HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-08-01BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS
' August 1, 1972
A regular meeting of the Lexington Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday,
August 1, 1972 at 7:30 p.m. in the selectmen's meeting room of the Town Office
Building. Present were Vice Chairman Sheldon, who presided in the absence of
Chairman Nickerson, regular members Wadsworth, Dawes and Mrs. Morey and associ-
ate member Cataldo. A large audience of townspeople interested in the public
hearings scheduled for this evening filled the room to capacity and also many
waited in the hallway outside the meeting room.
Public hearings were held on the following petitions, notice having been
mailed to the petitioners, to the owners of all property deemed by the Board
to be affected thereby as they appear on the most recent local tax list, to
town boards who will or might be affected by decisions made, and also adver-
tised in the Lexington Minute -man:
Frederick D. and Julie A. Miller - petition for a variance to maintain the
existing dwelling at 51 Taft Avenue with a frontage of 26.7 ft. instead of
the required 30 ft.
Dr. Darwish R. Yusah - petition for a variance to maintain an existing dwell-
ing at 12 Circle Road with a rear yard of 12 ft. instead of the required 15 ft.
Honeywell Inc. (Radiation Center) - petition for permission to maintain on the
premises at 2 Forbes Road, in accordance with section 25.94, up to 18 mobile
offices, positioned according to plans submitted, for a period not to exceed
12 months. The applicant is the lessee of the premises involved with an op-
tion to buy.
Nancy and Chi -Hua Wang - petition for a variance on the property located at 106
Pleasant Street to permit the construction of a tool shed of the dimensions 6
ft. by 10 ft. by 7 ft. with a 2' ft. side yard instead of the required 15 ft.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation - petition as follows: under c. 774 of the
Acts of 1969 for a comprehensive permit for the construction of six attached
town -house type dwelling units upon approximately 16,000 sq. ft. of land
located northeasterly of Hickory Street and Southeasterly of Garfield Street
at the intersection of such streets and shown as Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
and part of 25 upon a plan made by Miller & Nylander, Civil Engineers and
Surveyors, dated July 6, 1966. Construction of this housing is proposed to be
financed by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency and it is intended that
the dwelling units will be leased to persons of low and moderate income, with-
out regard to age, eligible for federal or state subsidy programs,
Lexington Gardens, Inc., E. Lee Schneider, President, for a special permit to
replace certain old buildings with. a new structure on the property currently
owned by S. Arthur Peterson, Inc., 544 Lowell Street, Lexington, Massachusetts:
Removal of aged structures including a greenhouse, the attached showroom, of-
fice structure, work area, furnace room, and portions of a garage and replace-
ment with a landscaped clapboard facaded structure in keeping with character
of the neighborhood and occupying slightly less area than the structures being
replaced. The new structure will be used as a horticultural area, garage, and
furnace area. It will be set back further from Lowell Street than the present
L'
August 1, 1972 hearings continued:
structure; vehicular building access will be at the southern end of the
building.
Following the hearings the Board made the following decisions, all in
open meeting.
Frederick D. and Julie A. Miller - granted, unanimously.
Dr. Darwish R. Yusah - granted, unanimously.
Honeywell Inc. (Radiation Center) - granted, unanimously, the right to park
and maintain for one year on the property at 2 Forbes Road no more than 18
trailers (mobil offices) of the dimensions shown and located on plan sub-
mitted at the hearing and entitled "Locations of Mobil Offices". Further-
more, the area adjacent to Route 2A shall be suitably screened by evergreen
plantings; expires August 1, 1973.
Nancy and Chi -Hua Wang - denied.
The Board discussed the petitions of Lexington Interfaith Corporation
and Lexington Gardens, Inc. at length. No final decisions were made on
either. The following motion was made and voted:
1%
' The Board of Appeals will meet one week from tonight (August 8, 1972) in
the Selectmen's Meeting Room at 7:30 p.m. at which time we will discuss and
presumably decide the cases of Interfaith and Lexington Gardens. All voted
in favor. (Detailed minutes of the deliberations of these two hearings may
be found in the legal records of the Board of Appeals.)
A notice will be filed with the Town Clerk that a meeting to discuss
both of these hearings will be filed and posted.
All pertinent material is on file under the name of each petitioner in
the Board of Appeals' office.
The meeting adjourned at 10:58 p.m.
e� C#,ee
Evelyn F. Cole
Clerk
LEXINGTON INTERFAITH CORPORATION HEARING
Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building
I
Tuesday; August 1, 1972, 9:00 p.m.
This hearing was the fifth on the agenda for the evening. Others were:
Miller, Yusah, Honeywell Wang.
Board of Appeals' members acting on this petition were: Vice Chairman,
presiding as Chairman, George Sheldon; regular members, George P. Wadsworth,
Howard H. Dawes and (Mrs.) Ruth Morey and associate member Robert Cataldo.
Also present in the audience was associate board member Woodruff M. Brodhead.
At 7:55 p.m. the Chairman, Mr. Sheldon, read the notice as follows:
July 13 and 20, 1972
Donald E. Nickerson
Chairman, Board of Appeals
Chairman: This notice was published in the Lexington Minute -man as required
by law and persons deemed interested notified. Mr. Lund (Erik Lund, Presid-
ent of Lexington Interfaith Corp.) you have the floor.
Mr. Lund: Your rules, Mr. Chairman, require submission of a certified vote
to the effect that I'm authorized to present this and I have such a vote.
The letter and vote follows.
July 20, 1972
I, Marilyn Cravis, Clerk of the Lexington Interfaith Corporation,
certify that the Board of Directors of Lexington Interfaith Corporation
on March 13, 1972 adopted the following vote:
That the President of the Corporation, Erik Lund, is authorized
on behalf of the Corporation to seek financing from MHFA for the
construction of six town -house units on the corner of Garfield
' and Hickory Streets and to submit to and prosecute with the
Board of Appeals an application under Chapter 774 of the Acts of
1969 for a comprehensive permit for the construction thereof.
/s/ By: Marilyn Cravis, Clerk
Lexington Interfaith Corporation
The Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on the applica-
tion of Lexington Interfaith Corporation under c. 774 of the Acts
of 1969 for a comprehensive permit for the construction of six
attached town -house type dwelling units upon approximately 16,000
sq. ft. of land located northeasterly of Hickory Street and south-
easterly of Garfield Street at the intersection of such streets
and shown as Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and part of 25 upon a
plan made by Miller & Nylander, Civil Engineers and Surveyors,
dated July 6, 1966. Construction of this housing is proposed to
be financed by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency and it
is intended that the dwelling units will be leased to persons of
low and moderate income, without regard to age, eligible for
federal or state subsidy programs.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 1, 1972, in the
selectmen's meeting room, Town Office Building at 7:45 p.m.
Donald E. Nickerson
Chairman, Board of Appeals
Chairman: This notice was published in the Lexington Minute -man as required
by law and persons deemed interested notified. Mr. Lund (Erik Lund, Presid-
ent of Lexington Interfaith Corp.) you have the floor.
Mr. Lund: Your rules, Mr. Chairman, require submission of a certified vote
to the effect that I'm authorized to present this and I have such a vote.
The letter and vote follows.
July 20, 1972
I, Marilyn Cravis, Clerk of the Lexington Interfaith Corporation,
certify that the Board of Directors of Lexington Interfaith Corporation
on March 13, 1972 adopted the following vote:
That the President of the Corporation, Erik Lund, is authorized
on behalf of the Corporation to seek financing from MHFA for the
construction of six town -house units on the corner of Garfield
' and Hickory Streets and to submit to and prosecute with the
Board of Appeals an application under Chapter 774 of the Acts of
1969 for a comprehensive permit for the construction thereof.
/s/ By: Marilyn Cravis, Clerk
Lexington Interfaith Corporation
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -2
Mr. Lund: I don't know that I want to go through all the details of the plans.
' The architect is here to present the plans themselves and I think you have
copies of the proposal and the layout, but I thought that I might describe,
because there seems to be a number of people here who are interested, the bare
outlines of our proposal.
We propose to build, on 3 parcels of land at the corner of Hickory and Garfield
Street, 6 units of attached town -houses to be rented as subsidized houses. We
have a preliminary approval from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency which
has looked at our plans and have looked at the site and is awaiting our submis-
sion upon your approval of the special permit. There was some question as to
the exact dimensions of the site, I think, that was raised and I have several
copies of a Form A that was submitted to the Planning Board in January of this
year which contains a survey by Miller and Nylander which I'll submit to you
now, which I think shows that the net land area is about 15 %zthousand square
feet.
Chairman: Pardon me. How many people are outside there in the hall that can -`,t
come in?
(There was some interruption while more chairs were brought to the
room and a discussion, as to whether we should move to a larger
hall to accommodate the large crowd which had assembled, was held.)
Someone: It's awfully stuffy in here.'
' Chairman: It's supposed to be air conditioned.
(Time out again, while the secretary checked to see if the three
switches were turned to high on the air conditioning unit.)
Mr. Lund: The density which would ordinarily be permitted in this area, where
there are 3 separate building lots, pre-existing, or non -conforming lots,
would be a density of 3 on these 3 lots. We are seeking a density of 6. So
we are seeking double the density which would ordinarily be permitted. We are
seeking an exception to the use of the Lexington Building Code and permission
to use the State Building Code, the national Boca Code, as amended, by the
Board of standards of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We are seeking your
approval of a single off-street parking lot in place of 1k parking spaces per
unit of housing. In addition I submitted to your Board last week a revised
or amended plot plan which is in accordance with the recommendations of the
Planning Board which would move the buildings closer to the street line of
Garfield and Hickory streets, which would also require variances from the nor-
mal setbacks and side lines.
Chairman: Well, it's a 10 foot variance of the front, isn't it?
Mr. Lund: I believe so. Now, we prefer the alternate site plan, but basically
we'd leave it up to you, if you grant our permit, as to which site plan you
prefer. Prior to submitting this proposal we requested of the Chairman of the
Board of Appeals, Mr. Nickerson, a waiver of the submission of the detailed
' plans, the construction plans for this proposal and agreed that there would be
attached to the permit if it is granted a condition that such detailed plans
be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. Mr. Nickerson
indicated that those plans would not be required at this hearing.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -3
Mr. Lund: As far as water and sewer is concerned these are in existence, I
' believe; a 6 inch main and an 8" main at Hickory and Garfield streets, which
abut the lines of these lots and there's also in existence a sewer line with-
in 300 ft. on Hickory Street which feeds into an 18" line trunk sewer which
also abuts this property and I believe that there is no question that the
capacity is there and it's possible to tie into these lines. As far as the
remainder of our presentation is concerned, I received a copy of the Planning
Board's Majority Report. I think it contains virtually all of the information
that we would ordinarily present with respect to the regional and local hous-
ing needs and the objectives of the Town of Lexington. We would rely on that
report. We have in addition to that a Census Computer Readout that I obtained
from the MAPC, which indicates the following statistics which you might be
interested in. They are these: that there are some 265 families in Lexington
whose incomes are less than $4,000. This is according to the 1970 census and
some 1321 families in Lexington whose incomes are less than $10,000, represent-
ing 16.8% of the families in Lexington. All of these families would be elig-
ible for subsidy and the housing which we would propose to build. I submit
that computer readout to you. I have indicated that readout where the statis-
tics appear. I think with that I'd like to introduce Herb Eisenberg to explain
the construction which we propose to put up, he being the architect.
