Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-02-08PLANNING BOARD MEARINGS - FEBRUARY $ 1968 On Thursday, February 8, 1968 the Planning Board held public hearings in Science Lecture Hall, Senior High School, on several pro- posals to amend the Lexington Zoning By -Law. Present were Planning Board Chairman Mrs. Riffin and members Greeley and Worrell; also planning director Zaleski and the secretary, Mrs. Macomber. Approxi- mately 60 citizens were also present. Mrs. Riffin called hearings to order at 7:35 and explained the procedure to be followed. She then read the notice for the first hearing as it had appeared in the January 18 and 25 editions of the Lexington Minute. -man, and presented Mr. Worrell who spoke on this proposal. He explained. that under Sec. 8(c)l. the provision in C 2 Districts is for a 20 ft. side and 10 ft. rear yard, all of which may be used for parking, and the new proposal is that 10 ft. of the required yard next to the boundary on side and rear which abuts on R 1, R 2 or A 1 district must be devoted. to a green strip of grass, trees, shrubs, etc., while the remainder may be used forjparking. This provision is intended to give greater protec- tion to adjacent residential areas. Maps were shown of two of these districts which would be affected; the effect on the remaining district would be negligible. There has been talk of the possibility of extending C 2 zone down toward Forest St. or extending the use, and if extended from this present zone the new re- striction would be in full effect. Nobody spoke in favor nor in opposition, but Mr. Mollo-Christianson asked if there were any zoning articles in the warrant which this might affect, and was told no. He also asked what about a driveway if there was one now, and Mr. Worrell replied that it would be legal although non- conforming. Mr. Cole wished to be recorded in favor. Nobody registered opposition. This hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. Mrs. Riffin then read the next article and introduced Mr. Greeley who explained the purpose of the proposal, which is (1) to clear up the questions in regard to small lots of which there are a great many; (2) to make it impossible to build on absurdly small lots which have less than 50 ft. frontage and less than 5,000 sq.ft. area, although the Board of Appeals could grant a variance if it were necessary; (3) to encourage the acceptance of a standard for lots in a neighborhood and to have these small lots combined if it can be done without hardship to the owners. Charles Cole: What you are saying is that lots of 7,500 sq.ft. and 75 ft. frontage could be used for building, but smaller lots would only be allowed under certain conditions, such as comparable lots in the neighbor- hood. Mr. Greeley replied that he said the Board of Appeals could permit the use of such lots. We do not know where houses are located with respect 2-8-68 to the lot line but if a house straddles lot. In the second category (lots 50-75 which would be affected, although if the did not make any allowances it could go -2- two lots then the two become one feet wide) we have about 175 lots Board of Appeals was strict and up to about 225. Campbell: Is there any rule governing a lot because of the one next door? We have been advised that if two lots have a house straddling the lot line then for practical purposes the lot line has been effaced and the lot is one rather than two. If the house is on one lot and the other is adjacent to it but the house does not touch it, it could be built upon. You are assuming lots A and B in common ownership would build a house on lot A and no house on lot B. Is there any legal reason because it is in the same own- ership of A that only one lot can be built upon? Greeley: According to this proposed amendment it is a building lot and is protected and may be used by right. Campbell: In two or more contiguous vacant lots - no house on any of these - A, B and C are in single ownership and they become one lot, and if separate ownership two lots. Is there any city or town zoned as such? Greeley: I cannot cite any now but there are many. Substantial difference between having in single or more ownerships. If in different, no individual has control and all would be subject to the whim of one. Wilson: When asked about A. B and C and you said not buildable, why not if made into two lots? Greeley: It might be, if 50 ft. lots and the character of the neighborhood is about 75 to 100 ft. lots, although the zoning says 125 ft. Then there is the provision that the Board of Appeals might allow the two lots. Must build in conformity with the zoning law or go to the Board of Appeals. Cooper: If all lots were owned by the same family but by different members, would that be the same as one ownership? Greeley: I think the law is that ownership in real estate would have to be in the same name; in other words the law would say it is different ownership if wife has one and you have another. Campbell: Since all are in established neighborhoods, what does the Planning Board hope to accomplish? Greeley: We hope to remove the shadow as to whether the land is a lot or not, and we hope to encourage a combination of lots that would bring them somewhat nearer to the pattern of the neighborhood rather than let lots smaller than zoning and smaller than the neighborhood pattern be built upon. According to the original building law there must be a 30 ft. lot, but the pattern in such areas as the Manor has been mostly 60, 90 or 120 ft. lots. We think combining three lots goes along with the neighborhood. This is the property that has been purchased and conveyed since that zoning was arrived at. Sentiments change and they have changed from 75 ft. to 125 and 150,ft. lots. We believe we should try to reflect this sentiment if it doesn't hurt the 1 1 1 2-8-68 -3- owners! We think the great majority of people have said this is what we want for our town. ? When does this become effective? Greeley: The date of the vote of the town meeting. Mrs. Morey: Isn't there a rule that if land is cut up into two or more lots it becomes a subdivision? Greeley: That depends on whether or not it is on a street or whether an access has to be required. Lots can be created if they have proper area and frontage on a street. Weiss: Does this affect lots on a paper street? Greeley: If the paper street is only a paper street the lot is not build- able and the owner must subdivide and then you get involved with zoning as it now exists. For practical purposes this propsal affects only lots on accepted streets. ? Does this affect C 2 zone? Greeley: This is for lots in R 1 and R 2 zone and does not apply to others. This relates to the district rather than the use so it would not involve C 2 ' district. Campbell: You must have had a lot of response from individuals in these neighborhoods. It has not been my experience with people who live in these neighborhoods. I can't understand why you insist upon this pattern since none of the individuals who live in these areas have suggested this would be a good addition to the zoning by-law. Greeley: I think this is familiar to you. :We think it is in the best interest of the town, not in response to specific individuals. We think it is something desirable for the welfare of the town. Campbell: I might suggest you are affecting areas that are not as vocal as some others and have heard no complaint. Weiss: I only know of one specific instance which would be affected in this manner. Last year I asked an owner if he had transferred his lot and he said he had looked into it and he did not. He thought it over and said it would be a good idea and he would not object. Whitman: Summarize the difference between this and last year. breeley: The 50-75 ft. lots were affected last year, as we have it now for 50 ft. lots, otherwise much the same. Rowe: I don't think it is necessary to take this step. There are a couple of these small houses on Lincoln and School streets and you have to look hard to find them. I don't think it would change the neighborhood much. 2-8-68 -a- Greeley: The tendency for builders to use these small lots has increased and they are taking advantage of them. Ten years ago there was very little, ' evidence that people would be interested in building on small lots. It is better to make it right, now. The hearing closed at 8:25 with Messrs. Nichols, Parks, L. Whitman, Weiss and Mrs. Morey wishing to be recorded in favor; Messrs. Campbell, Potter, Erickson, Stevens and Rowe against. The third hearing was on the petition of Corazzini Brothers to change from R I residential to A 1 - Apartment district (by citizens' petition signed by 100 or more voters) their property on Blossom St. Mrs. Shirley Bayle, attorney, represented the petitioners. She stated that this would be on attractive land consisting of 9.6 acres'which had be- longed to the Corazzini's since 1938. She showed maps on the screen de- picting the area and also exhibited sketches of the proposed buildings. She pointed out that this would back up to Rte. 2 with one side adjacent to Blossom St. and one piece adjacent to Lawn Ave. It is proposed to put a road through the center of the development and there would be access and exit to two streets. At the present time there is a,sewer line on Lawn Ave. and Webster Road. It is proposed to build nine 4 -unit garden apartment buildings 32 ft. x 62 ft. and sixty-five 1 -unit town houses 18 ft. x 31 ft. The apartments would be each on one floor from front to back, the town houses would be down -stairs and up -stairs - two-bedroom apartments and two-bedroom town houses, none larger. Under the present zoning you can cover 25% of the land area and we propose to cover only 12.-1/2% with buildings. It is proposed that the odd -shaped piece shown on the map will be left open and will be available for a green area or for any use the tenants desire. ? Are you stating that if this article for a zoning change is passed these buildings will be bpilt? Bayle: The Corazzini's have spent a great deal of money in consulting. the builder and architect to develop these plans and I can say that if the zoning is changed these are the apartments that will be built and no others. However, if the change is, made this will remain an A 1 zone re- gardless. ? Does A 1 apartment zone allow for motel or hotel? Bayle: No. I would like to talk a little about the advantages and dis- advantages of apartments versus homes in this area. I listened to the last proposal for apartments in this vicinity and voted against changing from R 1 to A 1. One of the arguments at that time was that we had just had two or three apartments developed in Lexington and we had no idea of what effect they would have on the town - whether higher tax rate - more schools - etc. and these seemed good arguments. We have now had three for a number of years and we tried to find out what the expense has been in ' terms of these apartments. This proposal would have 101 units of 2 -bedroom apartments for which 101 parking spaces are required. The first thing everyone wants to know is what affect this would have on our schools - would 101 bring several new schools. 