Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-06-05PLANNING BOARD MEETING Mr. Lester Stevens Jr. and Atty. Frederick Conroy met with the Board relative to the proposed rezoning to CS CS - STEVENS of the Stevens land at Bedford St. They stated that they PROPERTY could not at this time agree to any arrangement which would restrict the development of the Stevens land. A request was received for the extension of time within which the Planning Board must act on the definitive BIRCH HILL subdivision plan of Birch Hill Estates to June 20, 1967 ESTATES inclusive. Upon a motion duly made and seconded the Board voted to extend the time as requested. A letter from Arthur and Florence Ruge opposing the rezoning of Worthen Rd. land now owned by Seth and SETH-MAXNER Maxner to C 4 was read and placed on file. LAND ' A letter from Atty. O'Malley, 9 North Hancock St. supporting the rezoning of Napoli land at North Hancock St. NAPOLI to CN district was read and placed on file. The draft re- port of the Planning Board on Article 30 dealing with the above rezoning was read and approved unanimously. Messrs. Maher and Jacutis of Dee Road were present and spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Planning Board report on Art. 13 (Emerson Rd.) was reviewed by members of the Board and approved with amend- EMERSON RD. ments. The Board then decided to move for indefinite SEVERABILITY postponement of Art. 6 (Severability clause). The Planning Board report on Art. 17 was signed. TOWN MEETING ARTICLES Draft of report on Art. 18 was read, discussed and approved with modifications. Reports on Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29 and 31 were signed by the Board. (See addenda) Action on the report on Art. 28 was deferred. Presentation of Art. 21 to the Town Meeting was dis- cussed at some length. June 5, 1967 ' A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board was held in its office, Town Office Building, on June 5, 1967. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Greeley with members Lund, Riffin and Worrell, and Planning Director Zaleski present. Mr. Lester Stevens Jr. and Atty. Frederick Conroy met with the Board relative to the proposed rezoning to CS CS - STEVENS of the Stevens land at Bedford St. They stated that they PROPERTY could not at this time agree to any arrangement which would restrict the development of the Stevens land. A request was received for the extension of time within which the Planning Board must act on the definitive BIRCH HILL subdivision plan of Birch Hill Estates to June 20, 1967 ESTATES inclusive. Upon a motion duly made and seconded the Board voted to extend the time as requested. A letter from Arthur and Florence Ruge opposing the rezoning of Worthen Rd. land now owned by Seth and SETH-MAXNER Maxner to C 4 was read and placed on file. LAND ' A letter from Atty. O'Malley, 9 North Hancock St. supporting the rezoning of Napoli land at North Hancock St. NAPOLI to CN district was read and placed on file. The draft re- port of the Planning Board on Article 30 dealing with the above rezoning was read and approved unanimously. Messrs. Maher and Jacutis of Dee Road were present and spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Planning Board report on Art. 13 (Emerson Rd.) was reviewed by members of the Board and approved with amend- EMERSON RD. ments. The Board then decided to move for indefinite SEVERABILITY postponement of Art. 6 (Severability clause). The Planning Board report on Art. 17 was signed. TOWN MEETING ARTICLES Draft of report on Art. 18 was read, discussed and approved with modifications. Reports on Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29 and 31 were signed by the Board. (See addenda) Action on the report on Art. 28 was deferred. Presentation of Art. 21 to the Town Meeting was dis- cussed at some length. 6-5-67 -2- Mr. Worrell then read a draft of the minority report on Art. 27. ' BOARD OF Letters to Board of Appeals, as follows, were approved: Hart - APPEALS well -Lexington Trust, proposed Hewlett Packard Building; subdivision of Lot E opposite Franklin School. Letter to Dr. Barth, Citizens Housing and Planning Association, was read and approved. MINUTES Minutes of Planning Board meetings of May 22 and 29 were approved. Letter from the Selectmen stating that the owner of property at TAX TITLE 10 Ward St. was interested in the purchase of tax title property at 35-40 LAND - Earl St. was read. The Board decided to recommend to the Selectmen EARL ST. against the sale of tax title lots, at least until after the land for school site had been secured and plans for the redevelopment of the re- mainder can be formulated. Plan submitted with Form A #67-16, as follows, was reviewed by FORM A the Board and endorsed as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. X67-16, submitted June 5, 1967 by Frederick J. Conroy for Stevens The Stevens Family Trust; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexing- ton, Mass.", dated June 2, 1967, by Miller & Nylander, C.E.'s I & Surveyors. CONESTOGA Definitive subdivision plan of Conestoga Rd. (Woodside Acres) RD. - submitted by Ernest Outhet was accepted and it was decided to schedule the public hearing on it on June 26, 1967. