Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-05-25PLANNING BOARD HEARING ' May 25, 1967 The Lexington Planning Board held six hearings in.Science Hall, Lexington High School, on Thursday, May 259 1967. Present were Chairman Greeley, members Fowle, Riffin and Worrell, and the secretary, Mrs.. Macomber. The first proposal, initiated by the Planning Board, was to change the required minimum area and street frontage in CS districts from 60,000 sq.ft. to 15,500 sq.ft. and 175 ft. to 125 ft. frontage. Mr. Greeley stated that the Planning Board originally recommended the larger lots which were adopted by the Town. However, the Board now believes these lots to be too restrictive. Mr. Conroy asked if there were any plans on how this could be, developed and Mr. Greeley replied that the lot coverage remains at 25% maximum and the plans would operate the same as now with 40 ft. yard where the lot abuts on a street or a less restricted zone, 20 ft. where the lot abuts on other property in the same zone. This would not apply to residential use in this district. Mr. Conroy said the parking requirements seem vague - no specific amount recommended. Mr. Greeley said no.change was contemplated now but ' maybe the requirements should be made more specific. On a 60,000 ft. lot it would be easy to find parking area and still build on a 25%. h It now would be the same size lot as is required in the R l district in the 30,000 sq.ft. area. There was no further discussion and the hearing closed at 8:40 p.m. A hearing was then opened on a proposal to rezone from C 1 to CS district a parcel of land formerly known as the "Many" property and now occupied by the K of C and the Stevens Co., comprised of approximately 18.3 acres. Mr. Worrell showed a picture of the town zoning map showing the district in question. He explained that this proposal had two pur- poses. In the first place in the recent past the Planning Board had pro- posed the Town Meeting accept a service and trade use, which was approved, and this represents an attempt to put what the Board feels would be a suitable piece of land into the service and trade use; and secondly it represents an attempt to improve the future of Bedford St. The problem of Bedford St. is one of traffic and as the traffic builds up on the street it tends to make the street less desirable for residential use which de- preciates property value and gives more incentive for people to ask for rezoning. Another slide was shown giving more detail of the area involved. This area is presently zoned C 1. ' The land as presently zoned has a greater value than it would have under the CS zoning. Mr. Worrell said he had talked with Mr. Stevens who had also come to the Planning Board, and they have been unable to come to 5-Zj-67 -2- a satisfactory agreement. The Board is making what they think is a reasonable compromise which is to have the front 160 feet of this land I in C 1 which would allow the development of a modest shopping center, and put the remainder of the area in CS. An estimate of the possible impact of a retail development was made by noting the parking spaces of First Rational and Stop & Shop,, ' which would he the same number as could be put on this parcel, namely, 380. A traffic count taken at the First National corner on a Tuesday between 4 and 6 p.m. totaled 1,600, which could also be expected at the other site. This second site would result in a situation almost twice as bad because there would be only one exit and entrance instead of two. Lois Brown said that at the information meeting held last November she had suggested the possibility of a parallel road in the rear which would provide access to the rear of the property and thus take some of the traffic off Bedford Street. Mr. Greeley stated that the two proposed lots have access on Bedford St. and these accesses could be used to serve each of the two lots. The front part would be built to the Cl type use and parking, and the back part built to uses permitted in CS zoning. Someone asked if there was any proposal for such a development right now and Mr. Worrell said no, although Mr. Stevens had said the Star Market had approached him for a store on his land. Mr. Worrell also said he had talked with the Town Engineer who had made a rough estimate that it would cost around $100,000. to build a road down here from Revere St. and Mr. Greeley said that road itself would not.provide access to Bedford St. Mrs. Brown asked if the Planning Board would ask the Town Meeting to have it CS without any other access - she didn't think we could just say there might be a road. Mr.. Greeley replied that at this stage the Planning Board was just asking the Town to,put this into CS use. Mr. Weiss said it would be a service to the Town Meeting members if they had on hand at the Town Meeting an outline of the use. Mr. Greeley replied that uses permitted are listed in the zoning by -law. - Someone asked how much frontage for a subdivision street to come in and what required width. Mr. Zaleski replied that the frontage on the Stevens lot is 172.2 and frontage of K of C 146 ft., total of 272 ft. A street would normally require 50 ft. leaving 220 ft. as frontage on Bedford St. Someone asked what it would cost if rezoned residential and Mr. Greeley said that there was no provision for the Town to pay damages to the owner - the court would not grant relief to the property owner for ' change of zone. Mr. Stevens said the Maney property was purchased just over a year ago for $200,000. If it is changed to CS that portion of the land would at the maximum contain three developed lots and because 5-25-67 -3- of the size of the buildings possible on the lots we can',t see how ' these three lots would be more than $10,000 each.