'Of the thre apartments presently in Lexington, 256 apartment units in all three, a total of 15 children attend 2-8-68 -5- Lexingted schools. If you would like to compare this with the nine ' possible house lots, the latest figure I have is 2.4 children per family so you would get 21-22 children who would go from this district if not re- zoned. It would appear that people who live in apartments in Lexington are people who do not yet have children and live there until they do and then buy a house, or people who have had their children and no longer need their large homes but still want to live in Lexington. Apartment dwellers do not bring great hordes of children - many less than do new houses. I am not against children - I have some of my own - but the question has been raised about the expenses. Another expense is a sewer. As far as this proposal is concerned, the sewer connections are there and we have been informed there doesn't appear to be any problem. This development can be tied in very easily and at the expense of the developer. You can anticipate no increase in sewer costs. The neighborhood at the present does not have a connection - all have cesspools - and it is possible when this is tied in the abuttors may get their sewers in more easily. On the question of roads this road will be built, developed and maintained and even plowed by the developer, so there will be no increase of,expense to the town onthe question of roads. As,to additional cost of police, Chief Corr stated that the police depart- ment has found no unusual problem with any of the existing apartment developments in Lexington. We think this development is in an excellent position as far as traffic cs concerned, having two accesses and one access to main highway 1/4 mile away. ' As to taxes, Emerson Gardens is assessed for 116 units, tax to town of $47,000; Capt. Parker Arms assessed 96 units, tax to town $46t500; Battle Green Apartments, 44 units, $22,400 tax to town. The proposed development would have 101 units costing approximately $13,000 per unit and would bring approximately $47,000 in taxes. Since these are two-bedroom apartments, this eliminates large families - most people who have good-sized families don't consider living in apartments. There is plenty of room for parking - plenty of vacant land around the building - it is nowhere used to capacity according to the zon- ing law. We have 107 stalls for 101 apartments and if more were required there is plenty of space. It is hardly conceivable that all 101 cars will be on the road at the same time. This area is desirable because it is close to Rte. 2 and Rte. 128, so going there you do not have to clutter up the Lexington streets but can go right to the highways. ? I live on Blossom Street, a small street, and it seems to me that that many automobiles are not conducive to the area. Bayle: An apartment house is different from a commercial development. In an office district everybody has to get to work at 8:30 or 9:00 and they ,*save at 5:00. 1 have passed the apartment house on the corner of Worthen Rd. and Waltham St. every single day since it has been built and also the apartments on Worthen Rd. near the Stop and Shop practically on a daily basis and I don't recall ever seeing any traffic problems. We checked with the police and they do not feel these apartments would create any problem. Weiss: What sort of rental? 2-8-68 -6- Bayle: It would be in the neighborhood of $200 per month. Lt ? Do you have any information on cluster development? Bayle: Actually this will pay more taxes. ? There is a sewer on Lawn Ave.? Bayle: Yes, corner of Lawn Ave. and Webster Rd. The PWD has said they anticipate no problems with the sewer and it will be done completely at the developer's expense. Wathen-Dunn: You say the other houses may be getting sewer? Bayle: The developer says he is willing to have them tie in if they wish to do so. There is sufficient capacity to take care of the proposed develop- ment and existing houses. ? Do you know if this is consistent with the Planning Board approach? Bayle: There is not a single vacancy in any of the three existing apart - meets in Lexington. ? Does the Planning Board feel there is room for additional apartments in Lexington? Mrs. Riffin: We have said we would like to see not more than 500. This ' would be less than that amount. Charles Cole: I have been involved with housing developments and I know this town could stand many more units. On the question of parking, of all the types of commercial buildings you could possibly build, individual apartment houses have less effect on traffic than any other type of develop- ment outside of single houses. Whether this is a good development or npt, it is a known fact that apartments are good for a town. Morey: Originally the apartments were planned to provide housing for Lexington people who wished to continue to live here but who no longer needed a large house. This looks like a good place for everybody to come to live because the transportation to business is readily available. Bayle: Both apartments on Worthen Road are as near or almost as near to Rte. 128 as are these, and you will find they are Lexington people who live there. ? What means of transportation would people have who do not own cars? Bayle: We believe that when people move to a location they know what,00n- ditions exist. If they need transportation they will not move here - they will live in Cambridge or someplace like that. We just do not have public transportation - not adequate transportation even for other parts of the town -.unless you don't mind waiting for hours. ? There is already quite a commercial enterprise there, that of a green- house. There are aut6mobiles and various service vehicles and this addition 2-8--68 -7- will create a hazard in connection with apartments. Blossom St. has already too much traffic on it. Bayle: It is possible to go out the other way and go on a less steep street. On a show of hands, 31 for, 12 opposed. A letter was received from ten abuttors who could not be present but who wished to be recorded in favor. Mr. Corazzini pointed on the map to the abutting properties and stated which of the owners were in favor or against. This hearing closed at 9:25 p.m. The fourth hearing was held on a citizens' petition signed by 100 or more voters, and proposes to eliminate in Lexington under Sec. 5(a)7.c. "hospitals, sanitaria, nursing, convalescent and test homes, homes for the aged." Mr: Ephraim Weiss presented this proposal. He said he had been taking this stand over a,period of time because he felt most of the people wanted to move into a residential community of single homes. These are business ventures and pursued only for the purpose of making