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Francis T. Worrell Clerk Pro -tem ADDENDA PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON ARTICLE 19 OF THE WARRANT FOR THE JUNE 12, 1967 SPECIAL TOWN MEETING 1. Introduction The proposed amendment to the zoning by-law contained in Article 19 of the warrant for the June 12, 1967 special town meeting is a re- vision of the "cluster" zone provisions passed at the 1966 annual town iieeting. Out of six subdivisions proposed since the 1966 provision was adopted, five in 30,000 sq.ft. zone, utilized the "cluster" principle, proving the acceptability of the general concept and giving the Plan- ning Board an opportunity to evaluate the advantages and the weaknesses of the 1966 requirements. Many of the revisions now proposed are an out- -3 - growth of this experience with the present provision, while others are ' based upon the Planning. Board's continuing study of the effective use of cluster -type zoning. A duly -advertised public hearing on this article was held on May 18, 1967 in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. Other than designating Lexington's "cluster" -type development as "planned unit development," the major changes proposed by Article 19 are as follows: (a) To permit this type of development in the 15,500 sq.ft. zone [par.6 (d)(1)]. (b) To permit a smaller lot than permitted under the present "cluster" provision if that lot adjoins the open -space set aside by the subdivider for common use [par.6.d(1) and (2)]. 2. Extension of cluster -type zoning into the 15,500 sq.ft. zone The Planning Board believes this extension is desirable to permit a more flexible design in the 13-15 tracts remaining in the 15,500 sq.ft. zone which meet the minimum 10 -acre requirement. A major consideration is that the residents of these subdivisions should also have easy access to open space, primarily for recreational needs. It can be argued that the more effective use of open space will be of particular benefit in the 15,500 sq.ft. zone because of smaller initial lot size. 3. Permitting reduction in lot size in the case of a lot abutting open space The Planning Board believes the developer should be encouraged to make the open space as accessible as possible to everyone within the sub- division. Accessibility should encourage use of the common open space. 4. Procedural requirements The procedural requirements contained in paragraphs 6e.,f., and g. are intended to assist the developer, the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals in their planning and consideration of a proposed planning unit development. It is hoped that enumeration of the minimum considerations will help simplify the procedure for obtaining a special permit by making all parties involved aware of what is expected of them. The emphasis is on seeking to determine if the proposed planned unit development is appropriate for the area concerned. 5. Other changes Other changes of a minor nature are proposed for the minimum front- age, front, side and rear yard requirements. These changes are listed in the accompanying chart designated Table 1 comparing the existing require- ments with those proposed. In addition, the existing by-law has been clarified in the following respects: (a) That in computing the number of lots to be permitted within a planned unit development, the number permitted shall be no more than the number of lots which would have been usable for building had the tract been developed under the zoning otherwise applicable. This would eliminate from the compu- tation, for example, lots which might have been inaccessible for one reason or another or which would have been situated under power lines. (b) That the open space set aside in a given planned unit development is in- tended primarily for the benefit of the residents of that development, they being the ones whose lots have been made smaller in order to provide the open space. 6-5-67 -4- (c) To permit in the common land structures used for active outdoor recreation consistent with open space uses. 6. General consideration The Planning Board realizes that the proposed extension of the use of planned unit development to the 15,500 sq.ft. zone is a matter which will provoke considerable discussion and is not to be undertaken lightly. The Planning Board has considered this step at some length and has concluded that the citizens of the town will benefit from such an ex- tension. The other changes in the proposed revision are intended to permit a developer as much flexibility as possible in the preparation of a design for a planned unit development while at the same time vesting the Board of Appeals (as assisted by the Planning Board's recommendations) with considerable discretion to reject any proposal which does not appear appropriate for the area involved. The Planning Board intends to publish informal guidelines for the developers intending to use the planned unit development concept and to encourage the use of design specialists (such as landscape architects) in the preparation of preliminary layouts of planned unit developments. The Planning Board believes the resulting subdivisions will be more attractive and the use of land within the subdivisions more fruitful. 