HomeMy WebLinkAbout1929-06-21BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING - JUNE 21, 1929.
The meeting of the Board. of Appeals was held June 21, 1929,
Town Office Building, at 8 P. M. Messrs. Arthur N. Maddison,
Theodore A. Custance, Roland W. Baldrey, Town Counsel, Sydney R.
"1rightington and Mrs. Helen C. "'hittemore were present.
The Board of Appeals organized as follows: Arthur N. Maddison,
Chairman, and Roland "I. Baldrey, Clerk.
Discussion arose as to whether Tr. R. 'V. Baldrey, being an
interestedparty at the hearing scheduled at 8 P.M., could properly
serve as s member of the Board of Appeals when only three members
out of five of the Board were present.
Town Counsel a'vised that this would disqualify Mr. Baldrey.
Chairman Arthur iv. Maddison called the hearing on the
application of Olive E. Hilton, Executrix, Estate of Minnie A.
Hilton Tillson which was scheduled at 8 P.V. The application was for the
heswing.use of property on the southeast corner of Massachusetts Avenue
and Plainfield Street to be used as an Inn for tourists in accord-
ance with sub -section 2 in R.2 Districts and Section 9 of the
Zoning Lew of the Town of Lexington and Chapter 133 of the Acts
of 1924.
The Chairman explained that the hearing, owing to the
disqualification of Mr. Baldrey, could not be held, and therefore
it would be adjourned until July 1, 1929 at 8 P.M.
The Chairman then calledthe hearing at 8:30 P.M. upon the
application of Peter and. Martin Semonian to use the property at
137 '";oburn Street, Lexington, owned by Peter and. Martin Semonian
as a two family house, in accordance with Section 9 of the Zoning
Law of the Town of Lexington and Chapter 133 of the Acts of 1924.
The Secretary, R. '7. Balrey, read the notice printed in the
Lexington Times -Minute Man of the hearing.
Yr. Daniel J. O'Connellappeared as Attorney for Semonian
Brothers. He stated that the present occupants of the house at
137 '"'oburn Street had livedthere for about.16 years. To identify
the place, he stated that it was the old Gibbs property. The
applicants have lived there ani' are now living there, andbecause
o` the age of some of th' relotives they 'elt it necessary to
change the house over by the sim^le means of installing another
kitchen. T'owever, he stated the building on the outside will not
be changed ir appearance. he also state that it was inten,,ed that
the same people should live in the house after it was changed over,
and he did not see how it could affect the neighborhood., inasmuch
as there are similar houses in the vicinity, and as far as he
could ascertain none of the neighbors had any objection.
He felt that they could almost have made the changes in the
house without making an anrlication andstill comply with the law.
`Semon-
ian
hearing
It was their intentionto install a kitchen on the second
floor. "hen asked if there would by any change in the stairway,
he stated that there would be a change in the sta?Dway. It would
rri
1
be moved into the center of the house.
The Chairman asked Thether or not there were now two stairways
in the house, and Ir.' O'Connell stated_ that there was only one
stairway and the application only called for the change in the
location of this stairway.
Mr. OfConnell stated that there are several acres in the
piece of property owned by the .ernonian Brothers. He stated that
there are five rooms on each Floor. In answer to Mr. Custance's
question as to whether or not if two ether families moved in
would it impair the status of the neighborhood, Mr. O'Connell
did not believe it would inasmuch as it would be convenient for
two families. He also stated that the house looks like a large
house and for that reason it would not change the locality in any
way; that the house sets back about 35' from the line and about
1501 from the line of the Harlow property so that the houses were
separated.by at least 100'.
7r. O'Connell stated that he owned property in the vicinity
himself and that he personally had no objection.
7r. Leonard '{. Dunham appeared- and stated that he lived on
the street a number of years and es two families now live there,
he could not see any reason why they should not continue to live
there inasmucr as the outside appearance of the house would not
be any different; it simply would make the house more convenient
inside for luring, purposes. He stated that he lived within sight
of the housei.n ryuestion. He was,therefore, in favor of the
application.
