Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-162.16.79 E 19 Grassland Street - The entire front half of the site is wet, with peat and muck over 30 inches deep. This entire neighborhood experiences water problems, and this site is a holding basin for the area. The Conservation Commission is'opposed to construction of a driveway through the wet portion of the site. The Planning Board recommends the site not be conveyed. In any event, none of the wet areas on this lot or the adjoining lots should be disturbed. SITE-20 Davis/Rockville - The house, as shown, encroaches upon the frontyard setback requ'rements. Davis Road should be brought up to adequate grade and construc- tion. Also, the yard is graded is such a way that it drains directly onto the neighbor's house to the west. It should be regraded to drain to the south. SITE 21 Wood/Alpine - Adequate, the Planning Board has no comment-. SITE 22 Alpine Street - Adequate, the Planning Board has no comment_ SITE 23 Reed Street - As shown on the plan, the shed violates the setback requirements of the Zoning By-Law. There appears to be some question as to whether one of the two lots on this site is a tax title lot. SITE 24 North Street - Adequate in all respects. SITE 25 North Street - Adequate in all respects. TE 26 Spring Street - The lot is poorly graded and wet. Relocation of the house out of the wet area should be considered. 2.16.79 SUMMARY E 1 Tarbell Avenue - Needs a variance for the porch unless the house is relocated and the lot should be graded so as to avoid drainage into the proposed house and on to the abutting property. SITE 3 Valleyfield Street - Needs a variance for the porch. Soil and water conditions on this lot will require careful engineering and Conservation Commission participation. SITE 4A North Street - Will be adequate when sewer is installed. SITE 5 Grapevine Avenue- Not a tax title lot, cannot be conveyed. SITE 7 Balfour Street- Utility shed as shown violates sideyard requirements. SITE 8 Wood Street - As shown, front steps violate the zoning requirements. The grading drains water into proposed houses. SITE 9 Wood Street - As shown, front steps violate the zoning requirements. The grading drains water into proposed houses. SITE 10 Earl/Ash -The northerly corner of the house violates the Zoning By -Law. Can be brought into conformity by •elocating the house. Ash Street should be improved. ` OE 11 Garfield Street - As "shown, the house violates frontyard setback requirements. Garfield Street is in deplorable condition and should be brought up to adequate grade and construction, whether or not this site is conveyed. SITE 12 Avon Street - The porch, as shown, encroaches upon the frontyard. Avon Street and either Myrtle or Centre Streets,,should be, brought up to adequate grade and construction. SITE 13 Rangeway Road - The house, as shown, will require sideyard and frontyard variances. Also, the lot is poorly graded to the rear of the property. SITE 14 Skyview Road - Not a tax title lot (in private ownership). SITE 15 Buckman Drive - This site was taken for street purposes and cannot be conveyed. Substantial front and rear yard variances would also be required. SITE 16B Avon Street - The house, as shown, encroaches upon the frontyard settack requirement. This land will require divi^ion by Form A plan (Subdivision Approval Not Required). Avon Street, and either Myrtle or Centre Streets., should be brought up to adequate grade and construction. SITE 16C Avon Street - (same comment as for Site 16B) SITE 17 Marrett Road - Not a tax title lot, cannot be conveyed. JE 18 Earl Street - As shown, the porch encroaches upon the front setback. This could be corrected by moving the house to the rear. Earl Street will have to be con- structed in accordance with the Subdivision Control Law. Town of Lexington, Massachusetts 3�g s PLANNING BOARD Kenneth G. Briggs February16, 1979 TOWN OFFICE BUILDING Planning Director Lexington, MA 02173 sr 71s62-os00IFxt. 24 Mrs. Margery M. Battin, Chairman Board of Selectmen Lexington, Massachusetts Dear Mrs. Battin: The Lexington Planning Board with the assistance of the Building Commissioner and the Conservation Administrator, has reviewed the lots under consideration by the Lexington Housing Authority for low and moderate income housing under the Scattered Site Housing Program, Chapter 705. The Board hereby makes its report as required under Article VI, Section 11 of the Town By -Law based on the following criteria: 1. All lots to be conveyed will have a frontage of not less than 45 feet 2. All lots to be conveyed shall meet the requirements of the Lexington Zoning By -Law for buildability under Section 26.5 of the By -Law. 3. The sale of such lots shall be consistent with local policies concerned with housing and land use, and the lots shall be suitable for development with regard to the surrounding area. It should be pointed out that four of the parcels under consideration are not F tax title lots. Sites 5 and 17 were taken by the Town from Ralph L. and Lucinda L. Satos on