Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-05-24PLANNING BOARD HEARINGS IMay 24, 1967 The Lexington Planning Board held four hearings on Wednesday, May 24, 1967 in Science Hall, Lexington High School. Present were Chairman Greeley, members Fowle, Riffin and Worrell, and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber. The Chairman opened the hearings at 7:30 p.m. by reading the notice as it had appeared in the Lexington Minute -man. He explained that in effect this first proposal provides for parking in C 2 districts, and that para- graph 2 and 4 mentioned are districts in the center. The 50/50 means there must be as much land for parking as there is for building. Slides were shown of the map with C 2 districts, of First National Store and Lexington Lumber Co. showing the buildings and how much could be used for building under the proposed amendment, and of the Wallis Court area showing the lack of sufficient parking areas, with cars projecting into the street. There is at present no parking required for C 2 districts. That comes about primarily because until recently the only C 2 district was in the Center and the buildings there have been long existing. The Town has provided parking areas to serve most of the Center. It is hoped to get this amendment on the books before someone comes in and develops more land with inadequate parking, such as that at Wallis Court. This amendment is too late for that, but the thinking is, it is better than not to take any action at all. A question was asked as to why the center of town was excepted, and Mr. Greeley said because it is built up and the policy has been for the town to provide the off-street parking there. Someone said it seems unreasonable to cut down any parking that might still be there. A remark was made that with regard to the adequacy of this as a means of providing enough parking space now, if they were to build to the limit of this revised zoning later there would not be adequate parking. Mr. Greeley said the Board was hoping that with the type of use that required a large parking area, such as a super -market, the builder would be enlightened enough to put it in. The Board thinks any type of use would re- quire at least this much, and it is hoped the types that depend on more park- ing will take care of it. Someone asked if you demolish and replace by a new building, will it continue on the old or come under the new regulation. Mr. Greeley said there is a specific date, namely tonight, and in the future if there is a change in the building structure the percentage that was in tonight applies - the new would be effective from now on. If they tore down the building they could rebuild on the same percentage they have as of tonight. Someone asked how you interpret "available" - if there is a driveway at the present time where four cars park but upon a grass plot, is all of this "available" for parking? If a new building is put up, is the parking space for four cars considered necessary? Mr. Greeley said he hoped that the Building Inspector could interpret as to what had reasonably been available for parking space. If there is a little yard 10 ft. wide, don't think that could be considered as available. healing 5-24-67 Someone said this seemed to be National and not the small business. He needed that ratio of parking - it would who would be likely to come at one time building. -2- considering someone like the First didn't think most small businesses depend more on the number of people rather than on the size of the Another question asked was why the Ryan block next to Colonial Garage was excluded from the town's public parking when the next block was included. There is a comparable amount of business. Mr. Greeley said because in the judgment of the Planning Board the relationship . . . (?) Someone asked why the Central Block where back parking has been pro- vided by the town. This property is included in definite plans for develop- ment and is no better located to serve the people than the Ryan block, yet one is included and one excluded. Why include one and not the other? Mr. Greeley said there is already private parking in the area and there is not in the Central Block. This hearing closed at 8:10 p.m. At this time hearing was declared open on the proposal to rezone from R 1 to C 4 district the land on Worthen Rd. between Grace Chapel and the First National. Mr. Harold Stevens represented the petitioners, and opened by showing slides of the proposed use of the area and of the type of buildings under consideration. He said the land was owned by Lexington people under the name of Worthen Road Realty Trust, and consisted of Otis Brown, Richard Sparrow, Mr. Deflice and the Douglass brothers. He suggested .that this type of use would be the most appropriate and compatible with the surrounding use of the area. The land was divided into seven lots, each meeting the zoning requirements. Among the uses proposed were a funeral home, real estate offices, and sales representatives offices. Mr. Stevens said that it would in ny way injure the business in the center of town, because these would be offices and sales were not involved. In fact it would help the center because the people from the offices would go there to eat and during the lunch hour would often make punccases. This type of business does not generate traffic. The tax return to the town will be much larger. It is now assessed for $22,000. Assume a valuation of 1-1/2 million dollars, on the tax rate we now have the tax revenue under this development would be $65,000 more than the taxes actually paid in 1966. A petition was presented signed by 33 merchants of the town endorsing the proposal. A letter was received from Rev,: Goff of Grace Chapel stating the management body was in favor of the funeral home aspect, and Mr. Rooney presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce bearing 11 signatures in favor. Mr. Eisenberg inquired about an easement for the Housing Authority he had heard about. Mr. Stillman Williams replied that the Housing Authority as an abuttor was very much interested in the proposal to rezone because they had an option with the potential buyers for an easement which would take care of their drain- age problems. If they cannot have this they will have to run down the other side where there is ledge, and as a result it would be much more costly. 