Mr. Christen Bentsen stated that he owned 1 house at 102
"Ioburn Street located at the corner of Utica Street, and his
house was a two family bou°e but used as a single house, the
same being the old O'Connell property. He statedthat inasmuch
as the outer appearance of the house et 137 Woburn Street would
not be changed and the same occupants are to remain there, he
was in favor of the petition being granted.
Mr. Robert L. Ryder stated that he owned some land in the
vicinity andhe wished to ask the -iuestion as towhether or not
this hermit wos only meant for this particular piece of property
at 137 woburn Street, or whether it included the area in that
section.
The Chairman informed Mr. Ryder that this application was
just on this one niece o' property and did not define any district.
Mr. J. L. Smith stated that he had known the Semonian Brothers
for about 15 years, and he could not see any objection to their
making the house more convenient.
iVr. Charles '"oloy stated that he aid not see any objection
to the house "eine changed if the sane families were to remain there.
'"_iss Vora Leary stated that she also lived in the vicinity
and she had no objections.
Mr. Leslie J. Wood stated that he owned property at 136
"oburn Street, across the street from the property in question.
He stated that the question asked by Mr. Ryle" was the one he had
in mine to as'r about this property, and since he was satisfied.
that the aprlic^tion was only for this one particular house and
would not be for the rest of the neighborhood.. he had no objections.
'tor. Custance asked the question to the meeting of whether
or not they feel that if this permit were granted it would give
the neighbors in the vicinity special privileges on their property,
as to whether or not it would be an opening wedge for others to
make application for similar use of their proprty.
Mr. ','food. and Mr. Smith explainer that they did not understand
that they were assured by the meeting that this did not give any
authority for other changes in the neighborhood and they were.
satisfied with that assurance.
The hearing was closed at 8:45 P. M.
The Board discussed the matter and decided to await the
meeting of the full Boardbefore making their decision.
Holland The apnlication of iViss 'onica Holland for permission to
have a tea room on her property -n Massachusetts Avenue, East
Applica- Lexington was laid on the table.
tion.
The meeting adjourned to Foncday evening, July 1, 1929
at 8 P. M.
0,44,4 44-e-eiA-c7
Clerk.
BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING - JULY 1, 1929.
The meeting of the Board of Appeals on the application of
Clive E. Hilton, Executrix, Estate of Minnie A. Tillson for an
Inn to accommodate tourists was held at the Town Office Building,
Hilton Selectmen's Room July 1, 1929 at 8 P. M. Messrs. Arthur N.
�-ea
ri .Maddison, Theodore A. Custance, Roland "T. Baldrey, C. Edward
Glynn, and Curlys L. Slocum were present, also Miss Evelyn Small.
The Clerk, Roland 'qJ. Baldrey, read the notice sent to the
Lexington Times regarding this apnlication, and also Miss Hilton's
aprlication.
Mr. Eugene C. Krakzer,9 Forest Street, appeared representing
the ar--licant.
He stated that miss I -Tilton felt it would not be detrimental
to the community, as it would be conductedin a satisfactory
manner; 7r. `"adman conducts a tourists Inn on Hancock Street
and there was no complaint. She hadforeign people apply for the
place but she did not want to sell to them fi.s it would not fit
in Nith the neighborhood; also that a large family would be more
objectionable than tourists.
Mr. Kraetzer stated that Miss Hilton would take in school
teachers in the winter time. He stated that the size of the
property was 13,000 feet, 90t frontage.
"Then asked if in his judgment the public convenience and
welfare would be substantially served and if such exception were
granted would it intend to impair the status of the 'eiphborhood,
Mr. Kraetzer did not see how it would be a detriment to the
neighborhood.
'Then asked if miss Tilton was to run this Inn, Yr. l-raetzer
said "no."