Chairman: Before you start I would like to make certain that I have a copy
of the latest revision. I have 2 sets of plans here, one of which is dated
July 20th, that presumably is the one you refer to.
' Secretary: Those are the latest.
Mr. Eisenberg: I think you'll find that the first two sheets of the first set
are still valid, those two sheets not having been changed. The latest change
is on the third sheet. The alternate site plan is shown.
Chairman: The major change is the enlarging of the rear yard and the reducing
of the front yard. That's the only essential change, isn't it?
Mr. Eisenberg: That is the only essential change.
Chairman: Proceed.
Mr. Eisenberg: We propose to construct a two story building, approximately
3,000 square feet on the ground, containing six 2 -bedroom units. These will
be two story, so-called town -houses with living room, kitchen and dining room
on the ground floor and 2 bedrooms and bath on the second floor. The construc-
tion would be of wood frame with concrete foundation with wood cedar shingle
exterior and asphalt shingle roofing. The aspect of it would be like a large
ranch house or effectively, as you can see by the rendering on the first page.
Chairman: Pardon me. You don't have a larger rendering other than what is
shown here?
Mr. Eisenberg: Only the one that's on the first page. We have provided a
garage which we have termed a coach house for 6 cars and an off-street parking
space which would come off the paved street on Hickory.
Chairman: Pardon me. I think it would be of some interest if you would hold
that up so people can see it while you are talking.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -4
Mr. Eisenberg: The construction, as I said, would be of wood frame. We would
have fire rated partitions between the units. The area would be landscaped. I
think the plans we have submitted show the layouts of the rooms. The sizes of
the rooms are self evident. These comply with federal MEIFA minimum require-
ments and as Mr. Lund has said, they have been submitted to the agency for
preliminary review. I'd be glad to answer any questions. It is a standard
type of multi -family housing that has been proposed to be built and we think
this particular type of unit is quite in scale with the area in terms of size
and dimensions on this lot.
Chairman: First, we'll have questions from Board members.
Mr. Cataldo: What is this structure going to cost?
Mr. Eisenberg: We estimate that the units will cost between $20,000 and $25,000
a unit for a structure of $120,000 to $150,000.
Mr. Cataldo: If you complied with the Lexington Building by-laws what would
this unit cost?
Mr. Eisenberg: Probably a 20% increase to build of the second class construction.
Mr. Cataldo: So, you'd say $180,000?
Mr. Eisenberg: That's correct.
' Mr. Cataldo: What is the difference between what you're proposing vs what
would be required in order to get this building variance?
Mr. Eisenberg: Under the Building Code in Lexington all apartments, so-called
garden apartments, require second class construction. That means solid masonry
exterior walls.
Mr. Cataldo: Okay, running this through, can we agree that a masonry building
would probably have a life of 30 years, maintenance free? Can we agree to
that point?
Mr. Eisenberg: Are you asking me to agree?
Mr. Cataldo: A brick building is what we are talking about.
Mr. Eisenberg: It might last longer.
Mr. Cataldo: What would be the comparable cost of the two buildings? That is
taking into consideration the maintenance over 20 years. Where would this end
up? the two buildings?
Mr. Eisenber&: You mean the wood cedar, stained cedar exterior?
Mr. Cataldo: Comparison with construction throughout?
' Mr. Eisenberg: If you are requesting a comparable comparison, you'd have to
paint or treat the block in some fashion in order to make it water tight
otherwise you'd put a brick veneer on it.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -5
' We're talking of having to build it of masonry wall exterior, solid block and
putting some covering over it. If you plaided it with wood cedar shingles,
which would be strapping and wood cedar shingles you'd have the same mainten-
ance problems as you would have with wood shingles with stud frame. If you
put brick on the face of it you could add another 10 or 15% to the cost,
which over the life of the building, might add to the maintenance.
Mr. Cataldo: What you are saying is that this building with the variances
would cost approximately $50 a square foot to build?
Mr. Eisenberg: It would be $20,000 to $25,000 a unit and $20 to $25 per
square foot to build
Mr. Cataldo: Maybe I didn't understand. You are building 3,000 square feet
of building.
Mr. Eisenberg: 3,000 square feet on the ground, two stories.
Mrs. Morey: 6,000 square feet, counting the second floor.
Mr. Cataldo: In other words a 6,000 square foot building.
Mr. Cataldo: About your utilities. (aside to secretary: Did we have a
report from Public Works Department? Ans.: Yes, there's a copy there for
every member of the Board.)
' Mr. Cataldo to Mr. Eisenberg: The sewer elevations would be no problem?
Mr. Eisenberg: Well, the first floor would be approximately 8" or 10" above
grade. We'd be able to turn all utilities within 18" of the grade level and
I would assume since there are other 2k story structures on Hickory Street
that the sewer is far enough up Hickory Street.
Mr. Cataldo: Then you are saying that the sewer will be at the first floor
level and not below the basement floor level?
Mr. Eisenberg: That's optional depending on the ground conditions. At the
moment we're building without basements. If cost warrants and ground condi-
tions warrant, basements would be put in but at the moment we plan to build
without basements.
Mr. Cataldo: You still say at that rate that the cost is $25 a foot.
Mr. Eisenberg: Without basements.
Mr. Cataldo: What is the rent schedule going to be?
Mr. Eisenberg: I though you would ask that. Rent schedules in situations like
this are determined by a number of factors. For one, you can go to the MHFA and
fill out a form for application of mortgage plan consisting of 4 pages which
' gives you the construction cost breakdown, annual operating expense schedule,
project development cost, total annual operating expenses and you fill out a
monthly rental schedule, which would give you the statutory rent computations
from the market rate and when you complete all of this you come up with a figure
and then when you go to an agency and you ask for subsidy assistance you ask for
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -6
the 236 subsidy assistance. The federal government comes in and determines
' what the income eligibility is. If you ask for low income assistance they
will then determine what the low income limits are. If they have the low
income limits than the rent schedule will be 25% of the income of the family
renting and the federal relief housing subsidy will make up the difference
in cost computed on this monthly rental schedule. If it's under the 236 sub-
sidy than the rent schedule reflects the difference between the market rate.
Market rate is determined by the cost of construction at the time and that
sort of thing and the savings and interest that you get in the 236 program
by the availability of the mortgage and the availability of the subsidy. I
can only give you a comparable in another community. The community is Salem
where a 2 bedroom unit in a rather larger project nets at a rent of $185 and
the schedule upper income level for that unit would be approximately $8,000
to $8,500 annually for a family of 2 children. Now, this income eligibility
varies according to the number of people in the family and their total income.
The difference between the market unit and a subsidized unit in terms of
rental of what the unit at, say $185 renting under a subsidy, the difference
in this interest and subsidy availability is usually $100 more per month.
So the same unit built for the market would be $285 per month.
Mr. Cataldo: I think my question is, 'What are you going to apply for"?
Mr. Cataldo: In other words you don't know for what they really will rent?
Mr. Eisenberg: That's correct, sir.
Mr. Cataldo: As far as these buildings here are concerned and this area is
concerned and you say this is an $8,000 ceiling income, taking that area from
Garfield Street up, Reed Street over, wouldn't you say that that would be the
average income of the families that are living there now?
Mr. Eisenberg: I wouldn't have the vaguest idea. I haven't conduct a
census of the area.
Mr. Cataldo: Would you say so, Mr, Lund?
Mr. Lund: I haven't conducted a census of the area either.
Mr. Cataldo: In other words, you are applying to put this in without knowing
what the area is like; you are not familiar with the area?
Mr.
Eisenberg:
At the moment we have asked for 236.
Garfield Street, one or two on
between 20 and 24 years old in
Mr.
Cataldo:
The $185?
subdivision which I believe was built within
Mr.
Eisenberg:
I didn't say $185 for the unit rent. I said they are compar-
'
able to one which is that. These figures change according to the community
and
according
to inflation and times as the federal government determines.
I am not saying here that these will rent for $185.
Mr. Cataldo: In other words you don't know for what they really will rent?
Mr. Eisenberg: That's correct, sir.
Mr. Cataldo: As far as these buildings here are concerned and this area is
concerned and you say this is an $8,000 ceiling income, taking that area from
Garfield Street up, Reed Street over, wouldn't you say that that would be the
average income of the families that are living there now?
Mr. Eisenberg: I wouldn't have the vaguest idea. I haven't conduct a
census of the area.
Mr. Cataldo: Would you say so, Mr, Lund?
Mr. Lund: I haven't conducted a census of the area either.
Mr. Cataldo: In other words, you are applying to put this in without knowing
what the area is like; you are not familiar with the area?
Mr. Lund:
I'm familiar with the area. As I recall it the houses down on
'
Garfield Street, one or two on
between 20 and 24 years old in
Earl Street are older houses that are probably,
terms of their age. The houses down on Hickory
Street are in a relatively new
subdivision which I believe was built within
the last
15 years.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -7
(There was a short discussion between Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Cataldo
about the possible sewer problem and the fact that they are not
certain about sewer conditions in this area. Mr. McSweeney,
who was present at the beginning of this hearing, was not avail-
able to answer any questions at this moment.)
Chairman: Are there questions from other Board members?
Mrs. Morey: I would ask a question. There are three legal building lots
there. Three houses (single) could be built there on those lots. Could you
apply for a subsidy on those? You could build three individual houses for
$25,000 apiece with probably six rooms, not 5, and a basement. Has this been
given any consideration? It would be more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Could you get a subsidy?
Mr. Lund: I don't know. We have applied for a subsidy for a six unit town-
house. The reason we are going for the six units is because the land cost
obviously doubles when you're talking about three units. The land cost is
not varied to us depending upon the number of units built. We have a fixed
land cost and we are trying to keep the cost down in order to come within
the subsidy range. If the cost is too high we are not going to be eligible
for subsidy.
Mrs. Morey: $25,000 a unit with no basement is really kind of small. It
seems a lot, when you can build the same amount of house without so much work.
' Mr. Lund: Well there is a question as to whether we can build the same amount
of house. There are certain savings by having common walls ("party walls").
I think I'll call on Mr. Eisenberg. He had better answer that.
Mrs. Morey: We had a case last week down on Webb St. They were putting up a
lot of houses on 50 ft. lots.
