HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-03-07PLANNING BOARD MEETING
' March 7, 1966
A short meeting of the Lexington Planning Board
was held in its office, Town Office Building, on Monday,
March 7, 1966. The meeting was called to order by Chair-
man Campbell at 7:30 p.m. with members Fowle, Greeley and
Riffin, and Planning Director Zaleski present.
Mr. Daniel Curtin submitted a plan, dated March 3,
1966, showing a division of his land on the north side of FORM A
Marrett Rd. for endorsement as not requiring approval
under the Subdivision Control Law. The Board noted that D.Curtin
the frontage of Lot A would be only 57.7 ft. or less
than required in CN districts. The notice of public hear-
ing for the rezoning of this land to CN having been pub-
lished on February 3 and 10, 1966, the Board decided to
verify the legal status of the division with the Town
Counsel.
Notices of Board of Appeals decisions on the follow-
ing applicants were noted and placed on file:
Lloyd Miller Hazel Woodberry
Barrett Press William Hardy
R. O. Tillinghast Dr. Leonard Short
Wilson Farm Lexington Inn
Minutes of Selectmen's meetings of January 26, Feb-
ruary 14 and 21 were noted and placed on file.
The drafts of the reports on Articles 63, 64, 65
(minority report only) and 66 were discussed briefly. It
was decided to hold a meeting on March 12, 1966 at 9:30
a.m. to decide on the final form of Planning Board reports
on zoning articles.
1
WAYMINT REALTY TR.
QUINN LAND
BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISIONS
Letter from A. Morris Kobrick to Mr. Zaleski noti-
fying him of the purchase by Waymint Realty Trust of Quinn
land off Woburn St. and a letter from Mr. Zaleski to the
Selectmen informing them of the purchase and making recom-
mendations relative to the location of the proposed Junior
High School off Woburn St. were read and placed on file.
Letter from J. J. Bussgang, Peacock Farms Associa-
tion thanking the Planning Board for the cooperation in
trying to have the State revise Rte. 2 interchange at
Watertown St. was read and placed on file.
Notices of Board of Appeals decisions on the follow-
ing applicants were noted and placed on file:
Lloyd Miller Hazel Woodberry
Barrett Press William Hardy
R. O. Tillinghast Dr. Leonard Short
Wilson Farm Lexington Inn
Minutes of Selectmen's meetings of January 26, Feb-
ruary 14 and 21 were noted and placed on file.
The drafts of the reports on Articles 63, 64, 65
(minority report only) and 66 were discussed briefly. It
was decided to hold a meeting on March 12, 1966 at 9:30
a.m. to decide on the final form of Planning Board reports
on zoning articles.
1
WAYMINT REALTY TR.
QUINN LAND
BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISIONS
3-7-66
-2-
Notices of two Historic Districts Commission hearings
on March 9, 1966 were noted and placed on file.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. in view of the
scheduled public hearing on Articles 57, 58, 59 at 8:15 p.m.
Natalie H. Riffin
Clerk
1
PLANNING BOARD HEARING
' March 7, 1966
CSand CN
The Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing in
Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building, on Monday, March 7, 1966 on a
proposal to create two new commercial zones, namely CS (service) and
CN (neighborhood), and to change certain C 1 zoned areas Into the
above-mentioned zones. Present were Chairman Campbell, Planning
Board members Fowles Greeley, Riffin and Worrell; Planning Director
Zaleski; and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber. Also present were.approxi-
mately 100 interested citizens.
Chairman Campbell opened the hearing at 8:15 p.m. by explaining
the procedure and reading the notice as it had appeared in the Lexing-
ton Minute -man on February 3 and 10 1966. After reading a portion
of the ad, which was a very long one, upon motion duly made and
seconded, it was voted to dispense with the reading of the remainder.
Taken up first was Art. 57, CS zones. It was explained that
articles to be discussed this evening were sponsored by the Planning
Board. The CS district would be a service district, such as florist,
radio and TV repair, contractors, upholserers, automobile and
machinery sales among others. The minimum lot size would be 60,000
sq.ft., minimum frontage 175 ft., front yard 40 ft. and side yard of
20 ft. abutting business or 40 ft. abutting residential. The basic
aim of these proposals is to encourage these uses in special areas
rather than to have them located in the Center or in residential areas,
as is now the case. It has long been felt there is a lack of proper
restrictions - the C 1 zones have ended up as'catch-all areas. Under
C 1 now by right or by Board of Appeals permission just about anything
and everything is permitted. It was thought that certain areas should
be defined as a home for a contractor, for storage of equipment, etc.
or in other words a "tradesmen's park." Mr. Campbell read a letter
from Larchmont Engineering stating they had no objections to the CS
proposal, and one from the Stevens Family Trust, owners of the Maney
property, objecting.
The Planning Board had held a meeting last November with town
meeting members and other interested citizens setting forth the pro-
posed changes, not only in CS and CN but also in CM 1, and from these
had selected a parcel on the southerly side of Bedford St. and one on
the northerly side of Bedford St. as being the best areas for this CS
change.