January 16, 1950, to install a sewer line from Grapevine Avenue to Marrett Road. Site 14 is privately owned, belonging to Lottie Kendrick or Estate. Site 15 was taken from Pasquale Luongo on February 26, 1962, for street purposes. According to Norman Cohen, Town Counsel, lots other than tax title can only be.conveyed upon authorization from Town Meeting. There may be, other ways of obtaining these lots for this program, but at this time it appears that it would be impossible to convey these lots to the Housing Authority. All lots with the exception of Site 18 have 45 feet of -frontage. Site 18 is located on a paper street (Earl Street) and therefore has no legal frontage. The Board of Appeals may grant a variance allowing for the construction of a house on a lot without frontage, but it cannot create frontage. Therefore, the Selectmen should convey Site 18 upon the condition that Earl Street be constructed to give the lot adequate frontage: The Housing Authority must build the road creating frontage, and probably must obtain a variance because the lot would not comply with current zoning. All of the other sites conform to the area and frontage requirements under Section 26.5 of the Zoning By -Law. The sites either predate zoning and there- fore are not subject to frontage and area requirements, or they comply with the zoning requirements in force at the time they were laid out. Seventeen of the sites will require variances as shown on the site plans. Fourteen are minor in nature and can be obviated by moving the homes a few feet one way or the other, or by relocating the utility rooms. Site 13 will require a sideyard variance, Site 15 will require a front and rear yard variance, and Site 18 will require an area variance. The proposed houses are wood frame con- struction. The style is traditional and the size is substantially similar to r t Page 2 2.16.79 houses in the neighborhoods. The proposed houses are, therefore, compatible with the surrounding areas in which they are to be located. Prior to 1972, the Planning Director advised the Selectmen that several of the lots under consideration were "unbuildable". These opinions were based on then current Planning Board policy that construction on non -conforming lots was to be discouraged. Beginning in the late 1960`s, various Boards and private citizens recognized the growing need for low and moderate income housing, and began to seek ways for the Town to provide an answer. The 3970 Town Meeting adopted the RR zone concept for subsidized housing (Zoning By -Law Section 36), but opposition prevented the creation of any actual RH zone. The Scattered Site concept was advanced as a compromise solution, and in 1972, the Town Meeting unanimously approved the Scattered Site Program as embodied in Section 11 of Article VI of the Town General By -Laws. The fact that most tax title lots did not meet current zoning requirements was well known. This Town Meeting action constituted a reversal of prior Planning Board policy that tax title lots, which did not meet current zoning standards, were not to be developed. Therefore, the opinions previously rendered in support of that policy no longer had validity. Thereafter, the Planning Board has recommended against the sale of any tax title lot which appeared to be suitable for inclusion in the Scattered Site Program. There is, therefore, neither inconsistency with existing Town Law or housing policy in conveying any of these lots to the Lexington Housing Authority, nor does conveying any of these lots to the Lexington Housing Authority represent arbitrary or capricious discrimination in its favor. Based on Town Meeting action, the Planning Board has re-evaluated its position on all tax title lots and makes the following recommendations: That all sites with the exception of 5, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are suitable in the sense of the Town By -Law for the development of low and moderate income housing under the Scattered Sites Housing Program, and should be conveyed to the Housing Authority. There are some existing grading problems with Sites 1, 8 and 13, .an:B before construction begins, the Town should review the site plans and give fiva,. cr approval. The Planning Board believes that Sites 3, 13, and 26 will require Conservation Commission approval. All sites should be reviewed by the Conserva- tion Commission for applicability of the Wetland Protection Act. The experience of the use of tax title lots for the Scattered Site Program has demonstrated that the program was not as scattered as many Town Meeting members had hoped. The result has been that a few neighborhoods have'earried most of the burden. In the future, as the Town addresses the housing problem, it should be sure that other areas of the Town also receive a proportionate number of subsidized units. Sincerely, LEXING 0 'PLANNING 0 RD � J � `i .G!d JC.� •� �� .nom - Albert P. Zabin Chairman APZ:ms (KGB) cc: Town Manager, Building Commissioner, Conservation Commission, Board of Appeals, Lexington Housing Authority