7. Recommendation The Planning Board unanimously recommends that the town meeting take favorable action on Article 19. Proposed P.U.D. Proposed P.U.D. Present "cluster" Requirements for Requirements for _Requirements 3`0;000 sq.ft. Zone 15,500 sq.ft. Zone Min.area to be subdivided 10 acres NO change N9 change Min.lot size if not abut- ting open space 203000 sq.ft. No change 10,500 sq.ft. Min.lot size if abutting open space 207000 sq.ft. 15,500 sq.ft. 8,500 sq.ft. Min.st.frontage per lot 120 ft. No change 85 ft. Min.st.frontage on curve Zoning By -Law Sec.8(g)7. No change No change Minimum front yard 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Minimum side, rear yard 15 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum reserved open space 25% 25% 25% ARTICLE 20 A duly advertised public hearing on this article was held on May 25, 1967 in Science Lecture Hall, Lexington High School. The CS - Service and trades district was established by vote of the Annual Town Meeting in March of 1966. In the preceding November, the T.M.M.A. had sponsored an formation meeting at which the Planning Board presented the concept of a Service and Trades district to the public. During and after the information meeting, a number of people otherwise favorable to the idea expressed the opinion that the requirement of a 60,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size was excessive, that the onliy prospective use that would call for such a large lot would be an automobile agency, while most of the prospective users would need a lot about one quarter that size. The majority of the prospective users would find the required lot more expensive than they could afford, and would thus be excluded from a district designed for their use. 6-5-67 Since the Town Meeting did not on that occasion establish any ' specific districts, there has been no practical check of the question. However, the Planning Board has come to agree that smaller minimum lot sizes would be more appropriate. We therefore propose that the new minimum standards be an area of 15,500 sq.ft. and a frontage of 125 feet, or a lot roughly 125 feet square. No changes in the front, side, or rear yard requirements are proposed. The consequences of this can be seen in the accompanying figures showing three situations: a lot com- pletely within the district. The maximum building areas possible, with- in the yard restrictions, are 2,925 sq.ft., 3,825 sq.ft. and 5,525 sq.ft. respectively. Since the By -Law also allows a maximum of 25% lot coverage or 3,875 sq.ft., we see that only in the first case do the yard require- ments impose a greater restraint on building than the 25% ground coverage provision. The Planning Board unanimously recommends favorable action on Article 20. ARTICLE 21 A duly advertised hearing on the zoning amendment proposed in Art. 21 was held on May 25, in Science Hall, Lexington High School. This amendment to the Zoning By -Law is part of a general plan to improve Bedford Street. Bedford Street is one of the principal traffic arteries in the town. Its traffic burden is heavy enough so that any change that would increase the traffic and, more important, introduce more congestion at any point would be a matter of concern not only to the residents of the area, but to the entire town. Beyond a certain point, heavy traffic on a street tends to down- grade the adjacent residential areas and reduce property values. As residents find the location on a busy street less desirable, merchants, whose aim is exposure to the view of many people, find it more desirable. The combined result of these effects is to produce pressure from pro- spective buyer and seller alike, to rezone the land to commercial uses. If such rezoning is done, the decline of the adjacent residential area clearly accelerates. A second, but not secondary consideration is, that Bedford St. already is and in the future will increasingly become one of the princi- pal gateways to the town for tourists. Simply as a matter of pride, the Town has a concern in the appearance of the street. The area in which the Planning Board proposes a rezoning is a crucial one in the development of Bedford Street. At present it is zoned C 1, which is essentially a district for retail activities. The total area of the district is 18.3 acres, more or less, of which we propose