Chairman: Further questions?
Chairman: Board members having no further questions, I'll ask if there are
those here who would like to speak in favor of this proposal.
THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.
Chairman: Are there those here who would like to speak against it? If so,
please rise and give us your name.
OPPOSITION:
Mark Lichtenstein, 9 Augustus Road, TMM Pct. 3: May I inquire first whether
the minority report of the Planning Board member has been filed?
Chairman: Yes, we have it here.
Mr. Lichtenstein: It wasn't here this morning. At least I didn't have a
chance to see it.
Chairman: Yes. It's the pleasure of the hearing, but I don't think you'd want
me to read the Planning Board Report. The majority report has about 20 pages.
The minority report is about a half a page. I'd be glad to read that.
(Majority Report received by Board of Appeals July 28, Minority Report received
August 1, evening of hearing)
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -8
' Mr. Lichtenstein: If I may point out to members of the Board the following
in relation to this area. Back in 1970 at our Annual Town Meeting, Article
98 was passed for a Study of Meagherville. Now, of course, this area which
we are discussing tonight is not within that study. It is just on the other
side. The study by the Justin Gray Associates for the Meagherville area
which is 75 acres, that study recommended that a subsidized housing project
or program be initiated within that area. Now that was Article 98.
In 1971, Article 70 was presented to the Town Meeting and that was specific-
ally to establish the RH district or subsidized housing district for 9.83
acres, which ran from Hickory to Ash Street. Again it was not the area
under consideration but just on the other side of the street. This was at
the Town Meeting in 1971. This Article was defeated. The other Article in
1971, which I don't recall the number, it might have been called Article 69,
was indefinitely postponed.
In 1970, Article 53 was passed, which approved the land opposite the area in
question, a play area for children, Garfield Street play area. This now has
been leveled, grass is growing on there and children playing and again, this
is directly opposite the plans of the land for this building. It's my sug-
gestion that this type of housing in this location will seriously affect and
may cause serious danger to children playing directly opposite. Everyone in
the area_and,of course I live on Augustus Road, the next street over from
Garfield Street, everyone in the area knows that the water table in that area
is extremely high. Come the Spring many of the back yards and basements are
flooded, mine in particular. What effect building, even without basements, on
this area will have upon the water in this neighborhood, I'm not certain, but
' it can't help it.
Another consideration is the vehicular traffic in the area. There are (pause)
just going through in my mind how to get into this area into Garfield Street,
we would have to proceed (pause) well everything is from Bedford Street, of
course. There are many, many cars running on Bedford Street. But, you go
down Reed Street, either Reed to Vaille, which is an approved street, onto
Augustus Road and into Garfield. That is the first way.
The second way would be going down Reed Street to Kimball Street, which is
unpaved, I don't think approved, following Kimball down into Hickory Street
onto or into Garfield Street land.
The third way of getting into this area is going down Reed Street to Augustus
Road, an approved street, directly into Hickory Street.
And the fourth one is from Reed to Garfield, taking a left off of Garfield into
the area, Garfield being a very rutty street, I don't believe approved. It
seems that the area itself is, other than Garfield Street area, but Hickory
Street and the surrounding streets being Vaille, Kimball, Augustus, this area
was built up in 1962 and 1963 of one family houses. Most of the houses in the
area are one family. There are a few on Garfield that are two family, but the
proposed building is totally inappropriate for this area. If that type of
housing is necessary, a turnkey type of housing, whereby the tenents will have
an opportunity sometime to purchase the housing is much more appropriate. This
would more likely keep up the area for what it is worth.
' Chairman: Anyone else who would like to speak or would like to be recorded?
Mr. Costello?
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -9
Thomas Costello, Lexington Planning Board, TMM Pct. 2, author of minority
' report: The petitioners, I feel, have failed to show, that the Town of Lex-
ington has made subsidized housing financially unfeasible to its Building
and Zoning Codes so that I see no reason for granting this COMPREHENSIVE
PERMIT.
Robert W. Arthur, 40 Garfield St.: I'm the immediate abutter to this pro-
posal. I oppose this. This area is now zoned for single houses. The lots
are only 5,000 sq. ft., which I think was the object of the anti -snob hous-
ing bill, which was to reduce the artificially high sq. ft. area for housing,
not to vary housing zoning laws which are now zoned for single family and I
stand opposed.
Richard Bush, 4 Kimball Road: I am opposed to this. I think the density is
quite high. All I've heard is that it's twice what it would otherwise be. I
think it works out to greater than 15 per acre. I think it amounts to spot
zoning. I think we have already more than enough of it. I'm opposed to it.
Ethel Wright, 17 Hickory Street: My property comprises the 3 density lots,
existing lots. It's adjacent to mine. In fact the stone wall designates the
entire 3 lots including Arthur's and the one beyond and I oppose apartments
in preference to single family houses.
Chairman: (referring to plan) You are right here.
Mrs. Wright: You have that, you know. Thank you.
Jerome F. Garrity, 30 Garfield Street: I'm the second house away. My house,
' I don't consider an old house. I built it 15 years ago on this piece of
property. There is one 2 -family house on the street, refuting this interpre-
tation of a number of 2 -family houses and that's got a 250 ft. frontage. In
my opinion and I've lived here in town for 50 years, maybe that's not impor-
tant, but to me it is important. I would be the last one in the world to be
opposed to perhaps some of our poorer neighbors not having a place to live. I
got out of High School and 2 or 3 years later got married, couldn't find a
place to live and consequently lived out of town for 3 or 4 years. I don't
pretend that I live in a lush neighborhood at all. Garfield Street is a
roughly paved street and all, but in my opinion a 6 apartment house there is
only tokenism. It's not really doing anything and if we get up to $185 a month
rent we certainly are not doing anything, frankly. I'd like to stand opposed.
Mr. Arthur: I'd also question how many families 2 -bedroom units could offer
any housing solution. Six units, it's pretty small.
Mr. Reisenberg, 16 Garfield St.: We've heard nothing this evening about the
management arrangement of the group proposing this development. I'd like to
point out that traditionally in public and subsidized housing there's an agent
that we've heard nothing about .... will it be either in escrow or plans for
maintenance funds? Nor were we told who was going to be responsible for main-
tenance. I'd like to note that this proposal if it were carried through would
approximately double the number of families living on this street.
Chairman: I'd like to give Mr. Lund a chance to answer that maintenance
' question, if he wishes.
Mr. Lund: As far as the maintenance is concerned, it is a part of our require-
ments for the MHFA that we submit to them a management and maintenance proposal
designating the people who would manage and maintain the property.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -10
It would be our intention to utilize local people who are running present
' apartments in this town to do that. It would be our responsibility to do
that, but we haven't selected anyone, we have not talked to anyone, we are
taking this a step at a time. A part of any financing which the MHFA
grants here would be a program which would meet their standards.
Mr. Reisenberg: Do you have any plans to finance that maintenance?
Mr. Lund: Out of the rents. Yes. That would be covered as a part of the
proposal to the MHFA bank. It would be financed out of that.
Mr. Reisenberg: The mortgage application?
Chairman: If you would, please ask the Chair the question and we'll ask Mr.
Lund to answer if he can. Do you have any more questions?
Mr. Reisenberg: Who's going to administer this, the Interfaith Corporation?
Mr. Lund: The management and maintenance would be handled by the same people.
Mr. Reisenberg: Who are these people?
r. Lund: There's a lot we have to consider first. We don't have permission
to build as yet. Before we select anyone it would have to be approved by the
MHFA.
ISomeone: May I ask who is going to write the check for these people?
Mr. Eisenberg: We are. We have worked on a project in Lowell. The developer
does not have to be the management and maintenance firm. In Lowell, which is
one of the first done by MHFA, the management and maintenance is actually run
by a firm called John Paul Managements Associates of Cleveland, Ohio. They
in fact collect the rents in Cleveland as contractors for maintenance locally
and have a local manager. The developers, who come from Bedford, have absol-
utely nothing to do with it. The rents go into the management company and at
the end of the year the 6% dividend is paid out to the developers and whatever
is left over in the fund is returned to the tenants to reduce their rents.
Mr. Reisenberg: Today, you have no provisions, is that right?
Mr. Lund: We would not be able to close our mortgage with the MHFA without
a plan.
Mr. Reisenberg: But, to date you have no plan?
Mr. Eisenberg: That's true.
Mr. Wadsworth: Wouldn't it be true that with this plan there would only have
to be one low income family in the units?
Mr. Lund: No. The proposal with MHFA would be that all six units would be
subsidized.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/l/72(cont.) -11
Questioner: But moderate and low income?
Mr. Lund: Yes, but low and moderate.
Questioner: But to be approved there would only have to be one low income
family. In other words 20%.
Mr. Lund: That's right.
Questioner: Which is 1.2?
Someone: It's disturbing to hear you talk about out-of-town management. Could
we have some assurance that the management at least would be local?
Mr. Lund: I think I've given you what our intention is and I can't do much
more at this point.
Mr. Eisenberg: The other MHFA projects that I'm aware of, the developers
themselves have their own management and maintenance company. I'm simply
pointing out to you an example of another developer that does not have its own
management and maintenance company and contract it out to a firm which does
this nationwide.
Mr. Lund: Not only that but in our discussions with MHFA they specifically
suggested that management and maintenance be handled locally because of the
small number of units involved.
Mr. Eisenberg: I assure you they won't come from Cleveland to manage this one.
Chairman: Anyone else opposed?
Paul Plasse, 193 Cedar St., TMM, Pct. 3: I have many objections to this pro-
posal. One is that we've had a great deal of harrassment in the area. It's
been almost continuous. It began back when Mr. Meagher in 1890 tried to (?
parcel) his land; most of it is marginal. This is probably one of the poorest
sections of Lexington in consequence and it is probably the least (?densible)
as far as population is concerned. Most of these people are hard working
people, spending a great deal of their time away from home to earn a living.
They don't have the luxury of exploring all the possibilities and ramifications
of subsidized housing and so forth. One of the things I object to is the
motivation of this proposal. I believe the motivation is not the 6 units but
the motivation is to establish a precident to use as a wedge to the rest of
the Town. Meagherville and the area down there at the end of Reed Street is
also vulnerable to this. If 6 units are allowed to be put on those building
lots down there, the houses in that area are low enough in value so that they
would be,jeopardy of being sold and more 6 unit houses would be put up in the
area. Therefore I would question the motivations of the petitioners. I think
that this should be looked at very seriously and that before a decision is
made on this petition the Board should be advised to wait until the State ruling
on some of the cases pending on this type of block -busting.
Mr. Lund: The motivation, Mr. Chairman, is being called into question. I
should like to respond that the motivation is to seek out open land in Town on
which we can build small units of subsidized housing. This is such a place.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -12
It is in keeping with the policy expressed at the Town Meeting of the scat-
tered site housing program in the Town which called for 38 single site homes.