When asked if there was anyone that was interested in having
an Inn there, mr. Kraetzer stated that there was a prospect
ready to buy the place, but was askednot to disclose the name.
He stated that probably a two car garage would be erected
in the rear of the premises; there would be room enough in public
garages for tourists! cars.
Mr. Daniel R. Knight who lives at the corner of Mass. Ave.
and Plainfield Street, opposite the house under discussion,
stated that he was proud of the neiphborhood, but the claracter
of it is changing, and not changing for the better. Mr. Moulton
started a filling station at the corner of Maple Street, andsince
that time it has changed hands many times, growing more objectionable
and noisy. He stated that the color of the station was hideous;
that a block of stores went up on Mass. Avenue opposite his house
without ^ chance to object to them. Mr. Knight stated that the
Inn minbt develop into an ordinary road house and automobiles
would be parked along his premises andtherewo-.ld probably be trees -
passers. Mr. Knight, in conclusion, statedthat he objected to
anthing in the neighborhood that would tend to make it anything
but a strictly residential community.
Mr. Custance stated that the Zoning Law had not come into
effect when the stores were put un in 1924.
Mr. James G. Robertson, 8 Plainfield,"treet stated that
he would be vory much interested to know vho was in back of the
reouest for a changehe objected to any change taking place, and
endorsed Mr. Knight's statements in regard to the gasoline station
and stores; he did not want to see any change made that would
lower the value of the residences. i le brought attention to the
number of accidents on Ple.infield Street, probably caused by the
narro•rm width of the street, it being only 30T in width. he
stated that the tourist's cars would block the street and cars
left on Mass. Avenue which is none to wide at that point.
Mr. Wilbur F. Atwood, 3 Plainfield Street, also objected
to the petition. He stated that the Inn might start in very
nicely, but it might change hands and develop into a nuisance.
He also inquired about the partvcontemplating buying the property.
Mr.-Kraetzer stated that he personally had no objection to
disclosing the name of the party, but was not in a position to
mention the name but he said that the gentlemen was a very
respectable party. He thought that the name would not make any
difference.
"r. James Holt, 1083 Mass. Avenue, corner of Maple Street,
diagnally opposite the house in nuestion also objected, and
wished to endorse what Mr. Knight said. He stated that hardly
a week goes by but what there is an accident at one of the
corners there, and if an Inn were put at the corner of Plainfield
Street, that it would increase the number of accidents; seeing a
sign "tourists accomodated" they would stop short, thus causing
accidents.
Mr. Louis J. Reynolds, 6 Plainfield Street, objected also.
He owns the property on the east and south side of the property
involved. He did not see row e garage was going to be put in
between his line and the house in question even though it was to
be a one car garage. The cars coming in all night long would
disturb people and he wished to protest to anything going in along
that line.
Yr. J. Henry Puffy, 25 Maple Street, was another objector.
He stated that he was somewhat remote from the property in
question but was generally interested in the principal underlying
in the matter, that is, the necessity to stabilizing. values; that
the community was very seriously impaired by the in -roads of the
filling stationrand stores. The Inn might be conducted in a very
genti and proper manner, but they would have no guarantee of
this.
The other objectors were Edna H. Atwood, Clara Reynolds,
Mrs. James G. Robertson, Mrs. Jane P. Knight, Mrs. Eliza B.
Schofield, Charles H. Schofield, R. 7iggins, Norton Hood, M. C.
Hood, George D. Foster, Essala Foster and Albert G. Ross.
Mr. Roland W. Baldrey, 1071 Mass. Avenue, also objected
endorsing Mr. Duffy's statements. He felt that this change would
be a. mark of deterioration rather than progress. He objected to
automobiles being parke' in the street at all times of the night
and delivery trucks making their necessary deliveries.
Mr. Baldrey was informed by Mr. Kraetzer that delivery
trucks would not deliver there any more than to any other private
residence.
Mrs. Knight thought that there was nothing to keep them from
adding on an ell to the building.
