Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-05-18PLANNING BOARD HEARING ' May 18, 1967 The Lexington Planning Board held six public hearings on Thursday, May 18, 1967 in Estabrook Hall, Town Office Building. Present were Planning Board Chairman Greeley and members Fowle, Lund, Riffin and Worrell; Planning Director Zaleski; Secretary Mrs. Macomber; and approxi- mately 175 interested citizens. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m, by reading notice of the first hearing and explained the procedure. The first proposal is in reference to Land Use, and more specifically defines "junk yard." Mr. Weiss asked if legal counsel had been consulted as he thought there wase something about "intent" which seemed a little strange. Mr. Weiss was informed that legal counsel had been consulted and that this was worded with the intention of protecting legitimate use. A question was asked as to who enforces, and it was explained that the Building Inspector is the enforcing officer of all zoning laws, who then takes it to Town Counsel if necessary and who in turn takes it to court. Mr. Nickerson inquired if this was not to eliminate such situations as that on Westminster Ave. where there is an operation of at least eight automobiles in various state of repair or disrepair and Mr. Greeley re- plied yes, he thought so. Mr. Weiss said he did not like to see laws which could not be en- forced and he didn't see how it could be determined whether items were discarded or intended for further future use. Mr. Greeley said that you can't say any property that has something old in the back yard is a junk yard, but the extreme they are trying to get rid of is an accumulation that has been discarded with no further in- tention of using, and is unsightly. It is tried to negotiate with the owner instead of taking it to court. There being no further discussion the hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. The second proposal deals with penalty for violation. The present by-law provides for $20 penalty for offense. The State by-laws have been changed from $20 to $50, and to allow the interpretation of each day being a separate offense. It is desired to incorporate this into our by-law. Mr. Kingston asked what if it is something that cannot be taken care of the following day. Mr. Irwin (Building Inspector) replied that there first must be a violation which requires investigation. Then the person ' is notified and a reasonable time must be stated for the correction before it goes to court. The $20 now in effect doesn't mean anything to many people who break the law - the violation is worth the money spent - but if this amount was increased to $50 per day after the time allowed expires, it would mean more to most people. j -id -67 -2- The hearing closed at 7:45 with no opposition being expressed. Proposal number three recognizes a change in the statute which states that an appeal to the Board of Appeals shall be filed within 30 days in- stead of stating "a reasonable time." Mr. Nickerson, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, stated that this was perfectly reasonable and that the number of appeals of this nature are very few over the course of a year. There were no questions and nobody spoke in favor nor in opposition. The hearing closed at 8:00 p.m. Proposal number four deals with Severability of Provisions. Mr. Greeley explained that if it appears that the zoning by-law is invalid for some reason in regard to the depth of your required front yard, it doesn't mean that the width of your side yard is also invalid. If the law is in- valid in saying you can use it for a junk yard it doesn't say you can't use It for a store. There was no discussion on this article and the hearing closed at 8:05 P.M. At 8:10 p.m. hearing was opened on the fifth proposal, to combine small lots. Mr. Greeley explained that this is a subject that has long been considered, including a great many Planning Boards. It is to elimi- nate many of the groups of really small lots, most of which were laid out 40, 50, 60 years ago. In many cases they exist on what is called "paper streets" in many parts of the town. This wording is such as to conform with the State statutes. Probably the best way to proceed is to answer questions. Benjamin White said he was not sure he understood the part having to do with property owned by the person occupying the adjacent lots - what was the intent. Mr. Greeley said it would not apply if during that period ownership was held in separate names. If two of these small lots adjacent to each other were deeded to separate owners while building on each lot was per- mitted, then they would not have to be combined. If the lots were in one ownership on the date specified then they would be combined. Mr. Campbell asked how many lots would be affected - and why did the Planning