Mr. Eisenberg: The only distinction between that program and this is that
there are 6 units involved which is not an undue concentration. I don't see
how it can be termed block busting. We are simply trying to build housing.
Chairman: Are there other people here who may not like to speak but would
like to be recorded against this Article by raising their hand. I don't
insist that you all make a speech (chuckle). Those who have spoken please
don't raise your hands. We already have you recorded. Now, I'm trying to see
how many are not in favor but who are not going to speak, I hope.
31 were counted in opposition.
(Nancy Ersy, not against, made it known that she thought those who
were in favor should also be given a chance to raise their hands and
be counted.)
Chairman: We'll do that. We already asked those in favor to speak and no;one
rose to speak. We'll give them a chance to register in favor. But, first,
does anyone else wish to speak against? We'll clear that up first. We'll
give those in favor a second chance.
Bernice Crocker, 138 Reed Street: I'm opposed because of the lack of informa-
tion available. I've been to other hearings and much more has been presented,
like the RH proposal. I think it's ridiculus to expect people to make a de-
cision with so little information.
Hsi -Ching Liu, 4 Shaw Place: The area in question is 16,000 sq. ft. Right?
Chairman: Slightly less.
Mr. Liu: My back yard is bigger than that. Would they allow me to build a
house back there?
-Laughter-
Someone, who did not give name: I wonder if Mr. Lund would appeal that?
Mr. Liu: I'm sure that that is too much building on that piece of land.
I oppose.
Chairman: Have we given everyone a fair chance to express their opposition?
Someone: I have just one question. I wonder if Mr. Lund expects to appeal
the ruling if the Board votes no on this petition?
Chairman: I can't answer that. Mr. Lund?
' Mr. Lund• Yes.
Eric Clarke: Mr. Clarke made an apology for the Planning Board,saying that
the Planning Board has a legal report. We are sorry that we were forced to
be late getting it to you. The Board was 4 in favor and there's a minority
report.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -13
Chairman: We have the report. It's a long one. We should perhaps study it
some more. I know that I want to do that. NoT4 we were going to allow those
in favor to raise their hands for the record.
Nancy Ersy, 32 Parker St.: I didn't come prepared to speak. I thought those
presenting the material presented it well. I'm in favor.
Chairman: If no one wants to speak, we'll count the hands.
23 hands were counted by the chairman in favor.
Jay J. Schlickman, 15 Hickory St.: I'm opposed.
Someone: You counted the votes against and for. It's unfair, I think to
consider those in favor, who don't live in the area.
Chairman: We are not deceived. Those in the area are generally against and
those outside the area are in favor. Now, Mr. Lund.
Mr. Lund: Sir?
Chairman: We are coming to the close of this particular hearing is there any-
thing else you want to say?
but
Mr. Lund: I think not. I don't/if there are any questions raised I'll try to
answer. But I have a question. Did you get responses from any particular
Board?
Chairman: Yes. I'll come to that.
Thomas Small, 26 Earl Street: I'm opposed.
Chairman: Didn't we count you?
Mr. Small: No.
Chairman: Okay, now we have you.
Mr. Small: You called for votes here against and for. We don't know where
any of these people come from. Those in favor don't live in the area.
Chairman: This vote is merely an expression of opinion. It's not a vote to
decide whether this project will be approved or disapproved. It's merely to
give us some indication of how people feel. We are thoroughly aware, having
listened to the addresses of the people and know exactly what you are talking
about. We are not deceived.
Mr. Small: Thank you.
' Chairman: We've received a number of communications. Number 1, in order of
importance, The Planning Board Report. Certainly because of its size we
can't read it here. It's a very detailed report, showing a good deal of study
and they recorded themselves quite definitely in favor. That is a majority of
the Planning Board, 4 of them. Mr. Costello, as he has already indicated filed
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -14
' a minority report which wasn't quite as long.
We had communications from Donald Irwin, Building Inspector and John McSweeney
of Public Works. What else do we have, Evie?
Sec.: Letter from the Board of Health.
Mr. Wadsworth: What does the Building Inspector have to say?
Chairman: You want to know what the Building Inspector had to say? I'll read
it.
July 25, 1972
Gentlemen:
The zoning aspects of the proposal I will refrain from commenting on
for I am sure they'll be fully covered by the Planning Board.
The three sheets of descriptions of the proposal I've seen are very
limited in detail and are not condusive to any in depth comments.
The plans do indicate wood frame construction for multi -families
which is not permitted under the Lexington Building By -Law.
It is my understanding that the proposed construction would use STD-
, 10, Dept. of Public Safety, Board of Standards Building Code, the
regulations to be used in the construction.
This STD -10 is an adaptation of the BOCA basic Building Code. It is
a mandatory but minimum code used within the Commonwealth, not as
restrictive as the Lexington Building Code.
As pointed out above, without adequate and complete construction
plans, my comments have to be limited to these general remarks.
If this petition is granted under the conditions and wavers re-
quested of the Board of Appeals, it should be understood that com-
plete and detail plans would have to be presented and approved by
this Department under the conditions that are set by the Board of
Appeals.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Donald K. Irwin
Building Inspector
Chairman: I'll read the letter from the Board of Health.
Dear Mr. Nickerson:
The proposal of the Interfaith Corporation to build six attached
town house type dwelling units, located at the corner of Garfield
' and Hickory Streets on approximately 16,000 square feet of land,
has been reviewed.
The following public health considerations would have to be satis-
fied before the Board of Health could approve a building and occu-
pancy permit.
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.)
(Board of Health Letter, continued)
' 1. Town sewer and water service must be provided.
2. The building construction must meet the requirements of the
State Sanitary Code Article II, "Minimum Standards of Fitness
for Human Habitation."
Yours truly,
/s/ Robert C. Heustis
Director of Public Health
Chairman: The letter from the Public Works/Engineering Department.
July 12, 1972
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the plans for the subject project and make the
following comments:
1. Existing street line and edge of pavement should be shown
and dimensioned.
2. Driveway dimensions should be shown.
' 3. Size, type, and location of water service should be shown.
4. Size, type, and location of existing water main should be
shown.
5. Inverts of both existing sewer and proposed sewer service
should be shown. The service should be A.C., not V.C. pipe.
6. Type of pipe, appurtenances, and connection for storm drain
should be shown. Inverts and slope should be shown.
7. Proposed final grades should be shown in relation to exist-
ing ground.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John J. McSweeney, Director
Public Works/Engineering
Chairman: We have some letters in favor. I'll read them into the record.
Dr. Harold L. Brehm
14 Parker Street
Lexington, Massachusetts 02173
Dear Board of Appeals:
I am writing this letter to support the application submitted by the
' Lexington Interfaith Corporation to build rental units on Hickory
and Garfield Streets which would enable people of moderate means to
live in Lexington.
Trusting that you will approve this application, I am
Yours sincerely,
/s/ Harold L. Brehm
-15
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.)
Chairman: And we have a letter from Richard E. Harding.
July 28, 1972
T0: Members of the Board of Appeals
I am writing you in relation to the scheduled hearing on the
Lexington Interfaith Corporation's application for a compre-
hensive permit under chapter 774 for low and moderate income
families.
As it will be impossible for me to attend the hearing I wish
to register my wholehearted support for this application.
Some of us in Lexington had a dream a few years ago when the
Interfaith Corporation was born that our community would lead
the way in breaking down "snob" zoning in Boston's suburbs.
The rhetoric and good intentions have produced no visible
demonstration of this to date. The need is as great if not
greater than it has ever been and we now have another great
opportunity as a community to act.
Chairman: And another letter.
July 27, 1972
Dear Sir:
We would like to express our support for the subsidized housing
proposal under consideration by the Board of Appeals. There
appear to be no substantive reasons to oppose this proposal on
the usual issues of poor drainage, traffic congestion, or over
crowding of the schools. If the town really means to realize
its responsibility in the area of housing this proposal certainly
could be a low risk, very modest, first step in that direction.
Sincerely,
/s/ Bonnie Jones
/s/ James Jones
' Chairman: And we have this one.
(addresses read Star Island
later in the Isles of Shoals, N.H.
hearing) 29 July 1972
-16
It is my,personal
hope that Board
of Appeals will now take the
lead by approving
the application
of the Interfaith Corporation,
I would hope that
the application
will not have to be taken to
the Department of
I will be in full
Community Affairs. If this becomes necessary
support of this action with my presence and
resources.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Richard E. Harding (Rev.)
286 Marrett Rd.
(the
address was not
read at this time)
Chairman: And another letter.
July 27, 1972
Dear Sir:
We would like to express our support for the subsidized housing
proposal under consideration by the Board of Appeals. There
appear to be no substantive reasons to oppose this proposal on
the usual issues of poor drainage, traffic congestion, or over
crowding of the schools. If the town really means to realize
its responsibility in the area of housing this proposal certainly
could be a low risk, very modest, first step in that direction.
Sincerely,
/s/ Bonnie Jones
/s/ James Jones
' Chairman: And we have this one.
(addresses read Star Island
later in the Isles of Shoals, N.H.
hearing) 29 July 1972
-16
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72
Dear Mr. Nickerson: (see page 16)
I shall, unfortunately, be out of town at the time of your hearing
on the proposal by the Lexington Interfaith Corporation for a
housing project, but, on the basis of the information available to
me at this time, I would like to be recorded in favor of the
project, and I hope the Board will give favorable consideration to
an effort to satisfy an obvious need in the community.
Yours sincerely,
/s/ Weiant Wathen-Dunn
(address read later) 44 Maple St.
Mr. Small: Of these letters you have read, I haven't heard any addresses
would you please tell me where some of these people live?
-17
THE CHAIRMAN COMPLIED WITH THE REQUEST BY GOING BACK TO THE LETTER AND READING
THE ADDRESSES.
Mr. Cataldo: Mr. Lund, when you did your survey, could you tell me what area
you did? I'd like to study that and come up with a need.
Mr. Lund: I think you'll find that the Planning Board report deals with two
areas, one of which is the regional area, the other is the Metropolitan Boston
area. Also submitted tonight was a census computer printout which indicates
1320 families in Lexington who are eligible for subsidized housing.
Cataldo: Yes. You submitted a census report? I mean you people as Lexington
as Lexington Interfaith Corporation.
Mr. Lund: That is the extent of the study.
Cataldo: In other words, you are relying on that census report (census com-
puter printout) of the regional area and the Planning Board report?
Mr. Lund: That is correct.
Mr. Cataldo: You are relying on income, not housing needs?
Mr. Lund: I think that the Planning Board deals with housing needs. The census
computer putout deals only with income.
Mr. Cataldo: Mr. Clarke, can you answer my question? (Clarke from P1.Bd.)
