Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-10-10PLANNING BOARD MEETING October 10, 1966 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in its office, Town Office Building, on Monday, October 10, 1966. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Campbell at 7:30 p.m. with members Fowle, Riffin and Worrell, and Planning Director Zaleski present. Minutes of the meeting of October 3, 1966, were MINUTES approved. At 8:00 p.m. the Board adjourned to Estabrook Hall HEARINGS - where the advertised public hearings on Peacock Farm, Sec. PEACOCK FARMS VI subdivision were held at 8:00 and 8:10 p.m. (See addenda) SEC.VI Notices of Board of Appeals decisions on the follow- Plan submitted with Form A #66-39, as follows, was on file: reviewed by members and endorsed as not requiring approval FORM A under the Subdivision Control Law: granted #66-39, submitted Oct. 10, 1966 by John D. Polley; Polley granted Decisions plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington, Mass.", Wm. & Iris Howard - dated Oct. 7, 1966, Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s and Cecil Splaine Surveyors. The Board read a letter from the Capital Expenditures - denied Committee re: 1967 Capital Expenditures and took it under - denied advisement pending discussion with the Recreation Committee Notices of Board of and the Selectmen. hearings on Oct. The Board voted to request additional $2,500 for land options to speed and streamline the procedure of secur- OPTIONS ing options on land to be acquired in accordance with plan- Follen Church ning proposals. Six Shoemaker Notice of Mass. Federation of Planning Board meeting on October 29, 1966, was read and placed on file. Members desiring to attend the meeting may put in for the reimburse- ment of expenses. Notices of Board of Appeals decisions on the follow- ing petitions were noted and placed on file: BOARD OF APPEALS Mal's Servicenter - granted P. McDonald - granted Decisions Wm. & Iris Howard - granted Cecil Splaine - denied Donna Realty Trust - denied Mystic Valley - denied Notices of Board of Appeals hearings on Oct. 24, 1966 were read and placed on file, as follows: Follen Church Six Shoemaker Hearings Ruth Dalrymple David Muller (TV Lab) 10-10-66 -2- Richard Lawless Cecil Splaine John & Rosina Busa The 1967 Planning Board budget was discussed and BUDGET several changes made in the draft prepared by the Planning Director. The Board decided to ask for funds for the em- ployment of a co-operative student planner and to ask for a reclassification of the Board's secretary from S-5 to S-9. Mr. Zaleski informed the Board about the proposed ANNUAL REPORT format of the Annual Report which may include a statistical part (to be published in a limited number of copies) and a narrative part which may include graphics and photographs. Discussing the Nickerson Rd. subdivision, the Board NICKERSON RD. voted not to require Mr. Outhet to build the street in the OUTHET easement to the Esserian land. The Board also voted to approve this subdivision upon the preparation or approval of all necessary instruments by the Town Counsel and upon the modification of plans by the developer in accordance with Planning Board's recommendations. The Board decided to follow the recommendations of PADDOCK LANE the Town Engineer as regards the modifications of the BRIDLE PATH EST. Paddock Lane (Bridle Path Estates) subdivision. The Planning Director pointed out to the Board that SUBDIVISION the amendment to Sec. 81X of the Subdivision Control Law per - CONTROL LAW mitting the recording of plans of existing properties without Planning Board endorsement could lead to situations in which either the Town or the person purchasing a parcel of land would erroneously assume such parcel to be a buildable lot. The Board asked Mr. Zaleski to draft letters informing the Building Inspector of the new procedure and asking the Mass. Federation of Planning Boards to keep member Boards informed of hearings on legislation affecting them. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Natalie H. Riffin Clerk 1 1 1 MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD HEARING OCT. 109 1966 Peacock Farms, Sec. VI (Mason St.) The Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building on Monday, October 10, 1966. The hearing was called to order at 8:00 p.m, by Chairman Campbell with members Fowle, Riffin and Worrell present; also Planning Director Zaleski, the secretary, Mrs. Macomber, and approximately 70 interested citizens. The hearing was for the purpose of considering the rescission of the Board's vote of Sept. 62 1966 which approved the definitive subdivision plan entitled "Peacock Farms, Sec. VI," dated July 7, 1966. The chairman explained that through a clerical error some of the abuttors had not been notified and in order to comply with legal requirements a second hearing was being held. There was no discussion on this proposal and the chairman declared the hearing closed at 8:05 p.m. Mr. DiNunzio stated that he had not heard a motion on the question, and the chairman explained that the Board would vote later as to whether to rescind or not after having discussed the matter further. * * * * * * * * * * * At 8:10 p.m. a second advertised hearing was opened for the purpose of considering approval of the definitive subdivision plan entitled "Pea- cock Farms, Sec. VI," dated July 7, 1966, as revised September 22, 1966. The land included in said