Board set the 11th of May as the date, before the hearing rather than after. Mr. Greeley replied that according to practice in zoning where an amendment is to be proposed to the Town Meeting to put into effect, the date of advertising of the hearing is considered to be the effective date. In this case the date the notice appeared for the second time was picked ' rather than the first - May 4th could have been used. In reply to the question of how many lots were affected, Mr. Zaleski 5-18-67 -3- said that he didn't know the exact number of lots but there were 747 owner- ships in varying combinations, come being three 25 ft. lots, two 40 ft. lots, etc. in one ownership. There would be 747 separate ownerships affected by this notice. While building now is permitted on 20 and 25 ft. lots, you actually have to have a lot of at least 40 ft. width to put a house on, for with 7-1/2 ft, minimum side yard on each side there would only be 5 or 10 feet width left. The smallest lot for practical use would be 40 ft. wide. Mr. McCarthy wanted to know why he didn't receive a oopy of the notice by registered mail and Mr. Greeley said it is not required to send out notices on certain types of hearings of general interest - only where there is a specific area involved - there are a very large number of property owners affected here. Mrs. Ranagan said she did not see why it was assumed there would be a greater hardship if one lot had been transferred over that period of years and was told it might be a matter of trying to locate former owners, clear p u deeds, etc. i Mr. Glenn explained his particular problem where he"had three lots on one street including a corner and three on a paper street. He would like to keep an adjoining lot on each side of his house for property protection and put the other two into separate ownership. Mr. Greeley said that the Board is trying to work out something that is ' in the best interest of the town, but it is impossible to do what is best for everybody. However, Mr. Glenn has recourse to the Board of Appeals which is set up to give relief in hardship cases. Someone said they were concerned that after June 12 the Board would say they had gone by the date, and was told that as far as the Board of Appeals was concerned there is no going by the date - there is no time limit involved. Mr. Nickerson said Mr. Glenn was talking about two 50 ft. lots on a paper street which are not buildable anyway. Mr. Greeley said that raised the point of a possible amendment on which no decision has been made as yet as to whether it would be used or not - and he then read the amendment which had some bearing on this hearing but only indirectly. Under this amendment the Board of Appeals would be en- couraged to issue a permit for building on a 50 or 75 ft. lot or combination of lots where existing houses in that particular area are on lots of the same approximate size. This could be granted without finding a "hardship." Mrs. Ranagan asked if it were true that a permit only lasted for a year and was not a permanent variance, and Mr. Nickerson said he didn't know how that one year rumor got around, but there was no basis for it and the variance is permanent. Mr. Glenn asked what he could do with his two lots on Marvin St. which is a paper street, and Mr. Greeley suggested that at such time as frontage was legally available and a lot might be approved and built upon, he could go to the Board of Appeals and ask for a variance to create a buildable lot. At present he has lots on which he has no rights to build regardless of this amendment. Hearing 5-18-67 -4- Mr. Wathen-Dunn asked if the number of ownerships referred to were in the old Meagherville area or if they apply to lots scattered around town. ' Mr. Zaleski said they were scattered all over town; some in Meagher- ville, Spring St., East Lexington, etc. Mr. Wathen-Dunn asked if we were making a serious attempt to remove small lots from the town market. Mr. Greeley said yes, trying to remove the abnormally small lots. Mr. Wathen-Dunn asked Mr. Irwin at what rate these small lots were being converted into house lots - if there are something like five or ten a year. Mr. Irwin said they were being used up as rapidly as the builders can find and purchase them - more likely to be fifteen or twenty a year. Mr. Greeley said he thought there was a potential acceleration. Mr. Wathen-Dunn said he believed Lexington had not in the past been entirely a rich man's town and that there ought to be a place for people who are not necessarily capable of purchasing and supporting a $50,000 home but capable of supporting something more modest. Mr. McCarthy asked how many people on the Planning Board have anything to lose and Mr. Greeley said he had two lots which will become one - he didn't know about the other members. Mr. Downing as a taxpayer wished to know what