money, not beckuse they care to have homes for people. They invest their money and their land to make money. The present law is bad - better not to have it at all. He says he thinks a committee should be appointed by the moderator to come up with a specific proposal. He says the law now allows a profit- able business in R 1 areas, there is no criteria whereby the Board of ' Appeals can decide whether a nursing home should be built. The court has recently upheld the decision of the Board of Appeals to permit the building of a 100 room nursing home. I am suggesting a committee study in what manner we might have nursing homes. ? You have no specific proposal now? Weiss: No. Mollo-Christianson: I am not sure this is a good amendment to the zoning law and I would suggest since the next article is also on this subject that we close this hearing and go on to the next. Mr. Nickerson: I speak personally, as chairman of the Board of Appeals, and I also express the feeling of the members of the Board of Appeals. It is quite apparent that back in 1924 our founding fathers felt the need of these various items of structure mentioned here. However the wording was not too clear and we had considerable talk at hearings and town meetings. The wording was carefully considered and a change made in the Zoning By -Law a few years ago. The Board of Appeals has granted several petitions for nursing homes. I can't feel unhappy because I know they serve the needs of the com- munity. We recently granted one which the opponents took to court and it was the judge's decision that the Board's decision be upheld. I am going to quarrel with Mr. Weiss' method. He is decidedly unfair to the whole town ' when he wants to outlaw important things like these. R. Whitman: The proponents of the amendment would like to have a study and a change of the existing nursing home provisions and in the meantime they 2-8-b8 M -D would prohibit all nursing homes until such change is adopted. Would it not be better to leave the existing provisions stand while the Planning. Board studies the matter and comes up with recommendations? At this time it was decided to move on to the next proposal which dealt with the same subject, and incorporate them. Mrs. Riffin read the notice and introduced Mr. Albert Zabin, attorney, who presented the proposal. He stated that this amendment was somewhat similar to the preceding one and that it proposes to retain in residential districts "non-profit hospitals and non --profit sanitaria, charitable institutions, private schools, non- cercial non-profit clubs, places and buildings for public assembly" and locate non-cbaritable hospitals, sanitaria, nursing, convalescent and rest homes, cemeteries and extended care facilities in C 1, C 3, C 4, CM 1 and CH 1 districts. Mr. Zabin said there has been a great deal of development in nurs- ing homes - they used to be large old mansions, such as Fairlawn, with 40-50 beds at most. Now with the passing of the Social Security Medicare the average size nursing home has jumped from 50 beds to 72, then to 90 and 100 beds, and is comparable in size to the Harrington School. At the present time there will be under construction the Crestview in Arlington which will have a capacity of 200 beds. There is not going to be any change in the trend except up. We contend that a residential neighborhood is no place for these facilities. The scale of the building is out of proportion to anything else in the district and the first thing is to prevent this kind of unbalanced development in a residential district. ' Worrell: What you are considering is putting these uses in C l,which is retail business, or C 3 which is research: or C 4 which is small office, or CM 1, manufacturing, or CH - hotels? Zabin: I think that in these cases the decision will have to be made on the suitability of the lot of land. I don't think there is anything wrong with putting a nursing home in this kind of district if the land is suit able. The kind of home we are getting now is an institution and I don't see how anyone could object to putting such a building in these,areas. ? Why not put in A 1? At present there is only one, and the law spells out specifically what can go in there and we think it should stay that way. A letter in opposition to the amendment was read from Dr. Joseph Hill of the Hancock House, and another letter in opposition read by a citizen. Nickerson: The Crestview nursing home received a permit several years ago which has lapsed and they have no intention of pursuing it. If the people of this town are of the opinion that they are faced with a rash of nursing homes they are under a delusion. I happen to know from my work with Symmes Hospital for the last dozen years that it is very, very hard to administer ' a nursing home. The State has very definite rules and regulations for con- struction which must be followed - for the number of trained people who are 2-8-68 -9- required to be in residence. I don't envy this young man who is going to build this new nursing home. It is very difficult to secure enough doctors, nurses, cleaning people, etc. and you will not be overrun with nursing homes. Weiss: He is telling us there is a tremendous need and on the other hand the community is not threatened by nursing homes. The fact that one person is having a problem doesn't mean that we are not threatened with nursing homes. I don't see how anyone can say there is a demand. We are working for an orderly development. Hope we will be responsible for that. ? Think the Planning Board should discuss this thoroughly and see that they get some more specific criteria to aid the Board of Appeals in making its decision, since now they have a very vague criteria. Mitchell: We are talking about. land use. If the use is desirable then it should be decided on the use and not on whether or not it is making a profit. There being no further comments the hearing closed at 10:30 p.m. Louise M. Macomber, Secretary 1 1