subdivision is located easterly of Pleasant St. between Mason St, and Wilson farm. Mr. Campbell read excerpts from the General Laws explaining the duties of the Planning Board with regard to approval of subdivisions, explained the procedure of a hearing, and called upon the applicant for his presentation. Mr. Harmon White, representing the applicant, Benjamin Franklin Homes, Inc., explained that the plan was essentially the same as that approved by the Board in September except that in the plan originally approved in September about half of the land approaching Wilson Farm was not subdivided and they have since taken the entire strip running from Pleasant St. to the West Farm and incorporated it into a single lot, which is No.69. Mr. Campbell read a letter from the Town Engineer approving the sub- division with certain conditions, and stated that a report from the health department had not as yet been received. Donald Wilson of 32 Fern St. asked if the land between Lot 69 and 70 is to be lotted or left as it is. Mr. White said it had been included in Lot 69 and did not exist as separate lots, but that it would probably be divided into lots and built upon at some future time. James Storer of 69 Pleasant St. brought up the question of a ' parallel road connecting Massachsetts Ave. and Rte. 2 interchange. He said a study of this had been empowered by the Town Meeting of 1951, became a part of Emerson Rd. in 1957, and the Town Meeting had approved the pur- chase of a house on Massachusetts Ave. in 1960. Mr. Storer read a refer- 10-10-j6 Hebring -2- ence to a parallel road in the Phase 1 Summary Report. He stated that since that time a sewer had been laid in that area of the Wilson 'Farm and trees cut down for a road. He said the 1965 Planning Board had doubts about Enerson Rd. and had made a statement that the urgently needed connection between Mass. Ave. and Rte. 2 would not be a part of Emerson Rd. and maybe there is a better solution than that recommended. He called attention to the fact that Mr. Greeley and Mr. Handley spoke at town meeting for ac- quiring the land and the red house to make way for Emerson Rd. and the town meeting gave it a vote of approval of 7 to 1 in favor. He said that some time the Board must make a formal decision on this connecting road and regardless of details the Planning Board should go back to the town meeting and see if they still believed in it. He asked what plans the Board has for handling traffic if Emerson Rd. was abandoned, and Mr. Campbell re- plied that the Board felt this was beyond the scope of this hearing, the Board has made a definite and declarative statement regarding Emerson Rd. and that is all they want to say at this time. Mr. Storer asked what the Planning Board plans were for widening Pleasant St. Mr. Worrell objected to Mr. Storer's repeated references to widening of Pleasant Street in spite of statements made more than once by Mr. Greeley and other members of the Planning Board to the effect that the Board did not regard widening of Pleasant Street as the solution to the traffic problem. Benjamin White, 18 Peacock Farm Rd., said he was a town meeting mem- ber at that time and voted for the acquisition of the road and it was clearly stated that the vote was by no means to be recorded as an endorse- ment of the Emerson Rd. plan. The argument put forward by the Planning Board was this was a rare opportunity to acquire a piece of land which might cost the town dearly if it were not then acquired, but the town meet- ing did not mean this as a vote for Emerson Rd. Arthur Brock, 4 Watertown St., said he would like to point out that the engineering department had installed curbing on Massachusetts Ave. which has a street opening in it at that point. Alvin Schmertzler, 23 Peacock Farm Rd., said he thought the last year's town meeting very definitely indicated they were no longer inter- ested in having Emerson Rd. as a complete entity. A suggestion was made that this matter be studied first before the subdivision plan was approved. H. L. Levingston, 358 Emerson Rd., said that in the long range planning study there is a "roads" committee which is doing essentially that regarding the whole town and evaluating Emerson Rd. as to where and where not to connect with town road systems. Donald Wilson said that there is somewhat of a road where the sewer is because the town thought there was peat there and had put in gravel. Cars were using it as a road until the Wilsons put up a barrier. This strip of land was offered to the town free of charge because it is now useless to the Wilsons with the gravel in it. 1 10-10-66 Hearing -3- Mrs. (?) said that the gentleman from Grove St. mentioned there are several over-all studies of the roads throughout Lexington. She said the Planning Board brought forth an item in town meeting for consid- eration saying outside help will be paid to consider specifically Watertown, Pleasant Sts. and Worthen Rd. She asked the Planning Board why it is not self-contradictory to make this study and at the same time foreclose one of the major roads. Mrs. Riffin said the idea was primarily to add an intersection study at Pleasant St, and Mass. Ave.,to see if traffic flow can be improved at that spot because the feeling is that the problem largely originates in that area. One possible solution to the intersection might be to recommend traffic controls, but it is not yet known what type of traffic control will emerge. Mrs. (?) said