Someone present said that he thought Bedford St. would not take
any more building or traffic to which Mr. Campbell replied that it was
felt less traffic would be generated with the proposed zoning than there
would be if developed with the C 1 uses permitted now, such as super-
markets.
Another person asked why not rezone this to R 1 and Mr. Campbell
Hearing 3-7-66
-2-
replied that the Board felt there was a need for these uses, every I townneedsthem, and there has to be a place for them and there is
already a commercial use there.
Mrs. Morey said that it looked from the map that had been
passed out that only Lot 9 could be developed in this way, and it
didn't seem reasonable to zone for one piece of property.
Mr. Campbell replied that when the property was first considered
the Metropolitan Coach Co. owned Lots 8 and 9 but subsequently sold
to the K of C. He heard that the K of C had now sold Lot 8 but he
wasn't sure.
Mr. Nickerson, chairman of the Board of Appeals, replied that
a permit had been issued a week before to the Dunn -Ford people to use
the land for automotive purposes. They would remodel the old building,
and there is ample parking space. Mr. Campbell mentioned that they
would not have had to go to the Board of Appeals under the new zoning.
Mrs. Morey said that with 609000 sq. ft. restriction obviously
only one building could be erected, and Mr. Campbell replied yes, but
there could be more than one use of the building.
Someone asked how much of the proposed CS was now C 1 and was
told that all of it was with the exception of a small piece of R 1
being included in the new zone. I
Mr. Youngstrom, 10 Valley Rd., and neighbors objected to this
piece of R 1 being included. He asked if it were now permissible for
buses and trucks to be stored in that area and was told it was per-
mitted in C 1 areas as a non-commercial non -manufacturing use.
Mr. Stevens representing the Stevens Family Trust, owners of
the Maney property, pointed out that on the parcel on the easterly
side of Bedford St. with the exception of town -owned land, only one
parcel met the area and frontage requirements of CS and that because
the town owned 60% of the area it could be a cover-up for "spot zon-
ing." If all five house lots were combined they would have frontage
but not area.
Mr. White asked how large the small residential piece between
the railroad tracks and the brook was, and was told about 3 acres, to
which Mr. White replied that that was not really a small piece because
it was larger than Lot 9 in the other area and that by taking this out
of residential the value of the houses would be greatly decreased.
Someone said that at the November meeting the Board mentioned
two other spots, one on Spring St. and one on the Burlington line -
what happened to those?
Mr. Campbell replied that these locations along with others
were reviewed, and the Board felt the two chosen were the best for the
purpose. C 1 would mean a minimum of change in commercial use and
nearing 3-7-66 -3-
these areas were currently in commercial use. The other. areas would
' require a substantial increase in change of use as opposed to the in-
crease here.
Mr. Wathen-Dunn asked as to the access to Larchmont Engineer-
ing, if they had to go in over the Maney or town -owned property, and
was told their access was through Larchmont Lane.
Mr. Neilson wanted to know what is proposed for the Maney
property between the railroad and the brook in addition to what is now
permitted, to which Mr. Campbell replied that on the chart shown is
outlined what is allowed in this area under C 1 and what would be
allowed under CS. On the list as shown P means permitted, A is Board
of Appeals, and a line means the use is not permitted, and that is
what could happen.
Lois Brown said that it looked to her as if the CS zoneismore
restrictive than C 1 and with one exception would be a much more con-
servative zoning from the viewpoint of residents. By terms of the
present C 1 zone you are eliminating a lot of things and putting more
under the Board of Appeals. In looking at the map, it would seem that
9.6 acres is town -owned and would remain that way. In looking at Par-
cel 9 itself it doesn't have frontage and would have to go to Board of
Appeals. Parcel 8 has only 100 ft. frontage which makes it very short
of requirements, Parcels 6 and 7 have enough frontage but area is too
small. Parcel 10 has no frontage. So it would seem nothing would be
gained. It would be restricted so it couldn't be used.
Mr. Nickerson explained that in granting the permission to
Dunn -Ford it was contingent on the acquisition of Lot 7. They have an
agreement to buy Lot 8 and an option to purchase Lot 7. The permission
was granted for the whole area which would give sufficient area and
frontage and thereby take care of Lots 7 and 8.
Someone mentioned that there still remained Lots 3, 40 5 and
6 on which there were houses.
Mr. Campbell stated that if a Planning Board could plan a town
from the beginning all well and good, but when it takes a town already
in existence it has to work around what is already in the area and
that is one of the reasons we now have non -conforming uses.
Mr. Greeley suggested that it might be possible to amend the
proposal by taking what is now C 1 and leaving out the residential, and
to restrict the size to what it is now. He said the town is proposing
to spend thousands of dollars to protect Lexington Center from competi-
tion afforded by other major shopping centers. If the entire area pro-
posed to be changed is left in C 1 we will be confronted with the
supermarket type of thing and add greatly to the traffic and 'confusion
that already exists.
