Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-05-23PLANNING BOARD HEARING IMay 23, 1966 The Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing in the Science Lecture Hall, Lexington High School, on May 23, 1966, with approximately 60 persons present. Chairman Campbell opened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. by reading the notice as it had appeared in the Lexington Minute -man, after which the first two sections dealing with C 1 districts were taken up. The first section calls for an amend- ment to the Lexington Zoning By -Law to strike out Sec. 8(b)l.c.(2) and substitute "if a boundary abuts on or is within 10 ft. of an R 1, R 2 or A 1 district there shall be a 20 ft. yard along such boundary of which 10 ft. nearest the boundary shall be unpaved and contain only grass, trees, etc. but shall not be used for parking, driveways or storage." The second section deals with Sec.8(b)l.b. whereby a parking area on the lot containing not less than one park- ing space for each 150 sq.ft. of floor area, instead of 100 ft., shall be required. Slides were shown in illustration of both these propos- als. A question was asked as to whether this change would affect the present buildings and the reply was that it would not. Someone else asked what assurance we had that this strip would not become an eyesore, overgrown with weeds and such. ' Mrs. Riffin said she would like to see the word "screening" used, but she thought it could only up -grade property to insist there be some plants, shrubs, or some sort of green used in such strips. Mr. Cammarata said he lived in Arlington but owned property at 334 Woburn St. and wanted to build a storage area, but he felt this proposal would not leave enough room and would this affect his property. Mr. Campbell replied that if he altered or added, it would affect. Mr. Cammarata asked if rubbish disposal protection were allowed and was told yes, if it was 20 ft. from the boundary. This is in a C 1 zone and a 20 ft. yard is required in any event where the property abuts an R 1 or R 2 district and this would not make any difference. Mr. Worrell explained that the 10 ft. cannot be used for storage - it would mean having something green instead of paving. Mr. Cammarata said he parked about 3 cars in the 10 foot area and he would lose parking space for the three cars. Mr. Worrell said he would not lose the parking space as long as he didn't change anything but if he wanted to rebuild, it would come under the new law. Mr. Green said that when you spell out the detail of the shrubs, plants, etc. you tend to be too definitive and may exclude things you might want at a future time. Slides were shown illustrating various sized buildings and how 5-23-66 -2- the proposed parking would work out. Mr. Weiss commented that there was no sort of control on street frontage and if congestion was going to be increased there should be some sort of strip next to the street where there are no driveways to prevent cars backing into the street. Mr. Could asked if the basis for reducing,the parking was the knowledge that parking was not excessive and the traffic did not require this. Mr. Campbell replied that it was generally felt that our requirements were rather excessive. Mrs. Riffin said she thought we had some studies that have been done by planning groups, and also the E.D.A. people recommended 1,000 sq.ft. parking for 1,000 sq.ft. floor space and later studies have shown that less space is needed than that recommended. Mr. Meyer said he thought present parking space was entirely inadequate, especially on Bedford St. C 1 districts have never had enough parking space. Mrs. Riffin said she went to Bedford St. and counted the spaces and there were enough to comply with C 1 require- ments. Although people park on Bedford St., there was always ade- quate parking available in back but people don't like to go in back. The stores have no control over where their customers park even if they do have the right number of spaces. Mr. York asked if any more C 1 areas were going to be added and was told that none were anticipated at this time. Some of the C 1 areas will be non -conforming but there is always the possibility ' that someone will want to change the layout or build new buildings and this would come under the new by-law. The Board feels it should be put on the books in case of future development or changes in existing C 1. Mr. Ross said he didn't think we could do much to the present C 1. He thought some owners might like to keep the larger parking areas. Mr. Sanborn Brown pointed out that in the winter months the accumulation of snow would necessarily take up a lot of room which would decrease the parking area. A question was asked as to how many of the C 1 zones would conform near the intersection of Woburn and Lowell St. and the fol- lowing area comparisons were read by the chairman: 339 Woburn St. does not conform but will conform 311-324 Woburn St. does conform and will conform 421 Lowell St. does conform and will conform 334 Woburn St. does conform and will conform 330 Woburn St. does not conform and will conform 333-335 Woburn St, does not conform and will conform At this point the hearing was interrupted in order to hold a hearing advertised for 9:00 p.m. in which it was proposed to change 5-23-66 -3- the name of the unaccepted portion of Moreland Ave. between Worthen Rd. and Rockville Ave. to Philip Road. Mr. and Mrs. Bainbridge of 77 Moreland Ave. wished to be re- corded as opposed, one reason being that there was no easy access to their residence and no plan in existence for connection to Philip Rd. and they did not think it necessary. Mr. Bainbridge said he had asked more than one person about it and was told there would be no connection - no more than a foot path. Thinks it is better to change the name of another road and wanted to know what the reasons were for a change. Mr. Campbell explained that it had been brought to the atten- tion of the Planning Board by the Town Engineer that there were three separate portions of Moreland Ave. and it was felt to be in the best interest of the town. It is confusing to the Fire Department to know which part of Moreland Ave. is involved. Mr. Bainbridge said he didn't think it was a good idea to have a street running through the school yard. Some discussion followed as to the feasibility of chang- ing to either Rockville Ave. or Davis Rd. instead of Philip Rd. Mr. Campbell said that if the Planning Board, after consulting with the Town Engineer and Town Counsel found that there will be no connection to Philip Rd. then certainly the Planning Board will recom- mend postponement. ' Mr. Bainbridge complained that three other residents on More- land Ave. had not been notified and was informed that the new owners' names had not been registered as yet with the assessors but were still in the developer's name, and the assessors give the Planning Board the names of owners to be notified. Returning to the original hearing, the third section was taken up, a proposal to add to Sec. 8 under the caption "All Districts" the following paragraph: "Lot width or frontage on the frontage street shall be measured along the street line between the boundaries of a lot and shall not include jogs in street width, back-up strips and other irregularities in street line. Where more than one half of the lot frontage is on a circular turnaround or on a curve of less than 100 ft. radius, such frontage or lot width may be reduced to not less than 60 per centum of the distance otherwise required, provided that the distance between lot boundaries measured in a line parallel to the street line and at a distance therefrom equal to the required front yard shall be not less than the frontage or lot width otherwise re- quired and further provided that such distance at front yard depth shall be dimensioned on a plan approved or endorsed by the Planning Board." A slide was shown of three different plans which had actually been presented to the Planning Board showing the lengths to which de- velopers will go in order to achieve the legal frontage they need, since it is the duty of the engineer to get as many lots as possible from a plot of land. The Planning Board feels that the new paragraph will ease the situation so there will be less irregular shaped lots. It is the distance between the houses rather than the actual frontage on a street that is important. A lot may be narrow at the front and 5-23-66 -4- widen back to a much greater width at the back, and if the legal frontage is measured 30 ft. back from the street and the setback of houses is 30 ft. then the appearance is good. It was pointed out that this would apply only to lots on a cul-de-sac. Someone said that it would seem this might give a person somthing like six lots instead of four, and was told that no more lots could be made than the area permits. After further discussion relative to the size and shape of lots, the hearing closed at 9:50 p.m. Louise M. Macomber, Secretary 1 1