she didn't think too much could be done about widening here because it would hurt historic buildings; also there is the large Catholic church and farms which it is desirable to preserve if pos- sible, so it would not be simply widening. Mr. DiNunzio, 91 Pleasant St., said that to back up what Mr. Wilson said he had four photographs starting at Mass. Ave. and they show to him that land has been taken for a road. The question is, is the land going to be used or not going to be used - someone must have figured a road. Mrs. Harvell said she was confused - if Emerson Rd. would go from Massachusetts Ave. where would it go to? She understood the town was having trouble getting Worthen Rd. out on Rte. 2 - how is this going to get out? Mrs. Riffin replied that there were two plans for Emerson Rd, - the first one originated at Rte. 2 and went down to Mass. Ave. If it connected with Rte. 2 it would have to pick up traffic at Rte. 2 and the Board has since decided to change their concept of what Emerson Rd. should do. Worthen Rd. would do the job and the Board hoped that Emerson Rd. would be more of an intra -town road and pick up people from one neighborhood and bring them to another neighborhood without having them go through the Center. She said probably the Wilson farm will be subdivided some day and if this should come to pass in the future this particular opening on Massachusetts Ave. can be opened as an exit. There will be some road - it may not be called Emerson Rd. but it will carry traffic around from one point to Massachusetts Ave. Mr. Campbell said that a hearing was being held on a subdivision plan and, while the Board was willing to discuss the road problem, he didn't feel anything would be resolved at this time regarding Worthen Rd. and Emerson Rd. as they relate to the town, and that it was not germane to this hearing. Mr. Wilson said that on this plan if the road is made intra -town there could be one house lot left out in the subdivision so that in the future, if it were deemed feasible, Mason St. and Emerson Rd. could be connected at the curve in the road - from Mason St. down to Massachusetts Ave. without going through the farm. Farm land is harder to replace than house lots. He said they don't intend to sell for house lots - he and his cousin are both young and they do not intend to break the farm up for developing - it is worth far more as farm land than it is for houses. 10=10-66 Hearing -4- Mr. Mahoney, 9 Pleasant St., said that in the Summary Report the Board said Worthen Rd, should not be completed at town expense, yet you say this is a possible solution - when it comes to spending $600,000 to finish a road that the Board said should not be built by the town and should be used as a collector road then it is time people started thinking about things in their right perspective. Karl Strauch, 81 Pleasant'St., said he was confused by the plans of the Planning Board - as he understood it the main problem is how the present subdivision is going to affect the handling of traffic,between Massachusetts Ave. and Rte. 2. He said he was under the impression that the Planning Board was only studying the problem of an exit to Massachu- setts Ave. and not studying the over-all problem - are they studying the over-all problem between Mass. Ave, and the future Rte. 2? Mrs. Riffin said she was referring to the statement in the Minute- man and the over-all study primarily of the intersection. You have to study where the traffic is coming from. Mr. Strauch said it was hard to believe the Planning Board would approve a subdivision that closes one of the main possibilities of hand- ling the traffic. Mr. Albert Goldman, 87 Pleasant St., said he thought the Planning Board was holding their hearing to make sure that this proposed subdivi- sion was one that was not inconsistent with the system of roads in the ' area. He said he wanted to spend some time talking about the egress and the way into it from Pleasant St, and went to the Planning Board to ask for the plans in order to determine what had been obtained and to make some comment in relation as to what the Board was holding the hearing for. He was told it was not the policy of the Planning Board to make copies of the plans available to take home. He was willing to pay for a set of copies but was told that this was not possible. He said he did see the entire application of seven various drawings and the three-page document which is entitled "Application." He said he was told that was the complete appli- cation and that there was among those papers no information as to the kinds of easements or conditions of sewers which are shown on the plan. He said the plan does show a Pleasant St. and Mason St. intersection in what appears to be a dangerous way. The developer originally would have pre- ferred to have that intersection. He said he understood the original plan would have provided a turn -around and not an entrance on Pleasant St., but Mr. Campbell thought there should be a second entrance on Pleasant St. He said one of the plans he saw was a grade plan which shows a,very sharp, grade on Mason St. going up toward Pleasant and there is no level point at Mason St., it tends to level out at one point by about a car length. Pleasant St. takes both a curve and a dip. It doesn't take much imagina- tion to project yourself where, if the street is slippery or icy and traf- fic is going out on Pleasant St., the tendency would