1974-05-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) -6 Lawrence G. Movsessian, 17 Webb St.: I enjoyed Mr. Ostroff's presentation. Too bad I live there. The impact of more children in the area would be fantastic. We have 48 kids on Webb St. and 35 on Young St. not counting Rumford Rd. or the adjoining streets. I'd estimate that these 44 units with 3 or 4 bedrooms would bring about 100 kids. The impact on the neighborhood would be tremendous. The Town passed Articles 103, 104, 105, 106 -- Drummer Boy and Flintlock. Maybe we have met our needs for this year for local housing. With the increase of additional cars this project would bring in, there would be 73 cars with 29 on his half of Dunham Street.' I don't know if one-half of the street could be used as a parking lot but that's beside the point. I know that it will bother the school department. Richard D. Gilman, 17 Rumford Rd.: May I say that when Mr. Ostroff said that it was compatible ....... well, it's not compatible to the people or to the area. The people here have indicated that. It might be compatible in Coolidge Corner or Brookline but not to this location. MUCH CLAPPING Mr. Gilman continued with statements to the effect that this was hard to believe. Mr. Ostroff said that he has been aware of this area. If so he must have a psychological or sensorial blindness for a red brick building doesn't fit here. There ought to be some guide line against which this program could compare. He spoke of one classic case being Manchester vs. Philips 343, Mass. 591. On page 595 the court makes some observations....... He quoted to the effect that zoning laws are exercisable not only to conserve the obvious health and safety but also to conserve the value of land and build- ings and conserve and increase its amenities. It is within the power of the Legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean. A town can reasonably consider that a type of dwelling is detrimental to adjacent conventional single family houses and tends to depreciate, contrary to the public interest, the amenities and appearances of a residential district. They may also consider it's tendency to stifle the area for residential purposes. And they conclude that the Board certainly may consider injury to the investment, perhaps representing a sub- stantial part of the family resources of conventional houses of other owners, divert taxable values and otherwise impede town development. Now, that's a 1962 case, Mr. Chairman, and you may not feel that that is appropriate now that it's out of hat because this new snob -zoning law that counsel from Brook- line quotes is in effect. But there is another case that has come down. A year ago today and it is the case of Pioneer Homes Spew*Im rata No. Hampton 297 No. East 2nd 73 (numbers may not be correct- secretary's note) in which the courts said that the Board had a right to use its descretion in opposing a similar request on the grounds that it was not harmonious to the community and the zoning by-laws. Of course this petition is brought under Chapter 40B, Sections 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 and the court has a right to sweep aside the law that has preceded it with regard to zoning but interestingly enough Section 20 has the same requirements as Section 40B in that it must meet health and safety requirements; that it must take into consideration spaciousness and the surrounding area and its values. The question before you is a basic and a simple one and that is: Can 44 family units fit into 3'k acres of land in the middle of a single family dwelling area compatibly, into a wooden frame area compatibly. Would it represent whether we want to admit it or not a future slum? However beautifully it may be built initially it will become a slum.