rezoning into a Service and Trades district, an area of 15.7 acres (including 9.6 acres town land) and leaving the remainder in a C 1, retail district. Since neither in the Town property or in the parcel owned by Larchmont ' Engineering is any change from the present use envisioned, what we are considering basically is the area occupied by two lots, belonging to the Knights of Columbus and the Stevens Family Trust, respectively, and com- prising about 5 acres in total. The possibilities for development of this -0- In o- srea into a retail district are real. In order to estimate the possible impact of a retail development on this locality, we start by noting that the number of parking spaces in the First National and Stop and Shop lots combined is about 380, which happens to be about what we estimate is the number of parking spaces that could be put into a retail development on the two parcels of Stevens and the Knights of Columbus, whether separate or combined. The second important piece of information comes from a traffic count organized by some residents of the Bedford St. area, which was taken between 4 and 6 p.m. on Tuesday, November 22, 1966. The count was made of all entrances and exits at the two accesses to the First National lot and the three accesses to the Stop and Shop lot. The total was around 1600. If the number of parking spaces is a gauge of the traffic, the same number of entrances and exits, 1600, would be expected at the other site. This represents a worse situation than at the existing development, since of the 1600 cars counted there, only 860 used the Bedford St. accesses, the rest going onto Worthen Rd. Thus the potential aggravation in the hypothetical development would be almost twice as bad. Under the circumstances the Town has several clear choices: it could buy the land, it could rezone it, or it could do nothing. The first choice is the most direct way of dealing with the question, but there is consid- erable doubt that the Town Meeting would be willing to authorize the re- quired outlay. The attraction of the third choice, doing nothing, is that it seems to be a general rule that a zoning change is bound to cause some hardship, and the opponents to this amendment feel that this will be the case here. What is not generally considered in cases like this is that inaction could also cause hardship. The hardship in this case would be the ' decline in property values, or just a decline in the amenities of living along Bedford St., if the traffic increases and the commercial develop- ment spreads, and in addition, the cost to the Town of widening Bedford Street, with consequent damage to abutting properties. Even to attach numbers to the decline in values in any hypothetical situation is hard enough, but to assign dollar values to the loss of desirability is virtually impossible. To one individual the loss may turn out to be small, but the total loss could be considerable. We are faced with a hard decision. We must weigh the relative merits of the case of the few and the case of the many. The main objective of the rezoning proposal is to transfer the area into some non -retail commercial use suitable to the location. The essen- tial specification to note is the "non -retail," since non -retail uses generate much less traffic. It is the Board's opinion that service and trades use is appropriate to the area. While ideally the entire area should be rezoned, we are proposing a compromise, which should reduce the undesirable effects of uses permitted under the present zoning, and at the same time, we hope, minimize the loss to the landowners. The Planning Board unanimously recommends favorable action on this article. ARTICLE 22 A duly advertised public hearing on this article was held on May 25, I 1967, in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. In this article, the Planning Board proposes simply to reclassify from C 1 to CS the district on the westerly side of Bedford St. and the 6-5-67 -7- northerly side of the Boston and Maine railroad tracks, comprising some 2.15 acres, more or less. This proposal differs from the similar one brought before the 1966 Town Meeting, in that it does not include the narrow strip of R 1 land between the present C 1 district and the railroad right-of-way. We propose rezoning only the present C 1 district. It happens that the majority of the present uses in this district are those allowed in CS districts. Furthermore, the Planning Board feels that an intensive retail development such as would be allowed in a C 1 district would not be desirable at this location, near to the railroad crossing, at a place where the sight distance to the north is poor and which is between two nearby small retail districts. The Planning Board unanimously recommends favorable action on this article. ARTICLE 23 Under Article 23 the Planning Board proposes to change from A 1 - Garden apartment district to R 1 - One family