1 u Hearing 5-24-67 -3- Mr. Greeley said that in no case would the Housing Authority be land -locked - it has arrangements by which it can be connected to the sewer. Mr. Williams said that if this is not rezoned they have power of eminent domain and would declare on the right end of the lot and this would be an expensive operation they would like to avoid. Another angle would be that this would give them along the line of the easement an opportunity for a pedestrian way down to the shopping center for use of the elderly people. Mr. Kingston asked if this was in the Historic District and was told Worthen Rd. is not included. Mr. Kingston said he was in favor of the idea, but with the First National on one side and Grace Chapel on the other, he thought the architure was neither suitable nor representative of a busi- ness district. Mr. Weiss asked if the funeral home was not allowed in C 4, how would this affect the developers' plans; also said the plans being presented do not represent anything firm and does the Planning Board have any other use to suggest. Mr. Greeley said this land is at present in R 1 zone, but the Plan- ning Board does not anticipate its being used for single family dwellings. Consideration has been given to putting it into A 1, or at Mr. Mascarello's suggestion as an art area. Mr. Whitman asked if the funeral homes in R 1 was passed, would the funeral home be allowed without rezoning and was told it could be with Board of Appeals permission. Mr. Custance said he wished to be recorded in favor. Mr. Stevens asked if this limited the Housing Authority in expanding should they wish to. Mr. Williams replied that the Housing Authority would not expand in that location - if there was any question of expansion it would be in a different location. Mr. Parks inquired about the soil conditions to which Mr. H. Stevens said there would be no difficulty in developing the land - there is 2-3 ft. peat on top but good sub -soil underneath. Also talked with the Town Engineer and was told there would be no difficulty. Someone asked if water and sewer were available and was told that they were. Mr. Ruge, an abuttor, made a statement that the description of the land as published in the paper was incorrect, and he questioned the legality of the hearing. However, he said, he was a resident and he noticed all signa- tures on the petitions were those of merchants. He pointed out that he was an an abuttor of some 350 ft. and he had lived herefor 16 years. He said he had ' strongly encouraged the Housing Authority, but he feels this will greatly drop the value of his property and he does not favor this rezoning without any definition of what is going to happen. You can't trust all these good Hearing 5-24-67 -4- intentions you hear about. He said they have to protect themselves against people who are trying to buy his property - he tells them he has no interest in selling but these people beg for property. He said he was outnumbered ' by the business interests. Last week, he said, the Minute -man had ads for 12-13 offices, from 500 to 1500 sq.ft. space, and they have trouble renting these offices down town. In building up this Bedford -Worthen Rd. area we are drawing away from the center. Mrs. Rawls asked what they were going to do about parking - the map shows the back land on a hill - are they going to dig into the hill? Mr. Cole explained what the parking situation would be as applicable to different sizes of buildings. Mr. Soule remarked that one of the previous speakers had mentioned an incorrect ad and if so he thought this was a waste of time. Mr. Greeley said a hearing was being held tonight and Mr. Soule could be sure the Board would check into the matter before June 12. Mr. Soule said we are either going to rezone land or not rezone land and the question of specific use should not enter into it. Once the land is rezoned it can be used for any of the uses permitted; and that fact should be recognized. We should not be looking at architectural sketches or buildings. He said he thought we fell into the habit 15-18 years ago of rezoning for a specific request and then when the plans fell through we were left with land rezoned for a certain use. One point in question was the restaurant on Dr. Short's land near the Waltham line. Someone asked if there was any way to approximate the income as against the present use. Ma. Greeley said that would depend on the use - if developed as Grace Chapel there would be no taxes, if developed by single family houses there would probably be an estimated 20-25 single family houses. Some institutional uses might go in. There are lots of uses that are permitted by right or permit. Would vary from no taxes to this specific use. The hearing closed at 9:10 p.m. The next proposal was to add funeral homes to the list of uses allowed in R 1 districts. Mr. Greeley explained there were some questions raised in regard to designation of arterial streets and complications involved. The Planning Board therefore had decided to hold another hearing on June 12 and request C 4 instead of R 1. This hearing tonight would still be held if anybody wished to discuss it knowing the circumstances. Someone asked where funeral homes are now permitted, and was told in I CN and C 2 by permission of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Whitman said he had reservations about increasing permitted uses in R 1. Hearing 5-24-67 -5- He 