Mr. Clarke: Yes, but I think that Mr. Lund stated the facts in the case. We
considered the regional, which is this end of the state basically, and the sub -
regional needs, which is 16 towns situated in the northwest of Boston. We con-
sidered that the need for housing is a regional rather than necessarily and
purely Lexington.
Mr. Cataldo: You're looking at 16 towns. In your survey how many private
1
11
1
Lexington Interfaith Corporation Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -18
apartment complexes have 2 bedroom apartments available at $185.00?
Mr. Clarke: I couldn't tell you.
Somebody: Could you please summarize? Somebody mentioned a majority report
and a minority report. Could you summarize?
Chairman: The majority report was issued by the Planning Board and it's a
very detailed comprehensive study and it took some 20 pages. It took the
act almost section by section and it gave their opinion on it as they went
along. Their conclusion was, well four of the members were in favor of the
proposal. You don't want me to read the report here now, do you?
There is also a minority report by one member. (rec'd evening of hearing)
(majority report rec'd by Board 7/28/72 in afternoon)
Mr. Small: I've been denied police protection up there because I was told
it was an unaccepted street; for the past ten years. People race cars up
there and it1s jeopardizing my children's lives. The main sewer line was
surging last winter. Now you tell me that the Planning Board thinks it's a
good place to put the housing? Who told you?
Chairman: Please, don't argue with me. That's a Planning Board report.
Mr. Small: Why should we consider this when we can't get anything here.
He went on in that vein until the Chairman terminated this display of
dismay by stating that the argument belongs before another Board.
Mr. Lund: I want to renew my requestn gr the waiver we asked for to the
extent that the amount of expenses did amount to the fee.
Chairman: You sent your check in, didn't you?
Mr. Lund: Yes, but we hope to get a refund on the part that doesn't
cover the expenses.
Chairman: We'll take that under consideration.
Chairman: Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. We'll declare the hear-
ing closed and notify Interfaith of our decision and we'll take a 5 minute
recess.
This hearing closed at 9:07 p.m.
Evelyn F. Cole
Clerk
LEXINGTON GARDENS, INC. HEARING (re: 544 Lowell Street)
Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building
Tuesday, August 1, 1972, 9:00 p.m.
This hearing was the last on the agenda for the evening, the sixth
hearing. Others: Miller, Yusah, Honeywell, Wang, Lexington Interfaith
Corporation.
Board of Appeals' members acting on this petition were: Vice Chairman,
presiding as Chairman, George C. Sheldon; regular members, George P. Wadsworth,
Howard H. Dawes and (Mrs.) Ruth Morey and associate member Robert Cataldo.
Also present, in the audience, was associate board member Woodruff M. Brodhead.
At 9:07 p.m. the Chairman read the notice as follows:
Chairman: This notice was published in the Lexington -Minute -man as required
by law and persons deemed interested notified. Mr. Schneider (E. Lee Schneider)
you have the floor.
E. Lee Schneider, President of Lexington Gardens, Inc. and Vice -President of
Pepperidge Farm: Thank you, Mr. Sheldon, Mrs. Morey, Gentlemen. At the outset
I want to thank you for putting us on the agenda this evening. I know it's
been a long and trying one and I'll hope to make my comments brief, but I do
want to make sure that any questions you have or the people present have will
be answered. It's under Section 25.31 of the zoning by-law of the Town of
Lexington that we are requesting a special permit to alter the existing com-
mercial greenhouse structures. The new structure as shown in the prints sub-
mitted to the Board will be set back from the road some 6 feet from the present
structure and will be 62 square feet less in area.
I would like to show you a sketch at this time of the building. You saw the
building and this will be the section facing Lowell Street. There would be no
vehicular access to the building from Lowell Street. The vehicular access will
July 13 and 20, 1972
The Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on the petition of
Lexington Gardens, Inc., E. Lee Schneider, President, for a special
permit to replace certain old buildings with a new structure on the
property currently owned by S. Arthur Peterson, Inc., 544 Lowell
Street, Lexington, Massachusetts: Removal of aged structures in-
cluding a greenhouse, the attached showroom, office structure,
work area, furnace room, and portions of a garage and replacement
with a landscaped clapboard facaded structure in keeping with char-
acter of the neighborhood and occupying slightly less area than the
structures being replaced. The new structure will be used as a
horticultural area, garage, and furnace area. It will be set back
further from Lowell Street than the present structure; vehicular
building access will be at the southern end of the building.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 1, 1972, in the select-
men's meeting room, Town Office Building at 9:00 p.m.
Donald E. Nickerson
Chairman, Board of Appeals
Chairman: This notice was published in the Lexington -Minute -man as required
by law and persons deemed interested notified. Mr. Schneider (E. Lee Schneider)
you have the floor.
E. Lee Schneider, President of Lexington Gardens, Inc. and Vice -President of
Pepperidge Farm: Thank you, Mr. Sheldon, Mrs. Morey, Gentlemen. At the outset
I want to thank you for putting us on the agenda this evening. I know it's
been a long and trying one and I'll hope to make my comments brief, but I do
want to make sure that any questions you have or the people present have will
be answered. It's under Section 25.31 of the zoning by-law of the Town of
Lexington that we are requesting a special permit to alter the existing com-
mercial greenhouse structures. The new structure as shown in the prints sub-
mitted to the Board will be set back from the road some 6 feet from the present
structure and will be 62 square feet less in area.
I would like to show you a sketch at this time of the building. You saw the
building and this will be the section facing Lowell Street. There would be no
vehicular access to the building from Lowell Street. The vehicular access will
r
1
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -2
be next to the dwelling to be occupied by an employee of Lexington Gardens.
It will eliminate the entrances that would be close to a residence on this
side of the building.
Chairman: I think you should hold it up so all can see.
(The large "rendering" of the building was displayed for all to see
with Mr. Brodhead, associate member assisting Mr. Schneider.)
Mr. Schneider: As I said, this is the section on Lowell Street. The vehi-
cular access will be from this end of the building facing the residence,
actually being shielded from the present residence which will be occupied by
an employee and it would eliminate the vehicular activity close to the neigh-
bor on this side. It is our understanding that the structure is in keeping
with the character of the neighborhood. At our last meeting questions were
raised concerning the potential traffic problem created by this structure.
I'd like to comment on that for just a moment. According to our best esti-
mates, we estimate that the vehicular use of the facility will be less than
the present use as operated by Peterson. We made a traffic survey by count-
ing the vehicles on Lowell Street on a 5 day period between July 20 and July
26, We have copies of that survey for the Board members. In summary the traf-
fic on Lowell Street during that 9 -hour period which is from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. totalled between 6,500 and 6,700 vehicles of which between 5,800 and
6,100 were cars, 130 to 156 were dump trucks, 85 to 102 were tractor trailers,
63 to 98 were medium size trucks, 330 to 358 were small trucks. We would
anticipate our vehicular usage would be almost identical if not less than
that of Arthur Peterson and would not in any way complicate that traffic
situation. I do want to stress that this new building will be less in area
than the buildings it would replace. I would also state at this time, there
is a statute under the laws of Massachusetts that would allow a rebuilding
and expansion of this type of greenhouse. Of course this really isn't neces-
sary because the by-law of Lexington allows this. I have copies of this
statute for the Board members.* I certainly would be glad to answer any
questions. (*see 40A §5. end of paragraph- Applicability of regulations to
existing structures and uses -
Chairman: What is the building area? the square footage?
Mr. Schneider: 4,000 square feet.
Chairman: How many cars and/or trucks would be used by you? I know there
are other uses of the building. The furnace is located there and the soil
area, and you are doing something with soil there.
Mr. Schneider: There's a soil storage area and horticultural work area and
a garage.
Chairman: But how many cars and trucks would you use?
Mr. Schneider: We anticipate one tractor and one truck and there was a mis-
understanding that I would like to clarify at this point concerning the furn-
ace room. The greenhouses require the output of one furnace to maintain it.
We would plan to put in a second furnace strictly as a standby. There would
be no need to operate two furnaces at the same time. In case one goes out we
have the other to support the life of the plants.
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -3
Chairman: Well, do I understand that the furnace in the new building is the
standby or the original?
Mr. Schneider: Well the original furnace which is down a pit in the basement
would be brought up to ground level and be side by side with the new furnace
and of course these furnaces will meet air polution requirements of the State
of Massachusetts.
Chairman: I have no further questions. Do other Board members have questions?
Mr. Wadsworth: These plants are going to be for sale over at Hancock Street?
Mr. Schneider: They'll be for sale at Hancock Street. Right now we are pur-
chasing a fair number of plants outside.
Mr. Wadsworth: I see. There'll be no retail business elsewhere?
Mr. Schneider: There'll be no retail business on Lowell St. Eventually, we
may grow some plants there for a retail outside this immediate area. There'll
be no wholesale.
Chairman: Well there's no show room or sales room there.
Mr. Schneider: There is,no showroom or salesroom. There is one now which will
be eliminated. It's a small one.
Chairman: Howard?
Mr. Dawes: No.
Chairman: Ruth?
Mrs. Morey: No sales at all on the property, just an adjunct to Lexington
Gardens?
Mr. Schneider: This is correct.
Mrs. Morey: If you build another..? we hear you may be building another
garden somewhere, I suppose plants here will service that other garden?
Mr. Schneider: This very likely would be outside the city limits.
Chairman: Well, why don't we develop some questions. First, I'll ask for those
who may be in favor to either raise your hand or rise to make a speech.
Mr. Schneider: In this regard we have a petition with some 31 names in favor.
Chairman: We'll read that into the record. Does anyone wish to speak in favor?
Chairman: Hearing from no one in favor, I'll ask for those in opposition.
Ephraim Weiss: How about questions?
Chairman: We generally follow through like this. If you have a question, we
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.)
-4
can answer it now or later I'll ask if there are any questions? However,
' if you'd like to ask a question, well, let's ask it.
Mr. Weiss (462 Lowell St.): It appears that the building doesn't seem to be
substantially different from what's there now. I think the major concern is
the traffic pattern. Is there going to be increase of trailers going in
and out? The other is could the Board of Appeals place a restriction on
traffic someway? In other words that the incidence of traffic shall not be
increased?
Chairman: Well first, let's get at it this way, will the use of his property
generate more trucking? It isn't going to generate passenger traffic because
of the nature of the business. A certain amount of truck traffic will be
necessary hauling plants and soil back and forth, I suppose.
Mr. Schneider: A certain amount, but we think it will be minimal. The survey
of the traffic on Lowell Street already, in a 9 -hour period, shows 6,700
vehicles. That's only 9 hours, not taking the rush hour.
Chairman: You have only one truck and one trailer. You must intend to use
some other trucks parked in other areas to bring the stuff back and forth.