=Mr. J, L. Doyle sent in his objection by letter, as he was
unable to be present at the meeting.
The hearing was declared closed at 8:45 P. M.
Discussion arose as to whether Mr. Baldrey should vote on the
application as he was an interested party.
It was decided that he should not vote.
It was voted that the petition of Clive E. Hilton, Executrix,
Estate of Minnie . Tillson to permit the use of the property
situatedon the southeast corner of Massachusetts Avenue and
Plainfield. Street as an Inn to accommodate tourists be not granted,
all members of the Board being present and voting against the
granting of the Hermit with the excention of ''''r. Roland '.`7. Baldrey
4-0
1
who, although present, did not vote on the petition ^.s he was an
interested party, he owning property opposite this location and
asked to be excuser': and that the following be recorded as the
decision of the Board:: (See page 13 )
The Board then discussed the application of Semonian Brothers
to .alter their house, making it convenient for two families.
The Board read the form drawn un and approved same. Semonian
It was votedthat the following is the decision of the matter.
Board of Apte,nls on the Petition of Semonian Brothers regarding
change in use of house nt 137 '"Toourn Street, Lexi_ngton, all members
of the Board being present and voting in favor.
The Board_ of Appeals of Lexington, acting under General Laws,
Chapter 40, Section 27, having receiveda written petition addressed
to the Board by the Semonian Brothers, a copy of which is hereto
annexed, held a public hearing thereon of which notice was mailed
to the Petitioners and to the owners of all property deemed by the
Board to be affected thereby as they appear on the most recent
local tax list, and also advertised in the Lexington Times -Minute
Man, a nexspaper published in Lexington, which hearing was held in
the Town Office Building on Friday, June 21, 1929 at 8:30 P.M.
Three members of the Board of Appeals were present at the hearing.
A certificate of notice is hereto annexed.
At this hearing the representative of the petitioners offered
evidence tending to show that the building which they propose to
alter and use is located in Lexington.
They further offered evidence tending to show that the building
which they now intend to alter and use for a two-family dwelling
is located upon the same property which it is now located uron; that
the building which they are now living in is not sufficiently
convenient to enable them to live as they desire; that the
alteration of the house will not in any way interfere with the
status of the neighborhood; that the external appearance of the
building will not be any different than in the past; that the
building which they intend to use is now and has been occupied
by the same two families for the past sixteen years.
No persons smeared to offer evidence in objection to the
hearing. The hearing was then adjourned.
At the close of the hearing the Board of Appeals in private
session, gave consideration to the subject of the petition, and
.thereafter, after consideration, the said Board at a meeting duly
called and held in the Town Office Building Monday, July 1, 1929
at 8 P.M., all five members of the Board being present at this
meeting, voted unanimously in favor of the following findings:
1. That in its judgment the public convenience and welfare
will not be materially affected by the making of this exception and
the alteration -and use of said building as a two-family house.
2. That the alteration and use of said building will not
tend to impair the status of the neighborhood.
3. That the alteration made in the use of said building will
be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the district
regulations in the Lexington Zoning By -Law.
4. That the making of the exception and the alteration of
said building is a use obviously intended but not specifically
mentioned because harmonious compats_bie and/or necessary for the
public convenience.
Pursuant to said findings, the Board, so far as may be nec-
essary for the alteration of said building, hereby varies the
application of said Zoning By -Law on the ground that its enforcement
would. involve practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship, and
that desirable relief may be granted without substantially derogating
from the intent and rurpose of the said Zoning By -Law, and hereby
varies the application of the distPict regulations established by
the said By-law in harmony with their general purpose and intent
so far as is necessary to permit alteration of the said building
from a one -family to a two-family dwelling subject to the following
conditions; namely, that the exterior of the said building shall
not be altered.
The Board hereby makes a detailed record of all its proceedings
relative to such petition and hereby sets forth that the reasons
for its decision are continedin the foregoing paragraphs which
recite the substance of the testimony ^resentedat the said hearing
by the representative of Peter and Martin Semonian, and direct that
this record immediately following this decision shall be filed in
the office of the Town Clerk and shall be open to public inspection
and that notice of this decision shall be mailedforthwith to
each party in interest.
