1974-05-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Lexington Housing Realty Trust Hearing (continued) -15 as far as I am able to tell, the land in question is not suited for building these units. Respectfully, /s/ Howard Cravis Town Meeting Member, Precinct 5. 6 Rogers Road Lexington, MA The Chairman made note of the letter from Ephraim Weiss and read portions of it. 462 Lowell St. Lexington, MA 02173 May 20, 1974 Dear Sirs: This is in regard to the public hearing to be held on Tuesday, May 21, regarding a petition by a Mr. Ostroff. I have reviewed the petition at the office of the Board of Appeals, and have some questions and some comments. The petition does not establish that the petitioner owns and/or represents all the legal owners of the many parcels of property involved. My reading of the town records indicate many owners, none of whose names appear anywhere on the petition. For this reason alone, the Board should reject the petition outright. Since the petitioner is filing under the so-called "anti -Snob Zoning" sections (Chapter 40b, Sections 20,21,22,23) of the General Laws, it is a prerequisite that he must have legally established a suitable corporation; the petition shows no evidence of the existence of such a corporation. For this reason alone, the Board should reject the petition outright. Even if the aforementioned had been properly addressed, there are many reasons why the Board of Appeals should deny a petition of the type proposed. I shall enumerate but a few. The General Laws never intended to permit abominations of the type pro- posed, in deliberate contravention of all ordnances and By -Laws. It is hardly necessary to enumerate the various aspects of the zoning by-laws which the petitioner proposes to by-pass. Yet these laws were enacted for the public purposes cited, including the health and welfare of the inhabitants. The petitioner proclaims his intention to construct low or moderate income housing; the petition does not substantiate this intention, nor does it provide documentation indicating his ability to construct such housing. The petition is grossly incomplete, which is sufficient basis for denying the permission ' outright. The land in question includes wetland. I personally visited the property on Friday, May 19, and found a considerable portion of "First St." under water or too soggy to walk on. Part of "Second St." was soggy also. Vegetation in