dwelling district the area on south side of Woburn Street extending from the Boston and Maine rail- road for a distance of about 1100 feet to the east to the property num- bered 91 Woburn Street. The Russell House property, which lies between Massachusetts Ave. and the railroad on Woburn St., presently in the A 1 zone, is not affected by this article. The land in question, which consists of 35 separate parcels with ' a total area of about 12 acres, is at present almost completely developed as a residential area. About 75 percent of the houses are single family, 25 percent two family. The A 1 - Garden apartment category of zoning district came into existence in Lexington in connection with the general revision of the zoning By -Law which was adopted at the Special Town Meeting held on Novem- ber 27, 1950. Two geographic areas were at that time placed in the A 1 district; the Russell House property and the area in question under Article 23. While a review of Planning Board records has failed to un- cover any special or compelling reason for inserting the tract east of the railroad in A 1 zone, it was done at the request of a non-profit group who proposed to consolidate the property into a single tract and construct apartments for elderly residents of the town. Since that time a number of additional areas have been rezoned to A 1. The present inventory of land in the A 1 category is shown in the table below: Inventory of A 1 Districts Number of Apartments Location Area Now built Total Possible Maple St. 11 acres 114 136 Worthen Rd. & Waltham St. 8 acres 94 94 Worthen Rd. near Bedford 4 acres 48 48 Shirley & Tewksbury Sts. 10 acres 0 100 Russell House 2 acres 2 * 25 Woburn Street 12 acres 0 110-150 Totals 47 acres 258 517-557 * Russell House also has 21 rooms to rent. 6-5-67 -8- In addition, there are about 39 apartments in the center on a non -conforming basis. ' It seems unlikely at the present time that a developer could put together enough parcels in the Woburn St. A 1 area to make an attractive well laid out garden apartment development. Rather it seems more likely that development, if it occurs at all, will be proposed on a piecemeal basis leading to awkward and unattractive designs. For this reason it appears desirable to the Planning Board to re- move the area from the A 1 district. While some properties, those in two-family use, will be non -conforming if the article is passed, these same properties are non -conforming now because while R 1 uses are per- mitted in A 1 districts, R 2 are not. These R 2 properties will, thus, be no worse off in an R 1 category than they are now. The Planning Board held a public hearing on Art. 23 on May 25, 1967. No one spoke against the rezoning. The Planning Board unanimously recommends that Article 23 be passed. ARTICLE 24 Article 24 on the warrant for the June 12, 1967 special town meet- ing has been proposed by the Planning Board to accord with similar re- quirements found in the General Laws of the Commonwealth. A duly adver- tised public hearing on this proposal as it appears in the warrant was held on June 8, 1967 in Science Lecture Hall of the senior high school. ' The present proposal evolved from a much broader proposal as to which a duly advertised public hearing had been held on May 18, 1967 in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. In essence, the proposal, if passed, will prohibit building on lots of less than 5,000 sq.ft. area and 50 ft. frontage and will also re- quire the consolidation of two or more adjacent lots which are vacant and in one ownership into one lot or into lots of not less than 12,500 sq.ft. area and 100 ft. frontage. A person owning a built -upon house lot plus an adjacent vacant lot of at least 50 ft. frontage and 5,000 sq.ft. area will be permitted to sell or build on the vacant lot independently of the house lot. In cases where the consolidation of several small lots in one own- ership would result in lots significantly larger than other existing built -upon lots in the vicinity, the Board of Appeals will have under this proposal the power to permit special exceptions from the consolidatinn requirements. Passage of this proposal would insure that previously lotted but unbuilt parts of new and partially developed neighborhoods will more nearly approach presently accepted standards. The Planning Board unanimously recommends favorable action on Art.24. ARTICLE 26 The Lexington Planning Board unanimously recommends the laying out ' and acceptance of a portion of Laconia St. for 1150 ft. south and east from Lowell St. as described in Art.26 of the Warrant for the June 12, 1967 Special Town Meeting. 