will happen to the assessments. , Mr. Greeley said he didn't know - one couldn't really predict what the Board of Assessors would do, but he doubted if there would be any significant change. Mr. Razzo asked what about a single lot beside homes where a person wishes to keep the lot and at some future time give it to their children. Mr. Greeley said that this brought up something the Planning Board was thinking about - an amendment whereby in a situation where you have a house on one lot, and the lot next to it is a single vacant lot, it would not be affected. If you had two contiguous 50 ft. lots not built upon you would have to combine them. The Board is thinking of proposing a modification or amendment, or a total proposal with a change of wording. Mr. Ernest Cutter said that in all his years in Lexington he never saw anything to equal the sneakiness of this article. A major change in the building laws was openly discussed; here nobody but the Planning Board knew that an article was to be inserted, and further setting a date line not later than May 11. He said he understood approximately 1400 lots would be affected. If the projected mean value is $5,000, a total amount of 7 million dollars would be taken out of the pockets of the people. The land will go to waste as there will be no buyers if the land can't be used and the town will take it for taxes which will force a price rise on unaffected land and $50,000 houses will be the only ones that can be built. The owners of worthless land will fight for abatement. He said land would be taken by eminent domain eventually resulting in law suits of millions of dollars - and he will be one of them! Mr. Outhet said he owned a 60 ft. ;ot on Gleason Rd. and why couldn't he build on a 60 ft. lot when all the other lots around are 60 ft. _.eating 5-18-6; -5- Mr. Greeley said it would be expected that the Board of Appeals would grant an exception without finding a hardship in such a case. Mr. Nickerson said the Board of Appeals was not aware of the Planning Board's proposal and when he read it he was disturbed by it, and many people called him. He said he now believes the intent of the Planning Board is excellent and that they are working to get this into shape so it can go before the Town Meeting to do the town good without detriment to the people. He also said he thought a "public way" mentioned in a possible amendment should be defined because the Board of Appeals is not at liberty to permit building on lots not on public ways. He didn't think the Board of Appeals would welcome a deluge of 1400 petitions coming before them in the next few years, but if a petition does come before the Board the area will be considered and if in an,area where there are houses on 60 ft. lots the variance will be granted. He said he didn't think people had as much ,to worry about as many seemed to think. Lee Whitman asked if there were 20 ft. lots or maybe five or ten ft. lots - would the Planning Board give a typical case where this would be of benefit to the town by doing away with lots too small and not adjacent to houses. Mr. Greeley said where there was a legal street the lots would have to be combined to at least 50 ft. frontage - how much more would depend on the history of the lot. Mr. Volante asked if there were 747 ownerships, how many buildable lots were there. Mr. Zaleski replied that the L.W.V. had worked for the Planning Board on this and they had figured 1358 additional building lots. He also said there is a provision in the By -Law whereby any.lot may be enlarged by com- bining it with land or lots. If you have three 30 ft. lots you can divide them into two 45 ft. lots, or one 40 ft. and one 50 ft. lots. Robert Carrig said he was an attorney :and represented a number of Lex- ington residents. He read a lengthy dissertation accompaneed by a petition containing 150 signatures, both of which are included in this record (See Planning Board files). Mr. Worrell said he thought Mr. Carrig presented only one side. There are already a large number of small lots in town with small houses on them which come to the market now and then, and even if all the small unbuildable lots were eliminated there would still be a large number of small houses available as the owners' circumstances change. Mr. Greeley said that over a period of forty years, all of the four or five changes which have been made have been to lower the density of building. It has always been the sense of the town that it wants reduced density. Since 1953 this was done by withdrawing land for conservation rather than upgrading the land under zoning - the Board believes this is a step in that direction. Mr. Carlson asked if the Conservation Commission had anything to do with this and was told not at all. Mr. Hall said a lot of good information had been exchanged and it would go for naught if it