Mr. Stevens said that the protection of the Center is definitely
an economic consideration but he didn't think anything was being done
for people like him.
wearing
Mr. Youngstrom.wished to know where the present boundary was
between C 1 and to where the buses are now parked, and Mr. Maloney
answered that the buses were parked on C 1 land. There was an access '
road by deed right-of-way from Valley Rd. to his property, but in
deference to the neighborhood he did not make use of it. He had the
right to do so, however.
To Mr. Youngstrom's objection to parked buses, he was again
told they were on C 1 land and had the right to be there.
Mr. Weiss suggested that a map be provided which would be more
explicit in definition - a more detailed map of each area, and that it
be shown at the town meeting to aid members to make decisions, and Mr.
Campbell said there would be one.
Mr. Cheever said he thought one of the things that disturbed
people was that it would be possible to have heavy equipment all the
way down Bedford St. to Valley Rd. This meant outdoor storage. Mr.
Campbell said yes, with Board of Appeals permission, however.
Mr. Whitman said that the area could then be covered with
machinery and bright lights, and Mr. Campbell said not unless given
permission by Board of Appeals.
Referring to the lights, Mr. Maloney said there had been con-
siderable vandalism at his place and the lights helped to discourage
this. He had had only one complaint, he had conferred with the '
neighbor and it had been adjusted to her satisfaction. He was always
ready to cooperate with anyone if they got in touch with him.
Mr. Nickerson said he thought there was some confusion about
storage - whenever a petition comes before the Board of Appeals it is
stipulated in the permission that there shall be no storage of mater-
ials outdoors.
This portion of the hearing was closed, and Mr. Campbell intro-
duced Mrs. Riffin who presented the second portion relative to the CN,
or neighborhood, proposal. She said that many ideas come to the Board
through business men and other sources and these were always welcomed
as they help the Board to make their decisions, but only by a two-
thirds vote at town meeting can any of these zoning changes be adopted,
so the status quo is very well protected. She listed the uses to be
permitted and the changes which could be effected. This zone is
meant to be for the convenience of a neighborhood, one to serve imme-
diate needs and one to which those around can walk to shop and hope-
fully keep traffic down. Minimum lot size would be 15,500 sq.ft. with
frontage of 125 ft., front and side yards of 20 ft. Shown on the
screen was a chart setting forth all uses now permitted and proposed.
Emphasized was the fact that no new uses were beingrovosed for these
areas but rather a reduction of uses. The parking s'pacedwould be re-
duced by half.
Otis Brown wondered what the difference was between a real
estate and an insurance operation that sale of real estate would be
Hering 3-7-6b
' permitted in CN but not insurance business, since they were generally
operated in conjunction with one another. He also wondered why the
four corners at Marrett Rd. and Waltham St. were not included there
was Breslin's store, green stamp redemption center, drug store,
cleaners, etc., pretty much the same as those under consideration.
Mr. Campbell said the Board didn't regard them as the same. For
example, there was Marshall's bakery.
Mrs. Riffin stated that an inventory had been made in 1964 of
the uses at Reed St. and these consisted of a pharmacy, heating and
plumbing business, cleaners, camera shop, shoe repair - most of which
would fulfill the requirements of the proposed by-law.
Mr. Mollo-Christensen wondered why the store at 1047 Mass. Ave.
had not been included.
Mr. Greeley explained there were several such stores and they
were left as non -conforming in order to prevent further expansion in
residential areas.
Mr. Gould said he couldn't see why the parking requirements
were cut down - he couldn't conceive of many people walking to the
store and he believed this would add to the traffic problem.
Mrs. Wade mentioned the fact that she believed three of the
businesses at the intersection of Concord Ave. and Waltham St. were
not in the scheme of this proposal. Heavy farm equipment should
properly be in a CS district and if the law were passed it might be
difficult for these people to move immediately. She said there were
a number of large vehicles parked on another corner and she asked how
the Planning Board intended to cope with this.
Mr. Campbell explained that when the town meeting changes a use,
the existing use can be continued as long as it is in the same use.
However, in the event the owner wished to expand or materially change
the building, or discontinued the use for a period of two years, he no
longer has the right to continue as a non -conforming use.
Mrs, Wade said she wondered about the display of merchandise,
and Mr. Campbell replied that as long as anyone was conforming in C 1
he could continue, although the zone would now be CN.
Mrs. Wade said the filling station at the corner also had a
trucking office and very large trucks parked outside.
Mr. Greeley pointed out that if anyone believes a concern is not
obeying the rules and regulations of the town he may vring it to the
attention of the building inspector who would see that the law was com-
plied with.
Mr. Bagley said that one of the four corners at Waltham and Con-
&caring 3-7-66 -6-
cord Ave. had not been included in business and he could see no
reason why it shouldn't be, and he would like that put in the record.
Mr. Campbell replied that this was being considered for some future
time.
Mr. 0uthet said he couldn't see the difference between the C 1
areas being affected and those not being affected - he thought all
C 1 should be changed.
Mr. Campbell said the Board had given some thought to tighten-
ing up all C 1 but after deliberation decided on the nine areas in-
stead of all.
The hearing was closed at 10:25 p.m.
Louise M. Macomber, Secretary
1
1