Schneider: Seasonally we would have to bring in top soil from our present
location to fill our soil storage room. This is sterilized soil which must
be kept indoors, but we are not anticipating major truck routes because it
takes so long to raise the plants. The plants take 3 to 4 months to raise
' from the time they are cuttings to seedlings. These would be moved periodi-
cally from there over to Lexington.
Chairman: To answer your other question Mr. Weiss. It's possible to write
in a condition or any number of restrictions of which that might be one.
Mr. Weiss: I'd like to make a comment. In other areas where permits have
been granted, as farm stands, they have turned into major traffic centers for
large trucks and in fact one has turned into a trucking center. I simply
would hope that the Board in its wisdom would make such a restriction.
Chairman: So now how do we record you?
Mr. Weiss: Conditionally in favor.
Mr. Wadsworth: His question really boils down to, do you intend to use trailer
trucks in there to move this stuff?
Mr. Schneider: We have no trailer trucks.
Mr. Wadsworth: You have none.
Mr. Schneider: No. Some of our materials come by trailer. We certainly can't
change that, but we arn't anticipating major movement in and out of there because
' our primary use of the property would be for the propagating of small seedlings.
These are readily handled in small vehicles.
Arthur Burrell, TMM Pct. 1, 2 Thoreau Road: I'd like to make a statement, if I
could. I'm appearing here tonight as a Town Meeting Member representing a sub-
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -5
' stantial number of constituents who have indicated to me to oppose this pro-
posal. I think there are a number of items that make me a little uncomfort-
able about this proposal. Primarily they are in the long-range projection
as to what is going to happen as this business develops. It does not limit
itself to Lowell Street. This particular property in its entirety impinges
on a large number of residences and if there were, as could likely happen
be, the additional growth would affect many more people. There is a large
parcel of land involved here nearby and adjacent to it that I think has to
be considered. There are a number of reasons as I said before, why I'm before
this Board opposing it but I'm concerned mostly because of the introduction
of what is a commercial enterprise into the heart of a fine residential
neighborhood. This is proported to be,and I think with some reason that it
is,an agricultural activity. But I'd like to suggest to the Board rather
strongly that what we are really looking at here is a commercial, wholesale,
retail mercantiling operation which just happens to deal in agricultural
products and the retailing merchandising is the primary business. I do under-
stand that there will be no retail operations at this location. I think this
has been stated but I think the Board has to look at how this is going to fit
into the whole scheme of the operations. It seems clear to me that what
really is being proposed here is not an agricultural operation as existing
but a warehousing and trans -shipping point where merchandise will be brought
in and also shipped out to retail locations. It also appears to allow a
large garage to be built in this location would be the first break into what
is a primarily residential section of Lowell Street. Now Lowell Street has
been under rather intensive pressure from Burlington and I think we are all
' aware of this. However the Lexington end of it has maintained its residen-
tial character. Through the efforts of the Planning Board the commercial areas
have been concentrated at Countryside and a small section of North Street. So
this would be a substantial break in this line and I would like to be recorded
as opposed to this proposal and I would like to request the Board to turn down
this request. Thank You.
Chairman: You don't have a petition?
Mr. Burrell: I think these people speak for any petition I could bring.
Chairman: Anyone else?
D. Marshall Semonian, 504 Lowell Street: It seems to me that we were here a
few weeks ago for this particular petition and as far as I can see the struc-
ture has not changed one iota. It's still the cement block building. The
dimensions are identical. The change has been mostly on the face of the build-
ing and it has not been set back any further from Lowell Street then it was
previously. I personally believe there are other ways for this corporation
to get around this situation without putting this commercial type structure
right within 30 or 40 ft. of Lowell St. I'm definitely against this structure.
Dr. William Fraser, 533 Lowell Street: I have several points to make. First,
I take objection to the fact that they say that the building has less square
footage. With the measurements they gave at the last hearing and the ones
they give here, I don't see how they can possibly do it and say that this is
less square footage. I'd also like to ask when and where the traffic study
on Lowell Street was taken. It's a long street and not knowing where the lo-
cation was ..... well.
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -6
Chairman: If you'd like to know now I'll ask Mr. Schneider to answer that
' for you. Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Schneider: It was taken right in front of the Peterson property between
the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on the following days: Thursday, the
20th of July, Friday, the 21st, Monday, the 24th, Tuesday, the 25th and
Wednesday, the 26th.
Dr. Fraser: Some of the other things I would like to say. They mention that
it would be 6 ft. less back. If they have the same square footage this means
that in the last petition they were going to be 12 feet further back. They
had moved the building 6 feet further forward to the street then this time?
Chairman• Back?
Dr. Fraser: They moved it 6 feet back from the existing one. I believe the
last petition said that with the same square footage they were going to move
it back 12 feet.
Chairman: I doubt it.
Dr. Fraser: I don't know quite were the differences come in, in this thing.
I wonder if somehow the traffic in the summer varies from that in the Spring
time, which is their major planting time. In the Spring time it seems to me
there would be far greater traffic, far more going back and forth to Lexington
' Gardens and during the Summer time, right now, when people are through planting,
there are very few people going over there buying and purchasing.
Chairman: Let's pause and ask Mr. Schneider what the square footage was on the
other application. Do you recall Mr. Schneider?
Mr. Schneider: Yes. It was 4,000 square feet. The wording of that was mis-
leading. It was probably our fault because we mentioned specifically the
dimension of the greenhouse to be demolished and the wording then said and
portions of the adjacent building, and the greenhouse dimensions were 2,100
square feet and the portions of the adjacent building were 1,900 square feet
and this was not in the newspaper release. The square footage dimension change
is a matter of fact and it's about 62 square feet less than the building which
would be fixed.
Dr. Fraser: They also say that as far as this building ----going along with
what is in there -- Well, when Mr. Schneider gave me a copy of this plan or
architect's drawing I left it on the table and my son and two of his playmates,
who happen to be 6 years of age, took one look at it the next morning and
wanted to know why we had a picture of Howard Johnson's and if a six year old
child feels that way it's pretty obvious.
Chairman: Next?
Rebecca E. Semonian, 504 Lowell Street: I'm a little bit concerned. As I
' understand it, all the dirt they are going to use is going to be stored in this
building and brought to a certain temperature and perhaps sterilized. That I
don't know, but they must be going to truck it all back and forth to all their
other places, if that's the primary use of that building.
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -7
' Chairman: I can't answer that. Mr. Schneider will have to answer that one.
Mrs. Semonian: They certainly are going to be busy if they are trucking all
that dirt.
Mr. Schneider: I didn't get the question.
Chairman: She's concerned about how much soil you are going to be transport-
ing back and forth.
Mr. Schneider: I don't have the cubic footage that's required in a period.
I would imagine that I would have to guess. I would imagine that 3 truck
loads would last 3 to 4 or even 5 months because the pots in which these
plants are to be potted are going to be small plants and we are going to be
doing the propagating and seeding and this is not the warehousing and fast (?)
or trans -shipment of merchandise.
Mrs. Semonian: But it is of their dirt. Right? I understood that from their
last meeting that it was going to be the trans -shipment of their dirt.
Mr. Schneider: Potting soil. It will be potting soil for our own use.
Chairman: Not for sale, for your own use.
' Chairman: Someone in back had their hand up.
Paul Farrington, East Street: I'd like to ask Mr. Schneider what the size
and the thickness is of the garage floor.
Mr. Schneider: The size of the floor? I don't really know the exact thickness
of the floor.
Mr. Farrington: I wanted it clarified. If it's any where from 6 to 12" it
seems kind of thick for a pick up truck.
Mr. Schneider: Currently there is a flooring which is about 12 inches thick
and this is over the existing furnace room but there would be no need for
putting a 12" floor in. I don't have those specifications. Actually, I
imagine it's about 5 or 6".
Mrs. Semonian: Also, I meant to mention the driveway. It was bad enough before
but now it's going to be closer to East Street which is really going to be
terrible. Especially if they're going to put a traffic light there. They are
going to be right on top of the traffic light.
Arturo J. Gutierrez, 567 Lowell St. (the man who came to the office just before
closing time and asked to see the plans which I had taken to the meeting room.
I escorted him up to the 2nd floor and into the room, which had been locked,
to show him the plans) He said: If the floor is more than 6" it would take
' up to 1000 lbs. per sq. ft. of soil. That's quite heavy.
Chairman: You are merely stating information? You are merely stating infor-
mation, you are not speaking for or against?
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -8
Mr. Gutierrez: I'm also speaking against, because that's too heavy.
Chairman: The gentleman in the yellow shirt.
Charles Cole, Pct. 3: I want to speak in favor. I feel that here is a project
bak to the same use it was before. For many years it hasn't changed. It'll
beKetter lookin, building than it was before, up to date, and the use will be
the same. I can t understand the opposition whatsoever.
Someone: She didn't give her name but began to talk as follows: I object.
I have lived in Lexington a long time, except for a short time when I moved
out of town. I didn't even know Peterson's existed. I've gone done there
and didn't even notice it until a couple of months after I moved in and I
took a walk down there and it's a very lovely site to just look inside and
see the carnations. It's not, well, it's in keeping with the neighborhood
just the way it is. It is very nice to look into a green house. I'd rather
look at a greenhouse instead of the funny looking building they are going to
put up, another Howard Johnson's, or what ever else it looks like and I also
feel that as Lexington Gardens has grown also this building will produce
more and more traffic for transporting plants out and as Mr. Schneider said
they would be increasing their business perhaps taking it elsewhe-M and they'll
be increasing the traffic. And the traffic survey was pretty bad but it's
worse at other times. I know a lot of people come by in the morning. It's
quiet now because people have gone on vacation. We have to put up with plants,
we have to put up with Burlington Mall and I understand there's going to be
' another Mall. I don't know the plans, but I've tried to check into it. We're
being pushed by Burlington. Now Lexington has a new Mobil Station with a
Mobil sign. We have a few other business and it's rolling up the street to
Lord knows where. We have a lot of open areas in Lexington. We have no green
areas except private land around here. I don't see that anything about this
building is in keeping with the area.
Chairman: Pardon me, did we get your name?
Gloria Silva: (responsible for all the verbage above)
Louis Levine, Attorney representing Dr. & Mrs. Fraser: I'd like
Someone: and the whole group, the whole group. You represent the whole group.
Mr. Levine: I'd like to submit this letter now. There are copies for the Board.
I'll try to keep my comments short. I'll just try to address those legal points
which I feel are pertinent to this case. First of all I was here on June 20th
and at that time I also spoke out on behalf of residents in this area against
this petition and when this was re -published and being here tonight I'm sort
of in a quandry to say the least. Chapter 40A, Section 20 prevents a re -peti-
tion of either a special permit or a variance.
Chairman: Time out. The Town of Lexington has not accepted the particular
amendment of that law under which a re -petition would be presented therefore
' this re -petition is legal.