stopped here. Would this information be avii - able7 Hearing 5-18-67 -6- Mr. Greeley said it should be ready well in advance of the meeting. In response to Mr. Newgent's request, a show of hands was called for - ' althought they were not counted, most were opposed, a few wished to consider the matter further, and a few were in favor. This hearing closed at 10:00 p.m. The sixth proposal deals with the Planning Unit Development, or "cluster zoning." Mr. Erik Lund presided at this hearing. He explained the major changes, the first of which is that this may apply to the 15,500 sq.ft. area as well as the 30,000 sq.ft. area. Also lots may be made smaller and re- quire less frontage if they abut the "common land" than if they do not. Most of the other changes are procedural and are designed to state specific- ally what the Planning Board should state in its report to the Board of Appeals, and the standards which the Board of Appeals should have in mind to grant a special permit. Mrs. Rawls asked if the common land would be in one or more parcels - originally it was to be in one parcel. ' Mr. Lund stated that one piece is not necessarily the best solution - situations could come up where two or more could be more beneficial. This matter could be left to the Board of Appeals. Mrs. Small asked as to the advantages of this type of development. Mr. Lund replied that due to the smaller size lots the cost to the developer is less in the building of streets, utilities, etc. but in the acquisition of I the common land the density of homes is kept at the same level. Mrs. Rawls asked if the size or shape of lots could be limited and was told that it would depend on the Board of Appeals not to grant permission for inappropriate sizes or shapes of lots. Mr. Weiss said he didn't understand the proposal and Mr. Lund explained that this major change is the inclusion of 15,500 lots and if one or more of these lots abut the common land they may be reduced to 8,500 sq.ft. area with frontage of not less than 85 ft. and front yard to 20 ft. with side yards of 10 ft. It cannot be made smaller than in the 10,500 sq.ft. area if it does not abut common land nor have a frontage of less than 100 ft. It was stated that this common land is intended to benefit only the people in the subdivision. Mr. Michelson said he didn't think cluster zoning had existed long enough to show what changes are necessary, that we have not had experience enough to see how the land is going to be maintained and used, etc. and he thinks we should wait before making changes; and he wanted to know how.the density is figured on an 8,500 sq.ft. piece of land. Mr. Lund replied that it is the overall density that is being consid- ered. No more houses in the entire area than there would be normally allowed, although they could be closer together. Mr. Michelson said he believed it would eventually result in cost to the taxpayer - he didn't think the land would be properly taken care of. Mrs. Small asked why the 10,500 instead of 20,000. Mr. Lund said the Heariag 5-18-67 -7- Planning Board had considered the matter and felt that this would be a good thing, Mr. Worrell explained that the feeling of spaciousness doesn't have to come from large lots - it can also come from having large tracts of open land. Mr. Hall asked what could be defined as "unbuildable lots"- would it be such as ledge or swamp, and Mr. Lund replied not necessarily, it could be under a power line for instance. When asked how many cluster developments we have, Mr. Zaleski replied that we have one approved and four pending. When asked if there has to be a right-of-way to the open area, the reply was yes, a 40 ft. wide sight -of -way must be provided to each recreation area. Mr. Fowle explained that if a subdivision plan meets the requirements, the Planning Board has to approve it whether it is good for the town or not, whereas in a cluster development the Board of Appeals has control as to whether or not to approve. Mr. Whitman asked if Five Fields would conform to this zoning in terms of lot size. Mrs. Riffin said you could very well get the feel of it although the lots are larger than the 10,500 but smaller than the 20,000. There are about five acres of common land which accommodate people in the community very nicely. When asked about maintenance, Mrs. Riffin replied that a small amount ' is paid in for maintenance which takes care of plantings, equipment for children, fireplaces, etc. Mr. Greeley explained that there would be at least two categories of open land - one such as Five Fields developed for neighborhood use, the other not very useful except for walking, picnics, etc. for which the owner will not want to pay taxes. This the Town would take over and be considered as conservation area rather than recreation. The hearing closed at 10:45 p.m. .Louise M. Macomber, 5kcx'etary