6-5-.,1 -9- ARTICLE 9- ARTICLE 27 On May 24, 1967 in Science Hall, Lexington High School„ the Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing on the petition of 100 or more registered voters to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law by changing from R 1 Single residence to C 4 - Small office district about 11 acres of land at Worthen Rd. between the First National Stores and the Grace Chapel, and bounded on the north by the proposed housing for the elderly (apartment district). A proposal to rezone this land (as a part of a larger tract) to A 1 Gar- den apartment district was withdrawn in 1963 and failed to get 2/3 majority in 1964. At that time the Planning Board was in favor of rezoning to A 1. In the opinion of the Planning Board this tract is unlikely to be developed for single family houses because of its location on a major road and near the center, surrounding non-residential uses and the high cost of building in the relatively low and wet area. The following uses would be suitable for this land: 1. Municipal use, such as an administration building, police, medical facility, civic or tourist center or a combination of these uses surrounded by a land- scaped park area. 2. Garden apartments, either privately or publicly owned, such as a Housing Authority development. ' 3. Offices or other commercial non -retail uses which would complement the down- town business district and offer a desirable transition between the adjacent retail and residential uses. There is no present demand for land for any intensive municipal use which would justify the high price the town would have to pay for the land. Re- zoning for apartments would create a very large apartment district in this location. It is appropriate for apartments to be located near stores, churches, public transportation and within walking distance of other community facilities. However, the Planning Board believes that the less desirable aspects of apart- ment development are minimized by avoiding the concentration of several apart- ment developments in one area. Both functionally and visually a relatively small apartment development blends easier into the predominantly single family residential character of Lexington. The remaining appropriate use is for offices, as desired by the proponents of this amendment. There is no question that offices would bring more revenue than either single residences or apartments. While the proponents naturally hope for and have some expectation of prompt building and occupancy of a major portion of the space, if rezoned, there can be no guarantee of this. C 4 zoning would permit the use of the land for office buildings and offices and, if Article 28 is adopted, also for funeral homes, as well as for any use permitted in R 1 district. Office buildings require site review and ' finding and determination by the Board of Appeals that the proposed layout is appropriate. The permitted 25% land coverage by building cannot be approached because of yard and parking requirements and the maximum utilization would re- sult in the following breakdown: 6-5-67 -10- Buildings 8-1/2% or 41,000 sq.ft. ground coverage ' Yards 21% or 100,000 sq.ft. Parking space 64% or 310,000 sq.ft. Street 6-1/2% or 30,000 sq.ft. The maximum building coverage is slightly greater than 37,500 sq.ft. shown by the proponents and with two stories permitted could result in some 75,000 sq.ft. usable office space. It must be noted that while space for parking must be provided at a ratio of 200 sq.ft. for every 100 sq.ft. floor area, actually the Board of Appeals may permit leaving up to 50% of the re- quired space unpaved until actually needed. The provision of a new street would require approval of the Planning Board as a subdivision. Land at Waltham line rezoned to C 4 in 1962 has not been developed. However, the proponents claim that factors such as location are responsible for difficulty in finding tenants and that on a metropolitan scale there exists substantial demand for attractive office space. The planning con- sultant who prepared the study for the revitalization of Lexington center supports the contention that the lack of demand for offices in the center is a result of inadequate parking and access difficulties and will not be affected by this rezoning proposal. The Planning Board believes that the present proposal would permit an appropriate use of this land with a reasonable expectation of a substantial tax income and in a manner consistent with orderly development of this part of the town. By a majority vote the Planning Board recommends that the re- zoning proposal contained in Article 27 be adopted. , ARTICLE 27 MINORITY REPORT Article 27 proposes that a parcel of land on Worthen Road be rezoned from residential to office -building uses. In opposing this proposal, I wish to make it clear that I am not against the proposition on its own merits. I am sure that if this article were to be passed, the petitioners would develop the parcel in a manner suitable to the location. I agree with the majority of the Planning Board that the C 4 use at that place would be preferable to apartment or single family residential use, and, I might add, certainly better than a retail