Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-02-11t Notes_ takers at the public hearing on February 11, 1970 At 7:30 'p,m. on February 11, 1970, a public hearing was hold by the plashing Board concerning a petition to amend the Zoning By -Law to establish a conservancy zone, specifically an area northeasterly side of Btford St. bounded by Grove St. on the northeast, the Northern Circumferential Highway (lite. 128) on the southeast, Bedford St. on the southwest and Winter St. on the northwest at or below 130 ms1. Chairman Lund asked the proponent, Dr. Manfred Friedman, to present the proposal. first Dr. Friedman cuoted Walter Lipman and then suggested the -t with this proposal the citizens hope to take a step in the solution of some problems and reviewed the proposal as it is written, covering the general objectives, permitted uses, uses by special permit from Soard of Appeals and the procedure by which a permit is obtained. Dr. Friedman showed a slide indicating the area involved and explained that the article was prepared by a legal staff after reviewing similar articles from other towns. He remarked that Lexington has only two typgs of zones at the present time, commercial and residence. He stated that it was the intent to put an; additional paragraph and include Great Meadows but they did not think this was the timet Postcards were scant to residents asking if they would be in favor or against such an article, Of the cards returned, its were in favor, 1 opposed and 1, no opinion. These curds were submitted to the Planning Board. Someone from precinct 1 asked 1) if it turas the intent to later add other districts, 2) to See. 4 wouldn't the extent of surveying incur undue costs and 3) re. S c. 1, are you allowed by law to protect people against what the article tries to Protect them against? Dr. F. replied that if passed, they are hoping the planning Board will survey. To No. a Dr. F. said he thinks the 2 ft. -co teur is what the Toren ro,�.uires. He was not sure of answer to No. 3. Mr. Wathea-Duran remarked the district proposed is different in kind from other zones. What is being proposed have will overlap .with other distticts and areas may be part commercial and part of this Wetlands diattict. Dr. F. -requirements of basic zone. Wathen Duma suggested areas could be basic zoning and this zoning. Dr. Friedman said they had considered it being 37 or 38 in the ;Zoning By -Law, Wathen-+Dunn asked if it would be split up. Mr. Lund suggested effort would be made to have it appear as a unit in the zoning By -Law. Tom Deveau, 42 Eldred wanted to sake a statement. Mr. Lund asked for questions only at this time. Mr. Deveau referred to the last part of the proposal . . Bedford ST. bounded by Grove St. and suggested this would indicate Oneida Corp. could still develop. Mr. Lund said he thinks part of the Oneida land is below 130 mol and the remaining part,.could be developed. Mr. galeski, planning director, mentioned that Oneida land will be exempt for 7 years. Norman Richards asked if be would have to comply and obtain * permit in order to rebuild his home. Friedman thinks he would have to apply and got a permit. Warren Roberts mentioned change in nater conditions as result of changes and asked if a person can sue for damages and get money for these damages. R Friedsanr A person can always sue. Phyllis Thomas asked bbout the legality of the zoning and who would enforce it legally Would the tow=n have control? s - Friedman suggested the Town would enforce as it does anything else.. A lady asked if u person on the iusidd of this area would have to have a permit' to build a garage. Friedman - yes, you would go to the Board of Appeals E Weiss suggested the; Board of `appeals is &at the Inst resort. 'There would be the courts also. Friedman suggested the Board of Appeals is rather friendly. Deveau referred to a letter from S. Brown dated Jan. 15 on the easement on Drummer Boy land and asked if Wetland zoning supersedes this, Mr Lund suggested they are in the same area and as far as conflict, easement is Planning Botrd and they do overlap. Ha stated there is no conservation zoning as yet. Someone from Prec. .5 asked dust what area would be protected. Friedman showed on the screen just exactly what area is protected as described in the article, reminding what ever is below 130 msl. Shirley Stolz asked if there was any reason for the particular area or had thought been given to other areas. Friedman answered the reason was tactics. Would have loved to have taken in more and figured it would be hard enough with this area. A man asked if ro-,m buildings would be affected by this zoning. Mr. Lund said he thought the Town would not hive to conform. Mr. Deueau asked if this passed could he correct my drainage damage or problem. Mr. Lund said he could not answer th t. Lois Brown suggested that it should be clear that contour is relating to this zone only and that future areas will have to be considered by Town Meeting. Someone from Allen it. asked ::haat is meant by preserve and maintain the ground water table. Friedman replied if you fill in the land of wet area, the water table is visible and if you fill, you will not preserve the water table. The Chairmztn of the Planning Board asked for those wishing to make statements in favor. Frau_ _ kap!dy suggested if an individual wished to sue for a wet basement, it would be difficult to prove. This proposal is to protect. Mr. De:eau said his problems were created by the Town allowing the contractor to build on peat. Mts. Briggs - 2 Hadley tad. Barbara Heywood, 215 Wood St. Mrs. Wheaton - Hadley kid. J. White, 7 Hadley Rd. Mr. Wheaton Hadley Rd. Lloyd ?laugh 44 Simonds Rd. J. Malaguerra, 11 Plainfield St. J. McCadden, Donald St. Phyllis Thomas, 55 Ivan Fina Hols , 14 Yin* Brook C. Skop, Stanley Bobbins, 12 Stedman Ad. John Drage, 39 Winthrop Rd. Charles Alton k r In Favor: Malcolm Barsamian, 6 Allen St. Mrs. Barsamian, 6 Allen St." Robert Wilson, 162 Grove St. H. Minasian, 166 Grove St. Tom Deveau, 42 Eldred (believes Town should be subject - conservationist at heart) In Opposition: 6n..atkorJ►cjSpDks^AS_.15aeid8 C�YTrh Contends thc.t the article as written would he burdensome on the developer as well as the Town. Would be in a position of having to obtain approval and go before Board of Appeals for each house involving hearings, etc. Would not Mrk in a residential district. No relation between the effects and results . He noted By -Law discrepencies and no Town wide pUn . Seems to be a method of restricting development in this area. If conservation Commission wants conservation land, it has the means of buying it as conservation land. Hatch Act will protect if area is wetlands as defined. Warren Roberts doubt Board of Appeals and Planning Board. One who does some action should be held responsible for the action. Leon Burke opposed because of the foBnwing: 1) rebuilding might necessitate a permit, 2) no improvement without a Board of Appeals permit 3) Town not subject, Chairman Lund declared the hearing closed at 8:30 p.m.