be to 'turn left which would be very dangerous. He said it would seem that the land Mr. Wilson has offered represents some kind of alternative to the exit onto Pleasant , St. If that portion of Emerson Rd. between Massachusetts Ave. and this subdivision were to be realized it might serve this subdivision rather than an entrance onto Pleasant St. - it might bring out a definite pattern not 10-10-66 Hearing 1 15 - at right angles to Pleasant St. Mr. Fowle asked if Mr. Goldman could point out how this land offered by Wilson might serve as another access. Mr. Goldman said Mr. Wilson has offered land in this area going toward Massachusetts Ave. and that it is a farm today. It is cleared completely, and there is a real lane down there. Dr. Jick, Trotting Horse Drive, said he was interested in the traffic problem in the area and he was sure there were other people in- terested in the traffic problems and checking the study in behalf of this plan, but that it has not just come up in the last 2-3 weeks but has been under discussion for a number of years. He said he lived in Pea- cock Farm and Peacock Farm Rd. approaches Watertown St. at a 90° angle and the exit is not easy to make; however, it is the only way they have to get out to Watertown St, and they must make it. He pointed out that there will be an off -ramp from Rte. 2 to Watertown St. and it is not known now whether it will be a slip ramp or whether it will be part,of the elevated loop but it will be an off -ramp 60-75 ft. from Peacock Farm Rd. Cars will becoming off Rte. 2 at a fairly high speed and that left turn will probably cause more danger. However, he said, it is the only left turn we have and barring some other practical solution they must get along with it. He said the only thing he could,see was bringing a road from Massachusetts Ave. to Pleasant St. - that bringing traffic out at Peacock Farm Rd. would be a very bad place because the off -ramp will bring thousands of cars out ' at that point. Harry Mimno, 83 Pleasant St., said a by-pass going around would necessarily have a detrimental effect on Peacock Farm and would indicate the desirability of having an egress from the development itself. The indicated easements through Wilson Farm seems to be the worst possible direction by taking available farm land and separating the rest of it. Is it not ever so much easier and less costly to indicate an egress on that part of the land already covered by a sewer easement? It seems much more logical than easement through Wilson Farm with a dangerous entrance on Pleasant St. Have an egress from the new subdivision two ways therefore the fire provisions would be taken care of. If I were living in the new development I would rather have a narrow safe road to let me out on Massa- chusetts Ave., he said. Dr. Slone, 22 Peacock Farm Rd., said he was in favor of providing the new development with two ways of egress which eliminates traffic flow over the middle of what might be in the future one of the more attractive areas and eliminating what would be the beginning of a great big road from Mass. Ave. to Rte. 2 routing traffic over the back of Peacock Farm through a development and in through Mason St. merging at a dangerous intersection. The people living on Pleasant St. have a real problem. It is not out of order if they are concerned about the traffic on Pleasant St. There are many things more important to worry about rather than this particular talk which proposes to provide a road through the area described. ' Mr. Campbell stated that the Planning Board was here seeking infor- lu- o-66 Hearing -6- oration. They had no desire to get into a neighborhood fight. Anything pertinent to the subdivision they were most anxious to hear. Mr. Storer said he thought the proposal to run traffic down there is terrible. He said he talked about a connector road - he is against in- ter -town roads. He said he was talking about a small road 24 ft, wide making access to West farm from back land. Dr. Jick spoke about going off Peacock Farm Rd. - Pleasant St. is going to hold all the traffic coming out Mass. Ave, to Rte. 2. He doesn't like -the thought of ruining the houses on Pleasant St. Mrs. Storer said she hopes the Planning Board will consider the historic district also - anything that goes into the historic district should be a credit; also that they will not put on Pleasant St. so many problems it will be just another street. She also said Metcalf b Eddy were making a long range study for the town and several committees are working on it but only a few reports have been turned in as yet. She feels they will come up with a report and might very well have a positive opinion as to what should be done in this sensitive area. She thought it was quite necessary to consider the whole town and not just one part of it. Mr. Storer asked if according to the subdivision control law all these lots would be capable of subdivision. Mr. Zaleski replied that once the plan is approved and the devel- oper has given security guaranteeing that the streets will be constructed, he can then legally subdivide into several lots which would meet the re- ' quirements of the town. He does not have to wait, as long as the town has the bond and the Planning Board has approved. Mr. White said they had enough work for the time being and would be willing to hold this controversial lot in abeyance for awhile. The hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m. L