5- He said there seemed to be a tendency to increase certain insti- tutional uses in certain residential areas, uses other than single family are quite numerous in R 1 districts. The impact of a number of churches, schools, public buildings, etc. on a small section of town is enormous and he thinks there should be more than Board of Appeals approval. Hearing closed at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Weiss asked how much Mr. Greene stood to lose if he sold it as a home and was told it was not a question of how much money Mr. Greene was going to make or lose, but what was the best use of the land. Mr. Tangent (?) asked if Mr. Greene was asking for this to be re- zoned with a specific purpose in mind. Mr. Conroy said there was no agree- ment with any tenant, but whenever interest was shown in the land, because of the difficulty which had been experienced in rezoning no-one was willing to buy. He said that if the land was rezoned to C 3 any building would have to go to the Board of Appeals for site approval. Someone asked if there were houses in the area and was told there were four homes, and eight across the street. Mr. Morley said they had been going through this rezoning for about nine years - if they were going to rezone eventually why not do it all at oncel Mr.Greeley said the Board did not have an official opinion - the last time the Board was not in favor and that is the reason this was brought in on petition, signed by 149 citizens. Mr. Kula read a letter from Mr. Whalom in opposition. Mr. Kula said The next proposal is to rezone from R 1 to C 3 property of Greene and Gallagher at Spring St. Frederick Conroy, representing Mr. Greene, presented a map showing the general location of the property at the inter- section of Rte. 128, Rte. 2 and Spring St., comprised of approximately 10-1/2 acres, and of the business land surrounding it, which is C 3 use. He said Mr. Greene had received an offer from an insurance company contingent upon its being changed to C 3 use. They had test borings made and were going ahead with plans when they made inquiries of the town, and because of the adverse reaction of town officials they went to Wellesley. Mr. Greene bought the property in 1949 and at that time the area around was the Swenson Farm with barn, meadow ,and cows. Now it is all business. He visited the town officials in Lexington in an attempt to assure himself that Rte. 2 would not be developed as Rte. 1 is on the north shore. He was told there was an unwritten rule between Concord, Lexington, Belmont and Cambridge that no commercial use would be permitted. Nobody can be blamed for what has happened because since 1950 the exodus from Boston has taken place and the move of business to the suburbs is probably unprecedented. The areas along 128 became prime business properties. Mr. Greene's home is no longer in the ' quiet suburban area he moved to. There are two major highways, commercial properties, etc. The present Rte. 2 construction is going to leave them 22-24 ft. above road grade. The area is no longer suitable for residential purposes, and he asks that he be treated the same as everybody else in the area has been treated. Mr. Weiss asked how much Mr. Greene stood to lose if he sold it as a home and was told it was not a question of how much money Mr. Greene was going to make or lose, but what was the best use of the land. Mr. Tangent (?) asked if Mr. Greene was asking for this to be re- zoned with a specific purpose in mind. Mr. Conroy said there was no agree- ment with any tenant, but whenever interest was shown in the land, because of the difficulty which had been experienced in rezoning no-one was willing to buy. He said that if the land was rezoned to C 3 any building would have to go to the Board of Appeals for site approval. Someone asked if there were houses in the area and was told there were four homes, and eight across the street. Mr. Morley said they had been going through this rezoning for about nine years - if they were going to rezone eventually why not do it all at oncel Mr.Greeley said the Board did not have an official opinion - the last time the Board was not in favor and that is the reason this was brought in on petition, signed by 149 citizens. Mr. Kula read a letter from Mr. Whalom in opposition. Mr. Kula said Hearing 544-67 - -6- the people on Concord Ave. and Five Fields as well as Spring St. had been opposed to Raytheon and also Kennecott - and this is an example of where will it stop! Mr. Mollo-Christianson said he spoke as a homeowner in Five Fields, as one of the two owners of 37 acres held as land for 22 bene- ficiaries of Five Fields and as a member of Five Fields, Inc. which holds some good land just over the hill as conservation land. He said they had developed these areas to conservation land and nothing could ever be done with it. They are opposed to the rezoning of this land because they see business creeping closer and closer. Mr. Greeley said the Planning Board believes the buildings would be below the brow of the hill and not visible to the houses. He also said the agreement previously referred to in not developing along Rte. 2 had not included the city of Cambridge, but Belmont, Arlington, Lexington and Lincoln, and it was an agreement in 1936 which bound the Planning Boards to oppose billboards and filling stations except for the 4-5 filling sta- tions then existing, but did not go beyond that. Mr. Davison requested to be recorded in opposition, as did Mrs. Bayle. Mr. Tryon asked how we stand on the utilization of present com- mercially zoned areas. Mr. Greeley said he didn't know the specific figures - there is the possibility of 7-8 lots on the present Raytheon site and there is much' more on Hartwell Ave. available than has been developed. Mr. L. Whitman wished to be recorded in opposition. The hearing closed at 10:00 p.m. Louise M. Macomber, Secretary 1 U