- The road construction to make these available would cost more than $30,000 and would reduce the C 1 section of land by something -more than 25% which would result in further loss in frontage property. Fred Conroy, attorney,:•said on behalf of the Stevens family he protested very strongly the proposal of rezoning. He said Mr. Stevens had given a general indication of the.loss in value of their investment. He said there had been talk of rezoning to residential and this would further decrease the value of these lots. He said this zone would pre- clude many uses for which there is a demand and permit uses for those businesses which in most cases operate from their homes. In fact, he said, there is no good reason for rezoning this area. Mr. Congdon representing the K of C, also spoke in opposition for the same reasons. - Mr. Whitman asked if in regard to the back land it might be pos- sible the town might grant a driveway over the public works land, and Mr. Greeley said it would be a decision of the Town Meeting to make and he didn't think that was likely. Someone asked if the Planning Board felt an obligation to build a road of some kind in the back. Mr. Greeley said the Planning Board had not discussed that point but he did not think they would feel an obliga- tion to recommend to the town that it be constructed. Mr.. Whitman said in terms of construction of a road he thinks if the traffic gets much worse on Bedford Street that the Public Works Dept. will have to provide their own access as this area has only a single access on Bedford St. Mr. Worrell said he didn't think he would feel a moral obligation to have a road constructed - the Planning Board doesn't decide, they can ohly recommend. He thought it would probably be a good investment as it would make a better access to the back land than it now has on Bedford St. After further discussion on the alternate road, the hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. The next proposal to rezone from'C 1 to CS the "Maloney" land west of Bedford St. and north of the B&M track had been withdrawn by the Plan- ning Board. Considered next was a proposal to rezone from R 1 to CN district land ' of Napoli on North Hancock St. Mr. Harold Stevens, attorney, represented Mr. Napoli and showed slides showing the property involved. He stated that it had been the location of a store for many, many years. The garage shown on the lot was the original store and in 1923 the present store was built. 5-25-67 -4- This all antedated zoning and when it was adopted in 1924 this was shown as a business district. In 1950 when the zoning by-law was re- ' vised, Mr. Stevens thought that an error had been made because at that time the Planning Board recommended that most of the C 1 zones be cut down to what was actually being used and that left this store where it co could provide no parking. Traffic was not so bad then so the zone was cut down from the larger area to this small amount. There is no parking available except the three spaces directly in front of the store and to get out you have to back into the street making a difficult and dangerous traffic situation. Mr. Stevens said they were not asking to go back to the original business zone, but for this lot between the house.and the store to be made available for parking six or seven cars. He said Mr. Napoli owned all the property. The.CN zone created last year requires 125 ft. frontage and 15,500 sq.ft. area and the only reason this store exists is because a non -conforming business may continue in the smaller size. This strip does not come under that category, it has only 42 ft. frontage on the strip and cannot be built upon and can only be used in connection with the store. It will be used solely for the purpose Mr. Napoli requests. Mr. Parks asked if it is possible to get into the Mobil station from it and was told no. Mrs. Cheeveroand Mrs. Litchfield, neighbors, spoke in favor of the proposal stating they thought it would be an im- provement over the present situation, and a letter was received from Mrs, Swade, a neighbor across the street, also in favor. A petition re- questing the hearing was signed by 118 citizens, which included most of the people in the area. I Someone asked if it was intended to enlarge the present store and Mr. Stevens said at the present time there were no plans. Mr. Greeley said that this would be non -conforming property.be- cause it was too small and it could not be enlarged without permission of the Board of Appeals. Edward Kelly wished to be recorded in favor. Dan Maher of 3 Dee Rd. said he had a petition with 35 signatures of people in the neighborhood who were in opposition,. and Mr. Greeley read a letter from Mrl McCue also in opposition. (?) said he moved there 15 years ago and it was good residential property and this would cause noise, light from headlights, etc. and he was opposed. Mr. Carey of 11 DeedRd, said he also was in"opposition. He bought the property ten years age with the understanding this was a good residential neighborhood and he also thought noise would be created and property values decreased. He said Sunday was the only time more space was needed and he thought people would continue to park on North Hancock St. anyway. He suggested Mr. Napoli move to another zone which has suf- ficient parking space. He said Mr. Napoli wants more parking space so he can have more business and thus create more parking need. ' Also speaking.in opposition in the same vein was Mr. Schoppet of Dee Road. 5-25-67 -5- Someone said he could remember when there were a number of stores there including a drug store and gas station, and since 1920 the area had not expanded but rather decreased. He thought it was fine to have a few private markets in Lexington. This hearing closed at 9:45 p.m. The next hearing involved a proposal to rezone from R 1 to R 2 district a parcel of land on Massachusetts Avenue between Oak Street and Pleasant Street. Norman Richards, attorney representing Wilson Farm, Inc. stated that there were six houses within these boundaries, five of which were 2 -family although in a single family zone, and most of these houses need attention. In order to rebuild, repair or enlarge the build- ings a Permit must be secured from the Board of Appeals. A petition was signed by 110 citizens requesting a hearing on this proposal, which would correct a somewhat difficult situation. It would permit the owner to rebuild if a fire destroyed part or all of the building and it will en- courage the owner to improve his property. Mr. Whitman asked if there was only one single house in this strip and was told yes. Donald Wilson of Wilson Farm, said he had talked with Mr. Murray ' who owned the single house, and he was in favor of the proposal. This proposal started two years ago when the Selectmen were concerned about one of the houses and asked him to do something about it, and the Board of Appeals suggested this change of zone to make it conforming. Arthur Field spoke in favor. The hearing closed at 10:00 o'clock. The last hearing initiated by the Planning Board is in regard to a proposal to change from A 1 zone to R 1 zone a parcel of land on Woburn St. near the railroad tracks. It was explained that originally this was a 12 -acre tract of land which might possibly be used for housing for the elderly but most of which is now developed into single residential use with a few 2 -family houses. The Planning Board does not now think this would make a.suitable apartment house district. There was no discussion or opposition to this proposal and the hear- ing closed at 10:05 p.m. Louise M. Macomber, ' Secretary