Mr. Levine: With the Board's permission. The Town of Lexington in it's pre-
amble accepts Chapter 40A and all the provisions l through 22 inclusive.
(Secretary's note: All Board of Appeals' forms say sections 13-19. Lexington zon-
ing by-law refers to sections 1-22 - see pg. 1 under section 10.)
No evidence has been produced to the effect that the town has accepted section 20 of
Chapter 40A.
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 )cont.) -9
Chairman: Well, without arguing further, I have the opinion of the Town Counsel,
' our Town Counsel.
Mr. Levine: Well, I can only say.....
Chairman: Ybu're entitled to your opinion.
Mr. Levine: For the moment I must have deference to the Board but I must point
out that there is a difference of opinion on the ruling as to waiting 2 years
before a petition can be entertained again. You are aware, if you have taken
it to Town Counsel. We still have a difference of opinion. When I appeared
on the 20th my basic criticisms for this particular project was the vagueness
of the petition and realized it had been prepared not by the Board of Appeals
but by the petitioner. I'm here again tonight and I read the petition as it
appears and, again, except for Mr. Schneider's statement in which he indicates
that it comes under Section 25.31, special permit for commercial greenhouses,
the petition again, vaguely, purposely or unpurposely, forgot to mention why
and exactly what we were petitioning for. Because of that in my letter I also
cover variances. Mr. Schneider, I assume, is not looking for a variance. I
beg the Board not to take those comments as pertaining to my remarks tonight
and I will just speak briefly about 25.31, which covers commercial greenhouses
and the Town Meeting Member, excuse me for forgetting his name, spoke about
the comment that this was not a commercial greenhouse and the Town of Lexington
By -Laws unfortunately don't define just what a greenhouse is. I think his com-
ments sum up mine. The area of this building is divided into 4 fairly equal
segments, garage, boiler room, potting area, storage area. This is not my
feeling of what a commercial greenhouse is, that it goes back to being a glass
structure that you grow things in. I feel it's a warehouse area. It was not
the intent to use it for a commercial use. One comment was that it was the
same type of use and, therefore, there shouldn't be any criticism. Also, Mr.
Schneider, in answering questions, and I will assume the size of the building
and the replacements are correct, for the time being, and that you will be
limiting or reducing the area. Well, I think the courts consistently, time
and time again have shown that use is not just the particular use of the
building or the area of the building. You can expand the use by making it
more efficient even if you're reducing the area being used, but increase the
use in such a way that it's a different use. An example would be a 100 by 10
ft. building added to a 40 by 100 ft. building is clearly increasing the build-
ing. The use, in terms of what it's being used for, it's being used obviously
for some type of greenhouse purposes, the different use clearly is increasing
the use of the building. Mr. Schneider in his remarks indicate that the General
Laws give the Board some right to grant this permit. 4x15 allows a special
permit or variance and 48.5 speaks about agricultural uses. It's clearly not a
mandate to the Board. Iagree that the Town of Lexington has provisions for
special permits. A special permit though has dimensional requirements listed
in Section 27 of the by-law and one criteria of the dimensional requirements in
Section 27 which all special permits have to meet, although special permits can
be granted for a particular use, is an 85% open area requirement and under no
stretch of the imagination can you say that in this building there will be an
85% open area. To sum up this point, although the Board in their discretion
may grant a special permit for this special greenhouse, it would be incumbant
on the Board to go all the way to all the variances from the special permit
criteria of 85% open area. You're abregating that section of the by-law that
says the special permits shall meet other certain criteria, although the Board
may issue a special permit. Simply put, a special permit, is not a blanket check.
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -10
Simply put, a special permit, is not a blanket check, as I said. My last
point is back to the legal notice. I came here again tonight. I didn't know
why Lexington Gardens was petitioning for a special permit but the criteria
in your Lexington By -Law states that the public welfare will be served, basic-
ally, and that the status of the neighborhood would not be impaired. I think
it's incumbant on the Board to see that the petitioner brings reason for that
criteria. I haven't seen reasons how the public welfare will be served nor
how the status of the neighborhood will not be impaired. Therefore, at this
time, I would like to finish by saying that I don't feel that the Board can
issue a special permit for this particular petition and if it's not a commer-
cial greenhouse and if they issue a special permit it would require a variance
implement saying it's not a commercial greenhouse. And I don't think the Board
has the jurisdiction tonight to issue the permit because of the 2 year period
required and other criteria of 40A. I doubt that the Planning Board or the
Selectmen have voted all amendments except for one abstention. I think it
should be again reviewed for reconsideration by the Board. It's a disservice
to the community. He continued about the traffic situation on Lowell Street.
It seems to me that Saturday would be the busiest day of the week and it was
left out of the survey.
Chairman: Anyone else want to speak?
(Mrs. Semonian raised her hand) Second time around? Go ahead.
Mrs. Semonian: I just want to say that I think this is setting a precedent.
There are no other agricultural projects in town with gardens, greenhouses or
anything else, that are allowed this type of structure to be built so close to
the street. You can enumerate any number of them and they all have this type
of structure either beside or behind the greenhouses where this type of struc-
ture belongs.
Chairman: Anyone else?
Mrs. Meades, 523 Lowell Street: I don't want to talk about the legal problems.
I signed a list.
Chairman: Do we have that list? Who has the petition for names against?
Mrs.Meades: Dr. Fraser does.
Dr. Fraser: There are a number of people in the neighborhood who signed and
willing to fight on this.
Chairman: Do you have it?
Dr. Fraser: Yes, but not here.
Chairman: Continue.
Mrs. Meades: I don't want to belabor the point. I don't even want to bring
up the traffic problem. One thing I do want to say that I think is in the
hearts of everyone. We have all invested and you have yourselves, money and
time and love and effort in our houses to make them look as good as we can.
We know there are several areas along Lowell Street where there are large
parcels of land that's unused at the moment. I believe that we all also know
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -11
that some of the owners of this land would like very much to sell it to a
' commercial enterprise and turn it over into a big profit and I think that the
rest of us would rather not see that. Lexington Gardens would come in and
obtain a special permit or variance to put in a greenhouse in this one loca-
tion. I see nothing to prevent them from acquiring the other 7 or 8 acres
here along Lowell Street and building more buildings of the same type, since
they have already established a precedent to do this if it's approved by the
Board and we'll find ourselves in the midst of an agricultural development
where we, who have a few houses in between, well, how can we impede the flow
of their progress. I hate to see that we are now the outsiders in the middle
of a commercial enterprise instead of the other way around. This would be
the main thought, the long range idea of the corporation. I know they are
only applying for one building now. It seems to me that behind all of this,
that just doesn't come out in the single building and its one use. I think
there's more to it then that and it's really bothering all of us. What will
it look like many years from now, when we're all still living there? There
are a lot of other greenhouses further down the street. It would be very good
for Lexington Gardens to try to go after all of those.
Chairman: Well, I think in answer to that, we are only concerned with what
Lexington Gardens has applied for. I would say that if they want to get other
permits they can. What they may or may not apply for in the future, of course,
I don't know. If they want to get other permits to do other things, they are
going to have to come before us and there would be other hearings. Therefore
the granting of this one permit does not necessarily guarantee that anything
or nothing else is going to happen.
Mrs. Meades: It certainly makes the road easier in the future. It seems to
be easier to grant it the second time.
Chairman: Each petition stands on its own two legs. Next question.
Mrs. Ruth Codier, 564 Lowell Street: I wonder if anybody has considered the
nature of the windows on that building. It was my understanding that these
are fake, that they weren't actually cut through windows. Can you tell me
about that? If these are fake windows I want to protest the whole thing but
I want to protest particularly a fake appearance.
Mr. Schneider: They'll be real windows.
Mrs. Codier: Are you sure?
Mr. Schneider: Yes.
Dr. Fraser: Are they fixed windows?
Mr. Schneider: Well first of all they are not in existence.
Dr. Fraser: Well, if they are built will they be fixed windows?
Mr. Schneider: No, they wouldn't be fixed windows. They'll be movable windows.
Mr. Weiss: I would like to address in particular some remarks which displeased
me very much. You said that each petition stands on its own two legs. That's
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -12
exactly what I'm really concerned about here. We've seen the results of past
' actions of the Board of Appeals and I don't mean you any slight by that because
the Board does the best it can. But we see things happening piecemeal and that
is the problem and that's what I think concerns the people in the neighborhood.
I certainly wouldn't presume to go into all the details which the Board can do
but I would like to offer some ve
see fit to grant this petition in
plicitly exclude: (1) all uses w
that there should be an exclusion
increased traffic or somehow spec
the only kind of permit which wou
roadside stand establishment into
'y practical suggestions. If the Board should
general, I suggest that the Board might ex-
.ich are not explicitly permitted and specify
of warehousing, trans -shipment, trucking and
fy any additional traffic. I think this is
d prevent turning a small, innocent looking,
a maior industrial enterprise such as we have
seen very specifically happen in other parts of town and I can give you a very
good example on Woburn Street where we have a very big trucking enterprise
which was something that came in on a single permit for a roadside stand. At
the time that it came in, I protested about the increased traffic and everybody
said no, no, no but on several occasions many many cars were backed up by the
tractor trailers which would back into the place and pulled out of the place
and if you go there now you'll find there's a major trucking operation taking
place. This is the thing that bothers me.
Mrs. Semonian: Who is going to play policeman?
Chairman: Well, anything we grant is policed by the Building Inspector and
his assistant. This goes on all the time. In other words, without giving
' you any names of who we are checking we get periodic reports on several of
these permits where there has been some question about their activities. I can
assure you, we do.
Mrs. Semonian: Just a clarification.
Chairman: A third time?
Mrs. Semonian: This is just a clarification, because the last time we were
here they said they were having solid walls because they couldn't have the
light in with this potting soil. Now he says they are going to have all these
windows. How can they do this, if they must have the dark building? It just
doesn't sound right to me.
Chairman: I guess Mr. Schneider will have to answer that one, I can't.
Mr. Schneider: There wasn't any question about darkness of the building. In
the furnace room, for example, it won't be dark, but there will be, because
of the fire code, a solid wall which we must have. We must have that separate
room.
Mrs. Semonian: Is this solid wall behind the windows?
Mr. Schneider: The wall would run this way through this room. This would be
one room, see, and there would be a wall separating it from this room because
we've got to abide by the building code.
Mrs. Semonian: Well, I don't know but last week they said they could have no
light in there. It had to be dark in order to do whatever they do to the soil.
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -13
Mr. Schneider: I don't know who said that.
Mrs. Semonian: You did.
Mr. Schneider: No. I don't believe I said that it had to be dark.
Chairman: Well, let's go on to another question.
