCava Trust stated at the hearing that, if the land is rezoned, they would immediately proceed with the construction of a multiple - occupancy "medical -type" building, not waiting to line up tenants, and that 2-28-66 -20- a second building would be constructed sometime in the future. It must be remembered that these plans are subject to change and that the owners can I do whatever they want with the land, as long as they stay within the re- quirements of the Zoning By -Law. It is the opinion of the Planning Board that there is little de- mand for additional small business and professional offices in Lexington now; there are several parcels of land already zoned and available for office use which have been standing vacant for years. The owners of new buildings in Lexington center are not planning to provide as much second story office space as they could because they do not believe that the need for it exists. The only advantage in this rezoning proposal to the Town would be the effect on the tax rate (the additional revenue is esti- mated to approach 12C on the tax rate if and when the land is fully built up). According to the soil survey by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, there are severe limitations on the use of this land for commercial pur- poses until municipal sanitary sewer becomes available. This may necessi- tate the extension of sewer to serve this area several years sooner than would be the case if it were used for residences. Future planning studies may indicate that this area is better suited for some use other than single family dwellings. However, in the absence of a clearly established need or justification for zoning it for multiple -occupancy office buildings, the Planning Board believes that the present zoning proposal is premature and that the Town should abide by the recommendations of the Phase I Summary Report that this area be not rezoned, at least until more specific information becomes available as to ' the probable impact of any rezoning on the undeveloped land to the west of this strip and as to the service implications of rezoning to the Town. By a unanimous vote the Planning Board recommends that Article 66 be not adopted. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Joseph A. Campbell, Chairman /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Roland B. Greeley /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s/ Francis T. Worrell 1 PLANNING BOARD HEARING ' February 28,1966 Niles Co. The Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, on Monday, February 28, 1966. Present were Chairman Campbell, Planning Board members Bryson, Greeley and Riffin; Planning Director Zaleski; and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber. Also attending were approximately 100 interested citizens. Mr. Campbell called the hearing to order at 8:30 p.m. by read- ing the notice as it had been published in the Lexington Minute -man and explaining the procedure to be followed. He then introduced Mr. Donald Moore, who presented the petition. Mr. Moore explained that although the Niles Co. was the origi- nator of the petition, this company had withdrawn and the petition was now being presented on behalf of himself (he had formerly worked for the Niles Co.), for Mr. Robert Jones (who still works for the Niles Co.) and for the owners of the land, Mr. and Mrs. Gallagher, Mr. and Mrs. Greene, and Mr. Panjian. He wished to make it clear that the Niles Co. no, longer was involved. The petition is on the ' warrant as Art. 63 (Greene) and Art. 64 (Gallagher & Panjian). The insurance company who were originally interested in the land had had borings made and surveys taken of the services and the best location for the building on the property. They had then met with the Planning Board and talked it over with them. It had been palnned to utilize this land in accordance with C 3 use and put in an administrative office. It would have been located on the high side with only,l story above ground and on the low side with 2 stories above ground. Mr. Moore now has another proposal along the same line where the building would be situated more on the point of land facing at right angle. He said that the important problem is the basic char- acter of the area and suggested that Rte. 128 is basically business in character and atmosphere - research, administrative - or light manu- facturing, there are no steel foundries. He also suggested that it would be to the best advantage of the town to allow this area to be- come business. The highway net - the existing maximum grade would mean a built-up overpass, and with the access and exit ramps to and from Rte. 2 would preclude development in that area of residential use, and the highway net would make a logical barrier between business and residential. Mr. Moore said they had gone to Five Fields and looked over and they thought this would be obscured by the hill. He felt that the residences in existence would not be facing a business area any more than they were now. A survey had been made of some of the concerns along Rte. 128 and based on this most of the people come to and from work over Rte. 128 - something on the order of 10% might come into Lexington and about 90% go around to go to the homes they come from. Hearing 2-28-66 -2- Mr. Franklyn Crosby asked Mr. Moore who he was representing and was told