development. My opposition is based on the conviction that there is a better use than any of these. In 1975 the new national historical park is to open. Even before that time we can expect to see a notable increase in the number of tourists who come to visit our historic sites, especially the Battle Green. These tourists will have to be accommodated, that is, the town will have to provide a stopping place for them in such a location as to minimize congestion at the Battle Green. In addition, this influx of tourists will produce financial benefits to the merchants in the Center. However, in order to receive, one must sometimes give. To realize the potential benefits in full, we must do something in return for the tourists. Especially, we should provide a place where the tired tourist can stop, park his car, and perhaps eat a picnic lunch, and from which, by a short walk, he can reach the Battle Green. If the tourist has to park on Harrington Road and stand on the grass eating his lunch, as I have seen done, he is going to be less impressed by Lexington's hospitality than if he can find an ' appropriate, accessible, and conveniently located little park and picnic ground that he can use as a temporary base of operations. If we provide him with 6-5-0 -11- a suitable rest area, he will carry away pleasant memories of Lexington. If ' he finds it convenient to stop, he may be more inclined to visit the shops of Lexington. The only unoccupied area in the vicinity of the Battle Green satisfying the requirements is the parcel of land we are now considering. It could be developed into a nice park in which the desirable existing natural features would be preserved. I believe it should be possible to obtain a pedestrian easement across land between the park and the Battle Green, to provide con- venient access to the latter. The Town Meeting has a choice between an office building development or a tourist park. The offices are expected to be occupied largely by companies from outside the town who are interested in having a Lexington address. The occupants would bring some business to the town, and the Town would receive some revenue, although probably less than optimistic backers of the proposal be- lieve. It is almost certain that construction requirements would dictate the leveling of the lot, with consequent destruction of natural features. If the. town should wish to create a park here, it would have to buy the land. Half of the cost of this purchase should be reimbursable as an open -land but not a conservation purchase. If developed, the park cbuld become an essential ad- junct to the tourist attraction at the Battle Green, and indeed enhance its value to the town, both in terms of goodwill and dollars and cents. I am opposed to this article, because I think use for the land. It is essential that the town 'accommodating the tourists will arise. It would anticipate the problem, and take action while it proposed article would foreclose the action. ARTICLE 29 that a park would be a better recognize that the problem of be short-sighted of us not to can be taken. Passage of the Francis T. Worrell On petition of 100 citizens the Lexington Planning Board held a public hearing Thursday, May 25, 1967 on a proposal to rezone from R 1 - One family dwelling district to R 2 - two family dwelling district a parcel of land one hundred feet in depth from the southeast corner of Pleasant St. and Massa- chusetts Avenue to the southwest corner of Oak St. and Massachusetts Ave. The land directly east, west and north of the parcel under consideration is all zoned R 2. There are six existing dwellings within the boundaries of the proposed zone; five are two-family residences and the remaining one is a single family residence. The two-family dwellings in this R 1 zone are legally non -conforming. Therefore in order to substantially rebuild, repair or enlarge these build- ings Board of Appeals approval is required before building permits may be issued. In the opinion of the Lexington Planning Board the parcel in question would be compatible with the adjacent residential areas if zoned R 2. Rezon- ing to R 2 would encourage and facilitate up -grading of existing dwellings by removing the present use from the non -conforming category, thereby removing an obstacle to rebuilding or remodeling. The Planning Board unanimously supports the passage of Article 29. 