Board. of Anpeals under General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 27.
Arthur N. Maddison BOARD
Roland. W. Baldrey
C. Edward Glynn OF
Curlys L. Slocum
Theodore A. Custance APPEALS
I, Roland "7. Baldrey, Clerk of the Board of Anpeals of the
Town of Lexington, under General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 27,
hereby certify that I mailed a notice of which a copy is hereto attach-
ed toJ. Zemby & Co., Arley A. 'surgess, Nora E. Leary, Charles E.
& Ellen M. Molo7, Cl-ra J. Pratt, James L. Smith, Sarah C. Van
Deusen, Leslie 0. '"ood, August Young, Mary A. Garvin, Cresenzio
Sperandio, John Rudd, James L. Schnere, heirs of Ethel G. Barbour,
Extrix.,Charles 77. Ryder, Albert E. & Marion C. Olsen, Frank 0.
Nelson, Howard Y. "unroe, Amina Munroe, Asunt9 o-'oono, .'ohn R.
: aTaur•hlin, '!nn^ ". 'c''onnell, `"argret .�1,-Cart'.yheirs of;
William Ludden, heirs of '_';Tar?; J. Kelley, Chester A. Fogg,
Leonard K. Dunham, Catherine ''unh^m, Charles H. Carrier, John
J. Collins, Johnson S. Armstrong, Elizabeth & Simon Latter,
James V. Etter and Alien A. Harvey, James T. Conway, Hilda Sor-
enson,'Corneliva, O'Leary, heirs of; Bridget Leary, Patrick
Geoghegan, John Gorman, heirs of; Patrick Hennessy, Ella M.
Bentsen, Salvatore Caso, Arthur C. & Isabella D. Readel, H.
Irving &. Helen G. Currier, Countryside Inc. and Peter and Martin
Semonian, on June 7, 1929 and that a copy the°eof was published
0.6
1
in the Lexington Times -Minute Man on June 7, 1929.
.... RoJant�.'J.. BaJray
Clerk
NOTICE
Lexington, 1Vass.
June 6, 1929.
The Board of Appeals will hold a hearing; on the matter of
vary i -g the application of the Zoning Law by permitting the
alteration and use or the property situated at 137 -oburn Street,
Lexington, s.ny' owned by Peter and. Martin vemonian, as a two family
rouse, in as-o^dance wit' -1 Section 9 of the Zoning': Law of the
Town of Lexington and Chapter 133 of the Acts of 1924.
The 1, earinr will e b-eld on Jun 21, 1929 at 8:30 P.7.
Theodore A. Cus lance,
Member o^ the ?hoard of Appeals.
Discussion was }geld on the application of Monica i'olland
for- a tea room on the Holland -Estate on Massachusetts ).rrenue
opposite Pottier Avenue.
Mr. C. Edwardrlynn move: that the application of Viss
"onica ?=olland for a frame tea room on the HollanA est^te facing
Massachusetts Avenue be referred rack to the Planning T3oard
with the sugestion that it can be accomplishedonly by an Holland
aprlication for amendment to the Zoning Law, which does not Application.
come within the province of the Board, of Appeals.
The Board took up the application of F. A. Bradstreet,
Blossom Street, for a bottling business. The Chairman felt Bradstreet
that the Board of Appeals were without authoity to act upon
this matter. application.
It was voted that the Clerk be instructed to write F. A.
Bradstreet acknowledging his letter of July lst. relating to.
use of building on his land on Blossom Street for bottling
business and advise him that his desire cannot be accomplished
unless by yeti+..ion to the Planning; Board for amendment to the
Zoning La:n/.
The meeting closed at 10:30 P.M.
A true record, Attest:
634.4w,dc;*AL,C.e.GL.c._#2
Clerk.