Mr. Levine: I'd like to just point out one observation. One Town Meeting
Member, Mr. Rubin (actually it was Mr. Weiss), suggested that certain restric-
tions should be imposed, that if the Board in their wisdom decided to grant
this permit, certain restrictions could be applicable. Well, I'm usually on
the other side. I am usually representing the person who is petitioning and
these types of restrictions, although the intent is noble, these particular
types of restrictions, as in this particular petition here, as to traffic
and explicitly to traffic, are almost impossible to police. I think it's a
little different when you limit the number of cars at a gas station or some-
thing like that but to have a Building Inspector be responsible for an accur-
ate count of the number of vehicles leaving, whether there are 4 or 12 in a
day, would be virtually impossible.
Chairman: Well, if I implied that kind of policing I was misunderstood. All
I was saying was that when we issue certain restrictions, and I wasn't talk-
ing about this one, nor was I talking about traffic, I was talking about
other conditions, for example, the type of merchandise someone could handle,
the length of time which the lights could be on, the number of cars that can
be parked in a parking area, these we can enforce. The explicit restrictions
as to traffic would be almost impossible.
Mr. Levine: I just wanted to point it out.
Chairman: Yes, we know.
Dr. Fraser: May I ask what they are going to do about the driveways in there?
Are they going to increase or decrease the hot top area around and in front
of the building and in front of this place?
Chairman: Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Schneider: There's no need to change what we have right now. Naturally
it will have to be repaired. We plan to landscape as I explained, Dr. Fraser.
We will landscape in front of that building. This is an artist's view of it,
but we will landscape it properly as we will landscape the back of the property
and clean up the property in back. I think it will be much more acceptable to
the abutters.
Mr. Alibrandi, 565 Lowell Street: I have lived on Lowell St. some 23 years and
I can recall when the first automobile didn't come through there until 10 or 11
o'clock in the morning and we would possibly have 20 or 30 automobiles a day.
It was through some bad planning or possibly laxity in the past years that it
has been allowed to become a thoroughfare. And now the question is and, I
think our major consideration, whether we will allow this to perpetuate by the
introduction of a new commercial building in the area and this is,
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.) -14
this is incidently a commercial building. It is not an addition or an alter-
ation to an existing building. This is the construction of a brand new
building and what we are doing here is introducing a commercial building into
a residential area. This I think is one of the major considerations. This
by no stretch of the imagination could be considered a residential building.
It's a facade type building which represents a (fink?) corporation. It is
definitely a commercial operation and it is being introduced into a residen-
tial area.
Jeanne Ward: I would like to see a count of the people against.
(The chairman requested those in favor to signify by the raising
of hands.)
3 people registered in favor of this petition.
30 people registered in opposition to this petition.
Chairman: Two letters have been received in opposition. The chairman read
both letters. They follow.
July 31, 1972
Gentlemen:
I am bitterly opposed to construction of new buildings at 544 Lowell
Street, Lexington. It is a residential area and we would like it to
remain so. There are too many cars and trucks travelling the Middle-
sex Turnpike at the present time.
Sincerely,
/s/ D. rallucci
529 Lowell Street
July 25, 1972
Dear Mr. Nickerson:
As residents of 524 Lowell Street we strongly oppose the new variance
proposed by Lexington Gardens at 546 Lowell Street, Lexington. This
is a residential area and we feel that the proposed change will begin
turning this neighborhood into a commercial area.
The traffic situation on Lowell Street is unbearable as it is, and we
feel that any further development in this area would be detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Very truly yours,
' /s/ Harold G. Worthington
/s/ Geraldine E. Worthington
(524 Lowell Street)
Lexington Gardens, Inc. Hearing 8/1/72 (cont.)
-15
Chairman: And as you know, we have a petition submitted in favor and signed
by 31 people.
Mr. Fraser: Are those authenticated signatures of people in town?
Someone: What are their addresses?
Chairman: Well, without reading all 31 addresses, we have some Lowell streets
and some Woburn streets and some other streets.
Chairman: Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Schneider: I'd like to clear up, if I might, three misconceptions. One
gentleman mentioned that the garaging was brand new and substantially differ-
ent from the present use of the building, which is incorrect. The present
building has three garages and they happen to be in the area that abuts the
nearest residents. We propose just one garage, garage and space.
Secondly, one lady that said it was very nice to walk by and see the flowers,
well this building will not obscure all the greenhouses. There'll still be
three greenhouses, having poinsettias in the Winter time and Easter Lilies in
the Spring and geraniums in the Summer time.
And the comment was made that we would be expanding the use of the building
and I'd like to take exception to this because we are eliminating the showroom,
we are eliminating an office and we are using the building as it presently is
being used.
Also, the comment that the building is brand new and completely separate and
as a brand new etc...., well this is likewise incorrect. It is an addition
to an existing building because it'll be tied into the existing building
because it'll be tied into the building in the back, part of which is a garage
and work area, which will continue. It'll be a work area in the back there.
Mr. Wadsworth: You won't be tearing down one?
Mr. Schneider: We'll have to demolish part of one, yes.
Mrs. Morey: It's a replacement.
Mr. Schneider: It's an addition and a replacement.
Chairman: Well, if there are no further comments, I'll declare this....
Mr. Wadsworth: Did the Planning Board answer?
Chairman: I don't think we have anything from the Planning Board. Eric
(Eric Clarke, Planning Board member), did the Planning Board comment?
Eric Clarke; There's no comment.
Chairman: No, I didn't think so. I'll declare this hearing completed and we
will notify you.
Mr. Schneider; Thank you very much.
The hearing closed at 10:02 p.m. Evelyn F. Cole
Clerk
8/1/72 BOARD OF APPEALS DELIBERATION ON THE PETITIONS OF Page 1
LEXINGTON INTERFAITH CORPORATION HEARING
and on
LEXINGTON GARDENS, INC. HEARING (re: 544 Lowell Street)
At 10:05 p.m. on August 1, 1972 Board members began their discussion on
the last two hearings of the evening named above.
Mr. Wadsworth had indicated earlier that he did not wish to arrive at a
conclusion on items 5 and 6, these two, this evening. Other members also
expressed that desire.
Chairman: We have every right, if we wish to meet one week from tonight and
deliberate at length and you have another alternative. You can indicate to
me which way you want these written up and I will then take a day and write
them up with the assistance of the Town Counsel, I assure you.
Mr. Cataldo: I think Mr. Wadsworth is right. I'd like to review the Planning
Board report. I'd like to read it once again.
Chairman: There's a good deal of information here pro and con. I think these
are important decisions and I certainly don't think we ought to proceed too
hastily. I think it's essential that this group be present next Tuesday
night. We can't have any changes, since you've heard part of it. You've got
to follow through now.
Howard, can you make it? Answer: Yes.
George? Answer: Yes.
Ruth? Answer: Yes.
Robert? Answer: Yes.
Chairman: Alright, is that your will and pleasure?
Mrs. Morey: If you want to discuss anything for a few minutes, would you wish
to do that or do you think we should just close it?
Mr. Wadsworth: Is there any possibility that Town Counsel could be here next
Tuesday?
Chairman: Not next Tuesday. I think in all fairness to him ... his time is worth
something, I think it's up to this Board to have something very definite, some
very definite ideas almost to the point of being ready to write what you want
to write and then he willguide you, because phaseology is going to be important
here.
Mr. Wadsworth: Yes. Well, I've looked over a bunch of the court decisions
that they presented here and it seems to me that it was a little bit difficult
' to understand exactly what they meant and where this petition we have comes
into the picture. It wasn't at all clear. They didn't seem consistent.
Chairman: On which one? (Interfaith or Gardens?)
DELIBERATIONS 8%1/72 -2
Mrs. Morey: On Interfaith.
Chairman: Well, the law provides that the Board of Appeals can act on this
because it involves variances.
Prof.
Mr. Wadsworth: I understand that.
Mr. Cataldo: What George is saying is that they have sited some cases and it
has been brought out here tonight that this case will be appealed if it is denied.
Therefore, he would like an explanation of the relationship with the cases that
have been appealed with this one here.
Prof. Wadsworth: That's right. The decisions didn't seem to be consistent but
being a non -lawyer I didn't see the distinction. Sometimes the Board was
upheld and sometimes it wasn't.
Mr. Cataldo: We have forty days to make a decision.
Prof. Wadsworth: Oh, Yes.
Chairman: I don't think any lawyer can guarantee which way a decision might
be made. You could win one today and lose another one like it tomorrow.
It would be unfair to Don to get him into a discussion that might last 2 or
3 hours. I think we have to come down to some pretty hard decisions and
then get his opinion.
Prof.
' Mr. Wadsworth: You do have to realize that they say they'll take this to the
state.
Chairman: Well, this is the route almost without exception that every one of
these requests have taken.
Prof. Wadsworth: Also the group who are opposed have a right.
Mr. Cataldo: I don't think we should begin to consider the threat of a suit.
Mrs. Morey: We just have to give an honest opinion of what our judgment is.
Chairman: We'll decide the case on its merits.
All: (using much the same words agreed)
Chairman: I think we should meet a week from tonight and have our discussion
and decide what we want to do and then I would attempt to write something up
depending on which way you want to go and then we'rlsit down with Don (Legro)
and that's when you ask your questions, because if you vote one way your
questions are of one type and if you vote the other way they'll be of another
type.
Prof. Wadsworth: Not mine. Mine are the same either way.
Mrs. Morey: Can we settle it tonight?
Chairman: So what's your will and pleasure?
DELIBERATIONS 8/1/72 _3
Mr. Cataldo: I think that George should have, or be allowed, his request.
Chairman: What's his request?
Mr. Cataldo: Meet in another week.
Mrs. Morey: We all do.
Chairman: We'll meet one week from tonight at 7:30 in this room and discuss
these two cases. Correct?
Mrs. Morey: You don't think we could finish Pepperidge (Lexington Gardens)
tonight?
Chairman: George doesn't want to. Do you want to, George?
Prof. Wadsworth: Well, I don't care.
Mrs. Morey: It is 20 minutes of, well quarter of eleven.
Secretary May I ask a question? What does this mean as far as notifying the
proper authorities?
Chairman: We've had the hearing. We are just delaying the decision. We have
the right by law to delay the decision.
Mr. Cataldo: I think to cover this there should be a notice put in the Town
Clerk's office.
Chairman: I think you should post a notice because it's an open meeting and
anybody can come.
Mrs. Morey: But, can the public talk?
Chairman: No discussion from the floor. I'll bring my gavel. Well, just for
the record, George would you make that in the form of a motion that we'll meet
one week from tonight.
Prof. Wadsworth: Okay, I'll move that we meet one week from tonight here at
7:30 p.m.
Chairman: At which time we will discuss and presumably decide the cases of
Interfaith and Lexington Gardens.
Mr. Cataldo seconded the motion and all were in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 10:58 p.m. (2 minutes before 11 p.m.).
e-� -,,7, C-ee,
' Evelyn F. Cole
Clerk