6-5-bi -12- ARTICLE 30 On petition of 100 citizens the Lexington Planning Board held a public' hearing on May 25, 1967 on a proposal to rezone from R 1 - One family dwelling district to CN - Neighborhood business district a parcel of land approximately 4,000 sq.ft. located on North Hancock St. adjacent to an existing CN district. The CN district designation was created in 1966 to establish a zone in which permitted uses are specifically limited to those which serve the neighborhood. The minimum lot size in this zone is 15,500 sq.ft. and the minimum frontage 125 ft. Parking requirements are one parking space to 200 sq.ft. of usable floor area, a 1:1 ratio. A 20 ft. buffer is required when a CN zone abuts a residential district. A lot of land, 4,915 sq.ft. in area and 50 ft. frontage, presently zoned CN and adjacent to the proposed zone is owned by the petitioner. The addi- tional CN zone of 4,000 sq.ft. would enlarge the parcel to about 8,915 sq.ft. and bring the frontage to about 92 feet. This expansion would allow the owner to provide seven parking spaces in addition to the existing three park- ing spaces and allow sufficient land for appropriate access and side and rear yards. The increase in parking spaces would bring the ratio of parking to floor area up to required standard. In order to bring the existing CN lot into closer conformity with the CN requirements and, by doing so, alleviate congestion at the intersection of Bedford St, and North Hancock St, with provision of additional off-street parking, the Planning Board unanimously favors the passage of Article 30. ARTICLE 31 ' On May 24, 1967 in Science Hall, Lexington High School, the Planning Board held a duly advertised public hearing on the petition of 100 or more registered voters for an amendment to the Lexington Zoning By -Law which would rezone from R 1 - Single residence to C 3 - Special commercial (research and office park) district the land south of Rte. 2 and between Spring St. and Fuller Hill land zoned C 3 in 1966. The likelihood of gradually extending encroachment of commercial zoning in a residential area was one of the objections to the 1966 rezoning. For this reason, the rezoning was limited by a clearly defined physical boundary - the crest of Fuller Hill, and the owners had agreed to provide a buffer of approximately 100 ft. width, so that any commercial development would be separated from residences by a visual and spatial buffer strip. The area proposed for rezoning under Art. 31 is not separated visually or physically from the surrounding residences. If this area were rezoned the traffic generated by the new uses would have to pass by some seven residences in order to reach the access ramp for Rte. 2 east or make a very bad turn to reach the access road for Rte. 2 west and for Rte. 128. All in all, if the proposed rezoning is adopted, it will have a significant detrimental effect on the adjacent residential areas. There are now some 315 acres of vacant land in C 3, CH 1 and CM 1 dis- tricts which can accommodate the types of uses for which the rezoning is sought. Thus it can be argued that any additional tax revenue to the town ' can be realized by using one of the sites already zoned. Furthermore, municipal services already have been, or are scheduled to be provided for the existing research park areas; thus the use of locations already zoned 65-67 -13- would not occasion additional expenditures for such items as improvement and widening of streets, larger water mains, added police and traffic control provisions, street lighting, etc. These can offset much of tax benefit to town, particularly in the initial stages. It is conceivable that in the long run some type of rezoning of the entire area along Spring St. south of Rte. 2 may prove desirable. This fact should be established and the rezoning carried out within the framework of an over-all plan with proper consideration given to need, access, buffers and timing. No need for the rezoning can be demonstrated at this time. Within less than a year a long-range study prepared by a planning consultant and incorporating both the financial implications of various land uses and proposals for future land use patternf will be available for adoption by the Planning Board. Approximately 8.6 acres owned by Greene and 2.8 acres owned by Gallagher, which are now under discussion, have been included in rezoning proposals in 1961, 1963, 1964 and 1966, and were either defeated or withdrawn. The land proposed for rezoning is presently occupied by two houses and several other structures. In summary, there is no present need for the proposed rezoning nor is it a part of an over-all plan for the future development of the area. If the land were to be.rezoned and developed it would mean substantially more revenue to the town, on the order of magnitude of $100,000 annually. This revenue could be also derived from building in an area already zoned for this type of use. At this location the additional revenue would be partially offset by ' the increased cost of services and by the effect on the neighborhood. The rezoning of these 11 acres is likely to generate pressure for further rezoning. The Planning Board can find no valid reasons for the rezoning of this area at this time and by a unanimous vote recommends against the adoption of Article 31. LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD /s/ Roland B. Greeley, Chairman /s/ Evert N. Fowle /s/ Erik Lund /s/ Natalie H. Riffin /s/ Francis T. Worrell