he, Mr. Moore, was the principal and also represented the owners of the land. Mr. Crosby asked if the owners were in agreement and Mr. Campbell said he was sure we would have heard from them if they were not in agreement. Mr. Allan Green, 6 Barberry Rd., asked Mr. Moore if he was familiar with the history of the area and the sentiment of the town; and to explain what he meant by "highway net", to which Mr. Moore replied that he was familiar with the'history; and by "highway net" he meant that more than one street was involved - two or three roads, overpass, control lights, etc. which he felt would act as a barrier between business and residence, something that would tend to not make the land usable for residence. The question was asked whether or not sewer and water were available, to which Mr. Moore replied that water was available but it had been planned to serve by a leaching field. Percolation tests for this had been favorable. Mr. Campbell stated that the question of a sewer had been raised last week on the Richard's proposal and in checking with the Town Engineer it was found that the sewer was now at the Unnecott property, and the plan is for a pumping station at the brook no matter what happens to the zoning petitions, to pick up the Five Fields area. The program might be accelerated in the event the zoning is approved. When Rte. 2 is widened the sewer will be ' included at the same time thus preventing a future digging -up of the ' road. A question was asked if two lots were involved, and Mr. Greeley explained that there were two separable articles - one for only the Greene property and one for Gallagher and Panjian - either one or both could be rezoned. If only one lot was involved it would have to go to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Moore said they were separate because of the timing factor. Mr. Harvell asked where the sewer would cross the road and the location was pointed out as being in the area of the brook. Mrs. Davison asked if the pumping station had not previously been planned for Juniper Hill and Mr. Campbell replied no, this is where the town anticipated putting it. Someone asked Mr. Moore what he meant when he said "business around the corner" to which Mr. Moore replied that he meant Kennecott and Burroughs. He also said that in considering their plans they had had borings taken for the purpose of having a leaching field and subsequently found out about the sewer which had been planned. The sewer was not a part of their plan. Mr. Hamlin asked if anybody knew when Raytheon and Burroughs I would come in for an addition. Hearing 2-28-66 -3- Mr. Campbell said the Board had talked with Raytheon about ' further development of their parcel - they have room for eight more buildings - but he doesn't know what their date is, but he doesn't think Burroughs can expand very much - they have not approached the Board. When asked if there was a change in zoning how soon would there be action, Mr. Moore replied that he was not sure but he would guess summer or early fall of this year - he hoped much sooner. Mr. Winchester asked if Mr. Moore as an individual had an option to,buy.subject to rezoning and Mr. Moorse said he was the principal - he had an agreement with Mr. Greene, with Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Panjian. When asked if he had a specific Buyer, Mr. Moore said he did not at present. Mr. Crosby wished to be recorded as against the rezoning - he said he didn't think Mr. Greene really wanted to sell - he had an estate there worth $50,000 - $60,000, and he would like to see it stay as it is, he doesn't think any more industry will help the looks of the town. He would be in favor of some other section - Hartwell. Ave. - but not this one. Others objecting in a similar vein were Philip Gallagher, Mrs. Hutchinson, Mrs. Flynn- Mr. Weiss, Mr. Morley, and Mr. Resnick who reiterated the vote of Five Fields mentioned the previous week, to object to -any rezoning until the Planning Board had come up with a comprehensive plan. Mr. Campbell said this was Phase II of the Master Plan, and would be ready in approximately 22 months. It is basically a finan- cial study of the town to assist with what is hoped to find a cost - to -revenue of all services in various zones. Mr. Eaton said he was not taking a stand for or against but he would like to correct one,statement that had been made by Mr. Crosby - he had known Mr. Greene for a long time.- he is elderly and retired, is not well and he has maintenance problems. He has some land in N.H.to which he would like to retire and he thinks Mr. Greene is perfectly sincere in his desire to sell. Mr. Sousa said that when it came to taxes nobody could ever tell how much they would be. All other towns around had tax problems and Needham had industry and there was no indication that industry had helped much there. Mr. Robert Jones, co -petitioner with Mr. Moore, asked if anyone thought about the Greens, Gallaghers and Panjians when the State took part of their land for development and turned it into a cul-de-sac. They were not consulted and they have a gripe too. ' In addition to those previously mentioned as wishing to be Hearing 2-28-66 -4- recorded as opposing were Messrs. Small, Pomerance, Paine, Bayliss, I and Mrs. Rawls. The hearing closed at 10:00 p.m. ;�, 11 illatic Louise M. Macomber, Secretary 1 1